THE EARL OF GALLOWAY, in rising to ask the Question of which he had given Notice, said, he was quite well enough aware that it was not customary for a Member of their Lordships' House to take notice of an expression used in debate in the other House of Parliament; but he thought that when a sentiment which he might describe as of a novel and unprecedented character, such as that given effect to by the Prime Minister in the other House some short time since, was made, he should be pardoned if he brought it under the notice of their Lordships. It so happened that a few days after their Lordships' House had adjourned for the Easter Recess, he 1391 was in a somewhat remote part of Scotland, where he read the speech of the Prime Minister, and the thought struck him at once that the speech would be also read throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, and that it must necessarily have the most disastrous effect. It seemed to him there were two points specially deserving of attention in this paragraph of the Prime Minister's speech. The first was, whether it was consistent with propriety that anyone, however exalted his position, should venture to criticize the words of a learned Judge in the administration of the law; and the second was, whether the sentiment given effect to was one of itself of propriety? He felt much inclined to advert to such observations as justification of what the Prime Minister termed "land-hunger," or, again, the special line of demarcation between "social" and "political" revolution; but on this occasion he would limit himself to those parts of the speech incorporated in his Question. He certainly had hitherto been under the impression that it was the first duty of the First Minister of the Crown to uphold the dignity of the law. He was further under the impression that it was also the duty of the First Minister of the Crown to uphold the authority of the administrators of the law; and, further, he thought it was the duty of the Prime Minister, no less than of every other subject of the Realm, to accept—he might almost say with sanctity—every word which fell from the lips of a learned Judge on the Bench. It was on that account that he had ventured to put this Question to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, as the highest functionary in that learned Profession of which he was himself such a distinguished ornament. In allusion to his Question, he was not going to say that every murder or attempted murder in Ireland during the last 18 months had been preceded by a threatening letter. Indeed, his (the Earl of Galloway's) own brother-in-law, who bad the management of the Irish property of a noble Member of their Lordships' House, had several months ago received a threatening letter; but he was thankful to say that, at present, his life had not been taken, nor, as far as he was aware, had it been attempted. But their Lordships were aware that more 1392 than one murder had been actually perpetrated as well as attempted in Ireland, which bad been preceded by a threatening letter. Therefore, he thought it was a matter of the most serious importance for anyone in the position of the First Minister of the Crown to venture to give expression to such a sentiment as that to which he had now referred. He did not wish to say anything unnecessarily harsh as regarded Mr. Gladstone; but, at the same time, lie ventured to express it as his firm belief that if anyone else, in the whole civilized part of the globe, had ventured to utter such a sentiment he would have been stigmatized by the whole of the public Press as the very reverse of a human being. He would make no further comment than that it was high time to stop such reprehensible language. He must, however, be permitted to point out that the statement was directly contrary to the fact; for, by two recent Statutes—namely, 24&25 Vict. c. 97, s. 50, amended by 27&28 Vict. c. 47, s. 2—"Sending letters, threatening to burn or destroy houses, or kill, maim, or wound cattle," &c, was stated to be felony, punishable by penal servitude "not exceeding ten, and not less than five years." And, again, 24&25 Vict. c. 100, s. 16, amended by 27&28 Vict. c.47,s.2—"Sendingletters, threatening to murder, felony, punishable by penal servitude not exceeding ten, and not less than five years. "It was a curious thing that at the time these Statutes were passed—namely, in 1861 and 1864—the Prime Minister occupied the same position as be did now—that of Chancellor of the Exchequer—and, therefore, he might be quite accurately described as a co-author of the very Statutes which he had now denounced. He felt that he owed some apology to the noble and learned Lord for having framed the Question so as to suggest that he thought it possible his Lordship could have any sympathy whatever with this, which he (the Earl of Galloway) considered a most hideous sentiment uttered by the Prime Minister. It would hardly be necessary for the noble and learned Lord to disavow that; but he hoped his Lordship would be able to inform the House that Mr. Gladstone had already expressed the deepest contrition for the expression; and bad further explained that it was only one more 1393 of those innumerable instances of that helter-skelter, reckless as well as vilifying volubility, which so poisoned the air of Mid Lothian in the month of December, 1879, and again in the month of March, 1880, the natural—nay, the inevitable fruits of which, he regretted to think, they were now reaping in the present distracted and semi-barbarous state of Ireland. In conclusion, he begged, in the terms of his Notice, to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, Whether he is prepared to endorse the sentiment reported in the public journals to have been expressed by the Prime Minister on the eve of the Easter Recess in regard to the state of Ireland; viz., that "threatening letters"…"falling into the category of serious crimes" (and again)…"falling into the class of serious criminal offences"…"is an overstatement on the part of the judge"; who, in the person of Chief Justice Morris, had been quoted to have made a statement of such general import in a court of justice?
THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, the noble Earl (the Earl of Galloway) commenced his speech by admitting that it is not very usual in this House to enter upon questions as to what may have been said in the other House of Parliament by particular Members of that House; but I am afraid that, with the example of last night and of to-night before you, your Lordships will be of opinion that that practice is in danger of becoming more usual than it has heretofore been. I cannot think that it is a very convenient practice to put to a Minister in this House Questions as to what has been reported in the newspapers to have been said by another Minister in the other House; and if anything could make that practice more inconvenient, it would be to put a Question in the form proposed by the noble Earl upon the Paper, and then to follow it up by a discursive speech, in which reference is made to the Mid Lothian Campaign, and to the great facilities of oratory which is possessed by the Prime Minister, and a great many other matters, as to which no Notice had been given. The noble Earl said he would not allude to other parts of the same speech, because he had not given any Notice of asking a Question upon them; but, while disclaiming that intention, he had, in fact, done more than allude to 1394 them. With regard to the Question addressed to me by the noble Earl, I am not prepared to inform the House that the Prime Minister has expressed the deepest contrition for anything which he has said, neither am I prepared to endorse the statement of the noble Earl that the Prime Minister has ever given utterance, or intended to do so, to anything that can be described as most hideous, to use the words of the noble Earl. In truth, the noble Earl has, I think, misunderstood what the Prime Minister really said. Last night a misconstruction was put upon the words of the Prime Minister; but to-night his language has been still more seriously misinterpreted. I entirely agree that, by the two Acts of Parliament to which the noble Earl has referred, the offence of sending letters threatening to commit murder, arson, or other grave offences are not only made crimes, but are made crimes of a very serious character; and these crimes and offences, in the present disturbed state of Ireland, should be treated as being very serious, and liable to be visited, according to the difference in particular cases, with serious punishment. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that no exception can be taken to any words of the learned Judge, in which he may have spoken of threatening letters as falling into the category of serious crimes, and I do not believe that Mr. Gladstone ever intended to take any such exception. I will take the liberty of explaining what I believe he really intended by what he said on this subject. As a matter of fact, most unhappily, offences falling within this category have become very numerous of late, and they differ very much among themselves in point of gravity. Some—a small proportion—are doubtless connected with heinous offences, either actually perpetrated, or of which the perpetration is really meditated by the writers; but the great majority are not, in truth, of that character; and although the circumstances of Ireland make it necessary to legislate against all such offences as a class, yet when we are referring to them, not for the purpose of administering the Criminal Law, but with the object of classifying the statistics of Irish crime in discussions before Parliament, it becomes of importance to distinguish between them and outrages against life and property of a heinous character. 1395 Accordingly, when in this House and in the House of Commons, in order to arrive at a correct view of the comparative state of Ireland at different periods, the statistics of crime in that country are referred to, it has always been found necessary to separate this class of offences from the more heinous offences of actual outrage and violence against person and property, and not to bring them all into one class; because the value of those statistics for Parliamentary purposes would be greatly vitiated if the whole number of cases in which threatening letters had been sent were included, without any discrimination, under the head of heinous offences. Although the law properly treats the sending of threatening letters as a serious offence, it is not to be put upon a par with actual outrage, such as murder, attempt to murder, shooting into a dwelling-house, and destruction of property. Mr. Gladstone, when he used the words attributed to him, was speaking from that point of view; and it was in a comparative, and not in a positive sense, that he took exception to what had fallen from some other Members of the other House of Parliament, who had not made that distinction between the most serious criminal offences and the other class, numerically very much greater, but a large proportion of which was not of so important or serious a character. Mr. Gladstone did not take upon himself to criticize the language of the learned Judge, neither did he go out of his way for that purpose; but, as I understand the matter, a Member of the other House, in referring to the expressions of the learned Judge, interpreted them in a manner which Mr. Gladstone, rightly or wrongly, considered to be an overstatement. I do not believe that Mr. Gladstone had any intention whatever to show the slightest disrespect to the learned Judge or to criticize his statement. I do not believe that Mr. Gladstone had seen the whole context of the language used by the learned Judge; but he was commenting upon the speech of another Member of the House of Commons, who had pressed into his service the expressions which were used by the learned Judge. I am perfectly satisfied that Mr. Gladstone never intended to express any opinion which could encourage any person to suppose that he regarded this class of offences as anything less than 1396 serious, although, in estimating the present state of Ireland, he did not think that they should be brought into the same class, or regarded as being of the same character, as the most heinous crimes.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I sympathize with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack at the constant imposition upon him of the task of having to explain the meaning of the words of the Prime Minister. I feel the gravity of that task, and how gladly the noble and learned Lord would escape from it. Mr. Gladstone's language has this happy peculiarity that, while it is capable of inciting to acts of violence in Ireland and of arousing the most dangerous passions and feelings of the people of that country, it is also capable, under the subtle handling of the noble and learned Lord, of bearing a comparatively innocent construction. I must, however, take exception to the ruling of the noble and learned Lord when he says that we should take no notice of the language used in the other House. Since I have been in this House I have always understood that to deal with language used by Members of the other House was irregular, with this exception—if the Member of Parliament was a Minister of the Crown. If it were not so, we should be debarred from asking notice politically of many of the most important statements that are made, and from passing our judgment upon the action, and upon the grounds stated for that action, by the occupants of the most important Departments of the State. The noble and learned Lord, I think, strained his well-known power in attempting to establish that Mr. Gladstone had not spoken lightly of this particular class of offences. What Mr. Gladstone said was this—and I wish to repeat it in the presence of those who have heard the noble and learned Lord's statement. The Prime Minister said—
I think it is an over-statement on the part of the hon. and learned Member, or on the part of the Judge whose language and sentiments he has adopted, to describe threatening letters as falling into the class of serious criminal offences.Now, what are threatening letters in the present disturbed state of Ireland? They are the machinery by which all the present occult government of Ireland is maintained—they are the instruments 1397 by which all the decrees of the Land League, of the Fenians, and of the Riband conspirators of Ireland are enforced upon the reluctant farmers. What test will you adopt to estimate the seriousness of a criminal offence? Do you not ask whether it interferes with the liberty and safety of individuals, with their peace of mind, and brings about the prostration of their industries? It is the threatening letters which maintain a state of panic in the country, which prevent men from pursuing their ordinary avocations in peace and security, and which give terrible width and effect to the crimes which are perpetrated by order of these secret organizations. It is through these threatening letters that the criminals who control the action of persons and destroy the liberty of a large class in Ireland are able to act in the districts which are dominated by their criminal action. Considered in the light of their effects upon the tranquillity of the country and the liberty of individuals, these threats to murder are most serious criminal offences; and it will have no salutary effect in Ireland that those who commit them, and that those who are the subject of them, should know that they should be lightly spoken of by the Prime Minister, and defended from the Woolsack by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of England.
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, there is not the slightest occasion for me to defend Mr. Gladstone; but I must congratulate the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) upon the opportunities he finds, and which he sometimes creates, of making personal attacks upon Mr. Gladstone, and of attributing the worst possible motives to ordinary expressions of opinion when uttered by my right hon. Friend. I will not go over the whole ground again, which has been so ably covered by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; but this remark I may be permitted to make, that it has been the constant habit, in giving accounts of the state of Ireland, carefully to separate threatening letters—which there is not the slightest doubt are mischievous and illegal—from the more serious crimes of murder and destruction of property. I have not one word more to add to what the noble and learned Lord said; but that is what he did say.