Lords Sitting of 15 March 1886

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Glebe Loans (Ireland) Acts Continuance* (31).
Royal Assent—Freshwater Fisheries (Eels) [49 Vict. c. 2].

DISTURBANCES IN THE METROPOLIS.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in rising to call attention to the Report of Mr. Childers's Committee, and to move—
  "That in the opinion of this House responsibility for the unfortunate occurrences of 8th February devolves on Her Majesty's Govern-
  742
  ment collectively and not on any single branch of the executive,"
  said: My Lords, I offer an apology to the House for not having appeared a week ago upon this Notice. In times like these, we ought no doubt to be superior to ailments; but those which affect the voice must often render men incapable of speaking. Whatever maybe thought of any Motion now submitted, it will be granted that some further reference to the disturbances on the 8th of February was inevitable. The discussion which arose on the 18th of February, although neither uncalled for nor uninteresting, took place when no question was before the House, when no document existed, and when scenes of violence and pillage were too recent to admit of cool examination, accurate reflection, or practical conclusion on the incident which led to them. In the other House of Parliament there has been a more regular debate, although it turned upon a rather fanciful proposal to hand the Metropolitan Police over to a control which is not in existence. Now, the proper object is to ascertain responsibility for what occurred upon the 8th of February, and thus to guard against a similar calamity. Beyond the alarm which is created among the middle classes, beyond the obvious blow to capital and commerce, beyond the manifest encouragement of tumult in the Provinces, it has been mischievous abroad, by leading foreign countries to look upon Great Britain as a State too much divided in itself, and too much on the verge of change, or even of convulsion, to be powerful. The event, of course, is magnified by distance, and we may know a great deal better. I will now inquire into the lesson which the Blue Book seems to furnish. That lesson is, that the unfortunate occurrence with which all present are familiar may be traced to the collision of two bodies in Trafalgar Square. Without one, there would not have been the animus of riot. Without the other, there would not have been the numbers to create it. It is clear, in the first page, and also from the evidence of Colonel Henderson, that the Government were fully warned as to the prospect. Indeed, it appeared in the public papers on the 5th of February that the Social Democrats had resolved upon assailing the platforms of the working men out of employment. The

  743
  working men explained it to the authorities. It rested with the Government to secure the absence of one body or the other. There is an Act of Parliament, the 57 Geo. III. c. 19, s. 23, by which their interference would, at least, have been supported. If the Act of Parliament was doubtful—it does occasionally happen—the Common Law would have sufficed. It has been explained by Mr. Justice Holroyd, that assemblies formed to excite terror and use force—and such was the assembly of the Social Democrats—may be regarded as illegal. I do not dwell upon that part of the subject, as, after the hour of appeals, your Lordships will not like to sit judicially any more than the House of Commons is fond of being in Nisi Prius. If the Common Law was otherwise interpreted it was still open to the Government, as guardians of the public safety, to exceed the law, and gain a subsequent indemnity. There is no course more justified by precedent, or open to a statesman. During the whole of the last century, to relieve Dissenters year by year, it was resorted to. It was resorted to by the great Lord Chatham, in his second Government, to provide against a scarcity. In our age it has been employed in memorable instances—as regards the Bank Charter Act of 1844—with a view to avert commercial panics or to mitigate them. But still the end was otherwise attainable. From the complexion it has reached, the members it embodies, the influence of Her Majesty's Government over the Social Democrats is far from inconsiderable. A grave expression of opinion thrown into a message would have very possibly succeeded. But if the Social Democrats, in spite of such advances from a genial quarter, were inexorable, another plan was open. The unemployed labourers, who had communicated with the Government, who had evinced their deference and loyalty, might have been warned that, by appearing at Trafalgar Square that day, they would do worse than nothing for their admirable object. It ought here to be added that the necessity of averting the collision of adverse bodies on a given area has long been recognized officially and acted on. Some years ago, when Lord Palmerston was First Minister, the partizans of Garibaldi, who were English, and his opponents, who were Irish, proposed to meet in Hyde Park
  744
  at the same moment, and were prohibited by Mr. William Cowper, who was at the Board of Works and did not wish Italian campaigns to be repeated or rehearsed upon the Serpentine. But, much more recently, Lord Spencer has acted on that principle in Ireland, and averted the collision of Orangemen and Nationalists. There was nothing startling or original in the preventive course which might have been adopted. The unavoidable arraignment therefore is, that the Government foresaw the peril and declined to avert it. The defence of Colonel Henderson may be that no efforts of the Metropoliton Police can guard against the movements which arise when hostile bodies have encountered one another. The defence of Mr. Childers may be even more plausible—that he was wholly unaccustomed to the Home Office. The Government collectively have no defence whatever. To them belongs the origin of the disturbance. With a large choice of measures, with ample power to avert, they deemed it wiser to permit it. I do not mean that they are all equally responsible. Far from it. The great responsibility belongs to the First Minister, on grounds which easily present themselves. The First Minister appoints the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and, therefore, if that Secretary of State is inefficient, the First Minister is culpable and guilty. Who asked the right hon. Gentleman to send Mr. Childers to the Home Office? The General Election did not designate him for the function. The public did not clamour for that particular appointment. It had not ocurred to speculation or to rumour. It cannot be made out that Mr. Parnell and his followers demanded it. It was not exacted at St. Petersburg. The electors of Mid Lothian did not urge it, nor those of Edinburgh either. A Secretary of State was chosen with no experience whatever of the Department he approached, with no knowledge of the Metropolitan Constabulary, no habit of consulting their authorities. The action was more violent; because another Colleague, as the House is well aware, had been at the Home Office for five years, had long directed the police; and, however moderate his talents for administrative business—I offer no opinion of them—must have been more qualified to deal with an emergency of this kind

  745
  than a stranger. He had been hardened by a course of dynamite explosions. But let us grant that Mr. Childers was inevitable. He was, perhaps, upon one principle the First Minister has frequently applied. It is that men ought to be appointed to an Office, not to exercise the faculty and knowledge they possess, but to acquire the faculty and knowledge in which they are notoriously wanting. On that principle we have before remarked a great commercial statesman, thoroughly devoid of military science, chosen to preside over the War Office, and to re-organize an Army. There are many other illustrations of it which might come back to your Lordships. It renders Whitehall a political academy, not to employ the talent, but to remedy the ignorance of placemen; a genial school in which the education of the man is purchased by the ruin of the Empire. Let it be granted then that Mr. Childers was inevitable. He might otherwise have died before he grasped the elements of street fighting, in which we may be sure that now his progress is amazing. The First Minister had been installed in Office for a week, and had no call to go away for re-election. Under these circumstances, a portion of the Government being scattered, and the rest of it being inchoate, be became the proper guardian of the country in every Department which was vacant. Such was the position of the Duke of Wellington at the close of 1834, when Sir Robert Peel was absent. But there is no occasion to insist on that particular example. It is on record that the Admiralty referred to Mr. Pitt, without scruple, in the middle of the night, when naval difficulties happened. Lord Palmerston, as First Minister—I learnt it from Mr. Hermann Merivale, the permanent official—transacted the business of the Colonial Office in 1855, when Lord John Russell, who was then Colonial Secretary, went upon a mission to Vienna. It was the duty of the First Minister, who had just forced himself on Downing Street by an extraordinary method, to sustain the burden of the Home Office until his fancifully chosen nominee was ready to endure it. The Attorney General was in London, ready with his legal knowledge to assist him. No one was better placed than the First Minister for pointing out to Colonel Henderson that the
  746
  line of the Clubs was the special line to be defended. He could hardly have forgotten the inflammatory language in which, not long ago, he had referred to them as "temples of luxury and ease," and held them up, although not meaning it at all, to the resentment of the people. However, those who do not think it proper to identify the First Minister with such a wide responsibility as usually devolves upon him, who would confine his function to the Treasury, leave every Department to itself, and give him no control over subordinates, will approve of the word collectively being brought into the Motion. Even among those who are acquainted well with the political machine, there may be differences as to where reproach ought to direct itself. But all intelligent society concurs in thinking it a scandal that Colonel Henderson should be the only mark for retribution, that everywhere else impunity should reign, that everywhere else official wealth, official rank should be accumulated. Such is the proposal of the Government. Such is the proposal which the House is asked to counteract or modify this evening. My Lords, it is not irrelevant, it is indeed essential, to look back to a few instances of riot and commotion successfully or unsuccessfully encountered, and see whether the praise or blame was fixed upon the head of the Constabulary. In 1866, soon after the late Lord Derby began his third Administration, there was a signal triumph of disorder. A large mass succeeded in occupying Hyde Park, against the wishes and the proclamation of the Government. The police having undoubtedly been worsted, the arrangements having certainly been vicious, the whole blame might have fallen on them. Such was not the language in either House of Parliament. The attack was copiously directed against the Home Office and the Government. The Secretary of State resigned—I think it was an error upon his part. But it never occurred to anyone to make the predecessor of Colonel Henderson a scapegoat. In connection with this topic there is something to be particularly noted. The Metropolitan Police had been far more decidedly frustrated than happened on the 8th of February. On that day in Oxford Street—and this ought always to be mentioned in behalf of Colonel Henderson—they did succeed at last in gaining an advantage

  747
  to which our safety at this moment is attributable. In 1866 they thoroughly collapsed, and made way for the Military Forces. But still they did not bear, as now, the whole responsibility. In 1848, law and order were successfully maintained against a Chartist demonstration, when anarchy had been supreme in Paris, Berlin, and Vienna; when Thrones were scattered by a revolutionary hurricane; when all the world looked on to see whether the British capital would ride unharmed over the tempest. The praise was given to Sir George Grey, the Secretary of State, who organized the special constables, to the Duke of Wellington, who placed the troops, to Lord John Russell, who invoked his prudence and activity. According to the present doctrine, or at least according to its converse, the police ought all to have been knighted, and a Garter, if nothing else, bestowed on the Commissioner. What do we find on recurring to 1780, and to Lord George Gordon? The riots were much graver than the present ones. For many days, and not for a few hours, disorder was ascendant. Magistrates and constables were paralyzed. The King alone retained his self-possession. Newgate was invaded; a number of Dissenting chapels burnt; the mansion of the Lord Chief Justice pillaged; terror universal. Against whom did the language of public men direct itself? Against the Government collectively. You may see it in the speeches of Mr. Fox, Lord Shelburne, and others which remain to us. You may see it in the well-known and classical defence of Lord George Gordon, by the great forensic master of that period. No officer, who guided or misguided the police, was chosen to be at once a target and a shelter trench. My Lords, it may be asked, even by those who do not venture to dispute this line of reasoning, on what ground and with what aim should either House of Parliament declare itself? It is the only mode of guarding against such lapses for the future. There is much to lure or drag Administrations into tacit compact with disturbance. It may appear a necessary method to conciliate electors. It may be thought conducive to the objects which the Cabinet are aiming at. At least, it gratifies the love of ease, of compromise, and of inaction which, on the late occasion, was conspicuous. But these are speculative
  748
  arguments. What did we observe in 1884? We saw the group which has now returned substantially to Office initiating or encouraging a vast assemblage, by which the routes to Parliament were blocked, by which Members of either House were driven or excluded from their places, which was directed towards Westminster beyond its proper route into Hyde Park, for no purpose but the purpose of impeding and intimidating. The right hon. Gentleman, and those whom he employs—however great their merits—are not to be depended on for the maintenance of order, or I should rather say of freedom, in the streets of the Metropolis. But Colonel Henderson has been removed. In his removal, where is the security for better conduct of the Government? What is it to the Government, if, once a-year or once a-month, you change the head of the police? His groans are heard with perfect equanimity. It is true the vigilance of that official may be improved by such a process. It is true the successor of Colonel Henderson may be unerring, irreproachable. But he can never give the orders to prevent a conflict of opinion in Trafalgar Square. A step of that kind must depend upon the Government. He can only parry or resist the violence it leads to, He can only battle with the evil which a capable and honourable Government would not have suffered to present itself. Some think it useless for your Lordships to pass a Motion of this kind, unless the other House concurs in it. Governments are not of that opinion, since, when they are exposed to censure in the House of Lords, they regularly try to counteract it in the other. It was seen in 1850, in 1864, and even in the last Session. It is not obviously desirable that both Houses should concur in a Resolution of this character. The half is sometimes better than the whole, according to an old Greek proverb. If both Houses united, a Dissolution might be hurried, or a change of Government necessitated. It is appropriate that the error should be recorded in one House, when inconveniences would follow on empathic, although well-founded, reprimand from both of them together. Of course, no Motion of this House alone can promise to ensure a new, or a corrected, Government, which many feel to be desirable in

  749
  reference to Ireland and every other topic. It is, however, true that insufficient measures may often be obligatory measures, when a principle dictates them. In medicine, war, or navigation, the rules of science may demand a certain course, although it will not reach the whole effect which is desired, although it seems that death, defeat, or shipwreck are impending. The same lesson is suggested by political affairs. To act at present on the maxim, that where error has been proved, one House of Parliament should notice it, may give a better aspect to a gloomy situation, may be the germ, the starting point, of remedy, or of improvement. It may, indeed, be otherwise. But where the voice of duty is emphatic, there is no room for searching calculation, or minute analysis of policy and prudence. Parliament is bound to see that in a transaction of this kind justice is maintained, and retribution properly distributed. The Government, as now disposed and constituted, has few supporters upon this side beyond the Treasury Bench. They have no claim on any Party which desires to uphold the Irish Union. But if noble Lords opposite, arrayed to criticize and censure, become their followers and advocates when such results have sprung from their deficiency, what power will remain, what refuge will be standing? The form of words which I have chosen may not, indeed, appear to them the most expressive of their judgment. In that event they may amend and supersede it. In the meanwhile I will move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That in the opinion of this House responsibility for the unfortunate occurrences of 8th February devolves on Her Majesty's Government collectively and not on any single branch of the executive."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  LORD THURLOWsaid, that he had listened with great attention to the noble Lord, and he hoped that he should be forgiven if he declined to admit on the part of the Government that he had made out a case against them. The Motion as it stood contained a very through and sweeping condemnation of Her Majesty's Government. It was, of course, painful that so sweeping a condemnation should come from a noble Lord who was generally a supporter of
  750
  Her Majesty's present Government. He must, therefore, ask their Lordships to permit him very briefly to examine the Motion of the noble Lord upon its merits. The noble Lord said that Her Majesty's Government collectively were to blame for the disgraceful riots that had occurred on the 8th of February in the West End. Having the honour to represent the Home Office in their Lordships' House, of course he was very glad that the Motion should be framed in that way; but he feared that the position taken up by the noble Lord could not be maintained, for the reason that Her Majesty's Government did not exist collectively as a whole on that day, it not having been completely formed until a much later date. It was true that the Home Secretary had entered upon his duties on that day; but the only other Members of the Government that had actually entered upon their Offices at the time were the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack (Lord Herschell), the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council (Earl Spencer), the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Roseberry), the noble Marquess the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Marquess of Ripon), and the noble Earl the Secretary for India (the Earl of Kimberley). At that time the Legal Advisors of the Crown had not been appointed, and therefore Her Majesty's Government could not be said to have existed as a whole on the day in question. The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Childers) did not think it his duty immediately on entering the Home Office to upset all the arrangements of his Predecessor in Office or of the police, in view of the meeting in Trafalgar Square, especially as he had been assured that these arrangements were perfectly sufficient. They had now, however, other guides more reliable than the noble Lord upon this matter, having before them the Report of the Commissioners appointed to consider the question of the organization of the Police. The last three lines of that Report indicated very distinctly where the mischief under the old system lay. They were as follows:—
  "We conclude our Report by a strong expression of opinion that the administration and organization of the Metropolitan Police Force requires to be thoroughly investigated; and we hope that this investigation will take place without delay."

  751
  It was evident from that Report that the riots of the 8th of February were due, not to the fault of the Executive or to the quality of the police, but to the defective system of our police organization. He desired to repeat what he had already said—namely, that the Metropolitan Police Force was second to none in material, but that it wanted an Intelligence Department which might be its eyes and ears and the means of conveying orders accurately so as to insure their being carried out. These riots would probably result in a great gain to the country which had escaped a great danger very cheaply. He was glad to be able to state that the Government and Parliament were taking steps to reimburse those who had suffered during the riots. He was also glad to have the opportunity of endorsing the praise of Sir Edmund Henderson which had been expressed by the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook) opposite. The services of Sir Edmund Henderson, who had kept the peace of this Metropolis during the last 17 years, were in no danger of being forgotten. Times had changed, London had now greatly increased in population, and various dangers had grown up of which before they had little knowledge. Under those circumstances it was very natural that after the lapse of 17 years Sir Edmund Henderson might be permitted to relinquish the cares of his high office; and he thought it was very right that a new man should be selected who no doubt would be better able to introduce the reforms that were needed into the Police Force. In conclusion, he congratulated the noble Lord who had brought forward that Motion at any rate on the originality of his arguments, which were fully equal to the remarkable suggestion made in a former debate—that the late riots were caused by the annexation of Burmah. For himself, he ventured to hope that their Lordships would consider that the Government had acted with prudence on that occasion. He did not think it would be wise at present to accept the sweeping Resolution which the noble Lord had proposed. It would not be wise to trifle with the safety of the Metropolis by weakening the hands of the Executive at that moment of transition, and he therefore called upon their Lordships to reject the Motion.
  LORD DORCHESTERsaid, that after the studied reply just made by the Government to the vigorous denouncement of the noble Lord (Lord Stratheden and Campbell), he (Lord Dorchester) did not intend to follow up that matter at any great length, although it was one which concerned the safety of their households in that Metropolis, and the security of a vast amount of valuable property. He would, however, observe that he had never known that there was any mystery in the discipline of a well-regulated regiment; and he saw no reason why there should be mystery in the organization of the Metropolitan Police. It was a mere question of discipline, of organization, and of the relations which existed between the Home Department and the senior executive officer of a largo body of men, numbering, he believed, over 13,000, who had very responsible and onerous duties, and who were individually exposed by day and night to three of the most tempting influences that affected men's probity and their organization—namely, wine, women, and money. They were exposed to those three sources of temptation, and from them they had kept wonderfully aloof. No man who had lived, as he had done, in London for many years, and had watched the action of the Metropolitan constables, could fail to admire the steadiness and alacrity with which they discharged their duties. At the East End of London, in October last, there were some disturbances which the police were said to have been too active and energetic in putting down. He was not in the secrets of the Home Office or of Scotland Yard; but it was the general impression that the want of action on February 8 resulted, in a great measure, from the blame that was thrown on some of the Inspectors and subordinates of the Force for being too active in suppressing the disturbances at the East End of London. That might or might not be the case; but the disturbance of February 8 was known beforehand to be likely to take place. He had seen a letter dated 12 days before the occurrence forshadowing accurately what actually happened. He did not believe that the least possible blame devolved on Mr. Childers on that occasion. How far that right hon. Gentleman might have understood the duties of the Home Office on the first day he

  753
  went there it was not for him to say; but there was no doubt that Mr. Childers gave every attention to every subject that was brought before him. But were there no Permanent Under Secretaries at the Home Office, no detective officer in Scotland Yard in communication with the Inspector of Criminal Detection at the Home Office? He was informed that the relations between the Home Office and Scotland Yard should be those that existed between the War Office and the General commanding an army in foreign parts. Well, he really believed that had that disturbance occurred in Cairo, it would have been known to the War Office before Mr. Childers knew of it at the Home Office. A gentleman warned a body of police near Stafford House of what was going to happen, and told them that the mob were going up Pall Mall and St. James's Street, breaking windows and looting, and the reply he received was that the police had taken precautions, which were to remain behind. Inspectors of police and bodies of men were distributed where they were not wanted; but those Inspectors appeared to have had their orders. Whence those orders came and what they were had not transpired. Later on an Inspector turned out with 15 men, and finding what was going on he sent men to Oxford Street, and the disturbance was put an end to. Probably by his prompt action that Inspector saved the Bond Street and Regent Street shopkeepers from being plundered. If the other Inspectors were right, that Inspector was wrong; but in his (Lord Dorchester's) opinion he was quite right, and at any rate his prompt action on his own initiative put an end to the disturbance. He maintained that their Lordships had a right to ask why the Inspectors of Police did not take steps to protect the property of the inhabitants. He believed that the organization of the Police Force was faulty. It had not a sufficient number of head officials to carry out whatever orders had to be enforced; the Force was not in sufficiently constant communication with the Chief Commissioner, and that officer was not in close enough touch with the authorities at the Home Office. If the police found themselves at some time unable to cope with a disturbance, the military could be called out to assist them. While everyone knew that a disturbance of
  754
  some kind was likely to occur on this occasion, there was no police magistrate in attendance to read the Riot Act, although the policemen were being very much harassed by the mob; whereas for a week subsequently, without any symptoms of disturbance, the entire garrison of London were confined to their barracks and magistrates with them. It was of great importance to the happiness, comfort, and welfare of the inhabitants of London that they should know they were to be protected, that the police should be instructed in their duties, that the military should be told what action they were to take in similar circumstances, that police magistrates should be at hand on the occasion of a disturbance of this kind, and that the Home Secretary should be in close correspondence with the different authorities in order to prevent the recurrence of so deplorable a blunder.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, be thought it might be convenient to their Lordships if he were to state what the law was regarding some of the matters under discussion. There was no doubt that if a number of people, however innocently intentioned they might be, occupied any part of the public highways, or places which were used for the traffic of the public, and which might come under the description of the Queen's highway, to such an extent as seriously to interfere with the free circulation of the people—which was the natural and proper use of the highway—when that took place to a serious extent, an unlawful act was committed. The people who committed this unlawful act were indictable; the police were warranted in dispersing them, and if any person resisted the authority of the police he could be taken into custody. In reference to meetings in the Park, he said it was absolutely certain that there was no right, or anything in the nature of a right, on the part of people to hold a meeting for political purposes in the Park, unless by gracious permission of Her Majesty, or of those authorities who are intrusted with its care. He did not deny that the public had certain rights in the Park, partly from long indulgence and partly from the maintenance of the Parks coming out of the Consolidated Fund. Those things combined undoubtedly gave a practical right; but the right of the people in

  755
  this respect was that of recreation and quiet enjoyment, and not of holding political meetings. There was no right in anyone to go into the Park to preach. Further, the law undoubtedly was that if a number of persons met and so conducted themselves in demeanour, language, or action, as to excite a reasonable fear in the minds of people that violence would or might take place, such was an unlawful assembly. The parties to it were indictable; the police were justified in dispersing it, and were also justified in arresting anyone who resisted their lawful dispersion. In reference to the military, his opinion was that a soldier was not only justified but bound to assist the police in keeping the peace; if this was true of one soldier, it was true of 20 soldiers, even although they were under the command of an officer. He had not the slightest doubt that the law was so. If the posse comitatus were called out, soldiers would be included. He had not referred to the question whether or not these particular meetings in Trafalgar Square were lawful or not. He could not help saying, speaking of those meetings as a whole, that they were not bonâ fide meetings for the purpose of discussion and enlightenment. They were meetings for the purpose of exciting awe in those who lived in the West of London, or in the minds of those persons who were supposed to have influence to alter the law in the way in which these persons desired it to be altered. Persons did not come seriously together to discuss questions in the open air in the month of February; they went to some more convenient place for the purpose. One of the reasons why this disturbance on the 8th of February happened resulted from the expectations of the police that the persons who did the mischief, coming as they did from the South-East of London, would go back to their own neighbourhood as soon as the meeting was over. Why did not those people give expression to their feelings in their own neighbourhood?
  LORD DE ROSsaid, he did not think that he need offer any apology for bringing this subject under their Lordships' notice, because there was, no doubt, a considerable amount of ambiguity attached to it. The Queen's Regulations laid down that troops were not to be taken out except on the requisition
  756
  of a magistrate in writing, or in cases of great and sudden emergency. If an officer was called upon to act on a so-called great emergency without a magistrate, and loss of life ensued on account of his giving the word of command to fire in the case of Infantry, or to charge in the case of Cavalry, who was to decide whether he was warranted in so acting? Why, the jury empannelled to try him for his life! On the other hand, suppose that he did not, and that the case was such as to warrant his taking extreme measures, he was liable then to be tried by a court martial for neglect of duty; he, therefore, considered that the officer was placed in a most delicate position. In the one case, the officer was acting, as it were, with a rope round his neck; and, in the other, he rendered himself liable to a court martial. He did not for a moment contend that when a soldier was out of barracks for his recreation, he was not bound to render all the assistance in his power to the police, the same as any other loyal person. There was no such thing as an armed soldier in the streets off duty; when he was armed he was under the control of an officer or non-commissioned officer, who was responsible for the acts of those under his command. He ventured, therefore, to think that the military should not be called out in aid of the civil power, except in the most extreme cases, and where the mob were armed, and that a magistrate should always accompany the force. The plan adopted in 1848, during the Chartist demonstrations, appeared to be most sensible—namely, to have detachments posted in various parts of the town, and kept out of sight. The persons assembling generally became aware of this, and it was calculated to exercise a very wholesome check on their proceedings. He begged to recommend that the mounted police be increased. Six mounted men, with their horses well in hand, would be of more use than 50 dismounted men in dispersing a crowd. He trusted that these few remarks would lead to something more definite being laid down for the guidance of officers.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, he was under the impression that, as a rule, the military could not act without the authority of a police magistrate. It was true that in the case of a burglary

  757
  anyone would be justified in assisting the police; but however laudable and proper it might be for a soldier or anyone else to do so, there was no doubt, as a rule, that when any considerable body of troops were called out to assist the police on any occasion, they should always have a magistrate with them to give the requisite authority. It would be a very dangerous experiment indeed if a commanding officer were to depart from that rule, which was, he thought, a very safe one.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER)said, as the illustrious Duke had referred to him on the subject of what had occurred in Ireland, he might say that his recollection of what occurred in 1882–3 was that any body of troops going out to preserve order was accompanied by a magistrate; but his opinion also was that all citizens were called upon to assist the police, and that this included soldiers. He could recall one case in 1882, in Dublin, when the police were attacked in the most savage way by some of the worst characters in that City. Sergeant Danvers, of the King's Royal Rifle Corps, interfered, and secured the man who led the attack on the police. That was an example where a soldier, having loyal instincts towards law and order, came forward and acted properly, and with the highest possible credit to himself, in assisting the civil power.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: The discussion, while it has been very interesting, has somewhat wandered from the Motion of the noble Lord; but it has called attention to the law regulating the assistance which may be given to the civil power by the military. My own impression is that it is desirable for soldiers to act under a magistrate in all ordinary cases; but in case of an emergency, when riots and disturbances occur, it would be monstrous to suppose that soldiers, like other citizens, may not interfere to preserve order, even if no magistrate be there. Though soldiers as a body had better act with a magistrate and under the orders of their officers, they may act with perfect safety individually in assisting the police. I recollect a case that occurred in Ireland while the noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer) was Viceroy. Some soldiers were attacked, and defended themselves with their arms against their assailants.
  758
  I certainly think that soldiers, like other citizens, if put in peril of their lives, have a right to fix their bayonets and defend themselves. Referring to the Motion before the House, it will, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, censure the late Government as well as the present. We went out of Office on the Saturday, and the present Government came into Office on the Monday. By passing this Motion and censuring the Government we should be inflicting a backhanded blow upon ourselves. We were the de facto if not the de jure Government up to the Saturday previous to the 8th of February, and therefore it would be difficult, under the circumstances, to say who were the Executive responsible for what preceded the meeting. While speaking on this subject, I must be allowed to say that I have never seen anything more manly than the conduct of Sir Edmund Henderson in taking upon himself the whole responsibility for these unfortunate occurrences. Sir Edmund Henderson seems to have miscalculated the action the mob was likely to take and not to have provided for it. No doubt the consequences were very serious, as were also the consequences of orders being sent by word of mouth. Moreover, the want of initiative shown by the inferior officers in not taking upon themselves to stop the mob when they saw rioting going on is extremely lamentable. It seems to me that an Inspector or Superintendent in command of men is not called upon to wait for orders when rioting is going on around him, but should act for himself as a single constable would if he saw robbery being committed. The greatest credit is due to the constable at Marylebone Lane who, with the aid of 15 men, checked further disturbances in that quarter. The arguments of the noble Lord are well worthy of consideration. I trust that the noble Lord will not press his Motion; but I think there is a duty cast upon any Government in such matters. In this case two meetings were called—one by the unemployed, and the other by the Social Democrats. The latter gave notice that they were going there to put the others down; and nothing is more clear than that the unemployed were not the authors of the disturbance. Two hostile mobs were allowed to assemble in the centre of London without interference.

  759
  If there is not power already to prohibit the assemblage of such mobs there ought to be. There ought to be power for the Government to prohibit such meetings and to make them immediately illegal. The responsibility would rest with the Government; but the order of the Government would justify the police for any action they might take to prevent the assemblage of the mob.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Earl GRANVILLE): I need scarcely say that I thank the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook) for the straightforward way in which he has met and disposed of the Motion of my noble Friend (Lord Stratheden and Campbell). I may say that I never considered this Motion of a serious character, otherwise I should have regarded it as a Vote of Censure upon the Government, and desired that it should be brought forward on the earliest possible day. Had I regarded it as a Vote of Censure, I should also have thought it my duty to prepare myself with facts and arguments to lay before the House. I think your Lordships will agree with me that it has given rise to an interesting conversation, but not in the least in favour of the Motion. While I agree entirely with the noble Viscount that the responsibility of dealing with particular cases rests with the Government, we must not dismiss from our minds the fact that with 4,000,000 of inhabitants it is absolutely impossible to put an end to open-air meetings in the Metropolis. We must be careful in looking at this question—while not forgetting the responsibility of the Government in each particular case—not to lay down any general rule as to the prohibition of public meetings.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, that the questions raised in that discussion were of great importance. Had he thought that these questions would have arisen he would have taken care to satisfy himself more than he had done with reference to the exact law on this subject. It was very important to bear in mind that military force was not to be called in aid of the civil power except by distinct civil authority. He quite agreed that a soldier did not cease to be a citizen because he was a soldier; and any soldier, like any citizen, ought to help the police in an emergency. But in that case the soldier
  760
  should do it as a civilian and not as a soldier. He quite agreed also with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) that there was no objection to one or half-a-dozen or more soldiers assisting the police as civilians. But the soldier quâ soldier was armed with a weapon intended to be a dangerous weapon, which might not only disable, but cause loss of life. The danger was not in his assisting the civil power as a soldier, but in his using his military weapon in doing so. That a soldier must do at his own responsibility, though he did not say that an emergency might not arise where soldiers would not be justified in taking the responsibility of using their military weapons. But if the military force acted as a military force against the people, using their military weapons, they ought to have the previous sanction of the civil authority. He was anxious to emphasize the distinction which existed in his own mind between the action of soldiers in their character of citizens and their action as a military force. The latter action should be confined to cases where they were called to aid in the repression of disturbance by the civil authority.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he agreed with the Lord Chancellor (Lord Herschell) that when persons had deadly weapons, as soldiers had, their action could only be justified when they were under the orders of the proper authority. The point of his noble and learned Friend's observations was founded on the fact of the weapons being deadly. But, so far as the responsibility for conduct was concerned, the policeman was equally responsible with the soldier if he used his baton unnecessarily. The Queen's Regulations in the case of the soldier could not supersede the Common Law. The soldier was, no doubt, primarily bound to obey the commands of his officers; but if he contravened the Common Law, the commands of his officers would be no defence. If the soldier refused to interfere in a riot he might be liable to the Common Law; and he might be equally liable if he interfered without proper authority. It was, therefore, misleading to speak of the law as drawing a distinction between the soldier and the citizen. The noble Lord behind him (Lord de Ros) had referred to the Riot Act. The law was that when the Riot Act was read everybody who continued

  761
  to assemble was guilty of felony. Until the Riot Act was read it would have to be established by evidence that a felony had been committed; but the continuance of the assembly after the reading of the Act would itself constitute a felony.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, that he had no choice but to act on the opinion of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook), by whom that evening the majority were guided. At the same time, the noble Viscount had entirely corroborated his arguments as to the origin of the disturbances in the coincidence of two meetings, of which one might have been easily averted. Neither the noble Lord who followed him (Lord Thurlow), nor the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Earl Granville), had even attempted to overthrow a single proposition which he (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) had brought before their Lordships.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—MURDER OF PATRICK FINLAY, WOODFORD, CO. GALWAY.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANS, in rising to call attention to the murder of the bailiff Patrick Finlay, at Woodford, co. Galway; and to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps, if any, have been taken to bring the murderers to justice; and, whether they consider their existing powers are sufficient for the protection of life and detection of crime in Ireland? said, there was no one who was present would ever forget that solemn scene in which both Parties in that House united to express horror at the murders of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke. There were murders in Ireland before, there had been murders since, and now to the long list was added the name of Patrick Finlay. He believed this to have been a murder, though the National Press had described it as "the alleged murder," and an Irish Member in "another place" insinuated it was an accidental death. This suggestion, to his credit, the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. John Morley) had treated with contemptuous silence. The murder was thus described by the Dublin correspondent of The Times—
  762
  "Finlay, who was boycotted, had been forced to gather fuel in a wood on the estate of Sir Henry Burke, a boycotted landlord. On the Wednesday, armed with his revolver, he went to the wood without previously informing the police, who for some time past had kept a protective watch over him when abroad. After an hour or so, his wife spoke to the sergeant, who, on going to the wood, found Finlay dead, his revolver beside him with one chamber discharged. So far from the murder exciting horror in the locality, the people, as in the Curtin case, openly rejoiced at the crime. When Mrs. Finlay was returning to the town, after viewing the body of her husband where it lay in the wood, a vast crowd assembled and mocked her grief with jeers and shouts of triumph. Six constables, in consequence of this display of popular feeling, had to be left that night to guard the widow's house, situate in the centre of the town. It is stated that there are evictions pending on a neighbouring property in which Finlay was to take part. He had also civil bill decrees against tenants of Mrs. Lewis, but there are no evictions in that case. It had been arranged that a strong force of military was to be sent to aid the constabulary, a body numbering 75 men, in executing the decrees, but after the Chief Secretary's speech the aspect of the situation was entirely changed and the people were told by their Sunday orators that the 'Government will send no military here for evictions, and we will be able for the police.' The arrangements about the military have been countermanded, and the proceedings to enforce the law are now in abeyance."
  The noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen), in his position as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, was properly escorted by soldiers wherever he went; but military protection was denied to save the life of a poor process-server, and Her Majesty's Government claimed to represent democracy. His sad story was not finished. Horrible murders happened in England, but public sympathy in this country was not with the murderers. The Times correspondent, in describing the funeral of Finlay, said—
  "It was with great difficulty that the police procured a place of burial for the remains, admission to the usual graveyards being refused. Ultimately they were interred in a small disused private burial ground. No one attended the funeral but Finlay's widow, Mr. Lewis and his brother, Mr. Lewis's steward, Mr. Donney, and the police, under the command of Mr. Dixon, district inspector. In Woodford a man went shouting through the streets, 'Finlay's soul is in hell, and that is where he ought to be.' The coffin was obtained from the workhouse at Loughrea, as no one in Woodford would supply it, and had to be taken out of the town by a back way instead of through the main street in order to avoid a hostile demonstration. Despite this precaution, the loud laughter and joyous shouts of the people could be distinctly heard. The murderers of Finlay

  763
  did not think their hatred sufficiently satisfied by shooting him through the chest, but after his death, as there was good reason to believe, they discharged his own revolver into his mouth. His miserable widow was left absolutely desolate, and had no prospect but the poorhouse."
  Such was the end of poor Patrick Finlay, a man of good character, an Army pensioner, who had fought for England in the Crimea. Great allowance must be made for the increased difficulties in which Ministers found themselves owing to the lame, halting, and blind policy adopted as regarded Ireland by the late Government during the six months they were in Office. He did not wish to rake up the past, nor seemingly to harass Her Majesty's Ministers into divulging their Irish policy, nor was he desirous seriously to harass them in respect of Irish matters; and when they considered how gigantic were the issues involved, the time the Government had asked to prepare their policy erred on the side rather of modesty. But as Englishmen we had a right to know that fresh victims between this and then would not be sacrificed at the altar of the so-called Irish Nationalism, and that outrages such as he had described should not be permitted to disgrace our civilization in a part of the State still known as the United Kingdom only 10 hours distant from London. He asked the noble Earl to give a distinct answer to the Question—Whether in the opinion of the Government the present law in Ireland was strong enough to detect crime, which in Ireland meant to protect life? If the noble Earl could say "Yes;" his reply would be received with a sense of relief, not only in this House, but in the country, and especially in Ireland. If he could only tell us to wait till the 1st of April, it would be better for the Government to contract in the interim with the National League for the protection of life, or even to subsidize O'Donovan Rossa, than to let innocent men be murdered. He, a Liberal, asked the noble Earl, as a Member of a Democratic Government, whether the life of a poor man performing humble but legal public duties was to be less sacred than that of the Official highest in Dublin Castle, and whether the blood of Patrick Finlay appealed with less force to the Government than did that unhappily spilt in the Phœnix Park?
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK, on rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether it was true that on the night of Sunday, 7th March, 15 head of cattle, the property of Michael O'Connor, were houghed or otherwise horribly mutilated at Ballyculhane, near Glin; whether on the same night, close to the same place, a cowshed containing eight cows was maliciously burned and the cows roasted to death; whether a meeting of the National League was held in Glin on that Sunday; and, whether the owners of the cattle stated to have been thus horribly mutilated or destroyed had been "Boycotted" for some time past, and were barely able to obtain the necessaries of life? said, the crimes which were occurring in Ireland were a disgrace to a Christian country. It was true that those outrages had recently been condemned by resolution of the National League; but it unfortunately happened that however powerful the National League was in other respects when it attempted to condemn outrages, those outrages did not in some way or other cease on account of that condemnation. It seemed as if within this National League there were some inner centres which exercised the real power. Whether they called them Invincibles or what else, it would seem that they did not shrink from outrage, and were not affected by the condemnations which the National League itself issued. The question before them was whether Her Majesty's Government were able to deal with these secret societies or centres which existed and carried on their secret work. He would not trouble their Lordships by relating at length statements to show that the horrible murder already referred to was not an isolated case. He would refer only to two. One of those was not yet attended with murder, and the other was that of which he had given Notice, which was attended with the horrible mutilation and destruction of unfortunate cattle. He alluded to these cases because they occurred in his own neighbourhood, and he could vouch for the facts. One of the cases to which he wished to call particular attention, because the persecution of those attacked had not yet ceased, was that of a farmer named Tesky, who had been attacked and injured in his house, and his life was despaired of. Well, Tesky identified one

  765
  of the men who committed the outrage, and he was tried at the Spring Assizes at Limerick, but was acquitted. He was informed that threatening letters had been sent before the trial to jurors, and, since, to Tesky himself. He should like to hear some statement from the noble Earl (Earl Spencer) as regarded the cases heard at those Assizes, for he believed not a conviction had been secured. The outrage at Glin was a terrible one. The statements concerning it did not rest on newspaper paragraphs. They rested on a statement deliberately made and signed by the Knight of Glin, who had since written that since the outrage a notice had been posted calling on a tenant to "Take notice, I will burn you alive as I burned the cows last night." He desired to say that this outrage at Glin occurred within four hours of the holding of a Nationalist meeting in that place; but he wished to qualify that remark, and to be perfectly clear in regard to it. He believed thoroughly that the great majority of those attending those meetings reprobated such outrages as those he had described. Still the language used at those meetings stirred up the intemperate and evil-disposed, and nobody knew that better than the noble Earl (Earl Spencer). Whilst holding this opinion, still he thought it was impossible to free those holding the meetings from all responsibility for the outrages which in so many instances followed them. If these outrages were allowed to go on until some measure was brought forward for settling the state of Ireland for the future, Her Majesty's Government would for a longer or shorter period be practically abandoning the enforcement of the law in that country. He feared that the measure that was to be brought forward by the Ministry would not, under such circumstances, bring about peace and the settled order of good government.
  LORD GREVILLEsaid, a Question had been asked of Her Majesty's Government which he ventured to say they were absolutely powerless to answer, for at present in Ireland government existed only in name, and as an executive power the Government was valueless. If an unfortunate man came under the hand of the Land League the Government was powerless to save him. Mr. Baron Dowse, at a recent
  766
  Assize, had called attention to the increase of crime for equal periods in the same district, the number of offences having been 151 in 1884, 166 in 1885, and in the last six months no fewer than 300; and these offences were of a serious nature, including two murders, 18 threats to murder, 39 cases of stealing cattle, horses, and sheep, 11 cases of arson, 18 cases of the killing and maiming of cattle, and 52 seizures of arms and levying of contributions. All these things were happening at the present moment. If the Government were powerful enough to carry out the law, why had there been these 300 cases in the last six months? Mr. Davitt, the originator of the Land League, had made a strong speech against Moonlighting and other outrages; and the language he had used was even stronger than had fallen from the Government. But with an impulsive race and nation like the Irish nation it was not so easy, when they had been roused and hounded on by the words of an eloquent man, to bring them back to moderation by asking them to be kind and gentle. In Westmeath, which once provoked the passing of the Westmeath Act, there were now few or no outrages, and that was owing to the influence exercised by the Roman Catholic Bishop in that county. But for the influence of him and his priests it would be almost impossible for a man to live in the county. Perhaps the measure to be introduced by the Prime Minister might do something to restore peace and tranquillity to the country; but at present the motto of the Government was non possumus.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, the noble Earl opposite alluded to the Question he has put down, and which would formally come on later in the evening. I do not object to his having alluded to it. Probably it will be more convenient that it should be brought forward and answered in the present debate. I, for one, shall say nothing to take away from the force of the language which both the noble Duke and the noble Earl have used with regard to these detestable murders and crimes in Ireland. No one, I am sorry to say, has had more experience of these terrible crimes than I have had during the years that I have had the honour of being Her Majesty's Representative. I know how violent they are, how much

  767
  they intimidate the people in the neighbourhood in which they are committed. I know full well that sympathy with the perpetrators of these crimes is too often found to exist among the population of Ireland. I deplore all this from the bottom of my heart. The most serious thing of all is the terribly disgusting feeling of sympathy with the criminals which too often prevails in those districts in which the crimes are committed. I cannot say how deeply this has always impressed me. It is not only ordinary ruffians who take part in these crimes, but you too often find they are committed by fanatics who are led by a false love of their country to think they can serve it by these atrocities. This is the most serious part of the history of Ireland connected with these crimes. I fear that no repressive legislation can affect that terrible feeling; it has not been diminished by the successive measures of repression we have had. I sincerely hope that some day we may arrive at a better feeling on the part of the population of Ireland—a feeling in support of law and of order instead of one of sympathy with crime committed in the midst of the people. I have not been able to obtain detailed reports of the crimes referred to in the second Question on the Paper; but I believe that in the main the statements embodied in the Question are correct. I fear it is probable there was great sympathy with the criminals; and I know there was great difficulty about the interment of the man to whom the noble Duke referred. I cannot give information as to the steps taken by the Government to discover the criminals, as everyone acquainted with Ireland will agree with me when I say that that would not in any degree be conducive to the ends of justice. This, however, I can say—that the Irish Government are using their utmost endeavours to try and trace the criminal, but at present I regret to say that I am not able to give any very hopeful account of the success which is likely to attend their efforts. Not only are they using their utmost endeavours to trace the criminals, but to prevent a recurrence of similar outrages in that part of the country. The noble Duke referred to a speech of the Chief Secretary in the other House, and seemed to connect this crime, in some way, with remarks which were made by the right hon. Gentleman;
  768
  but, as I said on a former occasion, I cannot help thinking that that speech has been very much misunderstood. I took occasion to explain that what was said was not that the aid of the military to the civil power would be refused, but that when the aid of the military was demanded, he would carefully consider each case, and would determine whether a necessity for using the troops had arisen. With regard to this first case, it so happens that after my right hon. Friend had made that speech he consulted me as to whether it would be advisable to send Her Majesty's troops to be present at the evictions at Woodford. My right hon. Friend was perfectly willing, if it was necessary, to send the military in aid of the civil power. The only question was whether it was desirable to send more police without soldiers, or a smaller body of police with military. I said it was always desirable, if it were possible, to avoid using the military, and that I should prefer sending double the number of police on this occasion to calling in the military; but if the people on the spot said the military were necessary, I felt he must authorize their being sent. He entirely concurred in that; but I believe that circumstances arose afterwards to indicate that the troops were not called for. I regret to say that the details of the outrage in the second Question are correctly stated. Some of the outrages that have been referred to were brutal in the extreme, and I have neither desire nor intention to extenuate them in the slightest degree. It is a remarkable thing, however, that the two men — Sullivan and M'Mahon — who were the sufferers by these outrages, were members of the National League, although doubtless it has been said that they had, previously to these outrages being committed, been held up to the odium of that Association because of their having taken the farms. It is, however, only fair to state that the day after the outrages were committed the National League offered a reward of £100 for the discovery of the perpetrators of these cruelties. It is certainly evident that nothing could be calculated to do so much harm to the cause which the National League have at heart than that they should be plotting, or in any way concerned in, such brutalities as those to which reference has been made. The noble Duke asked—

  769
  "What steps, if any, have been taken to bring the murderers to justice; and whether they consider their existing powers are sufficient for the protection of life and the detection of crime in Ireland?"
  The Question of the noble Duke amounts to this—Is law and order perfectly enforced in Ireland? I hardly know whether at any time within my recollection it could be said absolutely that the condition of Ireland with regard to crime, and the sympathies of the people in favour of law and order, were all that could be desired; but the question now before us is, whether the condition of the country in these respects is not relatively more satisfactory at the present moment than it was during the period when the late Administration was in Office, and whether it is such as to call for special legislation? I have some Returns before me that tell with remarkable force upon this point. I shall not trouble the House by reading those Returns at any great length; but I think that the few figures I intend to lay before your Lordships will convince you that the condition of things which now exists in Ireland is far better than that which existed at the time when special coercive legislation was called into operation. I quite admit that there are some districts of Ireland which are far worse than others—for instance, the condition of Killarney in Kerry, and Loughrea in Galway, is far from satisfactory. Deducting threatening letters, the decrease of agrarian outrages since February, 1886, compared with the average in the six preceding months is very striking; 63 was the average for October, November, and December, 1885, and January, 1886, while in February it was 33, only four more than in the first seven months of 1885. That shows that crime had not increased—that it had, in fact, diminished in February. I do not lay great stress upon the fact, but it has diminished since Her Majesty's Government has been in Office.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Do these figures apply to the whole of Ireland?
  EARL SPENCER: Yes; to the whole of Ireland.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK: The month of February was a short one for comparison.
  EARL SPENCER: Only two days. What was the condition of things in the same month in previous years? In 1880, when crime was rising very fast
  770
  in Ireland, the outrages, other than threatening letters, were—January 77, February 58; 1881, January 194, February 89; 1882, January 189, February 154; 1886, January 46, and February 33. There was thus an enormous difference between the outrages in those years and the present. I venture to think that although those figures do not show a condition of the country which is satisfactory, yet that that condition does not compare unfavourably with that which existed in previous years. In my opinion, no Government is entitled, after the lapse of exceptional measures, to renew them unless it can be shown that very grave dangers exist; and that certainly is not the case at the present moment. I maintain that the figures I have quoted will prove to your Lordships that although isolated cases of murder and of outrage of a very serious kind are still occurring in Ireland, yet that the general condition of the country has greatly improved since Her Majesty's present Government have been in Office. I will now give some particulars of "Boycotting" as it exists now and make a comparison with the state of things which existed when the late Government were in Office. In the quarter ending June 30, 1885, the number of persons totally "Boycotted" was 80, and partially 219. In the quarter ending September 30, 1885, the number totally "Boycotted" was 179, and partially 706. In that ending December 31, 1885, the number totally "Boycotted" was 175, and partially 716; in the month of January, 1886, the number totally "Boycotted" was 181, and partially 719; and in the month of February, 1886, the number totally "Boycotted" was 181, and partially 718. These figures are remarkable as showing that during the period in which Her Majesty's late Government were in Office just as many persons, within one or two, were "Boycotted" as at the present time. During the whole of that time, when "Boycotting" was at its height, Her Majesty's late Government contented themselves with looking on; and therefore they cannot now blame Her Majesty's present Government for not immediately taking very violent steps to put an end to the National League. I am sure your Lordships will not require me, until the time arrives when we can conveniently consider the whole ques-

  771
  tion of Ireland, to state what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to remedy the present unhappy state of things in that country, and to restore law and order. I can assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Irish Government will endeavour, in the meantime, in every way to insure that the lives and the property of Her Majesty's subjects are protected. No one denounces with more vigour than I do these crimes, and no one wishes more than I do to see them put down by the ordinary law. In any case we are determined to uphold and maintain the law of the land, and I sincerely hope that we may be successful in putting down these terrible outrages, which I am not surprised have excited the sympathy and indignation of the people of this country.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid, they owed a debt of gratitude to the noble Duke for bringing this matter forward; but he was afraid he could not congratulate the noble Duke upon having obtained a satisfactory answer on this subject from Her Majesty's Government. He (the Marquess of Londonderry) could not gather from the noble Earl's speech one crumb of comfort. He confessed he felt no surprise at reading the answer given on Tuesday in the House of Commons by the Chief Secretary for Ireland on that subject, as had the right hon. Gentleman given a straightforward answer that he would at once take steps to prevent the recurrence of such a crime, he would have lost the support of those of his followers who disapproved of crime only because it was a source of weakness to their cause. The noble Duke had not overstated the case. He could corroborate every word which had fallen from him as to the outrages that had taken place in the neighbourhood of Woodford. The noble Duke had told their Lordships of the character of the victims of those outrages; but he had not told them about the reign of terror which existed in the neighbourhood of Woodford. In an article in The Dublin Evening Mail of March 12, describing the state of things prevailing at the present moment in the neighbourhood, he found the following statement:—
  "I will now give an instance of the kind of teaching the people here are subject to. A certain Mr. Francis Tully, previous to the murder of Finlay, had in a speech, as reported in the local Press, spoken of a certain medicine he
  772
  possessed which could cure bailiffs, process-servers, rent-warners, &c. On Wednesday, March 3, Finlay was murdered; and on Saturday, March 6, the following appears in The Connaught People:—'The patent medicine of Mr. Francis Tulley, of the Woodford division, seems to be doing excellent service in these parts. It has already cured a large number of bailiffs, rent-warners, process-servers, and agents, and is expected before long to accomplish that most extraordinary feat which has baffled statesmen and physicians since the time of the Flood—that is, to cure the noble and aristocratic disease so prevalent among landlords namely, the go out or evict—or, as they themselves politely call it, the gout. If Frank Tully succeeds in doing this he ought to be made physician in chief to Mr. Parnell and the Irish Party.' I have said that the state of Woodford and surrounding districts is one of panic—nothing else can describe it. On Sunday last—the Sunday immediately following Finlay's murder—six more bailiffs, rent-warners, &c, resigned, influenced, no doubt, by fear of some more of Mr. Frank Tully's medicine, which already has had such a deadly effect. As these men are now out of danger there can be no harm in giving their names. They are Mitchell and Rafferty, wood rangers to Sir Henry Burke; Gorman, Flannery, Kenny, and Page, gamekeepers and bailiffs of the Marquess of Clanricarde."
  All would remember the Prime Minister's letter to Lord de Vesci of February 12, in which he said that the great questions to be considered in reference to Ireland were social order, a settlement of the Land Question, and the widely prevalent desire of self-government. He had no idea of what might be the Prime Minister's meaning of the words "social order;" but when he read to their Lordships a few instances of the outrages that had occurred since the day on which that letter was written, he thought they would see that in place of social order there was at present a reign of terror in Ireland. The following was a summary of outrages and crime, reported in the public Press since February 12—
  "Two men charged before Resident Magistrate of Longford with having cut off the tails of cattle belonging to Mr. Dinegan, Killashee (Feb. 12). At Derrymore, County Longford, a sheriff's bailiff set upon in exercise of his duty, beaten with sticks and billhooks, and cattle rescued (Feb. 19). A party of disguised Moonlighters visit the house of Thomas Lehy; Patrick Finlay murdered (March 4). At Castleconnel, a farmer sentenced to one month for stabbing another farmer in the cheek whose father was suspected of having paid his rent; Denis Brennan, a bailiff, fired at while returning from an evicted farm."
  These were, irrespective of "Boycotting," almost the worst form of social disorder.

  773
  "Sheriff and 20 constables unable to carry out evictions at Scotstown, Monaghan, being attacked by mobs throwing stones (Feb. 25). Murderous attack upon a farmer named M'Sweeney, near Killarney, for refusing to give up his gun (Feb. 27). Attack on Captain Chute, of Leebrook, County Kerry (March 6). Conroy, a tenant of Sir Henry Burke, obliged to obtain police protection through having paid his rent (March 9). Threatening letters sent to Robert Tesky, and also to several Limerick jurors, in connection with the trial of three prisoners for a Moonlight outrage upon Mr. Tesky (March 8). Moonlight raid upon the house of a farmer named Dunne, near Rostrevor (March 7). Burning of house near Listowel, and 10 cows, 10 goats, and 15 tons of hay, the property of a farmer holding lands from which the tenants had been evicted (March 7). Mutilation of 15 head of cattle belonging to Michael O'Connor, of Ballyculhane, Glin; also two other farmers had an out-house set on fire, and eight cows roasted to death, in the same locality, for having taken evicted farms (March 7). Attack on a process-server in the Kilmurry district, Kilrush, by a party of men with pitchforks, &c. (March 11). Burning of Lord Clanricarde's wood at Woodford (March 9). Stripping and tarring of a process-server near Villiers Town, County Waterford (March 12). The Rev. John Callaghy, P.P., Ballinakill, for having paid his rent, was compelled to resign the presidency of the local branch of the National League, was 'Boycotted,' and unable to get his horse shod, and did not receive his accustomed dues; it was this priest who, a few days ago, read prayers at the grave of the murdered man, Patrick Finlay. James Cannon, shopkeeper of Woodford, was completely 'Boycotted' for supplying the police. Michael Dwyer, a car driver, Woodford, 'Boycotted,' attacked and beaten for having driven the police; he is now under police protection. Many tenants in the parish of Woodford are prevented from paying their rents by the grossest intimidation, and speakers at National League meetings in Woodford have advised open resistance to the law. One speaker at a National League meeting, recently held at Woodford, declared that the Government would not give the military for evictions, and that the people were well able for the police."
  His object in drawing attention to these outrages was because he could not prevent his mind from reverting to the terrible events of the years 1881–2, when crime and outrage stalked over Ireland unchecked; and when, to the appeals of the suffering and law-abiding people of the country, the Government of the day turned a deaf ear. Those outrages were over 10,000, and how long they would have lasted he was unable to say. But surely the climax was not reached till May 6, when the fearful assassination in Phœnix Park occurred, which sent a thrill of horror throughout Europe. Then, and not till then, did the Ministers take decided measures;
  774
  and, thanks to the energy, ability, and courage of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer), peace and order were restored. He wished that the noble Earl would take the same steps now. It might sound like audacity on his part to offer suggestions to the Government when suggestions from men of so much greater experience and weight had been before now ignored by the Liberal Government. But he could not forget that he was one of the Loyalists of Ireland; and, therefore, he called on the Government to take immediate stops for the prevention of such crimes as he had quoted to their Lordships—steps which, though they might alienate from them the support of men who had been described as "steeped to the lips in treason," would, nevertheless, secure to them the sincerest gratitude and respect of every loyal and patriotic Irishman. In conclusion, he earnestly hoped that it might never again fall to the lot of anyone in similar circumstances to call upon the Government to extend their protection to the humble subjects of the Queen, who were now paying the heaviest penalties of torture and suffering in consequence of their loyalty to their Sovereign and their country.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that the speeches of noble Lords opposite suggested painful reflections in regard to the present condition of Ireland. They should look plainly and distinctly at the actual state of that country, and not allow themselves to be blinded either by exaggeration on the one side, or by an attempt on the other to ignore plain facts, and not see what all the world outside of that House saw without difficulty. The task of the noble Earl who represented in that House the views of the Government in reference to Ireland was, no doubt, a difficult one. It might be doubly difficult for him, because no one had on that question a greater wealth of knowledge, or a greater record of experience, to fall back upon. Whatever might be the political exigency of the noble Earl at present, his sympathy was not with crime—was not with Irish crime; and if he were at liberty to speak with that absolute freedom which was sometimes denied even to politicians, he ventured to think the noble Earl could speak on that question in a way that would amply satisfy those noble Lords who took part

  775
  in that discussion, on whatever side they might sit. The condition of Ireland was far too serious a matter to be a Party question. No Government—he cared not on which side of the House it sat—could enter upon the consideration of Irish policy or administration with a light heart; and it was the duty of the Opposition to recognize that any Government applying itself to the Irish problem must be treated with a certain amount of reasonable—aye, of ample—consideration. The question before their Lordships that evening was not one of policy; it involved simply the consideration of what was the position of Ireland with reference to the preservation of social order. The noble Earl had interpolated in his observations a synopsis of the statistics of Irish crime and outrage. It was well known that there was nothing so misleading as statistics; but two of the most recent and appalling outrages which had happened last week had been selected for notice and attention that day by the noble Duke (the Duke of St. Albans) and his noble Friend (the Earl of Limerick) as illustrative of the state of many parts of Ireland. Attention had been directed to them, and concentrated upon them, in order to elicit from the Government what were their views in reference to them, how they regarded them, and whether they thought that, at the present time, they had power sufficient to cope with the disturbed state of social order, of which the crimes were symptomatic. Those crimes were not exhaustive of the statement regarding the condition of Irish crime; but they were symptomatic of the diseased state of feeling which now existed in Ireland. The noble Earl (Earl Spencer) had used words of rebuke to the perpetrators of those outrages, and had fittingly denounced them; but he did not quite follow the noble Earl in his attempt to suggest that the state of Ireland was at present to be judged by the lists of a few figures that might be submitted by statisticians who furnished information to the Government. No one knew better than the noble Earl that nothing was so misleading regarding the present condition of Ireland as to look at the statistics of crime. What was the present condition of Ireland? That was a matter which, from beginning to end of his speech, the noble Earl had not dealt
  776
  with. Did he not know that he had himself stated, in the debate on the Address, that never in his recollection, nor even in the history of the country, was the state of Ireland so bad as regarded intimidation? Did he not know that in many parts of the country at present there was an authority in force which was not the Queen's authority, which was all-powerful? This was a circumstance of profound and supreme significance. The crimes which had been referred to must be regarded in their real significance, which was that they were symptomatic, not of isolated feeling, but of the state of feeling which prevailed not universally in Ireland, but in too many of the large districts of that unhappy country. The noble Earl had referred to "Boycotting" outrages. He asked their Lordships to look at the figures in their naked significance as revealing the present state of Ireland? There were at this moment 900 persons who were being subjected to this frightful system, wholly or partially, of having their lives made a burden to them by "Boycotting." But how many persons must be taking action in such a proceeding? One person could not "Boycott" another to this unbearable degree; it must be a whole community leagued together which took part in this conspiracy against the peace of their fellow-men. In these circumstances, he wished to know what return of statistics would indicate how many thousand persons in Ireland were involved in this terrible system of "Boycotting?" The noble Duke had certainly not overstated the circumstances attending this frightful murder of Finlay. He had also drawn attention to what was the gravest thing connected with it—namely, the appalling state of sympathy on the part of the population with those who committed the crime. But this feeling of sympathy was not confined to this particular district or to this particular case. It might be said of this poor victim, who was partially crippled, that he was the instrument used by a landlord for the collection of rent; but that fact would be no excuse for the brutality of the outrage. The case of the Curtin family still lived in their recollection, however; and it could not be ignored by those who wished to understand what was the real condition of Ireland. There were none so blind as those who would

  777
  not see. People could not forget, nor would they be allowed to forget, the incidents of the Curtin case, without being asked, at the same time, to consider the present state of Ireland, because in it were found all the incidents of this horrible and degrading sympathy. It was a case utterly free from all the elements of landlord and tenant. Mr. Curtin was himself an influential tenant farmer, closely connected with the people, living among them, worshipping at the same chapel, belonging to the same community, and, he believed, a member of the National League; and their Lordships were familiar with the circumstances which culminated in the Bishop of the diocese having to close the chapel for six weeks owing to the hostile manifestations of the populace against the members of the Curtin family. An effort had been made to confuse this question, by pointing out that this incident was closed, and must, therefore, be now ignored and put aside. This could not be done. Unless people wished to be deceived, they could not be deceived in reference to the circumstances of this outrage. It was true that the chapel had been re-opened within the last fortnight; it was equally true that the Curtin family had resumed worship there. He placed no undue significance on the fact that a substantial force of police was present at the chapel in order to see that the Curtins were not molested. Take it that they were allowed to live there without being subjected to outrage, and to worship in that chapel, was it not an appalling thing that manifestations of this feeling of sympathy could have occurred recently in Ireland in regard to people whose only offence was that they would not stand by and see their father murdered in cold blood? Was it not horrible that such a thing even could have occurred? He was aware that the Prime Minister laid stress on the fact that this outrage occurred in November last. A few months made ancient history with the Prime Minister; but he did not think that a period so recent as November could be ignored by responsible statesmen when they were about to legislate in reference to the condition of Ireland. When the Curtin murder first took place, it was denounced in Dublin and throughout the country by the Nationalist Press and the Press generally; and, therefore, at first, public
  778
  opinion did not know the existence of this marked sympathy with criminals in the locality; but, notwithstanding, it was found that a month afterwards this element had been painfully developed. With reference to the outrages referred to by his noble Friend (the Earl of Limerick), they had been sufficiently discussed in detail; but he had drawn attention to a fact which should not be ignored, and that was that a National League meeting was held in the vicinity four hours before the outrages were committed. It was true that the League afterwards offered a reward for the discovery of the perpetrators; and the noble Earl (Earl Spencer) appeared to derive much comfort from the fact, although he admitted that he had very little faith himself in the potency of such an agency in the detection of Irish crime. For his own part, he was quite willing to believe that the National League offered a reward; but this case could be looked at from many points of view. It might be that the National League was not able to control, in many parts of the country, this feeling of criminal sympathy which had been called into existence. It was a much easier matter to raise a state of feeling of this kind than to control or allay it. It might be that the National League was not able to control, as it might think prudence required, a movement which was at present advancing at a rate they did not at all desire. But the state of the country could be judged of by other things than the outrages which had been referred to. During the past few days he had been struck with statements in the Press as to the way in which contracts were enforced and the payments of rent were carried out. It was impossible to ignore in an agricultural country like Ireland—whether the case was being considered for better or worse—the way in which contracts between landlord and tenant were carried out, and the manner in which payment of rent was enforced. A paragraph appeared in The Freeman's Journal of the 10th instant, describing an unsuccessful attempt to carry out an eviction with an attendance of 100 policemen; and in The Times of the 9th instant in reference to another case, it was stated that the tenants could have paid 20 times the rent, but they wished for process of eviction. Incidents of this kind could be found in any paper

  779
  any day. They disclosed, not a universal condition of things in Ireland, but a normal condition in many districts. It was idle for the Government to shut their eyes to the significance of these facts; they could not be ignored by a Government seeking to deal with the country. The figures given by Mr. Baron Dowse in his Charge, and already quoted by the noble Lord opposite, were of greater significance than would be seen at first sight. In each case the offences were not ordinary ones, but those that were specially reported by the Constabulary between the Summer and Spring Assizes; and when the number had risen from 150 to 300 the matter had become serious indeed. There were several suggestive paragraphs in The Times of that morning, one relating to the difficulty the Executive had in dealing as they would wish with the quarters of one of the most distinguished of Her Majesty's regiments. It had been said that the true view of Ireland and Irish affairs might be obtained by contrasting crime and outrage now with previous periods, and by showing under the different heads what was going on. He did not think this was the way to meet the question. There was great ignorance displayed as to the number of persons who were "Boycotted;" and he had thought it right to draw attention to a few other circumstances, in order to show that they must look even deeper than statistics to find what was the present nature of the facts. He could assure their Lordships that it did not require much study to look deeper, because those who read the ordinary channels of information could discover for themselves, unless they wished to close their eyes to the information which was afforded. They could not, of course, make people see if they would not do so and intended to remain blind, nor could they make people understand if they would not accept the best information. The closing part of the Question of the noble Duke who introduced the subject was full of pregnant suggestion and meaning, and that was as to the present and future intentions of the Government—whether the Government thought that in the state of facts indicated in the speeches which had been made and in the statistics of crime issued they were adequately armed
  780
  with the powers they at present possessed. He thought the noble Earl would acknowledge himself that throughout his speech he nowhere indicated that he did think the Government had at their disposal all the powers which were necessary; and the manner in which he asked for time further indicated that he considered that the present state of facts was not unfairly described by those who had preceded him. The noble Earl made no complaint whatever as to the way the matter had been brought before the House and the Government; but he seemed to think it would be unreasonable to argue that the Government should not be given a longer time before they were asked to take more violent remedies. But he would ask how long a time? He did not intend to press the matter at this moment; but he could not help remarking that, even in this grave state of affairs, the noble Earl the Leader of the Government in the House had only been able to tell them that by the 1st of April the Government would be in a position to indicate what their Irish policy was, and the broad aspect with which they would deal with it. But he would ask if the most sanguine of their Lordships thought when the proposals were put forward—proposals about which he would now make no observations — did they believe, if they had the consent of the Cabinet—about which, again, he would say nothing—did they believe that those proposals, whatever their character might be, would be instantaneously accepted by both Houses of Parliament? Whatever proposals were brought forward must take lengthened time in examination, discussion, amendment, and possibly rejection; and during all that time what would be the social state of Ireland? Were those murders to be allowed to repeat themselves, or was each murder to be brought under the attention of their Lordships, and to be accounted for or extenuated by threadbare statistics, which proved nothing? The government of Ireland was a difficult problem, and ought to be approached with a sincere, anxious, and conscientious desire to do what is right; and all criticism ought to be governed by a due consideration of the extreme difficulty of the task. He has said no word about the Irish policy of the Government—the time had not yet come. But their

  781
  Lordships' attention had been brought to outrages which shocked humanity, and were symptomatic of a diseased state of feeling in substantial parts of the country. They must earnestly hope that, whatever might be the future policy of the Government, it would not be forgotten that human life and the decencies of civilization, at all events, demanded earnest and constant care from Her Majesty's Government.
  LORD FITZGERALD, who was indistinctly heard, said, he regretted the noble and learned Lord was so late with his speech. It was a speech he should like to have heard some months ago, when the noble and learned Lord was in Office, because the crimes which he denounced so eloquently existed then in quite as great force as they did now. It was true that the state of parts of Ireland was exceedingly unsatisfactory. But, he was happy to say, there were other parts of which a wholly different account could be given. The whole of Ulster was comparatively free from crime, and would compare most favourably with any part of England or Scotland; the Eastern counties also, for the most part, were orderly and quiet. Westmeath was in a condition of profound peace. But in parts of Kerry and of Cork, and the South-Western counties generally, there was a prevalence of crime such as ought to be repressed with the strongest possible hand. The late Viceroy had rightly pointed out that the serious character of the evil consisted not so much in the crime itself as in the sympathy which was manifested for crime by the people. He hoped to have heard that it was the intention of the Government to protect people in those parts, and he denied that the legislation which was necessary should be called coercive. It was not coercion to protect the weak, and much of the legislation needed already existed in this country. They had heard by the Returns what had taken place according to the official Reports; but the actual state of things was much worse. He well recollected the statement made by the late Viceroy at the suggestion of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) as to the policy of the late Government. The noble Earl on that occasion pointed to the diminution of crime under the vigorous administration of Lord Spencer, and urged that as a
  782
  reason for the Government's not renewing any portion of the Crimes Act. But in consequence of that policy intimidation had increased fourfold. Some of the provisions of the Crimes Act were most valuable, especially those which gave a summary jurisdiction in cases where previously a jury was required, and those which enabled the magistrate to hold inquiries by means of which the perpetrators of crimes had in some instances been discovered. It was to be regretted that none of those provisions were renewed, and that the late Government had not, till the moment when they sent Mr. Smith to enable them in 48 hours to form a policy, really considered what course they were going to adopt in this most difficult problem. It was true that the present Government had as yet done nothing; but they were given to understand — he hoped they understood correctly — that in a short time they were to be informed what the Government intended to do for the purpose of restoring social order in Ireland.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he wished to dwell upon the facts as they were, and the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken had told them what the state of Ireland really was. When the late Government mot Parliament they had their Bill prepared; but he would not take his stand on a circumstance of that sort. The question was, what was the duty of the Government in the face of such a great emergency as now existed? Kerry, Limerick, Galway, and other parts of Ireland were not under the Government of the Queen at all. Crimes were there committed of such a character as to bring discredit on civilization, and these were not merely the isolated acts of individuals, but they were sympathized with by the whole of the neighbourhood. In addition to these crimes a large number of people had been "Boycotted." The noble Earl opposite had not ventured to say that the law was dealing with this state of things in a manner which was satisfactory to himself or to the Government, or in a manner which was likely to bring about a change in Ireland; but he only referred them to some future legislation. The arguments of the noble Earl, as far as they went, seemed to be to the effect that no repressive measures were required. At the end of last Session, when

  783
  the new Government came in, it was said by the Prime Minister that he and the Government who went out had a measure prepared for continuing certain provisions of the Crimes Act. Why was not the right hon. Gentleman now prepared to introduce such a measure? He agreed with the noble and learned Lord that measures of such a kind ought not to be called coercive measures. They were measures for the repression of crime, and, given the same circumstances in England, they would be welcomed as a necessity, and as justice to those who were affected by such crimes. A solemn responsibility rested upon the Government. They might put it off to bring in a general policy; but they were responsible for every day which had elapsed since the Thursday when the late Government were prepared to bring in such measures as they thought necessary and adequate to cope with these great difficulties in Ireland. Since that time the present Government had been responsible when the existing law was not sufficient. The noble Earl opposite, he was glad to admit, did his duty on many occasions in Ireland manfully, courageously, and with fairness to those whom he was necessarily treating as enemies to his Government. He admitted also the difficulty in which the noble Earl now found himself. The noble Earl was a Member of a Government which was engaged in studying a certain great policy for Ireland; but the crime of Ireland had been irrespective of all those policies. Conciliation was tried at various times, and the crime had always increased unless the law was able to deal with it. It had been said by Mr. Sheil that his countrymen were very bad people to run away from. It was necessary to have strong laws strongly administered, as they were by the noble Earl, to meet the exceptional circumstances in which Ireland was placed. Let any attack be made on his (Viscount Cranbrook's) conduct as a Member of the late Government; but let them not delay action further. The course taken by the late Government was not in question in this discussion. During the period of that experiment of seven months, he frankly owned that, personally, he longed for it to come to a conclusion, and for Parliament to be sitting, so that they could address themselves to it for powers to deal with the
  784
  growing evils in Ireland. And now he said the same. He did not say it in a spirit of opposition; he did not mean now to comment on the future policy of Her Majesty's Government; but he said that they had a solemn duty to perform, and at that hour they ought to be in a position to say that they had in their hands such weapons as were adequate to cope with the circumstances which prevailed in Ireland, and that if they failed to use them they were not doing their duty to their country and to their Queen.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)said, he sincerely agreed with the noble Viscount that the grave matter they had been discussing that evening could not be in any way advanced by Party recrimination. But he must point out that it was not merely recrimination, but reference to the situation created by the late Government, that bore upon the question which they had to consider. Whether the course pursued by the late Government was right or wrong, it was clear that the present Government had to deal with the situation so created. It was useless now to say that just before they went out of Office the Government of Mr. Gladstone had a measure prepared, and that they were ready to apply to Parliament for a prolongation of the Crimes Act. That was, no doubt, true; but, for whatever reason, the Government which succeeded them did not think it right to propose a renewal of the Crimes Act. This created a wholly new situation. To propose to prolong the operation of an Act which might have been working well was a perfectly different thing from proposing its re-enactment after it had been dropped by the action of one of the great Parties in the State. They had to consider what was the position in which they were now placed. First of all, by the action of the late Government—and here he could not avoid some recrimination—the hands of the Executive of this country had been weakened, and the difficulty of going to Parliament for any repressive measure had been enormously increased. That being the situation, the Government had to consider whether the state of things as regarded serious crime—and he was not now speaking of "Boycotting"—was so alarming that they were bound to put aside everything else, and, with-

  785
  out anticipating any other measures, to come to Parliament for repressive legislation. His noble Friend behind him had given a sufficient answer to this contention, and had shown that although undoubtedly in the last six months there had been some increase in agrarian crime, apart from threatening letters, yet the state of things was far less serious at present than it was when they thought it necessary formerly to bring in the Crimes Act. Looking to that fact, he maintained that they were justified in not now going to Parliament for a renewal of that measure. Then, there was another thing which they could not help considering. His own experience of Ireland was getting rather ancient; but with regard to agrarian crime the experience of all connected with the Government of Ireland had been the same. It had always existed more or less, and the really grave part of the matter was that the perpetrators of these crimes had the sympathy of a large part of the population. And he feared they would continue until we could bring the Irish people to look upon the law as a friend, and not as an enemy. After an experience of six months the late Government, when Parliament assembled, did not think matters in Ireland were in such a serious condition that they should announce to Parliament the introduction of repressive measures. If the Government had made up their minds they would have stated it in the Queen's Speech. The present Government were in some respects in the same position, and they did not think the time had arrived when they were called upon to bring in repressive measures. He agreed with, the noble Viscount that nothing could be more grave than the circumstances in which they now found themselves, and that no subject could be more grave than the treatment of the questions in regard to Ireland; but if they had no greater difficulty in dealing with those questions than they had in repelling the attacks made upon the Government by noble Lords opposite for not bringing forward repressive legislation he should be very sanguine indeed of the result.
  THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGHsaid, he rose with great reluctance to say a few words in reply to the noble Earl who had just addressed the House. He was most reluctant to leave the con-
  786
  sideration of the subject to the question of a Party character raised by noble Lords on different sides of the House. But it was only right to point out that they ought not to allow one statement of the noble Earl to go unchallenged—namely, that the late Government at the time they met Parliament had not made their minds as to the serious condition of things existing in Ireland. Within two days of that time Notice was given of a measure which they were prepared at once to introduce and to prosecute in the other House. If that measure had been thought wrong it could have been resisted. But the Party opposite did not meet the Bill in that way; by a side wind they displaced the Government before they had had time to bring forward the measure of which they had given Notice. Noble Lords opposite had no right to say therefore—"You created a situation by what you did in the winter, and that situation we have to get out of now." They could not use that argument, as they had not allowed the late Government to bring forward measures which they recommended. Could they have refrained from making that dash at Office within the first few days of the Session, Parliament would have had before it the measure which they were prepared to propose, and then it would have been seen what it was that they thought it their duty to recommend, and what they should have asked Parliament to accept. Noble Lords opposite had not done that, and they had no right to come forward and twit them with what was really the consequence of their own action in displacing the late Government from power. The most serious point of this controversy was its effect on the situation at the present moment. Everyone felt that the situation was most serious, and that no more time than was absolutely inevitable should be taken up in endeavouring to re-establish the authority of the Queen's Government in Ireland. Yet the answer of Her Majesty's Government was that they must wait, partly because some controversy with respect to the action of the previous Government was proceeding, and partly because the whole question of Ireland—complicated as it was—was to be raised and discussed. Although told to wait, they had no assurance from Her Majesty's Government of their anxiety to support the authority of the Queen in

  787
  Ireland; and he feared that the most lamentable results would follow from the delay in enforcing the supremacy of the law in that country.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he wished to point out that a difficulty with regard to legislation for Ireland could be met by applying it to the United Kingdom. Crimes in Ireland which the present law could not reach might be put down by legislation for the three countries. He did not believe anyone in this country would object to "Boycotting" being made illegal here as well as in Ireland. The legislation should be permanent, and not merely temporary in its character. If the measures necessary for the security of life and property in Ireland were applied to England and Scotland as well, the idea would at once be got rid of that there was any prejudice against Ireland in applying to it exceptional legislation.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Earl GRANVILLE)said, with regard to what had fallen from the noble Earl who had last spoken, it was very undesirable, unless it were absolutely necessary, to have exceptional legislation for Ireland. But when it was proposed to introduce a law against "Boycotting" in the whole United Kingdom, he felt bound to point out that there was no "Boycotting" elsewhere than in Ireland.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE: But there might be.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that if "Boycotting" did not exist in the United Kingdom it would be impossible to bring in a Bill for its suppression. When complaint was made with reference to Ireland while the late Government was in Office, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), as a justification for the do-nothing policy of his Government, said that the present law could not deal with "Boycotting," and that they could not construct the law that would. It seemed to him at the time that the noble Marquess was giving a good deal of encouragement to the system by that remark; but still it was a declaration which could not be overlooked. Now, so short a time after, when Her Majesty's Government wished to bring forward the whole question, they were told that they were unreasonably delaying necessary measures for the
  788
  safety of Ireland. What chance would they have of obtaining acceptance of any measures they might bring forward dealing with all questions with regard to Ireland if they were now to introduce some Bill which would take long to pass, and which, when passed, might be abortive and useless against "Boycotting?" It was very plausible to say—"We mean to introduce a Bill to destroy the National League." He objected as much as anybody to the policy of the National League, to much that they had done; but he had very great doubt indeed whether merely putting an end to the open action of the National League, as exactly the same machinery would be under the surface and working in the dark, would, in the slightest degree, relieve the great evils which now existed.

  ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS IMPROVEMENT ACTS.
  Statement of buildings erected within, the Metropolis and the City of London in pursuance of the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Acts.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 10th March 1886, postponing the operation of the Scotch Code (1886):
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.