HL Deb 10 July 1871 vol 207 cc1316-21
LORD DUNSANY,

in rising to call attention to the growth of disaffection in Ireland, as evinced at the elections for Meath and Westmeath; and to point out the apparent connection between such disaffection and a vicious system of party Government long followed in Ireland: Also to ask Her Majesty's Ministers whether it was intended to lay down some rules as to the qualifications and the selection of stipendiary magistrates? said, that last year it was found necessary to pass a Coercion Bill for Ireland in consequence of the state of that country; and this Session the operation of that Coercion Bill had been extended for another year, and its provisions had been made much more stringent. Recently, three county elections had taken place in Ireland, and at each of them the Members elected had been returned on the express—perhaps on the sole—ground of their hostility to this country and its institutions. To these incidents might be added the inauguration of the statue of Mr. Smith O'Brien, the Corporation of Dublin, headed by the Protestant Mayor, taking part in the ceremony. It would be a great mistake to throw away whatever useful lesson such facts might afford. The newspaper Press of the country afforded a good index to the state of public feeling, and five out of nine of the journals in Dublin, enjoying the largest circulation, were decidedly engaged in the advocacy of rebellion. These disagreeable facts were the more serious, inasmuch as they followed close upon the passing of two measures which it was hoped would have a healing effect in Ireland, and existed simultaneously with a state of our foreign relations which was not encouraging to domestic rebellion, and when there was a marked increase in the material prosperity of the country. Such a state of things was extremely serious. It was not merely that there was disaffection in Ireland; there had been disaffection there before, and Coercion Bills had had to be passed on previous occasions; but the most alarming symptom of the time was found in the discouragement of the good and loyal people of the country. The elements of order had been weakened, and the Protestant and loyal population had been alienated—not so much by disgust at the recent legislation, and by the distrust excited by the sacrifice of great interests to party exigencies which had inspired that legislation. Nevertheless, it was his firm belief that their loyalty might even now be relied on in case of danger. It was commonly said that the recent legislation for Ireland could not be expected to have immediate effects, and that no farmer expected to reap the harvest as soon as he had sown the seed. But surely, although the harvest might not be ripe the corn blades were not long before they appeared above the ground. In Ireland, however, the growth which had resulted from the passing of the Church and Land Acts was shown by such matters as the meeting held at Mullagh on the 29th of June, called together by eight priests, and attended by 4,000 or 5,000 people, who denounced the much-vaunted Land Act as affording no adequate protection for the tenant, and who groaned and hooted at the name of the Prime Minister. The state of Ireland was not loyal or contented, and he believed that it was owing in a great measure to the pernicious system of party Government which had so long prevailed in that country. Party Government in that country was not based on the union of those who held similar opinions or something like similar opinions. Ireland had for the last 40 years been practically under the dominion of the Irish priesthood. Party Government in Ireland, represented by an alliance between the Liberal and the Ultramontane parties, was insincere. It was not a party alliance of that kind which was recognized in England, and could not be looked upon with either favour or respect. With regard to party Government in Ireland there was really no materials for forming a Government which could be founded on principles of stability. The alliance between the Irish Liberals and the Roman Catholic priesthood was absolutely incompatible—it was already at at end, or its dissolution was threatened. What was the practical working of the system in Ireland? The Lord Lieutenant, the principal officer of the Government, represented the Crown, and must of necessity be a partisan. The whole Irish Executive—the Lord Lieutenant, the Lord Chancellor, the Law Officers—even the Castle tradesmen and the Government organ of the Press—were changed with every change of Government. He was not speaking from a party point of view, for the same system was pursued whichever party came into office; and if on the one hand there were illiberal Liberals, there were on the other Conservative Repealers. Why should not the Lord Lieutenant, the Lord Chancellor, and Law Officers continue in office without reference to a change of administration. This, he believed, would do much to tranquillize the country by lessening the inducement for political lawyers to keep up an agitation, for at present barristers' speeches in nine cases out of ten were hustings' harangues rather than addresses delivered in the interests of their clients. Military, naval, and civil service appointments no longer depended in this country on political grounds, the principle of competitive examinations having been wisely introduced, and why should not a similar reform be applied to Irish appointments? Honesty and morality demanded a change of system. Unless the priests, who were deserting to the Repealers, were conciliated, a majority of Repealers might be returned at the next Election, and they could only be conciliated by further concessions, such as an Ultramontane University and another slice of the land—concessions which would only give satisfaction for a time. Among the great evils to which he wished to direct their Lordships' attention, and as illustrative of the evils which had arisen from the character of party Government in Ireland, he would instance the appointment of the stipendiary magistrates. It was most desirable that some means should be found of restricting the appointment of political partisans to judicial offices, and the selection of those magistrates was one of the most glaring instances of the effect of party Government. He disclaimed the intention of casting any imputation on the present Lord Lieutenant, who was actuated by the honourable principles which guided every English gentleman; but he was convinced that the change he advocated would tend to produce a better tone in the public mind, and was most desirable in the interests of honesty and morality. The noble Lord concluded by putting his question—Whether it was intended to lay down some rules as to the qualification and selection of stipendiary magistrates?

LORD DUFFERIN,

in reply, said, the Government had at present no intention of laying down rules as to the qualifications and selection of stipendiary magistrates in England or Ireland, and, even if the present system was attended with some disadvantages, it could not be lightly abandoned. It would not, he thought, be alleged that any Government had been actuated by any other motive than a desire to secure the persons best, qualified by antecedents and education to discharge the duties of their office. The Government were responsible for the appointments that were made, and he believed that, on the whole, the magistrates selected had discharged their duties satisfactorily. His own opinion of the results of recent legislation and the general condition of the country was very different from that of the noble Lord (Lord Dunsany); but no advantage would be derived from his endeavouring to show that appreciation of the state of the country was the more correct, and that the noble Lord laboured under misapprehensions. He could not conceive by what machinery the great officers of State could be chosen, as suggested by the noble Lord, whose censure had fallen on those Governments which he usually supported, as well as on those of opposite principles to his own. It seemed to him premature to pronounce any very decided opinion on the effect of recent legislation; but his acquaintance with the North of Ireland induced him to think that the Church Act had been accepted with perfect good faith, which reflected the greatest honour on those who so vigorously opposed it; while as to the Land Act, his conviction was that, on the one hand, the Courts intrusted with the administration of its details had discharged their duty with perfect satisfaction both to landlords and tenants; and that, on the other hand, as day by day its working became more familiar and better understood, all classes in Ireland would become more and more satisfied with it.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

expressed his concurrence with the noble Lord who had brought this subject forward. While he admitted that the resident magistrates had generally shown more impartiality than could have been expected from the mode of their appointment, he maintained that the appointments were a reward for political services. They were not like other magistrates, appointed and dismissed by the Lord Chancellor, but held their appointments at the will of the Government, to whom alone they could look for advancement, and from whom they received secret instructions. They were thus not guided by law, but by the humour of the Government, which, according to the political views of the hour, made the law active or passive. The present Government existing on popularity, law was dormant and rowdyism in the ascendant. Irishmen did not love English rule; but it had so misruled them as to leave them no alternative save priestly socialism. There was little use in the Chief Secretary promising to preserve the integrity of the Empire if in the same breath he released those who, at Clerkenwell, first showed the use of petroleum, giving them the opportunity of organizing an international league through English towns and new raids from America. If the Premier was to bid for popularity against Mr. Martin, the fuse was already lighted to the powder magazine on which we stood.

THE EARL OF LEITRIM

said, that the answer of the noble Lord (Lord Dufferin) had greatly astonished him—in fact, it was no answer at all, and we must assume that in the noble Lord's opinion the Church of Ireland liked to be robbed, and that the landlords approved of a third of their property being made over to the tenants on their estates. The fact was that the distrust and disgust in Ireland, in consequence of recent legislation, was widely spread in all classes of the community. As to the Irish Land Act, he would remind the House of his unavailing opposition to the provisions which intrusted the onerous duty of administering that measure to assistant barristers at Quarter Sessions. The result is that they postpone the cases from one Quarter Sessions to another before they can make up their minds as to what decision they will come to. The system of stipendiary magistrates was neither good, safe, nor wholesome—in fact, if a Return was obtained of the number of Petty Sessions they had to attend, it would be found impossible for them to discharge their duties. He knew a case himself in which the stipendiary magistrate had ten Potty Sessions to attend to in a fortnight, at very considerable distances one from the other. As to the Laud Act—that Act which was passed to rob the landlords—only recently a Lord Justice of Appeal had given a very honest and straightforward opinion of the Act, and the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench had stated that it was so drawn that every clause of it—and sometimes every line of a clause—was calculated to give rise to litigation. The effect of recent legislation was to sow religious discord and social distrust in every part of Ireland; and the recent Bill of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns), so far from quieting this distrust, was looked upon as an abuse of Parliamentary power. It neither gives security to the vendor or the purchaser of lands, but it leaves the uncertainty of the claims to be made by the tenants on the lands exactly in the same position as has been so ably shown by the Lord Justice of Appeal. The vender knows not what he has to sell, no purchaser can ascertain what he is about to buy, and the confusion which has been created by the Land Act is confirmed by the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, The result of the Irish Church Bill and the Irish Land Bill would certainly not be either to establish peace, or to attract capital to Ireland.