Lords Sitting of 1 May 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Ewelme Rectory * (82).
Second Reading—Trades Unions (68); Criminal Law Amendment (Violence, Threats, &c.) (69); Anatomy Act (1832) Amendment * (74); Charters (Colleges) (73).
Report—Bankruptcy Disqualification * (79–83).

CHINA—MISSIONS IN CHINA.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONasked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could affirm the authenticity of a telegram from Shanghai which had appeared in the public Press, according to which the Chinese Government had demanded that female schools should be abolished, that teaching contrary to the doctrines of Confucius should be prohibited, and that all missionaries, except those at Treaty Ports, should be regarded as Chinese subjects; a declaration being added that in the event of another massacre compensation would not be granted, and that only the actual murderer would be punished. This announcement had already caused considerable anxiety, and if the noble Earl was in possession of such a despatch from the Chinese Government he should be glad to know whether he would object to lay it on the Table?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the Government had not received a telegram of such a purport, and that he could not confirm the accuracy of the statements referred to by the noble Earl.

TRADES UNIONS BILL—(No. 68.)
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (VIOLENCE, THREATS, &C.) BILL—(No. 69.)
  (The Earl of Morley.)
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (VIOLENCE, THREATS, &C.) BILL—(No. 69.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
    THE EARL OF MORLEY, in moving that the Trades Unions Bill be now read a second time, said, that he must begin by explaining that this Bill and the Criminal Law Amendment (Violence, Threats, &c.) Bill originally formed a single measure, which, in deference to the representations of various parties whose interests were affected, was divided
    1912
    into two Bills. They would therefore be better understood by being considered together, and it was proposed that they should pass their different stages pari passu. He must bespeak the indulgence of the House, especially of noble and learned Lords, in dealing with questions of great delicacy and legal difficulty while he explained the position of trades unions and trade combinations in relation to the existing law. Before 1824 all trade combinations, whatever their purpose, were violations of the Combination Statutes, which were based on the principle that the State should fix the rate at which labour should be sold. As early as 1350 that principle was laid down in the celebrated Statute of Labourers, and again, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, in the Statute of Apprentices. Subsequently various statutes were passed prohibiting combinations for whatever purpose, culminating in the Act of 1800, which prohibited all trade combinations, and forbade any workman or master to induce his fellows, by any means however gentle, to join him in any particular course of action relating to their business. So far as the common law was concerned, Mr. Justice Grose, in 1796, said—
    "In many cases an agreement to do a certain thing has been considered as the subject of an indictment for a conspiracy, though the same act, if done separately by each individual, without agreement among themselves, will not have been illegal. As in the case of journeymen conspiring to raise their wages, each may insist on raising his wages if he can; but if several meet for the same purpose it is illegal, and the parties may be indicted for a conspiracy."
    In 1824, an inquiry before a Parliamentary Committee having shown the injustice and inequality of the state of the law, all the combination statutes were repealed, and a statute was passed legalizing all trade combinations, irrespective of the objects which they had in view; but in the following year an immense number of strikes occurred throughout the country, many of them accompanied with violence to person and property. A panic was the result; the Act of the previous year was repealed, and a new Act substituted for it. But in reviving the old disabilities it was provided that combinations, intended merely to regulate wages and the hours of work, should be exempted from the penalties attaching to all other trade combinations. This enactment governed the question of

    1913
    trades unions down to the present day, and all unions, except those thus exempted, were illegal at common law, their members being liable to indictment for conspiracy in restraint of trade. But not a single trades union, in point of fact, confined its objects to the regulation of wages and hours of labour—so that the distinction drawn by the Act of 1825 was wholly futile. In the case of "Hilton v. Eckersley," in which some masters endeavoured to enforce a bond against one of their fellows for breach of an agreement, the Court ruled that the bond, if not altogether illegal and punishable, was a contract by which the parties agreed to carry on their trade not freely, as they ought to do, but in conformity with the will of others, which was contrary to public policy. Moreover, in two important cases, under the Friendly Societies Act, it had been decided that the agreements on which trades combinations were based were unlawful, one of their objects being directly or indirectly in restraint of trade, and that they therefore could not take advantage of the 44th section of that Act. As the result of the disabilities imposed by this legislation, it became impossible for unions to sue their members or officers, or to sue their bankers for money deposited with them; neither could they enforce any agreement they might have entered into with their landlords in respect of the premises they occupied, nor take criminal proceedings against those who might have defrauded them. The law of partnership, moreover, had some bearing upon the subject, for a trade union could not sue its treasurer if he was also a member of the society—which he, in fact, always was—as he became to that extent a partner in the concern. The 44th section of the Friendly Societies Act gave uncertificated societies, for purposes not unlawful, an advantage in this respect, enabling them to prosecute their treasurers or servants who embezzled their funds; but the decisions mentioned above prevented trades unions availing themselves of it. The result was that an Act, which was known as the Recorder's Act, was passed, amending the law of partnership, so as to make it possible for a partnership to prosecute its officers, even if members of the partnership, for embezzling the common property; but with regard to prosecuting summarily
    1914
    officers who embezzled their funds, it required the consent of the accused, and though this might sometimes be given, in the hope of the punishment being lighter than if he were indicted, there was no certainty that such consent would be given. In consideration of this difficulty, and of the fact that this Act gave no facilities for the recovery of stolen books and property, the Home Secretary introduced a measure two years ago which gave trades unions the advantages given to uncertificated societies by the 44th section of the Friendly Societies Act. This measure, however, was a temporary one, being only passed for a year, though it had been renewed for another 12 months. Under the present law all trades unions, whatever they might be in theory, were, in fact, conspiracies in restraint of trade, the agreements on which they were based were unlawful, and they were incapable of suing civilly, although there were special provisions to enable them to prosecute criminally under certain circumstances. But that law was both doubtful and unjust, and it had become both politic and just to amend it. Trades unions, no doubt, were placed under the restraint of the law; but the law had proved wholly inoperative, it had entirely failed to check the growth of these societies, whether they were beneficial or injurious, and this was a fact which no Legislature could ignore. As had been remarked by a noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), whose opinion would have weight with their Lordships—
    "The question whether trade societies are desirable or not is a question which, in our day, is idle to put. They exist; they are a fact; they never were more strongly supported than now; and they are not likely in our time to disappear. No one can reasonably dispute the right of men working together in one trade to combine in joint action for matters connected with that trade. It is legal, it is right; and that it is their interest on the whole I do not see that anyone can doubt who has considered the matter practically. At any rate, this latter point the parties interested have settled for themselves. They do it—they have a right to do it; and it is for experience and for the future to show how far and to what limits they have done it wisely."
    It was unnecessary that he should adduce any proof, or produce any statistics to show how vast were the resources of these societies, or how wide the extent of their ramifications. But he would mention, by way of illustration, that be-

    1915
    tween 1858 and 1867 the members of the Engineers' Society increased from 15,000 to 33,000, and those of the Ironworkers' Society from 6,630 to 10,829. It was surely unwise to leave these organizations without the pale of the law. Was it not better to give them legal status and protection; to relieve them from the taint of illegality and consequent secrecy; and by encouraging them to give publicity to their rules and transactions, to obtain the best possible securities for their good administration? If it were once admitted that workmen were justified in combining to get the best wages they could for their labour, how could they be restricted to the objects sanctioned by the Act of 1825? As to the relation between the employer and the employed, it was true that every employer was not necessarily an oppressor; but it might be also assumed that every employer was not necessarily a philanthropist; and the workman had, therefore, a right to a position in which he could cope with him, which, single-handed, it was quite impossible for him to do. There had been many things done by these trades unions which, on economical and social grounds, could not be defended; but he regretted that the feeling against them should be too much one of distrust, if not of hostility. Though the recent disclosures of the transactions of trades unions at Sheffield and Manchester had naturally had a great effect upon the public mind, it must be remembered that these were isolated instances, and that, as was clearly shown by the Commissioners, these bodies had confined themselves more closely to legitimate objects since the repeal of the old combination laws than before it. It was needless to inquire how far trades unions were economically beneficial and how far they had affected trade. They existed, and it was much better that they should be recognized by the law. The Commissioners had pointed out that, with regard to driving trade out of the country, strikes were a natural consequence of the decline of trade, and that so many causes influenced the distribution and prosperity of trade, that it was extremely difficult to trace to any particular cause the vast effect which had been attributed to these organizations. Some of their rules, doubtless, were oppressive and some were economically false in principle; but it was
    1916
    difficult to draw the line between what was morally wrong and what was legally criminal; and, as many of their objects were attained by a petty social tyranny, of which the law could not take cognizance, the correction of these errors must be left to the growing intelligence and the experience of the workmen rather than be made the object of stringent repressive legislation. The benefits derived by the working classes from these trades combinations were very great. They were benefit societies in the largest sense of the word, having sick, burial, and, in more than one instance, superannuation funds. They were able, also, in many cases, to regulate the distribution of labour, so as to transport it from places where it was in excess to places where it was deficient. This was, unquestionably, a most useful and admirable office for a trade union to fulfil. Mr. Applegarth, in his evidence before the Commission, said—
    "When the monthly returns on or about the 6th of each month come into my hands, I run down the reports to see where men are wanted, and where men are out of employment. I then take the earliest opportunity possible of writing to the secretaries in the towns where men are out of employment to tell them where men are wanted, and we make a practice of paying the railway or steamboat fare of the men that are out of employment when we send to the places where men are wanted."
    There was, moreover, in most unions a great disparity between the amount expended in strikes and disputes, and those used for benefit purposes. For instance, in 10 years the Engineers spent £459,000 in benefits and £26,000, or 6 per cent, on disputes; while the Ironworkers spent £210,000 in benefits, and £5,300, or 2½ per cent, on disputes. Having said thus much in reference to the existing state of the law and the general character of these trades unions, he would now draw their Lordships' attention to the Bills before them. Considering the vast network of these societies, their large funds, their capacities for good as well as for evil, and the impossibility of discriminating between what was mischievous and what was beneficial, the only line of demarcation which Parliament could draw was between that which was criminal and that which was not so. The principle on which the first Bill before their Lordships was based was that these societies should be released from all criminal liabilities so far

    1917
    as their objects were not unlawful, that protection should be given to their property, and that certain qualified rights resembling those enjoyed by corporations should be extended to them, the law in all other respects taking up an attitude of neutrality towards them. As to the doctrine of restraint of trade, which was set aside by the Bill, he would quote the opinions of two learned Judges. Mr. Justice Hannen's words were these—
    "By the expression that a thing is contrary to public policy I understand that it is meant that it is opposed to the welfare of the community at large. I can see that the maintenance of strikes may be against the interests of employers, because they may be forced to yield at their own expense a large share of profit or other advantage to the employed; but I have no means of judicially determining that this is contrary to the interest of the whole community, and I think that in deciding that it is, and therefore that any act done in its furtherance is illegal, we should be basing our judgment, not on recognized legal principles, but on the opinion of one of the contending schools of political economists."
    Lord Campbell, in 1855, remarked on the same subject—
    "I enter upon such considerations with much reluctance and with great apprehension, when I think how different generations of Judges and different Judges of the same generation have differed in questions of political economy and other topics connected with the adjudication of such cases. … I should have been much more pleased if a clear rule had been expressly laid down to me by the Legislature."
    The Commissioners, in their Report, unanimously recommended that the doctrine of restraint of trade should be repealed, but the majority of them wished to make certain exceptions, the first being the exception of all combinations which involved breach of contract; but, as pointed out by Lord Elcho, this point was amply protected by the Masters and Servants Act. A second exception related to all strikes directed against particular individuals; but surely this would be an arbitrary interference with the right of combination, and cases might occur where such strikes would be justifiable:—such, for instance, as the case of an inefficient foreman of a mine, whose incapacity might endanger the lives of hundreds of his fellow-workmen. Under those circumstances, it had been thought right to do away altogether with the restraint of trade doctrine, and to declare that a trade union shall not be, merely on that ground, criminal, so as to render its members
    1918
    liable to prosecution, nor unlawful so as to render void or voidable any agreement or trust. The Bill provided that all primary contracts made by trades unions should not be enforcible, but that the secondary contracts should be enforcible. The result of that would be that no legal proceedings could be instituted to enforce any agreement between the members as to the conditions on which they will work, nor to compel the payment of subscriptions, nor for the application of the funds, or to discharge fines imposed upon any person by Courts of Justice; but, on the other hand, the secretary could sue the society for his salary, or the society their banker in respect of their funds deposited with him. None of the agreements he had mentioned as unenforcible were constituted unlawful, but they were simply not enforcible by law. Indeed, it was not the wish of the trades unions to be put completely in the position of Friendly Societies. Their objects, rights, and liability were mostly, as remarked by the minority of the Commissioners, such as Courts of Law should neither enforce, modify, nor annul, but such as should rest on consent. With regard to the registration of trades unions, the Commissioners were unanimous as to the desirability of the rules of these societies having the guarantee of publicity; and though compulsion in this matter would be impracticable, the question arose whether, by the offer of certain privileges, by giving certain rights and removing certain disabilities, they might not be induced to come forward and register themselves. The Commissioners were unanimous in recommending some system of registration, but they differed most radically as to the conditions they would impose. The minority of the Commissioners were for laying down as the sole condition of registration that the unions did not contemplate any criminal purpose; but the majority were for refusing registration to any rules which restricted the number of apprentices, the use of machinery, piecework, and the employment of non-unionists or of foreign labour, or which sanctioned agreements with other unions. It was also suggested that there should be two classes of unions—the first class separating their benefit and trade accounts, while the second class kept the two accounts together. Such a separation of

    1919
    accounts would strike at the root of many societies, though not all of them, and the imposition of such conditions would virtually deter every union from registering. As to the division between benefit and trade funds, it was impossible to distinguish between funds used for benefit purposes and those devoted to other objects, the funds being applied at one time to one purpose and at another time to another; and it was difficult to distinguish whether a payment was made to a man out of work in consequence of a strike or for other reasons. The Bill rendered registration optional, the only proviso being that the purposes contemplated were not of a criminal character; and it enforced the deposit of the rules, and, what was more important, of the accounts. The advantages which registration would confer were that it gave the societies quasi-corporate rights, and also a summary remedy against embezzling officers—a privilege temporarily enjoyed under the Act of 1869. Societies which did not register would have the power of prosecuting fraudulent officers under the Recorder's Act. The Bill provided that all offences and penalties under the Bill may be prosecuted and recovered in the manner directed by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts; with an appeal to the Courts of Quarter Sessions. Turning now to the other Bill—the Criminal Law Amendment (Violence, Threats, &c.) Bill—he need not remark that all unionists were subject to the general law of the land, but there were certain offences specified from time to time by statute which, though not criminal in themselves, became so if there was the ulterior intention of coercing any person to do something in restraint of trade. The principal Act on this point was the Statute of George IV., as amended by an Act of 1859. The interpretations put upon the offences which it mentioned—violence to person or property, threats, molestation, and intimidation had, however, been so fluctuating that it was necessary to define them more clearly—for when Judges differed, justices of the peace, without the advantage of a legal education, could not be expected to solve the problem. The Bill defined "threats" to be when any person threatens or intimidates any other in such a manner as would authorize a magistrate to bind over the person so threatening or in-
    1920
    timidating to keep the peace—that is, threats of violence to the person himself, his wife or children, or threat to burn his house down. "Molestation" included the persistently following any person from place to place, hiding his tools, or watching or besetting the place where he resides or works—in fact, those acts which were generally understood by the terms "dogging," "rattening," and "picketing." And, moreover, these acts must be done with the intention of restraining another person, be he master or workman, from freely disposing of his capital or his labour, in any of the different modes defined in the Bill. It had been objected that this clause created a new offence of "picketing," for Mr. Baron Bramwell remarked, in the case of the tailors' strike, that if picketing could be so carried on as to excite no reasonable alarm, and as not to coerce or annoy, it would be perfectly lawful. Now, it was true that the best unions gave their pickets instructions not to violate the law; but in view of the irritation excited by seeing men go to work at a place where others had struck, it would be taking too charitable a view of human nature to suppose that the methods of persuasion made use of by pickets would be invariably of a gentle character. Consequently, the Bill prohibited all pickets, composed of three or more persons, in the belief that all legal and proper purposes of a picket, and there are such purposes, could be attained by one or two watchers, and that the employment of a greater number implied that something more than persuasion was to be attempted. As in the Trades Unions Bill the proceedings under this Bill would be in the manner directed by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, with an appeal to the Courts of Quarter Sessions. The complaint that this was special legislation was scarcely a reasonable one, for if special legislation was necessarily unjust, how could the Truck Acts, the Mining Act, and the Merchant Shipping Act be justified? If acts were likely to occur which would be injurious to the public, though not in other respects and under other circumstances criminal, the law was entitled to check them as far as possible, and though unions, he believed, had done a great deal of good to working men, it must be recollected that as men had a right to combine, so also

    1921
    they had a right to stand aloof from combinations. He must apologize for trespassing so long on their Lordships' attention, but the subject was so important, and the interests involved so large, that he had felt it his duty to explain at some length the legislation which was proposed. It was his earnest hope that by bringing the unions within the pale of the law, by endeavouring to give publicity to their rules, and by bringing all their good points into the light of day, Parliament would do much towards the abolition of that feeling of mistrust and antagonism which was said to exist, and to some extent, doubtless, did exist, between labour and capital. As the majority of the Commissioners had observed in their Report—
    "Whether the circumstance is to be regretted or not, the habitual code of sentiment which prevailed between employers and workmen in times when the former were regarded both by law and usage as the governing class is row greatly relaxed and cannot be revived. A substitute has now to be found for it, arising from feelings of equity and enlightened self-interest and mutual forbearance, which should exist between contracting parties who can best promote their several chances of advantage by aiding and accommodating each other."
    Moved, "That these Bills be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Morley.)
    Motion agreed to: Bills read severally 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 15 th instant.

UNITED STATES—THE ISLAND OF SAN JUAN.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEasked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the report in The Times of 25th April is correct—namely, that the future ownership of the Island of San Juan is left to the arbitration of a friendly Power; and, if so, whether there is any reservation or stipulation that the Island is not to be fortified or made a military station? The Island of San Juan was 12 miles long by about six miles broad, and lay on the southeast end of the Island of Vancouver. It had been occupied by the Hudson's Bay Company for many years, and commanded the entrance to the ports in Vancouver. The channel which led into the inner waters was not more than five miles wide; it is called the Haro Canal. If
1922
San Juan were given up to the United States, and fortified by that Power, the effect would be much the same in that part of the world as it would be nearer home if the Isle of Wight were given up to the French and fortified by them. For the last 200 years the Island of San Juan had formed part of Her Majesty's dominions; having been ceded, amongst other islands, about the year 1792, Captain Vancouver, and another commissioner, were appointed to receive from the Spaniards their possessions in those seas. As their Lordships were aware, about 1859 the island was taken forcible possession of by a party of troops from the United States. It was, at that time, occupied by the Hudson's Bay Company; and it was not taken possession of by the direction of the Government of the United States, but by the act of a general commanding the United States forces in that part of the world. The excuse for taking possession of the island was that some insult was offered to American settlers or squatters. He believed that to have been a perfectly false pretence, for up to the year 1858 there was only one American squatter in the whole island. A treaty between Great Britain and the United States was signed in July, 1846, by which it was decided that the line of boundary between the two countries should be the parallel of 49 north latitude to the sea, through the centre of the strait dividing the main land from the Island of Vancouver. The wording of the treaty was clear and distinct; but, unfortunately, the diplomatists did not mark the line down in a chart, and though there could be no doubt that it was meant that the line should go down the Rosario Channel, close to the main land on the American side, a diplomatic dispute had been going on about it for the last 20 years. The reason why he brought this matter forward was because he believed that the United States had no right whatever to the Island of San Juan, and because it had been thought by this country that in giving to the United States all that was called Washington Territory, consisting of about 60,000 square miles of the finest land in that part of the world, this country did so with the idea of settling the matter, and having no more disputes. Nevertheless, in consequence of the boundary line not being put down on the chart, a dispute commenced

1923
within two years of the signing of the treaty. An agreement, he might add, had been entered into that until the Commissioners, to whose appointment both sides had assented, had decided the points in dispute, neither party should interfere with the other; but, notwithstanding, a violent occupation of the island by American troops occurred during the existence of the convention. To the United States, San Juan would be of little or no value, except to enable her to prevent us from getting out of our own ports, or out of the Channel. It was not likely that a naval man would readily settle anything with a Philadelphia and a Penang lawyer, neither of whom was very pleasing to naval men; and it was by such persons that America was represented. When the dispute first arose, there was only one squatter in the place. But no sooner had the American Commissioner made his appearance than a change was at once perceptible, and within a few months the island contained twenty squatters. Shortly afterwards a justice of the peace was sent to take charge of these squatters; also a tax collector. One of the squatters shot a valuable animal, a breeding sow, belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company, worth not less than £50, and when complaint was made, the general, the Penang lawyer, responded by sending a company of soldiers to take possession of the island, this being an aggravation of the general policy pursued by the Americans towards us. It had been agreed that until the Commissioners had made known their decision, things should remain in statu quo. Under these circumstances, he could not but think that if this island be given up to the Americans—it having belonged to us and having been forcibly occupied, contrary to stipulation and convention—it would, be most unjust to the people of Vancouver's Island and British Columbia, and would be very galling and lowering to the honour and credit of this country. This dispute had been going on for 20 years; and in a chart, made by the Americans last year, the line had been moved about 25 miles over to our side, and he could only say that, if the island was given up and fortified by the Americans, it being of the greatest importance to us, and of none to the Americans, except for the purpose of hostile action against Great Britain, it would be a thing to be very seriously deplored.
1924
The noble Lord concluded by asking formally the Question which stood in his name.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had no doubt the facts which the noble Earl had stated, might with advantage be brought before arbitrators on either side. But he could not give the House any information as to pending negotiations; for the Joint Commission, which was dealing with those matters, had determined, with the consent of their respective Governments, to keep their proceedings secret until they had arrived at some definite result one way or the other.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEwished to know whether the Commissioners were in possession of two American charts, the one published by Colonel Freeman in 1848, and the other last year, the line in the former being drawn down close to the American shore, through the Rosario Straits, and in the latter so close to Vancouver's Island that it was impossible a ship of any size could get through the passage.
EARL GRANVILLE: The Commissioners are in possession of all the information which we have been able to give them. As to details such as those mentioned by the noble Earl, I would observe that the Commissioners are not to settle the questions open between ourselves and the United States, but to agree upon the mode in which they should be decided.

CHARTERS (COLLEGES) BILL—(No. 73.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
CHARTERS (COLLEGES) BILL—(No. 73.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwished to call attention to some extraordinary language in the Bill. It was said that a charter proposed to be granted should be laid before both Houses of Parliament for a period of 30 days, and during that time it should be lawful for either House to present an Address to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold her charter. Of course it was lawful, and had long been lawful. But on the principle that expressio unius implied exclusio alterius, if it were lawful

  1925
  to present an Address on this subject, that would exclude the presentation of an Address on any other.
  LORD REDESDALEexpressed an opinion that the Bill went to sanction a great innovation on the Royal prerogative.
  On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

RELEASED FENIAN CONVICTS—WILLIAM MACKAY.—QUESTION.
EARL GREYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the William Mackay whose name is included in the list of convicts specially discharged from custody, recently laid before this House, is the same person with the Captain Mackay who, in a question put to the then Secretary for Ireland in the House of Commons on the 9th of March 1869, was described as—
"An individual who last year killed a police constable at Cork; who attacked and set fire to a police barrack at Ballyknockbane, and seized the arms belonging to that station; who also attacked and rifled the Martello Tower at Fota in December 1867; and who was implicated in other outrages at Castle Martyr, Knockadown, Kilcooley Wood, and elsewhere;"
And of whom this description was stated by Mr. Chichester Fortescue in his reply to be "substantially connect." Now, as to-morrow their Lordships would have submitted for second reading a Bill brought forward by Her Majesty's Government with a view to prevent murders committed at the instigation of one unlawful society in Ireland, he was anxious to know whether it could possibly be true that they had considered a man who for the purposes of another unlawful society, was admitted to have been guilty of the murder of a police constable, in addition to a good many other outrages, a fit subject for the Royal clemency?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, his answer to the noble Earl's Question would be the same as that given by Mr. Chichester Fortescue—namely, that the description of what had been done by Mackay was substantially correct. William Mackay, whose name was included in the list of released Fenian convicts, was the man referred to. But he wished to add that it was not true, as his noble Friend seemed to suppose, that Her
1926
Majesty's Government had released a man who had committed a murder; for, although Mackay did undoubtedly kill a policeman at the time he was arrested, and was tried for it, the verdict was an acquittal, the defence being that the revolver with which he was armed at the time went off by accident. The offence of which he was convicted was treason-felony. As to the connection which the noble Earl supposed between Ribandism and Fenianism, and the inconsistency the Government was guilty of in letting off Mackay when they had brought in a Bill to prevent murder by Ribandmen, he did not think it convenient to enter into that subject at present, but should postpone any remarks he had to make until to-morrow. However, he begged to say that he did not admit the objects of the Riband and Fenian conspiracies to be identical, or that there was any inconsistency in the course taken by the Government in releasing members of the latter body at a time when they were seeking from Parliament additional Powers for the suppression of the former.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.