§ Bill brought from the Commons.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in rising to move, "That Standing Orders Nos. XLIX. And XXXV. be suspended," said: My Lords, a similar Motion to this was made in 1847; therefore it will be in accordance with precedent if the House thinks fit to take the course which I now have to propose. The Bill which I hold in my hand, and which has passed through the House of Commons to-day unanimously, I understand, and without alteration, is a Bill the necessity for which is caused by circumstances which are known, no doubt, generally to every Member of this House. It is unnecessary and would be inconvenient for the Public Service that I should enter into any detail, or should state with any particularity the precise circumstances in consequence of which Her Majesty's Government have thought it necessary to propose the Bill. I must, of course, make some statements as to the Bill itself; but I wish to assure the House that there are circumstances which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, make it absolutely necessary for the public safety that this Bill should be passed into law with the utmost possible despatch. We make that statement upon our own responsibility, feeling deeply the gravity of the situation, and that the necessity we have to put before the House is an indispensable, imperative, and unavoidable necessity. It is for that reason alone that I ask the House to take the unusual and extreme step of proceeding to pass a Bill through all its stages which has only been brought up to the House within the last three or four hours, and necessarily, therefore, one which your Lordships have had a very short time to consider. With regard to the Bill itself, the 1st clause, I need not say that it is unnecessary for the case of murder to be dealt with; that is already provided for; but the case that has to be met is the case of an attempt which fails. The 2nd clause provides that any person causing an explosion likely to prove dangerous to life shall be liable to penal servitude for life, two years' imprisonment being the minimum punishment. The next case is that in which the explosion does not actually take place, but there is an intent to 1803 cause an explosion. That offence is punishable by 20 years' penal servitude, with a similar minimum punishment. Where any person is found with explosives in his possession under suspicious circumstances, he is similarly liable to 14 years' penal servitude or two years' imprisonment. There is also a clause dealing with accessories, and another giving the Attorney General power, when he has reasonable ground for believing that a crime has been committed, to order that an inquiry take place, although no person has been charged with the offence. It has been found by experience that the result of such inquiries has been to often lead to the discovery of the person who committed the crime. This is a very valuable provision, which, I hope, will form part of the permanent law of the country. The other clauses are in the nature of securities. It is quite clear that the very unusual powers and the severe penalties imposed by the Bill, and the extensive powers conferred on the Government, could not be safely exercised if they were entrusted to subordinate officers throughout the country; but the Government have provided a safeguard that no prosecution can be undertaken under the Act except by the fiat of the Attorney General; and, therefore, no serious consequences can arise under it to any individual, unless there are circumstances of so suspicious a character that the person inculpated ought to go to trial. There is a power given to the master of a vessel who finds explosives on board to throw them overboard without being liable to an action. These are the principal clauses of the Bill, and I shall be happy to give any further explanation in my power, but, in moving the Resolution, I take leave to repeat that the Government consider this to be a most urgent matter, and believe it to be absolutely necessary that this Bill] should pass this House without delay.
§ Moved, "That Standing Order No. XLIX., that no motion for making or dispensing with a Standing Order be made without notice, he now read:" The same was read accordingly:
§ Then it was moved, "That Standing Order No. XXXV., that no two stages of a Bill he taken on one day, be now read:" The same was read accordingly:
§ Then it was moved to resolve, "That it is the opinion of this House that it is essentially necessary for the public safety that the Bill this 1804 day brought from the House of Commons, intituled 'An Act to amend the law relating to explosive substances,' should forthwith he proceeded in with all possible despatch, and that notwithstanding Standing Orders Nos. XLIX. and XXXV. the Lord Chancellor ought forthwith to put the question upon every stage of the said Bill in which this House shall think it necessary for the public safety to proceed therein."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, there are some provisions in this Bill which, I think, are an improvement in the present law. The 1st and 2nd clauses, securing the punishment of any person causing or attempting to cause an explosion, or keeping explosives with the intention of endangering life, are obviously clauses which are very much wanted in the present law, and which, I think, are highly commendable. If it were merely a question of passing these, I should have no observations to make, even on the unprecedented course taken by the noble Earl. But the Bill is much stronger than that. It is a Bill of a very remarkable character. In the 4th clause punishment is inflicted for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances, any person so convicted being liable to 14 years' penal servitude. That is an unusual provision, although, perhaps, not absolutely unprecedented. But in view of the great danger these explosives cause, and the very serious events which have taken place in various parts of the world, I do not know that reasonable objection could be taken to that clause as it stands, if the words "explosive substances" meant what the phrase is usually understood to mean. But the clause assumes a different character when it is read with the Interpretation Clause, which defines what "explosive substance" is, and which makes it really the most violent in the Bill. Now, the materials for making explosive substances include a number of things which are used in ordinary arts. It has been said, I think, by the distinguished chemist Liebig that you can know the prosperity of a country by the amount of sulphuric acid that it manufactures; and yet that is one of the substances which it will be an offence under this Bill to have. The same is true of nitric acid, alcohol, sawdust, cotton waste, nitrate of silver—largely used by photographers—and of a number of other perfectly innocent substances possessed by a great many persons. I confess that, 1805 even if their proceedings he regular, the Government have exercised an unwise discretion in taking this opportunity of adding so wide an enactment to the Statute Book. My objection to this Bill is that it is not a temporary Bill. It is to be a permanent measure; and if you once pass it these liabilities will be placed on the Statute Book and remain there. This is legislation which has obviously been adopted in a panic. It has been constructed with little care, and it is being rushed through both Houses of Parliament. Not only so, but it makes large inroads on the present doctrines of our Criminal Law. In the first place, there is the examination of the prisoners. It is not our practice that prisoners should be examined.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYNo; it applies to prisoners. That is an entirely new principle introduced into our Criminal Law. Then, again, it is not our practice that a prisoner's wife should be examined; but the principle again is broken down. It is not our principle that a man should be called upon to criminate himself; but it is enacted here that a witness shall not be excused from answering a question on the ground that it may criminate himself. Therefore, you are reversing all the traditional doctrines of the Criminal Law. An emergency is met by a Bill which runs for a certain number of months or years. Then you might carefully consider the circumstances under which you are asked to make such large inroads in the doctrines of your Criminal Law, or you might refer it to a Committee to obtain the views on which the Government obtained the Act; but no emergency can justify a permanent measure of this description. But here, without any statement of their case, the Government are taking advantage of the present panic to make permanent alterations in the Criminal Law of a very objectionable character. They are making it, too, in a manner for which there is absolutely no precedent in this House. The noble Earl said that there was a precedent for suspending the Standing Orders in the case of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act. But that was a temporary measure, and the suspension was passed nemine contradicente. But there is no precedent, I believe, in either House of Parliament 1806 for suspending a Standing Order for passing such a Bill in a single night when the Bill was permanent, and objection had been taken to it. I regret very much that the noble Earl has taken this course. I utterly repudiate the idea that it is necessary. It cannot be necessary to pass a permanent measure in this way, though it might be necessary with a temporary measure. I emphatically object to the liberties which have been taken with the Forms of the House. No Notice whatever has been given to the Opposition that a measure of so violent a character was about to be proposed. It would be useless for us, in the present state of the House, to oppose the wishes of the Government. If they had given us a day's Notice, the matter might have been different. Instead of doing that, they have perpetrated a sharp bit of Parliamentary practice; and you must not complain if your turn comes to undergo a similar thing. You have made a breach in the traditional courtesy of the House without any ground whatever. You knew of the necessity two or three days ago, and it was perfectly possible for you to have informed the Members of this House, and so enabled them to exercise their independent judgment on the provisions of the Bill. I freely recognize the necessity of some urgent legislation, and I am fully prepared to entrust the Government with such a temporary measure as they might desire; but I protest against this violation of Forms, which are intended for the security of Parliament; I protest against this violation, in a panic, of the doctrines of our Criminal Law; and I protest against the introduction of this Bill by the practice of a manœuvre which is unworthy of the Government.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYMy Lords, before my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack answers the noble Marquess with regard to the provisions of the Bill, I must protest, in the strongest terms consistent with Parliamentary courtesy, against the language used by the noble Marquess. I protest that when we come to this House, in the name of the Executive Government, and say that the purposes of public safety require that this Bill should be passed, the Leader of the Opposition should thereupon taunt the Government with a manœuvre and a want of courtesy. I am astounded that 1807 the noble Marquess or any Member of the Opposition should descend to such language. The noble Marquess might say that the urgency of the case was not such that it was necessary for us to have come to the House to ask for these powers; but I say we had a right to expect that no personal accusation should be made of a petty manœuvre, when we are performing a solemn public duty. Never, in all my experience in Parliament—and it has been considerable in this House—have I heard language which gave me so much pain—more than that, humiliation—as that used by the noble Marquess. I may leave my noble and learned Friend to answer the noble Marquess's remarks upon the Bill; but I must say that, while I hope I do not use terms of personal offence, I can feel nothing but indignation at the language of the noble Marquess.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would first deal with the criticism of the noble Marquess in regard to certain clauses. The noble Marquess had said that in the Interpretation Clause a great many substances were included which ought not to be so. But their Lordships would see that the principal clause ran—
Under such circumstances as give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he has the same in his possession or under his control for an unlawful purpose.That, together with the necessary consent of the Attorney General, would be a sufficient protection. The reason why the Bill was drawn in that way was that it would be altogether nugatory if that provision were omitted. If those who had a criminal purpose could not be interfered with while they had in their possession the uncombined elements of explosive substances, which might at any moment be combined with great ease and at once employed to do irreparable mischief, there might as well be no Bill at all. And those who had sulphuric or nitric acid, or any other substance, in their possession for legitimate purposes of which they could give an account, would be fully protected, in the unlikely case of their falling under suspicion. The clause would not operate unless there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable suspicion, or when it could be shown that the articles were possessed for a lawful purpose, 1808 or unless the Attorney General authorized a prosecution. Then, with regard to the clauses as to witnesses, they wore not objectionable in principle. They authorized the husband or the wife to be celled as witnesses if they themselves wished it. If there was a primâ facie ground of suspicion, and the explanation was not sufficient, the accused might, if they desired it, give evidence that would excuse them, and show that the articles were intended for a lawful purpose. If it was right to pass that Bill with those stringent clauses for the public safety, it was also right to introduce in favour of any accused person the power of giving evidence for his own exoneration. As to the clause that a witness examined on oath should not be excused from answering on the ground that he might criminate himself by any statement he might make, but that it should not be used against him, there were now many examples of it in our law. He then came to the objections made by the noble Marquess to the manner in which they were proceeding with the Bill. The noble Marquess said they were legislating in a panic. He would not be tempted to recall the echoes of a recent debate; but he must say that if ever there was a reasonable ground for alarm, the events which were known to them all must surely furnish that ground. He totally denied the propriety of the application of the word panic in the only sense in which it could properly be used on that occasion. The sense of a great public danger with which they were brought with some degree of suddenness face to face no doubt was now; but panic was generally understood to mean exaggerated and irrational alarm. He ventured to say that when they discovered a conspiracy for the destruction of public buildings or life, or both, on a large scale, the manufacture on a large scale of materials for that purpose, their transportation from foreign countries, their being brought from one large place to another, and their application actually in one instance with partial success, and in other instances the attempt made manifest, and the fact that these things did not proceed from the exceptional wickedness or folly of some chance individual, but were part of an organized conspiracy, and were so generally felt to be serious, that the whole House of Commons, without a dissentient voice, had 1809 thought it their duty, on the urgent representation of the Government, to pass a Bill of that nature through all its stages, he thought he need not say more about the imputation of panic. The Government had reason to know that this was a case so serious that it was not only necessary to legislate in that stringent manner, but not to lose a day in passing their measure. As to the objection that the Bill was made permanent, the dangers which led to the Bill, so far as they depended on the nature of those explosive substances, the facility of their manufacture and transportation, and of using them for purposes the most destructive and ruinous to the public interest, were in the nature of things permanent. It might be that this particular conspiracy might pass away and be put down; it might be that they might not at all times have so much reason to put in force the provisions of that Bill as they had at this moment; but the nature of those explosive substances remained, the power of using them remained; and all those who were disposed to do things that were injurious to this country knew that substances of that kind might be made and used for such purposes. There being, therefore, in that sense a permanent danger, the Government thought it their duty to ask Parliament to apply a permanent remedy. If hereafter a state of things should arise which would disarm those substances of their dangerous character and make them no longer instruments so easy to be used by wicked persons who had for their object the dissolution of all society, then, perhaps, such a Bill might be necessary no longer; but until science should discover the means of depriving them of that nature, a measure of this kind would be requisite. The only reason for dispensing with the Standing Orders was urgency, and that urgency remained whether the Bill was temporary or permanent. The Government thought it ought to be permanent. Though he much regretted the want of unanimity on the Bill, it was not necessary there should be unanimity in order to suspend the Standing Orders. With regard to the absence of Notice, the Government did not themselves know that the Bill would be passed through the other House in all its stages, so that it was impossible that Notice could be given in the ordinary sense of the word. 1810 The Government had every reason to believe that noble Lords on the Opposition Bench had as much knowledge on the subject, and as early, as they had. Therefore, he did not think the Government were liable to the charge of want of courtesy, or sharp Parliamentary practice; and he believed they were only doing their duty to the country in demanding urgency for this Bill.
§ THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, he was of opinion that the Bill, having been introduced in this exceptional manner, should have been of a temporary character only.
§ On question, agreed to, and resolved accordingly.
§ Bill read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 24.) Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYcharged the Government with having, by their mode of introducing the Bill, ousted the House of all judgment on the disputed clause. If they had made it a temporary Bill, they could have considered the various clauses later. He admitted the emergency; but the plea of urgency was only a plea for ousting the House of all power of discussing the Bill. The House had no Notice until 8 o'clock that evening that the Bill would be passed through all its stages, and the Government were masters of the situation. He believed the Government had set a dangerous precedent, which would affect their Parliamentary procedure, for there was no justification for their present course, which had been adopted without the slightest excuse.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he must deny that the proceedings of the Government had been in any way objectionable. He did not know until that evening that the Bill would pass through the House of Commons in all its stages. As to Notice, his object had been to give the earliest possible Notice in his power. Copies of the Bill had been sent at once to the Leaders of the Opposition, so as not to take the Opposition by surprise. He had not anticipated that a Bill of this urgent nature would be opposed, and he was surprised at the intention expressed by the noble Marquess to oppose the Bill. If the Bill were made temporary, it would have to go back to the other House, and it was impossible to say what they would do with 1811 it. He could not see what was the object of the noble Marquess in endeavouring to embarrass the Government.
§ VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, the noble Marquess was not embarrassing the Government at all, for there was no opposition to the Bill. The Bill contained clauses which were open to discussion. The 6th section was one that in the Irish Act was made only temporary, the period of its operation being three years. If this Bill had been drawn in the same manner as the Irish Bill with respect to these provisions, there would have been no reason to object. After the declaration the Government had made on their responsibility, and with the knowledge possessed by their Lordships as to what was going on in that City, it would be wrong to stop the Bill; but it was fair to protest that this clause had quite a different purview, and had nothing to do with the permanent part of the Bill as it stood, so that it might have been limited in duration as its permanent adoption needed discussion.
§ On question, resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly.
§ Then it was moved that the Bill be now committed to a Committee of the Whole House; on question, resolved in the negative.
§ Then it was moved that the Bill be now read 3a on question, resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly.
§ Then it was moved that the Bill do pass; on question, resolved in the affirmative; Bill passed accordingly, and a message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
§ House adjourned at half past Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.