The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1887-04-16 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

THE SPEAKER.

The HOLTSRoi COMMONS reassembled, on April 12th,
after the short Easter recess, but the attendance on
both sides was very slack. The Speaker took the Chair
and thanked the House for its indulgence during his
late indiAposition, and Mr. Courtney for occupying the
Chair in his absence.
IRISH CRIMINAL LAW.

After a few questions had been asked, the adjourned
debate on the recond reading of the Criminal Law
Amendment (Ireland) Bill was resumed by
The Attorney-General for Ireland, who remarked
that, though the bill had been very vigorously abused
by gentlemen who did not seem to have read it, very
little attention bad been paid to its actual provisions.
So far from this being the most stringent Coercion
Act ever introduced, as Sir 0. Russell among
others had asserted, he maintained it was a fair and
reasonable amendment of the criminal law, and there
was no reason why it should not become part of the
law of any part of the United Kingdom without the
slightest danger to individual liberty. He defended
the Irish judges, against the attacks of the Irish
members, and, to illustrate the state cif the country, he
read from the list of applications for compensation for
malicious injuries at the last assizes. That the pro-
visions of the law for the detection of crime required
strengthening he argued from this fact, among others,
that, of 765 crimes in Ireland, in 422 the injured
persons had refused to give any information, and he
showed how the Phcenix.park murders would have re-
mained undiecovered but for the power of examining
witnesses before a criminal was arrested. The break-
down of the jury system rendered necessary an exten•
Mon of the magistrates' summary jurisdiction, and also
that there should be powers to change the venue, but
he argued that on both these points the bill pros
aided safeguards not contained in Sir William
Harcourt's bill. As to the change of venue from
Ireland to England, though he did not apprehend it
would be necessary to resort to it frequently, he main-
tained that it was a reasonable provision and could lead
to no injustice. As to the resident magistrates, he
denied that they were executive officers, or that the
Government ever interfered with their judicial func-
tions; and, finally, he defended the permanent
character of the measure, chiefly as placing it above the
exieencies of party politics.
. Childers admitted that some parts of the bill
would be unobjectionable if applied to the whole
country permanently. but to its more novel provisions,
which be compared with Lord Sidmouth's six Acts, he
gave an uncompromising resistance. The constabulary
reports, which be pointed out showed only 36 cases of
injury to cattle in the last six months of last year,
failed to afford any necessity for a more stringent
criminal law, audio reply to the charge of incon-
sistency he remarked that at least 00 Conservative
members went to their constituents at the general
election with the cry of "No coercion." In an
elaborate analysis of the leading provisions of the
bill he characterised its proposed permanency as
an infraction of all constitutional precedent.
He strongly objected to evidence being taken in
the absence of any definite charge, and eve-
cially by magistrates who, he contended, were
incompetent, and he protested against magistrates
being empowered to define so difficult a subject as con-
spiracy. The contemplated change of venue from one
county to another as well as to England was a mons
strous proposal, and he doubted whether the Govern-
ment fully realised the extent to which the power to
define dangerous associations might be carried if the
armee remained without considerable amendment. In
conclusion, he expressed himself opposed to a repeal of
the Union, but believed the concession of local liberty
to be the best safeguard against separation.
Mr. Shaw-Stewart bore testimony to the advantage
derived from the system of taking evidence in Scotland
in the absence of any charge against a particular
person, and maintained that the Government would
not have bronglit forward the bill if it had been possible
to govern Ireland by the ordinary law.
re Mr. Munro Ferguson predicted failure for the Land
Bill or any other remedial measure, if it required to be
supported by coercion; and Mr. Cochrene-Baillie
justified the bill, on the ground that it only altered the
machinery of the law and not its essence.
Mr. Stuart enlarged upon the value of agitation,
which he described as the effect and not the cause of
discontent, and, dwelling upon the stringency of the
Wniteboy Acts, which in his opinion rendered the bill
unnecessary, emphasised the danger of allowing
political offences to be summarily dealt with.
Mr. Knowles gave a hearty support to the bill, and
denied that outrage necessarily followed eviction.
Mr. J. Redmond denied the existence of an abnormal
amount of crime in Ireland, and, reviewing the bill in
detail, insisted that it would virtually abrogate trial by
jury and take away all personal freedom and security.
Mr. Matthews, quoting the returns for the last
quarter, about to ba laid on the table, pointed out that
since the League began again to be active crime and
outrage had increased by 83 per cent., and insisted on
the duty incumbent on the Government to put a stop
to the tyrannies and cruelties pr,ctised by the League.
This, to argued, could not be done under the ordinary
Jew, for the break-down of the jury system was un-
doubted, not merely by reason of the threats and in-
timidation brought to bear on juries, but by the pars
tianship which now, unfortanately, prevailed in the
classes from which juries were ordinarily taken. He
denied that the bill struck at lawful combina-
tion—a constination not to pay excessive rents would
not be interfered with, unless where it took the form
of illegal acts; and it would not touch sedition,
treason, or any political offence at all. With regard to
more serious offences, he believed the proposal to
more con oiatrut7....,:e firiitarewigtfnifiry
Treferred than Sir Williara Harcourt's proposal to try
them by a special commission of Judges. Replying to
the argument that coercion had always failed, he
asserted that the Crimes Act had been ft °oral:A.4a
success, and showed that after it had passed crime and
outrage had fallen from over 5000 in a single year to
870. Finally, he showed that this was not the first
Coercion Act which had been opposed by a majority of
the Irish members, and severely censured the un-
precedented conduct ef the Opposition and the
i
language used by its leaders n palliation of outrage
and encouragement of lawlessness.
Mr. Stansfeld, referring to those clauses of the bill
which he considered of essential importance, began
with an exhaustive criticism of the clause dealing with
nn
iaoinn toafin
tehdewloauvil
andef fe effect
place
de eci d
everye d
and dangerous
which
hh
extension
one at the mercy of the Lord. Lieutenant and those
acting under him. He predicted failure for any
w
Government who admitted. their inability to govern
without abolishing trial by jury, and insisted that the
only remedial measures that would prove successful
would be those that received the approval of tire
national sentiment;
The debate was adjourned on the motion of Lord H.
Bruce.
GLEBE LANDS.
The Glebe Lands Occupation (England) Bill was
read a second time, and some
.further business having
been disposed of, the House adjourned at 20 minutes to
one o'clock.