Lords Sitting of 27 May 1867

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—National Debt* (111); Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) Act Continuance (No. 2) (114).
Committee — Criminal Law* (81); Labouring Classes Dwellings Acts (1866) Amendment* (104); British Spirits* (103).
Report—Labouring Classes Dwellings Acts (1866) Amendment* (104); British Spirits* (103).
Third Reading—Office of Judge in the Admiralty Divorce and Probate Courts (102); British White Herring Fishery * (80); Sale and Purchase of Shares * (74).

THE CONDEMNED FENIAN PRISONERS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I desire to put a Question to my noble Friend at the head of the Government with respect to a subject which, during the last few days, has painfully occupied public attention. I allude to the case of the condemned Fenian prisoners. I feel quite convinced—as I am sure your Lordships do—that their case has been considered not only with the greatest care, but with the deepest anxiety, by Her Majesty's Government, and that every argument for and against the expediency of extending the Royal prerogative of mercy to the criminals has been scrupulously weighed, and that it must have been only from an imperative and overwhelming sense of duty that after personal conversation with the Lord Lieutenant he was instructed to forbid any hope that the convict's life would be spared. Public feeling, however, has—at least so far as respects this country—become so strongly excited since that announcement was made, that it is no exaggeration to say that general and almost unanimous satisfaction was felt when it

  1099
  was known on Saturday that my noble Friend had informed the deputation of Members of Parliament which waited upon him that the arguments they had adduced in favour of mercy would be considered by the Cabinet. Now, my Lords, if the result of that consideration has been such as to justify my noble Friend in advising Her Majesty to exercise her prerogative of mercy, I am sure there would be no person who would feel more relieved at that result than my noble Friend himself, and that he would be glad to take this opportunity—the first that has presented itself—of informing us of that decision.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I can assure my noble Friend who puts this Question to me that he has not, in the slightest degree, overrated the deep anxiety which I and my Colleagues have felt in taking into consideration this most painful subject. I do not believe that any person who has never experienced the awful responsibility of deciding on the life or death of a fellow-creature can duly estimate the anxiety felt by Her Majesty's Government in dealing with this case — the pain with which they came to the conclusion that there was nothing in the circumstances of the case to justify the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, and the corresponding feeling of relief when, not only by the re-consideration of the case, but by the consideration of the general public feeling and opinion of the country, we were enabled to come to the unanimous conclusion that we were justified in advising Her Majesty to exercise Her Royal prerogative of mercy. To our united representation we received Her Majesty's gracious approval at a late hour last night. My Lords, the life of the convict Burke will therefore be spared. I am sure not one of your Lordships can rejoice more sincerely than I do that we have been enabled to come to that conclusion. We have not done so without experiencing extreme doubt and extreme difficulty. In the circumstances of the case itself we sought in vain, when we came to our decision on Wednesday last, any circumstances which might be regarded as mitigating or palliating the guilt of the unhappy convict. It is very easy to talk lightly of such matters—to say that there is little guilt in political offences, and that allowances should be made in respect of offences of that description. But, my Lords, this was no ordinary political offence—it was not a case arising out of civil war, in which
  1100
  passions and strong feelings are excited, in which interests and principles are involved, and in which all parties are bound in the end to look with tenderness upon the conduct of those who have been worsted; it was a case of unprovoked attack upon a peaceful community and of violation of the rights of hospitality which the convict enjoyed as a citizen of a friendly country. Burke was in Ireland as one of the chief organizers of a treasonable conspiracy, the criminality of which was only equalled by its absolute folly and insanity; he proposed to levy a war in Ireland, and no thanks are due to him and his fellow conspirators that the country was not deluged with blood in consequence of his acts. If, my Lords, Her Majesty's Government had not promptly met the first indications of treasonable conduct, the slightest appearance of success on the part of the malcontents might have produced a state of things the horrible results of which can be hardly conceived of. And, as it is, the course pursued by these criminal men has had the effect of creating universal panic throughout Ireland, of breaking down confidence between man and man, of subjecting a large portion of the country to loss of property, to insecurity of life, to the necessity of taking steps for self-preservation, of producing, in short, a state of things which has put back the increasing prosperity of Ireland for I know not how many years. And Burke's was no trivial offence; he was not only one of the original promoters of this conspiracy, which has been carried on for many months, but he actually appeared in arms at the head of a body of men who ventured to meet Her Majesty's troops; and the fact that no blood was shed, that no serious calamity occurred upon that occasion, is attributable only to the panic which seized his wretched followers and caused them to throw down their arms the moment the troops appeared and take refuge in flight—Burke himself being discovered concealed in the ditch of a field in which he had taken refuge. In all this I can see no palliation, no mitigating circumstances; and looking to the alarm which has been created in the country and the serious consequences attending it, and, considering the protection which peaceable subjects have a right to expect from Her Majesty's Government, we felt that we might be open to censure if we abstained from making an example—that it might lead to unfortunate results—that we might be failing in our duty if we refrained

  1101
  from giving that protection it is the duty of a Government to give—if we refrained from making a signal example of the principal offenders. We therefore, at a meeting of the Cabinet on Wednesday last, looking to the circumstances of the case alone, saw no grounds for mitigating the sentence, and with pain and reluctance, we advised Her Majesty to let the law take its course. But I* am happy—indeed, most happy—to say that between Wednesday and Saturday we received such strong representations from various quarters entitled to the highest respect that it was the almost universal feeling of the country that it would be most desirable if the prerogative of mercy were not upon this occasion withheld; we had such assurances from those who are most conversant with the feelings of the Irish people that, whereas on the one hand the infliction of extreme penalties might create terror, it would at the same time create irritation and exasperation, and, on the other hand, that, considering the complete exposure of the absolute folly and insanity of the contemplated revolt, the extension of mercy, even to this most culpable man, might have a beneficial effect upon the warm and grateful hearts of the Irish population generally. That we yielded not more from our own anxious desire to find just grounds for exercising the prerogative of mercy than from the feeling that in doing so a vindication of our conduct would not be required of us by the country. In deference, then, to a strong public feeling, and in contemplation of the beneficial results which might attend the exercise of mercy, and, on the other hand, the extreme doubtfulness of the consequences which might result from withholding it, we felt justified in expressing to Her Majesty our unanimous opinion that the prerogative of mercy should be extended even to this extreme case. We may have erred, but if we have erred in extending mercy to this criminal we have erred on the side of leniency, and on that side, I am sure, our recommendation will meet the favourable consideration of your Lordships and the indulgent approval of the country.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I can only express a hope that the saving of the life of this great criminal will not materially add to the dangers which always surround the lives of the good and loyal among Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, in
  1102
  the observations I have made I omitted to state that subsequent to the determination of Her Majesty's Government we received a letter from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland stating the feeling that prevailed in that country, and conveying his strong recommendation that we should advise Her Majesty to spare the criminal.
  LORD INCHIQUINaddressed some observations to their Lordships which were inaudible.

OFFICE OF JUDGE IN THE ADMIRALTY, DIVORCE, AND PROBATE COURT BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
OFFICE OF JUDGE IN THE ADMIRALTY, DIVORCE, AND PROBATE COURT BILL.

  (NO. 102.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD CRANWORTH, in rising to move an Amendment that the Bill be read a third time that day six months, said, that the proposal to create two new Judges for these Courts was founded partly upon the ground that the business had of late years greatly increased, and partly on the ground that the duties of the learned Judges presiding over these Courts would become heavier in consequence of certain Bills in course of progress through the other House. At the earlier stages of the Bill he (Lord Cranworth) suggested that the Bill should be postponed until the measures referred to were before their Lordships, so that they might both be considered at the same time; and to this his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) consented. About a fortnight since, however, his noble and learned Friend informed him that there were reasons why the Bill should be immediately proceeded with. Those reasons were not to be found on the face of the Bill itself, but arose from the fact that the arrangements on the Northern Circuit were unequal to the business. His noble and learned Friend, taking that circumstance into account, inserted a clause in Committee, providing that the two puisne Judges of this Court should also be two of Her Majesty's Judges of assize; so that the object of the alteration in the present system was not that the two new Judges should act in the Probate and Admiralty Courts, but that they should assist in the administration of the law on circuit. He (Lord Cranworth) now proposed to state to their Lordships his objection to the provisions of the Bill. Its avowed purpose,

  1103
  in the first place, was to increase the strength of the Probate and Admiralty Courts in order to constitute a high Court, whose proceedings were to be governed by the civil law, and where, as his noble and learned Friend believed, important inter national questions might be decided with advantage. He (Lord Cranworth) knew that there were arrears in the business of the Divorce Court; but that was not the case in the Court of Admiralty, which was presided over by a Judge of whom no man could be more inclined than he was to speak with the highest respect. That there were no arrears in that Court, however, was said to arise from the fact that during the last five years the learned Judge who presided over that Court had sat the high average of eighteen or eighteen and a half weeks during each year. But, still, it could not be maintained that eighteen weeks were sufficient to exhaust the judicial mind; and unless it was shown that the arrears were such in the Divorce, Probate, and Admiralty Courts—were such that they could not be kept down by an addition to the sittings of seventeen or eighteen weeks a year, no case could be made out for the appointment of a fresh Judge to these Courts. How was the time of the Judges of the Courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer apportioned? The regular sittings in London and Westminster lasted altogether about twenty-five weeks, and the circuits occupied an additional ten weeks, making altogether thirty-five weeks during which the Judges were engaged either in banco or at Nisi Prius. Was it, then, impossible so to re-distribute the judicial duties as to enable the work now in arrear to be performed with an un-augmented staff of Judges? An increase in the number of Judges would be in itself an evil; for the multiplication of Judges invariably led to a multiplication of appeals and uncertainty of law. He proposed to show that the present staff of Judges might do all that his noble and learned Friend proposed to accomplish. The sittings in banco of the Common Law Courts occupied thirteen weeks, and during this time there were four Judges sitting in each Court. Now, he was perfectly convinced that the fourth Judge did no good; but, on the contrary, produced an evil effect. When there was a Chief with two subordinate Judges sitting one on each side of him, it was very easy to collect the minds of all three; but the fourth Judge necessarily sat outside; it was more difficult
  1104
  to communicate with him, and he became an impediment rather than an assistance. If this were so there were during thirteen weeks of the year one Judge in each of the three Courts at disposal for other work, and what he would propose was that these three Judges should be made the means of clearing up all arrears of business upon the circuits. It had been suggested that such an arrangement as he proposed would be inconvenient for counsel; but the duty of their Lordships was to provide an adequate judicial staff, and not to consider the convenience of counsel. But whatever difficulty there was in existence at present, he thought that the present proposal would create very much greater difficulty. His noble and learned Friend proposed to constitute an important Court which would be governed by the principles of the civil law; but if he should succeed in doing this, in what sort of a predicament would he be in? Inconsequence of his proposal for employing the Judges on circuit, the Admiralty, Divorce, and Probate Courts would be left with only one Judge during ten of the business weeks of the year; and much of the business of the Admiralty Court was of a kind that required to be instantly attended to, and very serious consequences would arise from two of the proposed Judges being on circuit. These were his reasons for thinking that there was no necessity for having additional Judges, and that very great evil would arise from adopting the course proposed in the noble and learned Lord's Bill. He further thought that his noble and learned Friend had a great opportunity for taking a step which it was most desirable should be taken; but he was sorry that the step which he proposed to take was in the contrary direction. They had heard much of the great advantage which would arise from a fusion of our systems of law and equity. He himself had always been timid in reference to this question, and thought that the evils of the existing system were exaggerated; but his noble and learned Friend proposed to constitute a Court which should remain apart, and which he thought might well be brought in union with the Common Law Courts. Whatever difficulty there might be in a fusion of the Law and Equity Courts, there could be no difficulty in conferring upon this new Court the same jurisdiction as was possessed by the other Courts in Westminster Hall. His noble and learned Friend talked of the civil law being administered in the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty

  1105
  Courts; but the truth was that four-fifths of the law now administered there was not the civil law, but was regulated by statute. What question was there brought before these Courts that was not fit to be determined in either of the three other Courts? In cases of divorce the question to be tried was one of fact; questions as to wills were often brought before the Common Law Courts; and with regard to the Admiralty Court, there was a little difference of practice between it and the other Courts which it was expedient should be got rid of. The Admiralty and the Common Law Courts had concurrent jurisdiction in many matters; for instance, in cases of collision at sea; but the result in one Court might be different from what it was in the other. By the common law a person could not recover unless he showed that there had been no contributory negligence on his part; but the law was different in the Admiralty Court; and this, to his mind, was a very scandalous state of things, which he should have been glad to see his noble and learned Friend try to remedy. In these Courts there might be some few rules not derived from the common law; but this could occasion no difficulty. His noble and learned Friend himself had frequently practised as an advocate and had presided as a Judge in the Privy Council, before which causes were brought up from almost every Court practising almost every code of jurisprudence on earth. He had now stated his reasons for objecting to the propositions of his noble and learned Friend's Bill, and trusted he had justified himself before their Lordships in proposing that it be read a second time that day six months.
  An Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Six Months.")—(The Lord Cranworth.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had not the slightest intention of making any complaint as to the lateness of the period when his noble and learned Friend offered this active opposition to the Bill. His noble and learned Friend had very fairly and correctly stated the circumstances under which the delay had taken place, and the only question their Lordships had to determine was whether the opposition now offered at this last stage of the Bill was well-founded or not. He must say, with very great respect to his noble and learned Friend, that he thought h*e had taken a much too narrow view of this question, and that if he had extended
  1106
  his consideration to all the objects it was proposed to gain, he was quite sure his candid mind would have come to a different conclusion. He was anxious as shortly and clearly as he could to explain to their Lordships the grounds upon which, after careful and deliberate consideration, he had felt it to be his duty to propose the measure he now offered for the acceptance of Parliament. The question of the union of the three Courts of Admiralty, Probate, and Divorce had been already under the consideration of Parliament. In the year 1857, when the Probate Court was constituted, there was a clause introduced into the Bill that, in the event of a vacancy in the Judgeship of the Court of Admiralty, the Judge of the Court of Probate should become the Judge of that Court. In the next Session the Divorce Court was established, and the Judge of the Probate Court was made the Judge Ordinary of that Court; therefore it was in contemplation of the Legislature that the three Courts of Admiralty, Probate, and Divorce should be united under one head. There had been a very considerable miscalculation as to the amount of business to be disposed of in those three Courts, and he hardly considered that his noble and learned Friend would find it would be possible for one Judge to dispose of it. Soon after he became Chancellor his attention was called to the state of the different Courts, and the necessity of introducing some improvements in the administration of justice. At the beginning of the present year his right hon. and learned Friend Dr. Lushington, who had so long presided, with the greatest ability, in the Court of Admiralty, intimated to him his desire to resign his office; and it was due to his right hon. and learned Friend to say that he only consented to delay his resignation that he might not by his retirement interfere with any arrangements it might be thought necessary to make. The occasion therefore was about to arise which had been contemplated by the Legislature, and when he had to consider whether it would not be possible to carry out their intention by the union of the three Courts of Admiralty, Probate, and Divorce under one head, he was perfectly satisfied, from the information he had collected, as to the rapidly increasing business of all these Courts, that it would be quite impossible satisfactorily to administer justice in them unless a very different provision was made for its administration than that which the

  1107
  Legislature had contemplated. In glancing over the whole subject, which was a very large one, and considering what was the best way of providing for the administration of justice, he had, in the first place, to provide for the rapidly increasing business in the Admiralty, the Probate, and the Divorce Courts; he had to meet a demand, under circumstances he would explain presently, for additional Judges, and also to provide some assistance to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This latter matter, which appeared now to be entirely overlooked by his noble and learned Friend, although at an earlier period it had not escaped his attention, he considered to be of the most vital importance. Their Lordships were aware that that tribunal had for a long time been held in very high repute, and he believed that this great reputation had been owing in a very great degree to the constant, unremitting attendance and ability of his noble and learned Friend Lord Kingsdown. His noble and learned Friend had for many years constantly attended that Court, and he had certainly raised it in the estimation of the country. In earlier times the Judge of the Prerogative Court and the Judge of the Admiralty Court were constant attendants at the Privy Council; and it was very important that Judges of that description should be members of the Privy Council, because from the peculiar nature of the business brought before that tribunal it was essential they should be conversant with maritime, testamentary, and matrimonial causes. When Dr. Lushington was appointed in 1838 to the office of Judge of the Court of Admiralty it was upon the express condition, or at least upon the understanding, that he should constantly attend the Judicial Committee of the Council. For twenty-five years that learned Judge scrupulously and punctually did his duty in that respect; but for the last two or three years, his attendance had only been occasional and rare. With respect to the Judge of the Prerogative Court, his place might be considered to have been supplied by the Judge of the Probate and Divorce Court; but there was so much business to transact in this latter Court, that the present Judge of the Court had never been able to attend the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Consequently, the state of business in the Privy Council was such as to occasion uneasiness as to its proper discharge. The Lords Justices, who were important
  1108
  members of the Judicial Committee, were so overwhelmed with the business in their own Court that they were unable to give much attendance at the Privy Council, and the consequence was that there existed an absolute necessity to provide a permanent member—a high judicial functionary of that particular description he had pointed out—to attend at all the meetings of the Judicial Committee. That he considered to be the most important object of the present Bill. In this state of things the problem he had to solve was how to meet, in the best manner, all the demands for the improvement of the administration of justice; and he confessed that he desired to take advantage of the opportunity afforded of constituting a Court of high character and dignity, which, deciding on the principles of civil and International Law, should attract to it a bar trained to the study of that department of jurisprudence. He was of opinion that the public and the profession had not profited by the absorption of the Advocates of Doctors' Commons into the general body of the profession. The training of the Common Lawyers and of the Advocates was of a totally different character. The training of the Advocates of Doctors' Commons was mainly founded on the principle of civil and International Law; and when their Lordships reflected that out of that body had always been selected the Queen's Advocate, whose responsible office it was to advise the Foreign Office on business in which important principles of International Law were frequently involved, he confessed he felt some apprehension when he attempted to devise how that office was to be filled hereafter—he feared that in consequence of the change which had been made, in future years there would rarely be found a lawyer duly qualified for that responsible duty. Moreover, he thought that by constituting a Court of this description, those questions of International Law which arose from time to time and were of extreme difficulty, would be decided by a tribunal which would obtain the respect and confidence of foreign countries. In the Admiralty and Divorce Courts it constantly happened that there was occasion for the assistance of an additional Judge. In the Admiralty Court the witnesses were seafaring men, who, being of migratory habits, could not be detained in this country until a case came on for hearing. Therefore, the cases in which they were witnesses must be delayed for their attendance, or the examination of the

  1109
  witnesses must be taken before an Examiner, which was a most inconvenient mode of taking evidence. It was most desirable, therefore, to devise means by which this inconvenience would be removed. According to the present Bill two Judges would be able to sit in Admiralty cases, and thus all the delay and inconvenience would be avoided. So also with reference to the Divorce Court. It constantly happened that days were appointed for taking special jury cases, and the common jury cases had to stand over until these had been disposed of; but it could not be known when these would be called on, and a memorial had been presented to the Judge of the Court, from solicitors in the country, pointing out the expense incurred in being obliged to bring up their witnesses under the expectation that their causes might come on, and then being obliged, in consequence of the special jury cause lasting longer than they had anticipated, to return again to the country with them; and this would sometimes occur two or three times over. That was an occasion when an additional Judge would be of the greatest service—one Judge trying special jury causes, while another was engaged in trying common jury causes. Then, with regard to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that tribunal might be assisted by the Chief Judge of the united Court of Admiralty, Probate, and Divorce, while the two other Judges were sitting for the despatch of Admiralty, Probate, and Divorce causes; and he meant to require that the learned Chief Judge should be a constant member of the Judicial Committee. His noble and learned Friend adverted to the business in the Court of Admiralty; but he never seemed to take into account the business in the Probate and Divorce Court, for which the present Bill provided. He would not trouble their Lordships with statistics, but would content himself with saying that in the Probate and Divorce Court there was an arrear of 195 causes—namely, thirty causes in probate and 165 divorce causes. He wished to point out to his noble and learned Friend, who said that there was no need for two additional Judges, that he only proposed to make one. There would be the Judge of the Admiralty Court and the present Judge of the Probate Court, together with a third Judge additional, but not two Judges additional. His noble and learned Friend was not always of opinion that no additional assistance was ne-
  1110
  cessary in the Probate and Divorce Court. At the end of last Session his noble and learned Friend laid on their Lordships' table a Bill intituled "An Act for facilitating the proceedings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and of the Court of Probate and Divorce." He (the Lord Chancellor) took it for granted that that Bill was presented after due and careful deliberation, and it declared that whereas the business of the Judicial Committee had greatly increased since its first institution, it was expedient to make better provision: for the due discharge of that business, and also to make provision for the more speedy discharge of the business in the Probate and Divorce Court. His noble and learned Friend proposed by that Bill to take a Judge from one of the Superior Courts of Common Law who had served for ten years, allowing him to retire on the pension to which he might be entitled after fifteen years' service, and to add to that income a salary of £1,500 a year. This Judge was to be constituted Vice President of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and, as far as consistent with the discharge of his duties connected with the Judicial Committee, he was to assist the Judge of the Probate and Divorce Court. He (the Lord Chancellor), under those circumstances, was, he thought, justified in saying that his noble and learned Friend had proposed to create an additional Judge, and that he held the opinion that it was absolutely necessary to provide further assistance for the due disposal of the business in the Court of Probate and Divorce. He must, however, observe that he did not very much approve the ambulatory Judge suggested by his noble and learned Friend; but he had referred to his proposal on the subject simply to show that he had not always maintained that the Probate and Divorce Court stood in need of no assistance, or that the services of an additional Judge might not with advantage be secured. Passing from the Bill of the noble and learned Lord—who was, of course, perfectly entitled to change his views upon the matter—he would point out to the House how important it was that a full Court of Divorce should be obtained by means such as those which he had submitted to its consideration. When questions of law had to be decided in that Court the Judge Ordinary was, under the existing system, in order to constitute a full Court, obliged to borrow two Judges from the Courts of Common Law. Now,

  1111
  those Judges had already quite enough to do, and it was very inconvenient to them to attend in the Divorce Court on such occasions, while they laboured under the disadvantage of not being intimately acquainted with its decisions and practice. If, then, he could secure, by means of three Judges, as he proposed, a full Court of Probate and Divorce, the result would be, he thought, the constitution of a far more satisfactory tribunal. He need not, perhaps, go further for the purpose of making it clear to their Lordships that he had upon the whole adopted the course which was most convenient and advantageous, with the view to providing for the various demands which were made for the due administration of justice. There was, however, another point which deserved to be taken into account in dealing with the question. He had on a former occasion pointed out that the business on the Northern Circuit had increased to such an extent that it far exceeded the powers of the Judges of Assize to dispose of it. He had stated that at every circuit cases were left untried, and that many had to be submitted to a reference, which was, as a general rule, a very unsatisfactory mode of decision. That being so, he found it was essential that the Northern Circuit should be divided. As a consequence of that division it became necessary that the services of two additional Judges should be secured, and he entertained the idea that he might make the Judges of the Court which he proposed to establish available in that respect. His noble and learned Friend seemed to think that would not be the best plan for providing for the wants of the new Circuit, and that it was not desirable that Judges who must be held as being conversant rather with international and civil than common law should be in-trusted with the administration of the latter. He must, however, for his own part, confess that he thought considerable advantage would accrue from the fact that those Judges would be afforded an opportunity of keeping themselves on a footing with the common law, and that their minds should not be allowed to run, as it were, in one groove. They would, under the operation of his scheme, be able to mix on circuit with common law lawyers, and would bring back to their Court a knowledge of a branch of their profession different from that whose principles they were generally engaged in expounding. The point was one, he might
  1112
  add, on which he had deemed it right to take the opinions of the Judges of the Superior Courts of Common Law, and they had suggested that the difficulties of the case might be obviated by the addition of two Judges to those Courts. When, however, he came to deal with the necessity of supplying the want created by the division of the Northern Circuit, he felt it would be a mode of proceeding which it would be very inexpedient to adopt to add two Judges to the Superior Courts of Common Law; because, although they might very well do the work of the circuit, they would be a superfluous increase of the strength of those Courts in London. He might further remark that he entirely concurred with his noble and learned Friend in the opinion that three Judges were a better number to sit in banco than four. A curious mistake, indeed, very generally prevailed as to the number of which, when sitting in banco, the Court should be constituted. In the marginal abstract of the Act on the subject, it was set forth that the Judges should sit in rotation, and not less than three when the Court sat in banco; but in the body of the clause it was provided that no greater number than three puisne Judges should sit in banco unless in the absence of the Chief Justice or the Chief Baron, in which case four puisne Judges might sit—the object being to prevent five Judges sitting at the same time—the Judges themselves, in fact, had power to reduce the number ordinarily sitting in banco; and it seemed to him, after having duly weighed the matter, that to give two additional Judges to the Superior Courts was a proceeding which was wholly unnecessary. His noble and learned Friend, having objected to his scheme, had very naturally felt himself called upon to substitute for it some other plan; but the plan which he proposed was, if he understood it correctly—merely a repetition of that which he had already suggested, which was the creation of occasional circuits to which the Judges might go whenever their services were required, to be followed by the bar, who would thus be very inconveniently withdrawn from other business. Now, that was a plan which he did not think would find much favour with their Lordships, or with the profession at large. But, then, his noble and learned Friend argued that the Court of Admiralty and the Court of Probate and Divorce might be fused with the Superior Courts of Common Law, and a grand scheme thus

  1113
  carried into effect. It was, however, all very well to suggest such a scheme, but then it was one which was surrounded with great difficulties, and to the accomplishment of which he did not clearly see his way. If his noble and learned Friend would tell him how it was to be accomplished he should be glad to give his proposals due consideration, and, if possible, to carry them out with his assistance. Entertaining, however, as he did, no hope whatsoever at the present moment of the feasibility of such a plan, and holding also the opinion that it was desirable to keep separate the peculiar business of the Admiralty, the Probate and Divorce Courts, and the Superior Courts of Common Law, he had come to the conclusion that he could submit to the notice of the House no better scheme than that which was embodied in the Bill under discussion, which he trusted would obtain their Lordships' sanction.
  On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 86; Not-Contents 40: Majority 46:—Resolved in the Affirmative.

  CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor).

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Beaufort, D.

  Manvers, E.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Nelson, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Stanhope, E.

  Rutland, D.

  Tankerville, E.

  Verulam, E.

  Ailsa, M.

  Wilton, E.

  Bath, M.

  Bristol, M.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Hill, V.

  Bandon, E.

  Templetown, V.

  Bantry, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Belmore, E.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Bradford, E.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Brownlow, E.

  Cawdor, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Blayney, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Derby, E.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Devon, E.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Cairns, L.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Churston, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Colonsay, L.

  Erne, E.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Delamere, L.

  Home, E.

  Denman, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  De Ros, L.

  1114

  De Saumarez, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Digby, L.

  Rollo, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Feversham, L.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Sherborne, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Sondes, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Lytton, L.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Penhryn, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cleveland, D.

  Halifax, V.

  Devonshire, D.

  Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Sydney, V.

  Somerset, D.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Normanby, M.

  Belper, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Cranworth, L. [Teller.]

  Camperdown, E.

  Dacre, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Cowper, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Keane, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Granville, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Grey, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Morley, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Powis, E.

  Stratheden, L.

  Russell, E.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Sommers, E.

  Taunton, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Vernon, L.

  Bill read 3a accordingly; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION (IRELAND) ACT CONTINUANCE (No. 2) BILL.
(The Earl of Derby.)
HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION (IRELAND) ACT CONTINUANCE (No. 2) BILL.

  (NO. 114.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, in moving the second reading of this Bill I will not waste your Lordships' time by attempting to impress on your minds the absolute necessity of again passing it. I make the Motion with a feeling of great reluctance, and yet at the same time under a paramount sense of duty. I believe that under the present circumstances of Ireland none of your Lordships will have the slightest hesitation in agreeing to this Motion. If the other House of Parliament, which is regarded as the peculiar

  1115
  guardian of the liberties of the people, has without a single dissentient voice felt this measure, which under different circumstances might have been an improper abridgment of those liberties, to be absolutely necessary, I think your Lordships will readily deem it one which is indispensable to the protection of the loyal and well-disposed population of Ireland. It is absolutely essential for that purpose that the Government should be armed with the powers given them by this Bill; still I am bound to say that, in my opinion, if we had only the resident Irish population to deal with there would be no necessity for the introduction of this measure. It is rendered necessary by reason of the evil-disposed persons who, resident in other countries, have for a long time past been carrying on their organization and preparing their schemes for the purpose of exciting disturbances in Ireland, who keep that country in a perpetual state of ferment, and prevent the restoration of peace and tranquillity there. And in order to obtain protection against those persons, who come over to Ireland for such mischievous purposes, I believe all the well-disposed people of that country will gladly make a temporary sacrifice of the valued liberties secured by the Habeas Corpus Act.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Derby.)
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I have no doubt as to the vote I ought to give on this question. I have no doubt that, as the noble Earl states, it is necessary, in order to check this conspiracy, that the powers conferred by this Bill should be continued to the Government for a further period. I also think that the manner in which the Act of a similar character passed at the beginning of this Session has been carried into effect does the greatest credit to the moderation as well as to the vigilance of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland, and I have no doubt that what has been done has prevented the Fenian conspiracy from growing to a greater height. I was glad to hear at an earlier hour this evening that the noble Earl and his Colleagues have advised Her Majesty to spare the life of the convict Burke. I think that, after the exercise of clemency towards those persons who were lately found guilty of high treason in Canada, it would have been quite impossible, consistently with principle or with policy, to have executed the
  1116
  extreme penalty of the law against the convict Burke in Ireland. I regret only that the noble Earl should, as appears in the newspapers, have stated to a deputation the strong opinion entertained by the Cabinet, and more especially that he should have mentioned the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland as having given an opinion in favour of carrying out the extreme sentence of the law on Burke. I think it would have been better if the noble Earl had refrained from giving any opinion in regard to what had been already decided on by the Cabinet. I cannot leave this question, however, without saying that I entirely concur in the opinions that were expressed last Session by my noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, that the nature of this conspiracy, the extensive discontent which prevailed, and the sympathy which is shown for the offenders, make it incumbent upon Parliament to consider, as soon as time and opportunity shall serve, whether, at this time, sixty-six years since the Union, we cannot find some measures by which the mind and heart of the people of Ireland can be conciliated by us and brought in unison with this country. There are two great questions to be considered. With reference to the question of landlord and tenant in Ireland, with regard to which a passage in the Queen's Speech laid down the true principle for a settlement, I would suggest that, as it is not a party question, the late and present Chief Secretaries of Ireland might come to some agreement upon the subject, and secure the enactment of a satisfactory measure. There is also another and perhaps a graver question, and that is the question of the Church in Ireland. It excites feelings of the deepest animosity, and I am persuaded you can never expect the Roman Catholic population to be really attached to their Government unless what they deem justice is done to them in that respect. I speak merely of the general fact; I am sure there are no better clergy in the world than the clergy of Ireland; but, although they attend in the most exemplary manner to their duties, their position is one of peculiar difficulty, inasmuch as the whole of the endowments collected for the clergy of the country go to support the clergy of 700,000 people, while the Roman Catholic priests, the clergy of 4,500,000, receive none of those emoluments. That is a state of things which does not exist in any country in Europe—I may say in the world. It is a

  1117
  state of things which promotes discontent, and naturally so; and is calculated to excite the wonder of every Government in Europe. I will, on some future day, bring forward the question of the application of the revenues of the Established Church in Ireland; but at present I will content myself with giving my cordial assent to the Bill now before the House.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My noble Friend who has last spoken did not advert to one point, which should not, I think, pass unnoticed. Although I agree that the conduct of the Government, in dealing with the Fenian conspiracy, merits the entire approval of Parliament, and their general conduct in respect of the government of Ireland is one which your Lordships will not condemn, still I think there is one point upon which they have not exercised the same discretion as in other matters. It was natural that the Government should desire to terminate the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland, and no doubt they announced their intention not to ask Parliament for a renewal of the Act, by the paragraph in Her Majesty's Speech, with the very best of motives. At the time that announcement was made to us, I could not venture, from want of information as a private Member of your Lordships' House, to express an opinion as to the expediency of the course pursued by the Government; but since that time we have become possessed of information which was in the hands of the Government at the time Parliament was opened, and which, in my opinion, should have led them to see that it was not safe or expedient to declare that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act could not be continued. For, if I am rightly informed, not only were they aware that a conspiracy was being carried on in Ireland, but that persons from Belgium, as well as the United States, were engaged in it; they were also aware that the conspiracy was widespread and far from at an end. It was said that the Government had been enabled to place under control almost all those from whom danger was to be apprehended; but the obvious answer to that is that the Government, by not continuing the suspension of the Act, were depriving themselves of the very weapon that had produced that good result. If the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act had been discontinued, not only would those who had been imprisoned under its provisions have been liberated, but many of the chief promoters
  1118
  of the conspiracy, who had placed themselves in security in England—Liverpool being the head-quarters and the place where the conspiracy was carried on—it was obvious that if the suspension should be discontinued these persons would have returned to Ireland and continued their dangerous proceedings. That, indeed, is exactly what occurred. Many of the Fenian conspirators were under the impression that the Suspension Act had actually expired, and, returning to Ireland, commenced operations; with what deplorable results we are all acquainted. The course the Government pursued is the more to be regretted as, soon after their announcement was made, the Government found themselves obliged to ask Parliament to re-enact the measure. I also feel constrained to refer again to the imprudence of the late Attorney General for Ireland. I must say that the speech he made to his constituents had far too much the character of a popularity-hunting speech, made for the purpose of gaining the applause of the moment; but it led me to think that the course the Government then pursued was not as well considered as it should have been. I cannot but think it was a matter of great satisfaction to the noble Earl, when he was able to find a place for the right hon, and learned Gentleman in a calmer sphere, where popular speeches are not necessary. With regard to the conspiracy, I must say that I see no cause for modifying the opinion which I expressed last year. I am perfectly ready to admit, however, that to some extent the rural population have shown that they are not easily led away; and that is a cause of great satisfaction to me; although many sympathize with the malcontents, yet it is obvious, from the events which have taken place, that unless the conspirators meet with greater success than they are likely to obtain they will not probably be joined by any large number of the country people. I agree, however, with the noble Earl who preceded me (Earl Russell) that what is now occurring in Ireland should make us seriously reflect upon the future of that country. The state of Ireland is not merely one of difficulty; it has become one of danger to us. I in no way do-sire that Parliament should act under an impression of fear: happily the position of this country is such that we need not act under any such emotion; but, at the same time, it is but wise and prudent to prepare for possible dangers, for there is

  1119
  no doubt that if danger should become imminent Ireland will be a source of very serious embarrassment to us. I find no fault with the Government for not having brought forward a comprehensive measure with regard to Ireland this Session; they have already in their hands a measure of the first magnitude in this Reform Bill; but I trust that if they continue to hold the reins of power, they will, in some future Session, look the difficulty of the situation fairly in the face and meet it completely, We may rely upon it that we look too much upon Ireland with English eyes; we naturally have our own feelings, opinions, and principles, and we cannot persuade ourselves that it is impossible to induce the people of Ireland to look upon questions from our point of view. That seems to me to be to some extent the key of our difficulty, and to have been the great evil in our legislation during a long course of years. We must endeavour to deal with Ireland from the same point of view as the people of Ireland themselves look at it. My noble Friend (Earl Russell) has referred to some other points. I shall not on this occasion enter into either of those questions; but I am thoroughly convinced that it is necessary Parliament should by legislation endeavour to remove the irritation which, rightly or wrongly, pervades a large portion of the people of Ireland, and until that is done, we shall never be able to dispense with measures of this kind—measures which I am sure every one of your Lordships deeply regrets.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEregarded the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in this instance as a melancholy necessity, which he for one would not take the responsibility of opposing. He should have been well content to have remained silent this evening but for the remarks of his noble Friend (Earl Russell), who had coupled with the subject of the Fenians questions which ought to be dealt with separately, and with which the Fenians had nothing whatever to do. Indeed, the questions to which his noble Friend had alluded were just the very ones which, in his opinion, the Fenian leaders least of all desired to see settled. Nobody knowing anything of Ireland could pretend that discontent did not exist in that country; but that discontent had nothing whatever to do with any of the treasonable attempts which had been made to overthrow the Queen's authority, and to set up, not a republican,
  1120
  or, indeed, any other form of government, but simply to create anarchy and confusion. The noble Earl had truly said that these disturbances were entirely organized abroad, and his noble Friend had gone even further in stating that they were fostered not only by persons in the United States, but by the revolutionists of other countries also. Why, then, should Fenianism be so frequently associated with questions in which persons living in Ireland were the only ones interested? He had read with pleasure the paragraph in the Queen's Speech in which a hope of being able to dispense with the measure they were now engaged in discussing was held out. He could not, however, see that blame was to be attached to any one because those hopes had not been realized. Any calculations as to the probable conduct of the Fenians must, of course, have been based on the presumption that the leaders were sane; and, whatever might be the case now, some few months since an attempt such as had been made by the Fenians would not have been thought possible except from madmen. There could be no doubt that much discontent existed in Ireland because many believed that not sufficient distinction was made between the loyal and the disloyal, and that not sufficient protection was afforded to those who deserved it. To prevent the renewal of these disturbances it was not enough to have ample constabulary supervision and the services of stipendiary magistrates. It was also necessary that a better feeling should be cultivated between the people and the Government, and that more encouragement should be given to the loyal and well disposed, than had hitherto been the case. At present it was a matter of reasonable complaint that where arms were taken away from the inhabitants all were treated alike; and this want of discrimination naturally left the loyal and peaceable inhabitants at the mercy of, or, at all events, exposed to the disloyal, whose arms were secreted, and who might attack the lives and property of their better disposed neighbours at times and at seasons when little or no defence could be offered. No doubt the questions to which his noble Friend had referred ought to receive attention; but, when considered, they ought to be dealt with, not as affecting disturbances engaged in by rebels, filibusters, and freebooters, but with a view of giving satisfaction and contentment to the people of the whole country.
  THE EARL OF BANDONentirely agreed with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) that the questions of land tenure and the Irish Church had nothing whatever to do with Fenianism. Of ninety persons apprehended in his county last under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act there were not five who were connected with agricultural pursuits; and, in fact, the outbreak had taken place in the most prosperous parts of the county of Cork. If ever the noble Earl opposite brought forward the Church question, he (the Earl of Bandon) should be prepared to defend that Church. But he would ask, why had the noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) never attempted to deal with the question during the many years he had been in power? The noble Earl the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had blamed the present Government for want of firmness and discretion; but having had ample opportunity of watching the manner in which the Government of that country had been conducted during the late disturbances, he could bear testimony to the ability and forbearance which had been exhibited by the noble Marquess at the head of the Government in Ireland, and by the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he would be sorry were it supposed that he had intended to impute any want of firmness or discretion to the Irish Government. On the contrary, what he had said was that they had acted with great wisdom and firmness, except upon one point.
  THE EARL OF BANDONsaid, he had not intended to do more than to point out that the noble Earl had found fault with the Government of Ireland for having stated in the Speech from the Throne that they did not intend to continue the Habeas Corpus Act. The noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland explained the other night that the Government, when they inserted that paragraph in the Queen's Speech, were under the impression that the conspiracy had been crushed, and that they had not intended to apply for a renewal of the suspension of that Act until their eyes had been opened as to the true state of affairs by what had transpired at certain meetings held at New York. If the noble Earl were to consult the feelings of the great majority of the people of Ireland he would find that they were in favour, not of the measures to which he had pointed, and which were likely to stir up discord
  1122
  between class and class, but of measures which were calculated to develop the resources and promote the prosperity of the country.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not follow the opinions or the advice of the two noble Lords who had just spoken, or would believe that Fenianism had nothing to do with the discontent which existed in Ireland. He quite agreed with the opinion expressed by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) that Fenianism had no wish to re-model the Irish Church, and was equally opposed to the Protestant and Catholic Churches; and it was also true that it had no care for the land tenure question. What he contended for was, that it was the latent discontent which existed in Ireland — and which the noble Earl had admitted—that attracted the attention of the leaders of those abominable proceedings, and it was therefore the bounden duty of the Irish Government to use their best energies to do away with the grievances from which that discontent arose.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHhoped the Government would not take the advice which the noble Earl had just given them. The noble Earl had attributed the discontent which existed in Ireland to the questions of the Established Church and the land tenure. The fact was that Ireland was in an almost chronic state of discontent, but that discontent owed its origin to the existence of an alien Government which was not always a good Government. The repeated confiscations that had taken place under Oliver Cromwell and King William III., had created an irritation in the minds of the people which was not yet allayed. The idea of the Irish people was that the land was held by aliens who had deprived the rightful owners of it; and, in consequence, both the proprietorship of land by Protestant landlords and the Protestant Church were believed by them to be the ties which bound Ireland to England, and that if those ties could be broken the separation of the two countries could easily be effected. The feeling on the part of the Irish people was not one of dissatisfaction with the Church or the land question but of hostility to this country. He therefore trusted that the Government would bear in mind that any concession upon these points would not only not remove discontent but would lead to renewed demands and fresh agitation.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, while I willingly acknowledge the testimony that has been borne by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) and by the noble Earl the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as to the lenient manner in which the powers vested in the Irish Government by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act have been exercised, there are one or two points made by both the noble Earls to which, out of respect to them, I feel bound to advert. The only point upon which the noble Earl at the head of the late Government expressed an opinion did not refer to the conduct of the Government with regard to the Fenian conspiracy, but to the statement I am supposed to have made a few days ago in reference to the convict Burke. The noble Earl appears to think that I stated upon that occasion that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and the learned Judge who tried the case—
  EARL RUSSELL: I beg the noble Earl's pardon—I did not refer to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. I said the name of the Lord Chancellor was mentioned unnecessarily.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: If I mentioned the name of the Lord Chancellor, I referred to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland—not of England. Of course, it was unnecessary to name my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, he being a prominent Member of Her Majesty's Government, and of necessity consulted on such a question. What I did say was, that we had not come to this conclusion without the utmost care and deliberation; but after consultation with the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, after hearing the opinion of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and after referring the matter to the Judges by whom Burke was tried. I did not refer in the slightest degree to any personal opinion expressed, or supposed to have been expressed, by any one of these as to the propriety of carrying out the sentence. I only stated that we came to the conclusion after hearing all that was said by the Lord Lieutenant, the Lord Chancellor, and the Judges. Further than that I did not go; and I think, when the Cabinet was in favour of carrying out the sentence, your Lordships will, I am sure, agree with me that under the circumstances it would have been most imprudent in me to hold out any expectation that the sentence would be commuted, or throw any doubt on the question of the sentence being car-
  1124
  ried out until I had a further opportunity of consulting my Colleagues on the point, because that would have raised hopes which might not have been justified by the result. My Lords, the only point, I think, on which the noble Earl the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland found fault with us was that we had entertained a hope at the commencement of the Session that we should be enabled to dispense with the renewal of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act. He says that at the time we inserted that paragraph in the Queen's Speech we had information in our possession, and must have had for months, which proved that the conspiracy was still going on, and he added that the conspiracy was not headed by Irishmen, but was fostered by American, Belgian, and Italian leaders.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I did not mention any Italian.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: The fact is that long subsequent to the renewal of the Act in February we received information that there were one Belgian and one Italian engaged in the conspiracy; but at the time of the Queen's Speech, to the best of my belief, we had no knowledge of any European foreigners having taken part in the conspiracy, the only parties known being citizens of the United States. But when the noble Earl says we made a very hasty announcement in the Queen's Speech, I have this to say—that we had certainly obtained information during the months of September, October, and November which enabled us to arrest a considerable number of the leading conspirators—and those only did we arrest—and the result of the measures we had taken and the experience and the information we possessed was that the conspiracy had completely collapsed. Many of those who had been connected with it, but had not been placed under arrest, and the whole thing had apparently so entirely collapsed, that we entertained a very sanguine and, we considered, a very well-founded expectation that we should be enabled to dispense with any exceptional legislation. The noble Earl says that all our success was attributable to the arrest of a considerable number of the leaders. Does he know the comparison between the number of those in confinement when the Queen's Speech was made and the number when he himself was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? When we succeeded to office there were no less than 330 Fenians in confinement, and notwithstanding that we

  1125
  had succeeded in putting a large number of persons under arrest, there were at the time the Queen's Speech was delivered only seventy in all in confinement. We had therefore every reason to believe that the conspiracy had altogether collapsed: and so it had; but it received new life and vigour from fresh movements of Stephens in America towards the close of the year, the results of which were not known when we advised the Queen's Speech. The arrival of Fenians from the United States, and the proceedings of Stephens acting on the minds of credulous dupes in Ireland, led them to conceive fresh hopes, and led to a revival of the conspiracy, which compelled us to resort again to extraordinary and exceptional legislation. We had hoped to dispense with its renewal; that hope was disappointed; the Act was passed and the conspiracy was again arrested. I do not, however, say that if it had been the prorogation instead of the meeting of Parliament we should have been justified in placing a statement in the Queen's Speech, because we had in the latter case what we should not have had in the former—namely, if we had allowed the Act to expire, and there had been a renewal of the conspiracy and a return of any of those persons to their treasonable practices, and bad consequences followed from the revival of the conspiracy, we knew that we had Parliament at our back, and Parliament would be ready to pass exceptional legislation only justified by absolute necessity, and would readily arm us with fresh powers, and enable us to resume those powers which they—I am sure which we—were most anxious to dispense with, if possible. My Lords, I do not think this a fitting opportunity for entering into a discussion of remedial measures for Ireland. Of this I am convinced, that there never was a time when Parliament was more disposed than at present to listen to any well-grounded complaints of substantial grievances, and apply, so far as it can, a remedy for those grievances. But, as the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) said, the grievances specified by the noble Earl (Earl Russell) certainly are not in the slightest degree connected with the Fenian conspiracy. They are grievances, if grievances at all, of very long standing. Parliament has laboured year after year with regard to the land question to place it on a more satisfactory footing; and the noble Earl will admit that the Government are not
  1126
  wanting either in bringing forward remedial measures on their part with respect to the tenure of land, or on the other in availing themselves of the exertions of the noble Marquess, who, with great care, is endeavouring to frame a code of laws to regulate the relations of landlord and tenant on this subject. But the noble Earl very fairly says that he cannot complain of attention being occupied in the other House by the great and formidable question of Parliamentary Reform which creates an obstacle to the carrying of these important measures. I will not, my Lords, enter on the discussion of what may be called the Church grievance. For my own part, I do not believe that is a grievance at all. I do not believe that it affects in the slightest degree the discontent said to prevail in Ireland. But if the noble Earl (Earl Russell) is so strongly of opinion as he now appears to be, that the Irish Church is a great grievance, I wish to know how it happens that during the eighteen years out of twenty he has been in office, and twice at the head of the Government, he never brought forward those remedial measures with regard to the Irish Church, which, for the first time, he thinks it necessary to urge during this, the first year he finds himself in opposition. Last year, when the noble Earl occupied the responsible position of Prime Minister, my noble Friend (Viscount Lifford) brought forward the question of the Irish Church; but the noble Earl, with that true Conservative feeling which I hope will always animate every Minister who sits on this Bench, remonstrated with the noble Viscount who had given notice of a Motion relative to the endowments of the Irish Church for raising so serious a question, and he deprecated in the strongest manner any discussion with regard to the endowments of the Irish Church. Cœlum non animum mutant — but I am sorry that change of place has brought about considerable change of opinion on this subject with the noble Earl. I will not enter into the general state of Ireland. We are dealing with what all will admit an absolute, though lamentable necessity, and I think it very unwise to couple with a measure essential to the restoration of peace and prosperity, the discussion of complaints which, if there be real and substantial grievances, there is every disposition on the part of Parliament to remove. I therefore hope, my Lords, you will confine your attention to the immediate sub-

  1127
  ject under consideration—namely, the absolutely necessary continuance of the Act for the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus in Ireland.
  EARL RUSSELL: I may venture to say a very few words after what the noble Earl has said personal to me. I am rather surprised that he accuses me of not earlier raising the question of the Irish Church, because I raised it, in concert with others, many years ago, for four or five years together. [The Earl of DERBY: Yes; about thirty years ago."] But I found, after going on four or five years, that I had no chance of carrying the question. My impression, however, is, that although it is quite right that the question should not be raised this year, for the same reason that I did not like to see it raised last year—namely, that the Reform Bill was under discussion—yet I do believe that a change of opinion has taken place on the subject with the people of England; and if the noble Earl carries this measure I should expect that we shall be prepared next year to remedy this grievance also.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the noble Earl had failed to explain how it was that, during the eighteen years he had been in office out of the last twenty, he had proposed no measure with regard to the Irish Church.
  EARL RUSSELLwas understood to say that he had not raised the question because it did not appear that he should have received general support.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, at Five o'clock.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.