HL Deb 01 March 1881 vol 258 cc1917-40

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

EARL SPENCER

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: My Lords, it is my duty to call your Lordships' attention to a subject nearer home than that which has just been occupying your Lordships. It is my duty to propose to your Lordships to read a second time the Bill for the Protection of Person and Property in Ireland. My Lords, I feel that I must ask your Lordships' kind indulgence, because I feel that I have very little, if anything, that is new to tell your Lordships. Luring the last few months the attention of the country has been greatly absorbed by the condition of Ireland, and since the meeting of Parliament there have been almost continuous debates on the subject in another Assembly—debates which, I think, will be memorable in the history of Parliament. It will be my duty to give your Lordships the reasons which have induced Her Majesty's Government to ask that so stringent a measure as this should be applied to one part of Her Majesty's Dominions. My Lords, the Bill which I have in my hand is one which touches one of the most cherished liberties enjoyed by the subjects of the Queen. That liberty cannot be touched lightly by any Government or Minister, and Parliament has always refused to take any such measure into its consideration except under circumstances of the greatest necessity or in cases of supreme danger to the State. My Lords, I think it was Lord Macaulay who very eloquently said, in speaking of the Habeas Corpus Act, that it was one of those bulwarks of freedom bravely and successfully won by the struggles of our ancestors, for which Sovereigns had been deposed and dynasties changed, and for which a noble army of martyrs had shed their blood. Those are eloquent words, and I feel that we must not on any occasion attempt to touch this liberty unless we can prove an. overwhelming case—prove not only the necessity of legislation of this stringent character, but also that such legislation is likely to lead to successful results. My Lords, I am afraid that I shall be able, in the remarks which I shall address your Lordships, abundantly to show that necessity. I must go back a short time to describe the condition of Ireland. During the few years ending in 1879 there was great agricultural depression over all the Kingdom. That agricultural depression was felt in Ireland as well as in Scotland and in England. For two or three years that depression was felt severely and culminated in the year 1879. It was more felt in the Western parts of Ireland than in the rest of the country. In the West of Ireland will be found the smallest holdings, on which, even in times of prosperity, it is difficult for the people to maintain themselves. One source of income failed. As your Lordships are aware, many of the peasantry of the West of Ireland come to this country to reap the harvest; but this source of income was not forthcoming. This deficiency, then, has to be added to the bad harvest, and on occasions of that sort those holdings are utterly unable to support the population. The people who live in those holdings are the people on whom agitators operate; and it is in this state of affairs that an organization was formed in Ireland which has had a great and pernicious effect over the whole country. That organization, which, I believe, was instituted in 1879, gradually acquired influence over various parts of the country. I shall not detain your Lordships by showing the progress that Association made; these facts are sufficiently known. I think I can show that this organization has greatly tended to bring about that condition of disorder in Ireland which we all so much deplore. That Association, whatever its original object, has at different times, through those who belong to it, openly advocated the uprootal of landlordism in Ireland. It went much further, and proclaimed sedition and rebellion in Ireland. I do not say for a moment that there were some men who began this agitation who were not earnest in their views, and who did not believe there was some great evil which they had to remedy; but I fear a great number of them used the depressed state of agriculture to foment political agitation and promote their own selfish ends. Well, my Lords, if we look at the state of crime in Ireland, we find that it lamentably increased during the agitation. In 1878, agrarian crime, exclusive of threatening letters, amounted to 176; whereas in 1879 there were 390 cases. But even that does not show how rapidly crime has increased; for if we take the last quarter of that year, we find that the average for that quarter was greatly in excess of what it was in the corresponding period in 1878. Agrarian crimes continued in very formidable numbers during the early part of 1880; but by the end of that year they numbered 1,253 outrages, exclusive of threatening letters. I am not, in excluding threatening letters, for one moment saying that this is not a very formidable offence, and one which ought to be watched with very great care. There is no doubt that threatening letters are an indication of the condition of the country, and tend very greatly to increase the terror which other crimes create in that country. But in some of these Returns it is convenient, for the sake of comparison, to leave out the threatening letters, which swell, to a great extent, the number of agrarian crimes. The increase, however, irre- spective of this class of offence, is a very large one; and if we compare it with former periods, we shall find that it is very serious indeed. I find that there wore 417 more outrages of an agrarian character in 1880 than in 1870, which was, as your Lordships may remember, a year of much agrarian disturbance in Ireland. If we go back still further, the agrarian crimes in 1880 were 303 more than in 1845. When you remember that the population in 1845 was 8,250,000, and in 1880 5,250,000, and that the police had been increased from 13 per 10,000 of the population to 21 per 10,000 in the years between, you will find that a very formidable state of things has been brought about. I will show your Lordships that homicide and firing at the person reached a very serious figure in 1880; but that is the only point in which crime has not increased quite so rapidly as in the case of crime against property. Other crime—the maiming of cattle, has increased to 101 in 1880; the next highest year recorded was in 1845, when this crime numbered 87. Of incendiary fires and arson, the number in 1880 was 210; whereas the yearly average for 20 years down to 1878 inclusive was 32¼. This was a crime which carried great terror with it, and the total in 18 80 exceeded every year since 1845. Then, firing into dwellings. Last year the number of offences was 67; the highest since 1844 was the year 1845, when the number of offences was 55; and the average for 20 years was 5.7. To add to the force of these figures, I should add that there have been, during the period to which I refer, a large number of persons who have been protected by the police. On the 1st of January last there were 153 persons under police protection—that is, having two policemen continually attending upon them to protect their lives; and besides that, there were 1,149 persons who were more or less under the supervision of the police. In 1870, I find that only 23 persons were similarly protected. That shows that the police have been enabled, by their exertions and their information, to prevent an extension of crime, which would have made it oven more serious than the figures I have given your Lordships. I do not want to trouble your Lordships at any great length; but I am desirous of showing how these outrages and this intimida- tion are directed. They are directed against landlords, agents, and servants in every class of life, and against animals. I regret to say that the outrages, though they have diminished, are still going on. I have in my hand a copy of a telegram received this afternoon from Dublin Castle, which gives an account of a typical outrage— Yesterday afternoon, at 3 o'clock, as Mr. John Hearne, clerk of Ballinrobe Petty Sessions, county Mayo, was returning homo after Court, he was fired at on the public road by two young men, who came behind him with revolvers. At least six shots were fired, there being four wounds on his body and two on his right hand; it is feared one will prove mortal. So close were the assailants in making the attack, that the discharge burned Mr. Hearne's coat, and he struck one of them with his walking-stick. The outrage is believed to be, without doubt, agrarian. Mr. Hearne had received a threatening letter in November last. He is agent to a small property of Mr. De Montmorency, from which three tenants were evicted in May last for nonpayment of rent, two of whom have since been reinstated. No arrests. That is one case. Here is another— At about a quarter past 7 p.m., from 50 to 70 shots were fired at the house of a national school teacher by an unknown party of men. There were two policemen protecting him, and they were in the house at the time. They fired 23 shots in the direction of the attacking party, but, as far as can be ascertained, without effect. Neither the schoolmaster nor the police were injured. The police are of opinion that there were from 10 to 15 men firing. There was a bank about 150 yards from the house, and this had been used by the attacking party as a cover. There were marks of two shots upon the house, and a third entered the kitchen, passing through the open door. Four empty Snider cartridge cases were found. In September, 1880, he summoned the chairman of the Tulla branch of the Land League to Petty Sessions. Since that time he has been very unpopular, and the children, with the exception of five, have been removed from the school. He is a native of the North of Ireland, and is regarded by the people as a Government spy. Now I come to another kind of outrage. I shall read the Report of the Sub-Inspector. The Report is dated February 5, 1881:— I have to report that on the 3rd instant,—publican, of this town, missed five bullocks off his farm at—, valued at £12 each; and as all attempts to find them on his part failed, he swore an information this day that 'the animals were taken to a distance and destroyed.' He intends seeking for compensation for £60. The police also failed to get the slightest trace of the animals; but I am of opinion that they will turn up yet.—believes they have been done away with by the Land Leaguers of—, who are very opposed to him since September last, when he took a grazing farm from Mrs.—. This man was very strongly alluded to at a Land League meeting at—on the 7th of November last. Since then—believes he is a marked man in the country, and that efforts were made to 'Boycott' him as to his business; this, however, failed. I report this on outrage form, as—swore the cattle, he believed, were not stolen but destroyed. The next Report is as follows, dated February 11— With reference to my Report of the 5th instant, I have to state that four of the five missing bullocks, the property of—, of—, were this day found drowned in a dangerous hole, called—, in the townland of—, one mile from—'s farm. Two of the animals were tied together, and had heavy stones tied to their necks; the other two also had weights fastened to them. The fifth bullock was found alive on the same farm. This outrage, it is evident, has been done by the Land Leaguers of—, who have been most determined in their hostility to—since the—Land League meeting, and—secretly got information that his property would be destroyed and that he would be made a bankrupt of by 'Boycotting.'—does not suspect anyone in particular; but believes the outrage was got up and carried out by eight certain Land Leaguers of—, and the local police are of the same opinion. Every step will be taken to throw light on this outrage. These are typical instances of outrages which have been committed in certain parts of Ireland. The operations of those who break the law are not confined to the present. In the year 1851 a man named Long, a tenant of Major Armstrong, of Holy Cross, County Tipperary, owed £235 rent. He surrendered this farm, having another about 10 miles distant. He was forgiven the £235 and allowed to take the crops. Major Armstrong, and after his death his widow, used to let this as a grazing farm. Long died about nine years ago. In 1880, 29 years after the surrender of the farm, at a meeting of the Holy Cross branch of the Irish National Land League, held on the 30th of December, Mr. Stephen Butler in the chair, the following resolution was passed— That we, the Committee of the Holy Cross branch of the Irish National Land League, do look upon all parties who propose for or take grass upon the farm belonging to the late Michael Long, of The Grove, is a traitor to the country, inasmuch as a daughter of the said Michael Long is anxious to come into the possession of her father's place. The place was in the charge of Ryan, a caretaker. Crowds of people, some of them on horseback, proceeded towards the place of Ryan, the caretaker. Two vans arrived, accompanied by people carrying banners and wearing sashes and rosettes. He saw what appeared to be whisky being distributed among the crowd. They forcibly entered the demesne, shouting and with bands playing. The crowd shouted and rioted, and then the main portion went to Farney Castle, and shouted and made a noise at the gate, so that the people inside could hoar them. Their object was to terrify Mrs. Armstrong into abject submission to the decree of the Holy Cross Land League, in execution of the "unwritten code of law." The prisoners were committed for trial for taking part in an unlawful assembly. The magistrates refused bail, and an application to the Queen's Bench was refused. This was a proposal to go back 30 years to reinstate a tenant's relative. I think the facts as to outrages which I have given your Lordships are sufficient to prove that a reign of terror has been established in the country which has defied all the efforts of the Government to put it down. But that is not all that the Land League have done. They have proceeded by other means to terrorize the loyal subjects of the Queen. They have established publicly—in former days the same mode of proceeding was only advocated privately—a system of social ostracism, which has contributed, to a great extent, to terrorize the population. The speeches delivered by members of the Land League fully bear out this assertion. In a speech made some time ago by a leading member of the Land League, he said— If perchance any man among yon should so forget himself as to go and bid for the holding of his neighbour or take possession of it, if any one among you should do it, I will tell you how I wish to see you treat him. I do not want you to commit a breach of the law by assaulting him or hurting him. By that means you rather serve the cause of your enemy than your own cause. I want you to bring down the force of public opinion upon him. If you see him at church or chapel, fair or market, pass him, hate him; let him be a thing of loathing, a leper so unclean as not to be lit to be touched or associated with by any of his fellow-men. If he has cattle to sell, let he man bid for them; or cattle to buy, tell the unclean wretch to move a way from you. (Laughter.) If he has potatoes to dig, or stubble to dig, or corn to cut, or anything else, let him go out and do it himself. (Laughter.) If he has a shop and offers goods for sale, let no man who has respect for God or country leave a penny in the house. (Cheers and laughter.) Let him eat his stock-in-trade. When that is is done, let him go away. (Laughter.) By these means you will do infinitely more good than if you went out and committed a broach of the law and took his life. That is the kind of advice which was given by speakers at Land League meetings. Certainly some of those speakers professed that the law was to be respected. But when speeches of an inflammatory nature are made to a very excitable people, on a subject on which their passions are always very easily aroused—namely, on that most cherished object of all Irish farmers, the possession of their land—I leave it to your Lordships to suppose what the result of such teaching will be. Not only have outrages, as was well said "elsewhere," dogged the steps of the Land League meetings, but the system which is called "Boycotting" has prevailed and had extensive influence in the country. This is what I find in a Charge of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald. He quotes from a newspaper, The Nation, on October 16, describing what has taken place in different districts. He said— The Nation of that date says.—'The work of socially excommunicating persons who take evicted tenants' farms is being carried on with great thoroughness and success in various parts of the country. Thus, in Limerick a few days ago, a farmer who had sinned in the way referred to offered for sale in the market some butter and oats; but both merchants and brokers refused to transact any business with him. The consequence was that he had to bring his produce homo, and on leaving the market he was groaned at and hooted by a large crowd of farmers. We believe it is the same farmer who went to buy some bacon in Limerick, and when he told his name failed to induce the bacon merchants to sell him anything whatever. In Clare, again, a farmer has been made for the same causes such an outcast among his neighbours, they refusing to hold any intercourse with him or sell him the necessaries of life, and even going so far as to keep him out of the parish chapel on Sundays, that he has found his now position intolerable, and surrendered to the landlord the banned farm on which he cast his eyes in an unhappy moment.' That is the result, as stated in one of the Irish papers, of the teaching of the Land League. Now, I think I ought to show your Lordships that besides this large amount of crime existing in the country the law has broken down in dealing with it. I am afraid that the same terrorism exercised in the way described in the extracts which I have read has been exercised towards witnesses and juries, so as to render it very difficult to obtain evidence in regard to agrarian crimes, and the difficulty of procuring convictions by juries for those offences is enormous. Out of the whole number of agrarian outrages committed in 1880—namely, 2,305, only 83 convictions were obtained, or rather less than 4 per cent. Only 295 were made amenable by the police, or a little more than 12 per cent. If you look at the non-agrarian crime the state of things is not so formidable. I draw attention to it to show how much directed against the land this particular movement has been. Out of the total number of non-agrarian offences, 3,084, as many as 1,425, or nearly 50 per cent, were made amenable; while the number of convictions was 694, or about 25 per cent. At Waterford the Judge was obliged to postpone one very important trial, connected with the most brutal murder of Mr. Boyd, on account of the jurors not attending. At the close of the Munster Winter Assizes at Cork, speaking on the 21st December, 1880, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald said— I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that there have been considerable failures of justice, and failures of justice which I do not hesitate to say have been produced by external influences operating upon some of the jurors.…No person of sense could fail to see that there were powerful influences operating upon the minds of jurors, preventing them from performing their duties. That shows how the course of justice has been impeded, and, in fact, paralyzed, by the terrorism which has prevailed in various parts of the country. I have referred to the Judges, and I hold here a very interesting letter, which was written by one of the County Court Judges of a district in Ireland, and which, I think, illustrates very forcibly how completely the law has been paralyzed. The learned Chairman says— … The number of civil cases was the smallest ever known, not amounting nearly to half the average. This was accounted for by the statement that a decree of the Court is quite useless and unproductive. I had, in nearly 20 cases of ordinary civil bills, not ejectments, to make orders that posting copies in the nearest market town to the residences of the defendants should be deemed good service, as it was proved on oath to my satisfaction that the process officers could not attempt to serve the processes without risk of personal injury. A process officer who did not attend the Court at the beginning of the Sessions explained his absence by stating on oath that in serving processes he was so badly beaten that he was unable to come. I had to excuse two jurors who were summoned to attend the Quarter Sessions, and who did not attend on the ground that they could not with safety leave their houses, and one of them sent me a copy of a notice alleged by him to have been posted, warning the public not to give him accommodation in any town of the county.…These several facts will prepare you for my opinion that in the present state of the county, particularly in the southern portion, the jurisdiction of my Court is paralyzed. That, my Lords, was the state of the law in various parts of the country, and I regret to say that there is another law—that of the Land Courts established by the Land League—which has been much more respected. The Land League Courts, set up in different districts, have administered their own unwritten law with all the power with which the law of the Realm is administered in this country. I need not detain your Lordships by describing at length any of the proceedings of these Land Courts—they are, no doubt, familiar to you all. We hope, my Lords, by this Bill, to put down the village tyrants and dissolute ruffians who carry out that unwritten law, and we hope to bring back obedience to, and the execution of, the law of the land. I think I have now sufficiently shown your Lordships to what an enormous extent crime has increased in Ireland; how crime and terror prevail in a large portion of the country. I can show further that the Irish Government have done all that they could do to carry out the law with their existing powers. They have increased the military force, they have increased the police in the various districts, and they have left no stone unturned to put the ordinary law into vigorous operation. But these measures have all failed, and Her Majesty's Government now think it their duty to come to Parliament and ask for additional powers to restore law and order in Ireland. My Lords, this Bill is a very short one. It proposes to give the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the power to proclaim certain districts of the country. In those districts he will be able, by his warrant, to arrest any person whom he may reasonably suspect of being concerned, either as a principal or as an accessory, in any crime punishable by law which has been committed at any time after the 30th day of September last, being an act of violence or of intimidation, or an incitement to an act of violence or intimidation. I have seen it stated in various places that when the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended before in Ireland agrarian crime was not suppressed. That is perfectly true. It was only on one occasion that this power to deal with any crime but that of treason was given. That was in 1871. In that year an Act was passed which enabled the Lord Lieutenant to arrest anybody belonging to a Ribbon Society, or aiding a Ribbon Society in one county and parts of other counties in Ireland. I do not wish to dwell on this subject. I was Lord Lieutenant and had to put this power in force. It was not an easy task. But that Act was completely successful at the time. I believe that a marked diminution of agrarian crimes resulted from the enforcement of the Act. At the present time the case is very much more difficult; but I feel sure that the Lord Lieutenant and his Adviser the Chief Secretary will conduct the arduous responsibility which the Act will place on them with perfect firmness, justice, and, I trust, success. Then there is a greater power given under the Act—namely, that of issuing warrants against those reasonably suspected of being guilty, either as principal or accessory, of high treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices. Your Lordships will not expect me to go at great length into the evidence which has made it necessary for Her Majesty's Government to propose this stringent power. I ask your Lordships to place confidence in Her Majesty's Government that this power at the present moment is necessary. I do not for a moment want your Lordships to suppose that Her Majesty's Government think that a rebellion is coming in Ireland. We do not think that to be the case; but though there is no present danger, there may be great danger hanging over us at no distant time. We know that at this moment in America the Irish Press is publishing most violent denunciations of this country, and is stimulating the feeling of the people of Ireland, not only to rebellion, but also to assassination and outrages of the worst kind. We think, therefore, that the Government should, under the circumstances, take precautions to defend the country from such danger, and it is with that object that such stringent power is introduced into the measure. I apologize to your Lordships for having detained you so long. I hope I have shown that we have not asked your Lordships lightly to pass this stringent measure. I believe that we have abundant proof of necessity for it. We have been told that by introducing this measure we are sacrificing the principles of the Party to which we belong. I do not think that we are in any way sacrificing liberty in proposing this measure. I do not think that there is real liberty when you see an unauthorized society having nearly the same power as the law of this country in Ireland. I do not think it liberty when we hear of people being compelled to subscribe to the funds of the association. I do not think it liberty when no one can go to bed and rest in safety with his family in Ireland, or walk abroad along Her Majesty's highways with safety. That I do not call liberty; I call it rather despotism, and Her Majesty's Government introduced this measure to put down such despotism. They hoped by this measure to restore true liberty and freedom of action to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Ireland. My Lords, this is the first duty of the Government. We have a very painful sense of the task before us; but, having accomplished it, we shall propose measures which we trust will remedy certain great matters of injustice in Ireland; and, if we succeed in passing them, we hope, at no distant date, to see in Ireland, as we now see in Scotland and in England, law and order reigning in the country, supported and carried out by the united Irish nation.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord President.)

THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD

My Lords, I rise to support the second reading of the Bill which the noble Earl has just moved; but I do it with reluctance. I support the Bill because I think it is necessary—absolutely necessary—in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. But I confess that I cannot divest myself of some sense of shame that, in the 19th century, in the very heart of our Empire, in the United Kingdom itself, such scenes and circumstances should exist as justify—and not only justify and sanction, but render absolutely necessary—the measure which has been brought before your Lordships' attention. My Lords, this periodical disquietude in Ireland has been accounted for at various times by various causes. When I first entered public life, nearly half a century ago, there was then in Ireland great disquietude. We were then taught by great authorities that the cause of that disquietude was political, and that the only remedy for it would be to extend to a portion of the community in Ireland those civil privileges which were enjoyed by only a part of the population. Measures were brought forward and carried at the time which effected that great object. But the periodical disquietude of Ireland re-appeared in a few years in due course, and then we were told that the cause was not political, but ecclesiastical, and all the philosophers and politicians gave their energies and their minds to the consideration of new remedies. They commenced by abolishing tithes; they ended by abolishing the Church, which those tithes were destined and intended to support. And yet, my Lords, we find ourselves in the present situation, and neither of the causes alleged—political and ecclesiastical—appear to have been adequate, or to have been the real reason of this disquietude. Well, now, we are told that the cause is quite different. It is at last found out that the cause is agrarian, or even territorial; but, generally speaking, we are led to believe that the remedy which alone can remove for ever the discontent and uneasiness in Ireland is, in fact, to transfer the property of one class to another. Now, I should be very sorry, after such failure, even of the wisest and most experienced statesmen, to discover the main cause of this constantly recurring state of affairs in Ireland, to pretend for a moment to lay down dogmatically any opinion of what that cause must be; but I think it would not be presumption in me if I attempted on this occasion to indicate what I believe are the immediate causes which have produced the existing state of things—the disquietude, discontent, and outrage in Ireland—and which have caused the introduction of this measure by Her Majesty's Government. Well, I think there are three causes to which the present state of affairs is to be attributed. In the first place, no doubt, as the Lord President of the Council correctly intimated in his speech, there has been, and is to a certain extent, great suffering in Ireland from a series of bad harvests, and bad harvests in a country peculiarly dependent upon the harvest. There is no doubt of the distress of the country in that respect, and there is no doubt there has been great suffering. But Ireland has been visited by famine, and stricken by panic of coming famine before, and yet it has not resulted in the condition of outrage and lawlessness which it presents at this moment. The liberality of England, poured forth on all occasions with readiness, and the good nature of the Irish people themselves has so combined, that when a period of distress like that has occurred, means of alleviation adequate to the occasion have generally been found; and, so far as the present instance is concerned, when that distress first began greatly to pinch the people, I did not observe traces of organized disaffection, which subsequently manifested themselves. The Irish people, not deficient in sense, know very well that sterile harvests were not peculiar to Ireland during the last few years, and that they extended to all European countries, and even beyond the limits of Europe; and England, which was the one country which sympathized the most with Ireland, was, perhaps, the one which suffered the most from that calamity. Then, how is it that the present unfortunate state of things has been brought about in Ireland, when on former occasions it has been avoided? This brings me to the second point which I wish to advert to. It is most unfortunate that after a period of agricultural distress which has rarely been equalled—and probably its continuity has never been equalled—it is most unfortunate, I say, that at such a time the United Kingdom should have become the scene of a great Party struggle, which has not been paralleled for many years in the fierceness of the passions which it elicited and fostered. Those who appealed at such a time to the passions of the country felt that they were in a position of great advantage in appealing to a population that was suffering as the Irish were. Inflammatory orations were addressed to the Irish people; in point of fact, it was impressed upon them by accomplished orators, and by trained and skilled agitators, that the sterile harvests under which they suffered were in some degree connected with the existence of the late Government. One thing was quite clear, though others might be ambiguous, and that was the Opposition to the then Government were the only men who could bring forward remedies equal to the occasion which could rescue them from the fell consequences of those bad harvests. This style of oratory unfortunately brought about that which spreads like wildfire in Ireland—namely, an agitation of great fire and fierceness; and the most preposterous opinions were set afloat. Even in such circumstances I myself should not have despaired of the good sense of the country ultimately steering us through all these difficulties and dangers. But, unfortunately, the moment that there is in Ireland an organized agitation of considerable dimensions and promising great changes, and obviously offering the means by which considerable results might be obtained—the moment that occurs, we are under the influence of an organized conspiracy of foreigners, or men living in foreign countries, who immediately act upon the circumstances which are soon under their control, and place, no doubt, society in that part of the United Kingdom in considerable danger. I know it has been recently mentioned in "another place" that this is a great exaggeration, and that it is not the fact that there is any considerable power, or considerable resources, in a foreign country that acts upon Ireland at this moment, or, under similar circumstances, has acted at other times. I believe that Her Majesty's Ministers are perfectly aware of the truth of this business, and have wisely acted in asking for powers in that respect which the Lord President of the Council has stated that this Bill proposes. Those who have served Her Majesty when there have been troublous times in Ireland—especially of late years—know the truth of my assertion, and of the existence of a state of things which makes it absolutely necessary that Her Majesty's Government should possess the powers asked for, to defend Her Majesty, not from rebellious subjects, but from foreign conspirators who are constantly passing to and fro between the American Continent and these Islands, and whose efforts are unceasing, and whose resources are vast. Weil, those are the three causes which, to my mind, have brought about the present state of affairs. Anything more distress- ing than the condition of Ireland it is not easy to conceive. The moment the people of Ireland are suffering they have remedies announced to them which amount, in fact, to the acquisition of the property of their neighbours, and they are bid to seize that property at once. The country is no longer safe when doctrines of that kind are taught, and when, the next step, no man is allowed to protect his property by lawful process without peril to his life. Then, when the greed for another's property attains its present dimensions in Ireland the foreigner appears, and the third influence appears; first, confiscation, then assassination, and then explosive patriotism of dynamite. That being the state of things in Ireland at the present moment, I cannot doubt the propriety of the course which Her Majesty's Government are now pursuing, and the wisdom of the measure which they have introduced to our notice. There are two things which I regret in this respect. I regret that so long a time has elapsed before Her Majesty's Government proposed a measure of this character to Parliament; and I regret that, having proposed it, so long a time has been wasted in "another place" in passing it before it could reach your Lordships' House. I am confident that your Lordships, in supporting this Bill, are supporting a measure which will command the sympathy of all loyal subjects of Her Majesty. I believe in its efficacy. I hope its provisions will be carried into effect with moderation and mercy, but that its powers may not be too quickly withdrawn; and I trust that the material condition of Ireland, improved by Providence, as I think we have a right to count on, with a continuance of good harvests, which have already commenced there, may become more satisfactory. I believe that, under those circumstances, the country will regain that quantity of common sense which is absolutely necessary to good government; and I trust that when that happy condition has been attained we may be able to find the country flourishing, happy, and contented without the aid of a Coercion Bill.

EARL GRANVILLE

I should wish to say a few words in support of the Motion for the second reading of this Bill. And, in the first place, I have to thank the noble Earl opposite for the spirit in which he has approached this question, and I can assure him that he has expressed with accuracy the feeling that has actuated us in bringing forward this measure. We did feel great regret at the necessity that compelled us to introduce this Bill to Parliament, and it was in our view humiliating that we should have to do so. I cannot, however, quite agree with the noble Earl as to the causes which have contributed to bring about the present state of things in Ireland. The noble Earl referred to the different measures dealing with civil and religious questions which have been passed with the view of restoring tranquillity in Ireland during the last 50 years. I do not believe, however, that he meant to say that he regretted the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act, or of the measures that restored Ireland to civil life. I pass over lightly the remarks of the noble Earl with reference to the statute that disestablished the Church of Ireland, an institution that, in my opinion, was one of the greatest anomalies that ever existed in the world. But, when the noble Earl goes on to say that we are now in an unexampled state with regard to Ireland, the seriousness of the situation completely justifying the measure we now propose, I am surprised to hear the noble Earl talk of the condition of Ireland as one which has sprung up during the last six months of the present Government being in power. Has not the constant occurrence of coercion during the last 80 years shown that there was something wrong to be dealt with? Have there not been manifestations of a very much worse character than that which we deplore now? Was there no coercion in 1814 and in 1830, and at other times when the prevalence of violence was much greater than it is now? The noble Earl has traced the present state of Ireland to three causes—first, bad harvests, and I have no doubt a great deal is due to that; and then, the efforts of those living in a foreign country, and passing to and fro between another Continent and these Islands; and also to certain parties having made the question of Ireland a Party question. With regard to the first of these two causes, I entirely agree with the noble Earl; but with regard to the third, he appears to forget who it was who appealed to the constituencies at the last General Election on the subject of Ireland. The noble Earl's case is that this new state of things in Ireland has arisen since he left Office. Does the noble Earl think that the Land League started into life after he left Office? Had it not been in existence for more than a year before that time, and had it not then held upwards of 200 meetings, in which it was resolved to compel the landlords to reduce their rents? Has the noble Earl never heard of a man named Michael Davitt, whom the late Government prosecuted and then released without consulting the Irish Government? The noble Earl seems to have forgotten that outrages in Ireland connected with the Land League had been increasing up to the time that he left Office. I think that, during the noble Earl's last year of Office, these outrages wore something like three times as many as in the year preceding, and more than six times as many as in the year before that. It is idle to fix on any one Government the responsibility for the state of Ireland. There are reasons that create very great difficulty in dealing with Ireland; and, while we are introducing measures going beyond the usual powers of the Constitution in order to restore the power and majesty of the law in that country, we ought always to remember that this country has a very heavy debt against it for having misgoverned Ireland to a degree hardly known in other countries up to a very recent time; and when he sneers at the reforms made during the last 50 years, which have been according to right principles and according to the principles which I hope we shall continue to observe, I think he is doing that which can only excite that feeling between the two countries which it is most undesirable for one in so high a position to encourage. I am happy to say that I entirely concur with the concluding sentences of the speech of the noble Earl. I believe that it is absolutely necessary to pass such a measure as this at the present moment; but, having passed it, we should administer the law both with firmness and mercy. We shall do exactly what is necessary to produce the end desired without the slightest exaggeration, without doing anything that is unmeaning or unnecessary, or anything that savours in the least of persecution.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

said, the question their Lordships had to ask themselves was whether the state of affairs in Ireland was sufficient to justify the introduction of this measure; and he was sorry to say, from what he knew, that he believed it was. During the late General Election he was in Ireland, and conversed freely with the people, and there was no doubt they were completely misled as to what the real intentions of Her Majesty's Government were. This was due to the imprudent speech of Mr. Gladstone in Mid Lothian, and to the fact that when they came into Office the present Government took no means to renew the Peace Preservation Act, though it was a matter of notoriety that the great majority of resident magistrates had reported in favour of its renewal. Then came the introduction of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, which he voted against, because he knew if it was passed it would create false hopes in the minds of the Irish people. When Mr. Childers visited Ireland also, he took no occasion to speak in deprecation of the disorders which were then going on. It was not until last Lord Mayor's Day that the country heard from the lips of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack anything definite as to the views of the Government in reference to this matter. There could be no doubt that the delay had had a most deleterious effect upon the state of Ireland; and the delay was the more to be wondered at because there were in the Cabinet two Members (Earl Spencer and the Earl of Kimberley) who had administered Ireland in troublous times, with an amount of coolness and courage that deserved the utmost credit, who could have given advice to their Colleagues which would, he should have thought, have saved any needless delay. It might fairly be said that these were bygones; but, nevertheless, he had thought it right to refer to them in extenuation of the conduct which had been displayed on the other side of the Channel by a comparatively ignorant, but imaginative population. But their Lordships were now face to face with the question whether the state of Ireland at the present moment was such as to justify the introduction of this Bill. He was bound to say, apart from all considerations of Party, and looking simply to the state of that country, that he thought it was. He could not, however, call it a statesmanlike measure, because it was the business of statesmen to foresee evils, and to guard against them, and in this instance he could not honestly say that that had been done. The noble Lord then proceeded to quote instances in support of his view, refraining, for reasons which he said would be obvious, from mentioning names or localities, but vouching for the accuracy of his facts. In one case a landowner charged a rent lower than Griffith's valuation for his farms; but not only were no rents paid on many holdings last autumn, but in several cases where the payment was tendered the money was returned to the tenants, in order that they might be able to inform the agents of the Land League that they had paid no rent. In other cases, kind and indulgent landlords had been driven from the country by the terrorism exercised over their tenants and themselves; and there was an instance of a land agent who had advised the tenants to subscribe to the Land League, on the same principle as they would secure their liberty by paying blackmail to the brigands of Southern Italy or of Sicily. Only a few weeks ago a Liverpool firm declined to support works in Ireland in which they were interested, and which they had theretofore assisted, stating that they would not risk a penny of their money in a country where life and property were insecure; and the result was that a large number of people would be thrown out of employment. Again, in the East of Ireland, money was required to complete a railway and works of great local, even of national importance, and three of the largest landlords in the neighbourhood came forward and offered their joint and several bonds and mortgages of their estates as security; but the Board to whom the application for the advance was addressed declined to make it, holding that landed property had ceased to be a valid security. They heard this question spoken of as though it was a tenant farmer's question for Ireland; but they were not the only people who were affected by the agitation which was going on. In fact, they were only a part of the population, numbering, as it was said, some 600,000; but actually it had been shown by the Returns that the total did not exceed 430,000, and that, he believed, was a liberal estimate. But what about the labourers? The labourers, whose numbers exceeded those of the farmers by some thousands, could gain nothing by the agitation which was going on; and if the agitation continued, they would be at the mercy of the tenant farmers, and in a worse position than they were now. Coming to the main question, he had no doubt there was a necessity for legislation. The necessity for it, however, arose, in a great measure, from the incendiary publications which were scattered broadcast. He did not know whether any of their Lordships had seen a copy of The Irish World—an American paper—which circulated by thousands in Ireland week by week, and contained the most inflammatory and revolutionary articles and doctrine. It was impossible that such a publication could be read by the Irish people without producing the worst results. The time had therefore come when it must be shown unmistakeably to the Irish peasantry who were masters in Ireland, whether the Government of the Queen or the Land League. He did not believe that when the present Bill had passed, and the fact that it had passed was published, there would be much trouble in Ireland. He did not believe that under the Bill there would be any necessity to take very strong measures; but the result would prevent much misery in Ireland to those whom he was sure were acting against their will through fear of the Land League. He desired to say a word in reference to the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland. They were absolutely dependent upon the bounty of their flocks. The loss of popularity to them meant the loss of their means; and yet they had come forward—not, he was sorry to say, universally—and advised their people not to break their contracts, but to fulfil the obligations into which they had entered, and then trust to the liberality of Parliament to redress any grievances which were found to be real. For his own part, he could only say that any measure which might be introduced to redress proved grievances should have his hearty support. He believed, in regard to the landowners, that not one in 100 wished to do anything which was not strictly fair and right by those who occupied the land. Under the present system hardships might, and no doubt did, prevail; but they were the exception, and not the rule. The Government, however, ought to have taken the matter in hand earlier, and decided what they intended to do with reference to the question of law and order in Ireland. The measure itself he could not regard as a statesmanlike measure; but he believed it was an honest attempt to grapple with a thorny subject which had agitated the country for the last 30 years, and for that reason he gave it his earnest support.

LORD INCHIQUIN

said, he would detain their Lordships but for a few moments upon the most important subject which was before them. In the first place, he must say that he supported the measure with extreme regret; but it seemed to him that it was absolutely necessary, and he believed that was the feeling of nine-tenths of the country generally. It was not only the people of England, but the people of Ireland who saw the necessity for the Bill; and if he had a regret at all in supporting the Bill it was intensified by the fact that it was not introduced at an earlier period. He thought the Government should have been at least three or four months earlier in introducing the measure; and if they bad been, a great deal of the misfortune and misery which had lately fallen on Ireland would have been avoided. He was aware of all the difficulties which the Government might have had to contend with, and that it had been said Government could not have taken such a course. But when they had to deal with the welfare of a country and preserve law and order, a Government, and especially a strong Government like the present, could disregard all that was said. He believed that such a Government ought to be supported in their policy; because, acting on the voice of the people, and placed in position by the constituencies, they were responsible for that position, and if they required a measure of the kind to preserve order, however much he regretted it, he felt bound to support it. With respect to what had fallen from the noble Earl the Leader of the House—that the state of Ireland had been unsatifactory long before the late Government left Office—he would remind him that in one of his Mid Lothian speeches Mr. Gladstone told his audience that there was then in Ireland an absence of crime and outrage and a general sense of comfort and satisfaction such as had been hitherto unknown there. On the 7th of December last Mr. Justice Fitzgerald stated from the Judicial Bench that for the then last month true liberty did not exist in the country, and that life and property were not safe, and yet the Government took no step to remedy that state of things. He regretted that he had not heard from the Government the expression of an intention to deal boldly with the leaders of the Land League, who were responsible for the state of things which had been seen in Ireland during the last eight months. It could easily be proved that the agrarian crimes had increased in proportion to the increase in the number of the Land League meetings. In the county of Clare the number of meetings in 1879 was 4, and the number of outrages 21. In 1880 the number of meetings was 20, and of outrages 93. In the East Riding of the county of Cork the meetings in 1879 were 6, and the outrages 27. In 1880 there were 42 meetings, and 157 crimes. In the West Riding, in 1879, no meetings were held, and there were only 16 outrages. In 1880, 27 meetings were held and 133 outrages wore committed. In Kerry, in 1879, 4 meetings were held and 13 outrages committed. In 1880, 23 meetings were held and 298 outrages committed. In the West Riding of Galway, in 1879, 14 meetings were held and 146 outrages were committed. In 1880, 34 meetings were held and 324 outrages were committed. In Mayo, in 1879, 37 meetings were held, and 170 outrages were committed. In 1880, 55 meetings were held and 343 outrages were committed. He would not weary the House by reading through the list. What he had already read was sufficient to show that agrarian crimes had kept pace with the number of land meetings held, and that crime had been induced by the influence of the Land League. He maintained that until the Government put down the Land League there would be no peace in the land. The Government might introduce what Land Act they pleased; they might confiscate a large portion of the land which had come down to the present landlords for centuries. He said, with no feelings of shame, that he and his family had been connected with Ireland for centuries, and they might rob them of their property, or a large share of it; but they would never restore peace in Ireland until they had put down the League, which had reduced the country to its present unhappy condition. The Government ought, in his opinion, to have suppressed the meetings of the League in the autumn months, when it was found that treasonable doctrines were being preached, and they merited great reprobation for having disregarded the advice then given to them, and having allowed these meetings to continue. The Returns that had been published did not represent a tithe of the agrarian crimes that were committed during the autumn. He himself knew of many crimes that were not reported to the police. He might mention a case that had come under his immediate observation. A tenant of his who had paid his rent subsequently came to him and asked that the money might be returned pro forma, as the local Land League had threatened to "Boycott" him unless he should produce evidence of having received back the rent which he had paid. Another Return showed the comparatively few instances in which juries had convicted in Ireland. This and other circumstances confirmed him in the opinion that the jury system ought to be placed on a better footing. The present temporary measures would only have a temporary effect, and as soon as they were withdrawn the same state of things as now would be found again. In conclusion, he expressed his great regret that it should be found absolutely necessary to have such a Bill before them as they were now reading a second time; and he trusted that whatever measure of reform with regard to land was brought forward it would be carefully considered, and not hastily rejected by their Lordships, because it was essential, in the interests of the landlords themselves, that the Land Laws should be put on such a foundation that the country would not be subjected again to such constant changes as had taken place of late years.

Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.