Lords Sitting of 30 April 1869

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl Ferrers, after the death of his Father.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Representative Peerage of Scotland and Ireland, nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Fine Arts Copyright Consolidation and Amendment (No. 2) (51), and referred to Select Committee; Civil Service Pensions * (53); Consolidated Fund (£17,100,000) *.
Committee—Lands Clauses Consolidation Act Amendment * (38–90).
Committee—Report—Park Gate Chapel Marriages* (59).

FINE ARTS COPYRIGHT CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL—(No. 51.)
(The Lord Westbury.)
FINE ARTS COPYRIGHT CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL—(No. 51.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD WESTBURY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time said, that the operation of the Act of 1862—the latest statute on the subject—had been unsatisfactory. A representation had consequently been made by the Council of the Society of Arts, and a conference of nearly the whole of the artistic world had taken place, as the result of which he (Lord Westbury) introduced his Consolidation Bill last Session—not with the intention of proceeding with it at once, but of eliciting criticism and suggestions. The measure had received general approval, and a Petition in its favour had been intrusted to him for presentation, signed by thirty Royal Academicians, twenty-two Associates, and 120 other artists and persons interested in the subject. The necessity for legislation was due to the confused and defective state of the existing law,

  1937
  to the imperfect protection it afforded to the authors of works of fine art, and to Conventions having been entered into under the International Copyright Act with most of the Continental Powers, engaging to give to the artists of those countries a protection reciprocal and correspondent to that which British artists enjoyed in them. He was sure their Lordships would concur with him in holding that there was no better criterion of the progress of a nation in civilization and intellectual culture than the respect and protection afforded by its laws to works of literature and art—works which were the noblest possible addition to the wealth of a country, but the production of which was greatly dependent—in modern times at least—on the protection given to men of genius. Such works, moreover, as possessing the essential attributes of property, ought surely to enjoy the protection extended to other species of property—he could indeed imagine nothing which had a more complete title to be considered property than works of imagination, for they were the pure creation of mind. Now, he was sorry to say that, if laws were taken as a proof, these creations of mind were more valued and respected in other countries than in England; for, whereas in this country works of art of a particular class enjoyed protection for twenty-eight years, with a contingent extension of another seven years, that protection extended in France to fifty; in Germany to thirty; in Belgium to twenty, and in Spain to twenty-five years in excess of the author's life: while in Italy it lasted forty years, with a contingent extension of forty years longer. In England literature and art were protected in the most imperfect and grudging manner. No attempt was made in England to give, or rather create, copyright until 1714, nor as regarded works of art until 1735. In 1714, literary copyright for fourteen years was established; this was afterwards extended to twenty-eight years, or for the life of the author, and in 1842, thanks to Mr. Justice Talfourd and a noble Earl now present (Earl Stanhope) to forty-two years or to seven years beyond the author's life, whichever happened to be the longer period. In 1735 the Legislature first turned its attention to protecting works of art, and copyright for fifteen years was given to such works; but the Act—which was commonly known as Hogarth's
  1938
  Act, the passing of it being entirely due to his exertions—was unfortunately so worded as to protect only engravings in which there was an original design—so that an engraving made from another work of art received no protection. This was probably attributable to Hogarth being in the habit of composing as he engraved. This restriction was afterwards removed and the term was extended to twenty-eight years. In sculpture no attempt was made to give protection until 1798; and even now, though sculpture and engraving were commonly supposed to stand on the same footing, the former enjoyed a copyright for only fourteen years, with a further term of fourteen years contingent on the artist's life, while the latter had an absolute copyright for twenty-eight years. In 1862, protection was given to paintings, engravings, and photographs for the author's life, and a period of seven years afterwards. The difference between English and Continental law was by no means creditable to us, and although the Conventions professed to be based on the principle of reciprocity we only gave a French artist protection for his life and seven years afterwards; whereas France offered the British artist protection for fifty years after his death. The Engraving Acts, moreover, extended only to the United Kingdom—so that piratical copies might be imported with impunity from abroad, or oven from the Channel Islands; and the result was that valuable engravings were copied there and brought over to this country, and there was no power to prevent their admission. By the Convention with France Her Majesty engaged that laws should, if possible, be passed, conferring on French artists advantages corresponding to those which Franco conferred on British artists, and one of the articles promised the seizure and destruction of piratical works—a stipulation which our existing laws did not permit to be carried into effect. The honour of the country required that this state of things should continue no longer. We had nine or ten different statutes on the law of copyright; and these statutes ought to be gathered together, made consistent with each other, and embodied in one consolidated Act. And this had been his object in the preparation of that Bill, which he had now the honour of asking their Lordships to read a second time. Dealing with a sub-

  1939
  ject full of difficulty and which the Common Law did not touch, he did not pretend that his Bill was perfect, and he was quite willing to have it referred to a Select Committee, that it might be thoroughly sifted and its language carefully weighed. After giving the requisite definitions, the Bill proposed that authors of original works of fine art hereafter made or sold should have a copyright for the term of their natural lives, and for thirty years subsequently. This period was not so long as that existing in France, but it was the duration, assigned in Germany, and rather longer than the Belgian term. Then there were provisions as to the transfer of copyright, it being laid down that no such contract should authorize the author to make any repetition of the work unless the right shall have been expressly stipulated for at the time of sale. The Bill also allowed an artist to retain his property in unfinished sketches and studies made for and previously to the execution of his registered work, without prejudice to any copyright which may be subsisting therein at the time of the sale; and it provided that sketches, studies, and unfinished works to the value of £15 should not be subject to seizure in the event of the artist's bankruptcy, or of his suffering distraint for debt. The 5th clause confirmed a decision which had been deemed of questionable authority, exempting engravings published as parts of a book, in which there shall be a subsisting copyright, from the provisions of the Engravings Acts. Of engravings published separately, a proof must be deposited at the British Museum. The 6th clause defined how copyright might be assigned, the Schedule containing some short forms of instruments for that purpose; and the 7th clause provided that, in any contract disposing of a copyright, it should be implied that the work was the original design of the author, which implied contract was to run with the copyright. The 8th laid down that no action should be maintainable by the proprietor of a copyright until after registration—the registered proprietor, under any license, being nevertheless able to sue, or be sued, in his own name in any matter arising out of such contract, and the omission to register not affecting the copyright or license, but only the right to sue or proceed. Next came the penal-
  1940
  ties, which, except one or two additions, were taken from the Act of 1862; and then followed provisions directed against the common fraud of affixing names, initials, or monograms, purporting to be those of persons who did not really execute the work, as also against the disposal of works of art under false representations. There was also a provision against a very ingenious mode of fraud which was sometimes resorted to—that of altering any work of art, and then offering it for sale as an unaltered work of the author. The next provision was directed at the fraudulent practice of publishing an engraving with the stipulation that the number of proof impressions or copies should be limited, and then of printing a much larger number; and the following provisions prohibited the sale of impressions from a plate re-touched, or wrought afresh, as proof impressions or copies of such engraving. The 1lth clause prohibited the importation of piratical copies of copyright works, and the 12th extended to works of art the protection already given at the Custom House to works of literature. He could see no reason why a provision, which had been so beneficial in the one case, should not be applied to the other. Inferior artists abroad were systematically employed in making copies of valuable works for the English market, and to check this the 13th clause applied to the importers of these pirated copies the machinery of the Mercantile Marks Act, obliging them to reveal the names of the persons from whom they were obtained. The succeeding clauses empowered justices to grant search warrants for piratical copies, and also empowered the seizure of piratical copies in the possession of hawkers. The necessity of these provisions had been shown by the recent statement of an eminent London publisher that, by the aid of a powerful glass, he saw, from an adjoining building, persons employed in making copies of his most valuable engravings, which were afterwards hawked about at a few shillings per copy. Then there were provisions as to registration and as to legal proceedings instituted under the Act, with the view of giving a cheap and easy remedy. The Bill was by no means one-sided, for it not only gave pratection to artists, but to the public against artists. A practice had prevailed among some artists of selling a picture

  1941
  to a purchaser, and afterwards making a replica four or five times over of the same picture, each succeeding purchaser not being aware that it had been already the subject of sale. This would be checked by the 3rd clause, and various frauds to which the public had been subjected would be repressed, while dealings between artists and purchasers would be facilitated, and proper protection would be given to the authors of original works. He believed the Bill, after consideration by a Select Committee, would succeed in gathering up the loose and uncertain enactments already in existence, and in combining them into one harmonious measure.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Westbury.)
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he was glad that this subject had been taken up by the noble and learned Lord, whose legal eminence and taste for art combined to fit him for the task. An assimilation of the law respecting the fine arts to the law of literary copyright would be a great improvement, and it was gratifying to learn that the Bill had received support and encouragement from the great body of artists. But, although the general principle was readily admitted, the difficulty of dealing with the details was very great, and the propriety of considering these details very carefully in a Select Committee was apparent from the fact that the noble and learned Lord has found it expedient to withdraw the first Bill on the subject which he introduced early in the present Session. He (Earl Stanhope) desired first, to notice the provision in the 3rd clause, that copyright shall be granted, not only to any British subject, but to any foreigner residing at the time in the British dominions. Yet in many of the foreign countries, and above all in the United States, nothing at all of the kind was granted our subjects there residing. He (Earl Stanhope) most readily agreed that we should return the advantages given to British artists on the Continent, but surely it was open to question whether we should! offer great advantages to artists living | in countries which gave us nothing in return. International copyright was more important in the case of works of art than of books, for differences of language limited the appreciation of literary productions, whereas works of
  1942
  art encountered no such impediment. He thought, then, that in works of art, and still more in the case of books, this privilege should be revived. While he should rejoice at the extension of copyright to foreign artists, he doubted the fairness of such an extension in the absence of reciprocity. Their Lordships would remember that Mr. Motley, who had lately been appointed United States Minister to this country, had derived great advantage from obtaining copyright for his works in England; and he (Earl Stanhope) could not refrain from mentioning the high honour in which that gentleman was held by literary men in England, and their sincere desire that he would display a fairness and justice in diplomatic negotiations equal to his great ability as an historian. He (Earl Stanhope) would suggest that, both as regard literary and fine art copyright, power should be reserved to Her Majesty in Council to grant privileges of copyright to foreign nations which were willing to concede similar privileges in return. With regard to the definitions, he thought some of those in the Bill were open to objection. The noble and learned Lord had defined an author to be "he who has designed or made any original work of design;" but where the merit of an engraving of a celebrated work was very great, and a, large sum had been ex-pended on it, it was not fair that it should be re-produced by photographs. There might be no copyright in the original picture; but protection should be given to a valuable engraving of it in the same way as if it were an original design. [Lord WESTBURY said, he thought the Bill as it stood would provide for such a case.] It did not seem to him that this was in any manner, or at any place, provided for in the Bill. The subject was rather intricate, and perhaps he had not sufficiently explained it, but a particular instance would make his meaning clear. Take that magnificent picture of Raphael, the Madonna di San Sisto, in the gallery at Dresden. Of that picture one engraving was by M. Müller, an engraving of exquisite skill—the very finest engraving, according to some connoisseurs, ever yet produced. A proof of it could not be purchased at this moment for less than £80 or £90. Now the picture itself was, he presumed, publici juris. Anyone was

  1943
  free to take a photograph from it. But if M. Müller were still alive, and had an interest in his engraving, no one ought to be free to take a photograph from that without his permission. On the whole, he (Earl Stanhope) would say that he anticipated great benefit from a comprehensive Act on this subject, which was especially opportune now that the spread of photography threatened a decline in the best class of engravings; and from the noble and learned Lord's readiness to consider any Amendments, he felt confident that the Bill would be brought to a satisfactory issue.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYalso thanked his noble and learned Friend for taking up so difficult and complicated a subject, and quite concurred with him in thinking that it was a most judicious course, to refer the Bill, after the second reading, to a Select Committee. He could scarcely take so decided a view of the rights of property in works of fine art as his noble and learned Friend had done—with every desire to uphold that right to the utmost, he thought his noble and learned Friend had placed it too high—for whereas the property of an ordinary article rested in the possessor for the time being, the peculiar privilege of preventing the possessors of works of art from making the use of them which they otherwise might be disposed to do, was not so much an inherent right attaching to property as a special right created for the purpose of encouraging such productions. Within certain limits it was desirable as a matter of public policy that encouragement should be given, not only to works of literature but also to works of fine art, and he also thought that the present law was in such a confused and unsatisfactory state that it required to be consolidated and amended; but the House, while securing to really fine productions their due pecuniary encouragement, should beware of passing indiscriminate enactments, such as would confer rights on undeserving works, seriously interfere with the general enjoyment of the public, and lead to much litigation and embarrassment. The first great difficulty arising in the consideration of this question was the definitions contained in the Bill. Great difficulty always attached to definitions. The noble and learned Lord, for example, had defined sculpture in these terms—"Every original work,
  1944
  either in the round, in relief, or intaglio, made in any material, and by any process." Such a definition would include a variety of designs which would more properly come under the Copyright of Designs Act, which gave a protection of four or five years. The next portion of the Bill demanding serious consideration was the length of period for which the rights of property in those valuable works would be protected. At present the periods vary; for example, in the case of painting and drawing the period was seven years; whereas in that of sculpture it was twenty-eight years. In the case of painting and drawing the Bill proposed to give a protection for the life of the author and thirty years after; but, as by an Act brought in by the noble and learned Lord photographs were put on the same footing as painting and drawing, he thought it was worthy of consideration whether it was desirable to give so long a protection to photographs. There never was a time when better prices were given for works of art in this country; and he doubted whether any considerable extension of the period during which copyright was now enjoyed was essentially necessary. By the Bill copyright was extended to the whole of the dominions of the Queen; and he wished to point out that in respect to a great many of the colonies there really existed no power on the part of this country to enforce such a Bill as the present. The Bill, therefore, would remain a dead letter as far as many of the colonies were concerned. The Bill seemed to be conceived in the interest of engravers to a great extent, rather than in the interest of authors or of the fine arts generally. By a previous Act of Parliament—the Act of 1852—it was provided that whenever no precise stipulation was made between the author and the buyer of a work of art, then the copyright should exist in the work. The present Bill, however, declared that the copyright should, exist in the work, whether there were any stipulation or not between the author and the buyer. He thought the existing provision of the law was preferable. He thought that his noble and learned Friend had not given sufficient consideration to some of the details of his Bill—for example, there was a clause authorizing the issue of a search warrant to enter a house suspected of harbouring such works, to

  1945
  search for them, and, if found, to seize them and destroy them. He could not assent to the granting of any such power. It was not for the public interests that these copyrights should be created, and he thought it better to leave the law as it stood. There was one extraordinary clause in the Bill, to the effect that in all cases where any person should sell a work of fine art there should be a distinctly implied contract, on the part of the person selling, that it was an original work. Considering how difficult it was to decide what were and what were not original works, he thought such a clause would operate harshly on sellers. The Bill required careful consideration, and he trusted that the Select Committee would examine the details with the utmost caution.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly and referred to a Select Committee.
  And, on Monday, May 3, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  Ld. Privy Seal.

  L. Portman.

  E. Stanhope.

  L. Overstone

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. Lyveden.

  E. Sommers.

  L. Westbury.

  V. Hardinge.

  L. Houghton.

  L. Bp. Oxford.

  L. Romilly.

  And, on Tuesday, May 4, the Duke of Saint Albans, the Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe, and the Lord De L'Isle and Dudley added.

ST. KATHERINE'S HOSPITAL.

  QUESTION.
  EARL NELSONasked the Lord Chancellor, When the Report of the Royal Commission issued last Session on St. Katherine's Hospital is likely to be made? St. Katherine's Hospital was a distinctly religious foundation. It was originally built near the Tower of London and endowed by Queen Matilda, in 1148; and afterwards received a charter from Queen Eleanor in 1273. It was founded for a master, three brethren, who were to be priests, three sisters, six poor scholars, twenty-four poor men, and ten poor women. In the charter of Queen Eleanor there was this important provision—that if in future times the possessions of the Hospital should be increased, the number of chaplains, poor men, clerks, laymen, and women should be augmented, according to the means of augmentations of the goods of the Hospital. Unfortunately, that provision had been shamefully neglected. Such
  1946
  provision would have met the increasing needs of the place, and as the Charity Commissioners remarked, the duties of the sisters bore a strong resemblance to the duties of mission women employed in the destitute district for which the Hospital was originally founded. Henry VI. confirmed and extended the privileges and immunities of the Hospital; and that monarch's object, no doubt, was to carry on a good work among the seafaring population in the neighbourhood of the Tower. At the time of the Reformation this Hospital was saved from the general destruction of monasteries and other religious institutions, and though not turned to all the advantage it might have been, it, nevertheless, must have done eminent good so long as it remained in the locality where it was founded. That it had been of some benefit to the locality was shewn by the fact that when the first Bill to transfer the Hospital from the East of London, in order to allow of the formation of St. Katherine's Docks on its site was defeated, the feeling of the locality was so strong in favour of the Hospital that there were great rejoicings on the occasion of the defeat of the Bill. In 1825, the Hospital was removed from St. Katherine's Docks to the Regent's Park at a cost of £125,000, and a curse seems to have rested upon it ever since, for although the large sum of £44,709 was expended upon the new buildings, a sum of no less than £32,088 was spent in repairs of the new buildings from 1826 to 1857. In December, 1865, the Charity Commissioners made their Report, which was presented to their Lordships' House in the following year on the Motion of the Bishop of Peterborough. From that Report it appeared that the gross income, which at the time of the Reformation was about £400 a year, amounted in 1865 to £7,097; and it was capable of increase, under good management and by the extinction of leases, to £14,000 per annum. There was also revealed one of the greatest sinecures that were ever exposed. It appeared that the Master was doing nothing on £2,000 a year; each brother ditto on £365 a year and a house; each sister ditto on £240 a year and a house; although there were twenty bedesmen and twenty bedeswomen with £ 10 a year each; not one of these poor persons was taken, until the Charity Commissioners

  1947
  reported, from the poor district of the East end of London. There were besides chapel services, which were conducted for the benefit of the rich people living in the neighbourhood of the Regent's Park, who paid for pew rents £100 per annum, which went to pay a curate to help in the services. There were also schools for thirty-three boys and eighteen girls, who came from a district which was perfectly capable of supporting its own schools. It was admitted that the Hospital might again be placed in the neighbourhood of the Docks; and one scheme, among many, had been devised, by which churches, almshouses, penitentiaries, and schools might be built in time, as leases fell in, and an income would still be left for the Hospital of more than £8,350 a year. It was asked that this income, in compliance with the original foundation and that special clause in Queen Eleanor's charter to which he had drawn their Lordships attention, might be devoted to the maintenance of fifteen missionary clergy, with a body of sisters, teachers, and lay helpers, while £3,000 a year would be left for the support of the schools and reformatories. It was not to be wondered at that those who were interested in the temporal and spiritual welfare of the seafaring population of the East end, for the benefit of whom this Hospital was originally founded, and who, when any check Came upon trade, were peculiarly liable to great distress, should have rejoiced very much when last Session, at the instance of Her Majesty's late Government, a Commission was appointed, with the then Lord Chancellor at its head, for the purpose of seeing what could be done with this foundation. They were anxious that whatever scheme might be adopted it should be one which would at least insure the return of the Hospital to the place where it might do so much good; and that, in accordance with the spirit of the original foundation, it might be such as to enable the poor people of the district to benefit, spiritually and temporally, by the institution. He begged to ask the noble and learned Lord when the Report of the Royal Commission issued last Session on the St. Katharine's Hospital was likely to be made?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had, in the first place, to state that, not being himself a member of the Commis-
  1948
  sion, he had caused inquiry to be made as to the course of its labours and when they might be supposed likely to terminate. The Commission was appointed in March last to inquire into the resources of the establishment, it having appeared from the Report made by the Charity Commissioners in 1865, which would be found in the library, that those resources were very likely to increase. The Commissioners had begun to inform themselves on the subject, and had proceeded so far as to be in a condition to take measures for considering what should be a proper Report to make under the circumstances of the case, when a change occurred in Her Majesty's Government, and it appeared to the Commissioners that it might be desirable, before the final Report, to make application to the Crown in reference to the constitution of the Commission—in other words, whether the Chancellor of the late Government, or of the Government for the time being, should be at its head. The circumstances of the case were somewhat peculiar. The present state of things in connection with the charity was entirely under the direction of Her Majesty, and the Lord Chancellor had only such authority as from time time to time might be given him to visit the charity. The Report, however, would be made before long. He would not say a single word as to the Report the Commissioners should make. He would leave that entirely to themselves.

THE MAYOR OF CORK—ASSASSINATIONS IN IRELAND.—QUESTIONS.
VISCOUNT LIFFORD,who had given notice to ask the Colonial Secretary, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to a speech reported to have been made by the Mayor of Cork at a banquet given to the Fenian convicts lately released from imprisonment; and what steps the Government mean to take in consequence? rose and said: My Lords, some of your Lordships may remember that two years ago I presented a Petition to this House in favour of the remission of the capital part of the sentence of the Fenian prisoners; and more than one of your Lordships are aware of the deep interest I took in the subject. I have, therefore, not been one of those who have

1949
found fault with the Government for remitting the sentences on these prisoners. Further than this, I may say that, at the time the Prince of Wales was in Ireland, I was in hopes that, as the Fenian conspiracy had entirely blown up, and it had been shown how futile were the efforts of those connected with it against the power of England, the sentence on these prisoners would have been remitted. I mention this on the present occasion only to show that in the Question I am now going to put I am actuated by no party spirit or by any animosity against the unfortunate men now in confinement. But I must now say that, in my opinion, and in that of others who know well the circumstances of the country, Her Majesty's clemency in respect of the Fenian prisoners was entirely misplaced. Since these men have been set at liberty they have, almost without cessation, done their utmost to disquiet the country which they have already so much injured. They have done all they could to drive away capital from Ireland and to drive away the thousands who are annually forced to leave Ireland from the want of employment there. I will say nothing further of them; but will it be believed that a person holding Her Majesty's Commission of the Peace—the Mayor of the second city in Ireland—a person who has taken the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty—has actually presided at a dinner where these misguided men have been entertained, and has uttered the words of which your Lordships have no doubt heard? I will not trouble your Lordships with the rubbish, the bombast, and the disloyalty spoken by these Fenians at the dinner. I will confine myself to what is reported to have been said by the Mayor of Cork—and I will quote, not from any Conservative paper, but from a paper of his own side in politics—
"The Mayor continued to say the company must be indebted to Mr. M'Auliffe for the brilliant address he had favoured them with, and in which he had graphically described the driving of the Moors from Grenada by the Spaniards, as the Irish would drive the English out of this country tomorrow if they were strong enough. (Loud cheers)."
Who are the Irish and who are the English? I have never yet been able to discover this; and, remembering that one-half the British army is composed of Irish Roman Catholics, I want to know
1950
which portion is to be driven out by the other. I will now read the Mayor of Cork's notion of the crime of murder—
"He believed that a spirit of concession had been aroused on the part of the dominant race. He did not say it was owing to Fenianism or to the barrel placed under the prison at Clerkenwell, but he believed he paid a solemn act of justice to his own countrymen—as solemn an act of justice as if he were a high priest—when he said those noble men—Allan, Barrett, Larkin, and O'Brien, who sacrificed their lives for their country, ought to be remembered and respected as good Catholics and good patriots. (Cheers.) There was at this moment in the country a young Prince of the English nation. (VOICE: He bed—d),"
At least there was one gentleman present, for I am thankful to say that a voice cried out—"No, he is welcome." However, the Mayor, taking no notice of the welcome, continued to say—
"When that noble Irishman. O'Farrell, fired at the Prince in Australia, he was imbued with as noble and patriotic feelings as Larkin, Allen, and O'Brien were. (Great cheering, and cries of 'He was.') He believed that O'Farrell would be as highly thought of as any of the men who had sacrificed their lives for Ireland. (Loud shouts of 'Bravo!') They all saw how a noble Pole had fired at the Emperor of Russia because he thought that the Emperor was trampling upon the liberties of the people. (Cheers.) Well, O'Farrell, probably, was actuated by the same noble impulses when he fired at the Prince. O'Farrell was as noble an Irishman as the Pole, and as true to his country, for each was impelled by the same sentiments to do what they did. (Cheers.)"
This was said by a gentleman holding Her Majesty's Commission of an unoffending Prince who was doing his duty in obedience to Her Majesty's orders in visiting various parts of Her Majesty's dominions. I need not remind your Lordships of the horror and disgust with which all the civilized world received the accounts of that crime. I will now leave the disloyalty of this man to be dealt with by Her Majesty's Ministers, the more fitting protectors of Her Majesty's honour, and I will confine myself entirely to the social condition of Ireland in consequence of such sentiments as these being diffused. That condition is deplorable. Assassination is rife; the murderers walk off undetected; and I distinctly say that this arises from the tampering with the laws of property, from the undue expectations continually held out to the Irish people, and from the too great delicacy shown in repressing crime. These assassinations are the result of an organized conspiracy of which the seat, I believe, is not in Ireland, but in England. And so completely organized

1951
is it that since I entered the House I have heard a most extraordinary story. I have heard that a message was sent to the family of Captain Tarleton, the man last murdered, from the Ribbon Lodge, which had ordered his death, saying that they extremely regretted it, for he was the wrong man. I cannot sit down without saying that, though I fully believe that the Irish Church Bill was introduced by the present Government with pure motives as a message of peace to Ireland, it has had a totally contrary effect. That measure has been regarded by the Catholics as a triumph over the Protestants; and trusting to the precedent, and believing that that Bill had sprung from the dread of Fenianism, I believe that there are not wanting in Ireland numbers of men who conceive that agrarian outrages will lead to the passing of an agrarian law. My Lords, I believe that only one course will give peace to Ireland. The British Government should put its foot down on the line of order and of law, and should announce- "Thus far will we go and no further." If the Government declare that they will enforce the law, and will in no way infringe the rights of property, and if that is felt to be the common understanding of both parties in Parliament, I have not a doubt that Ireland would be pacified. I beg now to ask the Colonial Secretary, whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to a speech reported to have been made by the Mayor of Cork at a banquet given to the Fenian convicts lately released from imprisonment; and what steps the Government mean to take in consequence?
EARL GRANVILLE: I have always remarked-and the House has no doubt also remarked-the moderation, good taste, and fairness with which the noble Viscount always addresses the House, and I must add, that, even if he had in the slightest degree departed from that habit this evening, I should not have been much surprised. On the contrary, I think he has spoken to-night with even more than his usual moderation. No one is more inclined than I am to think lightly of what may be said in the case of public meetings, dinners, and suppers-I understand that this meeting was in fact a supper not numerously attended-and I think it is unwise to pay much attention to even the most foolish and harmful observations which may
1952
then be made. ["Oh! oh!"] I had hoped I might be allowed to finish my sentence. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount in the supreme eon-tempt with which he treats the miserable rubbish which these two convicts are said to have made use of. When, however, you come to the speech of a person who has been elected by his fellow-citizens to the highest office in the second city of Ireland - an office also which confers upon him the post of a magistrate, and whose duty it is to administer justice-the case is widely different. A Mayor, I should remind the noble Viscount, is not in Her Majesty's Commission of the Peace, but is a magistrate by virtue of his office. And when I add that, as a magistrate, he is not only called upon to administer justice in his own court, but under the charter granted to the city he has peculiar privileges which give him the right to sit by the side of Her Majesty's Judges when solemnly administering the law, the case, I think, wears a very different aspect. I am not able officially to state whether the language attributed to the Mayor of Cork has been correctly reported or not-I have heard since I came into the House that the evening papers state that he denies having used that language. It is, at all events, quite clear that it is the duty of the Government—a duty which they have performed—to take immediate steps to ascertain the substantial accuracy of the report which attributes to the Mayor the use of the words which the noble Viscount has read, and, if possible, to substantiate the fact of their having been used. If it should turn out that the report is accurate, and that the use of such language can be substantiated, the Government feel that the case is one which it will be impossible for them to pass over without taking further steps in the matter.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEreminded the House that, although the Mayor of Cork was not now a magistrate, he had formerly held Her Majesty's Commission of the Peace, and had been removed from that office: he was now a magistrate ex officio as Mayor. In ordinary circumstances it was quite possible that their Lordships might not be much inclined to take notice of what might be said or done at a supper, at a late hour of the evening, when his countrymen were apt to fall into a certain confusion

1953
of mind, and use language which they would not utter in more sober moments. But he must observe that the present was not the only instance in which the Mayor of Cork had offended. He had on more than one previous occasion, according to reports the accuracy of which had never been denied, attributed disturbances which had occurred in his neighbourhood not to any ill-feeling on the part of the people, but to the stipendiary magistrates and the police. He was not a person who ought to be permitted to retract or apologize for the words now complained of. It was, he maintained, under all the circumstances of the case, the duty of the Government to bring the full vigour of the law to bear upon such a person, if they could get the necessary evidence to prove that he had given utterance to the treasonable words which he was reported to have used. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) contended that such language ought to be treated with contempt; and no doubt these after-dinner speeches would in themselves deserve to be so treated were it not for the lamentable effect which they produced in the country, which gave them an importance which they did not intrinsically possess. He did not know what course the Government could take with respect to the removal from office of the Mayor of Cork, and preventing him from exercising judicial functions; but he believed that those functions were not now performed under any charter, but under the general statute law of the land. Previous to the passing of the Municipal Reform Act for Ireland the Lord Lieutenant had, if he was not mistaken, notwithstanding the charters of the towns in Ireland, a power of vetoing the appointment of a Mayor; and it was a remarkable fact that one of the most popular Lord Lieutenants of Ireland, the late Marquess of Norman by, had exercised that power in 1835, by refusing to allow the gentleman then elected by the citizens of Cork to the mayoralty to enter upon the discharge of its functions, because he had been an Orangeman and had taken the Orange oath. By the Municipal Reform Act that power was taken away; but he might observe that, when the Act was passing through the House of Commons, Mr. Attorney General Wolfe distinctly stated that a Mayor would be liable to be brought for any offence, such as that under discussion, before the Court of
1954
Queen's Bench. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) did not know whether the Court of Queen's Bench did really possess that power; but if it did, and the Lord Lieutenant had not the power of removing the Mayor of Cork, he trusted that person's conduct would be brought under the cognizance of that court, which he thought could scarcely have any hesitation or delicacy in removing from the position which he occupied a person who had filled it so unworthily, whether he retracted or not the language which he was reported to have used a few nights ago.

STATE OF IRELAND—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHrose to put the Question of which he had given notice, Whether, having regard to the facts that within the last few months numerous open-air assassinations (independent of other agrarian outrages) have been perpetrated with absolute impunity in Ireland, it is the intention of the Government to adopt any immediate measures, repressive or remedial, for the protection of human life in that country? The noble Marquess said, that the subject to which his Question referred involved not the present Government in particular, but, to a certain extent, all recent Governments. Independently of those open murders of which every day brought accounts from Ireland, and to which his noble Friend near him had called their Lordships' attention, every day brought fresh rumours of discontent and dissatisfaction, which were breaking out in new districts of the country—a general sense of depression pervaded the minds of well-affected people in that country, and a want of confidence either in the power or the will of the Government to protect their lives and property. At the same time the wildest expectations existed among a certain class of the population with respect to the land question. They believed that the land of the country was to be handed over to them; that it was the wish and intention of the Government to do so, and that it only required a gentle pressure to be put on the Government to have their views carried into effect. These hopes and wishes, he feared, had been induced by an exaggeration of certain expressions, not very wise in themselves, and not

1955
always very wisely uttered, used by certain Members of the Government during the heat of the late elections. These words were twisted to a meaning at variance with their plain expression, and still more at variance with the intentions of the speakers. The people pointed to the Irish Church. Bill as the first instalment of their unreasonable demands and as an earnest of the complete satisfaction of their wishes. The relations between class and class were still further disturbed, and the hopes of the people were still further raised by the various Land Bills that had been brought in by successive Administrations, which appeared to be framed more as a relief from husting pledges than from any wish to consult the interests of the country, or to create a proper relation between landlord and tenant. Much of the present state of things in Ireland was also, he could not but think, due to the unwise liberation of the Fenian convicts, who had been already too leniently dealt with by the previous Administration. For the existing state of things he did not say that the Government were wholly, though they might be partially, responsible; but they would, he maintained, be personally and entirely responsible for every act of murder or violence henceforward committed in Ireland, if they did not immediately put in force the full powers which they possessed for the purpose of repressing crime and securing life and property in that country; or, if they found that the powers which they now possessed were not sufficient for that purpose, if they did not immediately to come to Parliament and ask for further powers. Above all, they would be responsible if they did not at once declare their policy on the land question, so as to frustrate the machinations of the agitators, and show the people that the Government had no sympathy with their wild dreams. The Government would only have to call upon the well-disposed portion of the people, and give them authority to act, and the result would not be doubtful. That result, however, could not be attained without contests, in which many lives might be lost; and if the Government, by neglecting to take energetic and immediate measures, allowed that conflict to occur, the responsibility would attach personally to the members of the Government. He viewed with alarm the
1956
fact that no real effort had yet been made by the Government to put down these murders in Ireland. He was not now alluding, however, to the truly Irish method of sending a few dozen policemen to the locality, and quartering them on the persons who were the principal sufferers from these outrages. He wanted to see strong measures adopted for the protection of life and property. The noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Lismore) had given notice of his intention to ask the Government on Monday last a Question similar to that which he himself was about to put, but at the request of the Government the noble Viscount had postponed his Question. Since then, however, fresh outrages had been committed and fresh words of treason spoken. Now, he should be sorry to ask any question which would impede the free action of the Executive. He would not ask, for instance, what opinions had been asked of and given by the Law Officers of the Crown, nor would he inquire as to what steps the Government had taken in particular cases: but he did ask—and he thought the country had a right to know—whether the Government were prepared to use the powers the law gave them for the repression of crime? And if these were not sufficient, whether they would come to Parliament for further powers—and, above all, whether they would declare their policy with regard to the land question, and thus put an end to the agitation which was the cause of all these evils?
EARL GRANVILLE: To the Questions put by my noble Friend I shall answer shortly, and am afraid, as to some particulars, in a manner not satisfactory to him. The noble Marquess has referred to these outrages as being the state of things throughout Ireland. Now we have heard Irish Members on both sides of this House protest against such a description being generally applicable to Ireland, however true it might be—and it is lamentably true—in regard to certain districts. The noble Marquess said that the expressions reported to have been used on the hustings by some Members of the present Administration were one cause of the dissatisfaction now existing in Ireland; and both my noble Friend and the noble Viscount opposite referred to the question of the Irish Church as being one other of the causes

1957
of that dissatisfaction. Now, I venture to suggest, as at least one other possible cause—and I do so, not in the least by way of reproach, but merely in order that the matter may be considered, not only by your Lordships, but by other influential persons out of this House—I am not going to argue whether the Irish Church measure is a desirable one or the reverse, whether it is a good measure in itself or a bad one—but we all know this fact, that the last House of Commons, by a majority of above 60, and the present House of Commons, by a majority of above 100, have declared their decided opinion that the Irish Church shall be disendowed. Now I imagine that not only sanguine tenants, but calm men like your Lordships, must feel that it is, at all events, extremely probable that at no distant period some portion of the disendowment of that Church is sure to occur, whether it be recommended by Her Majesty's present Government or by a subsequent one. Well, if that is the fact, is it wise, my Lords, and is it desirable to hear it argued, as is done every day, contrary to the general sense of mankind, that the right of the Church to its endowments stands exactly on the same basis as the rights of your Lordships to the property which you enjoy? Is it possible to doubt—I entirely put aside the question whether we have a right to meddle with the Irish Church or not—can it be possible to doubt that there are persons who entertain visionary ideas as to what legislative measures should be passed with regard to tenant-right—though I beg to assure the noble Marquess he is perfectly mistaken if he supposes that we have any sympathy with them—and is it possible to doubt that such persons may put the two things together, and to say to themselves—"If both kinds of property are equal, and if one kind is certain to be given up, may we not agree that the other kind of property may be given up also?" I own I think that the bearing of all these political questions on agrarian outrages and murders is exaggerated. If it be true that the miserable men who commit these murders do so because they were led to expect that legislative measures would give them that which they desire to have, the fact appears to be rather a reason for postponing a murder than for committing it; and, as far as these mis-
1958
guided persons were concerned, I believe if you pass a reasonable measure, it will be likely to irritate them and to act as an incentive to these outrages, unless you accompany that measure with some others which will show that these crimes cannot be committed with the present impunity. It is clear that, to a great extent, the difficulty is not in the law. The chief difficulty, into the causes of which I will not now enter, but which has been the misery and bane of Ireland, is that there is a certain class of crimes in regard to which there exists a sort of brotherhood of feeling, so that to obtain evidence is one of the most difficult things in the world. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Bath) said he should hold us personally responsible for any murder committed if we did not take certain steps which, in his opinion, we ought to take. I had occasion, the other night, to remark on this kind of strong language, which I am willing to pass over—only as I have a great many personal friends in the House I hope they will not all claim the privilege to use language which they will perceive, on reflection, to be objectionable. The noble Marquess wants to know what measures the Government are taking or are about to take? I can only repeat what I told the noble Viscount the other night, that we shall exercise as promptly and as energetically as possible all the powers that the law gives us for the repression of crime. If the noble Marquess wants to know all the details of these measures, I must throw myself on your Lordships' feeling and reason as to whether it would be wise or judicious for me to specify them. I think, however, that as the noble Marquess has such strong opinions on the subject he might have given us some slight hint of one measure which he may think would be available. All I can say now—and I do not think your Lordships will expect me to say more—is that we are determined to put into practice all the provisions of the present law, and that her Majesty's Government have been and are in earnest communication with the Government in Ireland, in order to ascertain whether it be expedient or not to take any further legislation for the purpose of putting down outrages of so terrible and lamentable a character as those which have lately occurred.
LORD CAIRNS: The two subjects which have been brought before your

1959
Lordships this evening differ from each other, although they are closely connected. With regard to the first of these subjects, although both of them are painful, the feeling which I am sure pervades your Lordships' minds is much stronger than a feeling of mere pain. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) has said, in reference to the position of the Mayor of Cork, that his name is not now in Her Majesty's Commission of the Peace—from that Commission I am told it was not long ago removed—but still he fills a position of very great importance, being the first civic magistrate in the second city in Ireland. The noble Earl has stated that Her Majesty's Government is now considering what steps ought to be taken by them, supposing the language attributed to the Mayor of Cork is found to have been correctly reported. The noble Marquess who spoke just now expressed some doubt as to the proceedings which could be taken. I entertain no doubt upon that point. If Her Majesty's Government are in possession of the proper evidence, the course, and the only course, open to then, is for the Attorney General for Ireland to file an ex officio information in the Court of Queen's Bench. And my Lords, I am sure I speak the sentiments of every one of your Lordships, when I say that the words attributed to the Mayor of Cork, on their being first read by your Lordships in the ordinary channels of information, must have produced in your minds a feeling of absolute horror and disgust. My Lords, for anyone in any position in England or Ireland to have used the words which the Mayor of Cork is reported to have used would have been bad enough; but that the first magistrate of a great town, on whom devolves in a special degree the care of the peace and well-being of that town, should have used such expressions is a circumstance which every Englishman, and, above all, everyone who is connected with Ireland, will blush to think of, because such words indicate nothing short of gross disloyalty and savage barbarism. My Lords, I will only add that I trust, in considering the course which they may think it right to pursue, Her Majesty's Government, at all events, will not forget two considerations. The one is that, if the reports which we have read, and which have never been contradicted, are correct, this is by no means the first—
1960
although it may be the worst—specimen of the conduct of this officer in the course of his mayoralty at Cork. The other is this—I hope we shall have no nice criticisms of the state of mind or confusion of intellect that may have existed at the time particular words were uttered; and I hope the Government will, above all things, consider how far the chief magistrate of a city like Cork was justified in presiding at all at a public banquet the avowed and notorious object of which was to do honour to those principles for the maintenance and assertion of which the liberated convicts had, in the first instance, been punished. My Lords, I pass from that to the other and cognate subject; and, in the first place, I must advert to some observations made by the noble Earl (Earl Granville). The noble Earl said that Members of your Lordships' House acted unadvisedly in endeavouring to connect the question of legislation on the subject of the Irish Church with the question of legislation on the subject of land. But I think the noble Earl altogether misapprehended the character of the remark which fell from my noble Friend who spoke last but one in this debate (the Marquess of Bath). I understood the object of that remark to be this—You are proposing to legislate with regard to the Irish Church, and people in Ireland, by the expressions which they use, show that in their minds, at all events, these two subjects are connected, and that the character of the legislation which is proposed with respect to the one is expected by them to be followed with respect to the other. I do not for a moment suppose that Her Majesty's Government believe that the question of Church property is the same as the question of private property in land. I do not now stop to consider whether they are right or wrong in the distinction they make between the two; but I know that they do make the distinction, and I know that it is upon that footing they deem themselves justified in the way they propose to deal with Church property. But the purport of the observation of my noble Friend was this—If that be the ground on which you proceed; if you are in your own minds fully persuaded that you have a right to deal with Church property, but have not a right to deal on the same principles with property in land, let that

1961
be known—let that be made clear to the people of Ireland; and the way to make it clear is to accompany your legislation on the subject of the Church with a distinct declaration of that which you are prepared to propose on the subject of the land. I own that the noble Earl (Earl Granville) made a confession which was to my mind extremely painful. He said that if your Lordships were, in this Session, to pass a reasonable measure on the subject of land, you would by doing so lead to greater disturbance, to more agrarian outrage in Ireland, than if you left the subject altogether alone. My Lords, what does that mean? Does it mean that nothing will put a stop to agrarian outrage but an unreasonable measure on the subject of land? My Lords, these expressions will be interpreted in that way by the people of Ireland. With regard to those unhappy occurrences which are, I fear, happening almost daily—I am glad to think not in all parts, but in some parts of Ireland—I will venture, with your Lordships' permission, to read you an extract from a letter addressed to a Member of this House by a most intelligent man in Ireland. I do not mention the name of the writer, or that of the person to whom it was addressed, nor the part of the country to which it relates, for obvious reasons; but those particulars are at the disposal of any of your Lordships who may desire them. The letter was to the effect that nothing could be worse than the state of many parts of Ireland at present. In that county from which the letter was written especially, almost all business in land was suspended; no one dared to demand possession even for non-payment of rent, or if they did it was answered by a threatening notice. A farmer, who had recently taken some vacated land, was put on his knees by two men with pistols and sworn to surrender it again: that was told him yesterday; and many outrages were not told, and did not get into the papers, because people were afraid to tell them. My Lords, that is a sad and melancholy picture to draw of a country, and to find drawn by a courageous, an experienced, and an able man who is the writer of that letter. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) says that Her Majesty's Government are availing themselves of all the provisions which the law puts in their power for the purpose of checking
1962
this unfortunate state of things. My Lords, I am fully persuaded that that is so; but I think that what your Lordships would desire to know is this—Is it the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that the present state of the law confers on them, or does not confer on them, adequate powers for checking the state of things which prevails in Ireland? My Lords, if they do, then we may hope that, acting vigorously on the powers they possess, we may see a stop put to the outrages that are daily occurring. But if they do not, I think your Lordships will expect, and the public will expect, that Her Majesty's Government will come down to Parliament and apply to Parliament for further powers to arrest these calamities. My Lords, I impress this on them the more because, if I am rightly informed, it was elsewhere stated on the part of the Government that they were, to a greater extent than was ever done before, availing themselves of the powers of the Peace Preservation Act with reference to the quartering of an extraordinary number of police on the disturbed parts of Ireland. Now, my Lords, in addition to that being a measure which alone has not proved successful in checking these outrages, I must enter my protest against its being deemed either a sufficient, or even a fair, way of dealing with these disturbed parts of the country. What does this mean? A gentleman, whose name has been mentioned to-night, is assassinated in open day in a particular county of Ireland. He is the occupier of a farm in the place where he was killed. The assassination is viewed with despair by his family, with horror by all the surrounding occupiers of land. And. what is the cure that is proposed? A body of police is sent down from Dublin to be quartered there, to be paid for by the family of the man who was murdered, and by the surrounding occupiers of land, who are in daily terror of their lives; and those who are the guilty persons, or those who connive at or harbour the guilty persons, go perfectly free, and no punishment—even in the shape of a payment—is inflicted on them. But the case is even worse than that; because the source from which the payment is made is the county cess, and if the burden should possibly go beyond the occupiers, it falls on the owners of the land, whose security for the receipt

1963
of their rent is made less through the heavier county cess occasioned by this proceeding. I hope, then, that Her Majesty's Government will not think that the sending of additional police to the disturbed districts is alone the remedy to be applied, and that they will, without any kind of delay—for these are things which ought not to continue a day if they can be prevented—if they are not satisfied with the powers they possess, apply to Parliament to increase them.
EARL GREYsaid, that having had the honour to be a Member of the Administration by which the Peace Preservation Act was passed, authorizing the sending down of extra police to the disturbed districts at the expense of those districts, he wished to point out to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) that that measure was not so entirely without reason or authority as he seemed to suppose, nor, he would also add, had it been wholly unsuccessful. He remembered the discussion which the general state of Ireland led to in the Government at the time; and one of the points which they considered was, whether they could not resort to something like the principle followed at an early period of our history, and make the district liable for the offences committed in it. In the days of King Alfred the Great the hundred was held responsible for every murder committed in it; and that principle of Anglo-Saxon legislation proved the means of establishing quiet in England, and was an influential agent in civilizing the country. It appeared to the Administration, in 1847, that it was not unreasonable to believe that a similar remedy might be applied with advantage to Ireland. And there was this additional reason for so applying it to that country. Those outrages were committed with the connivance of the population; every man knew that if the people inhabiting the district chose to give information the police in twenty-four hours would have been able to put their hands on the criminals. But it was because the people of the district were really conniving at those offences, and assisted the offenders to escape, that those atrocious crimes went unpunished. The consequence was that the Peace Preservation Act was passed, providing that additional police might be sent to the district where such offences had oc-
1964
curred, and that the expense should be defrayed from the rates, not levied in the ordinary manner, and falling on the owners of the land, but falling on the occupiers—the very class whose connivance gave impunity to the murderers. He did not deny that, in particular cases, when a murder occurred that was not owing to agrarian disputes, but to other motives, the measure might cause some hardship to individuals; but those were cases which might be met by the discretion left to the Government. If the Government were convinced that the inhabitants of the district were doing their best to bring the offenders to justice, he thought they acted improperly in applying the Peace Preservation Act to that district. The discussion suggested many observations which he should like to make, but having had more than one opportunity of speaking on this question, he thought he should be abusing their Lordships' patience if he said more on this occasion.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, my noble Friend (Earl Grey) has explained so clearly the grounds upon which the Peace Preservation Act was introduced and passed into law, that I should not have thought it necessary to rise were it not to protest against the attacks that have been made upon the Government in this debate. First, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Bath) calls us to task for not putting in force with sufficient vigour the law as it stands; and then, on the other hand, the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) says that the law is a bad one, and that it ought not to be put in force. As between the two noble Lords, that is a perfectly untenable position; but I would accept the advice which has been given to the Government to put the law in force rather than act upon the opinion of the noble and learned Lord and part with the instrument which is almost the only one that has been found effectual for the preservation of peace in Ireland. The principle on which that Act is based has been explained by my noble Friend. As your Lordships know, Ireland is distinguished by this most unfortunate peculiarity—that the sympathies of the people are with the violators and not with the upholders of the law. That undoubted fact is at the root of the difficulties which the Government have to encounter in enforcing the law; and when the noble

1965
Marquis calls on us to take measures to discover and repress these abominable atrocities, I ask him to remember what are the difficulties of the Government in dealing with this question. Such is the feeling in Ireland that the police can get no information even as to murders committed in the open day. Men have been murdered in the high road while labourers have been peaceably ploughing in the fields close by—the murderer has been seen escaping by more than one person—and yet no information could be got from them which would lead to the detection of the murderer. More than this—the utmost facilities are given to the murderer to escape, and criminals have for weeks and even months gone from house to house among the peasantry, obtaining shelter until they could make their escape to the United States. When such a state of things exists I think it is perfectly just to apply a punishment which only in a sense falls upon the innocent. We must in such a case regard the district as a whole; and, if the population does not give that assistance in enforcing the law which they ought to give, I think the Government are justified in imposing a fine upon them. At this juncture I trust that the Lord Lieutenant will not hesitate to enforce in the strongest manner the provisions of the law; and though, in so doing, no immediate effect may be produced upon this epidemic of murder, yet some amendment may be produced in those parts of the country where the law is applied. The Government has been asked to adopt stronger measures. But you must discover what those "stronger measures" are; they must be such as can be practically carried out; and it is exceedingly difficult to devise measures which will meet this peculiar evil. One word as to the remarks of my noble Friend near me (Earl Granville) upon the land question. In his answer to accusations made against the Government for not declaring our policy and bringing forward a measure, I think my noble Friend was misunderstood. His meaning was, that no mere explanation of policy, however acceptable it might be to Parliament, could apply an immediate remedy to the evils under which Ireland is suffering. You cannot do more than lay the foundation of a better state of things. These agrarian crimes are the outbreak of a bidden or open discontent which has
1966
existed for many generations. Now, any remedies you can apply, with a view to produce a better state of feeling, can have but a gradual effect. It is impossible that an evil which has existed so long—an evil found unconquerable by successive Governments—can be at once put an end to by measures which any Government, no matter what, or any Parliament can pass. We can only hope for future improvement as the result of such legislation. And I think that, even did the state of Public Business not forbid any attempt at legislation this year, it would be undesirable and unwise that Parliament should legislate in time of panic, expecting by any measure on the land question to stop these abominable murders in Tipperary and Westmeath. I say it is perfectly Utopian to expect that by any measure whatever you can stop these agrarian outrages, the result of an organization which extends, as we are told, even to England. An attempt has been made to fix Her Majesty's Government with personal responsibility for these crimes. Such an attempt can only come from those who weigh their own words very little. I can say for myself that they have very little effect upon me. The present Government are neither more nor less responsible than any other Government which has had to deal with the state of things which has so long existed in Ireland, and which has puzzled the wisest heads in this country generation after generation.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he thought the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) had not understood the argument with which he had tried to deal. Nobody was fool enough to suppose that if a measure were now introduced by the Government with reference to the land it could have the immediate effect of putting an end to ancient disputes and long existing evils—that was impossible; but such a measure might still have the effect of repressing the present outbreak of agrarian crime in Ireland. For some years past the relations between landlord and tenant had been improving in that country, and security to the tenant had been increasing. The present outbreak was not, therefore, due to the old law. What, then, was the immediate cause of it? The fact was that in a country like Ireland you could not shake the stability of any one class of property

1967
without unsettling the basis of all property. You could not with impunity in the midst of an excited population propose to transfer property from one hand to another. In the words of Sir George Grey, you could not do that without something like a revolution. Further than this—there were many in Ireland who attributed the proposals of the Government respecting the Irish Church to the result of the Fenian outbreak—they attributed it to the effect of panic; and he himself had little doubt that if there had not been that alarm about Fenianism this measure would never have been proposed. It was said by many in Ireland. "This alarm has induced the Government to bring forward the Irish Church Bill. Let us try a little more agitation with regard to the land, and the same result will follow." This was the language held by Ribbonmen. He did not say they were justified in using such language, but it was very natural that they should say this; and there was no doubt that the recent extraordinary outbreak of agrarian crimes, which did not arise from old existing grievances, was, to a certain extent, explained by this belief among a section of the Irish people. It was desirable, therefore, that the Government, while unsettling the public mind upon the question of the Irish Church, should show that upon the land question they were at all events, firm, and should declare that their principles with regard to the rights of property were fixed. No one expected that any legislation with regard to land would at once remove long-seated evils; but the present outbreak was due to temporary causes, which he believed that Her Majesty's Government, by a bold, determined declaration of policy respecting the land, might do much to terminate.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that the Irish lower orders were engaged not so much in a Fenian agitation as a political agitation, because they believed that, by agitation, they could squeeze out of the Government measures however unsound and however much at variance with the principles on which the sanctity of property depended. The doctrine of the rights of property was being interpreted in a manner to which, in this country at least, they were little accustomed. The landlords were advised to give up a little of their property in order to preserve the rest. He (the Marquess
1968
of Clanricarde) had never been able to discover the exact meaning of the recommendation or the limits within which it was to be applied. It probably referred to the proposed institution of a peasant proprietary—an institution which could only be brought about by the transfer of the greater part of the land in Ireland from the owner to the tenant. It was said the other night that the murders which were being perpetrated daily, and the spirit of insubordination to law which prevailed were of a local character. It might be that the murders were confined to a particular locality; but the spirit of insubordination displayed itself in different parts of the country widely apart. No one could doubt that a spirit of insubordination and lawlessness was abroad in Ireland, which required to be repressed by a vigorous hand. The topic he was about to enter upon might be thought a delicate one, but he must say this was not a mere local question—it was an Imperial question; for foreign countries regarded these matters, which were, therefore, likely to have a serious effect on the position of this country among the nations of the world, especially in respect to international negotiations. He did not think it was the case that the outrages were confined to a small locality—outrages of one sort or another were now being reported from districts far removed from each other. One of the last was the boarding of a vessel in a dock in the port of Cork, and robbing it of arms. That was in the extreme South. In the centre of Ireland—in Tipperary no less than six murders had been perpetrated since last August; and in Westmeath a murder was reported in the course of yesterday; and by information which he had received he was given to understand that the state of things in Meath was anything but satisfactory. This morning they had an account of tumult and riot in the city of Londonderry, under the eyes of a Royal Prince, in the course of which two men were shot dead and others were wounded. All this showed that throughout Ireland there was a want of vigilance and efficiency on the part of the police. Individually, and for the purposes to which they were put, the police were admirable; but what was daily occurring constituted an irrefragable proof that they were not sufficient or pro-

1969
perly organized to maintain the authority of the law. If the state of the city of Londonderry had been known to the police, they ought not to have allowed a Royal Prince to go there without taking due precautions for the preservation of the peace. With regard to quartering police on the disturbed districts, he believed that was a proceeding very much dreaded by the people of the localities. These outrages were openly discussed beforehand, and if the people knew that a police force were likely to be saddled on them many a meditated outrage would not be carried into execution. It was highly important that the Government should be in better communication than they were at present with men of property and influence in Ireland. The Government had, no doubt, a considerable majority of Irish Members in the House of Commons, but he saw no signs that they had in any part of Ireland any real influence. He could not find that any Lord Lieutenant of a county or any Board of magistrates in Ireland or any individual magistrates, who were able to give useful information and advice, had been consulted by the Government, or that they were on such terms of communication as were fit with the Government. On the contrary, it was within his own knowledge that the stipendary magistrates and the police concealed from the local magistrates much of the information they possessed. He admitted that some discretion on this point must be allowed to the police, but he maintained that the latter were too reticent.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he only wished to say a word on one or two points. First of all, he wished to point out that he was afraid there could be no doubt that these agrarian outrages were gradually speading. The noble Earl opposite said they were confined to some particular localities. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) was afraid the evidence he received every day showed that they were enlarging the field of their operation; and, further, he feared they were increasing not only in number but in intensity. If they cast back their eyes a few years, they could not fail to be struck with the difference between what O'Connell very happily called the "driftless" character of former outrages, and the deliberate system under which they now appeared to be perpe-
1970
trated. The change seemed to be well worthy of attention. In the next place, the danger now obviously pressing was this, that they were introducing a spirit of lawlessness and crime throughout the whole country. It had been observed by several speakers that the population of Ireland unfortunately connived at the perpetration of these crimes. That was perfectly true, and it constituted one of the great difficulties of dealing with the matter. It was true that this participation generally went no farther than connivance; but they had very good reason to know that the actual authors of these detestable outrages were brought over, often from a considerable distance, and then hired for a small sum of money to commit the crime. The only other point on which he wished to make any remark was the mode in which the present state of things in Ireland was to be dealt with. Her Majesty's Government had alluded to the Peace Preservation Act, and that Act might, he had no doubt, be used with great force. The evidence of all who were well acquainted with Ireland showed that, in certain districts at all events, it was a measure dreaded by the small occupiers, and that it had been resorted to with considerable effect in certain parts of the country. But he (the Earl of Carnarvon) viewed this question rather in the light of a simple question of executive administration. He could not help believing—and he made no complaint of the present in this respect any more than of the late Government—that if the powers which the law gave were carried out with an unsparing and energetic hand, they would be found to be effectual in putting a stop to a great extent to those outrages of which they had heard so much. Was there, he would ask, any other civilized country in Europe where such a state of things would be allowed to go on as that reign of terror which was now being established in Ireland? This was not the first time, he would add, that they had had to deal with evils of this kind. The diabolical confraternity of Thugs in India, which it was supposed to be impossible to touch, was trampled out by the unsparing exercise of executive authority; and the same unsparing exercise of it in Ireland would, he felt assured, result in reducing crime in that country within very much narrower limits than had hitherto been the case.

1971
Depend upon it, whatever might be the grievances under which that country laboured, and whatever might be the remedies which they might propose to apply to those evils, their first duty was to crush out every open defiance of the law, such as that which they were now discussing, which could not be justified by any motives, and then to apply those remedies which they might think fit, and which prudent and humane legislation might suggest.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, that, in justice to the small farmers and tenants who were accused of conniving at these outrages, it ought to be known that they lived under a system of terrorism that paralyzed their energies. A reign of terror existed in Ireland; and the only way to put an end to the present outrages in that country was to make the terror of the law stronger than the terror created by disaffection. In his own long experience of Ireland he had frequently been appealed to by his own tenants to save them from what they called "those blackguards," meaning the Ribbonmen; and he regretted much that a fresh impulse should have been given to the action of those criminal men by throwing open the gaols, as had been done by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Government, he maintained, ought to go on the stool of repentance for the way in which they had acted in that matter, as well as for their conduct in doing away with the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act under the circumstances in which Ireland was placed. He called upon Her Majesty's Government to take the most vigorous measures for enforcing the law, and to declare the principle of the measure they would introduce for the settlement of the land question.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had been asked in a former part of the evening by the noble Viscount (Viscount Lifford) whether, in any legislation which might take place on the subject of the tenure of land, the Government would respect the rights of property. He could have no objection to make such a declaration in the plainest manner, inasmuch as he had already made it on a previous evening. Another Question, put to him by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns), was whether, in dealing with this subject, the Government would consider the right of individuals to pro-
1972
perty as something distinct from the rights of the Church to property. He had no hesitation, also, in saying that the Government would recognize such a distinction.
THE EARL OF LEITRIMsuggested that, in every instance where a murder had been committed and the murderer was not brought to justice, the district should be made to act the part of a life assurance company, and should be required to put the family of the murdered man in a better position than it was before. In his opinion, if that course were taken, these murders and outrages would be put an end to. As to the term "agrarian murders," he objected to it altogether. They were political, not agrarian, murders. He believed it was the practice of parties in this country to fight their battles on Irish soil. The feeling which existed among all parties in Ireland—he said it with deep regret—was dislike to England, and the connection between Ireland and America, which was every day increasing, might yet give rise to very serious dangers. The policy which had lately been adopted had so completely turned away the minds of those who formerly looked to English connection as their greatest hope, that they were becoming careless, even with regard to the continuance of the Union with Great Britain. The state of Ireland was such as to demand the most serious consideration. The evil was far deeper, he feared, than was generally supposed either in that or the other House of Parliament. It was a most dangerous thing to set aside the educated classes of a country, and to suppose that the whole system of administration was to be carried on through the police.

CASHEL ELECTION.
Message from the Commons that they have agreed to an Address to be presented to Her Majesty, to which they desire the concurrence of their Lordships.
Message to the Commons for copy of minutes of the evidence taken at the trial of the Cashel Borough Election Petition (1869).
House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.