Lords Sitting of 21 March 1890

VISCOUNT LIFFORD.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of James Wilfrid Viscount Lifford to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

IRELAND—SPECIAL COMMISSION (1888) REPORT.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, it is my duty to move a Resolution of this House thanking the Judges who were appointed under a Statute which was passed about a year and a half ago for the exertions which they have made and the industry which they have devoted to the heavy task which we laid upon them, and also to move that your Lordships adopt the Report, and record it on the Journals of this House. To the first part of that Resolution I imagine there will not be a single dissentient. Everybody will have felt admiration for the zeal, the unflagging industry, and the evident impartiality with which the distinguished men to whom this task was assigned undertook and carried out the unwonted duty which Parliament had imposed upon them, it is a matter of great congratulation to us that we can command for duties of investigation which have been approved by Parliament—I do not, at this moment, inquire into the policy of that approval—talent so distinguished and detachment so complete from the controversies by which the rest of the community is divided. My Lords, I anticipate also the concurrence of your Lordships' House in the proposal that I make that we shall adopt the Report, and that we shall record it on the Journals of this House. It is a very valuable Report in many ways. It gives a very complete view of a very curious episode of our internal history, and I am sure that we shall all recognise at once the judicial qualities and the literary merits by which it is signally marked.
1358
It has also to me another value, that it brings before us things and collects knowledge which, to many of us, is absolutely new. To those who were in office during the years which are covered by the investigation of this tribunal the facts which they bring together may not be so new as they are to others; but speaking generally, and having reference to persons who may not have had special means of information, I think that the mass of facts which they have collected together are matters of the deepest interest, not only in the history of this country but to the student of the philosophy of Government and of revolutions. I see a noble Lord has just entered the House who was himself very closely connected with the Government of Ireland; and it occurs to me that while I am referring to what is new—for it is almost all new—in the Report of the Commissioners, I may take the opportunity of calling his attention to a matter that was very new indeed to me, and, I hope, was new to him. Attention was called to it in another place, but very naturally it was said that in another place the noble Lord, the late Viceroy, was not present, and had not that opportunity of answering, which the courtesy of Parliament always gives to those who are responsible for the conduct of affairs. The matter to which I desire to call the attention of the noble Lord, and perhaps to extract some statement from him in regard to it, is the evidence given by Mr. William O'Brien with respect to the position occupied by the noble Lord towards his own subordinates. Mr. O'Brien, as the House is well aware, has distinguished himself, and I think he especially distinguished himself during the late Government, by the extreme violence of the language which he used in describing the political, intellectual, and moral character of the noble Lord, the late Viceroy of Ireland, and of all persons who were employed by Her Majesty's Government in the government of Ireland. I find that when Mr. O'Brien was under examination before the Special Commission he was asked whether, in view of the notorious political arrangements of the day, he still entertained the opinion of the noble Earl which he had expressed with so much freedom, both of letterpress and of pictorial illustration, during the time

1359
when the noble Earl held his Viceroyalty. Mr. O'Brien replied that he did not; but he was pressed very much to say why he had changed his mind, and what justification he gave for the atrocious insinuations and for the atrocious accusations which, he levelled at the head of the noble Earl, and which I may say, though I was in Opposition at the time, excited the deepest indignation as well among the noble Lord's opponents as among his friends. The answer of Mr. O'Brien is so peculiar that I think it requires the notice of the noble Earl. "Unhappily," he said—
"We did hold Earl Spencer and Mr. Trevelyan responsible for the acts of their subordinates in Ireland. As to Earl Spencer and Mr. Trevelyan we were wrong, absolutely wrong, and I am sorry that there was ever an imputation of the kind. But as to his subordinates we were absolutely and in every particular right. We have found that we were wrong as to Earl Spencer, and I think Earl Spencer has found that we were right as to his subordinates."
That is a most atrocious imputation, and of all the atrocious imputations which have been levelled at the head of the noble Earl that is, to my mind, the vilest and the foulest—that he should be able to put off upon the shoulders of his Constitutional advisers and subordinates the obloquy which had been in the first instance levelled at himself. I feel convinced that in mentioning this to the noble Earl I shall only be giving him an opportunity of indignantly repudiating it, and of saying that, whatever took place in Ireland at that time, it was not the subordinates but the Viceroy and the Chief Secretary who were responsible, and exclusively responsible. This accusation departs so much from our ordinary political conditions that I have thought it better to make an exception from the salutary rule which I hope to establish—that is, not to trouble your Lordships with any extracts from the evidence. But this case is so abnormal and exceptional that I think that the first time it is mentioned in your Lordships' House the noble Earl should have a full opportunity of denouncing it. In this as in other matters I say that we owe gratitude to the Commission for the collection of much valuable and novel information. I do not gather that I shall find any difference of opinion among noble Lords on the other side on this point. I do
1360
not find that in the other House of Parliament any objection was made either to the adoption of the Report or to the recording of it on the Journals of the House. But a certain Amendment was moved. I have not seen any notice of a similar Amendment here, and I do not know whether such will be moved. I hope it will not. But the Amendment moved in the other House was to the effect that we ought to select one particular finding of the Judges for the purpose of congratulating the persons whom it affected. Now the Report of the Judges, my Lords, may be summarised without injury to this effect. They found that some of the respondents were guilty of establishing and joining in the Land League Organisation, with the intention by its means of bringing about the independence of Ireland as a separate nation. They find that all the respondents entered into a criminal conspiracy, by a system of coercion and intimidation, to promote an agrarian agitation against the payment of agricultural rents, for the purpose of impoverishing and expelling from the country the Irish landlords, who were styled the English garrison. They find that the respondents disseminated the Irish World and other newspapers tending to incite to sedition and the commission of other crimes. They find that the respondents did incite to intimidation, and that the consequence of that intimidation was crime and outrage. They find that the respondents did not denounce the system of intimidation which led to crime and outrage, but that they persisted in it with knowledge of its effect. Well, this indictment, like many other indictments, contains a great number of counts; but on those counts of the indictment the respondents are found guilty. On other counts of the indictment they are found not guilty, especially upon the counts which were rested on certain letters, which the Judges have found to be forged. It was proposed in another place, and perhaps it will be proposed here, that we should congratulate the defendants on the counts on which they were not found guilty. Now we have the advantage in this House of the presence of several distinguished criminal Judges. I would venture to ask them whether such a practice as that has ever prevailed in the Courts over which they

1361
preside—whether, after condemning defendants to penal servitude or to capital punishment for the counts on which they are found guilty, they are in the habit of adding an elaborate apology for the counts on which the condemned are found not guilty? It would introduce a totally new element into the conduct of criminal affairs; and I hope we shall not give what would be a bad example, and would lead to the impression that if a man was not found guilty of all that he was accused of he was to be congratulated in respect of that of which he had been acquitted. I have another reason why I very much deprecate any such Amendment, if there were any intention of moving one. That is, that it would sanction a peculiar and prominent character which has been most ingeniously and most cleverly given to what are called they fac simile letters, and what I will call the forged letters. I do not think I ever saw a Parliamentary manœuvre devised with more ingenuity or carried out with more tenacity and success. Those who were involved in these accusations have contrived to impress upon a considerable portion of the public that the main object of this investigation was the investigation into the letters which had been produced, and that the object for which the Commission was appointed was the investigation of that question, and of that question exclusively. That theory is capable of a very simple test. I suppose that as the Commission was appointed on the motion of the Government the speeches of those Members of the Government who introduced and moved the Second Reading of the Bill are some indication of the objects with which the Commission was appointed. If any noble Lord will take the trouble to read the speech of my right hon. Friend Mr. Smith, the leader of the other House, in which he moved the Second Reading of the Bill, he will find that there was not one word of reference to these letters which have been thrust into this prominent position. If any noble Lord will do me the honour to read my speech in moving the Second Reading of the Bill he will observe that I made no allusion whatever to these letters. I did not do so, because I never attached that importance to them which it was convenient for noble Lords opposite and Members of
1362
the Opposition in the other House to attach to them. The letters were put forward as if they charged some special crime of which no other evidence existed. It was represented that they charged complicity with murder. I never was able to understand by what alchemy that meaning was extracted from the language of any of these forged letters. What they did prove, according to the natural and evident interpretation of them, was that the writer, for the sake of securing the support of persons who had practised violence as well as of persons who did not practise violence, was driven to a somewhat ambiguous statement of his opinion, and was compelled to express approbation or lack of disapprobation for a murder which probably, had he not been under that stress, he would have unreservedly disapproved. But if the non-expression of disapproval for a crime committed for the purpose of compassing a political object is something so terribly base, so fearfully dishonouring, as noble Lords and hon. Members have been pleased to regard it, I can only think that the whole of the Party opposite have been very much disposed to be moderate and temperate in their denunciation of allies whose alliance; was precious to them, whose conduct was not all they could desire, and with respect to whom they observed a careful reticence. It appears to me to be an extravagant interpretation of the forged letter to deduce from it complicity in murder; but it is not extravagant at all to deduce from it a desire to keep well with those by whom murder has been committed. I am not therefore prepared to admit that there was any special significance in those letters, concerning which, as soon as their forgery was well ascertained, so strong an opinion was raised on the opposite side of the House. They were but part of a general proof, of which the Report furnishes abundant details, that the Parliamentary Party were prepared to make use of the crimes committed by the un-Parliamentary Party, though they themselves were free from any specific implication in any of the crimes committed. When I Lad the honour of moving the Second I leading of the Bill, I pointed out a very curious and a very remarkable state of things which required investigation, and for which the creation of such a Commission

1363
was specially desirable. I pointed out that there were two organisations seeking the same end in Ireland. There was the organisation of the Parliamentary Party seeking it by Constitutional means, and the re was the organisation of the party of violence seeking it by murder and by outrage, and by every species of illegal practice. The strange thing and the matter that required investigation was that almost all the success of the Parliamentary Party was due to the action of their violent allies; that if they were able to act upon politicians, if they were able to affect the social condition of the country, if they were able to establish themselves as a factor of any importance in the social and political discussions of the time, it was due to the violent action of the organisation, all knowledge of which they disclaimed, and from which they professed they never had assistance or support in any manner. We had shown some scepticism as to this. We did not charge them with complicity with crime. We charged them with using crime, and we said that there was communication between the two parties which enabled the Parliamentary Party to allow crime to go forward or to restrain it in proportion as their political necessities might require. As it has been well expressed, they had their hand upon the throttle-valve of crime. When they allowed crime to go forward, it acted; when they suppressed it, it retreated; and we were unable to admit that no alliance of a tacit character existed between bodies connected by such phenomena as these. What have the Judges found? They found, in the first place, that crime in Ireland is not proportionate to misery in Ireland; it is not mainly due to misery in Ireland; that when evictions are highest crime is not highest, and when crime is highest evictions are not highest. The figures by which these facts are established are of a striking character; they are drawn from the experience of the great famine, and they show that there is no connection whatever between the amounts of crime and eviction—between the assumed oppression by the landlord of the tenants and the crime by which Ireland has been defaced. Well, then, to what is crime in Ireland due? Is it due to organisations? Perhaps I had better give the figures to which I have alluded, because they are important.
1364
The year 1849 was the first year in which the statistics relating to eviction and crime were compiled. For the four years from 1849 to 1852 there were 58,000 evictions and only 4,000 crimes. For the four years from 1879 to 1883 there were 12,000 evictions and 11,000 crimes; so there is no connection in the variation between evictions and crime. What the Judges have found is that this connection between the two organisations, which we were only able to suspect, exists in reality; that the Parliamentary Party did incite to intimidation, and, knowing that it led to outrage and murder, they still persisted in intimidation; that they did encourage the circulation of papers in which outrage and sedition were advocated; but that it is quite true that they took part in no individual crime. The revelation the Judges are able to make to us has great gaps in it; their information is unfortunately imperfect in some most important and remarkable particulars. We know that hundreds of thousands of pounds were poured into the treasury of the Laud League, but the records of the expenditure have been destroyed, and all the correspondence connected with the administration of the money has been destroyed also. One fragment has survived, and our inferences have been criticised on account of the smallness of that fragment; but just as you can construct the fauna of a byegone palæozoic age from a bone, a scale, or a footprint, so we are able to tell from the fragment of this correspondence which we have discovered that these men had a knowledge of the commission of crime. When a man was compensated for a wound he had received in the commission of crime, we can form some idea of the real object for which money was spent and the purposes to which the organisation was directed. I have no doubt the Parliamentary Party never contrived a murder; I have no doubt that they were never implicated in any individual murder; but they did that which they knew by experience produced murders; and they continued to do it. Can you say that they are entirely free from all responsibility for the murders that went on? It seems to me it is a relative condition of criminality, which you often find in other branches of crime. There are tradesmen who will buy spoons

1365
from footmen, or jewels from ladies-maids, but nothing would insult them more than the suspicion that, under any circumstances, they could be capable of stealing either trinkets or plate. They know perfectly well what the result of their action is, and they hope to profit by that action, but they are much too wise ever to involve themselves in any direct connection with the crimes which are committed. I do not think that in the discussions which we have already had upon this subject there has been any substantial effort made to clear the Irish Parliamentary Party from this amount of complicity with crime—that they did that which did produce, and which they knew would produce, crime, and that they, having that knowledge, continued to do those acts. But under the stress of political necessity we have had many new ethical theories started lately. The doctrine now seems to be that you may commit any crime, may break any law, as long as you do it for the purpose of overthrowing existing institutions. It is a great re-action. Formerly treason was the greatest of all crimes, and carried with it as its consequence the most terrible of all punishments. But opinion has whirled entirely round, and now you may say of treason, that, like charity, it covereth a multitude of sins. It is sufficient to say that these men were treasonable, that they desired to sever the connection between Ireland and England. It is sufficient to say that they were opposing the law in order that they might obtain from former Cabinet Ministers, and I daresay that they will obtain to-night, from a former Lord Chancellor, full absolution for all the crimes that they have committed, or that they have encouraged. But we ought to be very careful how we extend this doctrine of the immunity of treason and the innocence of crimes because they belong by their nature to what are called political crimes. It is a curious fact and defect in our ethics that though we condemn under all other circumstances, robbery, fraud, mutilation of dumb animals, breaking into houses at night, dragging men from their beds and shooting them, with deadly results or with the result of inflicting upon them dangerous wounds, these acts are venial because the motive with which they are done—or, at all events, the motive with
1366
which they are encouraged—is that of resisting the constituted Government of the country. No doubt we feel that in revolutions, when they take the form of war, many of the motives of those who have taken part in them are of a much higher character than the motives of those who commit ordinary crime; but you surely require that ordinary crime under those circumstances shall not be made the instrument by which the established Government is assailed. We have had plenty of revolutions. We know their philosophy by this time tolerably well. We have had successful revolutions—successful by reason of the distance of the subject country from the Mother Country. The whole of the continent of America, from the St. Lawrence to the Southern Polo, has been freed or severed from European government by successful revolution. We have had successful revolutions, mainly by means of foreign assistance, in this part of the world, in Greece, Belgium, and Italy. We have had unsuccessful revolutions, attempts to free the islands of Corsica and Sicily, but I will venture to say that in the case of none of them can you find it recorded that the instrument and the weapon on which the revolutionists principally relied was that of assailing the ordinary rights of a vast class of peaceful inhabitants, and of pursuing them with outrage and murder, conducted by organised secret societies. Such things have never been encouraged by those who have led revolutions up to this time, and if we ought to claim a special immunity for revolutionary acts, at least we ought to insist that the revolutionary Code, such as it is, should be scrupulously observed. If we are to be told that no commandment is binding, that no outrage is horrible, that no virtue is to be insisted upon if it is contrary to the interests of the revolutionary party, you undermine all the principles of morality by which society is held together, and you will reap the evil results of the ethical system to which, in an evil hour, under political stress, you have given your adhesion in matters differing very much from, and far deeper in importance than, the Irish question which we are now considering. I think I saw that one defence of all the horrible things which have been done in Ireland, and which we all know have been done

1367
in consequence of the system of intimidation which the Irish Parliamentary Party have knowingly encouraged, was that all those horrible things were justified because they contributed to wringing from Parliament the Land Act of 1881. I have often said that I am no admirer of that Act. I take a very adverse view of it, and I am not alone in that. However, I do not wish to discuss its merits now. I merely wish to point out the extraordinary ethical morass into which we have wandered when it can be deliberately and gravely maintained that it is justifiable to encourage and permit all these horrible crimes, if by so doing you can hope to pass an Act of Parliament on which a section of the community look with approval. It follows that if the Act of Parliament is not to be approved the actions by which it has been compassed return to the condition of horrible crimes, from which you seek to bring them out, and you have thus laid down a doctrine that the end justifies the means, more completely and more recklessly than any school of Jesuits has ever ventured to propose it. We have often been warned in these discussions that we are dealing with personal questions and attacking men's personal honour. Well, at all events, in this Assembly we have no need to fear any such imputation. To us these men against whom these imputations have been made are mere names, and if we tike an interest in their innocence or their guilt it is not on account of the individuals themselves; it is not because we wish to load any individual with blame, or because we wish to make a case against any political opponent, but because we wish to elucidate the conditions of a political society which is having at present the deepest effect upon the fate of this country, and which, if the aspirations of those who are struggling in unison with the Irish Parliamentary Party should be crowned with success, will have a more indelible effect upon English history than any previous incident in the long career of this country. These men have been found guilty of criminal conspiracy, and of inciting to intimidation, knowing that it resulted in crime, but I do not for a moment suggest that they themselves have been marked with any particular wickedness. The interest, the fearful interest, of this
1368
decision lies in the fact not that the individual men have been guilty of these things, for they are mortal and will pass away, but that they indicate the spirit which animates the whole body of men who, if successful, will before long be the undisputed rulers of Ireland. These are the men to whom it is proposed to hand over all that is loyal, all that is Protestant, almost all that is industrious and flourishing, and, above all, the sections of the community which through good and through evil have clung to England. In the immorality which this Report strikes at and brands you will see the spirit, if they succeed, of the future governors of Ireland. When the American war was going on you might have prophesied, from the conduct of George Washington, what the conduct of the future American Government would be. You would have known that it would be limited by considerations of strict honour, and that he would have carried, as he did, into the Council Chamber, and into the President's House, the same high spirit of integrity which distinguished him in the field. But the same rule applies in the other direction, and if political objects have been systematically pursued by exciting all the worst passions of a population, if intimidation has been sedulously encouraged by those who know it will lead to murder, you will know that the spirit which has done these things exist in the minds of the men, and of the class of men, from whom the future governors of Ireland will be drawn, and you know the fate to which you are handing over those you are bound to honour and preserve. The melancholy fact which this Report brings out is that there is between classes in Ireland a traditional antipathy due to historical causes, which we may lament but which we cannot in a moment efface. A historical antipathy of that kind has arisen from many incidents in the checkered career of England and Ireland. It may be due to the fault of one or the fault of the other. These things matter very little now, but we know that this historical antipathy exists; we know that it will colour, and tincture, and bias the action of the Party to whom the future government of Ireland is to be handed over; and we are bound—bound more than ever by the revelations which this Commission has made—to spare no

1369
effort, no exertion that we can command, in order that such a delivery over of one section of a community to another shall not take place until a sufficient interval has passed of wholesome government, in the course of which these causes of antipathy may gradually decline. They are not to be worked out in a day; they are not to be worked out in a Ministry; they have arisen in centuries; they can only be effaced in generations. But this Commission, the Report of which I now ask you to adopt and to record upon the Journals of the House, will infinitely increase your responsibility, if, in spite of the lessons which it teaches you and the revelations it has made to you, you hand over to this bitter criminal conspiracy the lives of those who, in good report and in evil report, for many centuries have stood by England. I lug to move the Resolution.
Moved—
"That the Report of the Commissioners appointed under the Act 51st and 52nd Victoria, chap. 35, having been presented to Parliament, this House adopts the Report, and thanks the Commissioners for their just and impartial conduct in the matter referred to them, and orders that the Report be entered upon the Journals of this House."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, the Resolution which the noble Marquess opposite has proposed invites the assent of this House not to one but to three propositions. The noble Marquess anticipated that to one of these at least he would gain the ready assent of your Lordships. But, my Lords, strange to say, the proposal which the noble Marquess thought we should all assent to is nut one of those which he has made in the Resolution.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I ask, which is that?
LORD HERSCHELL: To thank the Commissioners for their just and impartial conduct. The noble Marquess said we should all agree in thanking the Judges for the exertions they have bestowed and the industry they have displayed, but there is no proposal to ask your Lordships to thank them for anything of the kind. They are to be thanked, not for those qualities, but for the display of just and impartial conduct in the inquiry, as to which I shall have something to say by-and-by. My Lords,
1370
there appear to me to be grave objections to all these proposals. The Report which your Lordships are asked to adopt is the Report of a Commission unprecedented in its character and in the circumstances which immediately led to its appointment. And I am unwilling that, by adopting this Report, your Lordships should give any further or additional sanction to proceedings of this nature. I must recall to your Lordships' recollection, for I think they must have escaped the recollection of the noble Marquess opposite, judging from the matters to which he has alluded in his speech, the grounds upon which this House was asked to sanction the appointment of this Commission. Three years ago there appeared in a newspaper charges imputing conduct of the most disgraceful kind to Irish Members of Parliament, and especially to Mr. Parnell. My Lords, the noble Marquess has made no allusion to those charges. He has recited all the charges in respect of which, as he says, guilt has been found; he has not recited the charges of which they have been acquitted. Now, it may be a question, and I will say something about that in a moment, whether there is any obligation to congratulate them on that acquittal, but, at least, it seems to me there is an obligation, if you make allusion to their condemnation, to make allusion equally to the matters upon which they have been found not guilty. What were these charges? They were that the Land Leaguers deliberately based their movement on a scheme of assassination and outrage; that the leaders directly incited the people to outrages; that when they condemned outrages their language was hypocritical; that the funds of the League were used to pay for outrage; that the Invincibles were a branch of the Land League; that Mr. Parnell was intimate with the leading Invincibles; that he probably learned that they were about during the time that he was released on parole, and knowing the murders to be their work, greatly qualified the condemnation which he thought it politic to pronounce, and remitted funds to Byrne to enable him to escape from justice. These were the charges amongst others made, and they were the main charges. They were supported by no proof; no evidence was offered of their truth,

1371
unless that term can be applied to a letter which was alleged to be in the handwriting of Mr. Parnell. As soon as that letter appeared in the newspapers it was declared to be a forgery; and how was that declaration received? With jeers, ridicule, incredulity. Mr. Parnell was met on all hands by his political opponents with a taunt that unless he was prepared to proceed to a Court of Justice and prove his innocence, and that he did not write the letter, he must be considered guilty of the matters laid to his charge. Those charges turned out to be calumnies. I must for a moment invite your Lordships' attention to this suggestion that he was bound to vindicate himself in a Court of Justice. I have always entertained the view that, assuming Mr. Parnell to be innocent and never to have penned that letter, it would have been madness in him to appeal to a Court of Justice. What would have been the result had he done so? He would, no doubt, have denied that he wrote it—he had done that already, and his denial had been treated as more empty words. There would have been the evidence submitted to the jury by experts in handwriting, that they had not the slightest doubt the letter was written by Mr. Parnell, and the matter would have been left, perhaps in the same kind of doubt, to the determination of the jury. It would have been impossible to force a disclosure of the source from which that letter had been derived. It would have been impossible to discover who had handed it or sold it to the Times newspaper. They avowed their determination that nothing would induce them to make that revelation. They held out the idea to the public that there was a vast amount of knowledge in their possession which they were determined not to make public, because it would expose persons to the risk of their lives, and they were prepared to go to prison—to suffer anything—rather than let it be known from whom that letter had been obtained. That course would have been taken at the trial, and what would have been the result? The utmost Mr. Parnell could have hoped for would have been that the jury would not agree on their verdict. I suppose there is no doubt that on such a jury you would have found many Conservatives, and why am I to suppose that we should have found those Conservative jurymen superior to
1372
many of the noble Lords whom I see around me, who expressed their conviction and said they had no more doubt of Mr. Parnell's guilt than if they had actually seen Mr. Parnell write the letter with their own eyes? I heard noble Lords, after Mr. Parnell's denial, say they had no more doubt about the matter than if they had seen him with their own eyes pen it, and you are to suppose that Conservatives serving upon a jury would have thought otherwise. And to a certain extent I should not blame them for thinking that when the Times asserted that it had a vast amount of knowledge and proof in its possession that that was something more than empty words having no foundation in point of fact. My Lords, these charges have been found to be calumnies and to be untrue. They were weapons used to further a political course. I protested, when the Bill for the appointment of the Commission was before your Lordships' House, against the doctrine that charges in a newspaper imputing misconduct to a public man were to be regarded as any proof of guilt, or as it has even been put as conclusive proof of guilt unless he would appeal to a Court of Justice to vindicate him and establish his innocence. My words were very little heeded then; but I have the satisfaction of thinking that the results of employing these weapons have not proved to be so very advantageous as to commend them to future use. Our political conflicts are heated and bitter enough, but there are limits to the weapons which it is justifiable to use. I would venture to adopt in relation to politicians the words of a distinguished Judge when, speaking of the obligation of an advocate, he said—
"The weapon which he wields he should wield as a warrior, not as an assassin; he should seek to prevail per fas but not per nefas."
[Ministerial cheers.] Yes, my Lords, I understand those cheers. They mean that as against a political Party who, you think, used unfair weapons, any weapons on your part are respectable and fair. My Lords, if weapons are used by others which should not have been used, does that make their use right and justifiable? That seems to me a doctrine to which I should hardly imagine your Lordships would give

1373
assent. But how was my argument met in this House by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor? He said it is not every newspaper that is to be dealt with in such a fashion as this. There are newspapers so scandalous and disgraceful that you may well pass their accusations by. But, he said, here is the case of a newspaper of high authority and great respectability. Now, I would ask my noble and learned Friend how he intends to deal with that proposition tonight? Will he abandon the doctrine that assertions made by a newspaper of high authority and great respectability are to be treated as evidence of guilt or proof of it, or will he withdraw the Times newspaper from the category of newspapers of high authority and great respectability? He has no choice but one of those alternatives, and I imagine he will choose the first of them, for I will not do my noble Friend the injustice to suppose that, after what we have witnessed and what has been proved, he will hereafter deem any man guilty on the mere assertion of a writer in the Times. My Lords, the noble Marquess rested the appointment of this Commission upon another ground. He said that these charges had not only appeared in a newspaper, but had been repeated in Court by a counsel of responsibility, who alleged that he was able to prove them in evidence. I protested at the time against that assumption being a sufficient ground for dealing with the charges as having some foundation in fact. What do your Lordships think of it in the light we possess now? Those charges were repeated by a learned counsel in a Court of Justice; and though he did say he could prove them, proof of them there was none. I pointed out at the time that a counsel only purports to speak from the instructions he receives. The Times had told the Attorney General they could he proved. They had not told him whence they got them. He knew none of the facts, as far as I am aware, which were necessary in order to test the truth or falsehood of the charges. With regard to these documents he was told they could be proved, that experts in handwriting would swear to their genuineness, and upon that foundation he made the assertion upon which the noble Marquess relied. I maintain
1374
that no statement in a newspaper, or assertion by counsel, is sufficient ground for crediting charges made against a public man, and by him denied, and that public life would become intolerable if such a doctrine were to be enforced or acted upon. I object, therefore, to the basis upon which this un-Constitutional tribunal was founded. It was founded fm a doctrine which I think should have received no countenance. If, owing to the fact that Members of Parliament were charged, some inquiry was necessary, there was a Constitutional tribunal to which an appeal could have been made. Those who urged a reference to a Select Committee of the other House took a perfectly Constitutional course, and I believe that is the course that would have been adopted without hesitation in the case of any but the Irish Members. I entertain from what I have seen of the House of Commons not the slightest doubt of the fact, but, of course, my impression may be a mistaken one. That Committee was refused because it was said to be an unsuitable tribunal; that political prejudice or prepossessions would render it unfitted to try such charges. As regards all the charges then prominently put forward, which it was said to be necessary to investigate, the charges of complicity with murder and outrage, of planning and paying for outrage, and the authenticity of those letters, such a Committee would have been a perfectly suitable tribunal. We know now that it needed no judicial skill, or industry, or learning to deal with those charges. As soon as they came to attempted proof the exposure was immediate. The whole fabric crumbled to pieces, and I cannot doubt that any Select Committee of the House of Commons, however constituted, even if every Member of it had belonged to the political Party opposite, could not have done otherwise than acquit the Irish Members of the charges which were then put forward as the matters on which investigation was desirable and necessary. And, further, the work of the Committee would not have ended there. The work of the Committee would have proceeded further than that. They would have inquired how it came about that charges such as that were got up and launched against public men; who were the actors; who were the con-

1375
tributors of the funds; how those forged letters were procured which the noble Marquess says were not of the slightest importance, but which the Times newspaper, with Mr. Houston, or those behind him, thought it worth while to give some thousands of pounds for; how the money came to be provided for their purchase. The Government of the day rejected this course, and determined to create this special tribunal. I will not repeat my objections to this tribunal, but I must just allude to them again. The Government of the day, and the Party behind them, created, to try their political opponents, a tribunal of which they selected the members, determined the scope of the reference, and defined the powers. Against whom were those charges made? Made against Members of the other House, representatives, at all events, of a large proportion of the Irish people; and what were the charges? Charges made for a Party purpose by a Party newspaper; and the terms of the reference were made wide enough to cover matters closely connected with the controversial politics of the day. The noble Marquess has spoken to-night of this as a criminal court, and he has asked whether it is usual m a criminal court to congratulate a prisoner on being acquitted on some counts of the indictment. He has called them counts of the indictment, as though these men had been tried in a criminal Court on a criminal charge. There are, my Lords, Criminal Courts constituted by the Constitution of this country, and in those Courts there are safeguards and limitations to which every man charged with crime is entitled to the benefit. But for the Government of the day to create what is even now called a Criminal Court, trying counts of an indictment, finding men guilty of crime, is something new to the Constitution of the country, and that such a Court should be created by political men to try political opponents, and that they should name the members of the tribunal, determine its powers, limit its functions, seems to mo to be one of the most dangerous proceedings that has ever proceeded from the Constitutional Party in this country. It was not at the time represented in this light. If any one will compare the speech of the noble Marquess when he moved the Second Reading of
1376
the Bill with his speech to-night he will observe a great difference of tone. It was then to be a boon to the Irish Members, to afford them an opportunity of vindicating their character; it was to be a substitute for an action of libel in which, on the showing of the noble Marquess, they have been largely successful.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not at all.
LORD HERSCHELL: The noble Marquess differs; it is a matter of opinion. It seems to me that the noble Marquess is making light of serious crime if he thinks that there is no distinction between a man who in a political agitation makes use of language, or incites to acts not illegal, but acts the result of which leads to crime, and the man who deliberately plans murder and assassination. I cannot say that the former may not be blameworthy, but I cannot appreciate the suggestion that there is no distinction between them. No attempt was made so to select the members of the tribunal that any political prejudices or prepossessions might be balanced or kept in check. I pointed, out this at the time, and my noble and learned Friend said that I was suggesting a partisan tribunal because I suggested that it would be fair that at least one out of the three should have sympathy rather than antipathy with the political objects of those whose conduct was to be inquired into. It is said that the tribunal was a non-political one, and the noble Marquess has spoken of the Judges as men who were entirely detached from Party politics. I said two years ago, and I repeat it now, that those who know the facts know that it is idle thus to talk. Non-political Judges—men who have never mixed in politics! Those men are just as political as other men. They have as strong views on the current politics of the day as other men.
LORD ESHER: They never act on them.
LORD HERSCHELL: I am not saying they act on them. My noble and learned Friend will hear what I have to say about that in a moment; but I should doubt that he would consider it a matter totally immaterial, when questions closely connected with politics and political life came into controversy, whether those questions were to be

1377
determined by those whose political prepossessions were one way or the other.
LORD ESHER: I certainly should.
LORD HERSCHELL: All I can say is that I differ totally from my noble Friend. I am second to none in my admiration of the Judges. I believe in their absolute integrity and intention to be fair, but I say that, when my noble Friend suggests that the political views or prepossessions which men have never bias their judgments, it is contradicted by matters so completely within my own experience that I am unable to agree with him. I will ask noble Lords opposite this—I do not deal with my noble and learned Friend; he may take a judicial view of it—but I would ask—Would they think it a fair tribunal to try a matter in which they were interested aad in which they were charged with conduct in respect of affairs closely relating to politics, if three ardent Radicals formed the tribunal which was to determine what the character of their conduct had been? It seems to me that it would be hypocrisy to pretend that Judges or any one else are capable of rising absolutely and positively above all political influences and prepossessions. I do not for a moment doubt the absolute honesty and the absolute integrity, the absolute determination to be fair and to hold the scales even, on the part of the three Judges. No one can fail to feel that, and no one can state it more strongly than I do. No one has a greater personal regard for them than I have, and of the President, I have reason to speak in special terms of respect and regard. But I am speaking on general principles, and I maintain that it is in the highest degree dangerous that a Party should select or create a tribunal and should nominate the members of that tribunal, and that there should be no care taken to see that, as far as possible, the tribunal should be impartial in this sense—that should it be biased in one way it should be counterbalanced by bias in another way. It was suggested that a Committee of the House of Commons was unfitted to deal with this matter, because it touched closely on the current politics of the day, and that they could not be trusted to be unbiased by them. Are Members of the House of Commons
1378
the only people biased by the current politics of the day? Is it to be said that there are people of whom it is impossible to say that they can rise above Party bias in trying their fellow men, however much it may be striven against, but that Party bias is altogether unknown in other men? I stated my objections to the constitution of this tribunal, if such a tribunal were to be constituted at all, on the occasion when the Bill was read a second time. They were stated then without effect. I am not surprised it was so. They were attributed (I of course make no complaint of it) to the imaginings of a political opponent, who naturally would see everything wrong in what was done by the Government. But I find now that many of them were pressed on the Government in a Memorandum which was written by a noble Lord who not long before had been one of their Colleagues. He certainly had no Party motives m making that suggestion. The suggestion was one privately made in order to influence the action of the Government, and it seems to me that that noble Lord exhibited greater regard for the Constitutional safeguards to which we should all give heed, and which we all cherish, than Her Majesty's Government showed in proposing this tribunal. My first objection, then, to the adoption of this Report is that by adopting it we give additional sanction to the tribunal which has been so created, and that, of itself, in my opinion, would suffice to show that this is a course which should not have been proposed to your Lordships. But, in my opinion, this Report as a document dealing with the transactions which it records, is inadequate, incomplete, and wholly fails to meet the exigencies of the case. In saying this I am not blaming the Judges. They acted within such limits as they considered were imposed upon them. But no such limits are imposed upon us. That part of the Report which relates to the charges of crime, and to the letters which have been proved forgeries, occupies fewer lines than there are pages in the rest of the Report, although those charges, and those alone, led to the appointment of the Commission. The noble Marquess says that this suggestion of the importance of these letters is an afterthought, and that it now comes, for the first time, from us.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No; that on the other side it was ingeniously devised from the first, arid steadily pushed forward subsequently.
LORD HERSCHELL: I think the ingenuity of device was on the part of the friends of the noble Marquess in the other House. Until they began to think that it would be desirable to prepare for retreat in case the letters could not be proved to be genuine, the friends of the noble Marquess in another place dwelt upon the importance of these letters. In the debates in the other House before the ultimate proposal of this tribunal, and even on the Second Reading of the Bill, Conservative and Liberal Unionist Members declared that these letters were the most important part of the inquiry, and that if they were proved not to be genuine the public would care little for the other part of the inquiry. Those were not statements made by men with whom I am in political alliance, but, as I have said, by Conservatives and Liberal Unionists in the other House of Parliament. These grave and terrible charges have been proved to be calumnious, and these letters have been proved to be forgeries, and I ask your Lordships, is it fitting there should be no condemnation recorded of those forgeries and of that calumny? Is it such a very light thing that men should be charged without foundation with planning murder, with being parties to particular murders, and to finding money for murder? It seems to me that these are charges of the gravest description, and as they turned out to be untrue, I cannot think that a, record of the proceedings is adequate which contains no condemnation of them, and treats them as if they were light things, and matters of in difference. Who would imagine from merely reading this Report that the Irish Members had cleared themselves—I would say had substanially cleared themselves—in all those matters which the noble Marquess suggested had to be inquired into by this Commission? The noble Marquess says that almost all that is in the Report of the Commission is new. On the contrary, I would venture to say that everything in the Report upon which the finding is hostile to the Irish Members is absolutely and entirely old. I challenge any noble Lord who
1380
may speak after me to say what evidence there is which was not known to Parliament and discussed in Parliament years and years ago. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Marquess pointed out, as he has to-night, that there were two parties in Ireland—the Constitutional Party, acting by Constitutional means, and another party acting un-Constitutionally by the direct commission of crime and outrage; and he said that what they wanted to know was what complicity or connection there was between them. On that occasion the noble Marquess said that he knew the Irish Party had confessedly used some methods which were not Constitutional; that he knew all about the boycotting and inciting to boycotting. He said he knew there had been crime in Ireland, and he knew that some of the crime was connected with boycotting. All that was as well-known six or seven years ago as it is to-day; but it is on that, and on that alone, that the findings on which the noble Marquess dwells most are founded. I say that these findings are not founded upon any single fact—and if I am wrong I shall be glad to have it definitely corrected—which was not as well-known six or seven years ago as it is now. The noble Marquess now says that there was no accusation of complicity with murder; but that was not his language before, when the Bill was under discussion. He charged them with being practically in harmony
"In conspiracy and complicity with the other and more violent organisation to which the name of Fenians or Invincibles has been given."
Of course, the Invincibles were a body perfectly well-known, and the charge made at the time was of connection between the Land League and the Invincibles, who were an organised band of murderers.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think I used the words "in practical harmony."
LORD HERSCHELL: No; the language of the noble Marquess was—
"In practical complicity and conspiracy with the other and more violent organisation;"
and then further on the noble Marquess says it was felt that the scandal was so great that some means of dealing

1381
with it were necessary to be adopted. He then said that it was thought there had been a connection between the Land League and the Invincibles, and for anything so terrible as complicity with murder there was no justification. That was the inquiry which, he said, was needed, and that that was the inquiry which he desired is obvious from the fact that he avowed his knowledge that there had been means employed which were unconstitutional and illegal, meaning boycotting and inciting to boycotting, the results of which were at the time perfectly well-known. I ask, ought you to treat calumnies of your political opponents as deserving of no condemnation? Supposing they had been guilty of certain acts, unjustifiable or blameworthy, is the doctrine to be laid down that, in that case, any weapon is lawful against them? In the future, is it to be a recognised maxim of the Conservative Party that if you prove some disgraceful thing of a man you are at liberty to charge him with something much worse, and, if that charge is proved after investigation to be without foundation, that he is to be unable to get a word either of acknowledgment or reparation? I cannot believe that will be generally accepted by this House; but this I am certain of—that if it is accepted by your Lordships in this House it will not be accepted as fair and just treatment by the great body of the people in this country. What has been done in this matter? These weapons have been used freely, and money has been subscribed to scatter broadcast over the land allegations which are now found to be calumnious and utterly without foundation. Is there to be no acknowledgment of all this—no reparation? My Lords, would there have been such treatment awarded to the noble Marquess if he had been unjustly made the subject of scandalous accusations, even if he might have been proved to have done acts which could not altogether have been justified? I am satisfied it would not, and I hope that we may, even yet, hear from some of those who follow the noble Marquess some expression of regret, or, at least, of condemnation, of these calumnies and forgeries, which we have not heard, as I expected we should have heard, from his lips. Not a single frigid sentence of condemnation fell from the
1382
noble Marquess at the attempt to use such unholy weapons as this to destroy the character, not merely of a fellow-man, but of a fellow Member of the Legislature. I think your Lordships will watch with some interest to-night to see what share of the observations addressed to you is given to those charges, and to the condemnation of the charges, which have been proved to be without foundation, and what share is to be given to the attempt to excite, which it is easy enough to do, the indignation of those who sit behind the noble Marquess at the Irish Members, in respect of matters in which they have been found not free from fault. Now, my Lords, so far for my observations with regard to the tribunal itself, so specially appointed. To its un-Constitutional character I have already alluded. It is proposed to adopt this Report. What is meant by the expression "adopt the Report"? So far as I know, the word "adopt" is new in our Parliamentary language.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Surely not.
LORD HERSCHELL: I repeat that the word is new, as far as I know, to our Parliamentary vocabulary, and I have made such inquiry in the matter as I could. We have been in the habit, at times, of agreeing with the Reports of Committees; but, so far as I know, no Report of a Committee has ever been "adopted" by the House. But while unable to appeal to Parliamentary precedent for an explanation of the phrase, the expression is familiar to us in connection with Joint-Stock Companies. A Joint-Stock Company adopts the Report of a Committee or of a Board, and what does it involve? It involves, at least, that it assents to its conclusions and approves the decisions and recommendations at which it has arrived. That, my Lords, is what you are asked to do to-night, and to doing that it seems to me there are two grave objections. One is, that those affected by this Report are Members of the other House of the Legislature; but the other and wider objection is that the findings upon which the noble Marquess has so much dwelt, and which are hostile to the Irish Members, have reference to an agrarian agitation by the tenantry of Ireland against the landlords. When I remember what interests are involved in

1383
this agitation and controversy, I ask, What weight or sanction can the adoption of the Report by a House constituted like your Lordships' give to it in the eyes of the country? In saying this, I do not wish to cast any reflection upon the Irish landlords. I shall say no bitter words against them; but it would be absurd to suggest that your Lordships would constitute the impartial tribunal to which the noble Marquess appeals to give assent, and so additional weight, to the findings of the Special Commission. Asfar as I am concerned, I cannot but regret that the agitation, and the legislation which followed upon the agitation—although I believe that that legislation was inevitable, and that it has not produced greater loss to the landlords of Ireland than similar economic causes have inflicted upon the landlords of England—have, undoubtedly, been productive of suffering. However inevitable one may consider it, one must regret, as I do most heartily, that suffering should fall on any man from events for which he is not personally to blame. Therefore, I trust that your Lordships will not think that in the language which I have used about the constitution of this House I have intended to say anything hard or unkind; but I cannot help thinking that it would be better and more dignified that we should leave this Report to speak for itself, and to carry with it such weight as it carries of itself, and that we should not seek to give it, for we cannot give it, further sanction and additional weight by asking your Lordships' House to adopt it. Some of the Members of your Lordships' House who are asked to adopt it are placed it the further difficulty when asked to adopt this Report of being charged with the duty of declaring the law. It is the duty of some of your Lordships, and I am one of their number, to sit in this House as Judges, and to revise the decisions of the tribunals, and to the best of our ability to Declare the law. If I believe that this Report which I am asked to adopt contains disputable propositions of law and erroneous conclusions of fact, what course am I to take? If I keep silence I know what would be said, that I can find no fault with it, that I have no criticisms to make, and that I give no countenance to the criticisms made elsewhere, and I should be held to have given my assent
1384
to all the doctrines of law involved in it. If I merely express my assent without giving my reasons it would be said I had no reasons to give. Therefore, great as I feel the inconvenience to be, reluctant as I am to enter upon such an inquiry, I feel bound to draw your Lordships' attention to some parts of the Report, and to state my opinions with regard to it. The difficulty is enhanced by the fact that I have only the Report before me, and that I have not been able to examine the evidence upon which it is founded. The noble Marquess has the advantage of me. He is in possession of the evidence upon which the Report is founded, he has produced it to-night, and has read quotations from it, but it is not to be obtained in the Minute Office, and there is only one copy of it in the Library of this House, which, of course, can only be seen at such times as we are here. It seems to me that the Report ought not to be adopted without taking into consideration the evidence upon which the Report is founded; nor do I think it can be seriously contended that the Report of these three Judges, eminent as they are, is to be adopted blindfold, and treated as conclusive. Why, if it concerned a mere dispute about the payment of £20, their decision would not be conclusive; but the party who was held liable to make the payment would have a right to appeal to two higher Courts, and perhaps get the decision against him reversed. Can it, therefore, be said that the decision of a tribunal of this description, created as it has been, which has published findings deeply affecting the characters and reputations of men, is to be regarded as conclusive, and treated as without appeal? No, my Lords, you have chosen to constitute this Tribunal, but an appeal must lie, and it can only he to the people of this country. The first point in the Report to which I will call attention is one to which the noble Marquess has alluded. I agree with him that it is important, though it is for a different reason that I attach importance to it—it is the finding that the respondents made payments to compensate persons who had been injured in the commission of crime. The noble Marquess drew from this finding, or rather from the evidence in support of it, a most tremendous inference. He

1385
said that as from a single bone an able naturalist would be able to construct the entire anatomy of an extinct animal, the noble Marquess asked your Lordships to construct, upon the foundation of this finding, from your imagination and invention, which is to be regarded as proof against your fellow-man, a perfect edifice of criminality. My Lords, I do not so understand the doctrine of proof. All I can say is that evidence is not so regarded in Courts of Justice, and least of all in Courts of criminal justice. The Report says it is proved that the respondents made certain payments. There are 64 respondents who are named in the earlier part of the Report—64 Members of Parliament. It is found that those 64 Members of Parliament made those payments. And what is the proof in support of it? All that is proved is that one single payment was ma e by an officer of the Land League, and the suggestion is made that if the books of the Land League had been forthcoming many such cases might have been proved. I do not call suspicion or insinuation of that kind proof. But even admitting for the moment that there were other such instances, my objection is that those payments were made by certain Land League officials; there is no evidence here that any of the payments were either sanctioned or approved of by any of the 64 respondents except one. With what justice, or for what reason, are they found to have made those payments? I am responsible for any payment by an agent of mine authorised by me; I am responsible for any payment made by my agent coming to my knowledge and sanctioned by me; and I am responsible if I give him general authority under which he makes the payments. But there is not the slightest proof that any one of these respondents ever knew that such payments were made from the beginning to the end of the existence of the Land League. Some even were in prison when the payments are alleged to have been made by them. Of course, they could only have been so found guilty if they were responsible for the people who made the payments. Assuming that they were parties to a conspiracy, as found in the earlier part of the Report, then that gives no justification for the finding that they were responsible for
1386
the payments, as it would not be within the scheme, and is not found to be within the scheme, of such conspiracy that any such payments as these should be made. There is a distinct finding that they did not desire outrage and did not approve outrage, that although the language they used led to outrage they did not incite to it, and yet it is held that they are responsible for making these payments. That carries the doctrine of constructive responsibility far beyond any point which it has hitherto reached. I am utterly unable to agree in a doctrine so entire dangerous and so subversive of all safeguards that we have hitherto maintained. Then there is this important point. It is of great importance where in other portions of the Report these men are found guilty of criminal conspiracy, to see how far this doctrine of constructive responsibility has been carried. I shall have something to say upon that by and bye; but for the moment I desire to dwell upon this part of the Report, which seems to me of very great importance. Now, my Lords, I turn to the finding that the respondent, the leaders of the Land League, were guilty of criminal conspiracy with the object stated by the noble Marquess. I think exaggerated importance has been attached to the expression "criminal conspiracy." Many most excellent people have been guilty of criminal conspiracy without deserving censure, as on the other hand there are many people who have not brought themselves within the reach of the criminal law at all, but who, nevertheless, are deserving of the severest censure. But the truth is that the law of criminal conspiracy is a net so widely spread by the law of our country that it is difficult to say what may not be brought within it. An agreement between two people to commit a trespass is a criminal conspiracy, for it is to do an unlawful act. An agreement also between two people to avoid the operation of a statute, or between a husband and wife to smuggle goods into this country, even, for instance, copyright books of the Tauchnitz edition, I imagine would make them guilty of criminal conspiracy, for it would be an agreement to do an illegal act, because that would be combining to evade the Customs Laws. When I come to this subject I get a little uncomfort-

1387
able, for I am not sure that when I visited the United States I was not guilty of criminal conspiracy myself. It has been held in the United States that any combination to avoid the Maine Prohibitory Liquor Law is criminal conspiracy. I have a recollection of going to a watering place where the prohibitory law was enforced. The landlord of the hotel was not allowed to supply spirits for payment, but he promised to obtain and present them to his customers. I am afraid I learned while I was there how to evade that law, for when I took spirits there appeared an item in my bill under the head of "sundries," which amply covered the cost of the liquors supplied; and I am afraid the innkeeper and I were guilty of criminal conspiracy.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Does the noble and learned Lord put that as being the law?
LORD HERSCHELL: My noble Friend asks me whether I put that as the law; I certainly do. I do not wonder that the noble and learned Lord expresses surprise, because he has not had so much experience of the Criminal Courts as I have had, and of the lengths to which this law of criminal conspiracy has been carried. I can only say that question has been the subject of decision by the American Courts. Any noble Lord who has had experience of the Criminal Courts will know the length to which the law of criminal conspiracy has been carried. I am not prepared to say that any agreement to do an illegal act, or to do a legal act by illegal means, is not within the law of criminal conspiracy—that any act so done does not come within the definition of it. This law is, indeed, more wide-spread in its operation than most people imagine. I have present in my mind a case which is an apt illustration of my contention, that there may be criminal conspiracy even to boycott without much moral blame. There is a case now pending before your Lordships' House, and upon the law of which I will therefore express no opinion, in which the noble and learned Lord opposite held that an agreement to boycott was an illegal conspiracy; and I apprehend that every illegal conspiracy is a criminal conspiracy, because it conies clearly within the definition. That is the case of a conspiracy by highly respectable Steamship Companies to treat people in
1388
a certain manner, and so affect their trade. Although these companies may be guilty of criminal conspiracy, I am sure they will not themselves feel that any great moral blame attaches to them. This shows that people may be considered deserving of but little blame, even although guilty of criminal conspiracy, while they may deserve very great blame, although they are not guilty of criminal conspiracy. We must look to see what are the acts done, because they may deserve great blame or little blame. I therefore invite attention here to the acts which have been done. The noble Marquess said that these men, whom he described as treasonable, would probably obtain full absolution at my hands for the crimes they have committed. I can assure him he is much mistaken; but, in the first place, I do not quite know to whom he applies the epithet "treasonable." He applied it to "these men," by which I understand him to include Mr. Parnell and those associated with him in the findings upon this Report.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never said that.
LORD HERSCHELL: I imagined the noble Marquess referred to them all, but I should be glad to hear that the vehement language he used did not apply to Mr. Parnell and to many of his associates. But I can assure the noble Marquess that he will hear from me no suggestion that crime is a light thing, nor any justification for the view that the guilt of crime is removed because a laudable object lies behind it. Any one reviewing the events of the last few years in Ireland, whatever his political view, must see much indeed to lament and not a little to condemn; but I am led to inquire what was the land League and what were its objects and methods—because, as far as I can see, the only ground for charging this criminal conspiracy is that the persons named were members of the Land League. I have read and re-read the evidence which leads to that conclusion, which consists of speeches, resolutions, and so on, and I can see no evidence of a combination amongst the persons named unless it be that they were members of the Land League. If that be the finding it reaches far beyond the individuals named, for prelates of the Catholic Church and multitudes of other

1389
men have belonged to this criminal conspiracy, the Land League. There is no fact leading up to that finding which was not known seven or eight years ago; and it was impossible for any one, as those in office did some years ago, to have watched daily passing events in Ireland without forming some conclusion as to the objects and aims of the Land League. I am unable to come to the conclusion that the mere fact of joining the Land League involved participation in such a conspiracy as is found I by the learned Judges. The objects of the Land League I believe to have been these: To endeavour by agitation to obtain a reduction of excessive agrarian rents—I am not now dealing with the question whether the view that they were excessive or not is correct, but I think the term is justified by subsequent events—and to endeavour to secure the adoption of a scheme by which lands might be purchased by the tenants from the landowners, and so put an end to the difficulties which have arisen under the system of dual ownership or divided interest. I believe that the Land League was founded with the view, by these moans, of checking evictions and preventing many tenants being deprived of their holdings. Those, as far as I can see, were the only objects to which anyone was committed by becoming a member of the Land League. Some may have joined it with ulterior objects; but you cannot make those who joined the combination parties to those objects—it seems to me in the highest degree unjust to do so; still less can you make them responsible for all that has been done by every branch and by every member of the Land League, because the doctrine of conspiracy does not go to such lengths as those. There is no doubt that many of those who joined the Land League also had this in view—that the agitation which existed, and which would no doubt be augmented and not diminished by its action, would have some effect in furthering the cause of self-government for Ireland which many of them had at heart. Those, I believe, were the aims and objects of the Land League, and the only aims or purposes which have been proved against them. To award justly such blame as is due to those proceedings, it is essential to consider the condition of Ireland at the time this com-
1390
bination arose. The Commissioners themselves report thus—
"We have he commission to consider whether the conduct which they are accused of can be palliated by the circumstances of the time."
But your Lordships have such a commission, and you are bound to exercise it. You are justified in looking fairly at the acts done, and your condemnation is not to be measured even by the immediate circumstances under which the act is committed. Men's conduct is so measured in Courts of Justice, and still more ought it to be so measured when acts are done under such circumstances as these. What was the condition of the tenantry of Ireland at this time? I am not going into details; but there had been a series of bad seasons in which the produce of the land had been many millions of pounds less than in previous years; there were in many parts of Ireland excessive and impossible rents, which had been raised upon the improvements of the tenants themselves, and evictions were proceeding. They had had years of sad experience of what that means, and one item I should add upon that: it comes from the Report too. One landagent described many of the people in one county of Ireland as "blue with hunger." What effect was it likely to have on men in sympathy with the tenant class, some of whom had themselves sprung from the same class, to see and ponder over these things? Was it wonderful if they should seek to create a League which might stay evictions and diminish these rents and give security to the tenant for his holding? It would be to shut our eyes to the first impulses of human nature to suppose that men would not be moved by such feelings and sentiments as these. No doubt they incited to boycotting, and it appears to be assumed that so to incite is illegal. I am no advocate of boycotting; far from it. There is no one in this House who is less disposed to sanction it than I am. I confess I have the greatest aversion to it wherever it is found, whether in England or in Ireland. I do not like the spirit which gives it birth. But it is not confined to Ireland. It may take a different form there, and may not result here in the same gross acts of violence as attend it in the Sister Island; but the spirit of it is none the less to be condemned. It is impossible, however, to contend that all boycotting is illegal;

1391
it is equally impossible to contend that all inciting to boycotting is illegal. I guard myself only by these observations against being assumed to assent to any such proposition. I will not attempt to draw the line between what is lawful and what is unlawful oil this head except where it is absolutely necessary for me to do so, because I would not willingly by any single word of mine give encouragement to a practice which no one likes less than I do. But I must ask your Lordships to remember that the sentiment which found expression in warning men not to take farms from which other tenants had been evicted was no new sentiment. It was urged that that might be prevented by boycotting the men who took such farms. But long before that, a man who took an evicted farm had been ill-looked upon by his neighbours—long before the Land League was established, and long before boycotting was established. The epithet of "landgrabber" and the term "landgrabbing" are no new titles in Ireland.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
LORD HERSCHELL: I care not whether they are new or old; at any rata, the opposition and the hostility to the thing itself, the taking of evicted farms, are not new. It has been contended by some that the fact that men gave expression to their indignation against those whom they regarded as traitors to their cause, men who took evicted farms, in many instances prevented outrages, because it was a course which enabled them to achieve the end they desired without committing violence. I am not going to enter into such a question now, though it seems to me not improbable that in some cases that might have been the case. That it did in not a few instances lead to crime is beyond all possible doubt; but I think it is the greatest mistake to suppose that this boycotting, or inciting to boycotting, explains anything like the crime which took place in Ireland during those years. It is impossible to read the Report of the Commission without seeing that many of the crimes dealt with had no sort of connection with boycotting; and also that, as a fact, there were multitudes of cases of boycotting which in no case led to crime. That crime resulted in some cases I frankly admit. It is suggested that the agitation which ex-
1392
isted in Ireland was one simply worked up by the Land League, and had no origin in the real wants and necessities of the people. I might quote the statement of the noble Earl near me when the Land Bill of 1881 was before your Lordships' House. He said—
"It is the greatest error in the world to say that the state of things which we have now to deal with—"
that is, the disturbed state of Ireland—
"is due to the Land League. This Land League is its effect, not its cause; the Land League would never have had the power it has acquired if it had not had to work upon the previous state of public opinion and the previous state of public feeling which existed before the formation of the Land League."
It has been suggested by the Commissioners, and the noble Marquess dwelt upon it to-night, that it is not true to say that crime does follow evictions. They attribute all the crime to the agitation of the Land League. Now, I cannot but think that the reasoning of the learned Commissioners on this part of the case is extremely unsatisfactory. The noble Marquess alluded to the principal statistics upon which they dwell. They take the statistics of 1849 to 1852 and compare them with the years from 1879 to 1882. They point out how many thousands of evictions of families there were in the earlier years, and they state that the outrages were fewer in number. First of all, I invite the attention of your Lordships to this. The value of that comparison depends entirely upon whether your statistics of crime are compiled at the two periods in the same fashion and on the same bases. I can show your Lordships that these are not. The agrarian crimes in 1849 are stated at 957, but I am satisfied that in the earlier Returns no crime was classed as agrarian unless it could be traced to some distinct agrarian cause, and that many crimes which would now be classed as agrarian crimes were not then so classed. In 1849 there were only 15 homicides classed as agrarian, whereas in all Ireland there were 203 homicides. In the next year only 18 are given as agrarian, but there were 139 homicides in Ireland; and so it goes on in the other years. Then how many incendiary fires are so classified? In 1849 there were 238 incendiary fires classed as agrarian, but there were 1,066

1393
incendiary fires in Ireland during that year. In the next year only 311 fires out of 938 were entered as agrarian, and so I might pursue the comparison. Can any one doubt that those homicides and those incendiary fires were the result of the evictions to which allusion was made by the noble Marquess in those years? To what else can he ascribe the abnormal number of fires in those years if not to the discontent of the people that resulted from the evictions? Really, my Lords, I do not think much importance is to be attached to these statistics at all. The crimes in the earlier years were infinitely more serious and numerous. The Commissioners do not appear to have noticed that in the four counties to which they make reference there is a reason why, apart from Land League speeches and meetings, there was an immense amount of crime there. They themselves describe the counties in question as being the poorest in Ireland; and when it is suggested that the crime which grew up in the latter months of the year 1880 is explained by the fact that the Land League was then started, and by that fact alone, I must ask your Lordships' attention to the other statistics with which I shall trouble you. The question is, "Did the evictions precede the crime, or did they only follow it." I cannot help expressing a little astonishment—it may be that they had not the evidence before them—that the Commissioners, who stated their opinion that evictions did not precede the crime, should not have inquired what had been the facts as regard sevictions in the months preceding the crime. They say that the Land League was formed in Kerry in the month of August, 1880, and that in the latter months of the same year, October, November, and December, they find that titers was then a great increase in the amount of crime. Let me call attention to these facts, and I am still taking the four counties which the learned Judges dealt with. In the County of Kerry in 1877 there were 14 families evicted; in 1878 10 families; in 1879, 55 families; and in the first nine months of 1880, that is, down to the end of September, 189 families—more than three times as many as there had been during the whole of the previous year. And these figures do not tell the whole truth, be-
1394
cause notices are served and preliminary proceedings taken which often do not result in evictions, because they are not carried out to the end. In the County of Donegal 22 families were evicted in 1877, 29 in 1879, and 86 in the first nine months of 1880. In West Cork and in Clare the comparison is of the same description. Therefore it is impossible to question the fact that during the first nine mouths of 1880, in regard to each of those counties, there had been a very large and alarming increase of evictions. And, my Lords, it is not only the families evicted, but when you have a people so poor as they were after their disastrous seasons, all knowing that if they are similarly dealt with and similarly oppressed similar results will follow, your Lordships will be able to appreciate the state of alarm that followed. The Commissioners, it is true, have found that the Irish Members, or some of them, persisted in their advocacy of boycotting.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I ask the noble Lord to read that correctly? It is "intimidation," I think.
LORD HERSCHELL: No, it is quite true, and if the noble Marquess bad waited he would have found that I was going to read it. They found that they persisted in their advocacy of boycotting, and I say that for this reason: that I cannot find any other form of intimidation of which there is the slightest evidence as against the incriminated persons or the vast majority of them; and when we deal with a statement of that kind we must be dealing with evidence which implicates them all. Now, I cannot find any evidence which implicated them in common except that relating to the advocacy of boycotting. There is no other form of intimidation of which it is alleged that they have been guilty. No doubt it is easy to denounce and to blame. I do not dispute that it may be right to blame; but here again, in order to do justice, you must remember certain facts. The learned Judges had focussed before them all the results of intimidation and boycotting spread over a period of 10 years, but it never came before the leaders, who were engaged in a great agitation, in anything like the same form. They would hear that in this quarter or in that, individual crime had resulted from boycotting; but that

1395
would produce a very different impression upon the mind to such facts as were laid before the learned Judges and which are to be found collected in this Report. The leaders of any great movement, having their minds earnestly and eagerly engaged upon it, are not in a position to judge—it would not he fair to expect them to judge—with the same calmness and deliberation as we may after the event and upon a review of the whole circumstances. There has never yet been any great agitation in which multitudes of persons have been interested that was free from crime. But it would be unfair to say that the leaders were responsible for it because, as soon as a crime was committed, they did not cease their agitation. Such a doctrine has never hitherto been insisted upon. No great strike has ever taken place without violence and outrages, which the leaders of the strike did not desire or intend, and it is found by the Commissioners that the Irish leaders did not desire or intend the violence which took place. I say that those who incite to a strike have never been held responsible for such occurrences, and they have not been found to cease their efforts as soon as they hoard that an individual had so acted that their agitation might be said to have resulted in violence. No doubt in movements of that kind a time may come when the connection may appear to be so close and the results so constant that it would be the duty of any leaders of an agitation, when they see those results, to hold their hands on account of the consequences which forced themselves on their notice; but it is always difficult to judge when such a time has arrived. It would have been a serious matter if the Irish leaders had stayed their agitation. They were contending for what they believed to be the necessities of the Irish tenantry. They believed that unless they secured an alteration of the law that tenantry by hundreds and thousands might have been dealt with as they had boon treated from the year 1847 and onwards, and they might well hesitate—they may have been to blame—to stay their hands. It is said it was their duty to stay their agitation, because in individual instances consequences which they never contemplated had followed from it. They might be blameworthy, but the blame cannot
1396
rest on them alone. Must not part of the responsibility rest upon ourselves? What is the baleful lesson that we have been teaching the Irish during all these centuries but this: that the just and reasonable claims of the Irish people had no chance of consideration and success unless there were agitation, disorder, and almost anarchy? I need hardly remind your Lordships of instances, but I can give illustrations of this. Is it not acknowledged that Catholic emancipation, which all now admit to be so just, would not have been granted but for the disorder and almost rebellion which prevailed in Ireland? Has it not been the same in Irish history from that time onwards? It is said that this is an argument which ought not to be used, as it encourages revolt and outrage. I entirely dissent from any such doctrine. I do not think that telling the truth ever does harm. Much more harm is done by pretending you do not see the truth when everybody else sees it. The noble Marquess, who dwelt with such eloquence on this point, in 1881, on the Second Reading of the Land Bill used these words:—
"In view of the prevailing agitation, and having regard to the state of anarchy in Ireland, I cannot recommend my followers to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never said that.
LORD HERSCHELL: I have read the noble Marquess's language as reported in Hansard. Did not that imply that if there had not been that state of agitation and anarchy in Ireland, he would have invited his followers to vote against the Bill? If he had issued that invitation, what would have been the result? Certainly that the Bill undoubtedly would have been lost, and would not have passed into law. It comes, I think, a little strangely from one who used that language that there is danger in granting concessions to Irish agitation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never said that there is danger in granting concessions.
LORD HERSCHELL: I certainly understood the noble Marquess to say that there was danger in palliation, but whether the noble Marquess so expressed himself or not, at all events the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the other House did in the most emphatic way. I

1397
have the less hesitation in remarking upon it, because I do believe there is growing up in the people of England a desire, if it be possible, to concede the views which are entertained by the majority of the Irish people, and to do their best to give satisfaction to those views. There is growing' up in the Irish people a greater trust in England; for the first time they are convinced that Englishmen desire to do them justice. There are many other matters to which I ought to refer, but I am obliged to pass over them because it would be impossible for mo to trespass so unreasonably on your Lordships' time, and I omit them only because I feel I ought not to occupy much more time than I have already done. But there are one or two matters to which I must still allude. As to the finding that the Irish Members received money from Ford, who was the editor of a paper which advocated the use of dynamite, and who represented the extreme section of the Irish Party, and that it was through his means that funds were received by the Irish Parliamentary Party, opinions may differ with respect to the blame that attaches to such a thing; but I should have been grateful if they could have diverted every dollar from the purposes of the dynamite party to those of the Parliamentary Party. Terrible as it may be, it is the fact that there exists in this 19th century men animated by so bitter a hatred of this country that they are prepared to use even such an instrument of violence as dynamite, as they believe from motives of patriotism, and to fulfil what they conceive to be their duty to their country. What are we to say to the existence of such feelings as those? Shall we be satisfied with merely wrapping the Pharisee's garment around us and thus expressing our indignation and contempt? Or shall we not rather probe a little deeper and ask how it is that there exist these tens of thousands of men, either British subjects or the sons of British subjects, who entertain these sentiments towards this land? Why should we be the victims of this perverted patriotism? We need not look far for the causes; the figures which the noble Marquess himself read eloquently proclaim them. Tens of thousands of families driven from their homes out on to the highways and bye ways, and driven
1398
at last to find homes on the other side of the Atlantic, their trusted leaders on whom alone they depend for help regarded as enemies by the British Government, prosecuted and imprisoned or transported. What wonder if, in these circumstances, they have carried with them bitter memories to the land in which they have found a home! Shall blame be attached to them? Does not blame attach to others? It may be that all this was not directly the result of misgovornment; but your Lordships know that even with peoples far more politically advanced than those men everything which the people feel to be burdensome and evil is attributed to Governments, and that much of this evil condition of things was attributable to the government of Ireland by this country in those sad years, I do not think any human being who reads its history can doubt. Can we wonder that the Irish Nationalist, though he may condemn acts of violence and the use of dynamite, cannot see these men exactly with the eyes that we see them with—cannot regard it as such defilement to touch them as we might? We see only in these examples of perverted patriotism bitter enemies of our own country; but they look behind those things, and see in the Nationalist a man whose very hate of this country is the measure of his love for his own; they see behind all these things a man whose heart beats in sympathy with their own when they talk of their common country, a man who longs for happier times under better government than there has been in the past. I do not palliate these crimes for a moment; no one would denounce them more strongly than I should; but there is authority which will not be gainsaid for the assertion that hatred and detestation of wrong are not inconsistent with charitable consideration for the wrongdoer. My Lords, there is one other part of the Report to which I will make reference. It is the concluding part of it, which deals with the Clan-na-Gael. Now here I cannot but think the fudges were somewhat misled. The point of the whole of that part of the Report is this—that the National League of America had been captured by the Clan-na-Gael, and was being worked by the Clan-na-Gael, which was a secret society using violence or intending to

1399
use it. The whole of that part of the case depended upon the evidence of Le Caron, who produced a number of documents issued by the Clan-na-Gael themselves. Beyond that there was no evidence at all. Why was the nature of those documents, They were boastful circulars, said to have been issued by the Clan-na-Gael to its own members, in which they claimed credit for having captured the Irish National League of America. Beyond that there was no evidence at all. The Clan-na-Gael numbered 18,000; the National League of America consisted of many tens of thousands. The Clan-na-Gael was in numbers insignificant in comparison. It may be, as the Judges have found, that members of the Clan got themselves elected on the committee of the League; but there is not a tittle of evidence that they got themselves so elected because they were members of the Clan; there is no evidence even that many of them were known to be members of the Clan at the time they were elected; and, above all, there is not the slightest evidence that the so-called capture was used for the ends of the Clan-na-Gael—that they were ever able to use their position in the American National League in order to farther the purposes of the Clan-na-Gael, or that they so got it into their power as to be able to use it for their own ends; and, unless they did, the whole matter becomes absolutely wanting in importance. I think it right to say that for this reason: that there were thousands of men of position, respectability, and honour in America who were members of the Irish-American National League; whatever you may think of their politics or their views, I think it right to say that, as far as I can see, there is not the slightest evidence that they ever knew that the Clan had got any preponderance upon their committees, or ever influenced their action, or that the League as a body ever was a party to, or express approval of, any act of violence, outrage, or wrong. I will only trouble your Lordships with a few words on the other proposal of the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess thought that we should thank the Judges for their impartial conduct. It seems to me that that is not only a novelty, but rather an impertinence than a compliment. There are some things for which to be thanked is, to my mind, an insult, and
1400
one of them is to thank Her Majesty's Judges that they have been just and impartial. What else would you expect them to be? [Ministerial cheers.] Yes, my Lords, what else did you expect them to be if by just and imparial you mean just and impartial in intention? Is it that we are asked to declare, what none of us can know, that these learned Judges had no bias, or that they had a bias, and yet that they had succeeded in doing absolute justice? What knowledge or authority have you which could be your justification for putting that on record? It is something new to my mind for Judges to be thanked by the Houses of Parliament. It has hitherto been our view that they should be kept aloof from the Executive and administration of this country. But why should you thank them for impartial conduct in this proceeding more than in any other? It has not even been the practice to thank those who have been appointed to serve on Royal Commissions for their services or for their justice and impartiality. If that had been the custom I could have understood it, but it is a novelty. Why should you thank these learned Judges for their just and impartial conduct when you have never done anything of the kind before? When the noble Marquess moved the Second Reading of the Bill appointing this Commission, he mentioned as a precedent a Commission over which I had the honour to preside. I begin to feel somewhat uncomfortable, as no thanks were voted to me by this House. I am afraid it is an imputation that I did not act with justice and impartiality; for otherwise I do not know why I am not as much entitled to the thanks of the House for the exhibition of those qualities as the learned Judges, who were appointed under this Commission. It seems to me it is an evil course for this House to adopt, and there is no precedent for thanking these Judges, for their just and impartial conduct in this case, or indeed for thanking them in any way at all. Your Lordships propose to inscribe upon the Journals of the House your condemnation of Members of the other House of Parliament, for that is really the proposal of the noble Marquess. I regret that you should do so. I am not going to follow the noble Marquess through the political portions of his

1401
speech. That is a matter which may have to be discussed, and I shall not be afraid to meet him on that ground; but it is impossible to enter upon such a discussion to-night, and that alone is my reason for not answering now the observations he made. But I cannot help regretting that you should make this record on the Journals of this House of your condemnation of the conduct of Members of the other House, because I think, in view of the occurrences of the last two years, we are too close to the fight to take an unbiased view of them, because while our vision is clouded by the dust and smoke of the combat we cannot raise ourselves high enough to emerge from them and to be free from their influence. How often have we seen the contemporary verdict upon public men and events reversed by that of posterity; and how seldom has the judgment passed by political opponents upon public men, especially men who were taking part in political agitation, been adopted by the maturer judgment of mankind. There are many striking instances of such reversals of judgment in history. Do your Lordships suppose that if at the time of the Free Trade agitation, when the leaders of the movement were charged with inciting to crime and were sought to be made responsible for the language they used, and about whom language of extreme violence was used at that period, there had been a record of the opinions of the majority of the House, that record would not have contrasted very strangely with the eulogies passed not very long ago by the noble Marquess upon a late Member of the other House who was a distinguished leader in that agitation? I am only putting that as an illustration of how opinions may change, and surely it is a very striking one. It was not very many years ago thought to be a disgrace to English politicians to be even in correspondence with Mazzini, and yet I see that the King of Italy the other day subscribed 100,000f. for a statue to him as a patriot, to be erected in Rome. When the story of this great drama comes to be written on the calm page of history, and the prejudices that have surrounded and beclouded it and have obscured our view, have disappeared, it may be that praise and blame will be allotted in a very different fashion from
1402
that in which it is now apportioned, and that those who to-night are the objects of your condemnation will not have the most cause to regret that this record has found its way on to the Journals of this historic House.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, my noble and learned Friend who has just sat down always addresses your Lordships' House with ability and eloquence. So much as that I can say by way of commendation of the speech which we have heard, but my noble and learned Friend must excuse me for saying that there were a great many things in that speech which I would rather, much rattier, have heard from any other lips than his own. I shall not imitate the somewhat declamatory manner in which ho treated some parts of his subject; but I will notice briefly, in comparison, certainly, with him, what I have observed as the principal points of his criticism. First of all, he has favoured your Lordships with a repetition almost complete of his speech upon the Second Reading of the Bill a year and a half ago. The noble and learned Lord said he had been referring to-day to some of the speeches in a former debate. I, too, have to-day had the pleasure of reading his own speech, and I must say there was hardly a single point in it which he has not repeated to-night. I think it is enough to say in answer to a great part of his speech that Parliament has passed the Act under which the investigation has taken place, that it is part of the law of the realm, and that we are now not in that stage but in the stage of considering the Report and the result. So much more as this I will also venture to say upon that part of my noble and learned Friend's speech, not intending to repeat the very sufficient answer which was given to it at the time by my noble Friend Lord Derby. I quite agree with my noble and learned Friend that because a man does not bring an action it is not to be taken for granted that everything published about him is true. I certainly cannot admit that anybody on any side in politics is to be deemed to have been justly charged with a crime unless he brings an action, or that every man is bound to bring an action if in a newspaper something is published affecting his character. Nor am I aware that everybody assumed in this case that

1403
the statements made about the letters were true, merely because an action was not brought. But there was open to the person who was affected by these personal matters the ordinary remedy to which all other people who are not Members of Parliament must have recourse if they would clear themselves from libellous imputations. Nobody, of course, is obliged to do so; every man may rely upon his own character and his own reputation if he thinks fit, and I quite agree with my noble and learned Friend, it is not because a man does not bring an action that it is to be taken for granted that everything which is published about him is true. Certainly, to that extent I go with my noble and learned Friend entirely. But, my Lords, the matter did not rest there. For reasons, good or bad, the person charged did not think fit to bring an action, and I will not go into that question now; though I confess I do not agree with my noble Friend, that if an action had been brought against the Times newspaper and the defendants had refused to state how they came by their information, a British jury would have found against the plaintiff. That is quite an independent matter, but I hold that from the beginning it is absolutely necessary that the party who makes the publication or accusation in such a case should give the history of the document on which he relies before he can ask a jury upon a mere comparison of handwriting by experts to believe, against oath to the contrary, that the document is genuine. And when my noble and learned Friend says—"There was an allegation that some people might have been put in danger of their lives, or might have incurred serious risks if the way in which, the letters had been obtained had been disclosed;" if that allegation would have been a bar to any proof of their authenticity before a Court and jury, I suppose it ought also to have been a bar before the tribunal of which my noble and learned Friend thinks so much more suitable to such a case as this; that is to say, a Select Committee of the House of Commons.
LORD HERSCHELL: A Committee of the House of Commons could have compelled the attendance of everybody concerned—anyone it chose to call.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: And so, practically, could the Court. The Judge could have said to them as defendants, "The Court must know all about the documents on which you rely, the whole history of them," and if the defendants had said," We will not tell you the whole history of them "for any reason whatever, the Judge would have told the jury, "You must draw your own conclusions from that refusal, and I must tell you that, under such circumstances, nothing in the world is more worthless than the unsupported evidence of experts as to handwriting." Therefore I do not at all agree with my noble and learned Friend about that. The party accused had a perfect right, for reasons good or bad, to leave the matter without inquiry if he chose. But what did he actually do when he refused to bring an action against the Times? He was not content to leave the matter without inquiry—on the contrary, he challenged inquiry over and over again; and I do not know how much of the time of Parliament would not have been occupied by those repeated demands for inquiry if no form of inquiry had been granted. My noble and learned Friend thinks, and he has a perfect right to his opinion, that it would have been a more Constitutional proceeding to have inquired into these matters by means of a Select Committee of the House of Commons. I do not at all agree with him. There is no reason that I know of why accusations of libel privately affecting the Members of the House of Commons should be inquired into by a Committee of the House of Commons more than by any other tribunal. In the case of a libel upon any Member of your Lordships' House, I think that a Committee of this House would not be the fittest tribunal to adjudicate upon it. Putting aside technical words, such as the word "constitutional which are often used to obscure plain meanings, I would simply ask whether that would be a fit and proper tribunal; and I cannot conceive a more unfit or improper tribunal to make such an inquiry than a Committee of the House of Commons. If it had been necessary to establish that proposition to the satisfaction of men who have discussed it before, I should say that the debate which has recently been held in that House on the Motion for

1405
recording this Report upon its Journals, and even some parts of my noble and learned Friend's speech show the necessity there was for a calm, judicial, and satisfactory investigation, which could not have been entered into by a Committee of the other House. Why should a matter affecting Members of the House of Commons be better inquired into by a Committee of that House than by a judicial tribunal? But my noble Friend says that if the Government did go elsewhere and appoint Judges to make the inquiry, they should not have chosen the Judges not without, but with reference to their known or supposed political opinions. For my part, I believe that ail the Judges would have been, and are, impartial. But my noble Friend seems to think it would have been better, if instead of taking Judges who, as far as anybody knows, had not meddled with these matters at all, they had done the very thing which must have made a Committee of the House of Commons an unfit and improper tribunal; if they could find out a Judge who had an opinion one way, and another Judge who had an opinion the other way, to put them together and let them form a tribunal of opposite views. My noble Friend's argument would require, that it should be an equal tribunal, numerically, representing divergent opinions. For, if you had bias among three Judges, you might have two one way and one the other. I think that was a part of my noble Friend's argument, which he must entertain with a very firm persuasion of mind, because he has used it twice—a year and a half ago and again to-night. It seems to me the most extraordinary argument that could be presented when you are considering what the real question is, namely, how you can best obtain an investigation which will, as far as human certainty goes, be free from Party prejudice and bias. My noble Friend says all men are biased, and that Judges have more or less opinions about political matters. Well, the less we know about their political opinions the better for the discharge by them of a duty of this kind. For my part, I believe that there is a vast difference between having political opinions and allowing them to influence the mind upon au inquiry into
1406
matters of fact—and these are questions of fact. The questions of law which are mixed with the facts appear to me to be few and simple and admitting of no real doubt or difficulty whatever. It would not have done to have inquired into the political views of the Judges and to have selected two of one way of thinking and two of the other way of thinking, so as to get an equally balanced tribunal, with the result, possibly, that a Court, so intentionally constituted with a view to Party differences, might have been equally divided in opinion. We should thus have had an attempt to reproduce the very elements which make a Committee of the House of Commons an objectionable tribunal in matters of this kind. The real question is, Have we had or not that just, calm, and equal examination which those must have hoped for who determined to have this judicial tribunal especially constituted by Act of Parliament? I think we have. The whole conduct of the proceedings was judicial. In the first instance, the learned Judges directed that the charges sought to be proved must be formulated: and I must say that I do not find in this Report that some of the charges pointed to by my noble and learned Friend were among those so formulated. I find, indeed, in the Report of the Commissioners a sot of charges which were formulated, not by those who brought the charges, but by the counsel for the other side. In addition to those formulated by the accusers, there were supplementary charges brought forward, in order to see whether any of them ought, in the opinion of the Commissioners, to be added to those already made. With regard to those charges we must look at the ultimate findings of the Commissioners, and we find there that a great and important part of those which were mentioned by my noble and learned Friend are not the subject of any findings, and there is not the least trace that the Commissioners were of opinion that they ought to be considered as among the charges to be investigated.
LORD HERSCHELL: I should be glad if my noble and learned Friend will point out which of the charges he alludes to. I believe he is quite wrong.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am quite certain it is so. Of the charges

1407
which were not among those formulated on the part of the accusers, there are more than one which they do go into; the most important of them, upon which the Commissioners decided in favour of the accused, being that which relates to the connection between Mr. Parnell and the Invincibles.
LORD HERSCHELL: My noble Friend is quite mistaken. The first one that I read was that the Land League had based their agitation on boycotting and violence. They found that was the meaning of the Times' article, and that that was not proved. I have taken every one of them.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There are a great many things in the body of the Report on one side and the other, more or less important, which, in my judgment, afford additional proof of the impartiality of the Commissioners. No doubt my noble Friend will find in the Report matters of the kind to which he has referred, but they are not treated as the specific ground of the charges upon which findings, Yes or No, were ultimately to be given, and they stand in that respect in contrast with the particular charge about the Invincibles. Now, my Lords, did the Judges or did they not act in such a manner as to deserve the expression of opinion which it is proposed to be passed upon their Report by your Lordships? I think that from the beginning to the end they did. It seems to me that not only have they found certain matters in favour of the accused, but in reference to other matters they have expressed their opinion that the charges were either not proved or not established, though they do not find them to be absolutely disproved. And in every one of the findings adverse to the accused there is the most careful abstinence from anything like exaggeration or undue colour. Every qualification which could be fairly made has been introduced in favour of the accused, and nothing found against them has boon at all exaggerated. For my own part, I cannot but think that the words which Sir James Hannen used at the end of the proceedings are fully warranted by the result. He says—
"Conscious that though out this great inquest we have sought only the truth, we trust that we shall be guided to find it and set it forth plainly in the sight of all men."
1408
I think they hare done so; and I do not agree with my noble Friend that there is any kind of reflection to be made upon Judges appointed specially for an extraordinary purpose by Act of Parliament, if you acknowledge that they have done their duty with the justice and impartiality which are evident upon the face of the Report, by their balanced findings, by their refusing to find upon evidence they think insufficient against the accused, and by the guarded and qualified findings which they are obliged to arrive at on the other side. The House is not examining into the evidence, and it is right that your Lordships should show that you recognise the Report as containing, on the face of it, the proofs of the justice and impartiality of the Judges, and that in that, and in no other sense you adopt it; especially so as some persons happened not to admit their justice and impartiality. The other criticism which nay noble Friend has made upon this proposed Resolution seemed to me to have rather more in it than many others of his arguments, and that is in reference to the term "adopts"—that the House adopts the Report. But we must look at the matter and construe that word according to the common sense of the Resolution, and it is obvious that the word "adopts" there means nothing else than what is more explicitly carried into effect by the last words, "and orders that the Report be entered on the Journals of the House." Of course, the House is not now sitting in appeal upon the Report, or entering upon an examination of the evidence; but taking the Report as just and impartial upon its face, and therefore proper to be accepted—adopted in that and in no other sense. When my noble and learned Friend said that because there are many landlords, some of them Irish landlords, in this House, it is unfit for us to adopt the Report, everybody knows that we are not reviewing the Report of the Judges. We are simply accepting it and nothing else. Therefore, when my noble and learned Friend threw that in, I think it was clear that in that, as well as in some other parts of his speech, he was not addressing your Lordships, but saying that which was meant for somewhere else. There is no objection in the world to his doing so; but I can-

1409
not help thinking, at the same time, that arguments should be addressed to your Lordships which have enough reason and substance in them to be fit for the consideration of the House, and not exclusively for consumption elsewhere. Now, my Lords, I come to the only exception of a definite kind which my noble and learned Friend took to the findings. I do not mean to say he did not criticise, though slightly and cautiously, other parts of the Report; but the only one as to which his criticism seems to me to call for any answer is the particular subsidiary finding that payments were made to persons who were, or had been, injured in the commission of crime; and he said that that rests upon evidence of a slight kind in a single letter, and that the whole body of the respondents are treated as affected by it. My noble Friend thought there was not sufficient ground for that finding. Well, my Lords, I am of a different opinion, and for reasons which I find in the context in that very part of the Report. The context is this, and it affects several points on which it is found that the charges are not proved, not established. My noble Friend the former Viceroy of Ireland did me the honour the other day to refer to something I had said upon that and upon other matters. Probably my noble and learned Friend was misled by some imperfect report of what I said: which related only to one finding, namely, that it had not been proved that payments were made for the commission of crime. As to this, finding them positively absolved from the charge of inciting to crime, I thought it was a reasonable inference that they would not have made payments for its commission. Therefore, upon that point I was not disposed to make a distinction. But as to other points upon which the proof was actually in their own power, it is consistent with what has been proved that they should have made payments. Upon that point the finding of the Commissioners is most important, that there were whole sacks full of documents made away with. My noble and learned Friend objects to the finding that documents were made away with. But I must remind him that a Member of Parliament of very high character, belonging to the Irish Party, stilted in an
1410
affidavit that certain books which, were in existence would be produced, but when they were called for they were not-produced; and according to the extremely well-known principle of law, when people destroy or will not produce evidence which they either have or ought to have in their own power, every reasonable presumption may be made against them. My noble Friend has said something about Mr. Houston in addressing your Lordships; but I think it is not in the least worth while for me to deal with Mr. Houston, who, as far as I can judge, was not the wisest of men; but I have not so read the evidence as to infer that there was dishonesty on his part.
THE EARL OF KTMBERLEY: I am astonished.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I repeat what I said; but, for the purpose of the present question, I do not think it is of the slightest importance whether he was as dishonest as Pigott or as honest as my noble Friend. However, that is an interruption. I was going to say that upon points where the charges were found not to have been established, and where those books if produced would have given irrefragable evidence, the value of a finding of "Not proven" is very slight. But their absence is of still greater value from what appears in those which happen to have been preserved; and I was going to say that when you find in one case an instance of a certain thing being done and nothing to prove that it is an isolated case, then I hold that it is a step of importance towards the conclusion that it was not an isolated case. But it is corroborated by another fact of very great importance indeed, and that is that it is found as a general thing clearly established that, systematically and indiscriminately, these League people paid for the expenses of the defence of persons accused of crime; and the Commissioners justly observe that it was impossible that such a practice, and the supporting of their families in the same way, should not have encouraged the commission of crime. When you have so much proved as that, that they did what systematically and indiscriminately supported the families of these men and paid for their defence, and when you find from this document, which has

1411
escaped from the general destruction, evidence that in one case they made compensation to a person or persons who had been wounded in the commission of crime, who no doubt might be very fair objects of compassion to those who had common cause with them, I think you have evidence from which you may fairly draw the reasonable inference, and from which a jury ought to draw the inference, that it was not an isolated act. And as to the question whether this should be imputed to the League, the money was taken out of the League funds by their authorised officers, and if the principal inference is right, the inference that the respondents who were leaders of the League were also responsible parties and answerable for it is right also. It is one of a series of acts. The noble and learned Lord deals somewhat tenderly with the objects and means of the League. He represents the objects as if they were to restrain unreasonable evictions, to obtain the reduction of excessive rents, and some beneficial legislation for the people of Ireland on agrarian subjects. Now, I do not read either the findings of the Commissioners, or the facts on which they proceed, in any such way. To my mind, the facts appear to be clear. The Commissioners describe the objects thus:—
"They did enter into a conspiracy by a system of coercion and intimidation to promote an agrarian agitation against the payment of agricultural rents, for the purpose of impoverishing and expelling from the country the Irish landlords."
That is a very different thing, and the facts, I think, in the body of the Report clearly prove it. I will not say all those facts are new, because some of us knew them before, but upon their novelty I shall have something to say presently. I say that an object more utterly wrong, morally as well as legally, than that of trying to destroy the value of the property of a class who are entitled to their property by law, and drive them out of the country—to exterminate landlordism, which was, in fact, the object they had in view—it would be very difficult to imagine. Then, with regard to the means. My noble Friend very cautiously says there may be some boycotting which may be lawful. Whatever ho means by that, I do not know what it is, but I know some people often call a thing by a name
1412
very different from what the thing really is—but what is found? The learned Judges have found on the clearest and best evidence on the face of the Report, putting aside what we all knew before, "That it was a conspiracy to promote an agrarian agitation by a system of coercion and intimidation." My noble and learned Friend will not say that a system of coercion and intimidation is not illegal. As to conspiracy—it so happens that the words "criminal conspiracy" are not the words used in the ultimate finding of the Report—but it was a conspiracy for a purpose obviously illegal, obviously unlawful, and obviously wrong. Nay, it is not merely a system of coercion and intimidation, but a system of intimidation of a most severe and cruel character, an elaborate and all pervading tyranny. Those are the facts, and those are the words of the Report. So much with regard to the direct means. And what is the consequence? They find that, not exclusively, but mainly to that agitation the increase of agrarian crime, until the Coercion Act of Mr. Gladstone's Government, was due. They give very good reasons for that finding also. But it does not stop there. As you go step by step through this Report you find the connection with crime becomes more and more direct. Intimidation is crime, and it is so recognised in the Report. Therefore, their first direct means are criminal. Then, secondly, there are other organisations, their relations to which are brought out clearly in the Report. And when my noble and learned Friend speaks of the Report as containing mostly things we knew before, I do not know what speeches people may have made, but even to me, who knew what was going on at the period when this happened, as a Member of the Government, the connection of the whole matter, in all its branches and steps, is virtually new. This Report has brought out, upon sufficient evidence and proof, step by step, the connection of this so-called Parliamentary organisation with another criminal organisation, and has proved a connivance with crime, though, no doubt, not directly recommended. What are the steps? In the first place, it is admitted that they never did anything whatever to assist the course of justice in any single case, and one of the most can did of

1413
them, Mr. Matthew Harris, is quoted in the Report as accounting for that by saying that anybody who did so, who might assist in bringing to justice anyone accused of agrarian crime, would forfeit his influence in Ireland. They paid for the defence indiscriminately of everybody accused of these crimes; they never gave any assistance to the detection or punishment of crime; and in the words of the Commission—
"Although some of them did bonâ fide express disapproval of crime and outrage, they did not denounce the system of intimidation which led to crime and outrage, but persisted in it with knowledge of its effect."
And as to Mr. Parnell himself, not only do the Judges say that no denunciation by him of the action of the Physical Force Party was given in evidence, but that he himself stated in the witness-box that he could not say that he had ever found fault with the Fenian movement. Mr. Parnell, and some of his friends, denounced the Phænix Park murders, committed at a particular time and under particular circumstances; hut there is no evidence that they ever denounced any of the other atrocious murders or other outrages which were committed; and the Report appears to show plainly that they were in such relations with those who favoured such outrages, as to have their mouths shut and their hands tied, however much they might dislike it. I take only one instance, which is mentioned in the Report, the murder of Lord Mountmorres in 1880. There was a meeting of the Executive Committee of the League soon after. There was, I think, a Member of Parliament in the chair. Four or five other Members of Parliament were present, whoso names are exceedingly well known; but I do not want to dwell upon anything personal, and I believe that the Chairman, who is stated in the Report to have been the editor of the Nation, had expressed disapproval of Lord Mountmorres's murder, no doubt with perfect sincerity; but Mr. Redpath, a trusted agent of theirs, who received their thanks, and who was employed afterwards as much as before, without a word of remonstrance, dissent, or expostulation from anyone present, spoke of Lord Mountmorres, the murdered man, in terms, to my mind, worse a great deal than anything contained in the forged letters
1414
which were imputed to Mr. Parnell. And in the newspapers which they circulated throughout Ireland there were direct incitements to violence over and over again, and sympathy even with the Phænix Park murders, and opposition to the Government for their endeavours to detect them. In the Irishman, the paper which Mr. Parnell bought, as the Commissioners state, for the purpose of addressing his Fenian friends by its means, it having been a Fenian paper before, its old tone was maintained upon a promise which was kept. The Castle Authorities, at Dublin, were spoken of in it as worse than the Spanish Inquisition, or the Star Chamber, which was called diabolical, for the inquiries which they were making into these very Phænix Park murders. On other occasions, in these newspapers which they circulated, the persons who were executed for those murders, Curley and Brady, were obviously treated as objects of sympathy rather than as persons who had violated the law. O'Donnell, who shot Carey, the informer, was treated as a positive hero. These things, it may be said, were not in the direct publications for which the League is responsible; but that is not true of the Irishman. They bought it and carried it on for five years, with articles of the description I have indicated in it. The Irish World they circulated for a considerable time too. How is it possible, therefore, to state that the system of violence was not a system of which they were making use by alliance with the practisers of it when they were circulating these newspapers which incited to violence? But it does not stop there. In other findings of the Commissioners this form of alliance is traced through its whole history, and it is shown that through the agency of Mr. Davitt an alliance was distinctly formed with the Physical Force Party in America, which was associated with the Fenians or Irish Republican Brotherhood in Ireland. One remarkable instance of this is that the authorities of the League, and among them a prominent Member of Parliament, disapproved strongly of the action of the branch at Cork, when it condemned a Fenian raid for arms, declaring that it was not their business to interfere with other organisations. Every person who joined in that resolution censuring the raid was expelled from the branch,

1415
and the branch was re-formed. The Commissioners state that this was a strong instance of the connection between thy two organisations, and in another place the Commissioners say that throughout the whole of the proceedings of the League the connection with the party of violence can be traced as controlling and influencing its action. Here we have light of the most valuable character, which will have a permanent historical value, and will be most useful for the guidance of statesmen now as to the actual connection, direct and indirect, by different steps and in different degrees, between the action of the so-called Parliamentary Party and the use of criminal means—intimidation itself being criminal—and other outrages and crimes which were carried on by agencies with which they are proved to have been in alliance. My noble Friend has complained that the noble Marquess has said nothing of the findings which were in favour of Mr. Parnell. The noble Marquess proposed, as I understand him, to put the Report, as a whole, on record, and, of course, in this record, the findings in favour of the accused will be quite as much noticed and recognised in this House as those the other way. I should be very sorry to be guilty of imputing to Mr. Parnell what he has not done, especially if it is a thing which he disclaims, and which he in his own mind distinguishes from other things he has done. But I do not see how it would be possible to take special notice of those findings which are in favour of the accused, and not also to take special notice of the findings which are the other way. If your Lordships adopt the Report as a whole in the sense I ascribe to the Resolution, and enter it on the Journals, it will speak for itself. It will show what is in favour of one Party and of the other, and its effect as a whole will be understood by those who read it. I should be sorry to detract from the importance of any of the findings which are in favour of the accused; but it seems to me that the general charges which were proved are much more important to the public than the personal charges, which, after all, relate only to one particular cycle of transactions and to one particular period of time. They I elate to the Phænix Park murders, to the forged letters, and to the know-
1416
ledge which Mr. Parnell may have had of Mr. Sheridan's and Mr. Boyton's acts in the West of Ireland, when he was released from Kilmainham; and also they relate, to a particular payment made to Egan. These are facts relating to one particular epoch of time and to one connected period of events. To this extent Mr. Parnell is entitled to the full benefit of the exoneration given to him. But can we shut our eyes to the fact that he, under whatever political compulsion, was connected with another organisation which used means which he may not have personally approved of? I cannot see any justification or excuse for going on with the system of intimidation which led to crime when he knew that it led to crime, and at the same time doing those other things to which the Commissioners have referred, which showed that he was willing to make use of the alliance of persons who used means more violent than his own. My noble Friend has said that the antecedent state of things in Ireland ought to be taken into account. I do not think it ought to be taken into account at all, in the way my noble Friend has suggested; and, in one respect, I think that if it is taken into account it makes the case worse rather than better. Because when it was known how inflammable and easily excited to crime were some classes of the Irish people, then those using language leading to crime, intimidation, and boycotting, cannot be dissociated from the knowledge that it produced certain effects. My noble Friend says that all this crime was the result of bad laws, and that these things were done to obtain better legislation; but, if my memory does not greatly deceive me, when the legislation of 1881 took place, and the Land Act was passed, instead of these things stopping, they burst out more violently than ever for at least a year after that time. I know it was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that there was a battle going on between the Land Act and the Land League, and the agitation was not to get a Land Act or anything of the sort. And what has happened since? Since that time they have practically thrown over the Land Act altogether, and are seeking still, by illegal and un-Constitutional means, to carry out the

1417
object of impoverishing the landlords and driving them out of the country. My Lords, these are the lessons which I derive from the Report, and, taking that view of it, I entirely concur with the Motion of the noble Marquess.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, my noble and learned Friend said that he thought the speeches from this side of the House, or a speech from the noble and learned Lord behind me, at all events, was rather addressed to an audience outside than to the audience here. Well, perhaps that is not very surprising, because I apprehend that whatever arguments we may address to the audience here, the immense majority of this House is so entirely biassed by political feeling upon this subject, that no arguments are likely to have any effect upon them. I think, however, that it will be very different with the public outside, who, before long, will show that they do not agree with the view of the majority of this House, or with the effect of the Motion of the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess, who introduced this subject, said very fairly, as an argument, that the Party on this side of the House had invented a very ingenious manæuvre by which to obscure the real issue to be tried before the Commission, and that they had prominently brought forward the forged letters as though they were the only subject to be discussed. But it is curious that we on our side of this House should have imagined that the manæuvre, if there was one, was an ingenious and well contrived manævre on the part of the Government, because it has always appeared to me to have been very well contrived that when it was seen that this forged letter business was not likely to turn out very well, this inquiry was invented, with a number of issues of a much wider kind, which it was hoped would obscure the other issues which had to be tried. That manæuvre was extremely successful; but I was very much surprised to hear my learned Friend who has just spoken speak of the charges with regard to the forged letters as not being the primary and principal object of the whole matter; and I would put it to your Lordships in this way: Does any person suppose for a moment that if those letters had not been published by the Times newspaper, there would ever
1418
have been an inquiry of this kind before a Commission? The notion is preposterous. No one can conceive that the Government would have proposed to appoint a Commission of three Judges to inquire into the political condition of Ireland during the last few years. The whole thing was caused by the publication of those personal charges, which were of such a nature that those who were charged with them, if they had been found guilty of those crimes, would have been unfit to associate with men of honour, or to remain Members of the other House. That was the primary cause of the inquiry. I shall not repeat what was said by my noble and learned Friend behind me as to the nature of this tribunal, but I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, that because it was done under an Act of Parliament we are not entitled to discuss it. It does not follow that because Parliament passes a law, that everybody for all time is to approve of it and not discuss it. We continue to improve as time goes on. My own opinion may not be worth much, but I believe no more utterly wrong act was ever done than to refer these political issues to a tribunal of three Judges. The very comments made upon the Judges show how inconvenient it is that these political issues should be so tried. A considerable number of the questions which are disposed of in this Report are in their very essence merely political. I will not say only the major part, but that all the things there dealt with apart from the specific charge based upon the forged letters, were put forward in a political speech of Mr. Forster's in the year 1882, and they were notorious to everyone. The noble Marquess said, to my astonishment, that a great many things were brought to light by that inquiry which were not known before; but I will undertake to say that there is not practically anything in this Report which was not to be found at that time in every newspaper of the day. All these things on which findings are made were known to everyone. These matters of boycotting were brought in the fullest manner before Parliament. There is not a word new in reference to the charges, except, I think, that £6 was paid to someone by the Land League for injuries sustained in the commission of some

1419
crime or outrage. That is undoubtedly new. From that fact some extraordinary inference is drawn, and upon it some extraordinary conclusions are founded. It is said that we should have found that very large similar payments were made by the Land League, if we could only have seen the Land League books. My noble and learned Friend pointed out that those Land League books bad been destroyed.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not know that I said "destroyed," but practically got out of the way in some way or other.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Well, got out of the way in some way, which a Court of Justice would have condemned, but I maintain there is no evidence of that at all. As to Mr. M'Carthy, if I remember rightly, I think he gave a list of papers which he knew to be in the possession of the Land League, but he stated publicly that he never undertook for a moment to produce them, but that he would have no objection to do so. The answer he gave may have been a perfectly true one, namely, that in the confusion attending the breaking up of the Land League these books were lost, and I do not think my noble and learned Friend has the slightest right to assume that those books were with any criminal intention destroyed. I say that it may have been so, but there is no evidence whatever to prove it, and where there is no evidence upon a particular charge of this kind, against a man who has been found in regard to other charges not to be guilty, the only course to take with respect to that particular charge is to treat it as not proved.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The passage I refer to in the Commissioners' Report is this—
"Mr. Justin M'Carthy, M.P., in an affidavit he made on October 9, 1888, stated that he had obtained a list of the books relating to this League, and which he was willing should be produced. This list had been furnished to him by Mr. Brady, the secretary of the English branch of the National League. During the progress of the case the production of these cash-books and ledgers for the years 1881 to 1883 proved to be of importance. When called for Mr. Justin M'Carthy was unable to produce them, and was unable to explain the reason for their non-production."
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I was perfectly aware of that passage, and if the noble and learned Lord will examine
1420
it with care I think he will find that, there is no statement in it that Mr. M'Carthy gave an undertaking to produce the books. What he said was that as far as he was concerned he had no objection to their production. That is the whole substance of what he declared. He never declared that he had the books in his possession, or that he had access to them, or that he could guarantee the production of the books. I believe that is a perfectly correct statement of the matter. The noble and learned Lord referred to some statements of the learned Judges on the subject of the connection between the Land League and the increase of crime. Now, that is exactly one of the matters upon which I complain, that this subject should have been submitted to the Judges, because I do not hesitate to say, with all respect for men of their high judicial character, that they were not competent; that they did not know enough of the political history of Ireland, or of the circumstances of the case, to be able to form a correct judgment in the matter; and I maintain that anyone who has followed the political history of Ireland will find in this Report plain proof that the Judges did not thoroughly understand the matter with which they had to deal. Let me say why I am of that opinion. You will find at page 88 they say they are of opinion—
"That the increase in agrarian crime during those years" (1879 to 1882) "though not exclusively to be ascribed to the agitation was mainly due to the action of the Land League, its founders and leaders."
And if you look a little further back in the Report you will see what I think is a most extraordinary statement. The learned Judges say—
"As to the third suggestion, namely, that the throwing out of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill in August, 1880, was the origin of the increase of crime, we are of opinion that it was not an effective cause of that increase, but that it arose from the agitation of which the rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill was made the occasion."
My Lords, according to my notion of logical sequence that statement would show that the crime was caused by the rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, because if the rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill caused the agitation, and the agitation caused the crime, by what possible sequence

1421
of reasoning can you come to any conclusion other than that the action of this House caused the crime? I maintain that the Judges have taken a wrong view of the matter; there were concurrent causes, and all those causes have had their effect. The learned Judges, in my opinion, have not given sufficient weight to the previous agrarian difficulties in that country; to the war which has been going on for generations between the landlords and tenants in that country; and that they have not done so because they could not be supposed to be aware of the whole previous history of Ireland and of the whole circumstances attending its present condition. The consequence has been that they have imagined that this agitation has itself been the primary cause, whereas the primary causes lay elsewhere. It is the common mistake which men, who are not accustomed to political affairs, make; men commonly imagine that the agitation is the cause. It is not so; the materials exist in the discontent to which the agitation gives voice, and the agitation only comes to a head when there has been something beforehand which enables the agitators to exercise an influence in the country. Then, again, the Judges, in speaking of the diminution of crime, ascribe it entirely to the operation of the Crimes Act. I am not going to say anything against the efficacy of the Crimes Act, which was passed during the time that I had the honour to be a Member of the Government; bat I never heard it asserted before, and I never believed that the Crimes Act was the sole cause of the diminution of crime. I think our other measures have had some effect—I have no doubt that our measure of 1881 had its effect in alleviating the discontent existing between landlords and tenants. To say that the diminution of crime is to be ascribed entirely to the operation of the Crimes Act is, in my opinion, an entire misapprehension of the matter. I do not blame the Judges at all; I only say that I do not think they were the men who could have given duo weight to all those causes, or to apprehend the due proportion of those causes. I do not think any man who has not been practically concerned with the affairs of Ireland for years past could do so. There are many noble Lords in this House
1422
whose opinion upon these matters I would take much more readily, and to which I would give much greater weight than to this opinion of the learned Judges, upon whichever side of your Lordships' House they may happen to sit. In the main, you can arrive at a far better conclusion, and form a far more competent opinion by setting four or five politicians of fair opinions in this House to examine such a question than by entrusting it to the consideration of Judges. Therefore, I do not attach any weight to the opinion, of the Judges in that respect at all. My Lords, my whole objection to that proceeding is, that it is to a large extent a political question which you have chosen to refer to a tribunal of Judges. It is a political question, and the whole of this business has been stirred up for a political purpose. Originally these letters were brought forward by the Times in a manner which, to my mind, was as shameful as anything which has ever occurred in connection with English journalism. I have not known anything so shameful ever having occurred before. It was shameful, not because the mere accusations were made, because a journal has the same right as anyone else to bring accusations forward on sufficient ground and evidence; but it is obvious that no care was taken to investigate this matter, and we do not know now precisely the manner in which those letters were obtained. But what we do know is, that those charges were made carelessly, negligently, and almost criminally, for a purpose which cannot now be concealed. The sole object of making them was for Party purposes; to try and ruin the leaders of an opposing Political Party. The whole proceeding, to my mind, is vitiated, for the reason that it is a Party proceeding taken for a Party purpose. Four Lordships may say what you please in this House; the majority may carry this Resolution to-day; but I maintain that there is nothing judicial about the Report. The House of Commons has placed this Report upon its Journals; but I think it is almost certain that the House of Commons will erase it from its Journals, and this House will then be left in the rather absurd position of having adopted it on the Records of the House, when the other House has got rid of it. Why do I say that, my Lords? I say it because this is a matter in which

1423
political feelings are involved. Not one of us can be unbiased in this matter. We try to be fair; but in a matter of this kind we cannot treat it in a judicial and impartial spirit. I say, therefore, that for a purpose of this kind there never ought to have been such an Inquiry. If there was a question of the honour of Members of either House concerned, or if Mr. Parnell's character were assailed, the House might have inquired into it. If there was a question of libel, the Courts of Law, I agree, were open to Mr. Parnell; but I say under no circumstances ought you to constitute a perfectly novel tribunal—unknown in the history of this country—for the purpose, forsooth, of trying men on a criminal charge. Are we come to this; that a tribunal is to be constituted by a majority of the House against the protests of another Party, which probably represents nearly half the entire nation, specially to try a Political Party for political purposes? For it is no more than that. I cannot say that I feel in the least degree moved by this Report, except in so far as Mr. Parnell and his friends are acquitted of some most disgraceful charges of which, if they had been guilty, they would have been unfit to associate with honourable men, or to remain Members of the Legislature. I have formed my opinion upon all these matters, with which I have been acquainted for many years, and it differs in some respects from the opinion of noble Lords opposite, though I may agree with them in some things. For example, I should entirely agree with them in condemning boycotting; and I should agree that many things have been done by Mr. Parnell and his Party of which I should not approve. But, my Lords, when it comes to this point, that this is to be regarded as a criminal matter in the sense in which we regard criminality, it is another matter. The noble Marquess actually compared the Irish Nationalist Party to the receivers of stolen goods. I will just ask your Lordships to consider how untenable such a statement is—I will not say anything of its injustice. Would you make a receiver of stolen goods a Member of a Committee of the House of Commons, or Chairman of an important Committee? Would you consort with men whom you regarded as criminals in ordinary life, and something more? All these things
1424
were known to the noble Lords opposite in 1885, every one of them; there is practically nothing that was not notorious. The Conservative Party found it very convenient in 1885 to have, I will not call it an alliance, because I know that word is objected to, but to act in common with the Irish Party for the purpose of turning us out of office. By a rather singular coincidence—it was nothing more, of course—they did not renew the Coercion Act, as it is called, in that year. By another very singular coincidence, Lord Carnarvon also held his famous conference with Mr. Parnell. Therefore, it is impossible for you to regard those men in the light of criminals, and yet have this kind of communication with them. I do not say it is wrong; all political parties in this country always associate with any set of men if, by a common purpose, they can damage their adversaries; and I do not think the Conservative Party are in the slightest degree more guilty than others in that respect. But I say this, that you cannot consort with men and have communications in common with them; you cannot consult Mr. Parnell as to the best mode of administering the country and incur, as the Conservative Party undoubtedly did, the general supposition that there was some alliance between them and the Irish Nationalist Party, and then turn round upon them and say they are criminals. That is a proposition which I think, however convenient it may be to put it forward in debate, cannot be sustained for a moment. The fact is, my Lords, that we do not regard Mr. Parnell and his associates in the light of criminals, although we may regard them as men who are opposed to the policy and interests of this country, and who have employed means for ends which are condemned by noble Lords opposite, but which, in many cases, must be admitted to be patriotic. Then we are told that they associated themselves with the Fenians. Is that a new discovery? Is there any one who did not know that the Nationalist movement was supported by Fenians? Every one knows that at one time the Fenians were practically the whole Nationalist Party in Ireland. But, by degrees, a considerable number of men, in consequence of the efforts of Mr. Butt in the first instance, and of Mr. Parnell since, have taken to

1425
Parliamentary agitation; but a very largo proportion, I am afraid, may still be tainted with the old Fenian leaven. But is it a matter of condemnation of the whole Parliamentary Party of Ireland that they accepted that Fenian support? I think there is nothing whatever to condemn in it provided they acted on legal and Constitutional principles. I see no difference, as a matter of opinion, between their acting with the Fenians for their Parliamentary purposes and the noble Lord and his friends acting for Parliamentary purposes with Mr. Parnell. The two things, to my mind, run in common. My noble Friend was not quite accurate in saying that there was no condemnation of crime on the part of the Irish leaders. The learned Judges no doubt tell us that there are many men connected with the movement who would go further and exceed the lines within which the Irish Parliamentary Party seems to have limited itself. One remark which my noble and learned Friend made was, I think, not very justifiable when he said that there had been no condemnation of crime. I think that in saying that he had really overlooked one of the findings of the Judges, because they state in their 6th finding—
"We find as to the allegation that the respondents did nothing to prevent crime, and expressed no bonâ fide disapproval, that some of the respondents, and in particular Mr. Davitt, did express bonâ fide disapproval of crime and outrage; but that; the respondents did not denounce the system of intimidation which led to crime and outrage, but persisted in it with knowledge of its effect."
Therefore, my noble and learned Friend was not quite correct in saying that there was no condemnation of crime and outrage, because the learned Judges themselves say that some of the respondents, and in particular Mr. Davitt, did denounce crime and outrage. The general statement that crime and outrage arose from the agitation is in one sense true. You cannot have an agitation of that kind without crime. But is it so perfectly certain that the whole agitation was without any justification. I am not so sure of that. The justification, such as it was, arose from the fact that there were a vast number of evictions carried out in Ireland, and large numbers of tenants who were refused reductions of their rents when they ought to have had them. I de-
1426
liberately say that I now believe, since the action of the Land Courts, that there was a most unjustifiable refusal of reduction of rents to the poor tenants in Ireland. And, after all, it turns out that the reductions of rent which have been made are no more than we have had to make in England without the pressure which has been put upon the Irish landlords. I do not accuse the Irish landlords of being either cruel or inhuman men; but I think they were not aware of the necessity of making reductions largely and timely to their tenants, many of them very small and poor men, and therefore having no capital to fall back upon, as men in a similar position have in this country. I think the landlords were most unwise in not making large and timely reductions. Well, that being so, and there being a widespread distrust existing between tenants and landlords in Ireland, do you think it is extraordinary that there should be agitation to enable the tenants to bring additional pressure to bear upon their landlords? To my mind it seems the most natural thing in the world, though unfortunately it has been followed in many cases by crime and outrage. It has been said that the Judges have found that the Land League have been guilty of crime and intimidation for the purpose of driving out the "English Garrison" as they are called. I think that is rather a rhetorical statement for the Judges to make—the driving out of the "English Garrison." I suppose there was some desire on the part of the tenants and the Land League to drive out the landlords with the view of weakening their influence in that country; but observe this, my Lords, though Mr. Parnell in one of his speeches which appears in this book stated that he desired to put the lands in the hands of the tenants and to remove the landlords, he said that that should be done with compensation; and he said if the landlords can be got out of the country Home Rule will very soon follow. In that was there anything more than what is exactly the policy of Her Majesty's Government? Her Majesty's Government have, I do not say wrongly, but they have been endeavouring to facilitate the passing of the land from the landlords to the tenants; and they imagine—though here I think they are entirely wrong, but

1427
there are many who agree with them—that by doing this they are strengthening the position of affairs politically, and strengthening the hold of England upon Ireland. I believe, as strongly as I believe any political proposition, that the more you can put the land into the hands of the tenants in Ireland the stronger will the Home Rule Party become. It is contrary to reason to suppose that these men, merely because they have ceased to have grievances against their landlord, will cease to exhibit Party feeling. Mr. Parnell has told you that, and that they will continue to act in carrying out a common object although in a different manner. I do not know that I need trouble your Lordships much further. I have referred to most of the points which I wished to refer to, and all I desire to add is merely this, that I think the noble Marquess was scarcely generous to Mr. Parnell and his friends. I see no advantage to be gained, if I may venture to say so, by any Political Party in putting a case against their political opponents too severely. Mr. Parnell and his Party were undoubtedly most cruelly treated in regard to the forged letters, and I think there might well have been some sort of expression of regret on the part of the noble Marquess in regard to that matter. I think we should not endeavour to make too much of the differences between ourselves and the leaders of the Irish Party. Remember, that the men with whom you have to deal are the leaders of four-fifths of the Irish people; and if there is any point on which you can show that you acknowledge the justice of their complaint I think it is good policy to do so. Therefore, I am sorry that the noble Marquess did not express some regret in that regard. My noble and learned Friend said that there was no regret expressed in the Report; but I think he meant no regret on the part of the noble Marquess. I must make this remark, that the Report contains one grievous omission. There are two parties in this case, one party is spoken of very harshly by the Judges, and has been on several questions condemned by them; while the other party—I mean the Times—are never spoken of with condemnation throughout the Report, or submitted to the censure which I think they deserve. I do
1428
not want to accuse the Judges of want of impartiality—that would be unfair; but it is to be lamented that they did not think it within their duty to mete out their condemnation on those who had brought charges which proved to be so unfounded. My Lords, the Report will, of course, be placed on the Journals of this House, and when it has been placed there I confess it seems to me that the political situation as regards Ireland will not be advanced one inch; that we shall be simply where we were as regards our differences; and that the only result that can come from this Report is that Mr. Parnell has been absolved from the charges made against him upon these forged letters; and that a very large number of people in this country think he has been exceedingly ill-used, and they will visit upon the Party opposite the consequences of the whole of this proceeding.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I was very anxious when I came to the House to-night to hear the reasons which would be given for either taking no step at all or for taking a partial step with regard to the Report which has been presented by the Special Commissioners to the House. When the Report was presented, it was regarded by Mr. Parnell and his friends as a triumph for them. That was the statement of their organ, and I apprehend, therefore, that they, at all events, regarded the Report with no want of favour. There were others, however, who, on the other hand, although the Report stated that Mr. Parnell was not guilty on certain personal charges which had been brought against him, yet nevertheless considered that the charges made against the Parnellites as a party were in substance made out; and they also, I apprehend, see no reason why the Report should not be acted upon. Before I go any further, I must say this, with regard to Mr. Parnell and these personal charges, that I am glad he has had the opportunity of clearing himself from them, and I I am glad that he has cleared himself from them. But, at the same time, I regret that he did not take the opportunity, which was as open to him as I believe it would be for adoption by any one of us here if we were libelled, of appealing to the ordinary Courts of Law;

1429
for I must confess I cannot think so badly of our Court of Law as the noble and learned Lord Herschell appears to do, when he says that if a man appears before a Court of Law declaring that he has been libelled, and if at the same time the accuser were to refuse to produce any proof in support of the alleged libel—I cannot imagine that our Courts of Law are so utterly unfair as to say that they would proceed to find him guilty simply on the evidence of experts. But, my Lords, I wish to refer to the Report of the Commissioners themselves upon this matter, and I wish to point out that no exception can be taken with regard to their course of procedure. We have heard references made to their impartiality, but the course of procedure which they adopted was in itself, I think, distinctly in favour of Mr. Parnell. My Lords, I say it on their own authority they did not act as Commissioners would have done; they acted throughout as Judges. They felt very keenly and strongly the sense of responsibility. They knew they bad the Bar and the Bench behind them, and your Lordships will see the trace of that in their course of procedure from the very beginning to the very end of what they did. I will now quote their own words. They say—
"If we had taken Royal Commissions of Inquiry as our guide, it would have been necessary for us, ourselves, to have found the witnesses to be called, and for this purpose we must have employed agents to see them and take their proofs in order that we might have the materials for their examination by us. Amongst several objections to this course one appeared to us conclusive, namely, that we should have seemed to be taking upon ourselves the functions of a prosecutor, with which the duties of a Judge are scarcely consistent."
Then it goes on—
"From the constitution of the Commission, the powers conferred upon it, and the character of the charges made, we considered that it was fitting that we should conduct the inquiry judicially and according to the law of evidence and procedure prevailing in the ordinary Courts of justice,"
and so on. I should be the last to complain of the course which the Commissioners decided to adopt, and I think they did quite right in adopting the course which to them seemed best. I wish to point out that the course thus taken was distinctly the best which could have been taken in favour of Mr. Parnell
1430
and his friends, because the Judges called upon the Times to substantiate their charges; they converted the whole procedure into a strict trial, and any charge which was not absolutely proved by the Times they found to be "not proven." We were told to-night that it was unusual to thank Judges for their impartiality. Yes, my Lords, it is very unusual; but we also heard, both in the other House of Parliament and in this House—though they were whispered more quietly in this House—attacks made upon the Judges, and we heard one Judge even attacked by name. Therefore, when the Report is presented, it does seem to me that it is necessary we should thank the Judges for the impartiality which they have undoubtedly displayed throughout these proceedings. My Lords, the question was, as the Judges say, whether the respondents, or any of them, had been guilty of the charges alleged against them. That was the question which was tried; that was the question which they reported upon; that is the question with which we have got to deal to-night. Now, my Lords, as I said, I was anxious when I came to-the House to hear what reasons would be given for not acting upon this Report. The noble and learned Lord Herschell has given us several reasons for his objection: His first reason is that he objects to the tribunal altogether. That is a reason with which we have not to deal to-night; it was dealt with when the Bill appointing the Special Commission was before Parliament. His next reason is that the Judges had prepossessions upon this question, and that he objects to their politics. I must confess that I do not think so meanly of the Bench as my noble and learned Friend appears to do. I can only say that so far as he himself is concerned, there is no-man before whom I would prefer to have any question tried in which I might be concerned than himself, whether the matter were a political one or not. He condemns the Report as a whole, because he says it is incomplete, inadequate, and fails to meet the case. I do not think your Lordships want me to enter into that at length, because it has been dealt with so very ably by the noble and learned Lord who followed Lord Herschell; but I am bound to say this, that Lord Herschell, who condemns this

1431
Report, did not hear one word of the evidence. He was not sitting upon the case, and the course he has taken is to set up his own opinion upon such information as may be gathered from a cursory reading of the evidence. He says he has based his opinion upon the information he obtained from reading the evidence, and he sets up the opinion he has thus formed, against the opinions of that learned Judge, Sir James Hannen, and the other two learned Judges, who heard the case from the beginning to the end. There one remark only to which I think it necessary to allude, and that is in reference to what he said with regard to the Clan-na-Gael. He asked, "What evidence have you with regard to their connection with the Clan-na-Gael, and that as to its having seized the Nationalist America at the Convention of Party in Chicago?" He said it rested entirely on the evidence of Le Caron. Well, did not they try to break down the evidence of Le Caron, and how did they succeed? If, as the noble and learned Lord maintains, the Clan-na-Gael did not obtain the mastery of the Convention at Chicago, would it not have been easy for Mr. Parnell and his party to have produced satisfactory evidence upon that point? But the position of the learned Judges was this: that clear and strong evidence was given before them to that effect, and it was not shaken; and though my noble Friend expresses a strong opinion to the contrary—founded upon what evidence or knowledge I do not know—yet there are many Americans, skilled in American politics, who well know the truth, and who tell a very different story. A letter in the Times a few days ago from one of them fully bears that out. Well, my Lords, so much for the reasons which Lord Herschell has given to-night for his objections. But this Report has been attacked by Lord Kimberley, on a very different ground. He says his reason for distrusting it is that the Judges did not know the political history of Ireland, and did not know enough of the circumstances of the case to enable them to form an opinion upon the matter. May I ask your Lordships what in the world the political history of Ireland has got to do with these charges? The question is whether certain men made particular speeches and followed a certain line of
1432
conduct which tended to crime, which incited to crime, and which resulted in crime. What has that question to do with the history of Ireland? Why, that very point was dealt with by Sir Charles Russell in the case. He made a long speech on the history of Ireland, which fell perfectly flat, as it necessarily would do, on the ears of the Judges. He made a summary of charges, and again just see what the Judges did with his summary. They listened to him because they were appointed as Commissioners, but if they have been sitting as Judges they would not have done so; and having listened to it, they passed it by because it was not to the point. The same line of argument which was taken by Lord Kimberley was taken in the House of Commons by Mr. Gladstone when he said—
"It is hard to maintain that a judgment has been passed on the whole Irish case by a body of men who were precluded from looking at many of the most important topics bearing upon it."
What have we to do with the whole Irish case? We are not discussing that now What are the motives or merits of the men who did these acts is not the question—the question is, did they do the acts; did they make the speeches; did they adopt a line of conduct which led to crime? Those were the points which were before the Commissioners. They have never pretended to deal, and it was no part of their business to deal, with the general facts of the Irish case. Now, my Lords, I would just say in connection with this matter that my noble Friend who sits below me (Earl Spencer) has been making a speech lately, since the Report of the Commission was issued, to which I wish to call his attention. What I desire to do is to call his attention to the general lines of argument, and I will read very shortly with regard to the line of argument from the second part of the Report of the Commission, in which certain charges are found true as against Mr. Parnell and his friends. He said, in referring to the other part of the Commissioners' Report—
"I will say at once that there are very grave matters to be found charged against the Irish Party in that part of the Report."
My noble Friend will understand that I am not reading the whole speech, but that I am simply referring to the line of

1433
argument which is there indicated. The noble Earl proceeded—
"I never have shrunk from denouncing many of the actions of individuals connected with the Land League. I have very often had to tight against the Land League or its branches in different parts of the country, for the purpose of preventing the incitement to crime which I feared sometimes would be the consequence of meetings in parts of the country which were very much disturbed. I never hesitated when I was in Ireland, and I have never hesitated since, to express my abhorrence of intimidation, boycotting, and the like. I dislike it extremely, and I have always disliked it extremely. And I will admit that in some parts of the Report there are things against the Irish Members and against the Irish leaders which are anything but satisfactory. Perhaps one or two small facts have been brought to light which were not known before—something in regard to the Irishman newspaper, and something that was paid to a man who was injured during a moonlighting raid—but I maintain positively, in regard to all the rest, everything was known before, both to Liberals and to Conservatives. I should like to know, if we are blamed for having entered into an alliance with the Parnellites and Mr. Parnell's followers, are not the Conservatives to blame also for having entered into an alliance with them in 1885? You will all remember Lord Carnarvon seeing Mr. Parnell secretly in London, he did it, I believe, with the sanction and knowledge of Lord Salisbury, the Prime Minister. I do not blame Lord Carnarvon for this, though I do think it rather imprudent, unless he was prepared to follow it up by acting on what Mr. Parnell paid. But, if we are to blame for having ourselves been in alliance with the Irish to carry Home Rule, why are not Lord Salisbury and Lord Carnarvon to blame for entering into an alliance with Mr. Parnell? Are not the Conservatives even now to blame, and are they not much in the same position that we are, when they are proposing to give local government to Ireland? Who will manage local affairs in Ireland but this very party? We are not the only people who can be blamed, if blame is to be attached, because an alliance is made between one party and the Irish Members. Now, with regard to many of these charges, I have said there is nothing mew whatever. We always knew that Mr. Davitt had been a Fenian and convicted of being a Fenian. But we know this—that Mr. Davitt is no longer a Fenian, that he has been won over from the cause of armed revolution in Ireland, to Constitutional action within the last few years. We knew that Mr. Parnell had advocated boycotting, we knew that many bad papers and bad articles were circulated in Ireland. I, for one, certainly knew that. And I always deplored these things But how have I always thought it right to look upon these matters? There are two questions that ought to be answered. Have the Irish any real grievance to be redressed? Is the remedy that you are applying likely to deal radically and certainly and for all time with the political and social grievances that exist in Ireland? I believe that no one will deny that the Irish
1434
have had very serious and great grievances. No one will deny that in regard to land they have been grievously oppressed. We have introduced measures in regard to the Land Laws in Ireland, and the result of these measures has been to show that Irish tenants were grievously wronged in the way of roots. Their rents were excessive and the improvements almost always belonging to the tenants in Ireland were confiscated by the landlords. The Irish had very serious grievances in regard to land, and they have a very serious grievance in regard to government. And I say they had then just cause for wishing to overcome these sad grievances. No one will deny that they had a right to combine and form societies for the purpose of getting redress for the high rents in Ireland. No one will, I think, deny that; and though in strict law they have technically, been doing what is illegal, I think everybody will say that tenants suffering under unjust rents in Ireland are just as much justified in combining against them as those in trade are in combining against unjust wages. That, I believe, will be universally admitted. I do not say for a moment that t he Land League and the National League have always carried out their agitation in a legitimate way. They may have gone too far and followed illegal paths; I deplore that. I always have deplored it; but I maintain that they had some justification for it in the serious grievances which existed, not only in regard to Land Laws in Ireland, but also in regard to government in that country. It is not for us, therefore, to criticise too minutely the methods which have been followed, though we may deplore some of the results that followed their action. Now, I should like to say this—that we must always remember that during the last few years we have been going through what is tantamount to a revolution in Ireland. Let us compare that revolution with other revolutions, and I will venture to say that you will find in every revolution, even in those revolutions which are now justified by all, that they have been accompanied wish some excesses. I do not think it is wholly fair to attribute to the leaders of a Constitutional agitation all the excesses that nave followed from the course that they have adopted. When an agitation is going on there are numbers of men who join that agitation for their own purposes. The leaders cannot be responsible for every foolish speech and for every foolish action these men may speak and do, nor for the crimes which occasionally follow agitation. I know that a very heavy responsibility falls upon those who lead an agitation as in Ireland, but, at the same time, I think it would be most unfair to attribute blame to and hold responsible for the serious crimes that have taken place in Ireland the leaders of an agitation which certainly in its inception was a perfectly Constitutional one."
My Lords, I wish to make one or two remarks with regard to that speech. In the first place, the noble Lords tells us that these things which have come out against the Irish leaders, and which

1435
were anything but satisfactory, were all known before, except as to one or two small matters. The point is not whether they were known before, but the fact that they were never proved before and they are not proved now. If any Peer had risen in your Lordships' House before this Commission had reported, and had stated that Mr. Parnell or his friends had made speeches leading up to crime, or that they had connived or assisted in intimidation with a knowledge of its results, immediately he would have been very properly taken to task; but neither the noble Lord on the Front Bench or any other of your Lordships can say that he does not know now exactly what these practices mean. Both here, and to a much larger extent on public platforms in the country, noble Lords have gone about, and they have said that boycotting is exclusive dealing. Let them read the terms of this Report, and they will not be able to say any longer that boycotting is exclusive dealing. An argument of that sort is quite good enough for electors and for public meetings, but that is not an argument which can go down in this House, or in any educated assembly. The noble Lords said in his speech that "The Irish had serious grievances." Yes, my Lords, they had; and had not the Liberal Party, and particularly the noble Lord himself, been attempting to deal with those grievances?—had not they passed Land Act after Land Act, and with what result? That Mr. Parnell and his friends entered upon what my noble Friend has described as a revolution. They did not attempt to work these Acts. It is said that they were moving against unjust rents. That is not what is found. It is found that the League was moving against rents altogether. It was against rent; it was not against unjust rent that that agitation was directed. My noble Friend says they had grievances, and therefore do not let us criticise their methods too minutely. It is said it is very hard to hold these leaders responsible, because in the beginning, at all events, their movement was a Constitutional one. My Lords, that is a doctrine to which I, for one, decline altogether to subscribe I say that if men embark on these courses, if they make speeches to excitable mobs, speeches which they know
1436
lead to crime, which by experience they find lead to crime, then I say they are deeply blameworthy, and I say it is not sufficient to stand by and say "We disapprove of all this," but surely some practical method and course ought to be taken to demonstrate that disapproval. "Compare this revolution with other revolutions," says my noble Friend. As soon as you use the word "revolution," just see what you are admitting. Was a revolution justified under the circumstances of the year 1881? Did you not yourselves in that very year pass an Act which dealt in a very large manner with the difficulties of the rent question? And when you say "revolution" remember that you are getting on to very dangerous ground. If you use this word "revolution," it is not open for the leaders to come forward and say at one moment, "Now we are revolutionaries," and say at another moment when it suits them, "Now we are Constitutional leaders." If you once admit that this is a revolution, there are ways of putting down a revolution which are too disagreeable even to be spoken of. Moreover, if it is a revolution that you are engaging in, why is it that the revolutionaries, when they get into prison in consequence of their acts, immediately begin to call out through their friends in Parliament if in any way their convenience is interfered with? Now, my Lords, I am bound to say with regard to this speech, that it is, to my mind, a doctrine most extraordinary to have proceeded from my noble Friend. I ask, by whom were these charges against Mr. Parnell and his friends originally made? Who is so responsible for them I should like to know as Sir William Harcourt and Mr. Gladstone, and their Government? The argument used just now was this, and a very low sort of argument I think it is—the tu quoque form of argument. The noble Lord said, "If we had to do with the Parnellites, at any rate the Conservatives had to do with them also." My Lords, the Conservatives have denied it; and quite apart from this, Mr. Parnell himself has denied it in a letter. But I put all that matter aside, because it seems to me that it has nothing to do with the merits of the case. Admitting that it is perfectly true that not merely Lord Carnarvon, but that the Conservatives as a body, con-

1437
spired with Mr. Parnell—or use any other words about it you please—do two blacks make a white? Is there any reason why noble Lords, who, from 1879 to 1881, and right up to the year 1885, passed different Acts, and who told us how ill Mr. Parnell and all his friends were behaving, and who described their conduct in language than which nothing can be stronger, should turn round now upon us and say that it is wrong that such charges as these should be made? What I complain of is this, and we have complained of it in the country and in the House, that when noble Lords deal with actions done by the Irish Members, they ask us to judge them by an entirely new standard; they ask us to set up new canons of criticisms. We know perfectly well that my noble Friend has entirely changed all his ideas with regard to the Irish Question. He has told us so, and he cannot tell us any more. But what I want to ask him is this, because he has changed all his ideas on the Irish Question, has he changed also all his ideas of the moral standard of what is right and what is wrong? I want to know docs not a crime remain crime whatever the motives may be of the persons who commit it? It is not whether Mr. Parnell thought it was right to do a certain thing, or that possibly, as was said in another place, although boycotting and such crimes may have been pretty frequent, yet at the same time, it would be found that there had been much less of other crime in consequence. I do not go into considerations of that sort; but what I want to know is this, what difference does it make in a fact or in an act because the person who happens to be concerned in that fact or act happens to be a politician? I do not see, myself—I cannotunderstand—nobody has attempted to explain it to me, what there is in the nature of a politican which is so subtle, so difficult to understand, that when he does certain acts or has to do with a certain course of conduct, a Judge is absolutely incapable of deciding whether he has done those acts, or whether he has not. There is another thing I should like to say with regard to those charges, the charges I mean which the Judges say are proved against the Irish Members, and that is, that they were
1438
proved not so much by witnesses brought by the Times newspaper, but they were proved chiefly by the breaking down under cross-examination of the witnesses who were produced by Mr. Parnell and his friends. I can perfectly understand that after their experience they were not at all sorry to retire from the Commission, because witness after witness, including Mr. Parnell himself, including Mr. O'Brien, and others, were forced to make admissions which were utterly damaging to themselves, and which show that, however wrong the Times might be—and nobody can condemn the Times more strongly than I do for proceeding in a personal matter without more evidence and better evidence than they were able to produce—yet, at the same time, the Irish witnesses themselves proved the case in a manner and to an extent which seemed to leave very little to lie desired. They did more than this. The Irish witnesses showed that they would do and would say anything that would suit their purpose. I take Mr. O'Brien. He wrote in United Ireland some of the most abominable statements with reference to my noble Friend below me (Earl Spencer) that ever it has been my fortune to read. Hero is one of them from United Ireland of the 1st August, 1885. Mind you this is no story of 10 years ago. I have heard it stated that these charges were all matters which were 10 years old; but everything went on to 1885, and even up to 1887, exactly as in the year 1881, and the only reason why it was not proved later was that by the consent of counsel on both sides the Judges determined not to proceed further than that date. Mr. O'Brien, in United Ireland, of the 1st August, 1885, said—
"It will not do to ride off upon the evasion that it was the system, and not Earl Spencer who sinned. He directed everything; if juries were packed, if hordes of perjurers were taken into pay, if depositions were suppressed, if French was net handed over to justice before the latest minute of the latest hour, if District Inspector Murphy was persecuted out of the force on dishonest pretences, Earl Spencer's was the guiding mind in the whole abominable drama. The Bruces, the Boltons, the Mar-woods, they danced at his good pleasure."
That is the statement made with reference to my noble Friend. Then Mr. O'Brien is questioned upon this before the Commission, and what does he say? He pleaded

1439
before them that it was the system and not Lord Spencer that he was attacking, and he is asked "Did you write that?" He says, "Yes, I rather think I did, as well as I can remember." Then there is another instance in which this very same Mr. O'Brien made equally abominable statements with regard to my noble Friend. In the witness-box on July 26th, 1888, he said—
"We made charges against Lord Spencer which were scandalously false."
That is his own description of himself. Then, my Lords, I come to Mr. Parnell. On the 3rd November, 1885 (your Lordships will remember this is within three or four months of the time when the whole change with regard to the Irish Question took place) Mr. Parnell said with regard to Earl Spencer—
"I believe of Mr. Nally that he is one of the victims to the infamous system which existed in this country during the three years of the Coercion Act. I believe of Patrick Nally that he is a victim of the conspiracy which was formed between Lord Spencer and the informers of their country for the purpose to obtain victims to what they called 'law and justice' by any and every means, whether they, were innocent or not."
The comment of the Judges upon that is—
"We cannot suppose that Mr. Parnell really believed in the justice of the accusation which be had made against Lord Spencer."
Now, my Lords, with reference to that matter I will say this: that it appears on the highest authority—on the authority of Mr. Parnell himself—Mr. Parnell is not a credible witness, because ho himself stated before the Commission with reference to a given statement that it was quite possible that he was endeavouring to deceive the House of Commons with it. He went home and he found he had not made the statement; he found that the matter had reference to something else, and he came down the next day and pointed that out to the Court. What I should like to know is, was it the custom of Mr. Parnell to deceive the House of Commons? Why was it that the moment he felt himself in a difficulty the first thing that occurred to him was to say that very probably he was trying to deceive the House of Commons? You will find, I think, that on no less than five or six different occasions the Judges say, in such language as Judges can use, that they do give credit to
1440
the statements made by Mr. Parnell. Now, my object for mentioning these statements of Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Parnell is because noble Lords now are saying that here are men, who are trustworthy men, persons to whom they are prepared to entrust the management of an Executive Government and a Parliament for Ireland—it is in the hands of these men that the Executive Government and the Parliament of Ireland will be placed, in the first instance, at all events. If those statements are true—and let anybody who can contradict them—I will simply leave it to the judgment of the House whether men of that sort are men whom this country can properly entrust with such great responsibility. My Lords, I have only one further remark to make, and I must apologise for the time during which I have detained your Lordships. With reference to this Report, not merely the individual acts of the Parnellites, but the whole of their conduct—not merely this or that particular fact relating to them, but the whole conduct of the Parnellites over a series of years, is treated in the Report. The Report contains perfectly fair and perfectly impartial statements, both as to what is proved and as to what is not proved. Your Lordships will remember that the Judges made their findings as Judges. They did not eulogise. They did not apologise for any person; they did not make any expression of opinion with regard to any persons in that Report. But what are the arguments which have been used by noble Lords-to-night, and which have been used by those who hold the same opinions elsewhere? They do not deny these facts; they admit that the Irish leaders have done many things that are unsatisfactory; they admit that they embarked in courses which have led to crimes; but they say these arguments are not arguments for our receiving and adopting this Report; so far as they are good arguments, they are apologies for the course which the Parnellites have pursued and which apparently, to some limited extent at all events, they themselves approve. What I wish to press upon your Lordships once more is that up to the present time we have heard no good reason whatever (except, indeed, if we are to set up the opinion of Lord

1441
Herschell who has heard none of the evidence against that of the three Judges who have heard the whole of it) why we should not enter this Report upon the Journals of your Lordships' House.
EARL SPENCER: My Lards, I am afraid that the House will regret the continuance of this debate; but I feel that I cannot allow it to conclude without offering some remarks on this highly important subject. I have been in past days officially, and under great responsibility, connected with many of the incidents which have formed the subject of inquiry before the Parnell Commission, and have since spoken on the subject both in this House and elsewhere. I therefore must trouble your Lordships with a few remarks on the subject generally, as well as personally, on some references which have been made personally to me in this matter by the noble Marquess and by the noble Lord who has just sat down. In the first place, I should like to say a few words with regard to the appointment of that Commission. Although the noble and learned Lord (Lord Selborne) has said that it would hardly be proper now to discuss that question, still I think the appointment of the Commission has an important bearing on the view that is taken of the finding of the Commission. The appointment of that Commission followed a variety of events. I believe the main source and origin of that Commission are to be found in those letters, which are called the fac simile letters, and which are now proved to be forgeries. If those letters had not been produced, I venture to say there would have been no pamphlet called Parnellism and Crime. I am quite aware that some noble Lords, even tonight, tried to throw some doubt upon the importance of the particular letter which was forged in Mr. Parnell's handwriting. The importance of that letter was that it was the main support of the allegations against Mr. Parnell that though he had in some Distances denounced crime, he had done so insincerely, and that he practically had sympathy with the Invicibles. Indeed, there was an article which actually stated that he was cognisant beforehand of what was going to happen, and that this was the subject of the famous interview at Willesden Junction. That, I think, shows that these forged letters were of
1442
the greatest possible importance, and that but for them we should never have heard of Parnellism and Crime, and there would have been no Commission. Of that I feel quite confident. Now, how could these letters have been dealt with? Mr. Parnell might have proceeded under the ordinary tribunals to bring an action against the Times for libel; or the matter might have been investigated by the House of Commons as one of privilege. We know that Mr. Parnell, for reasons which have been stated to-night, and, as I think, very just reasons, refused to take the first course; Her Majesty's Government refused to adopt the second; and, having a majority in the other House, the proposal that there should be a Committee of the House of Commons was rejected by that Assembly. Now, what occurred? After the breakdown of the "O'Donnell v. Walter" trial, renewed attention was called to the subject, and Mr. Parnell again demanded an inquiry. The Government made the proposal that there should be a Royal Commission. We said at the time, and we say now, that the Government were adopting a very un-Constitutional and dangerous course in proposing a Commission of three Judges to try their political opponents, practically on a criminal charge, and without a jury. That alone was opposed to our Constitutional traditions, by which we always attached the greatest importance to a trial by a jury of men charged with any crime. We said it would lead to considerable Constitutional danger. We said it would place the Judges of the land in a new and exceptional position, and one in which they ought not to be placed. Well, my Lords, I believe we were amply justified in what we said at that time. We believed that the inquiry was such that it could not be dissociated from, or disentangled from, political history and political transactions of the most stirring and exciting times, and that, however much the Judges might desire to be perfectly impartial, it was impossible for them to deal with all these matters without coming within the range of political considerations. Now, we believe that that has been the case. We do not for a moment say that the Commission has not been conducted with the highest dignity and with the greatest patience, and in a spirit of com-

1443
plete impartiality. I should be the first to say that. But the findings of the Commission are so associated with facts of a political kind that they must be mixed up with those political considerations which ought to be altogether banished from the considerations of the Judicial Bench. Now, my Lords, in what position are we placed by this Commission and by the whole of this transaction? The Government have placed themselves in a position of the greatest inconsistency. The Bill which constituted the Commission placed that Commission in the position of one of the tribunals of the High Court of Justice. It received all the privileges and rights belonging to a branch of the High Court of Justice. But it differed in one respect—no appeal was given from its decision, and, as I said before, it enabled that Court to try men for what were practically criminal charges without the assistance of a jury. What are we asked to do now? Your Lordships are now asked practically to form a Court of Appeal from a tribunal which was constituted with equal powers and equal rights to many of the Courts of Justice. We are to adopt a Report of this grave significance on facts connected with the history of Ireland for so many years and with such stirring events, without taking into consideration other matters of a political nature. We are practically acting as a Court of Appeal from the Commissioners ["No, no."] I know that noble Lords differ from me in that respect; but unless we adopt the Report without any comment, I say we are practically acting as a Court of Appeal from the decision of the Commissioners. The Judges themselves very clearly state that. They say—
"We must leave it for historians to investigate the remote causes of the present condition of Ireland; we must leave it for politicians to discuss and for statesmen to determine in what respects the present laws affecting land in that country are capable of improvement, and we must confine our researches to the question whether the respondents or any of them have been guilty of the things charged and alleged against them; we have no commission to consider whether the conduct of which they are accused can be palliated by the circumstances of the time, or whether it should be condoned in consideration of benefits alleged to have resulted from their actions."
They abstained from that, but are we to abstain from it? We, my Lords, are
1444
politicians, and are we to adopt the whole of the views of the Commission, though I admit it is supported by all the weight of very distinguished names, without considering all the circumstances which might palliate the offences which are condemned? I cannot see that it is possible to do that. Now, my Lords, I object to the Motion of the noble Marquess on other grounds. I object to adopt any part of the Report without comment. First of all, I think it extremely unfair and unjust that we in Parliament should record the fact that these National leaders have been accused of the grossest and gravest crimes, without expressing our deep regret that such a serious wrong has been done them. What could be more serious than the charge of the forged letters? I cannot conceive of anything more scandalous. No fair person will say that the Times put them forward knowing them to be forged; but what we all say is that there was the most culpable and gross negligence in bringing forward these charges to ruin the character of a leader of a people and to blacken the character of all those connected with him, without making the most careful investigation. Anyone who has had any connection with Ireland must have known how utterly unreliable and untrustworthy Pigott was. He had been offering information to the Government in Ireland for years and years. I mentioned only the other day, but it is worthy perhaps of mention again, that as far back as 1873 he wrote an autograph letter to me when he thought I was away from ray ordinary advisers, saying he had information of a political nature, and no doubt asking for money. All at the Castle knew that he was constantly in the habit of trying to sell information, and anybody who had any connection with the Times, and any connection with a charge so grave, ought to have had the common prudence to go to those who were bound to know something with regard to Mr. Pigott. I say, my Lords, it is scandalous that a charge of this nature should be made and no reparation whatever should be given to Mr. Parnell. The charge, mind you, was made purposely to influence a vote in Parliament, and in my humble opinion it constitutes one of the grossest breaches of privilege ever committed. Then there

1445
were other charges which were only slightly less gross. They are stated in the opening of the Commission Report. Mr. Parnell and his associates were charged with establishing an organisation called the National Land League of Ireland, which was dependent on a system of intimidation carried out by the most brutal means and resting on the ultimate sanction of murder. What charge could be more serious or more grave than that? I might quote other passages from the Report which merely develop the gravity of these scandalous charges connecting with actual crime the leaders of the Irish people. What happened at the Commission? The Commission has absolutely absolved the Irish leaders from complicity with crime. ["No, no."] If the noble Lord will allow me to continue I will explain what I mean. I do not use the word "crime" in the very general and wide sense in which it was perhaps used by the Commission. But I do use it in the manner in which it is generally understood—namely, as referring to murderous outrages and violence to the person. That charge was repeatedly made in Parnellism and Crime; quite independently of anything with regard to intimidation or boycotting. I repeat that with regard to actual complicity with murder and violent crime of the kind of which they were accused the Commission absolutely and entirely acquit them. Now, with regard to that I should like to say a word upon something that foil from my noble and learned Friend Lord Selborne as to an expression of mine in referring to him, I think, at Wolverton. I certainly, when I made that reference, understood him broadly to say that where charges were declared to be not proven the accused ought practically to be treated as innocent. But the noble Earl now says that he only made this remark in connection with one charge. I confess that I still hold the view which I thought my noble Friend held, that it is only fair to regard the accused as innocent unless the charge is actually proved against them. It is exceedingly unfair when these grave charges have been made against a loader and against his Party, and made in Parliament for the purpose of influencing Parliamentary action, that Parliament should not record its
1446
regret for the wrong done. Now, my Lords, I come to the other part of the Report. The Report is divided, as it seems to me, chiefly into two parts, the first connected with the personal allegations against the Nationalist Members of complicity with murderous outrages and crime, and the other connected with the organisation of the National League, and its effects upon the country. My noble Friend Lord Camperdown this evening has made a long quotation from a speech of mine. I have no reason to be ashamed of what was quoted. I certainly know that it is a dangerous thing to speak lightly of any crime. I do not wish to condone any crime, whether it is treason or intimidation, or conspiracy to intimidate. I know those are very serious charges. But I think that it is mere pedantry—I might almost say hypocrisy—to put crime of that sort, whether of a political kind or of intimidation like boycotting, on the same level as the crime of murder and murderous outrage. That is what I referred to in the speech which my noble Friend quoted. I do not admit for a moment that because I have changed my political views with regard to Ireland I have changed in the slightest degree my view as to the morality of crime of any sort. I dislike crime now as much as I did when I was in Ireland. The one difference is that I now wish to deal with it and put it down in a different manner. I have denounced boycotting; no one dislikes it or its effects more than I do. I know that when carried to the lengths to which it has been sometimes carried it amounts to the gravest possible tyranny. I should wish to see boycotting banished from Ireland and every part of the-Kingdom. But I cannot myself put it on the same level as murder and murderous outrage. And that is why I think we ought to make a distinction between the two parts of the Commissioners' Report. It would be presumption on my part to criticise the Report of the Commission, but I should like just to refer to one or two matters with which they have dealt. The first is with regard to Members of Parliament collectively not being members of a conspiracy to establish the absolute independence of Ireland. We have always known that there was such a thing

1447
as Fenianism, and that Mr. Davitt was convicted of being a member of that body. We all know that that is a very serious offence, and I am not for a moment going to condone it. But what we also know now is that Mr. Davitt has renounced his views in that regard. ["No, no."] Yes, I believe it is absolutely the fact that Mr. Davitt has re nounced Fenianism and un-Constitutional methods, and is ready to find redress for the wrongs of Ireland in Constitutional agitation. Noble Lords differ from me; but I think I might appeal to anybody who has read the evidence—of course, I do not pretend to have read every word of it, but I have read a great deal—as to whether you do not find in it ample proof that Mr. Davitt is no longer a rebel in the sense of being a Fenian, but is ready and anxious to support Constitutional means. Then there is the next finding of the Commission, namely, that the respondents did enter into a conspiracy by a system of coercion and intimidation to promote an agrarian agitation. I confess that that finding does, to a certain extent, surprise me. I do not pretend to set my opinion against that of the Commission, but I certainly always believed that the system of intimidation and coercion was not adopted as one of the principles of the Land League. The League dealt with the purchase of land and the lowering of rents, but it was no part of the principles either of the National League or the Land League to adopt intimidation to carry out its ends. I am quite aware that Mr. Parnell advocated boycotting, but I have never seen any evidence that he advocated intimidation to boycott. He advocated what is called exclusive dealing. I am quite aware that members of the Land League carried boycotting a great deal further [ironical laughter]—yes, I am ready to admit it. I deplore it and denounce it; I made war against it when I was in Ireland, and I still have the greatest antipathy to it, and wish to see it ended. But what I maintain is this—and I think it is right that we should be perfectly fair and just with regard to this—that intimidation and coercion in the sense used here were not part of the original principles of the Land League.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: Why was it suppressed, then?
EARL SPENCER: Some members of the Land League were put in prison under Mr. Forster's Act, but not on account of that, but on account of assuming functions of a very dangerous character. I am the first to denounce many of the actions of the Land League; I never have defended them; but as to its having adopted among its principles actual coercion and intimidation, in its inception, certainly I am at a loss to know where the evidence comes from.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: How did Mr. Gladstone come to speak of crime as dogging the footsteps of the League?
EARL SPENCER: I admit that crime did follow in many cases the speeches. I have always denounced intemperate speeches in Ireland, and I have always known that at different times crime followed them; but I do not think it fair or just to lay on the shoulders of the leaders of a great agitation every crime that is committed by men over whom they have not control, or all the foolish speeches which may have led to crime. Now, the noble Marquess challenged me with regard to the evidence of Mr. O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien was one of those who made extremely violent and, I think, unjust speeches. He denounced me and others, and I have never palliated anything he said; I have always denounced it as unfair, unjust, and untrue, and, as far as I know, Sir G. Trevelyan has done the same. I certainly am not going to shield myself at the cost of subordinates. I am responsible for all acts which were committed in Ireland during the time I had the honour to be Her Majesty's Representative in that country. It is possible that in some cases there may have been mistakes. In some cases I know there were charges got up. I remember an occasion in Kerry where a policeman by accident in a kitchen let off his rifle, and, being afraid he should be called over the coals by the authorities, he immediately stated it was a moonlight outrage. That, of course, was punished, and there may have been other cases of the same sort, but I am not aware that habitually the crimes that have been attributed to the subordinates of the Irish Government were committed. They would have been crimes if we had suborned witnesses to give false evidence;

1449
they would have been crimes if we had allowed men to be punished as criminals whom we knew were innocent. I do not separate myself in one degree from the subordinates who were under me. I am responsible for every act committed during my term of office, and I am not aware—with the exception of small cases, such as the one to which I have alluded—that any such gross misconduct took place as is attributed to them by Mr. O'Brien. It is for Mr. O'Brien to explain what he meant; I certainly cannot agree to what he says in the statement referred to by the noble Marquess that "Lord Spencer has found that they, the Irish, were right as to his subordinates." Now, my Lords, I have already said that I do not think it is right that we should adopt the whole Report without comments upon it. I think there is a great distinction between the boycotting and intimidation, and indeed, Fenianism, and the more serious charges of which the Parnellite Members have been acquitted. I do not want to detain your Lordships further, but I should like to repeat that I have not in the slightest degree altered the view I hold with regard to the morality of crime, or boycotting, or intimidation. What I have altered is, the view which I hold as to the means by which we are to get rid of these evils. Now, my Lords, what are these matters in regard to which the Judges find that the Parnellite Organisation has been guilty? They are matters in which they have practically the support of the bulk of the Irish nation. That we may deplore, it is a very serious evil, a very serious malady, but how are we to deal with it? Are we going to deal with it by the old methods which have been tried over and over again? I say the old methods have absolutely failed, and that we must endeavour to get rid of the grievous evils which have been such a disgrace to this country and to Ireland by a complete change of system. We must be generous to the Irish. We shall not be following such a course by adopting the Resolution of the noble Marquess. The only way in which we can effect a radical and complete change and get rid of the difficulties we so much deplore is by adopting the course which will throw the responsibility for the management of their own affairs upon the Irish themselves. I do not
1450
propose, I do not wish, to enter into such a subject as the whole subject of Local Government in Ireland to-night, but I thought I was justified in making these observations in consequence of what has been said. I know we shall not be able to effect anything by a Division, but I venture to protest most earnestly against the course which the noble Lord proposes, which I am quite certain will not lead to any satisfactory result in improving the relations between England and Ireland.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I need not assure the noble Earl who has just sat down of the sincere respect with which we listen to any utterance of his. We do not require to be assured from him that he was not the man to throw on any subordinate or any colleague the responsibility which properly devolved upon him. And however we may regret the present political attitude of my noble Friend we do not forget—I, at least, cannot forget—that for several years during which I had the honour of being his colleague he was the most able, the most energetic, and the most successful opponent of that Party which never could injure him by its enmity, but which is now inflicting upon him its sympathy and its praise. My Lords, I cannot altogether admit the fundamental distinction which my noble Friend has drawn between acts of boycotting and acts of outrage and violence. I quite admit that they do not stand on the same level; but if outrage and crime were not behind how would boycotting be effective? We all know boycotting is enforced in the last resort by the bludgeon and the blunderbuss. It would not last a week if it were not. If every man were secure from personal violence, and knew that he was so secure, the whole system of boycotting would collapse in a week. My Lords, I shall not trouble the House at any length for various reasons. In the first place, between the debates which have taken place in the other House and the innumerable discussions in the Press and at public meetings, and what has been said in this House to-night, I think we must conclude that the subject has been pretty well threshed out. In the next place, the Resolution which we are asked to pass, as I understand it, does not require of us more than a general recognition and approval of the fairness of the inquiry which has taken place and

1451
a general acceptance of the conclusions which it points to. We record the findings of competent persons. We do not undertake to re-try the case—in point of fact, we could not do it. It is not our business, and before we did it we must have read through the 10 or 11 large volumes of evidence, and even then we should not be able to judge of its value half as well as those Judges who saw and heard the witnesses, and who could observe their manner and demeanour. My noble and learned Friend Lord Herschell objects to the use of the term "adopt" as being unknown in Parliamentary usage. I take it to be only an expression of acceptance of the general conclusions arrived at. My noble and learned Friend states two reasons why we should not express that view. In the first place, he said (although of course in the most courteous language) that we are necessarily a partial and a prejudiced tribunal. No doubt everyone connected with land and everyone who has anything to lose must have some prejudices against the proceedings of the Land League; but, as a matter of fact, I believe comparatively few of your Lordships are connected with Irish land or have Irish property, and in this connection it is not unimportant to remember that 10 years ago your Lordships gave a signal example of your freedom from class or proprietary prejudice by passing an Act which undoubtedly did more than anything that has ever been done, so far as I know, in any European country for the benefit of the tenant, and certainly in some degree at the expense of the landlords. Then, my noble Friend made another observation, which is certainly more to the purpose. He said, "How can you adopt the Report without reading the evidence upon which it was based?" I could not help thinking that there was something in that, but the noble and learned Lord went on to spoil his own case by saying that there was a tribunal of appeal, and that was the public. Well, if we are not qualified to express an opinion because we have not read the evidence, I should like to know how many members of the general public are likely to be in a better position than we are. For my part, I do not profess to have read more than the Report; and what has impressed me most strongly in
1452
that Report is the singular caution, the obvious fairness, the uniform moderation of language with which the facts are presented. It is a common remark that the statement of evidence contained in the earlier part of the volume is, in the minds of those who read it, far more damaging to the persons accused than the conclusions actually drawn by the Judges, and you cannot have a more striking testimony to the judicial caution which has marked the whole proceeding. My Lords, the complaint has often been made—it was made out of doors and it was made in the other House—that this inquiry has been—in the words used—an inquiry before an un-Constitutional tribunal. Now, let us see how much truth there is in that charge. The Irish Members themselves demanded an inquiry. That is admitted. They certainly were not in a hurry. They required a good many hints before they determined to adopt that line. But they did adopt it. Well, if an inquiry was to take place, before what kind of tribunal could it come? There were, so far as I know, only three possible alternatives. There was the alternative of a trial in the ordinary manner in a Court of Law—the simplest, the most natural, the most obvious. Mr. Parnell and his friends would not have that. They talked about the inevitable prejudices of an English jury. They wore reminded that, as I believe is the case, they had the choice of a Scotch or Irish jury.
LORD HERSCHELL: It was decided that they had not.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I will not dispute a matter of law with my noble and learned Friend, but I only know that at a later stage they seemed to stultify their own plea, because Mr. Parnell actually did bring an action for libel in a Scottish Court of Law.
LORD HERSCHELL: It was dismissed (unless I am altogether mistaken) on the ground that he could not maintain it there.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: An action was brought in Ireland.
LORD HERSCHELL: I am speaking of Scotland.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: It has not been finally dismissed.
THE EARL OF DERBY: At any rate, the case has not been tested.
LORD HERSCHELL: Objection was taken by the Times newspaper that there was no jurisdiction in the Scottish Courts, and it was so held, unless I am very much mistaken.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I certainly will not dispute a legal point with my noble and learned Friend, but when I am told that it would have been madness for Mr. Parnell to bring his action before an English jury because there were sure to be some of his political opponents on it, I do not say that there was nothing in that objection, but it struck me that it completely knocked on the head the substitute-tribunal which he himself proposed. Mr. Parnell and his friends asked for a Committee of the House of Commons. No doubt that would have been strictly regular and Constitutional. But I think we all know also that it would have been absolutely ineffective. I will not suggest that that may have been its recommendation, but, at any rate, that would have been the effect. What Committee of the House of Commons would have been able to sit continuously as the Commission sat, and take that mass of evidence? Time would have failed them for one thing. Then how could a body of 15 or 20 gentlemen, all of them politicians, not accustomed to judicial investigation, not having any professional guidance, and all on an equal footing, have carried on the necessary examination? What would they have made of it? And, setting that consideration aside, of what value would their Report have been? We know well enough how it would have gone. We could not exclude from the Committee hot and eager partisans of Home Rule. Their exclusion would have been called unjust, and reasonably so. But if they were included, what chance would there have been of an unanimous Report, and would it not practically be a certainty that the Report would have gone upon Party lines. It seems to me that if this case was to be really inquired into in a satisfactory manner, the tribunal must have three qualifications—ample time, judicial habits, and absolute impartiality. Not one of those requisites would be found in a Parliamentary Committee. All of them are to be found in the Judges, and I scarcely know where else they could be looked for. That, to my mind, is the simple justification of the
1454
course adopted by the Government They had to choose a method of investigation, and they chose that which was at once the most efficient, the fairest, and that most likely to command popular respect. Then my noble and learned Friend objects that it was a tribunal of which the members were selected by the Government. Selected by the Government they certainly were, but they were selected from among the Judges; that is to say, they were selected from among men excluded by their profession from all active interest in politics, from men trained by all the habits of their lives to exclude whatever of bias they might feel carefully and completely from their investigation of the facts. And then, to make the matter better, my noble and learned Friend suggests a partial remedy which I think most of us would agree would have been worse than the disease. He says, if you were to have a tribunal of that sort, at least you ought to have taken care that the Judges were men of different politics. Well, if you want to emphasise that political difference which, as I suppose it is our object to ignore, that would be exactly the way to do it. With two Judges on one side and one on the other, the two would be expected to decide one way, and the third to decide in another way and the value of their decision would be destroyed beforehand. As a matter of fact, I must say that it has struck me that the method of judicial investigation pursued has been singularly favourable to the respondents. I do not think a Committee admitting many things which are not legal evidence and carrying on its inquiry in a wider and freer manner, could possibly have been favourable to them as a tribunal governed by well-recognised legal rules, and bound to treat every man as innocent until he is absolutely proved to be guilty. Then I have heard the objection—though I do not think it has been dwelt upon here tonight—that a trial by Judges only without a jury, is not a Constitutional proceeding. Now, that seems to me to rest on a misunderstanding. No doubt, if this were a criminal trial—a trial at all, in the ordinary sense of the word—there might be something to say in defence of that proposition; but as no sentence was to be pronounced, and no penalty was to follow, except as a possible result of

1455
ulterior proceedings elsewhere, I do not see how the analogy of a trial applies. If as a result of this inquiry it had been determined to expel any Members from the House of Commons, the House itself must have decided that question; if it had been determined to proceed against any one before the ordinary tribunals, they would have had, like everybody else, the advantage of a jury. All that the Commission could in any case have done would have been to certify that there was a primâ facie 1 case for action against somebody. And I do not see why the Judges should be incompetent to perform such a function as that. My Lords, there is no doubt more weight in the objection which we have often heard that it is undesirable that Judges should be mixed up in any political matter. [Lord ROSEBERY: Hear, hear.] Very good—an excellent rule, only let me observe it is a rule which you never have acted upon, and which you never can act upon. Has my noble Friend never heard of political trials? Do not Judges continually try cases of riot or assault, or of violence or libel, in which political feeling is strong on both sides? And how about Election Petitions? Why, for 20 years the trial of Election Petitions has been put into the hands of the Judges. Many persons thought at the time that the experiment was a bold one; it certainly was a novel one; but I think we all agree now that it has answered, and I have never heard that anybody proposes to take away that jurisdiction. Now, what is there in this case half so compromising to the impartiality of Judges as there is in the trial whether some recent election which has been sharply contested is to be held valid or not? The noble Earl (Kimberley) told us that another Parliament would erase the Report of these proceedings from the Journals of the House of Commons, and that we should be in consequence in a foolish position. Well, if they do that, I think somebody will be in a foolish position, but I do not think it will be we. Such a proceeding would, no doubt, prove that there was a great deal of political feeling concerned in the case, but it would not show that that political feeling had been on the part of the Judges. What it would show would be that the majority at the time found the votes of the Parnellites so important that in order
1456
to obtain them it was ready to insult the judicial body. Then my noble and learned Friend Lord Herschell complained, and I think the noble Earl who spoke last followed him in his complaint, that no reparation has been made to that much injured gentleman Mr Parnell. I answer, the Report is there which clears him. He hardly needed clearing, because the moment the forgery of the letters was discovered, that part of the case broke down, and it would be absurd to say that as the result of that proceeding he has been the sufferer. My noble Friend and everybody else know that the incident has turned in a very marked manner to his political advantage, and though I do not sympathise with him, I admit that it is an advantage to the benefit of which he is entitled. Some comments have been made as to the alleged impropriety of paying a compliment to the Judges on their freedom from bias. It was argued, I think, by my noble and learned Friend that a Judge is professionally bound and assumed to be impartial, and that therefore to praise him for being so is an insult rather than a compliment. Well, no doubt Judges are expected to show impartiality, just as soldiers are expected to show courage; but we do not on that account feel ourselves restrained from paying due tribute to the courage of our soldiers and sailors whenever there is occasion for its display, and I cannot see why we should be more fastidious in this instance. We have not forgotten, I think (I have not), the constant attempts that were made 18 months ago at the time when the Commission was appointed to discredit its Report in advance. Now the policy is changed, and instead of hearing anything about a packed and prejudiced tribunal, we have the claim put forward that the trial has ended in a triumphant acquittal. Well, but a very odd thing has happened, Somehow or other it has happened that the opponents of the parties accused all over the country are circulating the Report of this inquiry by thousands, and I do not understand that the gentlemen who boast of their triumphant acquittal have taken any trouble to circulate it at all. All I observe upon that is that it shows, if their view is correct, a remarkable blindness on both sides to their true interests and

1457
to the real state of the case. But, my Lords, is this acquittal so triumphant after all? I see immense stress laid on the fact that certain charges, as we all know, broke down completely. Very good; so much the batter for the respondents. But how does that affect the entirely distinct and separate charges which have not broken down? Take the case of an ordinary proceeding in a Court of Justice. If a man were shown to have broken into a house, would it be any defence or any excuse to point out that on another occasion he had been put on his trial for murder and that it had turned out a case of mistaken identity? Judge and jury would say, "What has that to do with the case?" The most absolute innocence on one charge does not lessen the weight of another. A man keeps suspicious company, and he is on one occasion unjustly suspected. Is that any reason why he should go free where he is shown to have committed an offence? I do not much care to deal with objections that have not been raised hero, but I have seen it not unfrequently said that there is something absurd in recording the fact that a public man, a leader of a Party, and his associates have done something which they ought not, if you do not propose to follow up the sentence by imposing a penalty. My Lords, there are only two possible penalties—trial by a Court of Law and expulsion from the House of which they are Members. The latter is an alternative which it would scarcely be decorous to discuss here. I doubt, as a matter of fact, whether, to an Irish Member, certain to be backed up by his constituency, expulsion would be any real penalty; and as to the other method, though intimidation and criminal conspiracy are offences against the law, they are hardly offences that could be visited with punishment years after their commission, especially when the guilt has been shared among so large a number of persons. I have heard a criticism on the Report this evening, which, if it had not been made by the noble Earl (Kimberley) I should have ventured to call somewhat irrelevant. The Report, it is said, has brought out nothing new. Well, why should it? The object of these proceedings was not to gratify the public taste for novelty, but to verify facts. We know now how matters stand. We know what has been
1458
proved, what disproved, and what left uncertain; and surely, if the public, which is the ultimate tribunal, is to form a judgment on these proceedings, that is a not inconsiderable gain to all the world. And when it is objected that no penalty follows on the sentence, I answer that the object was not to impose penalties, but to clear up doubt and enlighten opinion. My Lords, I have no such wild hope as that the judgment of any tribunal will influence Irish constituencies. I believe (I am sorry to say it) that if any of these gentlemen whose conduct has been questioned had been found directly and flagrantly guilty of participation in criminal acts, those acts being committed in the interests of the Land League or the National League (for they are really one), the fact that they have been so found guilty would make them no less but rather more popular among their Irish supporters. In England I trust it is otherwise, and I may, and do hope, that this calm, judicial, impartial deliverance will have its effect upon the judgments of English voters and of those who influence them by speech or writing. My Lords, I said that the result of the inquiry could not be reasonably described as an acquittal. What is that result? I take the findings of the Commissioners as they are given, only omitting those on which the parties accused are either acquitted or the charge is found not proved. The first finding is—
"That the respondent Members of Parliament collectively were not members of a conspiracy having for its object to establish the absolute independence of Ireland, but we find that some of them, together with Mr. Davitt, established and joined in the Land League organisation with the intention by its means to bring about the absolute independence of Ireland as a separate nation. The names of those respondents are set out on a previous page."
Now I look for the names included in that charge. They are numerous. They do not include Mr. Parnell, but, besides that of Davitt and that of Mr. Harris, whose remarkable speech about the value of landlords' lives some time ago attracted a good deal of attention, I find that Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien, two of the recognised leaders of the Irish Parliamentary Party, are included in that finding. Then comes No. 2—
"That the respondent did enter into a conspiracy by a system of coercion and intimida-

1459
tion to promote an agrarian agitation against the payment of agricultural rents, for the purpose of Impoverishing and expelling from the country the Irish landlords who were styled the 'English Garrison.'"
I dare say most of your Lordships who have read this Report will have observed that the detailed statement in the Report is infinitely more severe than the measured words of the summing-up. On page 54, referring to this same speech, the Commissioners say—
"In our judgment the leaders of the Land League who combined together to carry out the system of boycotting were guilty of a criminal conspiracy, one of the objects of which was (as stated in the second charge) by a system of coercion and intimidation to promote an agrarian agitation against the payment of agricultural rents for the purpose of impoverishing and expelling from the country the Irish landlords, who were styled the 'English Garrison.'"
That charge is said to be proved against a number of men, and in the list the name of Mr. Parnell stands first, and I observe that the list includes most of the notable personages in the Irish Party. Then finding No. 4 is brief. It simply states—
"That the respondents did disseminate the Irish World and other newspapers tending to incite to sedition and the commission of other crime."
Then come the two findings which, to me at least, seem to be by far the most important of all—
"V. We find that the respondents did not directly incite persons to the commission of crime other than intimidation, but that they did incite to intimidation, and that the consequence of that incitement was that crime and outrage were committed by the persons incited. We find that it has not been proved that the respondents made payments for the purpose of inciting persons to commit crime.
VI. We find as to the allegation that the respondents did nothing to prevent crime, and expressed no bonâ fide disapproval; that some of the respondents, and in particular Mr. Davitt, did express bunâ fide disapproval of clime and outrage, but that the respondents did not denounce the system of intimidation which led to crime and outrage, hut persisted in it with knowledge of its effect."
My Lords, it seems to me that the whole charge really lies in that. I lay stress upon it, because it seems to me that there is the widest possible distinction between an isolated, instance of incitement to intimidate and a long-continued system of speaking in that sense. Any vehement speaker might fall into the error on some one occasion of using language which
1460
incited to crime, without deliberately intending it, and without being guilty of more than imprudence. But when speech after speech is made, and murder follows as a consequence, and the speaker must know that it will follow, is the moral difference very wide between, the man who does the act and the agitator who incites him to it? I lay no great stress on the seventh finding, for there is nothing criminal in paying for the defence of an accused person, or for the support of his family. Rut I cannot treat with equal lightness the eighth finding, which is—
"We find as to the allegation that the respondents made payments to compensate persons who had been injured in the commission of crime, that they did make such payments."
Now, what does that mean? A man attempts to commit a murder, or a violent and dangerous assault. He is himself wounded or injured, and the cautious sympathiser, who would not openly push him on to the act, is ready to do what he can to relieve him from its unpleasant consequence when done. If I have an enemy, and if somebody—though entirely without my knowledge or concurrence—endeavours to murder that enemy, and is himself badly hurt in the attempt, and if then I send the man who intended to be a murderer money and help, and provide for his family, and ostentatiously show the interest I take in him, I ask how does that conduct—I do not say legally, but morally—fall short of complicity with murder? I know what will or what may be said on that point—that the payments proved to have been made were few and small. Yes, the "payments proved," but were there no others? Is there not every reason to believe that for one case we know of there are many which remained unknown? And if the suspicion that there were other such cases unknown to us be unfounded, who is responsible for its existence? What has become of the League books? It is said they have been lost by accident. If so, it was a lucky accident. Then comes the last charge, which, though it is grave enough, I am bound to say does not seem to me to carry the guilt as far as some of the others. It is the ninth finding, which your Lordships all remember. It comes to this: that the respondents wanted help from men, whose policy was

1461
undoubtedly a policy of murder and outrage, and they took that help without saying one word of disapproval of what their allies were doing, and what they perfectly well knew their allies must be doing. My noble Friend Earl Spencer says that it is not fair to hold leaders responsible for all the acts of followers, whom they cannot effectively control. Perhaps not; but I think that if the acts are done in the interest and for the advantage of those leaders, though entirely without their participation, and if they say not one word to disavow or denounce what is so done for their advantage, they are to a certain extent morally participant in the guilt of those acts. Now, my Lords, what comes of these findings? You have a system of coercion and intimidation proved against the respondents; you have it proved that newspapers were circulated by them tending to incite to the commission of crime; you have it proved that the accused incited to intimidation, and that in consequence crime and outrage followed; you have it proved that when that natural and inevitable result followed they presisted in the system of intimidation with full knowledge of its effects; you have it proved that men were compensated by the respondents for injuries sustained in the commission of crime; you have it proved that they condoned the action of the Physical Force Party in America by carefully abstaining from any repudiation of their deeds, because they wanted and got help from them. My Lords, I see it is said that the Commissioners have of necessity been compelled to leave out of sight those political considertions which palliate acts of crime. That seems to me a strange argument to use in an English Parliament. We are asked to excuse, to condone, at any rate to treat with exceptional tolerance and lenity acts which anywhere else, under any other circumstances, would be infamous. Why? Because they are inspired by a bitter, secular, persistent hatred of England, and of the class which represents England. My Lords, I think J may leave that defence to your judgment and to that of the public. Then it is said, before you judge these men harshly, think what a detestable system they were living under, what provocation they had, and how unable they were to
1462
remedy their grievances by gentle means. My answer is that that plea is historically inaccurate. Why, nearly all this outrage, all this intimidation, all this violence is subsequent to the Land Act of 1881. That is to say, the land grievance was remedied already, as far as legislation could remedy it. Parliament had conceded to the tenants more than ever was conceded to a tenantry before. They had had the most convincing proof that we were ready to listen to their complaints. And that is the state of things which we are now told was so intolerable as to excuse what would otherwise be inexcusable. My Lords, the only excuse available for these acts would be that probably in the minds of those who committed them, they were acts of war—that it was a civil war in disguise. Well, give that plea what validity you choose, it does not seem to be exactly a valid reason for putting political power into the hands of those who are making war upon you. But if it be war it is war of a very cowardly sort, and for my part I own I have more forgiveness, I have more tolerance for the poor ignorant peasant who, at the risk of his own life, takes the life of some other man whom he has been taught to believe his enemy, than I do for the educated and cautious agitator who takes care to run no personal risk, who does not incite to specific acts of crime, because that would be dangerous, but who suggests and hints at a course of proceeding of which he well knows what the consequences must be, and which he does not dare openly to advise. My Lords, I do not wish to trouble you longer, or to draw obvious conclusions from well-known facts, or to expatiate on what you know already. But I wish to say, and I do say, that I believe the appointment of this Commission to have been a wise and judicious act, and that in my judgment, it has thrown, and will throw, more light on the true condition of things in Ireland, on the state of feeling and the conditions of life there, than will be at all agreeable to Mr. Parnell and his allies.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I need hardly say that it is not of my own free will that I intrude upon you on this occasion. In the first place, I hold a municipal and non-political office which makes me anxious to hold as much aloof as I can from Party politics. In

1463
the next place, nature abhors a vacuum, and so do I. But it is not on my responsibility that I address yon. Your Lordships force on us, the small body of Liberals who stand in this House, the painful necessity of taking a part on this occasion. I confess that, so far as I am concerned, I would gladly have seen this subject not touched in this House, for the sake of the vast majority of this House, for the sake of ourselves who are placed in so disadvantageous a position in contending with yon, and also for the character of this House, which I cannot think will gain from your action in this matter. With regard to my noble Friend who has just sat down, I have but little to say. I am delighted that he views the Report with so much satisfaction; I am delighted but not surprised, because he only quotes those portions which assist his own argument. I did not observe that in the course of a careful speech he touched at all upon those real charges which have been brought against the Irish Members, and upon which they have been acquitted. If he is satisfied, how much more should we be satisfied who have seen our opinion ratified by every election that has since taken place. Though the noble Marquess is believed, by the indiscretion of some leaky Conservative, yesterday to have expressed profound satisfaction with the result of those appeals to the country, I can assure him, and I can assure the noble Earl that we are amply satisfied with the verdict of the country in that respect. Now, my Lords, I object entirely to this Resolution, but I do not propose to enter, as the noble Earl has done, at very great length into the inception of the tribunal which has tried this case. I will prefer rather to agree with the noble and learned Lord (Lord Selborne) who said that the tribunal was the result of the law of the land, and that we may be satisfied to accept it. I am satisfied to accept it. I did not admire its constitution, but I think perhaps it will shorten matters tonight if we deal entirely with the result of that tribunal. I venture to say that with regard to this Report, the result of that tribunal, if we adopt it—and we shall adopt it, we know—without note or comment, we shall be doing a grave injustice to ourselves, and a still greater injustice to those Irish Members whose
1464
conduct is affected. I object to the Resolution both for what it contains and what it omits. What does it contain? It tells us first to thank the Judges for their impartiality and justice. I am not going to labour that point, which has been so often discussed to-day, but I will say briefly that as regards that part of the Resolution I regard it as degrading to the Judges, and that is the net and the sure result of your dragging the judicial Bench by these Judges into the political arena—that you have, so to speak, to refurbish them and deck them up again with their original attributes before you restore them to their judicial functions. Then, passing from that, I ask why we are to adopt this Report as it stands? We are asked to transfer it in a lump to our Journals. I will not dwell on the verbal inaccuracies of the Report. Many of the defendants' names are wrongly given. This seems a trivial matter, but in a legal document it is not a trivial matter. Yet there is nothing in the Resolution that implies that we are not to swallow it whole. Then, again, I should not wish to pick any holes in that stupendous structure of the Report, but I would venture, without imputing any bias whatever to the Judges to point out the extraordinary want of proportion that reigns throughout that Report. Some points are laboured at very great length, but the Judges lay down—I think it will be better perhaps, in order to preserve the Judicial Bench from the arena of Party politics, if we call them "the Commissioners,"—the Commissioners lay down without note or comment, without a word of proof, that the rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill in this House had no effect whatever in the diminution of outrage. I say that that is a proposition which may fairly be maintained; but if it may fairly be maintained, it is one that requires the most ample proof in face of the extraordinary antecedent improbability which attaches to it. Then they follow that up by saying that the Land Bill of 1881 and the Arrears Bill of 1882 had no effect whatever in removing outrage from Ireland. I say again that that requires ample proof—ample proof when you have it on the assurance of Mr. Parnell, who had no object in I making the assertion, that from his prison

1465
windows he observed the effect of the Land Bill of 1881, and when he saw the thousands of tenants flocking into the Courts to take advantage of it, he saw what an enormous blow it was at the League of which he was the head. I say then that as a matter of proportion at least it would have been seemly of the Commissioners if they had given us some reason for this very large statement, and T may say that both with regard to the the rejected Bill of 1880, and to the Bills of 1881 and 1882 there is nothing more remarkable in the Commissioners' Report than their extraordinary disdain for all forms of legislative remedy. It almost amounts to a contempt of Parliament—I mean in the strict and not in the juridical sense—because I think of every Act to which they allude they assert most positively that it has had no effect one way or the other in its influence on Ireland. Well, I say upon those points that there is a singular want of proportion. They give us no proof whatever of their allegation; but in order to prove the charge about boycotting, as to which I should venture to say that though it came suddenly on the noble Marquess, it came as a common-place on every other Member of the House, they devote 22 pages to its elaboration, and actually quote a paragraph from the Irishman, a paper so obscure that my noble Friend Earl Spencer, in his Government of Ireland, had never heard of its existence—they quote a passage from the Irishman twice over in the course of their Report, in order to labour a point against the Irish Members. But that is not the only want of proportion. I say they devote 22 pages to boycotting. They devote nothing in proof of their legislative axioms; but if they devote 22 pages to boycotting, what do they devote to the central question of all—the charge of the forged letters? They dismiss that in four lines. I was exceedingly amused in the course of the speech of the noble Marquess to hear the reference that he made to the use that we are supposed to have made—the dexterous use of these forged letters. He says that our side put them in the forefront of our attack, and that we manipulated them with singular dexterity so as to bring them forward as the forefront and the centre of the whole matter. My Lords,
1466
I will tell you who it is who was the originator of this dexterous and clever manœeuvre. It was a gentleman of great ability, who once was associated with our Party, but whom we do not regard as a leader, or an associate, or even a friend of ours now—it was Mr. Chamberlain, who, in his speech in the House of Commons, said that the gravamen of the whole matter was the forged letters, and so important and so central were they that he greatly doubted, if they were found to be forged, whether anybody would pay any attention to anything else. When we are accused of making use of the forged letters for our own political purposes, I accept the compliment of the noble Marquess to our dexterity—a dexterity which, I venture to say, is superhuman, and absolutely unsuspected by ourselves. Then, my Lords, I take a further objection to this Report. I will not dwell on it, I will only allude to it in passing; but it is one which makes it fundamentally and radically imperfect and useless as a record of this chapter of Irish history. It is that which has been touched on before, and which rests on the admission of the Commissioners themselves, and which, therefore, I suppose will not be disputed by any Party in this House, that they feel themselves debarred from touching on any of those circumstances, whether political or historical, or connected with the circumstances of the time—they feel themselves debarred from touching on any of the transactions which may explain or throw light on the articles with which they have to deal. I say that in all these points, which have been more or less laboured by previous speakers, this Report cannot stand on your Journals without note and without comment as a real and genuine utterance of the public opinion of this country, or even of Judges who had the whole matter before them—it cannot stand as a satisfactory record of the opinion of the country on that transaction at this moment. If you wish to make it complete you can at least do this: you can add to it the 10 or 11 volumes of evidence, to which we are not privileged to have access; those 10 or 11 printed volumes will at least give what does not appear in the Report, a full account of what Mr. Chamberlain called the gravamen and centre of the

1467
whole transaction, the Pigott forgeries. But, my Lords, I have a greater objection to urge against this Report than any I have put forward as an objection to its being placed upon your Journals, and that is this: It makes no attempt whatever to discriminate between moral crime and political offence. That is what really lies at the root of the whole matter. On one side of the House you hear long disquisitions—I will not say on one side of the House; I beg pardon of the noble Lords, because with singular political dexterity they have confined the whole discussion this evening to our own side of the House, but on one side of the question yon hear deepening of political offence and absolute ignoring of moral crime. That was the fault I found with the speech of the noble Earl. On the other side you find it stated broadly and fully that the origin of this Commission rests not on political offence, but moral crime. Now, my Lords, I am not going to dwell on the particular charges which have been so carefully entered into by my noble and learned Friend Lord Herschell. It is said that the respondents established a League with the hope of bringing about independence, and that that Land League was joined by certain persons for that purpose. You never can tell for what purpose anybody joins a particular League, but this you can say of the founder of the Land League, that for founding it he was expelled the Councils of the Fenian Organisation, which does not look at any rate as if the Fenian Organisation held the view of the Commissioners that the Land League was a favourable agency for their purposes. Then there are other points—for instance, as to the money given to criminals. My noble Friend said that that rests on only a few isolated instances. He might have limited his remark even more than that—it rests on only one dubious endorsement to a letter, which endorsement was placed on that letter when the leaders of the Land League were in prison. That is the little bone out of which the noble Marquess constructed that enormous monster this evening. But the noble Earl (Lord Derby) and others have said we can have no further evidence because the Land League books have disappeared, and the noble Earl at the same time mentioned that he con-
1468
sidered the Land League and the National League as virtually one. If that is so, that cuts away the whole root of his argument, because we had all the books of the National League before the Commissioners. But as regards the Land League it ceased to exist nine years ago. It was hunted and persecuted out of existence; every policeman that you had at your command in Ireland was put on the trail to stamp out the League; and yet you suppose that under those circumstances these persons, who did not wish probably to betray the names of those whom they employed to the rural administration of justice in Ireland, were likely to take away and cherish these precious manuscripts in order that, at the fitting time, if ever Parliament in the fulness of its justice should grant an inquiry into the whole circumstances of Ireland, they should have these priceless manuscripts to place at your proposal. I confess that I cannot see much in that. Nor can I see that the giving of money to persons, whether they be criminals or not, but giving money to persons, to aid them in their defence, has hitherto been considered any particular crime at all. But what I cannot understand about these charges is, why the boycotting, the pernicious literature, this money given to criminals under suspicion of crime—all these various matters—have suddenly come as such a discovery upon the noble Marquess, when they have been well known; they have been printed in newspapers, and many of them, I think, avowed by the defendants themselves. The language of the Irish World is said to be violent, but I think there are some flowers of rhetoric even in the columns of the Times. Boycotting and the spreading of pernicious literature are imputed to Irish Members, but boycotting and the spread of pernicious literature are not confined to Ireland. You have established this enormous machinery, this unprecedented and this un-Constitutional machinery, to display to your wondering eyes a great many things that were absolutely and perfectly well known to you before. Now, let me take that charge which I think the noble Earl regarded with peculiar abhorrence, the charge of conspiracy to remove landlords,

1469
from Ireland. Well, that is a very dangerous conspiracy. But I am sorry to say that I have heard the same language with regard to English and Scotch landlords on English and Scotch platforms. I am sorry to say that the Nationalisation of the Land Party, which frequently appears at current political elections, takes exactly the same view about the removal of English and Scotch landlords as was taken about the removal of Irish landlords by the Irish Party. But the difference is this: What we are allowed to discuss as a political problem in England or Scotland is in Ireland considered a crime. No doubt, this removal of Irish landlords is a most heinous offence. I know my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland must consider it an offence of peculiar magnitude. He has brought your Lordships and the other House of Parliament to spend 10 millions of money in the commission of that very heinous offence. The Government of which I was a Member in 1886 proposed to spend a much larger sum in that particular very heinous offence; and the Land League, if I am not greatly mistaken, which is supposed to be the foremost in that heinous offence, was indeed foremost in proposing a scheme at its first foundation, which would have bought the landlords out on much more liberal terms than those upon which the Government are proposing to buy them out now. Then there are speeches which have led to crime. That is a very formidable offence, but I have no notion whatever how it is that the learned Commissioners or any other body of persons have been able to trace the exact relation between speeches and crime. By what instrument, by what test, are you able to follow and appreciate these speeches and discover exactly where it is that they lead to crime? If that is so, I do not quite understand how it is that you propose to measure the utterances of the most eloquent and impulsive race that exists under the sun. I believe an opinion has been given by a great Irish authority. I am not sure that he is not in the House at this moment—to the effect that the reason of the English failure to govern Ireland rests on this, that the English have no sense of humour. I venture to believe that in many cases the Irish must feel
1470
that weakness of ours most acutely when they see the very serious spirit in which all their random utterances are taken. But, my Lords, if the speeches of Mr. Parnell and his followers are to be taken as dangerous and disloyal, does that only apply to that section of Irish society? I think rather that I could find you speeches not tittered by Mr. Parnell or his followers that seem to me to have a very relaxing influence on the connection between the two countries. There was a meeting, I think, in 1869, attended by the Earl of Inniskillin, Viscount Cole, Sir Thomas Bateson, and many other Orange notabilities. The following Resolution was proposed by the High Sheriff of the County of Antrim:—
"That we shall continue to uphold the legislative union between Great Britain and Ireland as long as the international compact is respected and held inviolable by the British Parliament; hut should the 5th Article of the Treaty of Union, which is expressed to be fundamental and perpetual, be repealed, we shall be forced to regard the Union as virtually dissolved."
I have in my hand a whole collection of these speeches. I do not propose to detain your Lordships with them at this moment; but I do think it extremely interesting that Ave should have the language of Irishmen, eloquent, and perhaps irresponsible, as it is, upon both sides of the question when we are discussing this matter. Let me go a step further. I am very sorry not to see here the noble Viscount the Adjutant General. If the noble Viscount Lord Wolseley is not greatly maligned, he has offered to organise the forces of disorder in case a particular Act of Parliament which has been proposed to Parliament shall be passed. He has never contradicted that, and I should have been glad if he had been here to-night to get up and contradict it on the spot. I do not doubt that he will contradict it tomorrow. It is an allegation which has been frequently made, and that should be either substantiated or repudiated, and it is at least as treasonable an utterance (from any private individual, much more from a paid and permanent official of the Crown) as I think almost any that is recorded in the Report before us. Let me bring the matter nearer home. There is one of your leaders, not the least eloquent, not the least popular of your leaders, though he is somewhat in dis-

1471
grace with you now, because he warned you of the gross folly that you were going to commit. What did the noble Lord, the late Secretary for India, late Chancellor of the Exchequer, late leader of the House of Commons, say? He said, "Let Ulster fight, and Ulster will be right." That, again, was in the contingency of the passing of a particular Act of Parliament. I do not care to dwell on ex-Ministers; let me come to Ministers. I know that the noble Marquess would be the first to resent anything that was at all illegal in the language that was uttered before him or near him. I was pleased with the holy horror that he expressed of anything of that description to-night. But I find that in the year 1886, when the noble Marquess was in the free shades of opposition, and when he was attending a meeting at St. James's Hall, with the object of organising an opposition against the then Government, Colonel Saunderson made a speech at the righthand of the noble Marquess, which met his entire approval. Colonel Saunderson said—
"Who were the traitors? The men who were determined at all hazard to protect the Union, and uphold the authority of the Crown? ….. Suppose that some lunatic proposed as a substitute for the police of London, the burglars, the murderers, and pick pockets"—
You do not like strong language I know, but this is language used by a Loyalist—
"And gave it as his reason that 100 years coercion had been tried and had failed and so forth, if there was a probability of such a proposition being carried, what course would be adopted by the citizens of London? He ventured to say that, the gun makers would make their fortunes. The most peaceable citizens of London would prepare to make ready for the new police, and that was what they were doing in Ireland, and because they acted in that extremely common sense way they had been called disloyal, and Sir Henry James"—
I do not understand that name coming in this connection—
"Informed them that they were half traitors."
That was strong language with regard to the establishment of a Home Rule Government in Ireland, which was then a proposition offered by the Government of the day to the consideration of Parliament, and one would rather have expected that the noble Marquess who was present as guest at that meeting, would have expressed a strong disapproval of
1472
it, but he was perfectly delighted. The noble Marquess said—
"I would not attempt—it would be impossible—to add to the force of the exhortation and description which you have received from my hon. Friend just now. It would be attempting to paint the lily to do so, and I have no doubt that he and the Ulstermen mean what they say. We all reject with indignation and contempt the effort which has been made in the House of Commons to depreciate their legitimate exertions for self defence."
that is to say, legitimate exertions for what? For what Mr. Johnston of Ballykilbeg called "lining the last ditch with riflemen." Well, I say, if the noble Marquess is prepared to listen to that sort of language, which, under the circumstances, was a flat, or a possible, incentive to revolution, he must not be shocked if he finds that other Irishmen have somewhat eloquent tongues. My Lords, you may ask why I quote these instances. I quote them simply for this purpose: that you may mete out the same measure to these Irishman as you mete out to your own Irishmen, and that what is heedless rhetoric on one side shall be heedless rhetoric on the other. But I really do not need to extenuate in any degree the utterances of Mr. Parnell and his Party as set down in the Report. There is an operation in the Law Courts, at any rate in the Bankruptcy Court, which is called "whitewashing." I venture to say that Mr. Parnell and his followers have received a complete whitewashing as regards all their previous language, which, although it was printed and published and notorious, and perfectly well-known to the noble Marquess and his followers, did not prevent their forming a close political alliance with them long after those speeches were delivered, and which did not prevent the Viceroy of Ireland, under the auspices and with the cognisance of the noble Marquess, from seeking an interview with this very convicted traitor, Mr. Parnell, to ask for his assistance in the government of Ireland. My Lords, I believe that when you come to consider what these Irishmen have done; when you consider that they have had to fight against the whole force and fleets and armies of the Empire; that they have had to fight for the liberation of their country against a nation so infinitely stronger than their own, when you think of all the forces arrayed against them, and when you reflect on

1473
what they have accomplished, you will not blame them for having united so far as might be the scattered branches of the Irish race, and for having accepted money without too closely inspecting its origin. After all, the Emperor Vespasian did very much the same thing. If you could prove that this association of what you call dangerous persons in America had won over the Parliamentary Party to the party of violence, I should say that you would have made a stronger point than is made in the whole Report; but, as a matter of fact, you have evidence of exactly the opposite description. You have the evidence—you may not trust it, but I believe that Mr. Davitt, whatever his faults may be, is frank and outspoken enough—you have evidence at least that Mr. Davitt believes that he has converted Mr. Ford, the bête noire of the whole agitation, and you have, at any rate, this further evidence, that since Mr. Parnell has been able to control all the scattered branches of the Irish Party, wherever they be, violence in the acute form in which it existed during the Tithes war and the previous insurrectionary movements of the present century has very largely diminished. My Lords, I do not want to dwell for another moment on what I may call the political charges, because they are not the essential charges. They would not have justified the inquisition that you set up. They were all in print when you set up that inquisition, and though they come as a novelty to the noble Marquess they came as a novelty to nobody else. What you did set up this extraordinary tribunal for was this: lo investigate grave moral crimes, crimes which would have made the Irish Members unfit to sit in the House, and unfit to associate with gentlemen. Now, I venture to say this, and I am only imitating Mr. Chamberlain in saying—it that if it had not been for the attention excited by the forged letters there would have been no Commission at all. And what I will say further is this: that if the charges had been originally formulated in the way in which they are placed in the Commission Report it is very likely that public opinion would not have been so much attracted to them as to compel a tribunal of this description. But, my Lords, how was it that they were
1474
formulated?—and this is rather important. I will give an extract, not from the Irish World or the Irishman, but from the Times. The Times says—
"The whole conspiracy, whether carried on by mealy-mouthed gentlemen who sit at London dinner tables, or by the fiends who organise arson and murder, is one and indivisible."
These are the charges that the noble Earl has hardly thought it worth while to allude to—
"It is paid out of the same purse; it is worked by the same men; it is directed to the same ends; it is inspired by one universal spirit, of hatred to this country and determination, if possible, to bring about complete separation."
Again—
"Rebellion is seen no longer in the eyes of Irish Archbishops, or crime in the judgment of Radical statesmen; but no Prelate has yet dared to bless the deeds which stand proved against the Land League. No mystic philosopher has named the natural horror of humanity for the inevitable accidents of the Irish rebellion. Murder still startles the ambitions and the doctrinaire, and we charge that the Land League chiefs based their movements on a scheme of assassination."
I must ask your Lordships' attention to that; that is a charge which, oddly enough, has been omitted from the speech of my noble Friend below me (Lord Camperdown), and the noble and learned Lord (Lord Selborne).
"A scheme of assassination, carefully calculated and coolly applied Be the ultimate goal of these men what, it will, they are content to march towards it in company with murderers. Murderers provide their funds; murderers share their inmost council; murderers have gone forth from the League office to set their bloody work afoot, and have presently returned to consult the 'Constitutional leaders' on the advancement of the cause."
These are the charges which obtain little or no notice in the Report, and much less notice in the speeches of noble Lords who are against us to-night. I will only-trouble your Lordships with one last extract. This is also from the Times. You are shocked by the language of the Irish World, and therefore I am almost afraid to read you this extract from the Times—
"We have seen how Mr. O'Donnell's Constitutional organisation was planned by Fenian brains, founded on a Fenian loan, and reared by Fenian hands; how the infernal fabric rose like an exhalation to the sound of murderous oratory; how assassins guarded it about, and enforced the high decrees of the secret conclave within by the bullet and the knife. Of

1475
that conclave to-day, three members sit in the Imperial Parliament, four are fugitives from the law; against one a true bill for murder stands recorded; all the exiles consort with professed assassins since their flight."
The only exile I have traced since his flight is now appointed by the United States, which is not a particularly prejudiced country, its Ambassador to Chili. I do not know whether that is what was contemplated by the Times, but it certainly is a somewhat unfortunate expression. Well, my Lords, I say that when you leave out all reference to the charges preferred in that language which made that Commission almost necessary, it seems to me that you are acting in a way unworthy of yourselves. The noble Marquess said to night that ho could not understand that in criminal tribunals it was usual to add an apology to convicts who happened to be found not guilty of some particular charge. I do not think that that is a fair statement of the case as it applies to these Gentlemen. You have had charges brought against them in the grossest, the foulest, and the most venomous language, all of them emphatically disproved. What you have had proved are the minor charges of political offence. But let us take the facts as they occurred, and try to apply them to any Member of this House, to any Member of the Conservative Party if such a thing be possible. A certain newspaper brings a charge against a Member of Parliament, it brings it with the avowed object influencing a Division in Parliament; it is based on gross perjury and forgery, accepted without examination as to its authenticity or its source, but all this is never discovered until after the forgery has done its work in Parliament. Well, my Lords, if ever there was a breach of the privilege of Parliament, that was a breach of privilege. What does "privilege" mean if that is not breach of privilege? And yet this breach of privilege having been committed, and proved to the last syllable, the Government think it worthy of themselves, worthy of their majority in the other House and worthy of the majority of this House not to state by a single sentence their reprobation of this wound of the honour and the privileges of Parliament. My Lords, it seems to me that the Press in this country has unbounded freedom, and we rejoice that
1476
it has unbounded freedom, but its responsibility is co-existent and co-equal with its freedom, and I venture to say that the Times newspaper, with all its great traditions, was well aware of the responsibility that it incurred in publishing this matter, and I venture to say that if the truth be told, the managers of the Times newspaper themselves are not a bit less surprised than we are that you have not thought it well to vindicate in any way the outrage that they themselves, perhaps unwittingly, committed upon the privileges of Parliament. But, my Lords, what makes the action of the Government a little more suspicious is this: That at an earlier moment they wore extremely solicitous about the privileges of Parliament. They offered the services of the Attorney General, they offered a prosecution at the public expense. All this was presumably when they believed the charges to be true; but since the charges have been absolutely and wholly disproved, there is not a word or an offer on behalf of the privileges of Parliament, no prosecution, not a farthing of money, not a whisper of all the thunders that they formerly promised, it is all allowed to relapse into silence, because the charge has been proved to be emphatically untrue. Then, my Lords, how does the transaction altogether sum up? I apologise for alluding to it, but it has been so little alluded to this evening that it is necessary to remind you what the real issue is. You attack an innocent man, you try him by a tribunal—I will say nothing about the tribunal, but, at any rate, if is one which you choose yourselves, it is one as to the methods and as to the selection of which you do not allow him the slightest voice, because the House had hardly begun to discuss that tribunal when you closured every clause of the Bill. You take him, the tribunal finds him innocent, and you fine him £40,000 of expense for having been found innocent by your own tribunal. That is the net result of establishing innocence under Her Majesty's present advisers. Do you believe that that would have been the result of this transaction if he had been one of your Lordships—if he had been a Conservative politician—if he had been even that rarer and more cherished specimen the Liberal Unionist? Do you suppose that,

1477
under any circumstances, he would have been allowed to leave that Court, innocent of these gross and foul charges, at a loss of £40,000 to himself? I venture to say, whatever your belief may be on that point, the belief in the country is tolerably unanimous. Then I would venture to ask you one question more. It is not now a question of refunding to Mr. Parnell the expense to which you have put him, but have you no apology to offer to him for the treatment to which he has been subjected. I take it in no respect offensively, but I will ask for a moment the noble Marquess to place himself in that position. We have on former occasions charged the noble Marquess with what we considered political offences of a grave kind. I remember when he chose to embark us on a war with Afghanistan we charged him—we all charged him then—some eloquent voices on this side, which are now dumb, and which are the first to support his policy, arraigned him in eloquent terms for a gross political offence in making war on Afghanistan. I still consider that that was a great political offence; but suppose we had charged the noble Marquess with some moral crime in addition; suppose we had produced some forged document, some sugar-loaf memorandum or something of that sort; suppose we had produced that with the object of influencing Parliament, against him and then we had discovered that the document was forged. I will give no such disparagement to any Peer on this side of the House, whether he agrees with us on the Irish Question or not, as to suppose that we should not have offered just reparation, and the amplest reparation that it was in our power to offer. We should have continued to consider, as we do still consider, the Afghanistan War as a grave political offence, but we should have been the first to delight in clearing the noble Marquess of any moral crime with which we had unjustly associated him. I have always understood that any high-minded man would feel a pleasure in such an atonement as I propose, and which ought to be added to your Resolution, to-night. There is a sense of honour, I believe, inherent in every man which is tortured as long as any such reparation is withheld. But if the noble Marquess is determined to withhold that apology, I
1478
can only say that he is making a mistake, as I think, from his own point of view. He will find the mistake—he has already found the mistake in the elections which have occurred since the debates upon this matter in the House of Commons. I do not appeal to you opposite now either as Peers or as politicians, or as statesmen, if you like; but there is a higher name, a more universal name than any of those: the name of an English gentleman; and I should appeal to you as English gentlemen, if you think yon have done your duty, having fathered and fostered and sanctioned these charges against the Irish Party—["No, no"]—by the employment of the Attorney General—["No, no"]—yes, you have allowed the Attorney General to sanction, and you have sanctioned the charges constantly since by your language. The noble Marquess spoke to-day of the Irish Members as a branch of a criminal profession. If you chose to sanction these charges by your voice, retrospectively or prospectively, I say that when you find they are absolutely false you owe, as English gentlemen, if as nothing else, a reparation to the man you have wronged. My Lords, I have only one more objection to urge, and it is this—this is no matter for this House at all. So far as it affects Parliament it is a matter for the House of Commons. But I do not think it affects Parliament at all. In its inception, in its conception, in its execution, the whole glory and credit of this transaction belongs to Her Majesty's Government, and Her Majesty's Government alone. I cannot help observing how extremely anxious they are—how generously, how unselfishly anxious they are to share their triumph with others. They have already associated the House of Commons with it, and they now ask your Lordships to be associated with it. It reminds me of a story which was once told me by a friend of mine who was contesting one of the last of the pocket boroughs. He was contesting it against the nominee of the proprietor of the borough. The nominee was the unpopular candidate—my friend was the popular candidate. Of course, the nominee got in, and at the declaration of the poll my friend and the nominee being inside the Court House heard the shouts of the populace outside for the blood of the successful candidate,

1479
and the sound of the stones and brickbats that were prepared to salute his exit. The nominee said to my friend, the popular candidate, with an exceedingly pale face, "Do you not think it would produce a very happy effect if we showed that there was no ill-feeling and walked out arm-in-arm together?" "No," said my friend, "I would not rob you of a particle of your well-earned triumph." I cannot help thinking that that is rather the position of Her Majesty's Government on the present occasion. They wish to shift the responsibility they rashly and foolishly assumed on to the shoulders of Parliament. If it was a question of printing only one paragraph on the Journals, I myself would agree to it—that paragraph which clears this House of all responsibility in the rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill and for the subsequent increase of Irish crime. I would gladly see that put upon the Journals as a possible whitewashing of this House which I only hope that history will confirm. But you wish to have the whole of it. Well, I venture to say that you are making a great mistake. You are wantonly and unadvisedly constituting yourselves judges of what only affects the House of Commons. Suppose a Peer were to have been brought up in this manner before the tribunals of the country, should you be pleased that the House of Commons graciously stepped forward and said that they were willing be adopt the Report regarding that Peer and to enter it on the Journals of their House? I venture to say that one-half of those I see before me would say that that was an outrageous breach of their privileges. But here there is no Peer implicated—I wish to God there were a Peer implicated in this transaction! It would be better for Ireland and better for the Irish Peerage if some of that Peerage were found among the defendants this evening. [A laugh.] Yes, you laugh, but the facts remain the same whether you smile or not—that on one side stand the Irish people, headed by the defendants, and on the other side stand the Irish Peerage. It may be perfectly true that the Irish Peerage are right and the nation wrong—that makes it no better for that aristocracy. Because, if there be one truth more strictly and universally written than another by
1480
history, it is this: that an aristocracy divorced from a nation is a doomed aristocracy. I regret it with all my heart, but it is a truth written on the ruined Palaces of Venice and of Versailles. It is a lesson written in every page of history; and however much we may regret it, we cannot avoid the inevitable conclusion that an aristocracy severed from the nation is a doomed aristocracy. I regret that the Irish nobility have not once more seen their way to guide and control and to lead the national movement. When I first mentioned my regret at that want of association, I thought I heard a laugh on the other side; and yet it is not a hundred years ago since we had your Charlemonts and Cloncurries and Fitzgeralds—Charlemonts who were not ashamed to lead the Irish Volunteers, Cloncurries and Fitzgeralds who were not ashamed to share the aspirations of Ireland even to prison and the grave. There is no such Peer now. There were Peers a little later who were not ashamed to sign a protest against the Union, as to which I will make no apology for reading a single sentence from it—
"Because the argument made use of in favour of the Union—namely, that the sense of the people of Ireland is in its favour—we know to be untrue, and as the Ministers have declared that they would not press the measure against the sense of the people, and as the people have pronounced decidedly and under all difficulties their judgment against it, we have, together with the sense of the country, the authority of the Ministers to enter our protest against the project of Union, against the yoke which it imposes, the dishonour which it inflicts, the disqualification passed upon the Peerage, the stigma thereby branded on the Realm, the disproportionate principle of expense, the means employed to effect it, the discontent which it excites and must continue to excite—against all these and the fatal consequences they may produce we have endeavoured to interpose our votes, and, failing, we transmit to after times our names in solemn protest on behalf of the Parliamentary constitution of this realm, the liberty which it secured, the trade which it protected, the connection which it preserved, and the Constitution which it supplied and fortified; this we feel ourselves called upon to do in support of our characters, our honour, and whatever is left to us worthy to be transmitted to our posterity."
That posterity have no share in those aspirations, and yet that paper was signed by such names as the Duke of Leicester, Lords Arran, Mount Cashell, Farnham, Massy, Strangford, Granard, Ludlow, Moira, Wm. Down and Connor,

1481
R. Waterford and Lismore, Powerscourt, De Vesci, Charlemont, Kingston, Meath, Lismore, Sunderlin, Belmore, and Riversdale. That protest was signed in the year 1800. Probably those great Peers, the greatest of their country, did not think that in the time to come the national movement would have lost altogether the guidance, the help, and the leadership of that posterity to which they appealed. But I do not think it is only the Irish Peers who have lost their opportunity on this occasion. I am afraid that Government and Parliament have both lost their opportunity. No one, I venture to say, can calculate what would have been the effect on a generous and high-spirited people if the Government, when these transactions were closed, had thought fit to lay upon the Table of the House a Resolution declaring its unfeigned regret for the charges which have been disproved and which were founded on fraud and on forgery. There never, in my opinion, was so gracious a chance vouchsafed to any Government. They have disdained it. They have preferred to complete their full tale of years of what they are pleased to call "resolute government." They might have sent a message of peace; they have preferred to send a message of scorn. It is a disastrous mistake, which will be felt, not only here, and not only in Ireland, but will tingle to the furthest corners of the Empire. From Queensland to Vancouver's Island it will be known—in our old colonies, in the colonies which are still ours, and in those colonies which were once ours—through all the scattered habitations of the Irish race, that you placed their leader in judgment—that you brought gross calumnies to bear upon him, that you inflicted an enormous fine upon him, and that, when it was found the charges were based on forgery and were absolutely untrue, you declined to give him the apology which you would have given to any private person. Your message will be appreciated as it deserves, but I shall be greatly mistaken if it conduces to the safety, honour, and welfare of our Sovereign and her dominions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Before saying a word or two in reply to the speech your Lordships have just heard, I should like to put myself right in reference to the somewhat grotesque
1482
caricature of what I said on the appointment of the Commission by my noble and learned Friend Lord Herschell. My Lords, I never said anything so ridiculous as that attributed to me by my noble and learned Friend, or anything to that purport or effect. I was endeavouring to show, when I was interrupted by a noble Lord, that the question of the accusation was not one which came from Her Majesty's Government at all, but that Mr. Parnell and his friends had themselves desired an investigation into grave charges affecting the public character of public; men. The passage which my noble and learned Friend quoted from my speech stops short at an important point. What I was saying was this—
"Here is a case in which a newspaper of high authority and great respectability—"
Then I was interrupted by my noble Friend the Earl of Kimberley—
"No, not more so than others."
and I proceed
"My noble Friend says 'No.' I cannot agree with him. I think there are some newspapers in this Metropolis which are an absolute disgrace to journalism, and with respect to whom I should not condescend even to notice the abuse which from time to time they level at public men. I think the Times and many other papers are of such a character of respectability that no public man can afford to disregard such grave charges as are made in this case."
There my noble Friend stopped, and your Lordships would suppose that what I meant to imply was that if they do disregard those grave charges they must be supposed to be guilty. But what I did go on to say was this—
"If Mr. Parnell would not bring an action, he ought not to complain if an effort was made, even by his political opponents, to give him the opportunity of clearing his character."
Anything more unlike what I did say than the version of it given by Lord Herschell I can hardly imagine. And this point is not altogether irrelevant to what has been said by the noble Earl who has just addressed your Lordships. It seems to be assumed by him that the accusation is the accusation of the Government. The sole ground for that, so far as I heard, was that the Attorney General was conducting the case. I cannot do the noble Earl the injustice of supposing that he does not know that in conducting the case for the Times the

1483
Attorney General had no more to do with the Government than the noble Earl himself. He was appearing as a private counsel for a private client, both in the original matter out of which the Commission arose and before the Commission itself. I observe that throughout the noble Earl's speech he refers to the Conduct of the Government. He says, "You have made the foulest accusations." "You have done this or the other." Throughout his speech he assumes as the state of facts that her Majesty's Government were making the accusation on their own behalf, and that, the accusation having been disproved, apology was due from them to the parsons supposed to be acquitted. I have a word to say presently as to the extent and degree of the acquittal, but I wish first to meet that entirely erroneous assumption that the Government had anything to do with the matter except to find a tribunal which could impartially try the questions, and give the accused persons full and ample opportunity of clearing their characters, if possible, of all the imputations levelled against them. Now, in the course of this debate we have wandered a considerable distance; indeed, the noble Earl, in a peroration which certainly seems to have caused him a great deal of trouble and time, took us back over the history of the last 90 years of Irish politics. But what we have to do with is the Report now before your Lordships. In the first place, we have to consider what is the course which we are to take. We are, in the first place, to thank the Judges. I observe a somewhat minute criticism of my noble Friend's phraseology in the introduction of the Motion to your Lordships—that he did not exactly follow the words of the Motion in the qualities which he attributed to the conduct of the Judges. But the substance of the matter is this. The three Judges have been selected by your Lordships and the other House of Parliament. They did not ask to be employed. The very last thing they would have desired would be to have placed upon them the great burden which Parliament entrusted them with. But the will of Parliament placed upon them that great burden, and, by concession of all sides, they exhibited patience, industry, courage, and impartiality, worthy of all praise, and yet the paragraph of the Motion thanking
1484
the Judges is found fault with. It appears to me that the noble Earl, Lord Derby, has sufficiently answered that argument when he pointed out that Parliament frequently thanked people for the exhibition of qualities which, nevertheless, they are supposed to possess. But now let me say one word more upon the appointment of this Commission. I confess I should have thought that the more rational course would have been to treat the results of the Commission and what has happened in the course of the inquiry as the proper subject of debate, rather than its origin, but two noble Lords—my noble Friend who introduced this discussion and the noble Lord the late Viceroy of Ireland—have thought proper to refer to that question. That is, I cannot help thinking, the resurrection of a former debate, and it necessarily involves also the reiteration of the very class of observations by which that debate was distinguished. The first thing that occurs to me is that the noble Earl is the person who is so utterly shocked at the un-Constitutional nature of the tribunal. Well, one ought not, I suppose in political life to be surprised at anything; but this was a tribunal which had no executive powers, and no result beyond the finding of facts and leaving both Houses of Parliament to deal with them as they pleased. It is contended that it is unconstitutional for Parliament to refer the questions to the decision of three Judges, because they might have political opinions of their own. All the people of this country, happily, I believe, have political opinions of their own. But the Judges are removed from the atmosphere of politics in the sense that their office precludes them from intervening in hot political debates. What the Judges have done there is no doubt they have, by confession of all, done with great patience, and assiduity, and impartiality. Did the noble Earl never hear before of a tribunal consisting of Judges alone whose judgment was to result in death?
A noble LORD: A Court Martial.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, not a Court Martial, but a tribunal erected by the law. Did he never hear of a tribunal being appointed for the trial of murderers in Ireland to take the place of juries, the absence of which the noble Earl was so desperately shocked at? It is also said to be very shocking that no

1485
apology is to be tendered to Mr. Parnell by Her Majesty's Government for an accusation they did not make, and in respect of which they obtained a tribunal for Mr. Parnell to prove his innocence before, if he could. The noble Earl who last addressed the House drew a touching picture of Mr. Parnell sitting at his prison window. But who put him in prison? What for? Well, he is out again, but I quite expected we should have heard from the noble Earl some courteously couched apology for having put him there. That was the act of the Government, and by their Irish Attorney General, speaking, not in his character as private counsel, but as the representative of the Government, saying that Mr. Parnell and his Colleagues were steeped to the lips in treason. When this sort of observation is made it is impossible not to recur to these events which seem to be so very relevant when you are discussing the excuses of the Irish Members, or attacking Her Majesty's Government, but which seem to be quite irrelevant when you are talking of the late Government. Then there is another question which was raised, and which the noble Earl, I think, omitted to answer. I really thought there was going to be an apology—I thought something like the canonisation of the Land League was to be entered upon. A very relevant question was asked across the Table to which I heard no answer—"Why was the League suppressed?" That is a question we should like to hear a little more about, especially when you talk of the country forming its own judgment on this matter. Why was it suppressed? Was it guilty of crime? The only word the noble Earl permitted himself to use with regard to it was that it was a dangerous association. Dangerous in what? Was it only in making violent and eloquent speeches, or did it do something else which led to outrage and crime? If it did, who were those who were associated with it? It is impossible to go minutely through the Report. My noble and learned Friend alternately said that the Report is unsatisfactory and unsupported by the evidence, and then that he has not seen the evidence, and therefore could not form a judgment upon it. I do not quite follow those two propositions.
LORD HERSCHELL: I said, in the absence of the complete evidence, that I assumed that the Judges had put forward in the Report the strongest evidence they could in support of their conclusions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not quite so understood my noble and learned Friend, but I, of course, accept what he says. I observe there is an attempt to minimise the effect of the statements hostile to the Irish Members. When noble Lords talk about boycotting they say, "Oh, it is not confined to Ireland." I believe "boycotting" is one of those elastic phrases by which it is possible to conceal very wicked crimes or to describe very trivial and venial ones. I do not hesitate to denounce boycotting, not in the gentle and tender language of some persons who "disapprove of it," and "dislike it," but I denounce boycotting as an abominable and wicked crime,, whether it occurs in England or Ireland. The difference between us is this: that whereas some persons, when it occurs in Ireland, are disposed to treat it in tender and courteous phraseology, although they would denounce it in England, I uncompromisingly denounce it wherever it occurs. Again, the question is, whether it is true to say that boycotting exists in England, I have not heard any politician, at least on this side of the House, defend for a single moment, any one of those things which in Ireland are included under the term "boycotting." Now, let me come to the particular example which my noble and learned Friend has given as indicating the imperfect character of the findings of the Special Commission, and that is the question of giving people money after they have suffered injury in the cause of some illegal practice. It is said to rest on one letter.
LORD HERSCHELL: My point was not that it rested on one letter, but that whether it rested on one letter, or whether there were other instances, as, was suggested to be possible, there was no evidence that the 64 persons charged were cognisant of or had anything to do with it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is impossible, of course, to conduct the discussion in dialogue; but I understood, and I think most of your Lordships understood, that the commentary was this: that this was a single example

1487
and that the Commissioners had no right to assume, and that it showed the unjudicial character of their determination in assuming, that this was only one of a set of examples. As to tracing the act of the Land League to the 64 persons, I need not say that it would be impossible to discuss that question without going into the whole of the evidence. But what the Commissioners set out is this—"Here is a distinct example which, although it is one instance, shows not that one instance only, but a system, because by the nature of the evidence which we had before us we inferred from it not a single and isolated instance, but a system." Now the nature of the evidence is this: Fortunately it is comparatively short, and therefore need not detain us long. The question, your Lordships will remember, is the payment of money by this organisation to a person who has suffered by reason of having been injured in the course of committing some crime. I say nothing about the quantity of letters destroyed too successfully, and one letter and a few other documents by accident preserved, but this is the letter. The misfortune of discussing a subject like this upon casual observations is that you have not before you the full effect of the evidence in its combination, which is therefore entirely lost. The letter is written by a person who is asking for assistance; and to whom is it written? I pray your Lordships' attention to the name of the person and the position he held. It is addressed to Mr. J. P. Quinn, Secretary of the Land League in Dublin—
"SIR,—I beg to direct your attention to a matter of a private character, which I attempted to explain to you when I was in Dublin at the Convention. The fact is, that one of the men from a shock lost the use of his eye. It coat him £4 to go to Cork for medical attendance, &c. Another man received a wound in the thigh, and was laid up for a month. No one knows the persons but the doctor and myself, and the members of that society. I may inform you that the said parties cannot afford to suffer. If it were a public affair, a subscription list would be opened at once for them, as they proved to be heroes. One other man escaped a shot, but got his jaws grazed. Hoping you will, at your discretion, see your way to making a grant, which you can send through me or the Rev. John O'Callaghan, C.C.
"Yours truly,
"TIMOTHY HORAN."
On the back of this letter was this endorsement, and it is this which has been referred to to-night as the doubtful
1488
signature or initials:—"£6. 12–10–81, J.F."
Upon this the Commissioners say—
"We have no doubt that the application made in this letter was for compensation to persons injured whilst in the commission of some criminal act.
"It was proved before us that the initials J.P. were those of Mr. John Ferguson, of Glasgow, who tells us that he was one of those who originated the Land League, and was Chairman of the Executive Committee upon October 12, 1881.
"It was also proved that the application was entertained at a Land League meeting of the executive in Dublin on October 12, 1881, and that the £6 applied for in the letter was granted, and was afterwards paid to T. Horan by a cheque of Dr. J. E. Kenny, M.P., treasurer of the Land League in Dublin. It was said that this was an isolated case, done at a time when the leaders of the Land League were in prison and unable to conduct its business.
"This latter excuse cannot be accepted, for on October 12, 1881, many leaders and officials of the Land League were still at large, and the Executive Committee then met.
"With regard to its being an isolated act, we have not been afforded the means of arriving at such a conclusion. The correspondence of the Land League with its branches has not been produced, nor has the non-production been accounted for."
I think I heard some one say that this correspondence might have been destroyed by accident. If so, that could have been proved, and it was not, and the Commissioners tell us upon their responsibility that "its absence has not been accounted for." Then the Commissioners proceed—
"The transaction, as it appears in the book which was produced, would, on the face of it, seem to be regular, and it was only by the accidental preservation of the letter by Phillips that its real character was made manifest.
"Mr. Ferguson, in cross-examination, stated that they had had several similar applications, that some were granted and some refused, but none were ever assented to without the permission of the Executive Committee, and that each case was considered as it arose; and Mr. Biggar, M.P., says that in the course of their business, such an application would certainly be considered by the executive and dealt with.
"Mr. Ferguson stated that, in his view, the men for whom the £6 were asked, had been carrying out some of the purposes which the League would require them to carry out; that is to say, some of those purposes that came within their rules, but which the police would baton them for, and that in Ireland they were bound to sympathise with men who were doing things that under a Constitutionally governed country they dare not and would not sympathise with, and he added that personally he would assist them, even if they had been engaged in crime, to medical assistance if

1489
no other could be got, and that he should do it again except for the matter of implicating the League.
"Timothy Horan was dead, but neither Mr. Quinn, who had been in Court, nor the Rev. Mr. O'Callaghan, were called before us."
I have thought it right to quota this at length, because that is the single example selected as a proof how rashly the Commissioners have come to the conclusion that it is a system as distinguished from an isolated act; and your Lordships will see with what justice that action is made against the Commissioners when the whole transaction from the beginning to the end begins by an application to the regular and proper authorities of the Land League, the Land League assenting, and the money being paid by the treasurer of the League; it being admitted by Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Biggar that those were applications that would be made, that were made, and treated on their merits; and yet that is supposed to be an isolated instance, and not depending on the regular system under which the moneys of the Land League were administered. It is important, because it is the only instance fixed on; and therefore I have thought it right to go at some length into the case in order to show how entirely inaccurate is the supposition which I had supposed (it appears in mistake) that my noble Friend had made that the Commissioners had proceeded without sufficient evidence to show that the payment made was not made as a question of isolated relief, but as part of a system. Now, my Lords, what are we asked to do? I will say nothing about the apology. I think that once we have ascertained with sufficient precision who the persons making the accusations were, and the relation of Her Majesty's Government to the accusation, we shall hear no more of that eloquent appeal to make an apology, upon which the character of this House, the stability of the Government, the existence of an aristocracy, were all said to depend. But, having ascertained that, what is it that we are asked to do? It is said we have nothing to do with the House of Commons. That might have been an argument against passing the Act; but both Houses assented to the Act which created the Commission, and both Houses requested the Judges to
1490
make this Report. With what object? Suppose it had been an entire acquittal. One is a little surprised to find that it is not, after what has been said elsewhere. If the Report is really of the character which we have heard ascribed to it, one might have supposed that there would have been an eager desire that it should find a permanent place on the records of the House. But suppose it had, in fact, represented an entire acquittal—what more graceful or proper act could there have been than that this House should record that acquittal upon its Journals? Why is it that objection is taken to placing it there? It is because, when one reads the Report, it turns out that a great many of the charges are established. Upon that subject we were told by one noble Lord that the other charges and the "other persons" were introduced into the Bill at a time when it was supposed that the letters might break down. It is a very delightful thing to be able to speak in that vague and general way, because you are perhaps not susceptible at the moment of being refuted. But I should like to ask that noble Lord, when does he mean to say that it was suspected or ascertained by Her Majesty's Government that the charges about the letters were expected to break down? In the discussions, I think in the early part of July, effort was made in the House of Commons to confine the question to the letters, and it was refused then after full discussion. It was pointed out that the letters only formed evidence, and comparatively a small part of the evidence, to establish that which was imputed to the Irish Members. When was it, I should like to know from the noble Lord, that he suggests that the Government began to suspect? Because the sort of picture he drew was this: that at one time the Government thoroughly believed in the genuineness of the letters, and that they considered they were a weapon that might be used against their political opponents—not a very handsome suggestion, I must say, but that was the suggestion made—and that then at some time or other, which the noble Lord did not think proper to condescend upon, they began to suspect the letters were forged; and that then they fell back upon the other charges. I really do not understand what incident in the course of those discussions the

1491
noble Lord is refering to. The history of them I should have thought was sufficiently recent—although it is, I admit, more than a year and a half ago now—to have negatived any such suggestion. The allegations made in Parnellism and Crime had begun before the fac simile letter, as it is called, was published. It was not confined to those particular letters. The accusations were of a far wider character, embracing those that have been found to be truly stated, and some that, happily for the Irish Members, have been found to be unfounded. But that was the state of things. No doubt it was the desire of Mr. Parnell and his friends to confine the charges to the alleged letters. They knew—Mr. Parnell knew—no one better—that the letters were forged, and that there must be a triumphant acquittal if the inquiry was confined to that charge, but that was not the charge alone that was made. The charges which were made were charges which went beyond and outside that, and of which these letters or that particular letter formed perhaps no unimportant part, but not, I think, the chief part. Now the condition of things at which we have arrived is this: that the letters have been proved to be forgeries; they have been proved to be utterly unworthy of credence. Be it so. But the Commission have found grave charges proved, in fact, against the persons against whom those charges were alleged. I dismiss for the moment now the question whether those findings are justified by the evidence. I have endeavoured to show that as to some of that—with all respect to my noble Friends, I was going to say—nibbling criticism against the mode in which they have been found, it is without foundation; and I shall assume that the charges have been found on good and sufficient evidence. Then, if they are, and if Parliament has invited the Judges to enter upon that investigation, why is not our House of Parliament to place upon its records the Report, which is equally made to both Houses of Parliament? Why is this House not to have cognisance of this matter, which this House sent to the Judges equally with the other House of Parliament? My Lords, I believe that the question is a comparatively narrow one. Although
1492
some noble Lords have thought it right to wander over the whole field of Irish politics, as if the question was one to be decided by one's political ideas one way or the other, and not upon the question of fact whether certain facts have been established upon certain evidence, it seems to me that when once one has arrived at the conclusion that the thing that the Judges were asked to do they have done, as I say ably and well, and courageously and impartially, then the question whether or not, when those facts are found, we should place them upon our records is a very narrow one indeed, and is not affected by the question whether or not that tribunal, so completely removed from political animosities and divergencies, ought originally to have been created. I am convinced that the feeling of the country, which the noble Earl thinks is so conclusively established by the election at St. Pancras, and one or two others, will not be guided either by the decision in the other House or the decision here to-night. So far I agree with the noble Lord; but when this Report comes to be known, and it comes to be seen what are the methods by which the animosity of the Irish people is kept up and stimulated and pampered by such an organisation as is found to have existed, and the methods by which that organisation proceeds, I have very little doubt which way the verdict of the country will go. It will certainly not be one that is likely to imperil this House or the British aristocracy.
EARL GRANVILLE: There is some advantage in having a character, and I claim that advantage now, for I believe that when I say that I shall be short your Lordships will have confidence that I shall not be very long. And it is the easier for me to give this pledge, first, because the discussion has been very much threshed out; and, secondly, because I am spared from having to make any rejoinder to the speech to which we have just listened—a speech that did not make any answer to the remarkable speech of my noble Friend Lord Rosebery. My noble Friend pointed out a peculiarity of this debate—and it is certainly a little remarkable—that during this long and interesting discussion not

1493
one single Member of the great Conservative Party supporting the noble Marquess has come to his assistance. The whole burden of the day has been left to my personal and late political friends. I daresay your Lordships will remember an episode in a great Continental battle when certain of the Guards of Louis XIVth could not resist breaking into a loud cheer when they saw their fellow-countrymen, though fighting in a different cause and under a different flag, making a particularly heroic charge. I own that I felt rather an impulse to break into similar cheering when I heard my late noble Friends, not only with great ability but with a chivalrous self-sacrifice, one after another, without the help of their new allies, defending one of the most indefensible measures of Her Majesty's Government connected with Ireland. We have been told of the most grave and serious charges made against Mr. Parnell and his Colleagues in the House of Commons. We know how they demanded an inquiry in the House of Commons, and we know Her Majesty's Government refused that inquiry. My noble and learned Friend Lord Herschell said that he believed that refusal to be contrary to precedent, and contrary to what would have been the case if the demand had been made by an English or a Scotch Member. No assurance to the contrary has been given this evening, and from my own personal experience I am able to justify that assertion. I had once a very grave charge brought against me of peculation and falsification of public accounts. It was open to me to bring an action at law against the libeller, but I demanded an inquiry, and a Committee, as a matter of course, was given to me, and I hope your Lordships will not be surprised to hear I was acquitted of the charge. The objection that was made to that Committee appears to me, notwithstanding all that has been said this evening, perfectly fatal to the constitution of the tribunal which was created. It is said that this was a tribunal composed of Judges whose political feelings were not in sympathy with those of the persons accused; and the noble and learned Lord on this Bench has been taken severely to task for insinuating that the Judges were capable of being influenced by political feeling.
1494
I speak not as having any legal knowledge, but as an ignorant layman, and I believe that Judges as we know them, and especially these three hon. Gentlemen who constituted this tribunal, are perfectly incapable of doing anything contrary to their honest opinion; but I do say that Judges, like others, are liable, when considering allegations mixed up with every sort of political consideration, unknowingly to themselves to be swayed by political feeling. Is there anybody in this House who will say that men like Lord Ellenborough, Lord Kenyon, and even Lord Mansfield were not influenced by political feeling? Take the great trial of O'Connell. I never heard any imputation against the Law Lords, and I believe they voted conscientiously according to their convictions; but it is a singular coincidence that they were divided very nearly equally exactly according as they were supporters or opponents of the Government of the day. Take a more modern instance. There are no two men in this House for whom I have a greater regard and respect than Lord Herschell, who is a political and personal friend, and Lord Selborne, who was a political friend, and is still, I hope, a personal friend of mine. I believe no two men to be so incapable of doing anything which they do not think conscientiously to be right. You have heard their speeches; and could any speeches be more diametrically opposed? and did not this result from their being influenced by their political sympathies and opinions? Why should not a similar observation apply to the three Judges? If former political trials had been carried on by Judges, would our liberties have been in exactly the position they are in now, seeing that verdicts against the summing up of Judge after Judge have been secured entirely by the good sense of juries? I can understand that English Members in the other House found it exceedingly difficult to vote against this inquiry. We, however, certainly expressed our objection to the course that the Government proposed to adopt in the matter, and we were not the only ones who did so. Three noble and learned Lords have spoken in favour of this tribunal, but I have the greatest possible doubt as to the

1495
opinion which was entertained on the subject by the majority of the Law Lords as to whether the appointment of this tribunal was a wise, a politic, and a just act. I have the greatest doubt also as to what is the real opinion of noble Lords opposite. Lord Herschell has alluded to a remarkable paper written by Lord Randolph Churchill as to both the policy and the justice of appointing the Commission. I am perfectly aware that Lord Randolph Churchill at this moment is not considered an orthodox Conservative; but I am certain that many noble Lords two years ago did agree with Lord Randolph Churchill on the point. My noble Friend (Lord Herschell) argued that it was a monstrous thing that anybody, in consequence of an anonymous accusation against his political character, should be obliged to go into a Court of Law; and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that he did not go as far as that, but that he contended that when a respectable paper like the Times made the accusation the person must expect to suffer unless he took that course.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble Friend is quite wrong.
EARL GRANVILLE: Then I really must inflict upon your Lordships a quotation from Hansard. On the 10th August, 1888, the noble and learned Lord said—
"It would hare been said 'You will not allow these charges to be investigated by the tribunal we ask for, and you substitute no other, limiting us to bringing an action against the Times, and submitting ourselves to the judgment of the jury.' I will not advance the proposition that everybody who is abused in 1he newspapers should bring an action for libel. Here is a case in which a newspaper of high authority and great respectability."
Then the noble and learned Lord was interrupted by the noble Earl (Kimberley), who said "No, not more so than others;" and he proceeded—
"My noble Friend says 'No.' I cannot agree with him. I think there are some newspapers in this Metropolis which are an absolute disgrace to journalism, and with respect to whom I should not condescend even to notice the abuse which from time to time they level at public men. I think the Times and many other papers are of such a character of respectability that no public man can afford to disregard such grave charges as are made in this case."
That is exactly a confirmation of what
1496
my noble Friend has said. I do not think that anyone will say that, if Mr. Parnell had been prematurely driven into a Court of Law by the taunts which were levelled at him, he would in all probability have then secured a perfectly satisfactory verdict on the question of the forged letters. I should like to know how many people approve of this Commission now. I should like to know the opinion of the Judges as to the wisdom of the policy which has been pursued. I should like to know what Her Majesty's Government themselves really think, and what the Attorney General and Sir Henry James and the other counsel on that side think of this policy. I really am not sure that the general verdict would not be that it is the most injudicious action of Her Majesty's Government to have appointed this Commission. Is it perfectly certain that the Motion of to-day is not an after-thought? Is it perfectly certain that the honours of this most interesting discussion do not lie with my noble Relative Lord Beauchamp, who asked the noble Marquess what he was going to do in reference to this Report? The noble Marquess replied somewhat vaguely that it would be best to wait to see what the House of Commons did. In a question of legislation this is, of course, the usual practice. But in the case of a Motion for a vote of thanks, it is certainly the practice of the two Houses to entertain the Motion simultaneously. When the noble Marquess gave notice of this Motion, he did not give the whole of the Motion as it now appears. Whether this is to be accounted for by an omission in the first place, or an addition afterwards, of course I cannot say. The noble Marquess, as has been observed by my noble Friend, proposes to thank the Judges. I object to thanking them at all. It is establishing a new precedent. Can the noble Marquess bring forward any instance of Parliament thanking civilians for purely civilian services? I doubt it extremely. Both Houses of Parliament are perfectly ready to vote thanks to those brave soldiers and sailors who peril their lives in defence of the interests and honour of the country, and it sometimes happens that civilians, like a Governor, having shared in those military operations, are included in the vote of thanks; but I

1497
challenge the noble Marquess to tell us one single precedent, and if there is no precedent what is the use of creating one, where a civilian has been thanked for purely civilian services. I do not object to the right of this House to discuss great questions; but this is a matter which concerns the honour of a Member of the House of Commons, and it is for the House of Commons to deal with it, unless you go much further, and unite in some definite course of action against the persons accused. When the noble Marquess and the Government two years ago introduced this tribunal it was spoken of as an act of justice to Mr. Parnell, but now he makes a speech which is as strongly partisan as possible, ignoring as much as possible the acquittal, and weighing as heavily as he possibly could everything that condemns certain persons. Does it not justify the belief that the readiness with which the Commission was appointed was really in the strong hope that the charges would be proved, and that the political leaders in Ireland would be sacrificed in a manner which would make the policy which they very conscientiously objected to impossible for the present at all events? I doubt very much whether the fact of this House adopting the Report will impress the public with the slightest notion that the Report is of more weight than if we leave it alone. My Lords, I wish to say but these very few words. Because we do not move any Amendment to this Motion it must not be taken that we agree to it. We do not wish to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, as it would be almost a farce; but we shall say most decidedly "Not content" to the Motion of the noble Marquess.
On Question, resolved in the affirmative.
Ordered that the said Report be entered upon the Journals of this House
House adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock a.m., to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.