THIRD READING. (Hansard, 5 May 1871)

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE
said, that on first reading this Bill it seemed to him that its provisions were wholly inadequate to meet the disgraceful state of things evidenced by the witnesses on the Westmeath Committee; and though some of their Lordships thought that a different form of procedure to that adopted in the Bill should have been taken for that end, yet he thought all not Members of the Government had agreed with him in the conclusion he first arrived at—especially as to the extension of the provisions of the Bill to a larger area; still, as he found the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) on the one side, and the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) on the 264 other, not inclined to go further than the suggestions of Her Majesty's Government on that point, he thought it was useless to press an Amendment. But a new outrage of the worst kind occurring in the county of Mayo reminded him that while they were deliberating on the expediency of enforcing measures to repress crime, crime was again asserting its supremacy over law. He therefore felt it his duty to press the Amendment of which he had given Notice. The last attempt at murder in Mayo to which he referred was that on Monday last two shots were fired at Mr. Pike, at his residence in the county of Mayo—fortunately without effect. A threatening notice had previously been sent to him. From the threatening letter the police had notice that crime was intended; but under the existing law, from want of evidence they could not interfere—though probably had the Habeas Corpus Act been suspended they might have arrested those likely to be implicated, and by so doing prevented the outrage being committed. To justify the Amendment he now proposed he must in part repeat to their Lordships the statistics he read to the House on Tuesday. The agrarian outrages in Mayo were half of those committed in the whole of Ireland during the year 1870. The Peace Preservation Act doubtless checked crime throughout Ireland; but in the months of January, March, and April the outrages reported in Mayo were as numerous as in Westmeath, and there were no less than seven murders or attempts to murder among them, besides an attempt at night to burn down a house with all its inhabitants, but they were fortunately aroused by the smoke. In none of these cases had there been any conviction, nor, he believed, was there anyone in custody. He thought, therefore, he had clearly shown to the House that in 1870 Mayo had an unfortunate pre-eminence in crime, and that up to the present moment crime prevailed undetected and unpunished. He thought it should not be necessary for him to urge on Her Majesty's Government under these circumstances that it was their bounden duty to ask for some extra powers to re-establish the supremacy of the law. But the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) said Ribandism did not extend to Mayo. He carefully attended to the speech of the noble Earl, and failed to learn how he 265 distinguished between crimes that were agrarian and crimes that were Riband. Sir John Stewart Wood stated in his evidence that the state of crime in Mayo was not so bad as in Westmeath, and that though he did not think Ribandism extended to Mayo, he was not sure. Dr. M'Nulty, while denying the existence of the Riband Society as one united association, stated his belief that Ribandmen had probably means of recognizing one another all through Ireland, and so sent persons from one locality to perpetrate crime in another. Then their Lordships had the fact that whereas till three years ago the people of Mayo had been remarkable for being orderly and well-conducted, now murders and outrages were committed with impunity through the whole area of the county. He thought that was strong evidence of the existence of organization under the direction of some extraneous influence. But the results were the same to the people of Mayo; crime, outrage, and terror prevailed; the Executive was unable to cope with them; Parliament was quite willing to intrust them with any powers they required. If they refused these powers and crime continued unchecked, were they not accessory to the fact. Why was it that Government refused to have powers that they used only according to their own discretion? His convictions as to the future effects of the Land Bill were the same as they were when it passed—that they would be most disastrous. He appealed to noble Lords from Ireland, whether they supported or opposed that measure, whether he did not state an undeniable fact that the people of Ireland believed that that measure was conceded as a sop to crime? They believed that, as virtually the fee of the land was transferred from landlord to tenant subject to a rent charge, by the continuance of the same system, they would force Parliament to release them from that rent charge. If such was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government, if they intended no further to despoil the landlord, let them show that they would no longer wink at crime or allow Ireland to continue in a state which was intolerable in a Christian and civilized country.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he was sure the House would excuse his not discussing with the noble Lord the precise amount of responsibility which might fall upon Her Majesty's Government if they did not follow his advice. Nor would he discuss the arguments which the noble Lord had used against a Bill which was passed last Session—the Land Bill. With regard to the particular Motion which the noble Lord had made, he would only say that Her Majesty's Government had very carefully considered to what extent the powers for which they asked by this Bill should be applied, and they did not think that the county of Mayo was one of the parts of Ireland which should be included in this special legislation. He had heard nothing from the noble Lord to induce him to change his opinion, and hoped the House would reject the Motion of the noble Lord.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
said, as the Bill had been read a third time, it would be very difficult to alter it so as to include the county of Mayo within it. But from reliable information which he had received, he must say that in no district of Ireland did life and property require protection more than in that county. This Bill purported to be one for the protection of life and property in Ireland; whereas it was, in fact, merely a measure to put down the Riband Society in a certain district in that country. He admitted the necessity that existed for putting down that abominable institution; but the mere accomplishment of that object would not suffice for the protection of life in either Westmeath or in the other disturbed districts in Ireland. The noble Earl who introduced the measure (the Earl of Kimberley) drew a distinction between Fenianism and the Riband Society; but it would be no satisfaction to a dying man to be told that he had been shot by a Fenian and not by a Ribandman, or vice versâ. Captain Talbot, who had been examined before the Select Committee of the other House, could have told that Committee that the mere dissolution of the Riband Society would have no effect in protecting life and property in Ireland; and a reverend clergyman two years ago, in speaking on the subject, told his hearers that now-a-days when a man felt himself aggrieved he said nothing to any society or to anybody 267 else, but just toot his gun and "tumbled" his landlord or whosoever the offending party might be. Under these circumstances the Government ought to introduce a second Bill, which would really deserve the title that had erroneously been given to the present one. He desired that the Government should take to themselves the full responsibility in this matter. At this time the people of Ireland were more rich and prosperous than at any previous time during the century. How was it then that the people were leaving the country? The large emigration continuing from a wealthy and prosperous country showed that the hard-working and honest farmer or la-labourer who was unwilling to be driven into crime was compelled to seek in other countries that liberty which was denied to him in his own, in consequence of necessary steps not having been taken to secure the supremacy of the law.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, that while agreeing with the noble Lord on the cross benches that it was desirable to put down crime in Mayo, he thought that it would be objectionable to extend the operation of this Bill to Mayo, because this measure had been specially framed upon the Report of the Select Committee of the other House of Parliament which had been appointed to consider the question of disturbances in Westmeath, and that Report was founded on evidence taken before it. The Order of Reference by the House of Commons was to inquire into the state of Westmeath and a part of Meath; but if the provisions of the Bill were extended to Mayo that would include a part of Ireland, as to which inquiry had not been made. He should also deprecate the extension of a Bill which contained more stringent powers than had ever been conferred on any Government in this country. Acting on the principle of placing all the responsibility for this matter on the Government, he would not, unless it were absolutely necessary extend the Bill to other parts of Ireland than those at first proposed.