THE IRISH PARLIAMENT AND THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY.
THERE is a feeling among a certain portion of the Unionist Party that amendments such as were moved on Tuesday night, when it was sought, for example, to take away from the Irish Parliament the power of dealing with " criminal conspiracy, intimidation, and unlawful assembly," are a little ridiculous. If there is to be an Irish Parliament at all,' it is argued, it must have the power to make laws on such subjects. What, then, is the good of these amendments ? ' Those who argue thus mistake the Unionist position. The movers of the limiting amendments would doubtless be perfectly will- ing to agree that these restrictions cannot properly be placed on any body which is intended to possess real legislative powers. They move their amendments to show the impossibility of establishing a Parliament in Dublin. Their attitude may be expressed in the following propositions. It is impossible to give the Dublin Legislature power to deal with, say, the law of criminal conspiracy, intimidation, and unlawful assembly. But it is impossible to create a Legislature without granting powers of legislation in regard to these matters. Therefore, it is impossible to establish a Legisla- ture in Dublin. The Unionists insist upon the necessity for restrictions, not in order to improve the Bill, but to show in the language that their opponents can best understand that it is impossible to establish Home-rule in Ireland, We will show you in detail,' they say, that if you put the limitations on the Irish Parliament which justice and prudence demand, you will leave it absolutely nothing to do, —that you will, in fact, be unable to make a Parliament.' The strength of this form of argument was very clearly brought out in the debate on Mr. Butcher's and Mr. Stuart-Wortley's motions, to place criminal conspiracy, intimidation, and unlawful assembly, among the pro- hibited subjects. The Unionist speakers showed that the Irish Parliament could not be trusted to deal with these subjects. Proof of this was not difficult to adduce. The Irish Parliament will be in the hands of the present Irish Members. But they have again and again shown what are their views in regard to criminal conspiracies, intimidation, and unlawful assembly. The " Plan of Campaign," which became part of the official programme of the Nationalists, was itself a criminal con- spiracy. Again, as Mr. Balfour reminded the House, the Irish Party have encouraged intimidation by unlawful assemblies. " They all knew," he said, " that he could prove over and over again if he chose to do so, that Lord Spencer, the Secretary for Scotland, the Secretary for War, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and every right hon. gentleman who had had anything to do with the govern- ment of Ireland in the past, had always recognised the fact that these unlawful assemblies had merely acted in conformity with the public opinion of the districts in which they were held, and that they were encouraged by the Nationalist Members of Parliament." In other words, it is a matter of common knowledge that the majority in Ireland and their representatives have desired that the offences of criminal conspiracy and intimidation should not be punished. But this being the case, is it safe to place these matters in the hands of an Irish Legisla- ture ? Perhaps it will be said that, though the attitude of the Nationalists in the past was what we have described it, their attitude will be quite different in the future, because an Irish Legislature, once established, will have no object in sanctioning intimidation. That is an assumption which, in our opinion, can by no means be made with safety. We believe that that section of the Irish people which intimidated and criminally conspired in the past will have every inducement to do so in the future, and that the Irish Legislature will be obliged to see that the law does not punish or interfere with those who are bringing "the public opinion of the district" to bear upon individuals after the manner of the " Plan of Campaign." The ground for the belief we have thus stated is obvious enough. For three years the Irish Legislature will be unable to deal with the Irish Land Question. Can we suppose that during those three years the Irish tenant will be induced to wait patiently, foregoing in silence the benefits which he has always been taught to expect will arise immediately from Home-rule? Is it not infinitely more likely that he will attempt, by means of pressure, to get something at once ? But under Home-rule, the Irish tenant will not think it fair that he should run any risks. Accordingly, he will demand that 'all legislation interfering with the exercise of pressure shall be abrogated. And apart from this is the great question of the evicted tenants,— the question which, though suppressed for the time, is one of the most important in the Irish controversy. The Irish leaders have always promised that, come what may, these men shall be reinstated. Mr. Davitt's words on the sub- ject may be quoted as an example. Speaking at a meeting near Moone, County Kildare, he said :—" The first duty which should devolve upon the first Home-rule Parlia- ment ought to be—and will, if I can help it—the rein- statement of every family in its holding that has been evicted since the land agitation began ten years ago. Justice will require this to be done apart from the National claim which such people will have for the sacrifices by which the cause of the people has been so powerfully advanced. Every man and woman who has been im- prisoned during the same period for resisting eviction, or for refusing to become informers in Star Chamber Courts, or for rendering soldierly service in this movement, ought to be entitled to a pension for life at the hands of a self- governed Ireland, if such persons chose to accept of such reward."—Freeman's Journal, June 18th, 1888. But the Irish Legislature will not, as we have just pointed out, be able to deal with the Land Question. On the other hand, the evicted tenants, who have only held on during the past five years with the greatest possible difficulty, will be unable to wait any longer. It will, therefore, be necessary to do something at once to get "the victims of landlord rapacity " back on the land. Can we doubt that machinery similar to that devised for support- ing the " Plan of Campaign " will be employed ? If conspiracy, intimidation, and unlawful assembly were out of the reach of the Dublin Parliament, the existing law might give some hope of protection. If, however, the Dublin Parliament can legalise the " Plan of Cam- paign," irresistible pressure will be put upon it to do so, and then Heaven help the owners of land and those who are suspected of being against the people. If the law of conspiracy, intimidation, and unlawful assembly were to be altered so as to conform with the actions of the Nationalist Members—not a very extravagant supposition —the lives of men in the position of Mr. Bindon Blood would not be worth three hours' purchase.
Almost as important as the amendment in regard to criminal conspiracy, intimidation, and unlawful assembly, was one proposed by Mr. Barton, and directed to prevent the Irish Parliament from altering criminal procedure. As Sir Henry James pointed out, the power of alter- ing criminal procedure would give the Irish Legislature power to get out of very many of the limitations imposed on them. For example, we put treason and treason-felony among the exceptions ; but what was the good of that, if the Irish Legislature can alter the criminal procedure at will ? " It might be enacted that men condemned to death should be admitted to bail. That would not touch treason or treason-felony in the meaning of the Act, but it would mean that the procedure of the Courts would be perfectly inapplicable to the administration of justice. It might be enacted that a man committed for trial should be free to come and go. That would not touch treason, but it would follow that the criminal would escape." In truth, the only limita- tions which the Government will accept, are bogus limita- tions. The Irish Members are determined that they shall be given full power to deal with malcontents—to put down Ulster, that is, as she would be put down on the Continent —and they will not allow Mr. Gladstone to yield an inch in any matter which will weaken their powers within Ireland. There they intend to be masters, and to be in a position to treat opposition to their authority with merci- less rigour.
Previous page
