THIRD READING. (Hansard, 18 March 1881)

LORD DUNSANY
said, he wished to say a few words on the Bill before it became law. Their Lordships would all remember the course of action pursued by many of those who considered themselves the leaders of the Irish people, and who were, in a measure, responsible for the present state of Ireland. Mr. Parnell and his followers had told the Irish people that he could prevent the Government from bringing in a Coercion Bill, and had also said that he would take the land from the landlords and give it to the people; but he had not yet succeeded in doing that. Their Lordships had heard very many things that were to be done by the Irish Party; but the Government had lately shown a great deal of energy and courage in dealing with them; and that energy in part made up for their previous shortcomings. But there was an old French proverb which said that he laughed best who laughed last, and it might so happen that before the end of the duel between Her Majesty's Government and the hon. Member for Cork, the latter might have the laugh all on his side, especially if he succeeded in handing over the property of the landlords into the hands of the tenants. Even now that Gentleman had his laugh at the Government; for, while those who had given ill advice to the people of Ireland were at large, it was only their dupes who had been imprisoned. Government had set its net for the minnows, but had let the Tritons go free. Why, he asked, were the most dangerous of the leaders of the land agitation still at liberty? The Gentlemen who gave the advice as to the houghing of cattle were still at large; the Gentlemen who hoped that Ireland would soon throw off the yoke of England were still at large; the Gentleman who gave the advice to plough up the land before giving it up to the landlord, but who withdrew it as soon as he found it would place him within reach of the law, was still at large, and he (Lord 1353 Dunsany) would like to know the reason. They had a certain number of these gentry locked up; but it seemed to him, from what he could learn from the newspapers, that they would soon be at large again. He thought it would be very wrong if that were done, and he warned the Government that mild measures would not be effective. He disapproved of this alternation on the part of the Government of blowing hot and cold, as it demoralized the people of Ireland and compromised the Government. The prisoners seemed, from a paragraph that had appeared in a newspaper, to be holding high carnival now that Lent was in progress. They had been feasting on unaccustomed dainties, and he understood that there was no single restriction, except as to the quantity of wine, placed upon them. He thought the restriction would not be found very harsh. They could all remember the remarkable case of Stephens, who was placed in gaol, but walked out of it as soon as he wished to; and he hoped the Government would exercise more care with the prisoners they now had under their charge. He touched upon these points, not with the intention of blaming the Government, but to show that caution ought to be exercised, lest the liberty granted to the detained should be abused and greatly exceeded. Before sitting down, he would remind Her Majesty's Ministers that they had the authority of three Irish Judges that trial by jury had broken down in the country; and the state of things there required the serious attention of the Government.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN
said, he would not follow the noble Lord (Lord Dunsany) in the criticism which he passed on the way in which Her Majesty's Government had exercised the exceptional powers which had been given them. But before the Bill before the House passed, and Parliament was relieved of measures of a very painful description, he would like to say a word or two on the question touched upon by the noble Lord opposite towards the close of his speech. He (the Earl of Dunraven) would ask their Lordships whether the experience of the last few months and of the last few years, and of the more distant past, had not been such as to prove, almost conclusively, that some permanent alteration was necessary in the ordinary law of Ireland? 1354 The history of that country for the last 80 years presented the appearance of an almost unbroken series of vain attempts to govern the country by what was called the ordinary law—by a courtesy title—followed by the adoption of measures which were altogether different from, and much more stringent than, the ordinary law of the country. He believed ordinary law had been interfered with about 40 or 50 times in almost as many years, either by now measures, or by the renewal of existing measures. Under those circumstances, it was hard to know what was the ordinary law. If it were not Irishism, one might say "that the ordinary law was the extraordinary law, and that the exception was the rule in Ireland." There was one class of crime that, as they all knew, remained, practically speaking, almost unpunished—namely, crime of an agrarian nature. His attention had been specially called to this subject by the recent observations of some of the Judges. Judge Brody, at the Limerick Assizes, commenting on the fact that the jury could not agree, said that they must have brought in a verdict of guilty, unless they disregarded the sworn testimony of the whole of the constabulary who gave evidence. At the recent Tralee Assizes, also, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald the other day, when a jury had brought in a verdict of acquittal in a case of agrarian crime, where the strongest evidence had been given against the accused, said that the verdict was contrary—if these kinds of verdicts were given, trial by jury would have to be swept away altogether. They did not wish to see that; and he (the Earl of Dunraven) submitted it would be well for Her Majesty's Government seriously to consider whether it would not be advisable to institute some other means of trying crimes of this particular nature than by trial by jury. It was hoped that remedial legislation would put an end to agrarian crime. He feared, however, that such would not be the case. The state of crime in Ireland 50 or 60 years ago, when that country laboured under many disabilities, could, of course, afford no precedent; but taking into consideration the state of the country during the last 10 years, he thought he must be a very sanguine man indeed who believed that any alteration in the land tenure of Ireland would prove an immediate and effectual remedy for the 1355 existing state of things, and prevent the recurrence of such a state of things again. He had not the slightest doubt that a good Land Bill would have a very salutary effect; but he believed—and he among that those among their Lordships who knew most about Ireland would agree with him—that the good results of such a Bill must take a considerable time to develop. He therefore ventured to express a hope that Her Majesty's Government would, before the expiration of the period during which the exceptional powers intrusted to the Government were in operation—namely, September, 1882—consider whether it was not to the interest of Ireland that such an alteration should be made in the ordinary law of the country as would render it possible to secure punishment to the perpetrators of agrarian crimes. It seemed to him that if there was one weak spot in the English character, it was that Englishmen would always insist on believing that that which was good for themselves must be good for everybody in every part of the world. The consequences of that idiosyncracy were sometimes disastrous. England had tried to govern Ireland by the same methods that succeeded in Great Britain; and, as far as trial by jury in certain cases was concerned, the result had been a failure. The good effect of coercive measures was lost, because all Governments applied them to Ireland in a way which, though suitable to England, was not suitable to the former country. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) had cited Lord Grey and Sir Robert Peel as authorities in favour of allowing a considerable time to elapse before having recourse to measures of a repressive nature. But as such measures had been frequently tried, and as the country had not been permanently pacified, the measures must either have been useless, or there must have been something faulty in their application. In his opinion, the fault was that they were not applied soon enough. It was all very well in England allowing matters to run to a great length before interfering; but it was most mistaken kindness to pursue that plan in Ireland. The people, forgetting former coercive measures, mistook the patience of the Government for weakness. Law-abiding people, though believing in the ultimate triumph of the law, were afraid to declare themselves, 1356 dreading the long period of persecution to which they would be subjected. The principal thing was to foster a feeling of respect for the law, and confidence in the law; they did not give the lawabiding people of Ireland a fair chance, for, unless sure of protection, they were naturally afraid of standing up boldly in defence of law and order. Besides the effect on Ireland, they ought to consider the effect on Great Britain and on Parliament of the condition of things in Ireland. It was very painful to their Lordships—as, indeed, to everybody—to see what had taken place in the other House of Parliament—what a new departure in the old method of Parliamentary procedure had been adopted, what a great step had been found necessary in the curtailment of the freedom of debate. Moreover, however necessary they might be, it must always be painful for their Lordships to be obliged to pass such measures as those which had been lately occupying their attention. With respect to the Bill under notice, he had nothing whatever to say; but, as his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council had said that this Bill was only part and parcel of a former Bill, perhaps he might be allowed to make a remark about the former Bill. It was about a part of the Bill which he considered to be unwise and obnoxious—namely, the retrospective part of the Coercion Bill, by which its provisions became applicable even beyond the period when Her Majesty's Government had first announced their intention of introducing it to Parliament. It was quite fair that the Bill should come into play at the date of Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne; but it was not just that it should have effect prior to that date. It appeared to him that what happened was this. We told the Irish people that trial by jury was to be the method of trial, that a jury of their peers would decide whether a man was guilty or not. Certain individuals committed actions which were undoubtedly crimes, but which were not crimes in the estimation of their peers, since juries almost invariably acquitted; and if trial by jury was to be the test of innocence or guilt, they could not assume that these persons considered they were committing crimes. Then they suddenly altered the law, and, by making it retrospective, they could punish a man for an act committed 1357 by him under the certainty that if tried for it by a jury, which was the legal method at the time, he would be pronounced innocent. Practically speaking, that was very much the same as making a new crime. That he considered a very great injustice. The retrospective nature of the Coercion Bill ought not to go beyond the period when it was first mentioned in Parliament that exceptional powers would be sought. After that date the people had fair warning and could not complain if they suffered under the exceptional powers given to the Executive by the "Protection for Life and Property Bill." He thought it was unjust to insert that retrospective clause as it stood, and being unjust it was unwise; he feared it was calculated to give rise in the Irish people to a perfectly erroneous idea that there was a certain feeling of irritation and vindictiveness on the part of the people of this country, and on the part of Parliament, towards Ireland. That was, however, a matter of detail. The great point to which he wished to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government was that in cases of crime of an agrarian nature trial by jury had proved to be a lamentable failure. They tried to maintain trial by jury, but they were constantly driven to supersede it. The country was kept in a state of continual change and irritation, the lawless were encouraged, and law-abiding people were discouraged. He therefore earnestly hoped that Her Majesty's Government would, before the Coercion Bill expired, consider whether it was not advisable to make some alteration in the ordinary law, in order to effectually deal with agrarian crime in Ireland, and to try and make the law fit the country instead of making the country fit the law.

§ EARL SPENCER
said, part of the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Dunsany), relating to the treatment of prisoners, was founded on a paragraph which appeared in a daily paper that morning, and Her Majesty's Government had no confirmation of what that paragraph contained. With regard to the larger question which had been opened up by his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Dunraven), he would not enter into it on the present occasion, as it was a most serious and grave subject. The facts stated by the learned Judges, which his noble Friend referred to, no doubt 1358 showed a very serious state of things; and that was the reason why Her Majesty's Government had been induced to bring in this Bill and that which preceded it. He (Earl Spencer), however, hoped that state of things was only the result of the terrorism which unfortunately existed in Ireland at the present time, and that things would soon change for the better. He believed if there was good and loyal feeling restored in that country those difficulties would pass away. The closing remarks of Ids noble Friend behind him referred to a former Bill, and he would make no further allusion to that subject.