THE DEBATE ON THE IRISH COERCION BILL.
THE character and temper of the debate on Mr. Porter's Bill have done great credit to the Speaker, the Chair- man of Committees, and to the Government, and have cer- tainly shown that there is no disposition in any quarter to use the new powers conferred on the Speaker and his Deputy for the suppression of legitimate discussion, however keen and however tenacious. And little as our own judgment approves the particular choice of coercive powers on which Mr. Forster decided when he brought in this Bill, we sincerely hold, as we have always held, that it is one of those subjects on which those who trust the Government should defer to their judgment, even where it differs from their own, and, there- fore, we hold the Liberal Members right in giving a steady and constant support to their own Administration in relation to this Bill. At the same time, the whole course of the discussion appears to us to bear out the view we have always advanced, that a milder measure—like the Peace Pre- servation Act of 1870—would have been as effective, if not more effective, though it would not have placed in the hands of the Government powers, which, supposing they are to be used at all, the Irish Secretary will have no knowledge at his disposal to enable him to use well, All the amendments requiring him to pledge himself to a personal investigation of the offences charged against the persons to be arrested for suspected outrages, and requiring him to state the exact offences charged against the prisoners in the Lord- Lieutenant's warrant, have been resisted, and no doubt inevitably resisted by Mr. Forster, and for this very excellent reason,—that if he is to use his new powers against the agrarian terrorisers at all, he can only use them on the plain ground that the local authorities, whether Magistrates or Constabulary, declare that these are the people who were concerned in former outrages, and who are likely to be concerned in new outrages if he does not arrest them, and that he believes their statements. If the Bill is to be used at all in relation to its agrarian portions, that is how it must be used, and it is simply nonsense to talk of Mr. Forster in Dublin Castle going through any sort of investigation of the supposed offence which can come to any more than this,—" Such and such a magistrate, who asserts that this man was concerned in two or three October outrages, is a sensible, trustworthy sort of man, whom the Permanent Secretary has not often found out in exaggerations ; the particular Constabulary officer who supports the charge is one of our better officers, a keen man and an honest, so far as we know, and his story runs on all- fours. Thiele a case where we ought to grant the warrant, or we shall have fresh trouble in those parts." That, we say, is the only kind of " investigation " that Mr. Forster can possibly go through, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, if he should over use his new power in so many ; and he is perfectly right not
to acquiesce in the mockery of calling it an investigation into the truth of the charge. It can be, at most, an investigation into the plausibility of the charge, and into the reputation of the local authorities by whom the charge is supported. We do not deny that we would much rather grant the Government such powers as these, vague and full of danger as they are to the liberty of many innocent individuals, than allow great numbers of decent Irishmen who have lately been afraid to discharge their ordinary obligations, to go on living under this terror. But we do see in a very strong light the objectionable character of a measure which empowers any Administration to arrest on suspicion a number of people whose only crime may be that they have been the objects of deep local distrust, for political or other reasons. Moreover, we see no reason to alter our belief that a much less objectionable measure, based on circumstances of real suspicion,—like that of being found out at night under suspicious circumstances,—would have answered the purpose of the Government, so far as it affects only agrarian crime, perfectly well. The real apology made for this measure is that it will in all probability do its best work without arbitrary arrests at all, by the mere impact of its moral effect on the people of Ireland. Well, that is a good enough apology, but it applies quite as fully, in our opinion, to a much milder kind of measure.
The Peace Preservation Act of 1870 had precisely that effect.
From the time of its passing, agrarian offences ceased as if by magic. The truth is that it is the resolute attitude of the Legislature and the Administration which produces the result.
So far as that goes, it does not matter very much whet remedy they adopt, so long as it is a remedy which seems to the lawless among the Irish to be adequate, and which inspires them with fear and respect for the Government. A milder measure, firmly pressed, is just as good for this purpose as one of vague and in- definite character. In 1870 the Government only took power, except as regards some very foolish Press measures, to arrest persons found out at night under auspicious circumstances, and to arrest all strangers who could not give a satisfactory account of themselves ; but they showed that what they said, they meant, and all those who had gone about diffusing terror took the alarm at once. We sincerely believe that the same course taken this year would have produced the same result, and that, so far as the moral effect of the attitude of the Government and Parlia- ment is concerned, there would have been nothing to choose between that measure and this. But the preferability of the milder measure comes at a later stage. Supposing the
Government were to put in force their powers, the powers
they now ask for must be put in force on the strength of the suspicions entertained by highly-prejudiced and not always competent local authorities. The powers asked for under the Bill of 1870 were limited by external circumstances, not retro- spective at all, and involving a substantial amount of moral presumption against the persons arrested. It is quite obvious how infinitely more objectionable in its operation this Coercion Bill may be than that.
However, if it be a blunder, it is a blunder past helping now. And we quite admit ;hat having once fixed on the more dangerous plan, the Government were right to adhere to it, and not to make any concessions that would have looked like vacillation or weakness. Only, almost every time Mr. Forster opens his mouth, he seems to us at one and the same time to magnify his " responsibility " for the right use of the powers he demands, and to minimise the evidence that will be really at his disposal for exercising that responsibility well. He is always repeating, 'You must leave this to me, and not hamper me by conditions ; I really cannot admit that any of the conditions ordinarily applicable to prevent error in bringing criminsi charges, will be open to me. Let me alone, and have confidence in me, and between the chapter of accidents and my indisputable good-will, you will see that I shall not make any great errors. We'have the most absolute confidence in Mr, Forster's indisputable good-will, and no little hope in the collapse of crime before the mere throat of punishment. But we do not believe, we confess, that if it ever comes to making much use of his new powers, it will be pos- sible for Mr. Forster, in spite of all his good-will, to use them with even tolerable precautions against abuse.
Previous page
