509 Peace Preservation (Ireland) {JUNE 19, 1865} Act (1856) Amendment Bill. 510 and Outrage Bill. The necessity for it had long passed away, and the only effect of it was to irritate the people and to perpetuate the oppression of which they justly complained. There were trials going on under it in Ireland that would disgrace any part of the world. SIR GEORGE BOWYER said, he opposed the Bill, on the ground that it was an instance of exceptional legislation for which no necessity whatever had been shown. the English people, because it was said that capital was kept away as there was no security in Ireland. The peaceable state of Ireland, however, was no justification for a coercion Bill. The existence of former Governments depended on the introduction of such a Bill, but now the Chief Secretary rose and proposed a coercion Bill as easily as he performed the very homely personal function described the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). Persons engaged in an illegal marching at Ballincollig had some time since been brought before Mr. Justice Keogh, and the common MR. BLAKE said, he thought it highly satisfactory that the Bill had been opposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell), a resident proprie-law of the country was found sufficient for tor in Tipperary, who would have been the first to support the Bill had there been any real necessity for it. When the Bill was brought in the Chief Secretary admitted the peaceable state of the country, and therefore the right hon. Baronet ought at least to make the concession suggested by the hon. Member for Clonmel. MR. ESMONDE said, he had voted for the Bill on a former evening, but hoped now the right hon. Baronet would be content to pass it for one year. SIR ROBERT PEEL said, that the Bill was proposed to be passed for the smallest possible period, that was to the end of the next Session. As to the general state of the country, everybody would admit that it was most peaceable. For instance, in 1853, there were a thousand prisoners in gaol in Clonmel, but in the present year there were only sixty-three. That showed conclusively the great improvement which had taken place in the county of Tipperary. This Bill was proposed to be reserved only by way of precaution. There were certain baronies in Mayo, Galway, and Monaghan, and after communicating with the magistrates the Lord Lieutenant in Council would be prepared to take away the proclamations from those baronies. He trusted the House would consent to pass the Bill. their punishment. It would be wise policy of the Government to show their increased confidence in the people of Ireland by not again passing this measure, as there was no necessity for it. If the Government could show no necessity for the Bill, hon. Gentlemen were justified in opposing it. As the right hon. Baronet had not consented to limit the operation of the Bill he should move that it be read a second time on that day three months. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."-(Mr. Maguire.) Question proposed, "That the word now' stand part of the Question.' MR. TORRENS said, that the hon. Member (Mr. Maguire) in the earlier part of the Session had made a statement that there was great disaffection in Ireland, and that being so, it was a sufficient justification of the Bill. MR. HENLEY said, that he had waited with the greatest anxiety to hear what grounds the Chief Secretary for Ireland would allege in defence of a Bill which he could not help denominating a very exceptional and unconstitutional one, and the only reason which he had heard him assign for adopting this measure was that it had been in force before, and, therefore, it might as well be continued. He had paid some attention to the judicial statistics of Ireland, and they certainly afforded no SIR ROBERT PEEL said, the magis-justification for passing such a Bill as this. trates of Tipperary had made no representation on the subject. MR. LANIGAN said, he wished to inquire whether the right hon. Baronet would consent to withdraw the proclamation from the county of Tipperary, which he had stated to be so peaceable? MR. MAGUIRE said, the right hon. Baronet had given a most admirable description of the state of Ireland, and it was well that the fact should go forth to When a district was proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant, any man who had in his possession any part of a gun or an ounce of powder was liable to twelve months' imprisonment; any body who met another body upon the road with such a thing might take it from him, and any police- | right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary man might search any man, woman, or What his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert child, turn them up, and see whether they Peel) said was that it was the intention of had anything of the kind about them. The the Lord Lieutenant, in communication Government could, by means of these pro- with the lieutenants and magistrates of clamations, put a perpetual blister upon counties, to see how many of the proclaany part of Ireland in the shape of an mations now in force could be safely withextra police force to be paid by the district. drawn; but that was a very different thing He was surprised to hear the Chief Secre- from allowing them all to lapse by the expiratary say the other night that the noble Lord tion of the Act of Parliament which this Bill the Member for the county of Mayo had told was intended to renew. Such neglect might him that the gentlemen of that county be attended with the most disastrous conthought that a proclamation now in force sequences. All that was now asked was there might be removed, and that, there- that time might be allowed for the further fore, he should write to the Lord Lieute- consideration of the state of Ireland with nant on the following day to ask him to a view to see whether it would be necessary recall it. to retain that Act. The Government hoped that it would not, but that must depend upon the state of the country. In the meantime the continuance was only sought for a year, and till the end of the then next Session of Parliament, the shortest period for which it was the practice to take annual continuance Bills. SIR ROBERT PEEL said, that what he had said was, that he had communicated with the noble Lord, who said that he would make inquiries of the magistrates, and let him know whether they thought the proclamation might be withdrawn. MR. HENLEY said, that the words of the right hon. Baronet, as he understood them, and as they were reported in The Times, which generally pretty accurately reported the debates in that House, were that he "Had been in communication with his noble Friend the Member for the county of Mayo upon the subject of the proclamation, which had been in force since 1861, and he intended to inform the Lord Lieutenant that in the opinion of the gentlemen of that county there was no reason why it should not be revoked." If this was the way that proclamations were recalled, perhaps they were sometimes issued under parallel circumstances. During the five years preceding 1851 the number of criminals indicted in Ireland was 130,000; during the five years ending 1863 the numbers had dwindled down to about 29,000. This was a most remarkable change. The people were flying from the land as if it was a pesthouse, and was that to be wondered at when such laws as this were in force? In Ireland there was a policeman to every 420 people, while in England the proportion was only one to every 880 or 890. Surely with such a force of police and the powers given to them by the ordinary laws the Government could preserve the peace of the country. As he had heard no reason for the passing of this Bill, he should vote against the second reading. SIR GEORGE GREY said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) had not correctly apprehended the argument of his MR. O'REILLY said, that under this Bill the Act would remain in force during the whole of 1866 and until the end of the Session of 1867-that was, till August, 1867. The proposal which would satisfy everyone was that it should be renewed only till the end of 1866. Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." The House divided:-Ayes 76; Noes 29: Majority 47. Main Question put, and agreed to. morrow. COLONIAL GOVERNORS (RETIRING Order for Committee read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE said, he had formerly drawn attention to the memorial of Sir Francis Head, asking that his claims should be considered; but it now appeared that the Government were unwilling to make any special provision in his favour. Under these circumstances he had received the following letter from Sir Francis, asking that his case should not be pressed : -- 66 "Croydon, June 6, 1865. My dear Sir William Jolliffe, -In cheerful submission to the adverse decision of Her Majesty's Government with respect to my services in Canada, which has just been privately communicated to me, I lose no time in expressing to you my earnest desire that you will kindly abstain from uttering in the House of Commons another word in my behalf. For, as my case is now hope less, you will, I am sure, concur with me that it would ill become me to allow-if I can possibly prevent it-any Member of Parliament uselessly to interrupt, for a single moment, the unanimity with which the Colonial Governors Pension Bill will, I hope, without any further reference to my services, now pass into a law. MR. NEWDEGATE said, he wished to ask what rule had been adopted with regard to these pensions, and upon what principle the claims of Sir Francis Head had been rejected. MR. CARDWELL said, this Bill was based upon length of services, and the period of Sir Francis Head's service was extremely short. Last year he had given a pledge that the subject should be fully considered; so that, if they were unable to admit the claims of Sir Francis Head, the right hon. Gentleman opposite should have the opportunity of taking what course he felt inclined to take upon this Bill. Since then the case had been fully considered, and the Government thought it impossible to insert a clause providing for that particular case. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, that Sir Francis Head's letter did that distinguished public servant great honour. He expressed his deep regret at the decision come to by the Government. MR. ADDERLEY moved the insertion of words limiting the grant of these pensions out of the British Treasury to cases in which the salaries were a charge on the British Treasury. It was an act of absolute folly to charge the Imperial Revenue with pensions in cases where the salaries were payable by the colonies. The Bill was a continuation of the old vicious system by which the interests of the Crown and of the colonies were regarded as being separate. VOL. CLXXX. THIRD SERIES.] MR. CARDWELL said, the objections taken to the Bill were the same as those which were made on the second reading, and they had therefore already been disposed of by the House. MR. HENLEY said, he wished to remind the House that it was already nearly a quarter to two o'clock, and that they had to meet again at twelve o'clock. MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE said, it would only take twenty minutes to go through the Bill. Amendment negatived. House resumed. Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow. SUGAR DUTIES AND DRAWBACKS BILL. [BILL 198.] COMMITTEE. Order for Third Reading read and discharged. Bill re-committed; considered in Committee. MR. CAVE said, that this Bill was founded upon a convention which was to last ten years. That was much too long a time. There might be mistakes ab initio as that with regard to paper and rag duties in the French Treaty; or an altered state of affairs might arise, as was the case with the oyster fisheries affected by the French Fishery Convention, and so much mischief might ensue. Could not the Chancellor of the Exchequer arrange these conventions for shorter periods? Amendments agreed to. Bill reported; as amended, considered. AZEEM JAH (SIGNATURES TO PETITIONS). The Sergeant at Arms attending this House informed the House, that George Morris Mitchell had been this day apprehended, and was now in Newgate. A Petition of George Morris Mitchell, a State Prisoner in Her Majesty's Gaol of Newgate, expressing his deep contrition and regret if he has offended against the dignity of the House, and praying for his release from custody, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [App. 2.] S Ilouse adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Tuesday, June 20, 1865. # open concerts, and other entertainments; and it was monstrous and absurd that the middle classes should be precluded from amusing themselves, because the authorities, in whom the power lay, refused to MINUTES. PUBLIC BILLS - First Reading-grant licences for the hotels to be kept Greenwich Hospital * (179); Fortifications (Provision for Expenses)* (180); Malt Duty (181); Harbours Transfer (182); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) (183); Pier and Harbour Order Confirmation (No. 3) * (184); Trusts Administration (Scotland) * (185); Ayr Burghs Election* (186); Crown Suits, &c. (187); Kingstown Harbour (188); Ecclesiastical Commission (Superannuation Allowances)* (189). Second Reading-Admiralty Acts Repeal* (165); Admiralty Powers, &c. (166); Dockyard Ports Regulation (167); Prisons (155); Small Benefices (Ireland) Act (1860) Amendment* (61). Committee Railway Debentures, &c. Registry * (99); Locomotives on Roads (164); Land * * # Debentures (Ireland) (113); Prisons (Scotland) Act Amendment (106); Trespass (Scotland)* (146); Ecclesiastical Leasing Act (1858) Amendment (125); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (157); Pilotage Order Confirmation (No. 2) (154); Smoke Nuisances (Scotland) Acts Amendment (136); Procurators (Scotland) (153); Churches and Chapels Exemption (Scotland) (128); Colonial Laws Validity (158); Colonial Marriages Validity* (159); Defence Act (1860) Amendment (152). * Report-General Post Office (Additional Site) (124); Public House Closing Act (1864) Amendment (151); Trespass (Scotland)* (146); Ecclesiastical Leasing Act (1858) Amendment (125); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (157); Pilotage Order Confirmation (No. 2)* (154); Churches and Chapels Exemption (Scotland)* (128); Colonial Laws Validity* (158); Colonial Marriages Validity (159); Defence Act (1860) Amendment* (152). Third Reading · and passed. Union Chargeability (171), PUBLIC HOUSE CLOSING ACT (1864) REPORT. Amendment reported (according to Order). THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, having presented a number of petitions for the restoration of Clause 5, which had been struck out of the Bill, said, that it was undoubtedly a great grievance on market gardeners, cattle drovers, and others who were legitimately employed between the hours of one and four o'clock, a.m., that they could not procure refreshment during that time. The habits of society in all large towns required that hotels should be kept open until a late hour in the night for the purpose of balls, after one o'clock in the morning. The power vested in the police was often exercised in an arbitrary manner, as in the case of the town of Liverpool, where it was publicly announced that no licences whatever would be granted except to St. George's Hall and the Town Hall, which were the property of the corporation. The law was of an anomalous character, and the power of granting licences to certain persons so as to give them an advantage over their rivals required to be exercised with great delicacy. There was a very strong feeling upon the subject, and he hoped that Government, upon further consideration, would allow the Bill to be restored by inserting the clause which the House of Commons had agreed to after much discussion. Moved to re-insert Clause 5.— (The Marquess of Clanricarde.) EARL GRANVILLE said, the object of the Act of last year was to prevent disorder, immorality, and drunkenness by the suppression of what were known as "night houses," and had been very effective in that respect, and he (Earl Granville) was very unwilling to assent to any proposal calculated to diminish the good that had been obtained. But it was found that the Act occasioned great inconvenience in certain cases, and this fault the Bill now before the House proposed to remedy, by giving the police authorities power to grant licences to certain houses to remain open during certain specified hours for certain particular purposes. The object of the clause which their Lordships had struck out was to vest this discretionary power in the magistrates instead of in the police autho rities. No complaint, however, had been made of the manner in which the police authorities had acted in the matter, and as they were intimately acquainted with the character and requirements of their neighbourhoods, it would be better to leave the power of granting the licences in their hands. THE EARL OF DERBY said, that the object of the Act of last Session was to remedy a crying abuse existing in certain parts of London. The Act was intended to apply to London alone; but power was given to different counties in England to EARL GRANVILLE said, that if the noble Marquess would consent to the omission of the metropolis from the clause he would not object to its being restored to the Bill. THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE said, he would assent to that arrangement. THE EARL OF DERBY understood that the arrangement was that the clause should be restored to the Bill; but that another clause should be brought up exempting the metropolis from its operation. EARL GRANVILLE assented. adopt the provisions of the Act if they gentlemen to remain in their houses after thought fit. A great many of the counties a certain hour. If the power to grant did accept its provisions, and upon the the licence were vested in the magistrates, whole the law had done away with much the hotel-keepers need never stir out of abuse, and had met with approval. There the town to obtain a temporary exemption were, however, many occasions, especially from the provisions of the Act. As the in country towns, where country balls, House of Commons had expressed a strong concerts, and other meetings were held, opinion upon the subject by their vote where it was desirable that the opportu- given in opposition to the Government, nity of obtaining refreshments within the their Lordships could not do better than forbidden hours was very desirable; and restore the clause which the House of these cases had been met by giving power Commons inserted, and which the House to the police authorities to grant "occa- of Lords, without fully discussing the sional licences." It was, however, found matter, threw out. that, in the case of certain trades and certain localities, the public-houses could not be closed during the specified hours without considerable inconvenience being felt, and it had been held that the power of the police authorities extended only to grant licences for a particular and specific occasion, and not to cases where continuous exception was necessary. Accordingly, the present Bill was introduced giving power to suspend the operation of the Act in certain cases. The question in dispute was, whether that discretionary power should be vested in the police authorities or in the magistrates at petty sessions. With all respect for that very useful body the police, he thought that the more they were confined to their executive functions, and the less they were intrusted with judicial discretion, the better it would be for the community. The proper tribunal to exercise the discretionary power conferred by the Act was that consisting of the magistrates in petty sessions. He had himself seen a notice issued by the chief constable of a town declaring that he would not grant any licences whatever -under any circumstances whatever, in a certain district-thus rendering the law a dead letter. This was probably an extreme case; but it was easy to conceive that in large towns the granting such licences would throw great additional labour upon the chief constable, and that therefore he might be very unwilling to grant the licences, or to make the necessary inquiries even in cases where there was very good ground for the exemption. Then, again, the hardship upon the hotel-keepers was great in cases where the chief constable did not reside in the town in which they lived. For instance, the hotel-keepers in the town of Chichester had to go to Petworth, where the chief constable of the district resided, a distance of fourteen miles, in order to obtain permission for a party of ladies and PRISONS BILL-(No. 155) SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. EARL GRANVILLE, in moving the second reading, said, that the object of the Bill was twofold. It was partly to consolidate the existing law in relation to prisons, which in some particulars was contradictory, and beyond that it proposed to amend the present law. The amendments which it proposed to introduce into the law of prisons were based chiefly on the recommendations of a Committee of their Lordships' House, which, under the presidency of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon), had considered this subject very fully :-there were, however, points where it had been found difficult or impossible to give practical effect to those recommendations. The chief object was to secure greater uniformity in the management and discipline of prisons, and greater uniformity also in the carrying out of the punishment of hard labour. The Bill was one of great detail, and he should only be wearying their Lordships if he went through all the clauses. He should be |