Lords Sitting of 15 July 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment * (176).
Select Committee—Report— Smoke Nuisance Abatement (Metropolis) [No. 174].
Committee—Report —Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) (164).
Report—Smoke Nuisance Abatement (Metropolis)* (43–175).

NEW PEER.
Sir James Macnaghten M'GarelHogg, Bart., G.C.B., having been created Baron Magheramorne, of Magheramorne, in the county of Antrim— Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
TEINDS (SCOTLAND).

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  Moved for—
  "Returns of the rental of each county and each parish in Scotland and of the value of the teinds

  897
  appertaining thereto, and the value of such portion of them as is now appropriated to the payment of stipend and communion elements, and the value of such of them as are unexhausted by such, payments, and which still remain available for the future augmentation of ministers' stipends (in part continuation of Return 235, 1881)."—(The Earl of Minto.)
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)said, he thought the Returns asked for would be most useful and instructive, as it was a question in regard to which the public should be better informed. He would ask the noble Earl, however, not to press for a Return of the rental of each county and each parish in Scotland, as he thought it would be almost impossible to give them. It would be simple to give the value in each county where the valuation was printed; but that was not the case in all counties in Scotland, and there was no compulsory powers to compel their being given by the localities. In cases where the valuation roll was printed, the Return would be easily compiled, but given in this imperfect way, it would be very unsettling. With that exception, he should be most happy to give the Returns asked for.
  Motion, as amended, agreed to.
  "Returns of the rental of each parish in Scotland, and of the value of the teinds appertaining thereto, and the value of such portion of them as is now appropriated to the payment of stipend and communion elements, and the value of such of them as are unexhausted by such payments, and which still remain available for the future augumentation of ministers' stipends (in part continuation of Return 235, 1881)."
  Ordered to be laid before the House.

CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND).

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  Moved for—
  "Returns for each county in Scotland of the name of any parish in which a vacancy for the appointment of a minister had been filled up by the electorate established under the provisions of the Church Patronage Act (37 & 38 Victoria, chap. 82, 1874), specifying—(1.) The population, male and female, of each such parish according to the last census at the time of election; (2.) The number of persons, male and female, who were qualified to vote in each case, distinguishing communicants and adherents; (3.) The cases in which the elections were contested, the number of candidates in each such case, and the number of persons, male and female, who recorded their votes in each case; (4.) The parishes in which compensation for loss of patronage has been awarded to or surrendered by former patrons in connection with each election under the Church Patronage Act, and the amount of the compensation awarded to or sur-
  898
  rendered by the patrons in each case (in part continuation of Returns No. 5, 1879, and No. 236, 1881)."— (The Earl of Minto.)
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)said, there could be no possible objection to granting the Returns the noble Earl asked for, as they were in continuation of Returns moved for by him in 1877. The noble Earl seemed to object to the Church Patronage Act of 1874; but on that point he was not at one with the general feeling of the people of Scotland, who were entirely satisfied with that Act. He should be happy to give the Returns asked for with the exception of No. 3, that relating to the number of candidates and the votes given for each, the information with regard to which it was impossible to obtain, as the elections took place under the ballot.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he wished to call attention to the fact that the Return relating to compensation for loss of patronage could not possibly be given in the form asked. A very numerous body of patrons had surrendered their rights to compensation; as the amount of compensation for patronage which had been surrendered had never been assessed under the terms of the Act, and did not require to be, it could not be stated. He would suggest to substitute for Paragraph 4 of the Returns, the following: —
  " The names of parishes in each county in Scotland in which patrons have retained their right to compensation under the Act, and the amount of compensation awarded in each case, distinguishing the cases in which a vacancy for the appointment of a minister has been filled up by the electorate established under the Act."
  THE EARL OF MINTOsaid, he would accept the Amendments.
  Motion, as amended, agreed to.
  "Returns for each county in Scotland of the name of any parish in which a vacancy for the appointment of a minister has been filled up by the electorate established under the provisions of the Church Patronage Act [37 & 38 Victoria, chap. 82, 1874), specifying—

  "1. The population, male and female, of each such parish, according to the last census, at the time of election;

  "2. The number of persons, male and female, who were qualified to vote in each case, distinguishing communicants and adherents;

  "3. The names of parishes in each county in Scotland in which patrons have retained their right to compensation under the Act, and the amount of the compensation awarded in each case, distinguishing the cases in which a vacancy for the appointment of a minister has been filled

  899
  up by the electorate established under the Act;

  "(In part continuation of Returns No. 5., 1887, and No. 236., 1881)."
  Ordered to be laid before the House.

PARLIAMENT (HOUSE OF LORDS)— TITLES OF PEERS—ENTRIES IN THE JOURNALS OR MINUTES.—RESOLUTION.
Moved to resolve—
"That when the name of any Lord who has a higher title or dignity than that by which he sits in Parliament shall be entered in the Journals or Minutes of Proceedings of the House, the higher title or dignity shall be added in brackets after the title by which such Lord sits in Parliament; and in the event of the Motion being agreed to, to move that the Motion be declared a Standing Order of the House, and be numbered XXXIIA." —[The Earl of Minto.)
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that, as he understood it, the Motion asked that the name of any Lord who had a higher title should be given along with his higher title, and the lower title by which he sat. The result would be that there would be three columns, one containing the name, then one containing the higher title, and the last the lower title.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he understood his noble Friend to desire that the same rule should be adopted with regard to the Minutes of the House as prevailed with respect to Divisions, that the higher title by which a peer was known should be stated as well as the title by which he sat in Parliament.
THE EARL OF MINTOmade some observations, which, owing to the acoustic properties of the House, were not heard in the Gallery.
Motion (by leave of thee House) withdrawn.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 164.)
(The Lord Ashbourne.)
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 164.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord Ashbourne.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid: I read this morning that the noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Selborne) had expressed his regret that I was not present last night when he wished to make some observa-
  900
  tions on the present measure. I really think that I am not very much to blame in the matter. I followed in the debate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord Ashbourne) and rigorously confined myself to what that noble and learned Lord had deemed were points of importance. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) replied to some of the observations which I made. In the long and eloquent speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) I did not catch any reply to the observations which I made. The noble Duke discoursed upon Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Morley, upon all our late Colleagues, on Home Rule, on the Bill of 1881, and also upon that unfortunate Bill which is no longer before the House, and which does not appear to have fallen upon a bed of roses in the House of Commons. After that speech the noble and learned Earl spoke from a particular point of view very natural for him to take, but having no connection with my own remarks. I happened then to see that the clock was pointing to near 8, an hour which generally suggests to Members of both Houses of Parliament the idea of refreshment. After having listened to speeches for some four hours it struck me that dinner would not be unacceptable. I left the House for the purpose of dining, and, hurrying back, I broke my nose against the closed door of your Lordships' House. Before I left the House I had not observed that the noble and learned Earl had shown any signs of an intention to speak, and, knowing the attention that is usually paid to everything he says, I did not think that he would have selected the dinner hour for making his speech.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: In view of the fact that the other day the Front Opposition Bench asked for more time to consider this Bill, which had boon before them for many weeks, your Lordships must have been surprised by the evident intention of the noble Lords who sat upon that Bench to close the debate as quickly as possible. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) may have been justified in leaving the House for the purpose of getting his dinner; but it is strange that he could not find one noble Lord representing the Home Rule section of the Liberal Party in this House who would sacrifice his dinner in order to continue this discussion. The

  901
  noble Earl has endeavoured to depreciate the importance of the eloquent speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll); but it appears to me that he altogether omitted to refer to the real point made by the noble Duke, and which, in my opinion, the noble Earl is bound to answer. The noble Duke asked my noble Friends to say what was their alternative policy to this Bill. What is the policy which they recommend as an alternative to the policy of Her Majesty's Government to maintain law and order in Ireland? I cannot help thinking that it was something more than the advent of the usual dinner hour that accounts for the absence of my noble Friends from the House and for their remarkable exit. I cannot help thinking that there was somebody behind them to consult with, and who had to prompt them before they could give any reply to that question of the noble Duke. I will endeavour to lay before the House the exact state of the question as it stands. In 1885, when the Government of which the noble Earl was a Member was in Office, when there was no exceptional crime in Ireland, and when the condition of Ireland was much more satisfactory than it is now, they determined to introduce a Crimes Bill of a similar character to that which has recently passed through this House.
  EARL GRANVILLE: That is not true.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: The noble Earl has used the expression "that is not true." I will sit down and give him an opportunity of explaining.
  EARL GEANVILLE: Certainly, as far as my knowledge goes, the statement which the noble Earl has made is inaccurate.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My statement is that at the time when Mr. Gladstone's Government determined to bring in a Bill similar in many respects to the present one the condition of Ireland was much more favourable than it is now. Does the noble Earl dispute that statement? I call as a witness the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Earl Spencer), who bore testimony to that effect. Mr. Gladstone himself in the other House stated that in consequence of the non-renewal of the Crimes Act of 1882 Boycotting had increased fourfold. Was there in 1885 a
  902
  Plan of Campaign? In 1885 the number of agrarian crimes in Ireland had been reduced from 4,000 to some 800 in consequence of the Act of 1882. We are perfectly justified in asking for the reasons which brought about the sudden change of opinion in the minds of noble Lords with regard to the Irish Question. The noble Earl said that one ground for that sudden change of opinion was the large number of Home Rule Members that had been returned by the Irish constituencies. But everybody knew beforehand that that would be the inevitable result of the extension of the franchise in that country. We all know what was the policy of Mr. Gladstone's Government at the beginning of 1886. What was the condition of Ireland at the beginning of 1886? As regards law and order, the circumstances of Ireland were becoming more and more serious day by day. As regards combinations against the payment of rent, Mr. Gladstone had before him evidence of those combinations in January, 1886. As regards the power of the National League, my noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant was of opinion that it was increasing day by day. With respect to ejectments, they were flying about in considerable numbers in the first quarter of 1886. With respect to the disturbance of the minds of the occupiers of land which my noble Friends admitted was at the root of the whole Irish question, the leaseholders were dissatisfied at not being included in the Land Act, and a fall of prices had taken place in 1885 which made it hard for the tenants to pay the judicial rents. This was the state of Ireland in January, 1886. Part of these unfortunate circumstances were the direct consequence of Mr. Gladstone's legislation. The condition of the Land Question in Ireland was the direct consequence of his legislation; and, moreover, any disturbance in the country and the consequent crime created by unfair ejectments must be attributed, more than any other man, to Mr. Gladstone, who for five years had never attempted to apply a remedy. The policy of Mr. Gladstone's Government under these circumstances was deliberately to abstain from attempting either to maintain law and order or to apply a remedy to the grievances with respect to the land which were disorganizing the whole social condition of Ireland. They

  903
  thought it right instead of taking the practical course of dealing with evils as they existed to propose a measure to alter the whole constitution of the United Kingdom, and to make a new Government for Ireland. That policy failed in the House of Commons; it failed in the country. I hold that Mr. Gladstone's late Government is mainly responsible for the aggravation of the difficulties in Ireland which has been produced by neglecting to apply real practical remedies to the great evils which exist in that country. But although I, in common with many other Liberals in this House and the country, consider that Mr. Gladstone's policy last year was altogether wrong, it must be confessed that that policy was intelligible—that the two great measures which then held the field, the Bill for the Government of Ireland and the Land Bill, constituted a complete policy in all its points, upon which some argument could be raised and some real question discussed. But I have to ask your Lordships to consider what is the policy of my noble Friends now? Is it the policy which was defeated at the Elections of 1886 or is it some different policy? My noble Friends on the Front Opposition Bench, although they are somewhat inclined to be reticent in this House, have certainly not been reticent elsewhere. My noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has spoken several times within the last few months, the late Foreign Secretary has spoken twice, and almost all my noble Friends have expressed their opinions in the country upon the position of affairs, and upon the policy which they advocate upon the Irish Question. I am bound to say, having studied them with all the care I could, the pursual has left upon my mind the vaguest possible impression. My noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant in Cambridge defended both the Bills introduced by Mr. Gladstone in 1886. A month afterwards in London he had to admit that both those Bills were dead. The noble Earl the late Foreign Secretary (the Earl of Rosebery) at Glasgow the day after said—"Our policy is exactly the same as when you (the electors) sent us about our business." [Lord ROSEBERY: Hear, hear!] My noble Friend cheers. I shall show in a moment how my noble Friend has modified his opinion since the month of April. A month after
  904
  came the remarkable speech of Mr. Gladstone at Swansea, and since then a great change has come over the speeches of my noble Friends. The question is what Mr. Gladstone meant. My noble Friend near me (Earl Granville) made a speech, and there is no one more adroit in making speeches, but when he came to this policy all he could say was that Mr. Gladstone made an eloquent speech, and that his explanations were such as to satisfy all reasonable men. But my noble Friend altogether abstained from saying what a single one of those explanations meant. The noble Lord the late Foreign Secretary cheered me just now. He also made a speech since Mr. Gladstone's speech—I think it was at the City Liberal Club—and what did he say? He said—
  "I do not know what is the real remedy for the wrongs of Ireland. I do not know the right way of governing Ireland."
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: That was a wholly inaccurate report of the remarks which I made.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: If he has been inaccurately reported I will leave my noble Friend to explain what his views are at a future time. It all comes to this, that whether a man be a Home Ruler, a Liberal Unionist, or a Conservative, the great problem he has to solve is to interpret Mr. Gladstone's policy about the Irish Question. I think this House requires from my noble Friends now, and the country requires from the Home Rule section of the Liberal Party, some definite, distinct, and plain answers to certain definite, distinct, and plain questions. The first of these questions is, under this new Home Rule policy, are the present Representatives of Ireland to remain in the House of Commons at Westminster, or are they not? Mr. Gladstone's views upon that point may be interpreted in every sort of way. They are interpreted by Mr. Morley at Manchester in one way, and in another way last night by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) in this House, and for the life of me all I can find with regard to Mr. Gladstone's proposal is that he puts forth some temporary proposition with regard to the Irish Members remaining at Westminster, but whether they are to remain at Westminster until some future time when they may be removed, or whether they are to be excluded, and at some future time to be admitted, I defy any-

  905
  one to gather from his words. If I am wrong in this interpretation of Mr. Gladstone's view I hope that either now or at some future time it will be clearly explained in this House, so that we may know who is right and who is wrong. The next question I have to ask my noble Friends to give a distinct answer to is this. Is Ulster to be treated separately from the rest of Ireland or is it not? Mr. Morley at Manchester said it was quite clear that Mr. Gladstone would do anything for Ulster, but there was alsolutely no explanation of that enigmatical declaration of Mr. Gladstone, except that he had promised to hear the voice of Ulster. The third question I have to ask—
  EARL GRANVILLE: I rise to Order. My noble Friend is not speaking in the least to the question before the House. He, an ex-Minister, is asking us for our policy on different subjects when the question with respect to the Bill moved by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Ashbourne) is before the House.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I submit that my argument is entirely germane to this question. My noble Friend, in his speech, has abandoned any attempt to dispute the facts put forward by the Government, and says that he objects to this Bill because he has an alternative policy. I have a right to ask what the alternative policy is. I assert that the Leader of the Home Rule Party in the other House, on the third reading of the Crimes Bill, distinctly said that the question was one of policy—that it was a question between the Government policy and the alternative policy of the Opposition. I hold, therefore, that my remarks are within the proper and legitimate scope of this discussion. You must recollect this—and it is a very important point, and one which will, I think, justify me in what I have said, and will, I hope, prevent my noble Friend from endeavouring to interrupt me again—you must recollect that it is a rare thing in the history of this country for an Opposition to think it right to refuse those measures to the Government which the Government think necessary to maintain law and order. If a course so unprecedented is rare in this House, it is still more rare for noble Lords to go about the country agitating against the Government on that very point of the maintenance of law and order; and I
  906
  think if that agitation is carried on as it has been from the first, by putting forward to the country an alternative policy, it is unworthy of my noble Friends to attempt to evade answering plain questions here. They are asked to give plain answers to plain questions here, in this House, for it is utterly impossible for anyone to decipher the enigmatical words of the Leader in Wales and elsewhere. I have asked two questions—whether the Irish Members are to be retained at Westminster, and what is to be done respecting Ulster? The third question is what is to be the condition under the new policy as respects the maintenence of law and order in Ireland? Is that to be committed to the new Irish Parliament or not? And the fourth question which I have to ask is what is the new policy with respect to measures relating to land in Ireland? Is the power over the land to be committed or not to the new Irish Parliament? If it is, where are the safeguards which my noble Friend the late Viceroy so honourably and firmly demanded with regard to the measure of 1886, when he said it was a mean and treacherous thing to abandon the Irish landlords to the mercy of the Members of Mr. Parnell's Party? These are questions to which I hope we shall have plain answers, notwithstanding the evident disinclination of my noble Friends to give them. I should like to know further whether we are right in interpreting the Swansea speeches to mean that the plan of Home Rule is to be extended to Wales and Scotland as well as Ireland? I should like to know whether the late reception of the American Embassy at Dollis Hill is to be taken to mean that consideration is to be given to the views of American sympathizers—
  THE EARL OF CORK: I really must rise to Order. I have had the honour of sitting in this House for over 30 years, and I have no hesitation in saying that I have never heard a discussion conducted as the noble Earl is conducting this. Our Rules are not so stringent as those in "another place," but I appeal to noble Lords whether this discussion would be allowed in any other Assembly. We are discussing to-night the question of the Crimes Bill, and not the question of Home Rule or the speeches made by Ministers or ex-Ministers out of doors.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I am really very sorry, but I have already explained my position, and I shall venture to continue a few minutes longer. This alternative policy of the Opposition is reduced to a certain amount of vague, abstract propositions, and my noble Friends are just beginning to see what a difficult matter they have in hand in taking up the question of Home Rule. They are just beginning to be in the position of Mr. Butt and others when they began this Home Rule agitation in the House of Commons. I will tell my noble Friends what was the answer to Mr. Butt's policy, which was much the same as Mr. Gladstone's policy now is, consisting, as it did, in abstract propositions. Mr. Butt said very much what some of my noble Friends have said. Speaking on the 20th of March, 1874, Mr. Butt said—
  "Did not the facts he had mentioned justify him in asking the House to recede from its policy of coercion and mistrust? The conclusion had been reluctantly forced upon him that conceding to Ireland a Parliament to manage its own affairs was the only way to establish a perfect Constitutional Government in that country."—(3 Hansard, [218] 116.)
  That was Mr. Butt's view, and it has been expressed on many a platform of late. What was the answer given to Mr. Butt? It was an answer which I think, must be given to any such abstract proposition. This is the answer—
  "We shall first inquire if your plan is intelligible before we inquire whether it is expedient. … It is a dangerous and tricky system for Parliament to adopt—to encounter national dissatisfaction, if it really exists—with the assurance which may mean anything or nothing, 'which may perhaps conciliate the feelings of the people of Ireland for the moment, and attract a passing breath of popularity, but which, when the day of trial comes, may be found entirely to fail them."—(Ibid, 131.)
  Those words were used by Mr. Gladstone in answer to abstract propositions such as are in the minds of my noble Friends on this question. I say that we have a right to discuss the alternative policy as it has been presented to the country now, and especially as the noble Earl, in his opposition to this Bill, putting aside his legal argument on the clauses for dealing with dangerous associations, which will be dealt with by my noble and learned Friend (the Earl of Selborne) on the Third Reading. The Government relied entirely on the alter
  908
  native policy. The policy of the Government I consider to be plain, intelligible, and practical policy. They are determined to remedy those grievances that exist in Ireland, and that exist there to a great extent in consequence of the policy of the late Government; and, moreover, the Government are attempting to maintain law and order by a measure which I think none of your Lordships will dispute is in many respects precisely similar to a measure introduced by my noble Friends on the Front Opposition Bench, and which on some points is a great improvement upon their measure. At any rate, I hope we shall have a plain and intelligent answer to the few questions I have ventured to put to my noble Friends before the debate closes.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I think that our position in this House is a singularly unfortunate one. I suppose that all your Lordships will concur in that remark from different points of view. When I saw the general restlessness and irritation with, which the noble Earl (the Earl of Northbrook) has spoken, I trembled to think that the destinies of India and of our Fleet had ever been entrusted to him. What is our position with regard to this debate? Everybody who heard the noble Earl (Earl Granville) the Leader of the Opposition last night must admit that his speech was a very moderate and inoffensive one. He was followed by the noble Earl, one of the many Viceroys of Ireland, and again I may say that the speech of that noble Earl was more in the nature of a personal explanation, which was not at all premature. No one who recollects the declarations on the part of the Government that came from the lips of the noble Earl in 1885 will deny that the explanation of the noble Earl did not come a moment too soon. Following him we had an admirable didactic homily, which embraced every subject in politics known to your Lordships' House except the one question which was before us, delivered by the noble Duke (Duke of Argyll), who again imitated our example in retiring from the further discussion of the subject which was before the House. Then followed the speech of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Denbigh), when I confess I left myself, because I did not understand that the debate was likely

  909
  to be continued after the noble Earl's speech. And I regret extremely that I did leave the House, because I think all will allow that the noble Earl made a speech which was singularly thoughtful and eloquent, and, what I cannot say for all other speeches, a singularly pertinent contribution to the debate. Having listened to this somewhat exhaustive debate, we left the House, and it turned out after we had gone that our noble and candid Friends above the Gangway, who had come down with great masses of manuscript which remained undischarged, were extremely angry with us because we did not make a House to listen to the diatribes of which the two specimens we had heard contained nothing whatever concerning the measure before us. In the other House of Parliament we are accused of unduly prolonging debates. We consider that the Bill had sufficiently been discussed in the other House, and when it came to this House we resolved for more reasons than one to confine ourselves to a simple protest delivered by our Leader against the measure as it stands. What is the result? We fall from the Scylla of obstruction into the Charybdis of not staying to listen to the speeches of noble Lords. While we are charged with delaying the measure in the House of Commons by debate, we cannot with equal justice be censured for allowing the Bill to get through a stage in this House. Either one imputation must be withdrawn or the other cannot be sustained. I wish to say a word as to the reasons which influenced me in thinking that the course we pursued in making one single protest against the Bill was, on the whole, better than prolonging the debate. First, the arguments regarding this measure were exhausted in the Lower House. Next, we are well aware that we occupy a very humble position as a minority, numerically speaking, in this House. We are not a minority at all numerically in the sense in which there are majorities and minorities elsewhere; we are rather rari nantes in gurgite vasto. I suppose this House has some 550 Members. If the noble Marquess continues in power, he will permit me to say I think that the House is more likely to increase than to decrease. But do you think we could have brought more than 50 Peers to vote with us on this question? In these
  910
  circumstances it was quite clear that it was not wise to carry the debate to a Division. But a varied and discursive debate ranging over the topics selected by the noble Duke and the noble Earl and not ending in a Division would to my mind have been a barren and unprofitable performance. To go a step further, I do not think it would have added to the credit of this House. As to our own credit, we are able to look after that ourselves, in spite of the insinuations of the noble Earl who has just sat down; and I may claim to speak solemnly and emphatically on behalf of the credit of the House, because the Motion I made the year before last shows that I am not less attached to it than anyone else. Although at the last Election we were defeated, and handsomely defeated, we were followed by 1,344,444 voters in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and although we were defeated by some 76,000 votes, still, considering the largeness of the number arrayed on the other side, the defeat cannot be considered to have been a very decisive one. I think it would have had a most lamentable effect, as showing the relations that this House occupies towards the great masses of the people, if we had had a Division which showed that on this great question of conciliation or coercion in Ireland the House was not only not nearly equally divided, but that there was a majority of 10 to 1 in favour of coercion. Believing, as we did, that for the credit of this House it was better not to have a Division, your Lordships will not blame us if we thought it was better not to prolong discussion; and I confess I think our resolution has been amply justified by the nature of the speeches we have listened to. When I listened to the speech of the noble Earl I thought I was living in some delightful dreamland; that instead of sitting upon a Bench on which there happen to be some five noble Lords at this moment, and that instead of sitting in this position of dignified isolation, we were sitting on the Benches opposite, surrounded by a crowded and enthusiastic majority, only anxious to carry into effect the policy we were about to enunciate. I was under that delusion until I was rudely awakened from it by looking around and listening to the animated inquiries of the noble Earl (the Earl of Northbrook) as to what our policy was

  911
  to be, as to what our Irish Parliament was to be, and whether we were going to except Ulster. The noble Earl might as well have asked the state of our bankers' accounts, or any other matter which remotely and individually concerns ourselves. I have yet to learn that it is any part of the function of an Opposition in a small minority in the House to suggest an alternative policy to every measure that may be brought before this House. This is a doctrine that is as new as it is alarming; but if that doctrine is to be carried into effect, I venture to say that it applies with much greater force to the noble Earl and the noble Duke themselves, because they represent a much larger section of the House than we do. They are what are called by their own complimentary expression Unionist Peers; they are far more numerous than those who are called the Home Rule section of the Party. Therefore, if any Question is to be addressed to any section of this House on a question of policy it is not to the section which sits on this Bench that it ought to be put; it ought to be put to the noble Earl and the noble Duke. I cannot speak with the agitation and the fine frenzy of the noble Earl. I can speak in moderate and hushed accents with regard to the reply I propose to make to these four Questions put by the noble Earl, which he hopes will be answered before the debate closes. I can assure him, with all submission, humility, and kindness, that I propose to make no reply at all. I have yet to learn that it is the function of an Opposition, when a measure is brought before this House dealing with the repression of crime in Ireland, to explain every speech that has been made, either by themselves or by their Leader, in the House of Commons and in every part of the country. I have yet to learn that it is the function of the Opposition, which has not been more than 11 months out of Office, and whose policy when in Office, as the noble Earl said, was perfectly well known to him, to go on repeating it at every intelligible and unintelligible opportunity. At any rate, it will not be our function on this occasion. I will say in general terms what is the general nature of our policy. It will not take long I have said it often before. There is one part of the speech of the noble Earl which was not in the
  912
  nature of an inquiry, and in which he showed a want of information so melancholy and so extraordinary that I must call attention to it. The noble Earl pointed to us as something so unpatriotic, so indescribable, that he did not venture to use the epithet upon his lips, because we oppose the proposals of the Government which they think necessary for securing law and order in Ireland. He said that no Government, when proposing measures for the preservation of life and property, had ever been seriously opposed for many years.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: Since 1846.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: the noble Earl named no such date, and I decline to accept the correction. When we were in Opposition I admit that we fought the six Acts of Lord Sidmouth with all the resolution in our power; we fought them, although we did not profess to have any alternative policy. In 1846, when the noble Earl was born, though I was not, there was an unholy alliance; I call it unholy, although the fathers of our Party entered into it, and the fathers of the Party opposite joined in it, and denied the late Sir Robert Peel the measures that he thought necessary for the security of life and property in Ireland. Well, I say there are precedents which the noble Earl might have had in his mind before accusing the Colleagues with whom he acted less than two years ago of conduct unbefitting public men in this House. The noble Earl has made a quotation from a speech recently delivered, in which I was made to say that I had no idea what was the proper remedy to apply to the Irish difficulty. We have recently had some experience in this House which shows that it is not always possible to report with accuracy. Obviously I did not say anything so flagrantly absurd as that I had no idea what was the proper remedy for the Irish difficulty. But to make quite sure, I went to an hon. Member of the House of Commons who was present at the banquet in question, and who does not belong to our section of the Party, and that hon. Gentleman entirely corroborates the inaccuracy of the report. What I did say was this—"Supposing, for the sake of argument, that I had not a proper remedy for Ireland; supposing, for the sake of argument, that our remedy

  913
  was not a correct one." And then I went on to use the words quoted by the noble Earl. I cannot be held responsible for every report of what I am made to say. The noble Earl entered into a protest as regards our action as being ready to re-enact certain portions of the Coercion Bill which was in force in 1885. The noble Earl said that so far from doing it we proceeded in 1886 to produce those iniquitous measures which are only too well known to your Lordships. The noble Earl forgets that there were two very distinct epochs between our disappearance as a Government in 1885 and our re-appearance as a Government in 1886. There was, in the first place, the General Election, which brought back to the House of Commons an enormous preponderance of Irish Members elected by a free popular franchise for the first time, and pledged to what, in our opinion, were moderate proposals in regard to Home Rule. It has been said in the course of this discussion that we were well aware what the result of those Elections would be, and that therefore we ought to have discounted it. I only speak for myself, and I freely admit that I did anticipate the result of those Elections as regards the number of Members to be returned; but I did not anticipate what I consider the moderation of the demands which were made by the Irish Party. Did the noble Earl anticipate that the Irish Party would come back some 86 or 90 strong, prepared to demand a measure of Home Rule? Did he, or did he not? If he did not, he very inaccurately measured the extent of the Bill introduced by the Government in which he was a Cabinet Minister to extend the franchise in Ireland. If he did anticipate that, what is the irresistible conclusion we must draw but that the noble Earl with that foreknowledge deliberately extended to Ireland a great national franchise with a full and steady determination to refuse the main proposition which would be brought back by the Members elected under that franchise. I did not so understand the Franchise Bill. I have not understood that it is the function of Members of either House of Parliament to bring in a measure to enfranchise people with a fixed intention to refuse the only demand of those people when they come back to Parliament. Why did the noble Earl reserve all his
  914
  anger for those who sat on his own side of the House? The noble Earl reminds me of the couplet—though I am not sure of the words—
  "But of all plagues, good Heaven, thy wrath can send,
  Save, save, oh save me from the candid friend !"
  When the Conservative Government was formed in 1885, the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon), one of the late Viceroys, had devolved upon him the task of sustaining the policy of that Government in Ireland. The Government was one formed by the Party of authority, the Party of law and order, who had come in to put down the license that had grown up under the previous Administration. They could not have known the information with regard to Ireland which the late Government possessed. Yet, almost without hesitation, they got up and deliberately said that, in their opinion, the time for coercion had passed away in Ireland. Last night the noble Earl gave the new and the true reasons why they did not propose to renew the Coercion Act—reasons for which they might read the memorable statement of the 6th July in vain. The Government then was substantially the same as now, though the noble Earl, by some unaccountable oversight, was omitted from it. What did the noble Earl say about coercion? Speaking then, no doubt for the Government, of which he was a Member, he said special legislation of this sort was inexpedient, and was still more inexpedient when it had to be renewed at short intervals. But the noble Earl went on to make a remark which told against his own argument. he quoted Cavour's saying that it was easy to govern in a state of siege; and said that, while it might be easy to govern in a state of siege for a time, the attempt to govern under it permanently was, he believed, impossible. Yet this was the policy of the Government. They were now bringing in a permanent measure of coercion for the Irish people. The noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) further said if this legislation was to be permanent, it ought to be universally and generally applied. I looked in vain through the present Bill for any provision making its application universal. I venture to say that if the conduct of the late Government in doing away with a coercive policy requires explanation, the

  915
  policy of the present Government is one which no less requires something in the character of apology. When the policy of repression was deliberately, and in so eloquent, grave, and impressive a manner abandoned for ever, because we could not take up these things and drop them—
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My remarks hardly bear out the interpretation the noble Earl puts upon them. I never stated, as far as I can remember, that coercion was to be for ever abandoned. I distinctly said that we were making a great experiment, that I looked to trust engendering trust on the part of the English Government in their relations with the Irish people, and I sincerely hoped that the experiment which we were trying would prove successful.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The noble Earl said it was only to be an essay in experimental legislation. When I made the remark that coercion was to be abandoned for ever, that was my interpretation of the noble Earl's language. But let me tell noble Lords that experimental legislation in matters of this kind is an exceedingly dangerous thing, and that noble Lords, however great their ability may be, have no right to come into a Government without any special knowledge of the subject and to drop those measures which a previous Government has considered necessary for the public welfare. We know perfectly well, however, that this was an experiment which had been resolved on long before. There is a speech made by Lord Randolph Churchill, in which he intimates that the Loaders of his Party had held a meeting, and had come to the conclusion that it was then expedient not to renew the Coercion Act if they were returned to power.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): What I stated was that they would not renew the Coercion Act unless information in the official possession of the Government should render a different decision necessary.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I quite accept the interpretation of the noble Marquess. Immediately after that a very close alliance was entered into between the Party under the guidance of Mr. Parnell and the Party of the noble Mar
  916
  quess— it was so close that it extended to duty on beer—and that alliance led to the downfall of the Liberal Administration. Now, my Lords, I have to return again to a point I have referred to before. This dropping of exceptional legislation for Ireland made it practically impossible for any Liberal Government to renew that legislation except under very exceptional circumstances. The Coercion Act of 1882 was one of exceptional severity, and I would point out that any comparison between that Act and this Bill of 1877 must be fallacious, because you have no such ground to form an Act upon as we had in 1882. No Government could have existed in the circumstances of 1882 that did not produce a strong Coercion Act. Your Lordships will recollect the circumstances of that year. The whole of the Executive Government, with the exception of my noble Friend near me (Earl Spencer), were struck down by the hand of the assassin in open daylight. Was it possible, I ask, at that time, when the principle of coercion had never been relinquished by either Party, to resist the introduction of a Coercion Bill? We are asked what our policy was after the relinquishment of coercion by noble Lords opposite. Our policy was then perfectly well-known; and the noble Earl who spoke before me has shown by his speech that he knew quite as much of our policy as we did ourselves. we are asked what is our policy now. Our policy is contained in the word "conciliation" as opposed to "coercion." We wish to make the law respected in Ireland; you will not make it respected. You have tried for centuries to make coercive legislation proceeding from London effective in Ireland, but you have always totally failed. Do not let noble Lords opposite suppose that the Plan of Campaign is countenanced—so far as I know—by every noble Lord who agrees with the Front Opposition Bench, or that we share in any of the extreme views that have been patronized by some extreme personages, any more than we think the responsibility which the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) was good enough to put upon them last night for Mr. O'Brien's visit to Canada. There is nothing too bad, I suppose, fur our dear Friends to say of us. I do not believe that the visit of Mr. O'Brien to

  917
  Canada, undertaken, I have no doubt, in a conscientious spirit on his own part, was even approved of by the Chief of his own Party. It was certainly not approved of by the Chiefs of our Party— they had no more to do with it than the noble Duke or the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon)—and I say it is ungenerous and unfair that these charges should be brought in this House by any noble Lord or Duke, however friendly they may be to us, when they must know that they have absolutely nothing by which to substantiate them. We have heard enough of these charges. The noble Marquess the other day said a Party which we could not mistake to be our own is allied with every force that is opposed to social order in Ireland. We do not mind when charges of that kind are made by irresponsible politicians, so much as when they are brought by persons holding high Office. We ask, who is going to substantiate them? What proof have they got? If they could not bring any proof of the most weighty and close character, they are absolutely without justification in making these charges. I repeat, my Lords, that our policy would be to make the law respected, because we should make the law congenial to the Irish people. [Laughter.] I am not surprised that noble Lords opposite laugh, for no one can be better aware than they are that their policy is wholly uncongenial to the Irish people. Now, my Lords, the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Argyll) compared the Act of 1881 to a sow's ear. At the very moment that he was making that happy comparison, Mr. Parnell—who, whatever his demerits may be, has, at least, the attribute of representing the views of the Irish people—was speaking in the other House, and he was able to give a little illustration of the difference of the policy of the sow's ear and the policy of the Bill of the noble Marquess opposite. Mr. Parnell stated that it was the Land Act of 1881, and not the Coercion Acts of 1880 and 1882, which broke the power of the Land League; and that but for that Act the Irish Party would have been able, even from their prisons, to have pushed that movement to the extreme. My Lords, never were more impressive words heard on this question than those used by Mr. Parnell when speaking of the Act of 1881, and I com-
  918
  mend them to the attention of noble Lords. They contained the gist of our policy in this matter—namely, to remedy Irish grievances, to conciliate the Irish people, to attempt a policy which has often succeeded, and to forbear for ever from a policy which has invariably failed.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that he had not intended to take part in that debate but for some of the remarks which had fallen from the noble Earl who had just addressed the House (the Earl of Rosebery), and who had endeavoured to escape from the real issues before their Lordships. What was the fact? The measure before the House had been denounced in no measured language throughout the country by the Colleagues of the noble Earl. Within the past week it had been described by Mr. Gladstone as a "wanton, insidious, miserable, and dishonouring Bill." Recently also, at a meeting of the National Reform Union at which Mr. John Morley was present, this Bill was described as "a criminal violation of the civil rights of the Irish people," whilst the same Resolution, in language which must have been intended to be sarcastic, condemned the "violent interference with the freedom of Parliamentary debate," by which the Government and its Supporters had endeavoured to prevent the "legitimate discussion of the details of the measure." And yet, in the face of all this language, the Leaders of the Opposition had allowed the Bill to be read a second time without a Division, and the noble Earl could only allege the miserable excuse that they would not have been able to bring 50 Supporters into the Lobby. He (Lord Brabourne) should have imagined that any men who felt so strongly against a measure would have longed to record their votes as a protest, instead of running away. Such was not the method by which the Liberal Party had been built up, or by which any great principles had been maintained. It was evident that noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench were either not prepared to endorse the language of their Leader, or were afraid to show the weakness of their cause by challenging a Division. The noble Earl who had just sat down had repeated in the House what he said in the country with regard to the alternative policies of conciliation and coer-

  919
  cion; and he (Lord Brabourne) thought it was time to protest, loudly and earnestly, against the misdescription which the noble Earl had given both in the House and in the country of the policy of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury). The noble Earl and his Friends wished to conciliate Moonlighters; while the Conservative Party were determined to coerce Moonlighters, and to conciliate honest people in Ireland. The noble Earl had declared that the policy of the Government was uncongenial, whilst that of Mr. Gladstone was congenial to the people of Ireland. What did these vague phrases really mean? What law was it which was uncongenial to the people of Ireland? Was it the law which prevented Moonlighters from pursuing their midnight outrages? Was it the law which ought to protect poor girls from having their hair cut off and tar poured upon their heads? Was it the law which enabled honest people in Ireland to buy and sell and pursue their ordinary avocations without molestation? There was one thing they could not lose sight of—and it could not be denied even by noble Lords opposite—namely, that there had existed for years past in Ireland a power which had defied the Queen's authority, and the majority of their Lordships' House, and he was glad to say a majority of the House of Commons, were determined to obey the will of the British people and to vindicate the Queen's authority. The noble Earl talked about statistics; but everyone knew that the great majority of cases of crime were not stated in police records, and did not even appear in the newspapers, although there was not a noble Lord who had friends or relations in Ireland who did not know the terrible state in which the country was. The terrible state of that country was notorious to everyone. Reference had been made to the Act of 1881 and to Mr. Parnell's statement, that we did not know what that Act had saved us from. It was an Act which violated every principle of political economy and militated against all the old doctrines of the Liberal Party, and it taught the agitators in Ireland to know that there were British statesmen who would yield to agitation that which their calm judgment would condemn. As for Bills to amend the Criminal Law, it was not necessary to compare this Act with that
  920
  of 1882, because what they had to look to was the present state of Ireland. Noble Lords opposite declared their policy with regard to Ireland to be that of conciliation against coercion; but, instead of dealing in vague and ambiguous phrases, it was necessary to grapple with realities, and with the hard facts and actual exigencies of the case. He did not believe that there had ever been a case in which such great historical inaccuracies had been put forward as in regard to this Irish Question. There were several elections pending at that moment, and he (Lord Brabourne) trusted that the electors would understand that this was no question between conciliation and coercion, but one between the upholders of law and order and their opponents. On that side of the House there was no ill-will to Ireland, very much the contrary; but there was a steady determination that the real issue should be placed before the country, that the Queen's authority should be maintained in all parts of her Dominions, and that they should have one united Parliament for one united people.
  LORD DENMAN: The noble Earl who spoke last but one (the Earl of Rosebery) left out the first word of his quotation—
  "Apparent, rari nantes In gurgite vasto."
  His friends were not apparent, and his noble Friend and relative (Viscount Oxenbridge) ought to have spoken, and then he would have kept a House till some Peers returned from dinner, and there might have been a long debate, but it was better as it is. The noble Earl has alluded to 1846, when the Protection for Life and Property (Ireland) Bill was thrown out, after passing the House of Lords—where his (Lord Denman's) lamented father tried to modify it—by what the noble Earl called an "unholy alliance." The first Lord Denman disapproved of this step. Lord John Russell and Mr. Cobden and the Conservatives combined to turn out Sir Robert Peel on the Whig's own measure; but, in fact, the Conservatives were not in fault. Indeed, a contest as to Fair Trade has been carried on ever since, and a writer for the Cobden Club has styled it the Demon Fair Trade: but how can that which is fair be devilish? I dislike the provision as to examinations before magistrates, and

  921
  wish to see pure evidence, not like that admitted against the dynamiters, who, in the words of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell), while exculpating themselves, criminated their fellow prisoners. I hope the Bill may soon be repealed, as repeal is an easy matter, And in 1713, about the Malt Tax, leave was nearly given to bring in a Bill in their Lordships' House to repeal the Union with Scotland. In 1849 I received a letter from Mr. Frederick Hobart, father of the present Earl of Buckinghamshire, from Curraghmore, stating that from the sudden fall in the price of grain the farmers "were almost broke." I am glad that the Opposition has given a cosket—(quod quietus cas)—to this Bill, instead of a bene disesssit, and applauding it, as it is made needful by the precedents of former years. I am sure it was brought in in a spirit of kindness, and will attend whenever it in again brought forward, and I hope that instead of Ireland being a land of ire, it will be a land of joy.
  Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Extension of summary jurisdiction).
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that the clause and one other were, in his view, the most important in the Bill. They differed in many respects from the provisions of the Act of 1882. He yielded to no man in his desire to see law and order maintained in Ireland, or in his horror of intimidation and threats; but if it were essential that there should be legislation upon the subject, the nature of that legislation ought to be carefully scrutinized before it was entered upon. While there might be evils which it might be desirable to remove, they must be careful that in attempting to deal with one evil they did not give rise to others of a worse character, and he did not believe they could give away any of their safeguards without risk. Under the clause they rendered persons charged with crime in Ireland liable to a form of treatment such as persons in this country were not subjected to. Now, he contended that they should do their best to subject Ireland to nothing to which we did not subject the people of the rest of the United Kingdom. Why, the
  922
  noble and learned Lord had said that no one but the guilty need fear this Bill; but it must be remembered that that was not to be a mere temporary measure enacted to meet a temporary purpose; but was a Bill which it was intended should form part of the permanent Criminal Law of Ireland. One of the objects of the Bill was to deprive persons charged under it of the right of trial by jury. He should like to know what would be said by the people of this country if such an attempt were to be made to deprive them permanently of their right to trial by jury. It would be impossible to effect such a change in the law as that, because the people of this country would not endure it. Was it a beneficial amendment of the Criminal Law of Ireland to enact that criminal cases should be tried summarily before a bench of magistrates, instead of before a jury? He was aware that it might be urged that we could amend our law relating to summary jurisdiction; but when once this Act was passed there would be great indisposition to revert to the matter again. He confessed that he viewed with apprehension the establishment in Ireland of a permanent system of summary jurisdiction. What was the nature of the tribunal to which they were about to leave for determination some of the most difficult and most delicate questions of law? Nothing could be worse than the judicial tribunal which was created, and which would be controlled by the Executive. It was quite true that the Lord Lieutenant was bound to be satisfied of the legal knowledge of the Resident Magistrates, who were to carry out its provisions; but these magistrates were generally half-pay officers and persons who, if they had any at all, had only a very small proportion of legal training. It was difficult enough for the noble and learned Lords in that House to say what was a criminal conspiracy for the purpose of persuading certain people not to do certain acts; but what would be the case when half-pay officers had to decide such points? He had hoard this doctrine laid down by a high authority that if one man combined with another not to deal with a person, and if he did that to injure that person it would be unlawful; but if he did it to better himself it would not be unlawful. These were nice and fine distinctions to be left to such a tribunal as the Bill

  923
  proposed to create; and if they were so left, injustice was likely to be done. He thought that when introducing a permanent measure they should have taken steps to amend the law of summary jurisdiction generally, and even though the Government might have come to the conclusion that trial by jury had failed in Ireland, still they had chosen a substitute therefore which was not the best. The clause, in fact, was very objectionable. His noble and learned Friend alluded to something said by Mr. Gladstone about Boycotting. He (Lord Herschell) did not think Mr. Gladstone ever said a single word inconsistent with the language alluded to. Exclusive dealing was quite different from Boycotting, and it was only weakening the force of the objections to threats, intimidation, and compulsion when they confounded such things with inducements to exclusive dealing. There was, no doubt, in Ireland a vast amount of Boycotting, which did not depend on combination at all, and the noble Marquess himself (the Marquess of Salisbury) had stated how impossible it was to deal with it. For his own part, he thought Boycotting extremely mean and cruel, and he objected to such action wherever it was used. But he found that there was a great deal of Boycotting in this country in connection with electioneering, and he was horrified to find that some to whom he had spoken on the subject did not take the same view as himself. Considering the class antagonism in Ireland, the untrained character of the Resident Magistrates, and the intricate, difficult, and delicate questions submitted to them for the first time, he considered that there was a very serious risk of injustice being done. He should like to see the broadest and deepest distinction drawn between direct intimidation and threats of compulsion and mere inducement, which, ordinarily speaking, was a perfectly legitimate weapon. As to Boycotting, he loved it no better in England than in Ireland; and he had been astonished to find that when, in the presence of cultivated and highly intelligent people, the practice of leaving tradesmen in electioneering times was condemned, the very reverse sentiment prevailed. But common sentiment was enough, and that was a matter which they could not deal with by law. But under the Bill,
  924
  if a person found his business not prospering, and so many people not coming into his shop as before, you would have such charges brought. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) last night mentioned certain cases of hardship. But those cases were punishable by the present law, and the noble Duke never stated how this Bill would deal with them; but he pointed to the Front Opposition Bench, and said—"That is the kind of liberty noble Lords support." For his own part, he (Lord Herschell) had uttered his protest against lawlessness before, and he would not do it again. If any person said that he wished to see lawlessness and disorder prevail, he would leave that person to his own opinion, and he would rely upon the opinions of those who were not so ready to think evil. If the Government determined that trial by jury was no longer possible, and that they must substitute something else, let them do so. But what he objected to was that the decision in such matters as had been referred to was left to Resident Magistrates, and he maintained that they had chosen a tribunal which was not the best substitute, and that they had given that tribunal a task which was unnecessary.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)said, that the proper way to look at this clause was in view of the state of facts to be dealt with. They had proposed a tribunal, one member of which should have legal knowledge such as would satisfy the Lord Lieutenant. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) did not question the state of facts, and did not attempt to deny that the present jury system was inadequate to deal with the state of affairs in Ireland; and it was not denied that the wise and proper way to proceed was by summary jurisdiction, and though his noble and learned Friend objected to that, he had not suggested a substitute. The section to which the noble and learned Lord took exception only referred to persons who took part in criminal conspiracies already punishable by law.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, the Government could form their Court of paid lawyers not dependent on the will of the Executive.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that his noble and learned Friend had sneeringly used the expression "half-pay officers;"

  925
  but their Lordships must be aware that officers now had to leave the Army in the prime of life, with their minds in full vigour, and that, in addition, they had received a training in military law in the Army which would enable them to render valuable assistance in discharging the duties of Resident Magistrates. They should also remember that, as he said before, there was a provision in the Bill enacting that one of these magistrates must always have some legal training. He would point out that the governing words of the section were that it "must be criminal conspiracy now punishable by law," and if it was not so punishable, it would not come within the section. They had to deal with a peculiar state of fact's 'and all the insidious forms of Boycotting, and it would be idle to present a clause which, in the opinion of the Executive, would be inadequate. The clause had been submitted after careful consideration by the Executive, and it had been fully criticized; and nothing which the noble and learned Lord had said at all shook his (Lord Ashbourne's) opinion that when the clause was placed under fair conditions, and in capable hands, it would be of substantial assistance in working out what the Government desired—the restoration of law and order, and the putting down of the intimidation which so widely prevailed.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that there was really no appeal from the decision of the tribunal such as he had described, unless the punishment exceeded a month's imprisonment. A month's imprisonment was not a light matter; and surely the Government ought, in all these cases under the Bill, to give the fullest opportunity for appeal. No provision had been inserted in the Bill to redeem the pledge which the Chief Secretary for Ireland gave on the point; because it was said that, under the existing law, a case could be stated, and that if a magistrate refused to state a case, the Court of Queen's Bench could be moved to compel him to do so. No lawyer would say that that was the same as giving a man the right of appeal. It was, in the highest degree, a most objectionable proceeding. According to his experience, when tribunals were most undoubtedly in the wrong, they were most confident that they were in the right. It was in such a state of things that a Resident Magistrate would
  926
  refuse to state a case. What, then, was a man's remedy when he was sentenced to a month? They were supposing that he had plenty of money. He would go to the Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus to compel the magistrate to state a case. How was that to operate, he should like to know, with the kind of people who would be prosecuted under this Bill? When the man had got the mandamus, he could not be certain that the view which the magistrate would take would be the right one. It was as likely as not to be extremely incorrect, and when the case was obtained there were great difficulties in the way. All that he asked for was that there should be some right of appeal, on questions of law, from the Resident Magistrates to a superior Judge. He hoped that it might not be too late for the Government even now to conform to his view of the matter, and so avoid even the semblance of a breach of faith. If the Government adopted his suggestion, no discussion, he was confident, would take place on the point in the other House, as it would be accepted as a redemption of the pledge which the Government themselves had given.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that the matter had been very fully discussed in the other House. What the noble and learned Lord asked for was that a change should be made in the summary jurisdiction of Ireland, and that a peculiar and special form of appeal unknown at present to the law in Ireland should be established. According to the Irish Summary Jurisdiction Law, the appeal was as it was given in the Bill, and as it was given in the Bill of 1882. He did not think that the noble and learned Lord's proposal was reasonable, or that it would commend itself to the judgment of their Lordships. He thought that the right of appeal, as provided in the Bill, was in all respects adequate for dealing with points of law, and there was no reason why a change should be made.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he must still point out that the Bill would deprive a man of a jury, and subject him to summary jurisdiction.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he failed to see that it was necessary to give a new system of appeal in order to save a prisoner from the proper termination of the law.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that it was the Judge of the Superior Court who decided all questions of law; and what he asked was that a prisoner should have an appeal to a Judge of a Superior Court against magistrates who might not be lawyers at all.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that this was one of the most essential clauses in the Bill. He contended that if an appeal were given under the clause in every case, however small, the Bill would be comparatively useless, and would not effect the object of the Government, which, he understood, was to repress intimidation by a summary remedy.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that it was inaccurate to speak of the permanent operation of that part of the Bill which was the subject of the noble and learned Lord's (Lord Herschell's) criticism, because it would only be in operation in proclaimed districts as long as they were proclaimed. As to appeals from the summary jurisdiction, he was satisfied that the idea of anything having been promised, which was not done, arose out of a mere misunderstanding. He would ask why, if it was now unjust to refuse appeals in cases of less than a month's imprisonment, it was not so under the Act of 1882? He further contended that if the arguments of his noble and learned Friend for an appeal in every case were sound, the whole Law of Summary Jurisdiction was unjust. He could not conceive why the accused under this Bill should have greater rights of appeal than were given in other cases. As to the argument, that the tribunal itself should be re-constituted, before giving it the powers now given, it was manifest that there could be no more reason for such a course now than there was in 1882. If the tribunal was competent to deal with other offences against the law, it was competent to deal with these also. The word "induce," in the context in which it stood in this clause, would not make any combination for a purpose which was now lawful criminal or punishable, and the addition of that word was proper to prevent evasion; for there might be a conspiracy to induce by the use of unlawful means, which, although different from persuasion operating only on other men's judgment and free will, would not amount to compulsion. Such acts were distinguished from violence and intimi-
  928
  dation by the Conspiracy Act of 1875, and the former Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1878.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 3 to 5, inclusive, severally agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Special proclamation putting into force the enactments of this Act relating to dangerous associations).
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he should like to make a few remarks with reference to the clause, which was of the greatest moment. It enabled the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim any association which he might deem to be dangerous, and it was impossible to exaggerate the importance and gravity of the question, for power was to be given to that official to decide what associations were interfering with the administration of the law, or disturbing' the maintenance of law and order. There had never been a political association formed for any great object which was not, in the opinion of the Government of the day, calculated to disturb the maintenance of law and order. He considered that a most serious matter, and it was impossible to exaggerate its importance, because the question of whether or not an association was one that would disturb law and order depended upon the opinion of one person. He did not know whether noble and learned Lords opposite thought that the Orange Association disturbed law and order; but, if it did, then it would be a dangerous association, and if equal justice were meted out to all associations in Ireland, he had no hesitation in saying that, in. that case, that society would be held to be an association which disturbed law and order. If the Irish people had any natural capacity at all, it was for carrying on secret societies, and there could be nothing more unwise than to suppress associations which kept within Constitutional action, and if the attempt were made to suppress such associations, the result would, be that, instead of suppressing them, they would only drive them under the surface. It was said that protection was afforded against the improper use of the section, inasmuch as either House of Parliament could put an end to the Proclamation within 14 days of its issue. Suppose the National League were proclaimed, and Parliament did not interfere, and permitted the special

  929
  Proclamation to stand. From that moment, any association formed for any of the purposes of the National League might be suppressed. He viewed with the utmost alarm the exercise of a power such as that, which had never teen given before, and which, he was afraid, would be used for the purpose of putting a stop to legitimate and Constitutional agitation.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he was not the least afraid of the power under this clause being used by any Administration for the purpose of putting down, or checking, or interfering with legitimate Constitutional agitation. He was strongly of opinion that, by the operation and working of the 2nd section of the Bill, crime in Ireland would be powerfully grappled with, and that the rest of the Bill would, therefore, have to be used all the less. Nevertheless, it was necessary to take this power. It was not given to be used idly and in an arbitrary manner by the Lord Lieutenant, who would act by and with the advice of the Privy Council, and would be compelled, as the Government of which he was a Member would be compelled, to submit his Proclamation to the judgment of Parliament. He did not think that any Amendment could be suggested that would make this clause any more satisfactory, or any more adequate. He was satisfied it would be wisely and cautiously administered, with full publicity, and under the check of Parliamentary control, and that no-association would be declared to be dangerous unless it was dangerous to permit it to continue its career.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that, of course, the Government would say that these powers would be discharged with a due sense of responsibility; but the argument might be used to guard any Government, however absolute it might be, and the Executive Government in this country had never been entrusted with powers beyond the absolute necessities of the case. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Ashbourne) said that no Amendment could be suggested that would improve the clause. But he (the Earl of Kimberley) would suggest that the Proviso inserted in the Act of 1882 should be inserted in this Bill. It was to the effect that nothing in the Act should render unlawful any political or social associa-
  930
  tion for such objects and acting by such means as, by the Act or otherwise, were not unlawful. What they required was, not only that the Executive Government should do its duty, but that it should have the confidence of the people over whom it ruled. He was not now arguing the necessity for the powers conferred by this clause, but upon the Government's own showing, and believing that they were entirely sincere in stating that the Act would never be used for improper purposes; yet he thought it necessary that words should be inserted in the Bill which would render it impossible that a misuse of the powers could take place.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he greatly doubted whether in the Act of 1882 the clause to which his noble Friend had referred was anything more than mere surplusage. It was not extended, by that Act, to any of the special powers then given to the Lord Lieutenant, of which the power to prohibit meetings which he might think dangerous was one. The introduction of words such as those suggested would simply paralyze and destroy the power of the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim dangerous associations, for it would throw upon those who administered the law the task of determining whether there was any force in the Proclamation. In his opinion, there was sound and good reason for giving power to proclaim dangerous associations. The Act made persons taking part in a criminal conspiracy amenable to summary jurisdiction; and it was, therefore, of importance that people should be warned, as far as public authority could warn them, against taking part in known unlawful associations. That was an object which must recommend itself to everyone, provided it was not counterbalanced by objections of a more serious kind. He did not think there could be any difficulty in the interpretation of the Act, which, beyond all question, described objects which were criminal and unlawful; partly in the very words of the definition of unlawful associations in the Act of 1882, and partly in others, as to interfering "with the administration of the law," and "disturbing the maintenance of law and order." If these words had to be interpreted by a Court of Law, it was most certain that they could not be extended to anything not

  931
  now illegal. The Lord Lieutenant, therefore, must be satisfied that the prohibited association was for a criminal object; and the 7th clause, which enabled him to extend the prohibition to a substituted association, notwithstanding a change of name, required him to be satisfied that the substituted association also was "dangerous,"—that is, criminal—within the definition of the 6th clause. Nor had he the least doubt that if the powers of the Act were exercised for a purpose not coming within the purview of the measure, they would be quite as certain to be effectually overhauled in Parliament as if left to the interference of any Court.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that immense importance seemed to be attached by Members of the Government to Parliamentary control; but, practically speaking, the phrase had no meaning whatever. The power given to each House of Parliament to address the Crown as a protest against arbitrary acts of the Government was illusory and worthless, because it would entirely depend on whether or not the Government retained the confidence of the House of Commons. It was not likely that such an Address would be carried in this House; and if the Government were in a majority in the other House they would prevent its being carried. But were the Government in a minority, it was clear they could be turned out of Office for their acts, and their policy changed, whether Parliamentary control was reserved by the Act or not. He did Dot think, therefore, that there was any safeguard in power being reserved to Parliament to address the Crown with regard to the actions of the Government under the Act.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Moved, "That the Report be no wreceived."—(The Lord Ashbourne.)
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that he could not help expressing the satisfaction he felt that Her Majesty's Government had introduced a Bill so very much milder than the severe and arbitrary measure that Mr. Gladstone's Government had found it necessary to propose to Parliament for the maintenance of law and order in Ireland. In the present measure there was no Conscience Clause; no clause providing for the sus-
  932
  pension of the Habeas Corpus Act rendering 1,000 or any other number of persons liable to be imprisoned for indefinite periods, without trial; and no Curfew Clause, rendering persons liable to arrest for being out after dark.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday next.

VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Act thirtieth and thirty-first Victoria, chapter eighty—Was presented by The Marquess of LOTHIAN; read 1a. (No. 176.)
House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.