THIRD READING.

HL Deb 18 July 1887 vol 317 cc1102-45

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3^a."—(The Lord Ashbourne.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said, that the Government had assured them that there were criminal conspiracies and intimidations and dangerous associations in Ireland with which the ordinary law was not able to cope, and asked for further powers. The House must either grant the Government those. powers, or propose some alternative course. The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition (Earl Granville) was the only person who had taken up a line of opposition to the measure, and the line so taken up was one of indirect rather than direct opposition. In his speech the other night the noble Earl said that as he had but little support in that House, he did not think it advisable to move the rejection of the Bill, and did not propose any Amendment. The noble Earl chiefly limited himself to the general statement that a sufficient case had not been made out for the Bill. It was quite true that the noble Earl had very little support in this House on the Bill. When the noble Earl and his Colleagues executed aright-about-face upon the Irish Question, and adopted a course diametrically contrary to the course they had previously pursued, the enormous majority of the Liberal Peers did not follow them; but that was no reason at all why an important measure of this sort should be passed over without full and adequate discussion. That course was neither consonant with the dignity of the House nor consistent with the public interest. The public interest demanded that when measures of this sort were proposed the reasons for opposing or supporting them should be fully stated in both Houses of Parliament. Turning to the consideration of the measure, he would ask their Lordships whether it was correct to say that a sufficient case had not been made out for the Bill? He did not think that the necessity for the measure should depend on whether there had been a hundred crimes more or less in any particular set of months; but he thought they ought to consider much more the nature of the crimes committed than mere statistics, and whether it was possible for the ordinary law to detect and punish those crimes. Was it, then, or was it not the fact that the Plan of Campaign was widely disseminated in Ireland, that Boycotting was prevalent to a large extent, and that juries were deterred from doing their duty? He found in a morning paper that at the Kerry Assizes juries had refused to convict on what the learned Judge held to be clear evidence. Mr. Justice O'Brien, in granting an application by the Crown to postpone the trial of the prisoners until the next Assizes, said that he had never known such unfaithfulness to duty on the part of jurors in all his experience, and that, so far as the protection of life and property was concerned, the law was at an end. Kerry was, he imagined, just one of the districts contemplated by the Bill. With regard to the points he had put, he wished to ask the noble Earl who had lately been Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in his opinion, it could be stated with truth that a sufficient case had not been made out for granting extraordinary powers to the Government in such a district as the County of Kerry? It had been stated in the other House of Parliament and in the country that the Government were taking away the liberties of Ireland. Such a statement was absolutely incorrect and contrary to the truth, and conveyed a false impression to the minds of those who heard it. With the general liberties of Ireland the Bill had nothing whatever to do. Although the noble Earl had limited himself on the second reading to a general statement with regard to the Bill, when the Committee stage was reached the noble and learned Lord the late Lord Chancellor, fortunately, as he thought, took a different course. Great advantage, he thought, accrued from that discussion, seeing that the questions involved in the Bill were chiefly legal questions, and the legal opinions to be had in their Lordships' House were such as were not to be had in any other Assembly in the world. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell) had brought forward certain points and suggested certain Amendments. In the first place, he urged that a proper appeal had not been given in this Bill; but the answer to that was that the appeal afforded was the appeal given by the regular law of Ireland—precisely the same appeal given by the Act of 1882. The noble and learned Lord also raised a point with regard to Sub-section 2 of Section 2, and said that he agreed that it was desirable that those who conspired criminally should be tried; but he took exception to the word "induce." A most complete answer, he thought, was given to that point, and it was shown that "inducing" a person to do anything wrong was one of the very worst forms of compulsion. With regard to what passed in Committee, he would like to make one remark. Objection was taken to the power given to the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim associations, but the answer seemed conclusive that the names of these associations should be widely known, in order to prevent persons joining them, and thus rendering themselves liable to punishment. He noticed that during the whole discussion in Committee the noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell) was on one side and all the remaining legal opinion in the House on the other. He was particularly anxious to hear what argument would be raised before their Lordships as to new crimes created by the Act. So much had been said on this point by unlearned persons elsewhere that he was anxious to hear from some noble and learned Lords what new crimes would be created. He was bound to say that he had heard nothing whatever with regard to any new crimes, except in so far as unlawful associations were concerned. He should like to know from noble Lords who were prepared to take upon themselves the responsibility of rejecting this Bill what other policy they had. The noble Earl the late Foreign Secretary had contended, with some justice, that the Opposition were not bound to formulate any policy, and they were, therefore, compelled to conjecture for themselves what that policy would be. Two years ago not a single noble Lord in the late Ministry of Mr. Gladstone was in favour of a separate Parliament and Government for Ireland. What was the reason for those noble Lords thus turning completely round? The reason why most of them accepted a Home Rule policy was, he believed, because Mr. Gladstone adopted it. He said most of them: but not all, for he wished to make a prominent exception of the noble Earl who was lately Viceroy of Ireland (Earl Spencer). There was no reason why they should not be inclined to think that the noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench would accept any policy with regard to Ireland that Mr. Gladstone might think fit to propose. To the noble Earl the late Viceroy they had a right to make a special personal appeal. Never was a man more loyally supported by noble Lords sitting on that side of the House; and, however much they might now differ from him, they considered that his conduct as Viceroy did honour to himself and the Liberal Party. They had followed him faithfully and loyally; but when he turned completely round, al- though they believed thoroughly in the conscientiousness of his motive, yet they could not but feel a painful impression with regard to his judgment, and they had a right to ask him how he knew that his judgment now was right, when he formerly led them in an entirely different direction? The course recommended by the Home Rule Party was avowedly experimental; but such an experiment had never before been tried in Ireland. Had the noble Lord satisfied himself that Mr. Parnell knew what he wanted, how far he was prepared to go, and what power he had to carry out any engagement he made? With regard to the land, could the noble Lord tell them positively whether, if there was a Home Rule Parliament and Government for Ireland, the control of the land was to be handed over to the Irish Parliament? Recent utterances of Leaders of the Home Rule Party had made him doubt whether the opinions entertained by them some months ago on the Land Question were entertained now. He desired to call attention to the different manner in which this Bill had been represented in Parliament on the one hand, and in the country on the other. In the country it was represented that the measure was to apply to the whole of Ireland, whereas, in fact, it would only apply to the districts in the country which were specially proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant. The measure had been stigmatized throughout the country as a Coercion Bill, whereas it merely relieved jurymen from the peril they now had to encounter if they did their duty in the jury-box, and restored freedom of action to tenants and others engaged in agriculture. It had been objected that this Bill was not congenial to the people of Ireland; but what was meant was that it was not congenial to Messrs. Parnell, William O'Brien, and Davitt. Another objection had been raised to the measure on account of its permanent character; but, in his view, the permanent character of the Bill was its greatest merit. The real cause of the failure of other so-called coercive measures had been their temporary character, which had offered an inducement to evil-doers to wait for a happy future when they might renew their criminal courses. It was the temporary character of former measures of the kind that had enabled the Irish Party to make overtures first to one side of the House and then to the other with considerable success. In his opinion, the Government had made out their case. It was abundantly clear, from the statements which appeared in the newspapers, that Boycotting and other malpractices were still prevalent in Ireland, and that jurors would not do their duty. In these circumstances he could not take upon himself the responsibility of declining to support a measure of this kind, which the Government believed to be necessary for the preservation of law and order in Ireland.

After a pause,

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said: My Lords, I had hoped that some noble Lord sitting upon the Front Opposition Bench would have risen to address the House, because it appears to me that as often as this subject is discussed there is more and more reason why those who oppose this measure should fully explain the grounds of the position which they have taken up. However, it would appear that either the noble Lords who sit upon the Front Opposition Bench desire more of us to be heard in support of this Bill before they trust themselves to give any reply to us, or else they have no reply to give to the arguments which have already been put forward in support of our view. I am glad that upon this occasion we shall have an opportunity of stating our case in the hearing of the noble Lords who sit upon the Front Opposition Bench, and of hearing what they may have to say in reply. In my opinion—it may be an old-fashioned one—both public and private liberty everywhere—in all countries governed by the British Crown, and certainly not least in Ireland—depend upon the authority of the Courts of Justice and upon the maintenance of the supremacy of the law. I therefore look upon this measure, which has for its object the maintenance of the supremacy of the law in Ireland, as one rendered necessary by the circumstances of that country. It has been brought in, as I understand, for that object alone, for the purpose of repressing crime, and crime alone, and I think it has been brought in under circumstances which made its introduction necessary. It seems to me that its provisions are, on the whole, well adapted for the purpose which it is intended to effect, and I can only express a hope that they may be sufficient to put an end to a state of things which cannot safely be permitted to continue. In these circumstances, I think that the measure is entitled to your Lordships' support. The noble Earl who leads the Front Opposition Bench is, however, of a different opinion. Not only has he criticized some parts of the present measure, but he is of opinion that no measure of repression, of whatever description, ought to be passed. The noble Earl said that it was not because he had been a party to similar measures, if they were similar, in recent times, that he should be justified in supporting the present Bill at a different time and under different circumstances. He illustrated that proposition by an example derived from his own experience. There was a time when, in deference to what he thought a moral necessity, arising out of a state of opinion in society more powerful than law, he advised a friend to fight a duel; but, if a similar case were now to arise, he would not give similar advice. Whether I should have thought my noble Friend right formerly, or not, I will not undertake to say; but he would certainly be right now in giving different advice, more in accordance with law and sound morality, and in a better state of general opinion upon the subject. My noble Friend's present change seems to be rather in the contrary direction; and I fail to perceive the analogy; although I certainly agree with him, that it does not follow that because a thing has been done before it should necessarily be repeated under different circumstances.

Now, what are the circumstances indicated towards the close of my noble Friend's speech, which appear to him to make all the difference in this respect? I made a note of them at the time, and I have verified it by looking since at the report of his speech. My noble Friend's first reason was that an enlarged franchise has been given to Ireland. Is that any reason whatever why the supremacy of the law should not be asserted? His second reason was that five-sixths of the Irish Members were against the measure. I am very sorry it should be so; but if five-sixths of the Irish Members are for overthrowing the supremacy of the law in Ireland, then I say that if Ireland is to remain in any way or on any terms connected with, this Empire, and if the Parliament of Great Britain is to have any responsibility whatever or any authority whatever about Ireland, neither fire-sixths nor even the unanimous voice of all the Irish Members should induce us to abandon the supremacy of the law and say that disorder shall prevail in Ireland because the Representatives of Ireland wish it. The next reason was Mr. Knipe's difference from his Colleagues on the Cowper Commission. My noble Friend, to do him justice, did not say much about that; and I will not trespass upon your Lordships' time by saying a word about it. Then my noble Friend spoke of the sympathies of millions of Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen—I own I could not help thinking when I heard those words that a little time ago that trisection of Great Britain would not have issued from the lips of my noble Friend. I thought I could trace that division of England, Scotland, and Wales into separate nationalities not altogether to my noble Friend, but to a source for which I do not hold him responsible. There are, said my noble Friend, the sympathies of millions of Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen, all condemning repression, as injurious and ineffective. Well, now, I concede this at once to my noble Friend, that if he could prove that a measure of repression—that is, repression of crime, as I understand it—must necessarily be ineffectual, his whole case would be good. We ought not to pass a measure which would do no good, by whatever name you may call it. If it will not answer the purpose for which it is passed, those who think so have a right to oppose it. But on that point I entirely differ from my noble Friends; and I think that our whole experience, under circumstances less favourable, sustains my opinion.

Now, I really want to know what is the meaning of this contention, that we are not to introduce or pass any measure of repression, as it is called. Does it mean that the law at present is sufficiently maintained; that it is strong enough; that the jury system works as it ought to work; that the powers of combination against the law are feeble; that the means for the detection of crime are sufficient to restrain it—in short, that the law and the Courts and the authority of the Government in Ireland have already all the strength which they want? It is possible, though it is very unlikely, that this may be the opinion of my noble Friend. But all I can say is that if it be his opinion, not merely from reckoning up the figures and statistics, not merely by a comparison of crime at one period of so many months with crime in another period of so many months, I come to an opposite conclusion. I take a far broader view of the facts which everybody knows; and I believe it cannot be said with truth—I hardly think it can be said with sincerity—that the state of the law in Ireland, the power to enforce it, the working of the jury system, the fear of punishment by those who commit outrage, are such at this moment that no further strengthening of the law is required. You have in Ireland an organization—the National League—which the highest authorities of the law in that country have declared to be criminal; you have branches of the National League all over the country setting up Courts, calling upon people to attend them, overruling men's freedom of action, and reversing the decisions of the Courts of Law. I have in my mind the case of two brothers, of which the particulars are contained in the evidence of the Cowper Commission, which I think I recollect accurately enough to be able to summarize it. Five or six years ago they bought a farm and entered into possession, but permitted the former possessor or some of his family for some time to occupy a farmhouse not wanted for themselves. About four or five years after they wanted the house, but were obliged to go to law to get it. They got a decision, first from one Court, and then from one of the highest Courts in Dublin; but the League Court afterwards sat upon the case, called the brothers to appear and to justify their conduct in presuming to occupy the land which they had bought and going to law to get possession of the house, and the League Court not only reversed the decision of the Courts of Law, but ordered the purchasers to pay £100 by way of damages to the other party. That sort of thing, with all kinds of variations, is notoriously going on all over Ireland. My noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Earl Spencer) knows it as well as any person. But the attempt to substitute a different sort of law is not all. You have the Plan of Campaign, which deals with the rights of landlords and tenants, and uses influence of every sort which can be brought to bear upon tenants to pay no rents, or only such as the League thinks right, setting at defiance the laws of the land and making war upon private rights, and that whether people are willing to pay or not, and, after preventing payment where the people would otherwise be willing to pay, taking the money from the tenants, not to take care of it for them, not to keep it in reserve to pay the landlord, but to use it for their own purposes, and undertaking to hold the tenants harmless as well as they can. My Lords, that is a Vehmgericht. Now, are we to allow such a state of things to go on without inquiring whether the law can be made stronger? Under the same influence intimidation is organized to overpower the exercise of free will in all the relations of life, putting men under all conceivable personal and social penalties, with the danger of even worse outrage behind if they do not submit to the League's orders. Under these circumstances, a more complete subversion of law and order it is impossible to conceive; and so far as the actual state of things goes, it not only justifies such a measure as this, but entitles every honest man to call it, not a measure of repression, but a measure for the protection of men's rights, properties, and liberties. Until I hear it distinctly stated, I will not believe that my noble Friends, however they may quarrel with me as to the statistics of the crime, will say that this is a satisfactory state of the law in Ireland.

Well, what else do they mean? I suppose they mean what the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) here, as well as elsewhere, has called an alternative between coercion and conciliation. I should like to analyze that idea. I will postpone the word "coercion." But what do they mean by "conciliation?" The same question was asked by the noble Duke and by the noble Earl who sat next to me; but in the exercise of their unquestionable discretion my noble Friends thought it not necessary to give an answer. One can, therefore, only conjecture for oneself what sort of conciliation is meant, by such lights as we may gather out-of-doors. That in some sense or other it means Home Rule we all know. Formerly, it was said by the man who is now the foremost advocate of that idea, that until he knew precisely what the thing was he could form no opinion of it. Of course, we all know what the scheme of last year was. I do not want to press my noble Friends to tell us what modifications may or may not be in their minds as to that scheme. But, then, I think I may say, in the absence of that information, that my own impression is, that whatever modifications have been in any way indicated make the scheme worse, and not in any respect better, than it was before. Much worse; first of all, because there were some redeeming points in the scheme, such as the intention to withdraw the power of dealing absolutely with the owners of land in Ireland from the new Irish Parliament. That seems to be no longer part of the scheme; and therefore I must suppose that the new Irish Parliament, if it were created, would be entrusted with the whole power over the owners of landed property in Ireland. Then the relations which this country might stand in to that Parliament appear to be at present altogether unsettled in the minds of the advocates of the scheme, though nothing can be more important; and the tendency seems to be to try to find out how much power the Irish Members may have in the British Parliament, not with standing the uncontrolled power which they are to have in Ireland. I do not know whether these things are more than chimeras; but they have been put floating in the air, and do not seem to conduce to a more encouraging view of the alternative which is called conciliation. And the breaking up of other parts of the United Kingdom is an idea which also seems to advance. We were told, so lately as Saturday, that it may be necessary to develop the idea of other nationalities. We are continually told, in a tone which I can hardly describe by any other word than menace, that if things are not quickly settled in the way which the speaker recommends, we shall have to pay for it, in this and in other directions, and that our resistance is to be held accountable for all those developments. I cannot think that the indefinite expansion of these ideas improves the prospect. But let me for a moment put that on one side. We are always being told—and we were told, in a kind of ultimatum, a few days ago—that whatever is done must be in accordance with the desires of the Representatives of Ireland. And this proposition was accompanied with another, to the effect that the authority of the Imperial Parliament was to be maintained. I confess that I cannot reconcile those two ideas, that the wishes of the Representatives of Ireland are to be granted, and that the authority of the British Parliament is to be maintained; though, of course, their author must have persuaded himself that they can stand together, because he has said so. I do not know what the Representatives of Ireland do desire; but I know what they have often said they desire, and that would go very far beyond the limits even of the measure of last year. It was said that they were wonderful in their moderation when they accepted the measure of last year. When I first read that in one of Mr. Gladstone's many writings on this subject, I wondered, not at the moderation of the Irish Members, but at the condition of mind which could see in their taking so large an instalment of their aims, without pledging themselves never to ask for more, any proof of moderation at all. Nobody could expect anything else, than that so large a measure, coming from a British Minister, would be accepted with the greatest possible satisfaction; but it does not follow from that that they would want nothing more. I can only judge of that by supposing the case my own. If I were one of an Irish majority in Parliament, who were told that the relations of Great Britain to Ireland ought to be determined on the principle of giving to Ireland whatever she asked for by the mouths of five-sixths of her Representatives, I should certainly ask, in an Irish Parliament, for as much more as the general voice of that Parliament could be induced to demand, and I should certainly, on the same principle, expect to get it. But, then, I come back to the question, What is to become of the maintenance of the law? Is there anything to make one suppose that this sort of conciliation, giving them whatever they choose to ask for; is there anything in the history and proceedings of those who would thus be invested with the power of governing Ireland, to lead to the conclusion that they would immediately desire to do that which we desire to do now—to restore the supremacy of the law, to maintain private rights, to respect titles to property, to maintain the authority of the Courts? Why, their whole organization has been against those private rights, and their whole motive power seems to be to drive away what is called landlordism, to put an end to the payment of rent, to take the property of the landlords and give it to others. How can you possibly suppose that the supremacy of the law in Ireland could be at once restored by giving over the absolute power of governing Ireland to those whose organization has been directed against that object? Suppose you were sanguine enough to entertain that hope, what is to be done in the meantime? Are you to have no law in the meantime, except the law of the National League? Are you not to have the means of punishing or repressing crime, of stopping intimidation, protecting the people in the enjoyment of their lives, rights, and liberties? Why, the most sanguine men, who may most devoutly believe in their hearts that some measure of Home Rule will be carried within the next three or four years, do they sincerely mean to say that, besides all the uncertainties as to what sort of rule there is then to be in Ireland, you are to have no effective law there until that time? I have said so much about this idea of conciliation, interpreting it, as I do, to mean Home Rule; because, if it means anything else, then I say we are all quite as much, for conciliation as the noble Earl; quite as much—I do not say more, because I give him credit for perfect sincerity, and a real, honest desire to do what is best for Ireland. For many years we have shown the sincerity of our desire to do everything in reason, and perhaps more than was in reason, for the conciliation of Ireland. But if conciliation means only Home Rule, then it is a little strange that there should be no law in the meantime, or no measures to strengthen the law, if the law is not able now to assert itself.

I refer now to the cuckoo cry—I hope I may be excused for using the expression—of coercion against conciliation. I have said enough about conciliation. Now, what is really meant by coercion? Who are they to whom it will apply—the observers of law or the breakers of it? Are they those who commit crimes or those who suffer from them? Those who commit crimes. Are they those who respect other men's liberties, or those who tyrannize over them? Those who tyrannize over them. If you call the repression of these things by the name of coercion, then I say that coercion is merely another name for government, for the Criminal Law of any kind, for the existing Criminal Law; and those who say you shall not have coercion are really contending for this—that where people choose to disobey the laws, they shall not be compelled to obey them; that where they choose to resist the law they shall not be compelled to yield; that where people organize conspiracies against the law, the law ought not to be maintained against them. Therefore, I say you may call it coercion if you please; but it is no more coercion than the administration of the Criminal Law is coercion in England; and if the ordinary administration of the law in Ireland were as easy as it is in England, and if juries were as free from intimidation and influence there as here, you would have all you want without new legislation. But to stigmatize the repression of crime and the enforcement of the ordinary law as coercion is even less reasonable than to say that Home Rule is the only possible kind of conciliation.

I will now consider the objections that have been made to the Bill. I have told your Lordships what I believe its purpose to be, and what I believe may be expected to be its effect; but my noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition here has criticized some points in it; and I must say that both he and my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) have presented their criticisms in a manner to which no exception can be taken, and which I should like to hold up for imitation to all others who criticize it, in whatever other place. My noble and learned Friend said he defied anyone to say that the provisions of this Bill are justified by the Act of 1882. I accept that challenge; I say so. I do not, of course, mean, that no distinctions can be pointed out, nor do I overlook them as matters for legitimate examination. But I say that, looking at the Bill as a whole, its objects, its purposes, its general provisions, they are justified by the Act of 1882, and, to a very great extent, they are on all-fours with that Act. The principal difference is, that the Act of 1882 contained many more severe and more exceptional provisions, which are not in this Bill. The part of the Bill which, if I mistake not, was more pertinaciously contested in "another place" than any other, was that which refers to the inquiry into crime when no person is charged before a magistrate. The whole substance of that is similar to what was in the Bill of 1882. Then the clauses relating to intimidation, which I think are the most important parts of the Bill, are exactly similar to those of the Act of 1882, and those who were responsible for that Act would have done better if they had said, everywhere, that they did not object to those clauses now. The clauses relating to juries and venue in the Bill before your Lordships are similar to those of the Act of 1882. And I am bold enough to say the same, in substance, of all the provisions of this Bill as to summary jurisdiction. If all this had been fairly acknowledged, and if objections had been made to the Bill by those who were responsible for the Act of 1882 in the same tone and spirit, and to the same partial and limited extent only, which we have heard from the Front Bench here, those objections—though we might still have thought them unfounded—would, at least, have been entitled to more consideration than they are now. But we all know how different from this the character of the opposition to the Bill has been. There are, I admit, some points of difference, besides the omission of the most stringent provisions of the Act of 1882. My noble Friend (Earl Granville) has criticized them all—the 1st sub-section of Clause 2; Clauses 6 and 7; and the permanence of the present measure. The first of these has, in my judgment, been very much exaggerated, and becomes very insignificant when it is closely examined. I refer to Section 1 of Clause 2, which deals with criminal conspiracies, for certain purposes, now punishable by law. The Act of 1882 also made it an offence, and punishable by summary jurisdiction, to take part in the proceedings of an unlawful association; and it would be difficult to find any offence which comes within the 1st sub-section of Clause 2 which did not also come within the Act of 1882. The "unlawful associations" of the Act of 1882 were all criminal conspiracies, though the word was not the same. They were not only associations "formed for the commission of crimes," or "carrying on operations for or by the commission of crimes;" but also associations "for encouraging or aiding persons to commit crimes;" the word "crime" being defined, as including all offences against the Act itself, and all crimes punishable on indictment by imprisonment with hard labour, or by any greater punishment. That definition covered, in substance though not in terms, everything that is important in the 1st sub-section of the Summary Jurisdiction Clause of the present Bill. To be a member of, or to take part in the operations of any "unlawful association," as so defined, was an offence against the Act of 1882, punishable by summary jurisdiction. To obstruct, prevent, or defeat the course of public justice; or, in the words of the 1st subsection of Clause 2 of the present Bill, "to interfere with the administration of the law"—is, under a Statute of 1851, punishable on indictment by imprisonment with hard labour. And so are acts done, not directly to compel, but With a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing, or to do, any act which such other person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, which are made penal, and are distinguished from the use of violence or intimidation, by the "Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act" of 1875.

This sub-section has, nevertheless, been criticized by my noble Friend, and by a great man in "another place," on grounds which I make bold to call absolutely unfounded, both as to law and as to fact. My noble Friend said— The Bill imposes on the breach of a civil obligation the penalties of a criminal offence. It renders criminal the exercise of a man's undoubted right to deal with whom he pleases. And the late Prime Minister, in "another place," said— The words are proper to describe what we know as exclusive dealing, which is no crime in our law. Every man in England, Scotland, and Wales is free to induce as much as he likes, and to combine with others in inducing, other persons to do these things. These are rights of Englishmen which you are going to deny to Irishmen. I utterly deny that there is any foundation for these statements. I deny that any man in England, Scotland, or Wales is free to combine with others in inducing other persons to do any of the things mentioned in this sub-section, in any way which the sub-section would prohibit in Ireland. It is difficult to understand how any rational man could call it a "right" of Englishmen to enter into a criminal conspiracy now punishable by law. Unless the criminal conspiracy is one now punishable by law, the sub-section takes no effect at all. I can quite understand the more reasonable arguments offered here in Committee. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell), when the Bill had reached that stage, admitted that the clause did not make anything a criminal conspiracy which was now lawful; he only said that he did not like the tribunal. That was a perfectly fair argument for my noble and learned Friend to use, although I think it is open to a satisfactory answer. To my mind it is quite obvious, that if the offence is not already punishable by law it does not come within the clause. Indeed, everyone who reads these words with the eyes of common sense—and my noble Friend (Earl Granville) has plenty of common sense, if he were only at liberty to use it—must perceive that there is noe the slightest ground for the argument advanced by the late Prime Minister Either I am wrong, and the noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell) is wrong, or else the right hon. Gentleman has made some great mistake.

But my noble Friend says that this is condemned in principle by the Act of 1875. I understood him to refer to the 3rd clause of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act of 1875, which relates to matters concerning trade. But the 18th section of the present Bill expressly saves all cases which come within that Act of Parliament, and nothing which is lawful under that Statute will be unlawful under the present Bill. The 3rd clause of the Act of 1875 is irrelevant to the present question, and the argument, that something similar ought to have been introduced into this Bill, is wholly fallacious; as the least consideration of the terms of that clause, and of the reasons for its enactment, is enough to show. It is in these words— An agreement or combination by two or more persons, to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between employers and workmen shall not be indictable as a conspiracy, if such act committed by one person would not be punishable as a crime. Everything there turns upon the words, "in contemplation of the furtherance of a trade dispute between employers and workmen;" and a later clause in the same Act makes punishable by summary jurisdiction acts of molestation by individuals, which, though not in their own nature compulsory, and not amounting to violence or intimidation, are done with a view to interfere with the lawful exercise of other men's free will. And the only reason for introducing that clause into the Act of 1875, as was at the time explained by my noble Friend (Viscount Cross), who was then Home Secretary, was, that the previous Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1871, which otherwise might have stood without alteration, contained a Proviso, intended for the benefit of trade unions, to the effect that— No person should be liable to punishment for conspiring to do an act that tended to restrain the free course of trade, unless the act was done with the object of coercing. This was so interpreted by the Courts as to produce an effect different from what was intended; and it was for that reason only that the Act of 1871 was repealed, and the clause in question introduced into the new Act of 1875. To say that, because this was done, conspiracies now criminal and punishable by law, for the purposes mentioned in the 1st subsection of Clause 2 of the present Bill—directed obviously against Boycotting—should be made lawful, whenever they might aim at procuring acts to be done, which would not be criminal if voluntarily done by individuals, is unreasonable; because, as the law now stands, combinations for such purposes would not be illegal, or punishable by law, unless they either sought unlawful ends, or used unlawful means to induce other persons to do what, if done without the use of such means in the exercise of individual free will, might be lawful. The use of unlawful means is, in reason as well as law, as criminal as the pursuit of unlawful ends.

And now I pass to the next part of the Bill, that contained in Clauses 6 and 7, which relates to the power given to the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim certain associations. My noble Friend (Earl Granville) said that the provisions of these clauses assumed that the associations which they make illegal are not unlawful at Common Law. Well, I assert that the meaning of the words of the Bill is exactly the reverse. Whether the Lord Lieutenant may be liable to make any mistake or not, it is quite certain that the Legislature has pointed out to him that he is to be satisfied about conditions every one of which involves crime—nothing less and nothing short of crime. The association must be either formed for criminal purposes, or carrying on its operations by criminal means, expressly so described in the very words of the definition of unlawful associations contained in the Act of 1882,—or it must promote or incite to acts of violence and intimidation—things not less plainly criminal, and also within the scope of the Act of 1882;—or it must interfere with the administration of the law, or disturb the maintenance, not of order only, but also of law. That also, most clearly, describes an unlawful and a criminal object. If such associations exist, as everybody knows they do, and are powerful, it is necessary to arm the Government with sufficient power to suppress them. It is true, that confidence is placed in the Lord Lieutenant's judgment, subject to his responsibility to Parliament; and, on the foundation of that confidence, obedience to his Proclamation is made an offence against the Act. And it is also true, that this particular power was not given by the Act of 1882. But other powers, some of them very large indeed, were by that Act given to the Lord Lieutenant; and not a few things were made offences against that Act, which were not so without it. Among other things, the Lord Lieutenant was, by the 10th clause of that Act, empowered to prohibit any meeting which he might have reason to believe to be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety—a power not taken by the present Bill; and disobedience to any such order was made an offence against that Act, punishable by summary jurisdiction. If the Lord Lieutenant, under the present Bill, has good reason for being satisfied that any association which he may proclaim is within the descriptions contained in the Bill, his Proclamation will not make that illegal which was legal before. If he should fall into any error of judgment—which I see no reason to believe or to presume—he will be responsible, as those who administered the Act of 1882 were, to Parliament.

There remains the important question as to the permanence of this measure. I cannot help agreeing with those who think that its permanence is one of its principal merits, and one which entitles us to be most hopeful of the results. All the former Acts, while in force, did, in a greater or less degree, produce the desired effect. What is the history of those Acts? The Prime Minister lately said he had heard that 87 such Acts had been passed from first to last. I have not ascertained whether that is so or not; but I have looked into the matter since 1830, and I find that since that year there have been 49 such Acts. In 57 years there have been 49 such Acts—not quite one a-year, but not very much short of it. I do think that if anything in the world could tend to diminish the chances and probabilities of the success of such a measure it is to limit it for a short time. The time of Parliament would be over and over again occupied in this way. We hear, and from those whose right to make the complaint may not unreasonably be questioned, that all the time of the present Session has been occupied with this Bill. But if we are to go on passing Acts of this kind for limited periods—if for one year—we shall have every Session occupied in the same way. And if the Bill were limited to two years, every other Session; and if it were limited to three years, every third Session would be so occupied. But even that is not all. The accidents of political life and the exigencies of political Parties play into the hands of those who are against the law. What happened on the two most recent occasions? In 1880 a change of Ministry took place just at a critical moment, and when the new Ministry came in, the first thing they had to do was to consider whether it was possible to renew the Act which was then expiring. It was decided not to renew it, and what followed, the moment the pressure was removed? Crime and the machinery of crime began at once to revive. What took place in 1881 and 1882 we all know; but what took place in 1885? The then Government thought they ought to renew the Act of 1882, in some of its principal, though not all its provisions; but there came a change of Government, and then again happened the same thing which had happened in 1880. Again the experiment was tried of doing without this sort of legislation, and we all know what the result was. I think it is high time that we came to an end of that system. I must say—and in using the term I do not mean offence to anyone—I think there has been a good deal of cant talked about exceptional legislation. If all the laws of Ireland were the same as in England and Scotland, and if all the circumstances were the same, then I could understand, perhaps, this talk about exceptional legislation. But is this the only exceptional legislation we have had? What have been the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881; what was your great measure of conciliation, your Home Rule measure? Were not all these instances, on a great scale, of exceptional legislation? It seems to mo that when the circumstances of one country are materially different from those of another, they must be met by differences in legislation; and it is perfectly unreasonable to lay hold of a misleading phrase for the purpose of objecting either to a permanent or a temporary measure, which the circumstances of the country require. The effect of making this measure permanent is that it will last as long as the necessity for it continues; and it is right that it should be so; the whole experience of nearly 60 years has proved that the evils are chronic, against which it provides.

I have now finished, my Lords, what I think it necessary to say in answer to the criticisms on the Bill; but there are some other topics connected with it as to which I must say something more, with your Lordships' permission. I have more than once borne a sincere and willing testimony to the tone and manner in which this subject has been dealt with by my noble Friends on the Front Bench. I heard with great satisfaction some things which they said. Speaking of gain to be acquired from these debates, my noble Friend (Earl Granville) said— One lesson I learn from the present state of things and difference of opinion. It is to avoid all bitterness and acrimony of attack upon those who wish to stand upon the old ways and adhere to those methods of routine which have been so often tried and have so often failed. But has there been no bitterness and acrimony of attack anywhere else? My noble Friend, of course, is not responsible for it. But some men have the misfortune to act in intimate conjunction with those who do not see these things with their eyes, or speak of them as they speak. I cannot help thinking that the authors of the Act of 1882 would have done well, if all of them from first to last had acted and spoken in the same spirit as my noble Friend. If they thought fit to oppose this measure they should, at least, have done so without bitterness and acrimony of attack in Parliament, or in the country. There were other things, my Lords, which I heard with great satisfaction from my noble Friends. I heard what sounded to me like a very unequivocal condemnation of the Plan of Campaign from my noble Friend the Earl of Rosebery. So, again, my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) spoke in strong terms in condemnation of Boycotting, when he said that he thought Boycotting extremely cruel, and objected to such action wherever it was and might be found; and I have no doubt all my noble Friends agree with him. But, on the other hand, what has Mr. Gladstone said? What would be the natural interpretation of such language as this? Speaking on May 11, he said the Bill was invidious, because "it pretends to be for one purpose, while it is really framed for another purpose." Who, I should like to know, has a right to say that? I am not aware of any single word in the Bill, or of any single fact outside the Bill, which affords for such language, coming from such a man, the slightest justification, or even excuse. It pretends to be a Bill against crime, and it is really a Bill against combination and exclusive dealing—which may be very bad things, but they are the only weapons of self-defence belonging to a poor and disheartened people. It is a Bill aimed against acts which are not crimes. It is a Bill for the creation of new crimes. In all that there is not a word of condemnation of Boycotting; and it could not fail to be interpreted by those who heard it as a defence of Boycotting. He went on to justify obstruction, because, as he said— You determine, under the name of crime, to prosecute what is not crime.…to invade very seriously the liberties of the people, and take from them, under the name of crime, methods of action which, though not to be desired in a healthy state of society, may, when society is in an unhealthy state, be the only available remedies at the command of the people. Then, on another occasion, at Swansea, on June 4, Mr. Gladstone made another speech, in which he said— The principal opposition against the Bill is not because it is not desirable to strengthen the law against crime, and not because it is merely directed against crime, but because it is directed against those combinations, which, in this country, are known as trades unions. It is an attempt to strike down combinations, not when they pass into crime. This was said in face of the fact that there is a clause in the Bill which expressly provides that nothing which is legal under the Trade Unions Acts shall be illegal under this Bill. And, speaking at the National Liberal Club as late as Saturday last, Mr. Gladstone said— A Coercion Bill has been passed of a character that we think entirely novel, bringing into the category of crime things that heretofore have never been crimes at all, carrying away the rights of Her Majesty's subjects to judicial trial, and providing that they shall be disposed of in a private chamber of the Viceroy or the Chief Secretary. It is marvellous to me how a man like Mr. Gladstone can have persuaded himself of these things, for it is perfectly impossible that he could say them if he had not persuaded himself of them. I say, on the other hand, that for not one of these statements is there the slightest foundation, in fact or in law. And I have some right to ask him why he has not thought it right to condemn those things which are against the law—the Plan of Campaign, Boycotting, and other things—in terms at least as strong as those in which he denounces what he imagines to be the faults of the Bill? He might properly say—"I support the Bill as far as it goes against crime, but I criticize and oppose certain parts of it which go too far." It was open to the author of the Act of 1882 to take that course. He might have been content with saying, as he did say, "The case for the Bill is not made out;" or he might have said, "I have a better remedy." But it was not for him, with- out some loss of the great position which he had previously occupied, to try and run down the Bill by this sort of violence, by unsparing and indiscriminate, and, I had almost said, unscrupulous vituperation, when he had thought it his duty, in the responsible position which he formerly occupied as a Minister of the Crown, to provide for the accomplishment of the same purposes in part by the same, and in part by stronger, means. My Lords, it is a subject of regret to me that I am compelled to differ from so many of my noble Friends; but most of all am I sorry to differ from the great man to whose service I have devoted many of the best years of my life. My separation from him will be a bitter thing to me to the end of my days; but before all regard for persons, before all regard for friends, before all regard for myself, must be the regard I have for my country, for law and justice, for private liberty and public honour.

EARL SPENCER

My Lords, as I have been appealed to with regard to this Bill, I think it my duty to rise to make a few observations. The eloquent words of the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down show how painful it is to him to differ from the great statesman with whom he has acted for so many years, as well as from noble Friends in this House, and I can assure the noble and learned Lord that it is equally painful to us to find ourselves in opposition to him. But I may say that, with the exception of the two speeches we have heard to-night from the noble Earl who opened the debate, and from the noble and learned Earl, we have received more bitter attacks from our noble Friends on this side of the House than we have done from our opponents opposite. I am naturally reluctant to rise to cross swords with old friends, but I have felt that I ought not to shrink from my duty if challenged on any particular points. I will first refer to what my noble and learned Friend has called the vacuity on this Bench the other night. I can assure your Lordships that the neglect to be in our places was unintentional on our parts. Our absence was entirely due to the necessary function of dinner, and we expected to find the House sitting on our return. I may, however, say that we are not monopolists here in the way of speeches, and at the time in question I believe there were only 15 Members of the House present on the other side. I do not like to refer to personal matters, but I must say a few words after what the noble Earl who spoke first said with regard to myself. He spoke in too flattering terms of the way in which I carried out my duty as Viceroy of Ireland during three momentous years. I acknowledge with gratitude the loyalty and kindness which I received while fulfilling that very difficult task. I gratefully acknowledge the support I received in the performance of my duty, not only from this, but on many occasions, from the other side of the House. I endeavoured to do my duty in trying to enforce the law Parliament had put in my hands with moderation, but with firmness. I have nothing on my conscience to reproach myself with as regards my administration of the law in Ireland, and though I fully admit that I do not hold the same views on many points now that I did then, I shall never regret the part I took then in the administration of justice. I can quite understand that my noble Friends behind me should mistrust my judgment; I cannot expect them to follow me now as they did formerly; but I do claim for myself, and your Lordships on many occasions have admitted, that any change I have made in my views I had a perfect right to make according to my conscience, which I feel is clear upon this last matter, as it is upon my administration of justice in Ireland. But though I may have changed my views with regard to Home Rule, I have never changed on this point—that I consider it now as essential as ever to maintain law and order in Ireland, to maintain, in the words of my noble and learned Friend, the supremacy of the law and the dignity of the Courts of Justice of the country. That I maintain now as much as I ever did. I have the same horror of crime and outrage, I dislike Boycotting as much as I did when I administered justice in Ireland. I have never shrunk from saying that, nor from declaring against the Plan of Campaign. I have done it elsewhere and I have done it here. I hold those views as strongly now as ever before; but I claim to myself to say how they can be carried out. I maintain that past experience in Ireland shows that we shall not gain what we want—the peace and prosperity of Ireland; that we shall never win over the people of Ireland in support of law and order by a repetition of those Acts which have so often been passed, and which have never succeeded. What have they done? They have for a time restored law and order to the country; they have no doubt generally done that; but have they left behind them an improved feeling in the Irish people? My belief is that every one of these Acts has increased the irritation of the Irish people against the English Government. Your Lordships have said that when I left Ireland law and order had been restored and the supremacy of the law was maintained. But was the feeling of the people towards the Government of the country at all better? I believe at that time there was hardly a municipality outside Ulster where the majority was not prone to move resolutions hostile to the Government. The Government had no support from any part of the country except from the minority representing the landlords and some part of the middle classes. That was the state of things when I left Ireland. My noble Friend has been charged with saying that because of the new franchise we have not found it desirable to maintain law and order in Ireland. I deny that he said this; but I wish to point out this—that the use to which the new franchise has been put shows that the Irish people hold most determined opinions on the subject of English rule. We were prepared to find that those in favour of Home Rule were in a majority; but we were not prepared for the extreme weakness of the opposition. I could give instance after instance where in the case of contested elections in Ireland the National majority was some 4,000 or 5,000, and the minority was only some 400 or 500.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That was because the people were afraid to vote against the National Party.

EARL SPENCER

The noble Marquess says that the people were afraid. In that case, how does he account for the universal expression of feeling in favour of the National Party on the part of the people at the elections throughout Ireland? Had the people been afraid, would not that fear have manifested itself in some way or another? If intimidation had been universally practised would not some persons who had been intimidated avail themselves of the proceedings that were open to them under the Corrupt Practices Act? It is a matter of fact that no attempt was made to show that the Irish electors had been intimidated. The intimidation argument is one which I am afraid that those who call themselves the Loyal Party in Ireland have relied upon too long. I myself and others believed in that argument for some time; but we are now convinced that it has no foundation in fact. I now approach the general aspect of the case. In my opinion, this measure differs in several important particulars from the measures that have preceded it, and particularly from the Act of 1882. Thus this measure contains for the first time a clause dealing with conspiracy, as well as with intimidation. The introduction of such clauses makes this measure very different from its predecessors. In touching upon the character of the tribunal who will have to administer this measure, I do not desire to say a single word against the Resident Magistrates of Ireland, who constitute a very good and efficient body, and I am satisfied that they have an earnest desire to do justice between man and man; but, at the same time, this must be borne in mind that the majority of these magistrates who will have to administer this measure are not trained lawyers. What I complain of is that these untrained lawyers will have imposed upon them by this Bill the duty of determining questions relating to conspiracies which are of such a difficult and delicate nature that they would puzzle most lawyers to decide. I also think that the powers which are conferred by the measure upon the Lord Lieutenant are of a very dangerous and far-reaching kind. The point I desire to make is that whereas under the Act of 1882 the question whether associations were or were not illegal had to be argued out in public, under the provisions of the present Bill the matter will have to be determined in private by the Lord Lieutenant. I am sure that the Lord Lieutenant will endeavour faithfully to carry out his responsible duties; but neither he or his legal advisers are infallible, and I object to the grave duties of a legal character imposed solely upon the Irish Government. I do not desire to detain your Lordships by adverting at length, to the subject of the permanency of the measure. Although I regard that as a very important matter I feel that it has been sufficiently dwelt upon by my noble Friends near me, and therefore I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with any further remarks with regard to it. It has been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord near me that the Act of 1882 vested power in the Lord Lieutenant to declare a meeting illegal, and he argued that in view of that fact there was no reason why the power of declaring associations illegal should not also be entrusted to him. In my judgment, however, there is a great deal of difference between a power to declare meetings illegal and a power to declare associations illegal. When a meeting is declared to be illegal, all that is done is to inform people that the meeting cannot be held and that the people must not proceed to the place where it was to be held; whereas, when an association is declared to be illegal, all its machinery is thrown out of work and many transactions must be interfered with. I should like to ask, however, whether the present Irish policy of Her Majesty's Government is likely to succeed? Is the Irish Government itself stronger than those which have gone before? Down to the present time we have not had much proof of either the consistency or the firmness of the noble Marquess's Irish policy. We have had changes made in the personnel of the Irish Office. The Government removed, no doubt by promotion, the Under Secretary, Sir Robert Hamilton. I always have regretted this—for he had gained much experience, and was much trusted in Ireland. Rumour says that his successor, Sir Redevers Buller (whose ability and generosity of feeling made up for his previous want of official experience or knowledge of Ireland), is shortly to leave his port. These changes do not add to the strength of the Irish Government; and, besides its lack of tried permanent officials, it is obvious that it is especially weak, because it is not in touch with the Irish people. So much as to the actual Irish Government through which the policy of the Government will be carried out. If we turn to the criminal legislation of the Noble Marquess—he has one policy in 1885, another in 1886, and another in 1887. As regards remedial measures, we know what has taken place with respect to the Land Bill in this House, in connection with which Her Majesty's Government most certainly did not show any fixed or determined policy. They are now credited with great changes in their Land Measure since it has been in "another place." I do not think, therefore, that the experience we have already had of the past policy of Her Majesty's Government is very encouraging as regards their future policy. I cannot believe in the success of the present scheme of the Government with regard to Ireland, because experience leads me to the belief that their present policy will fail in winning for them the affections of the Irish people equally with all their past efforts. What are the circumstances that will make it even more difficult than before for the noble Marquess to carry out his policy in Ireland? Not only have you got the voice of the people of Ireland almost unanimous in demanding a National Legislature for the country, but that voice is supported by great numbers of Irishmen in America, and by a large portion of our own population. The noble Marquess thinks he is going to succeed by carrying a large Purchase Act. I think he will be deceived. He will find great difficulty in carrying such an Act; but if he does carry it he will find in Ireland the same strong feeling for National Government existing which has prevailed there since 1782, which was defeated at one time, but which has always re-appeared with greater strength, and I believe that will be one of the causes which will prevent the noble Marquess from being more successful than those who preceded him. There is no doubt a deep responsibility on any person who takes up a position of opposition to the policy of Her Majesty's Government. We feel that responsibility. But I am convinced that there is no use in going on with the old remedies, and I believe I we can find a policy which is safe for the United Kingdom, and which will carry with it the approval of the Irish people, and therefore we cannot support a measure of this kind, which will only further irritate them. That is the reason why we oppose the measure. I shall not go into details. This is not the proper time for doing so. There are many clauses in the Bill to which I should very little object; but there are some clauses which, even in the opinion of those who would not adopt a policy of Home Rule for Ireland, are very dangerous. I do not intend to go into the whole question of Home Rule; but I will say that it is absurd to say that we have no alternative policy; if the Bills of last year are dead their principles survive and are alive in the country. I believe that that policy may be carried out with perfect safety to the people of this country, and that is the alternative which I prefer to supporting the measure which is before your Lordships.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)

My Lords, I confess I should be very much disappointed if the policy of silence indicated by the noble Earl had been persevered in to the end. I think we have had some valuable admissions in the speeches reluctantly extorted from noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench; but, even as it is, your Lordships must be disappointed with what they have said. On every platform, at every meeting where this Bill has been discussed by those adverse to the present Government, those present were assured that this Bill is unexampled in its severity, wholly unlike Bills before it, and involving principles never before adopted in the legislation of this country. We are assured that this is an attempt to put down lawful combinations for trade and industrial purposes, which have always been respected in legislation of this character. I can understand those observations made to people who do not know better; but I should expect, if noble Lords intended to rely upon propositions of that sort, that they would be prepared to debate them in this House. The noble Earl who last addressed your Lordships has, I think, a little misunderstood the history of the years from 1880 to the present time. It is not for the idle purpose of accusing noble Lords of inconsistency that I wish to point out that they are the authors of Bills of greater severity than the measure before your Lordships. Those Bills involved the admission by the Government of the time of the necessity for such measures. We have had an admission to-night that the Government of 1880, when it came into power, were most reluctant to have recourse to coercive legislation. Your Lordships will give them every credit for endeavouring to govern Ireland without repressive legislation. But the experience of that year, and what followed in 1881, showed that it was impossible in their judgment to govern Ireland without additional powers. Then came the Act of 1882. I am surprised at what the noble Earl said of that Act, considering what it contained. I believe the noble Earl is mistaken when he says there was no such definition of intimidation in that Act as is contained in the Bill before the House. There was a definition of intimidation in that Act which differs very slightly from the definition in the present Bill.

EARL SPENCER

What I alluded to was the second sub-section with regard to conspiracy.

LORD HALSBURY

I accept at once the noble Earl's explanation. But, although every year from 1881 to 1885 the Government of that day were most anxious to avoid coercive legislation, yet they were obliged to recur to it, and in 1885 it is admitted that they contemplated a Coercion Bill. I have no right to say what were the exact sections it was intended to reproduce. But, at all events, they were sections which were considered necessary by the late Government for the maintenance of law and order in Ireland. When was it, after 1885, that the noble Earl changed his mind and thought it unnecessary to obtain any additional powers to reinforce the law? If there be any section in the present Bill to which he objects, why does he not urge his objections? Are we to be met in this House, after what we hear on platforms, by a silent opposition, while noble Lords give us no assistance? And I maintain that we are entitled to claim assistance from them upon such questions as this. I deny that the Courts of Law in Ireland do not require additional strength. We have had uncertain utterances, and a very uncertain sound according to the particular audience which is being addressed. Where it is possible to appeal to those general principles of liberty which are never more respected than in your Lordships' House, the appeal is made as if the only coercion ever exercised was exercised by the law of the land; and it is implied that this is a hypocritical and dishonest Bill, not intended to maintain law and protect the innocent and industrious, but to crush the already oppressed, and to be an instrument of oppression in the hands of I the more powerful over their poorer neighbours. Is that language which any noble Lords will adopt? If not, I cannot help thinking that in this House we should have had a disclaimer of such language with the indignation which it is calculated to provoke. I say such language is calculated to inflame the minds of ignorant men, and it ought not to proceed from the mouths of Members of the Liberal Party. The Act of 1882 was almost unexampled in its severity, Just let me read to your Lordships one or two of its provisions. I will not suggest that noble Lords were actuated by any such motives as are attributed to us, for I believe they were firmly resolved to do their duty as responsible Ministers; but they knew they were not able to govern without such powers. Among others there was this provision—that no man in a proclaimed district should be found out of his house after sunset; if he was, and did not give a satisfactory account of himself, he could be sent to prison by summary jurisdiction. Where was the burning indignation which is now felt about creating crimes new to the law? Not only was any man who could not give a satisfactory account of himself liable to be sent to prison; but there was a suspension of the jury laws. Under certain circumstances a person could be tried before three Judges appointed by the Crown. Where again, I ask, is the sort of tone which we hear with reference to this comparatively mild measure of repression? Is it right for those who brought forward the legislation of 1882 now not to tell us where our legislation is wrong, and not to give us that assistance which every political party gives to its opponents? As to the question of trade j unions, your Lordships should remember that the Act of 1875, which is an Amendment of the Trade Union Act, and which is called the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, contemplates summary jurisdiction and 18 months' imprisonment in the case of any person who, with the view to compel—not who actually compels, but who, with the view to compel—any other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such person had a right to do or abstain from doing, watches and besets that person. Is there any violence there, or anything which necessarily inflicts suffering, except in the way one is familiar with in trade unions? And yet it is supposed that where the system undoubtedly exists in Ireland, not of "watching and besetting," but of outrages at night, of preventing people following their lawful avocations, and of refusing assistance to the sick and burial for the dead—that in such a state of things it is not necessary for the law to intervene. A noble Lord on the Opposition side asked the noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench to say if they had a policy, and if the Government are doing wrong how the Government can do right? I observe that the noble Earl says that they have a policy which, if adopted, would render the Government policy unnecessary. But why do they not tell us what it is. Taunt after taunt has been levelled against the noble Lords to induce them to tell us what this policy is, but we can get nothing from them. We are told in somewhat doubtful and hesitating phrases that if the two Bills are dead their policy is alive. But the policy represented by those two Bills is a case of "suspended animation" which I cannot comprehend. Do noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench really mean to say that there is or is not a state of crime in Ireland justifying a Bill of this sort? Will they tell us that they think there is no such thing as Boycotting, as the oppression of the subject, as persons not being able to follow their lawful avocations? If they admit that these things exist, then I would ask what is to become of the administration of the law in the meantime? Are the lawless to be allowed to trample on those who are unable to resist, and is the village ruffian to be the hero of the situation and do what he pleases? Let us know what their proposals are, and what is the degree of coercion which they will not denounce all over the country as an improper attempt to interfere with the liberty of the subject. What liberties of the subject will this Bill interfere with? Will the noble Earl on the Front Bench opposite tell us what honest man who wishes to obey the law will find his liberty in the smallest degree controlled by any part of this Bill? I cannot help thinking that an effort has been made to smother debate on this Bill in your Lordships' House in order that it might be said that the House would not properly and fully consider any reasonable criticism that might be offered, and that your Lordships had not thought it right to discuss in a single debate a measure which deeply affects the liberties of the Irish people, whereas in the House of Commons months had been occupied in passing it through. If the debates on the Bill in your Lordships' House have been scant, it is because noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench, who are the natural and just critics of the works of the Government, have designedly abstained from criticizing the measure here where they can be answered, and have allowed it to be criticized on public platforms where answers could not be given with effect, because the audiences could not understand them.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

My Lords, I have not risen to prolong the discussion, but merely to say a few words in reply to my noble Friend on the Front Opposition Bench (Earl Spencer). My noble Friend has certainly not heard me say one bitter word against him. I respect him too highly, and admire his character and his administration too much to allow me to do so. But I must say that he has no right whatever to complain of bitterness on the part of the Unionist Liberals. The Liberal Unionists have been the butt of the Leader of the so-called Liberal Party for many months. I point to the right hon. Gentleman as having used the most violent language towards all who have opposed him, and especially towards Liberal Unionists. In a speech delivered to some Nonconformists, he was asked why it was that this Bill had passed by such large majorities, and his answer was—"It is due to servile support." Could more violent or more offensive language be used? My right hon. Friend is perfectly sincere. I do not doubt that he believes every word he says; but his mind is passionately inflamed on the subject, and he thinks that everyone opposed to him must either be a high Tory or have cor- rupt motives, and he points to Liberal Unionists as the cause of the liberties of Ireland being taken away. This is utter nonsense. Can anything be more false? I will appeal to my noble Friend not to discourage adequate discussion on this measure. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has referred to the conspiracy of silence on the part of noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House. At all events, the object of those noble Lords is not to encourage adequate discussion. I wish to state to the House what has happened in my own case in reference to this point. I came down to the House on the second reading, and the first thing I heard was that it was the intention of the noble Earl who leads the Opposition that there should be as little discussion as possible on the subject, and that the debate was to be allowed to collapse. I confess I did not believe it. But the moment I heard my noble Friend's speech I saw the rumour was true. On the following evening, when the question was raised, my noble Friend, in a speech which seemed to be carefully prepared, said that when he came back from dinner he broke his nose against the door of the House coming in, expecting the debate was being continued. I, however, wish to direct your Lordships attention to what was said by my noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) when the debate was resumed. In the course of his speech, the noble Earl used these words— We considered that the Bill had been sufficiently 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 Leaders against the measure as it stands. If I understand these words aright, the matter was clearly planned. I do not mean to say that there was anything dishonourable or unfair in the manœuvre; but it was a Party manœuvre for some Party purpose. The object was that noble Lords should not repeat in this House those claptrap assertions which can be made outside the House; but which, if made in this House, would meet immediate contradiction. Their object was that they should not be called upon to state what their policy was. They have no policy, except Irish autonomy, or Home Rule, whatever the phrase is. I say that for the Opposition not to give any indication of their policy is not to treat the country with fairness on the great Constitutional question. No wonder my noble Friends hesitate. Their policy varies from day to day. Their policy varies with each speech Mr. Gladstone makes. It has been announced that because we have dared to oppose the right hon. Gentleman's new-fangled Constitution, which, the moment it appeared, became the laughing-stock of the world, new questions will be raised upon us, and that Home Rule will be demanded not only for Ireland, but for Wales and for Scotland. Well, my Lords, these are inconvenient declarations to be made here. I suppose we are not worthy to have such arguments addressed to us. We belong not to the masses, but to the classes. We have some knowledge of history and of law, and are not likely to listen to proposals for upsetting a Constitution which has lasted more than 1,000 years for one devised by men sitting round a table for three weeks. Last year, when my right hon. Friend used this phrase of the masses and the classes, I did not deny that there were some questions on which the masses could be better trusted than the classes. I will mention slavery as an instance. The people of this country were adverse to slavery before the higher classes, and they were also in favour of the American Union. That also was a popular instinct, and at that time Mr. Gladstone belonged to the classes and not to the masses; but there are other questions on which the masses are not equally likely to be right. Pre-eminent among these must be the question of a new Constitution, the task of framing which can only be undertaken by men of the most matured judgment, of the highest attainments, by men who have not been Party Leaders, and statesmen in that sense of the word, but have been compelled, by the exigencies of their fate and the circumstances of the people over whom they have to rule, to think deeply about what powers can be given to the central government, and what can be distributed among the masses of the people. A more difficult duty can never be undertaken by the human mind. No doubt, men of the classes have their own temptations and their faults. Leaders of political Parties in this county are not free from their own special temptations. My right hon. Friend belongs to one of these classes. He belongs to the class of the Party Leader, and what is one of the temptations of the Party Leader? He hates, he dislikes independent truth. He discourages it. He denounces it. Have we not an example of this in my right hon. Friend? How comes he to denounce Judge O'Brien? Because Judge O'Brien is a man independent of Party, and speaks the truth, without regard to Party. Nothing can be more painful to the Party Leader who submits to the temptation of his class than to deal with such a man as that. I deny that Judge O'Brien's charge was a moral essay, or a philanthropic essay, or a sermon, or any other opprobrious term which my right hon. Friend may have chosen to apply to it. Judge O'Brien was talking of the state of crime in his own circuit, and was stating what everybody knew to be the truth—that men on that particular circuit are under such terrorism that they cannot go into the Courts of Justice. I say that my noble Friend (Earl Spencer) has no right to complain of any language which we have heard. He and his colleagues on this Bench may make any plan they like for procuring silence. Silence they will not be allowed to have. At every meeting, on every platform, and in every portion of the public Press we shall follow their example. We shall not allow the Constitution of this country to be destroyed and the Heptarchy to be restored in a moment of folly and confusion without a thorough defence of the old Constitution which we see in danger.

Earl GRANVILLE and Lord DENMAN

rising together:—

Moved, "That the Earl Granville be now heard,"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

Motion agreed to.

EARL GEANVILLE

My Lords, I was very glad when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack got up and spoke. I was rather disposed to believe that it was intended that the debate should be carried on exclusively upon the Liberal side of the House. Noble Lords who though Liberal, disagree with us on this question, seemed to assume that it was the business of the two sections of the Liberal Party to undertake the whole debate—that it is my duty and the duty of the three or four noble Lords sitting near me to declare our own policy in every possible way and to attack the Government, and that it is the business of themselves to defend it. We have been told that I advised a system of silence in this House. I did no such thing. I defy the noble and learned Lord to show anything of the sort. What I did say was this. I thought it necessary to state very early that we meant to confine our action to a protest—that we did not mean to provide, and that we did not intend to propose, Amendments. The noble and learned Lord said—"You are very wrong in not proposing Amendments." This is a very extraordinary proceeding, that it should be only in the debate on the third reading that the Government should give the slightest intimation that they would be willing to accept any Amendment. I entirely agree with what fell from my noble Friend the late Viceroy of Ireland (Earl Spencer). As to the speech which the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) has made, I will ask the House to bear with mo while I tell a story of between 30 and 40 years ago. At that time the noble Duke was supposed to be a great enemy of the Conservative Party, and a rumour was spread that he was going to make a crushing attack upon the late Earl of Derby. There was great excitement, and we all came down to this House and heard a magnificent speech from the noble Duke. We were equally curious to know what the Earl of Derby thought of it, but the noble Earl unfortunately condensed his reply into the answer which was given by a navvy who, when asked why he allowed his wife to beat him so, said—"Well, it amuses her and it does not hurt me." Although I have not the physical strength of a navvy, or the intellectual power of the late Lord Derby, I am much in the same position in reference to my noble Friend's speech, but whether it is attributable to my obtuseness of understanding or to the thickness of my skin I really do not feel it. Notwithstanding the vigour of a personal onslaught of which he does not appear to be aware, I am convinced that my noble Friend is one of the best of per- sonal friends and one of the most tenderhearted of men. My noble and learned Friend (the Earl of Selborne) has been a little hard upon us. The noble Earl behind mo (the Earl of Camperdown) has pointed out that we have only one lawyer in this House on our side. It is unfortunate that that lawyer (Lord Herschell) is unavoidably prevented from being here to-day. My noble and learned Friend (the Earl of Selborne) came down last Thursday to make a speech on the second reading of the Bill, but he was prevented from delivering it; and although there were discussions in Committee on Friday, he kept back his speech till to-night. With regard to some of his criticisms, I wish to ask him what he thinks his Leader (Lord Hartington) meant when he said that there were new offences created by the Bill? The noble Duke hardly ever delivers a speech without making some personal remark against Mr. Gladstone.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

Political.

EARL GRANVILLE

Some personal remark. Now, although Mr. Gladstone may sometimes think very strongly in regard to the measures and the policy of his adversaries, it appears to me that he has during the last year carefully abstained from making personal attacks on his opponents. In regard to what has been stated as to there being a settled plan on our part to have no debate on the second reading, as far as I am concerned I repudiate the charge. I honestly assure your Lordships that I was entirely taken by surprise when on coming back to the House I found the doors closed against my return. I utterly refuse to accept the proposition of the noble Marquess that we are bound to produce our policy. It is well-known that our policy is founded upon those general principles which were embodied in the Bill of last year, though as to the modification and details which may be necessary, my noble and learned friend (the Earl of Selborne) admitted that we are not bound to go into them. But because we cannot go into details and modifications of a possible policy we ought not to be accused of wishing to smother all debate on the Bill in this House.

The Marquess of SALISBURY and Lord DENMAN rising together,

Moved, "That the Marquess of Salisbury be now heard."—(The Earl Granville.)

Motion agreed to.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)

My Lords, I rise with some anxiety to make a few observations, because I heard just now the sound of that bell which rings so pleasantly in the ears of noble Lords opposite and. indicates to them that the dinner hour has approached. I can only hope that their digestion will not be impaired if I detain them for a few minutes while I venture to point out that noble Lords are not quite so unreasonable as the noble Earl thinks us in desiring to hear the opinions of noble Lords opposite in the course of this debate. I understood the other night that the noble Earl's Friends did not intend to take part in this debate. Had that intention been carried out, I confess that I should have regarded it as a great misfortune, and I think it would hardly have tended to the credit of this House. They have however, only partly repaired the evil. It would have been said that in the House where there was only one man with any Irish experience—namely, Mr. Morley—who could only speak with a fitful experience of a few months—

EARL GRANVILLE

Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Mr. Campbell-Bannerman had scarcely more. It would have been said that in that House the Bill was discussed with great volubility; but in this House, where we have several Irish Viceroys, it was passed in absolute silence. Then, there is a distinguished Liberal lawyer in this House (Lord Herschell), but we have had no repetition, no dissent from him of the positive legal assertions which have been made by the supporters of the late Government as to the effect and bearing of the Bill. Those assertions have been repeated outside the walls of Parliament before multitudes, and I should have liked to hear an answer from the most distinguished lawyer in the Liberal Party. I admit that under ordinary circumstances we have no right to call upon the Opposition for an alternative policy, but look at the unexampled position which the Opposition has occupied during the discussion of this Crimes Bill! I believe there is no precedent for an Opposition refusing increased powers to the Executive when the Executive declare that it is necessary that they should have them, save with this one exception—where the Opposition is prepared to challenge the tenure of Office by those who hold it, and sees its way to carry that challenge into effect. Undoubtedly in the well-known case of Lord George Bentinck powers were refused, but they were refused by the same action and the same vote which dismissed the Government from Office. When an Opposition, without seeing any probability of defeating a measure, yet continues a long, turbulent, rancorous, and obstructive oppisition to the demands for greater powers for the Executive, it at least invests us with a title to ask, "What is the alternative policy you would propose for this policy?" My Lords, so much has been said of the Bill and said by such distinguished men that there is very little left for me to say, and I shall not detain you long. I will only congratulate myself with the hope that the fiction of there being any new crime invented by this Bill has been laid at last and for ever, and I trust we shall not hear of it again from any speaker who wishes to retain his self-respect. We have now the highest legal authority for what I should have thought was absolutely clear to any reader, whether endowed with learning or not. But the attempt to raise a public opinion against this Bill has been conducted by methods of such extravagance that they have been rarely met with in our political history; and the extent to which the aid of imagination and invention have been invoked, and to which the charges brought against the Bill, though absolutely destitute of any plausible foundation in fact, have been repeated from one platform to another, has, I think, very rarely been equalled. I heard with some surprise the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery), who is not now in his place, tell us that we were trying to govern by a stage of siege. I wonder if the noble Earl had any idea, when he used the expression, what a stage of siege means.

EARL SPENCER

As my noble Friend is not here perhaps I may be allowed to speak for him. When he made use of that expression, he was quoting from Lord Carnarvon, the noble Marquess's own Viceroy.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It does not follow that because Lord Carnarvon made use of it on another occasion, with a general application, that therefore the observation was aright one to apply to this particular Bill—this particular Bill in which six months' imprisonment is the highest penalty inflicted, and which creates no new crime, and which falls very far short in severity of the measure which Lord Rosebery's Party passed four years ago. I think, my Lords, that the effect of these debates will be to show the people and the country that this is not a coercive Bill; it is a liberating Bill. Of course, whore there is an oppressor there must be a victim, and you cannot liberate the victim without coercing the oppressor; and in that sense the measure is a coercive measure. But this Bill is directed against crime, with which none can sympathize. It is directed to liberate people whose sufferings are increasing with each succeeding month. The people of Ireland are not free; they are not free to purchase, to let, to sell; they are not free to hire or to follow the ordinary avocations of life; but they live under a tyranny, and we have proposed this measure in order to strike that tyranny to the ground. And what does the noble Earl opposite, the late Viceroy, tell us? He tells us that we shall never in that way win the affections of the people of Ireland. Does he mean that we shall win the affections of the people of Ireland by allowing the oppressor to have his way? Will it win the affections of the people of Ireland to allow men to prevent them from pursuing their avocations in peace, and from exercising their natural liberty and following their own ways as they wish? The noble Earl did not give us a hint as to the mode in which the conciliation which he recommends is to relieve the Irish people from the evils under which they Buffer. Conciliation can only take the form of new political institutions which, if they were set up, could not act except by enforcing the Criminal Law; and when the noble Earl asks us to win the affections of the people of Ireland by allowing law to be despised, and order to fall into confusion, and men's liberty to be trampled under foot, he asks us to apply methods which never in the history of mankind have attained the end he recommends. The noble Earl dwelt with great energy on the desperate position we are in, and he has several grounds of unequal force for the picture he drew. One was that we have promoted Sir Robert Hamilton, who was a Home Ruler. Another was that he traced certain inconsistency in the policy I have frequently advocated in this House; but I am rather surprised that the noble Earl is not afraid to fling the word "inconsistency" at his political opponents. My Lords, our chances of carrying out the task we have undertaken will depend on matters much more considerable than the merits of any particular officer or the consistency of any particular Minister. I have no doubt we have a difficult task before us; but, as I have always said, the difficulty is here. If England means this work to be done, it can be done, and done with ease. "If England to herself do prove but true," I have no doubt that the policy she has approved, and which has the approval of the majority of the Representatives of the people of this country, can be easily carried out. If they adhere with consistency to the views they have adopted, and determine that that policy shall succeed, it will succeed; and our duty, at all events, is steadily to take all the steps that are necessary to lead to that success—to ask Parliament to consent to all measures, whether of relief or of criminal provision, which are required for that great task, and, whether we succeed or fail, to trust to God for the issue.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

said, he heartily supported the Bill. He should not have taken part in the debate were it not that his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) had referred to him the other night in the course of his speech. He had said "the noble Earl on the Cross Benches tosses his head." Yes; the noble Earl in question did toss his head, and would toll his noble Friend the reason why. He tossed his head when the noble Earl favoured their Lordships with the alliteration which he had first used in the Provinces, and out of which he was endeavouring to make political capital. "I am for conciliation; you are for coercion." Now, what was this alliteration intended for but to cozen constituencies and set springes for the unwary electoral woodcock! But he (the Earl of Wemyss) hoped it would not be forgotten that the conciliation his noble Friend advocated was the conciliation of conspirators, and the coercion he deprecated was the coercion of criminals. He (the Earl of Wemyss) readily supported the Bill.

Motion agreed to:; Bill read 3^a accordingly, and passed.

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