New-York tribune., 1870-04-09
IRELAND.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE COERCION BILL
AND ITS TYRANNY.
rFRoM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT

10 Income
speech on Mr. Dixon's amendment he assured them
that ho did not obj ect TO their support In his Coer
cion bill he has given them something more than
words / do not believe Tory Government would
have vcntuicd to introduce such measure. / am
surc that if they had, the Liberal benches would
have echoed with the most vehement and the most
lust dcnunciaiuns of the bill pass those parts
of il which il is possible to justify If you aGnt inc
accuracy Of the indictment which Mr.. Chichester
Fortescue has drawn against the Irish nation. Inc
proySons fothe seizure Of arms the i0IclDie search
for documents, torches, and other evidence
of what may be called agrarian intentions
the authority given 10 magistrates to commit
persons who refuse TO testify even when no case IS
pendinr. are rigid. no doubt, but think they come
within the fair direction of executive power. Much
more questionable is the right to imprls0n Tor SIX
month, persons found out at night and unable 10
give a satisfactory account Of themseyes-satsfac-
tory TO magistrate who may be stupid or mad with
terror. or cxasperated by religious bigotry. The
closing of public Eouses after sunset may or may
not be made vexatious or oppressive proceeding.
That the summary jurisdiction conferred upon magis-
4rates and the abolition Of the right Of trial by jury
in certain cases will become instruments OF the worst
sort Of tyranny, judicial tyranny there can be no
sort Of question. The mag trates belong to class
which is in a state of unceasing hostility to the
great majority of the population OF Ireland lhey
ara TO be iutruSted with powers which the most I'M
partial judge ought never to possess.
All these provisions and all this class of arbitrary
power and all these denials Of those safeguards
which belong Of right to every British citizen, are
trivial compared 10 the press clauses. The bill gives
10 the Lord Lieutenant Of Ireland power to suppress
every newspaper in Ireland and contscate Its prop
erty. done uss these words in loose OF general
sense but literally. Hemay stop the printing of any
paper. lIo may seize Its types and presses and
printed copies, take possession Of its oice and shut
it up II this bill becomes law. freedom of the Press
viii have ceased to exist in Ireland. Mr. Gladstone
will have done what The French Emperor has not
vcntured to attempt since lsj3-what he never at
tempted for he never dared promalgato as law what
ne sometimes did as irresponsible Gespot. Under
this law. every newspaper in Ireland is at
the absolute mercy Of an executive officer appointed
ty the Prime Minister. am at n loss 10 understand
how such ncn as Alr. Forster and Mr StanSicld can
assent 20 such BILL To DO sure, they are not
directly responsible for it, since neither OF them IS
in the Cabinet. but they must both support il, or
rescn Office We begin now to feel Mr.. Brghts loss.
Does anybody believe Mr.. Bright would have
asseuteI to so monstrous invasion of the liberty
of the suljcct2 10 would have gone out of the
Cabinet before such bill could have been agreed
on. Rut Mr.. Bright is not only unable to consult
with lis colleagues, he is unable, am told, even TO
receive intelligence Of exciting political events 1t
is certain that this II, aslIe was adopted without
bis knowledge and believe that its adoption will
Do followed sooner or latef by bis resignation-a
remark which, need not say, is simply an express
sion Of my own belief based on what l know, and
everybody knows. of Mr.. Bright's opinions.
Bat Of course YOU say such a stab at the press as
this has evoked 4 unanimous and indignant protest
from the English journals. Wen, among tine many
merits OF the English press, readiness TO do justice
10 Ireland, or TO defend Irish rights, or to defend
their own when indirectly attacked through Ire
land, cannot be reckonod. l have seen but one
English journal winch objects to the proposal to
destroy the liberty of the press in Ireland. IOu will
guess every name but the right 1t is not The
Daily Nccs though The Daily Ners am glad to
say, withholds its approval, and declines to pass
judgment on the measure till The bill itself has been
printed-what we know of 1t being limited TO Mr..
Fortescuc's account 1t is not THE Spectator. far
from it, That journal has a capIcious liberalism,
the limits of which it is never possible to define At
present it is the apoogist of press repression de-
clares that the only serious criticism the bill Is
that it does not go far enough; and, in spirit
worthy of the JesuitS remarks that, although
Government takes power to seize any newspaper, 1t
will only exercise the power on newspapers which
Jury will pronounce dangerous the owners receiving
in the bill power to institute an action for damages
against the Crown" Three sentences further on it
forgets the city of this defense and confesses
that jury Is just as likely not to consider every
journalist of every kind a legalzed maleiactor-the
feeling of half the country gentlemen of Great
Britainp
Then where are we to turn for defense Of the
right which in other days found defender in Mil
toni To-day the only Speech for the Liberty of I'm
licensed Printing is in The Saturday Eora0! think
we shall all readily acqut that able journal of any
thing like mere sentiment or sympathy with extreme
views Its many services to the of intolerance.
and frequent defense Of of the worst forms of
oppression entitle it TO a hearing from the most
jealous Tory--Or the most timid Liberal. Without
ranking myself in either class, / am content to let
this bill of Liberal Ministry be judged By the crit
icism of The Saturday R6riec and it seldom that
have an opportunity of agreeing with that periodi
cal that Will quote IFS language. 1t says:
ave are plunged into the midst Of that system Of con-
troll of the press denounced and eXecrated when
read of IN France; and when measure is proposed
enabling the Executive TO seize the plant and property
of newspaper and 20 leave the proprietor 70 bring ls
action for damages II Is in possible % FORGET that such
measure had been proposed aud carried by Pit when
English society parc-stricben by the horrors OF
Revolutionary France The liberty Of the press IN England
would have been entirely at an end There Is falacy
in COMPARING Mr. Chichester Fortescue did the sup
preston Of publications containing sedOus matter with
the suppression OF publications containing obscene matter
Every one is agreed what grant CDSccmty Is We
can exactly calculate the consequences of suppressng
it. But scditiOn a very different matter. Every Gov
ernment is an 10 tIhK thdt an alltehs on IL are SSu
tious. Mr. Chichester Fortescue obliged 10 allow
that great difficulty OF prosecuting the pIOproto:s
the Irish sCditiOus journals that they
took the utmost to keep just within the law. In
criminal trials, to1. he pointed OUT every doubt ls
allowed in favor VI the accused ana It very difficult
prove that article capable OF two possible nterpre
taons is legally sedous whereas, which lie iOiDore TO
state III words ~ eva acOn ioi damages INC proprIe
tor will be the plaintiff and wiz have to make his case
clearly that there was nothing sediu0us IN what he
nermitted 10 be published We may think quite
safe from having such measure ever extended 10 In.
gland but great reflection Is necessary before We hod
out 70 the HOrld the example England interfering with
the press such a way"