§ MR. CHAPLINrose to call attention to the threatened withdrawal by the Government of police protection from caretakers placed in charge of vacant farms by the agents of the Property Defence Association in Ireland. A few days ago he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it were correct, as stated in The Times, that the Government intended to withdraw the protection of the police from caretakers who had been placed on vacant farms in Ireland by the Association? The right hon. Gentleman returned an answer which he (Mr. Chaplin) confessed he was unable at the time clearly to understand, and, therefore, he intimated his intention of repeating it. As the right hon. Gentleman had now come back from Ireland, he trusted some information would be given to the House on this subject, which appeared to be assuming a somewhat serious aspect. The Association was intended to assist the Government in its conflict with the Land League, by providing persons to take up vacant farms, and furnishing labour where, through intimidation, it could not be procured in the districts; and it was obvious that if its work was to have any beneficial effect, its agents ought to have the protection of the Government when their lives wore in danger. But he was now informed that there had recently been cases where application had been made to the Government for protection, life and property being endangered, and that the Government had replied protection could not be counted on, the time having arrived when these people must arm themselves for their own defence. He should like to know if that was correct; whether it was to be understood for the future that, in the work of the Property Defence Association, when the lives of persons in their employment were endangered, it was expected by the Government that armed men should be engaged by the Association where the Government were unwilling to afford protection; or whether the Government were still prepared to give security and protection to life and property in Ireland? He hoped the House would receive assurances from 1396 the Government that they were both able and willing to give the latter.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he understood the Question to be, whether the Government intend to send police to give personal protection to all caretakers? They could not undertake to give protection in every case in which it was asked for. The Government must use their own discretion, and in those cases where they considered that without police protection there would be danger to life and property it was their duty to give it. But the applications made to the Government seemed to him to infer that, as a matter of course, police should be sent to be by the side of every caretaker. That was an absolute impossibility, and no Government could undertake it, neither could he imagine that any person would really ask it. It was by no means necessary that there should be in all cases caretakers present. It also ought to be borne in mind that the protection afforded was far greater than had ever been given by any Government, and in some cases the protection thus given had been abused, as in the case where a body of men were lodged in a miserable hut that the landlord would not put in repair, while the caretaker was given to habits of drunkenness. The Government were, therefore, bound to exercise some care. But it must be borne in mind that the Government had a right to expect individuals to do something for themselves. In one instance protection was asked when the head of the house was an able-bodied man, and there were three other able-bodied men on the premises. Such a request, he thought, was unreasonable; though the Government could not divest themselves of the responsibility of protecting property, and especially life. The Government must decide the cases in which they should send police to reside at a house or farm, and, generally speaking, they thought that protection would be best given by patrol, and by having the police so arranged that they might be called upon at any moment. He was asked whether he thought caretakers would be at liberty to defend themselves. Undoubtedly, they were at liberty to defend themselves, and he considered that the Government had a right to expect that they would to some extent do so. He did not think any Government could re- 1397 lieve persons in that situation from doing something for their own protection.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had not quite answered one of his Questions, and, as the matter was an important one, he must repeat it. Would it be with the sanction and encouragement of the Government, that the Property Defence Association should employ armed bodies of their own for the purpose of giving protection and security to life and property in cases where the Government might be unable or unwilling to afford it?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that he understood the Property Defence Association was in the same position as any ordinary member of society. If they or their servants were attacked, they had a right to defend themselves, and they would themselves have to judge when force should be exercised in so defending themselves. His hon. Friend asked whether the Government would sanction such a proceeding. Of course they would do so, just in the same way as any Government would sanction the same course either in England or elsewhere.
§ COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had asked the Question (Mr. Chaplin) appeared to have lost sight of one class of persons who were greatly affected by the present state of affairs. The persons most needing protection were the small tenant farmers, who in all cases had been the victims of outrage, and had no sympathy with the perpetrators of outrage. The only system by which they could be protected would be by an efficient system of patrolling, which could not be carried out if large bodies of police were engaged, as at present, in giving personal protection. He knew many police stations which had been denuded of their proper complement of police, so that patrolling duty had been rendered impossible, and thus many small tenants had not got the protection that they really needed. He sincerely hoped that Her Majesty's Government would keep to their resolution of not sending police upon personal protection duty. He held that if it was necessary to send armed forces to protect the civil powers, troops instead of police should be employed, as the police had other duties, and would most serviceably be employed on patrol.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERagreed that it was quite impossible to take exception to what the Government had laid down, that they must be the judges of the reasonableness of requests for protection. It was quite out of the question to send police to every person who was unduly alarmed. But the right hon. Gentleman would recognize that the Government assumed a great responsibility in every case where they refused protection. They ought to satisfy themselves that the request was unreasonable. Of course, in cases where such protection had been abused, the Government would be quite right in discontinuing it; but it would be another thing if they refused to grant protection on the ground of want of forces, and other considerations would arise. Was there such a deficiency of force?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman's experience of Ireland would show him that there must be a limit to the number of men who could be employed, and it would be the business of the Government to employ that number of men in the best way possible. He could only repeat what he said before, that they could not make it a rule to give protection in every case where it was asked for. They would consider each case where an adequate protection could be given without individual soldiers or policemen being sent.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it was evident that the right hon. Gentleman contemplated refusing applications for police protection which he would comply with if lie had sufficient men at his disposal. That was entirely a different question from the refusal to give protection, because, in the opinion of the Government, that protection was not required. If the right hon. Gentleman had occasion to refuse such protection to individuals, after he had become satisfied that it was required, and based his refusal on the inability of the Government to confer it, he would incur the most serious responsibility. The position he should assume would be to come to the House and ask for further means——
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the great majority of the demands made upon us are for the protection of property, and not for the protection of life.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he would go further and say that the fundamental duty of any Government was to protect property as well as life; and, if the forces at the disposal of a Government were not adequate for the protection of both property and life, it was their duty to go to Parliament and ask that the means at their disposal might be supplemented. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to say that he would be fully prepared to afford encouragement to the Property Defence Association.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI really must ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what he means by encouragement. I did not use the word encouragement.
§ MR. WARTONSanction was the word.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, there was no very wide dissimilarity between encouragement and sanction. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to withdraw his assurance that the sanction of the Government would not be withheld from the Property Defence Association supplying armed forces to protect its agents who were engaged in the duty of care-taking. That being the case, he (Mr. J. Lowther) must point out that the Government were certainly prepared to extend their sanction to a state of affairs which would be clearly within a "measurable distance of civil war." The right hon. Gentleman must realize that if, in the opinion of the Advisers of the Crown, personal police protection was necessary in Ireland for the preservation of life or of property, it was the duty of the Government themselves to give that protection. The manner in "which that protection was to be given was a matter that came within the discrimination of the Executive Government; but they would be abdicating their executive functions when they said a state of affairs might arise in which the Government might be debarred, through lack of men, from giving protection to life and property, and were prepared to give its sanction to a private agency to carry out that duty. He thought it was a matter which required the very serious consideration of the House, and he hoped in the course of the debates that were likely to occur on the subject of Ireland some more explicit declaration of the Government policy on this subject would be announced.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)Prom the opposite side of the House, Sir, we have heard that there are already too many men in Ireland; now, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther) says there are too few. But I wish to say that what the Chief Secretary for Ireland stated was that the Government will not relieve individuals from the individual responsibility of defending themselves—that the Government will, in all cases where it is reasonably necessary, take every precaution within their power for the protection of life and property; that the responsibility rests with the Government; that they must do it in the way they think best, and they must procure sufficient force for the purpose, and apply it in the most effectual and economical manner. If the right hon. Member supposes that the Chief Secretary for Ireland sanctions the Property Defence Association, or any other association, raising a body of armed men, and keeping them up and sending them about the country to such destinations as they think fit, the right hon. Member is in error. For my part, I have only to repeat what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has said—that the Government will do their best to supply in all reasonable cases, and under all reasonable circumstances, protection to life and property, and that with all the force and resources at their disposal.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, there had been no complaint of the number of men employed by the Government in Ireland. What hon. Members wanted to know was how many men there were and what extra expense had been incurred. The state of things in Ireland was extremely grave. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had told them that the present Government had spent more money in the protection of life and property in Ireland than any preceding Government had done, and that their resources were nearly exhausted. He (Mr. Balfour), however, thought no one would say that life and property had been more protected than in the time of a preceding Government. If more protection was afforded, it was simply because more protection was required. He thought the Government would hardly say that the increased requirement had been fully met.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was a mistake to suppose he had said that the Government's resources were exhausted, and that they were unable to afford protection in cases where protection was reasonably required. What he had intended to convey to the House was that it would very likely be beyond the power of the Government to grant personal police protection in every case in which it was asked for.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the right hon. Gentleman made an appeal to private enterprize with reference to work which was commonly done by paid agents of the Government. He (Mr. Balfour) thought that in Ireland they were approaching a state of pre-civiliza-tion—
When they should take who have the power,And they should keep who can.He wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether, as regarded private individuals, there were obstacles in the present state of the law in Ireland with regard to the protection of life and property, owing to the Arms Act of last year; and, if there were any such obstacles, whether the Government were prepared to afford any relaxation on that point? However much men might be disposed to take the law into their own hands, they could not do so unless they were provided with weapons.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Peace Preservation Act, the only Act the hon. Member could be possibly referring to, required a licence to have arms, and he (Mr. W. E. Forster) should be exceedingly surprised if the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member could produce a case in which a licence had been refused to a person who was entitled to take a licence.
§ MR. T. C. THOMPSONpresumed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in encouraging-private persons to take upon themselves their own defence, did not mean them to go beyond what they were entitled to do by the Common Law of the land. Now the Common Law was very limited, and he (Mr. T. C. Thompson) should like to know whether any alteration in it was contemplated by which caretakers defending themselves, and possibly overstepping the very thin line between self-defence and what was regarded by law as assault, would not, after being encouraged by the Government 1402 to defend themselves, be subjected to prosecution? The Government ought to be careful lest they gave encouragement to poor ignorant persons in Ireland to break through the law of the land. It was scarcely possible for armed men in an excited state to confine themselves to retaliating upon those who attacked them, and, consequently, it was greatly to be feared that innocent persons might, by the suggestion of the Government, be led to commit acts which would expose them to the risk of punishment by law.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, that, as one of the many people connected by interest or association with the protection of life and property in Ireland, he would like to understand the exact position of the Government in this matter, as it seemed they had made a new departure in their policy with respect to the protection of caretakers. They know the Common Law doctrine as to the right of self-defence; but the line between lawful and unlawful resistance was very thinly drawn, and there were some instances on record in which juries both in England and Ireland had undertaken to say that the resistance offered in self-defence was unreasonable, and that for the injuries so inflicted the prisoner was responsible in law. He did not say that the Government were not pressed with difficulties which deserved the consideration of the House. He did not, therefore, blame them; but it was impossible to overlook the case as regarded the protection of caretakers, who might, perhaps, be in charge of a farm bordering a lonely road, or upon a mountain side. These people would be in doubt whether they might employ armed resistance to attack, for the warning from the Treasury Bench might imply that they might be prosecuted by Government, if they inflicted mortal injuries upon anyone. But he begged leave to say again what he had said before, that responsibility rested with the Government for the state of things which existed in Ireland from the 1st of June, 1880. At that time the country had for some time been free from the unlawful possession of arms; but, through the failure of the Government to renew the Peace Preservation Act, it had now drifted into a totally different condition. The population was secretly armed, and persons who were in the position of caretakers were in circum- 1403 stances of the greatest possible difficulty with regard to armed mobs. It was essential that the Government should let the people of Ireland know distinctly what was the remedy they were to be at liberty to use, and to what extent they might protect themselves without the danger of being subsequently prosecuted.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he was afraid that caretakers would find themselves placed in a very difficult position by the extraordinary and dangerous doctrines the Government had laid down. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland seemed to suppose that everyone who had a house might resist every attack made upon him. He (Mr. Warton) would venture to alter the expression of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) to the effect that the difference was one between legal and illegal resistance, and would say that the law drew a distinction between resistance and excessive resistance. A man had a right to turn a trespasser out of his house, but he must use no more force than was necessary for the purpose. If a number of men came and pointed weapons at a man, then he might have a right to shoot them, but not otherwise. There might be no right to use weapons against persons coming to the houses in which the caretakers were, because they might pretend that they came for a legal purpose—to use some of the moral arguments of the Land League. If men were shot the result would be that juries would find almost every caretaker guilty of murder. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had wavered very much in this matter. The plain, practical common sense of the late Chief Secretary contrasted strongly with the conduct of the present Chief Secretary. The late Chief Secretary pointed out that such a state of things as was now contemplated was little better than civil war. It seemed to him (Mr. Warton) that there were only three states of society possible. First, there was the absolutely savage state of society, when every man was for himself; secondly, there was the semi-savage state, when the honest men combined and formed vigilance associations for the punishment of wrong-doers and the suppression of crime; and, thirdly, there was a state of civilization where the State protected individuals. The Chief Secretary for Ireland sought to 1404 reduce Ireland to the second stage, and to throw upon individuals the duty of affording themselves that protection which the Government withheld from them. The Government seemed to be trying with how few policemen they could govern Ireland. They ought to increase the number of men until every loyal person who ought to be protected was protected. By the in competency of the Government, Ireland had been reduced to a state in which men must unite together to put down those who had no regard for property or life; and now they were, or appeared to be, jealous of the Property Defence Association, who had stepped in to do what the Government itself had failed to do. He did not scruple to say that the Government wished to put these caretakers in a most dangerous position—first of all not to give them the protection to which they were entitled, and then to lead them into difficulty as to the amount of resistance which they were entitled to give. A case was reported in "Russell on Crimes" in which a man was convicted of murder and hung for shooting another who came upon his property. These caretakers would not care to what extent they might go in their own defence. It was stated by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that they must not take the Constabulary away from their patrol duty. He (Mr. Warton) maintained that if they could not now afford to take the men away from patrol, the Constabulary should be so increased that the necessary protection could be given. The Government had already attempted to govern Ireland by introducing the most barbarous and semi-civilized ideas with regard to freedom of contract in the matter of land, and they were now trying to reproduce in the country a barbarous state of society.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he thought the Chief Secretary for Ireland had allowed himself to be drawn into dangerous ground by the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). The Government had been asked to give countenance to the formation of another Army in Ireland, which would not be under Government control or discipline, and which would be a very great danger to the peace of Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had, in his (Mr. Sullivan's) opinion, given too much encouragement to the 1405 proposal, and his words, when reported in Ireland, would cause a storm of disapprobation. Did the hon. Member who made the proposal mean that this new Army should be supplied with Government rifles, and with what had been referred to in that House as "a certain kind of ammunition?" It seemed to him that this was the suggestion. He warned the Chief Secretary for Ireland to be careful how he gave ear to temptations like these, and how he extended approbation to a scheme for sending bands of armed men into the villages of Ireland to do pretty much as they liked under the plea that they were acting in self-defence. There were already the Military, the Constabulary, the Marines, and the Navy, and it was now sought to obtain Government sanction for the Orange Emergency men. They knew what that meant in Ireland, for the name of the Orange yeomanry of former days was still regarded with horror and detestation by the people.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that it had been suggested by some speakers that the duty of the Government was to relieve owners of property from protecting their rights or defending their lives. That was a very dangerous doctrine to suggest, and he must protest against the idea that the Government was bound to relieve individuals from the duty of self-protection. It was not only the absolute right, but he believed it was the natural and primary duty of every individual to protect his own life and property. The ton. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) had predicted that great difficulties might arise from people not knowing the actual amount of force they might use. Yet the doctrine applied to every community besides Ireland, and the difficulty anticipated was not found to exist. Injury to property did not justify one man shooting another. A man might injure your property to the extent of walking over your flower-bed, but for that you must not shoot him. But if he attempted to take your life, you had a perfect right to resist even to the extent, if necessary, of taking his life. The law was very well defined on the subject. The various questions raised in that House did not affect the broad question, which was one applicable, not only to Ireland, but to every community. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had only 1406 stated the course which every individual, under every Government, was permitted to take. He had said that the Government would sanction resistance by persons whose lives or whose property was attacked. That was not sanctioning exceptional or illegal action. It was sanctioning the action which it was the right and duty of every citizen in every country and during every period to enjoy. It would be a dangerous thing to say in any community that the citizen was to give up this right of self-defence, and to become utterly inert, and leave the protection of his life and property to others. That being the view of his right hon. Friend, he could not be said to encourage civil warfare. He was only calling upon every citizen to perform his duties, and accept his own proper responsibility of discriminating as to those persons to whom he would, when their natural protection was not sufficient, give police protection. It was said that the caretakers were entitled to rely on the powers of the Executive; but it was manifestly impossible that they could rely on the Constabulary alone. In that case, it would be necessary always to maintain a military force in the particular district if there were any attempted outrages whatever. The protection should be the ordinary kind of protection given by law; and, at the same time, the caretaker should consider that the force upon which he could rely in case of emergency was not without limit. He must use his discretion, and only resort to the protection of the Executive when the ordinary protection afforded by law proved insufficient. The Government must, no doubt, do its utmost to see that the law was carried out, yet it must not unnecessarily come into conflict with the people. It must meet the necessities of each particular case as they arise, and use its discretion as to the mode of meeting those necessities. He trusted that in this difficulty his right hon. Friend would have the assistance of all loyal persons.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland of the support of all loyal citizens in all reasonable efforts for the good government of the country; but still the Government had announced a new arrangement which was the result of some change of plan in the Executive of Ireland, and they were justified 1407 in considering the circumstances which caused that change. If a change had, in fact, taken place, it might be a legitimate change if the circumstances had changed. The result, however, might be to entail a serious sense of responsibility on both sides. As he (Mr. Gibson) understood the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the question to be considered in each case was whether the circumstances were such that protection should be reasonably given or with held. It must be borne in mind that certain persons living in troubled and disturbed districts where they obtained the possession of farms owing to eviction were naturally nervous and apprehensive. They asked for assistance and met with a refusal. Of course, it was fair and reasonable for the Government to say that they would scrutinize jealously and closely every demand for assistance; but if they said to men placed in the position he had described, "You must wait until an emergency arises before we give you protection, and in the meantime you are called upon to protect yourself," they would undoubtedly place those men in a very difficult and painful position. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would sanction those men using all the powers of self-defence. That meant nothing. The ordinary Common Law of the land, without any sanction from the right hon. Gentleman, gave those men the power of defending themselves if their lives or limbs were in jeopardy. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman left them to act on their own discretion with the ordinary powers of the Common Law, and with neither encouragement nor sanction, because the sanction meant nothing, and there was no question of encouragement. He made these observations to show the grave responsibility incurred by the Government, and he was bound to say that the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not appear in the slightest degree to shrink from a due recommendation of that responsibility. The hon. and learned Attorney General for England stated that a person so left to his own discretion should solve his difficulties within the law. He (Mr. Gibson) quite recognized that. In other words, it was not in the power of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he withdrew constables or special protection, to give any power to act outside the law to those whose request for assistance he deliberately refused. 1408 But that was rather cold comfort to a man who had already warned the Executive that he expected to be threatened, and possibly to be made the subject of outrage, and had been deliberately refused protection. He again desired to indicate that the refusal of a request for protection under the exceptional circumstances which existed at present obviously entailed the serious responsibility. He admitted, that if requests of that kind had been abused, it should induce the Government to exercise caution and supervision; but it was a circumstance that should induce the Government also to be keenly alive to the grave responsibility of any such refusal.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that the observation that every citizen had a right to defend his property did not apply to a caretaker, who was not taking care of his own property; he was taking care of someone else's, and was generally put in possession alone, but sometimes two care-takers were employed together. What would be the proceedings of those caretakers under the advice recommended by the Government? They would first of all say they were in great danger, and probably would bring some of their friends in the locality, with arms, to assist them in defending themselves. But supposing their friends did come down to them at night with arms in their hands for their protection, was that a proceeding that would be sanctioned by the Government? Would not such persons be held liable by the Government for carrying arms in a proscribed district? But, if they could not get protection from their neighbours, they might do so from one of the Defence Societies—that was to say, armed labourers might be sent down, as in the case of Captain Boycott, with the sanction of the Government. The Government refused the promoters of the Boycott expedition permission to send 200 armed men, from the North into Mayo, because they thought it would lead to civil war, and they were perfectly right. But what was the difference between 200 or 300 men going to Mayo at that time, and 10 or 12 men sent now by the Property Defence Association into some remote district with rifles and revolvers, to protect men who could not obtain police protection? It surely was better to employ disciplined men rather than undisciplined men to act in such cases, for they would 1409 act with caution and under some sense of responsibility. It must be remembered that in defending places from attack at night, these non-disciplined men could not act like the members of a disciplined force; they would not venture outside the house, but would most likely open the windows and fire at anything they saw approaching; but that would be a highly dangerous mode of proceeding. Persons might come to the house at night with a perfectly innocent intention and might be shot in that manner. Another matter was this—persons taking care of caretakers in this manner might indulge in drink, and when inflamed by some sudden alarm, might they not be disposed to fire away all round them? He really thought this proposal or intention of the Government was one of the most dangerous he had heard yet. He believed it would be much cheaper and better in the end to increase the police force than to run the risk of initiating a series of petty civil wars. Proceedings on the part of caretakers would be certain to provoke acts of murder and retaliation. An Englishman living in his own house, in town or country, was in a very different position from an Irishman living in a lone country place; and to leave these persons in Ireland to take care of themselves, either with the assistance of their friends, or with the help of armed parties sent by a body like the Emergency Society, would be very injurious to the peace of that country.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, that, having already spoken, he had no right to address the House; but he would ask leave to make an explanation, because he gathered that it had been imputed to him that the suggestion of the employment of armed bodies of men other than forces under the control of the Government had been made by him. He had made no such suggestion. On the contrary, he could not imagine anything that was more likely to create civil war. He had asked for an explanation of an answer which had been given to him by a Member of the Government. In his answer the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland appeared to encourage the idea of what might be called self protection or self-defence. Now, the position of a caretaker was out) of imminent danger, and no caretaker could protect himself. He must, therefore, express his decided opinion that 1410 this matter remained in a most unsatisfactory state.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland safely returned from Ireland, where he had gone to assist in the return of his (Mr. O'Donnell's) hon. Friend the new Member for Meath. He could assure the House that there was no other Gentleman in the United Kingdom who was so capable of securing similar returns from one end of Ireland to the other. He understood he had deigned to give his sanction to the formation of parties—the "Guerillas" he believed he might call them—who were to be engaged, as the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) had justly described, in the initiation of a source of civil war in Ireland. However, those who were interested on the side of the landlords need not be alarmed on account of the sanction which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given to operations of that kind. The hon. and learned Attorney General had pointed out that every one of the Emergency men connected with those operations would be bound not to make excessive use of his power—that to reply to a trifling menace by a bullet or a volley of buckshot would not be a crime according to the Common Law, which in Ireland was no law at all under Her Majesty's Government. He (Mr. O'Donnell) begged to remind the defenders of the landlord cause in Ireland that the sanction of the Government in Ireland was quite excluded in the alarm of any excessive danger being incurred by caretakers or others who might commit "fatal mistakes" of that description, because it would always be in the power of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to move the Queen's Bench to question such inconvenient circumstances as the verdicts of wilful murder returned by coroners' juries. The other day, in the eases where Ellen M'Donagh, a girl of 20 years of age, was stamped to death, and a poor old widow of the name of Deane was shot by the Constabulary, the Government obtained from the Irish Court of Queen's Bench a conditional order quashing the verdicts of wilful murder against the constables who killed that girl and that widow. Therefore, the hon. Member for Tyrone need have no fear as to the result of the "accidents" which might arise through the convivial carousing to which he had referred. 1411 There was really no hindrance put in the way of societies or associations for the defence of property in Ireland. But the sanction of the Government would be found to be a good deal more elastic than india-rubber; and unless people also considered the sanction extended to them, and took necessary steps in self-defence against the "Guerilla" Emergency men, he was afraid there would be no end to the operations which the landlord party might have recourse to. But, looking at the matter from a Liberal point of view, if the landlord party wished to have a just and sufficient amount of protection for their operations, they should limit their operations to what was just and right. The thing that was driving all matters to a desperate pass in Ireland was the exaction of arrears. Let the landlords of Ireland take example from the landlords of England. Let them make large, just, and generous concessions in the matter of arrears accruing from bad seasons, and there would be no necessity for multiplying the number of their caretakers, and no necessity for such methods of protecting them, or for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to sanction them.
§ Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed, to.