Lords Sitting of 2 February 1893

Preamble
His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge—Singly took the Oath.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

SAT FIRST.
Earl Bathurst, after the death of his father.
ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order of the Day for resuming the Debate on the Motion for an humble Address to Her Majesty, read.
  Debate resumed accordingly.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, after the remarks made by the noble Earl who leads the House at a banquet over which he presided last week, I confess that it was with no feeling of surprise that I noticed the extremely quiet and modest manner in which he dwelt on the important—the all-important—question of Home Rule in the remarks which he addressed to your Lordships on Tuesday last. But I confess that it was with feelings of the sincerest surprise that I noted the minute—and I might almost say the minutest—of small spaces that was accorded to that great question in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne. I venture to say that the course that has been pursued at the present moment by Her Majesty's Government is absolutely unprecedented in political annals. There has not been a measure of such vast magnitude as this question of Home Rule put forward within recent years, and promoted by a large and influential Party, a Party which does not hesitate to say has been returned to power on this question of Home Rule alone; and yet, on the meeting of your Lordships' House, Her Majesty's Government have not confided, even to the supporters of their policy, the essential features being the details of that measure. I cannot but think, my Lords, from the speeches of the noble Lords who moved and seconded
  182
  the Address, that they are not among the lucky few to whom this important secret has been confided; for with all due deference to those two noble Lords, they merely dealt with those common-place platitudes which have done yeoman's service within the last six years upon every platform in England in attempting to prove that Home Rule is absolutely necessary for the prosperity of Ireland. I am bound to admit that we have been told by the noble Lord who leads the House that this Home Rule measure is to be of no milk-and-water description, which I suppose means that it is not of the "gas-and-water" description pledged by the candidate who won the bye-election at Rossendale two years ago; and therefore there can be no doubt that the measure of Home Rule shortly to be introduced into the House of Commons will be of an extreme character to please and satisfy the Irish Party among the noble Earl's supporters, who have spoken in no uncertain manner as to the Home Rule which they claim as the right of Ireland. I do not desire to increase the difficulties of the noble Earl opposite, but there may be a certain amount of difficulty in reconciling the opinions of those gentlemen with that of one of the supporters of the noble Earl, Mr Atherley-Jones, who has written a letter in this morning's Times, which, it seems to me, is difficult to reconcile with a Bill of an extreme character. Now, my Lords, I will say a few words with regard to some of the speeches made in your Lordships' House on Tuesday last. The noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury), in the course of his remarks, alluded to a speech made some few months ago by the noble Lord who moved the Address, and he quoted from that speech the following words:—
  "No great changes can be attempted by the Liberal Party without a commanding majority on this side of St. George's Channel."
  The noble Lord who moved the Address does not enjoy a monopoly of that opinion, for it is shared by one of the leaders of the Nationalist Party, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, who said on May 22nd last—
  "A majority of 30—"
  and I will remind your Lordships that the majority is at present only 38—

  183
  "would mean that the majority of the people of Great Britain were against Home Rule, and it is ridiculous to suppose that we can carry a measure against which the British majority has declared."
  Well, England has spoken in no uncertain voice; she has declared that she will not have Home Rule; and when that is the case, we of the Conservative Party can look with satisfaction on the future, and say, in the words of Mr. T. P. O'Connor, that—
  "Home Rule, in the present constitution of Parliament, is absolutely impossible and impracticable."
  I will now say a few words with regard to the noble Lord who seconded the Address (Lord Thring), whose great ability and knowledge of political affairs I fully recognise. In the course of his remarks he said that "90 years had passed away since the Union, and though the first three years were free from legislation of a coercive and restrictive character, during the remaining 60 there was hardly one in which such legislation had not been passed." I would remind the noble Lord that Ireland has had experience of a Parliament sitting in College Green. She has had the experience of Grattan's Parliament, in which no less than 54 Coercion Acts were passed in 18 years. I dislike the word Coercion. The present law in Ireland I infinitely prefer to describe as a measure for the repression of crime, and I defy any noble Lord opposite to show me one single instance of a law-abiding person there who cares one iota for what are called the Coercion Acts, and who only know those Acts as measures which protect them and give them security in their property and person. But I fully admit that there is coercion in Ireland—coercion for the murderer, intimidator, the boycotter, and the moonlight assassin—coercion which enables the Executive, if they choose to exercise it, to bring those ruffians to justice, to obtain convictions against them, and to send them to the galleys, and, if necessary, even to the gallows. That part of the Act for the repression of crime should never have been allowed to lapse for political purposes, and I glory in the fact that, under the régime of Mr. Balfour, that Act was mad apart of the permanent law of the land. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Thring) went on to say, on the opening of the Debate the other night—
  184
  "In his opinion, the views of opponents of the present policy of Home Rule for Ireland were exaggerated beyond all measure. They said that the gift of local self-government to Ireland would not satisfy her aspirations, but what shadow of proof was them that it would not?"
  Upon that I will give the noble Lord's expressions of opinion by the leaders of the Nationalist Party, which will come home to his mind far more strongly than any words of mine. In the first place their late leader, Mr. Parnell, declared—
  "None of us, whether we are in America, or in Ireland, or wherever we may be, will be satisfied until we have destroyed the last link which keeps Ireland bound to England."
  Mr. O'Brien has stated—
  "I take it that we are all united in demanding that the Irish Parliament, while it acts within its own province, shall be as free from Imperial meddling as the Parliaments of Australia or Canada; that is to say, practically speaking, as free as air."
  Mr. Dillon says—
  "I deny utterly that I have ever in the course of my life lowered the flag of national independence, and I never shall."
  I will quote one more expression of Mr. Parnell's to show your Lordships that the measure of Home Rule put forward in 1886 was accepted merely as an instalment, and not as a final settlement, of the Irish Question. Here are Mr. Parnell's words—
  "We have heard that I accepted the Home Rule Bill of 1886; I have not. I accepted the principle of the measure, but I never accepted its details."
  To another point of the noble Lord's speech I can give even a better answer. He said—
  "Then it is said that the majority will oppress the minority, but there are no grounds on which to base this sinister belief."
  If I may use the expression, I think there the noble Lord gave himself entirely away. He has entirely ignored the statements of his supporters in the Nationalist Party, or he could not have failed to see what the treatment of the unfortunate minority in Ireland would be under Home Rule. I will quote both Mr. Dillon and Mr. Davitt, and I do not think that any noble Lord opposite will venture to deny that those two men are now the great leaders of the Nationalist Party. Mr. Dillon says—

  185
  "When we come out of the struggle we will remember those who were the people's friends, and who were the people's enemies, and we will deal out our rewards to the one, and our punishments to the other."
  We have been told by Mr. Davitt how he proposes to deal with us. He says—
  "With regard to the Ulster Protestants, they are not Irish; they are English and Scotch, who have settled among us. Leave them alone to us, and we will make short work of those gentry."
  I think I have answered the two statements of the noble Lord opposite, and I will give him one word of advice with regard to the future conduct of Ulster. Ulster, I can assure him, has no idea of being handed over to the tender mercies of Mr. Davitt and Mr. Dillon. They have not hesitated to tell us the manner in which they intend to treat us, and Ulster has no intention whatever of submitting her loyal Protestant neck to the disloyal Catholic yoke. I have had an opportunity of gauging, from practical experience, the feeling of Protestant Ulster. I was an eye-witness of the great demonstration at Belfast, under the presidency of my noble Friend the leader of the Protestants of Ulster (the Duke of Abercorn), and I endorse what my noble Friend said on that occasion—"We will never have Home Rule." There is but one feeling pervading the whole of Ulster, that under no circumstances of any sort or kind will we accept any measure establishing a Parliament in College Green; and a Minister who has had practical experience in the government of Ireland has not hesitated to say that Ulster would be justified in shedding blood rather than allow her prosperity to be ruined and her peace destroyed by the setting up of a Home Rule Parliament. But one feeling pervades Ulster, and if, after her solemn declaration, the present Government persist in carrying a measure of Home Rule for Ireland, on them must be the responsibility of any serious consequences which may ensue, and more especially responsible for them must be held those Cabinet Ministers who have had practical experience of Ireland, and who know that Ulster has said that she will not have those institutions touched under which for generations she has lived a happy, prosperous, and contented portion of the Empire. And now I will say a few
  186
  words with regard to the policy of Her Majesty's Ministers during the time they have been responsible for the government of Ireland, unchecked and unhampered by any criticism from Parliament. I will ask any noble Lord who may address himself to the remarks I am now making to point out any act of Her Majesty's Government, of any sort or kind, that has been in any way advantageous to Ireland, or the law-abiding inhabitants of Ireland, during the six mouths they have been in office. There has been but one policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government, and it was well described two days ago by the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) who sits below me as an endeavour to capture the class which sympathises with crime. I do not hesitate to say that it is a policy of truckling to lawlessness and outrage. A body of men who have pleaded guilty to kicking out the brains of an unfortunate inspector of Police who was discharging his duty have, long before the expiration of their sentences, been released from prison. With respect to that, there are three questions I would like to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, whom the Chief Secretary says he consulted. In the first place, why were these murderers released? In the next place, why, when the sentences which were passed upon them by the Judge who tried them were different, these men were all released on the same day? And, thirdly, why the Judge who tried the case was never consulted on the subject of their release? I have had experience of such matters, and I can say that never in my experience in any important case has a convict been released without consulting the Judge who tried the case. In the Debate in another place two nights ago the Chief Secretary interrupted my right hon. Friend Mr. Balfour, and said that he had consulted the Lord High Chancellor of England. Therefore, I will ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack what Were the reasons which induced him to let loose upon the country a body of the worst scoundrels that ever existed or infested any country? Now, my Lords, I will turn from the cases of truckling, to the class which sympathises with crime to the Evicted Tenants Commission. That Commission was intended to reinstate a set of men who were nothing

  187
  but fraudulent, and consequently criminal bankrupts. There is another point to which I wish to call attention, and that is the removal of capable Unionists from the Governing Boards of asylums in various parts of Ireland. I have had experience in this matter; when Lord Lieutenant I went into the constitution of the various Boards, and I was always careful to give effect to the representation of the different parties in Ireland. The result of the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government has been an increase of serious crime in the south-west of Ireland. From the information which I possess I would say—without hesitation, that serious crime—boycotting, intimidation, murder, and outrage—has seriously increased. The Chief Secretary stated at Newcastle that in saying that serious crime had increased under Her Majesty's Government in Ireland I had been guilty of making "culpably reckless assertions." Now, to, that I will reply that I base my statements on the charges of various Judges of Assize in Ireland. In addressing the Grand Jury of Munster Mr. Justice Harrison said—
  "There were some cases of a very unpleasant nature, which rather pointed to a disordered state of society—what were known as White-boy offences, persons rising and assembling to the terror of Her Majesty's subjects with firearms, and, as alleged in some cases, firing into dwelling-houses."
  The Lord Chief Justice at the Connaught Winter Assizes said—
  "I regret that some of the counties that form the aggregate of what is called the Connaught Winter Assizes County, are not in as satisfactory condition as we could wish. I instance Leitrim. In Leitrim, according to the Report of the County Inspector, there has been an increase of serious crime. Last year the number was 12, in the corresponding period this year it is 21."
  He goes on to say—
  "I turn next to the West Riding of the County Galway. In that Riding there is a slight increase in the more serious crimes. The number last year was 17, as compared with 23 this year."
  These charges of Judges of Assize fully corroborate my statement that there has been a serious increase of crime. Moreover, for the first time we have seen local Boards lately condemning outrages at their meetings, and this fact of itself is evidence that crime exists in the districts
  188
  to a serious extent. At a meeting of working men in Kilrush recently the parish priest supported a resolution calling upon the Government to recognize the fact that their first duty was to support the police and to prevent disorder and crime. Again, at a meeting within the last fortnight in the county of Clare, at which the Lieutenant and county magistrates were present, a resolution was passed expressing "regret that there had been a recent return to lawlessness in the county during the last few months, and calling on the Government to take such steps, either by reviving the powers they already possessed or by fresh legislation, if necessary, to put down acts which are a disgrace to any civilised community." I noticed in The Times of Tuesday a list of outrages in County Kerry, and I have been told that even this list does not cover the entire number. I have taken the trouble to have those outrages enumerated verified, and, with only one or two exceptions, every one of them was reported in the Kerry Sentinel, which, as a Nationalist organ, would not make the case against its party worse than necessary. It may be said that the counties of Clare and Kerry were never free from crime. Then that strengthens my argument tenfold that, by relaxing the powers which enabled them to grapple with crime, the Government are doubly truckling to the Nationalist Party. I ask to what this unsatisfactory state of things is to be attributed, and I say solemnly that it is due to one thing only—the policy of truckling which has been pursued by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland both in and out of office. A prominent politician like Mr. Morley cannot go down with impunity to the town of Tipperary and there countenance a riot between the mob and the police got up for his special edification, and afterwards proceed to a Court of Law and there give evidence in favour of the mob as against the police. The right hon. Gentleman cannot do these things with impunity, and either in Parliament or out of it denounce his predecessor, Mr. Balfour, for administering the powers intrusted to him and applied with perfect impartiality and justice—power of prosecuting and convicting law-breakers of every sort and kind. The Chief Secretary

  189
  could not do those things without creating in the breast of every lawbreaker in Ireland the firm conviction that he would favour them when he returned to power. Your Lordships have seen within the last few years a policy of truckling carried on to an unknown extent with the late Mr. Parnell in order to secure the Nationalist vote. The Irish Unionists have watched it with sorrow and horror, and felt at the time that they might say with truth—
  "Shall it, for shame, be spoken in these days,
  "That men of your nobility and power
  "Did 'gage them both in an unjust behalf,—
  "As all of you, God pardon it! have done.
  And when that ill-fated alliance was shattered and denunciations were falling fast, might we not have added—
  "And shall it, in more shame, be further spoken,
  "That you are fool'd, discarded, and shook off
  "By those for whom these shames ye underwent?"
  I make these observations in no spirit of exuberant exultation at the depth of degradation to which the Party opposite has stooped. I make them in the firm hope, however, that they will be guided in their action in future by the painful position they have occupied in the past. I will ask them, once and for all, to abandon the system of truckling which they have pursued for the past six months, and to adopt that policy which only can ensure to Ireland permanent happiness and prosperity. That was the policy of the last Government during the six years they were in power, a policy which raised Ireland from a state almost of rebellion to a peaceful and law-abiding condition, and it is the only policy by which Ireland can be governed—a policy of firmness, fearlessness, and respect for justice. If Her Majesty's Government will in future continue that policy we Unionists of Ireland will give them our hearty support: for with Ireland law-abiding she will in time become law-loving, and then will be seen permanent confidence restored; with that confidence we shall see prosperity, and with prosperity we shall see happiness and contentment, and the cry of "the distressful country" will be for ever swept away.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCIsaid, there were several noble Lords present who represented different Departments of the Government, and he hoped they might even now be Inclined to give their Lordships some view of the present policy of Ministers in regard to Ireland. Referring to the administration of Ireland during the last five months, he challenged the release of the prisoners both in England and Ireland. He did not desire to dwell at any length on the release of the men convicted of crimes against the Dynamite Acts in England, but he desired to ask the noble Earl (Earl Spencer) to, explain for what, reasons and under what conditions and terms those men were released. He would hardly suggest that their release was dictated by the exigencies of political expediency; but he would remind the Government that such doves of a dynamite character, let out to fly over the face of the waters, were apt like curses and chickens to speedily return to roost. He next desired to refer to the exercise of patronage in Ireland, and to the displacement of members of Public Boards, and especially of members of the Lunatic Asylum Board. He did not complain of the fresh nominations to those Boards; they were the spoils of office which the Government owed to their Irish task-masters and allies. No doubt some of those who had been appointed would very likely prove capable members. He would ask the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty on what method or principle some of the former Members of these Boards had been ousted? He would remind the noble Earl that some of those gentlemen had most probably been nominated by him when he was Viceroy of Ireland. He would ask what charges of corruption or maladministration have been made that necessitated such wholesale displacement of the former Governors? Why oust those most conspicuous by constant attendance and business capacities, and retain on the Boards those who from disinclination, stress of business, or serious illness are unwilling, or unable, to give a constant attendance? The Government were to be congratulated that Dean Swift no longer presided at St. Patrick's. At to the Evicted Tenants Commission, he disapproved its composition, and wished to ask whether there was any precedent for

  191
  appointing such a one-sided tribunal? As yet no one member of it had shown any inclination to test the truth of any statement made before it. One of the terms of Reference was also open to damaging criticism, for it apparently limited the inquiry to an investigation into the alleged grievances of one class of tenants only, and that class consisted of men who had been living on charity extorted from their neighbours, and who were a cause of terror to well-behaved and loyal people. Why should they alone have an opportunity of stating their grievances, and why should tenants who had left their farms and were now attempting to rebuild their fortunes elsewhere have been excluded and left out in the cold? He could only suppose that they were excluded on the principle that les absents ont toujours tort. With reference to the release of the Gweedore prisoners, men who had pleaded guilty, by the advice of their counsel, to a most foul murder, he would ask the Lord Chancellor whether before their release the advice was sought of the Judge who tried the case and of the present Attorney General for Ireland, who was the counsel for the prisoners at the trial, and who advised them to plead guilty? Whilst congratulating the Foreign Secretary on the success that had attended his efforts to maintain for England her legitimate and recognised control over Egyptian administration, he thought it well to point out that foreign Governments who were opposed to our occupation of that country might not unnaturally think that a Government which appeared to be chiefly occupied with schemes of disintegration at home would probably be indifferent to the position held by England in Eastern politics. The danger of the recent situation had been averted by the courageous policy of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord Rosebery), but it is a danger that is not likely to re-arise. In support of the Home Rule scheme of the Government, the noble Lord the Mover of the Address had expressed the pious hope that the Home Rule measure would be one that a loyal supporter of the Government could cordially accept, and at Hastings he hoped that it would be acceptable to prudent and patriotic persons. It was to be hoped that neither his loyalty, his prudence, or his patriotism
  192
  would be put to the test of voting on a Home Rule measure in this House of Parliament. The noble Lord who seconded the Address was much more thoroughgoing. He went back through centuries of misrule before the Act of Union. He would have appealed to primæval chaos if it had been necessary. The Seconder of the Address had cited the case of Austria-Hungary as a precedent. It was true, of course, that Hungary had obtained the autonomy she desired; but had that rendered her more contented or tolerant of the wishes of other people, and was her union with Austria a real union of hearts? Was it not rather a union preserved by the personal influence, the enlightened patriotism, and the transparent honesty of the illustrious Monarch upon the Throne? Those bonds would he expected be rapidly loosened if the reins of power fell into less capable hands. At the present moment a question of great importance was pending between Norway and Sweden. The former country, not satisfied with the autonomy she now possessed, demanded a full and free diplomatic representation abroad. Would not a similar demand soon be made by Ireland if Home Rule were granted? Let them imagine what difficulties would arise if an Irish Consul General in Cairo, acting under the instructions of his Government in collusion with the French representative, were to thwart the British officials in all business to be transacted with the Egyptian Government. If Home Rule were granted they could easily forecast the fate of the Protestant population of Ireland. In Canada there was an instance, in little, of Ireland in the Province of Quebec, where hardly a single Protestant was now allowed to hold any office of profit and honour, and property in Quebec was being rapidly transferred from Protestant to Roman Catholic hands. Her Majesty's Government were confronted in that House not only by a large majority who were hostile to them, but by almost all the Peers who were connected with Ireland. If it were in order to refer to a Debate in a former Parliament, he would remind their Lordships of an illustration or an argument used by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in a Debate on the Report of a Special Commission.

  193
  The noble Lord read a protest signed and recorded in the Journals of the last Irish House of Lords against the Act of Union, and the noble Lord appealed to those whom he probably considered their degenerate descendants as to why they presumed to differ with their ancestors and predecessors in title. That protest was signed and recorded in all ignorance of the immense advance, by leaps and bounds, of Irish prosperity after the Act of Union—an advance so marked that Mr. Grattan, the great Leader of the last Irish Parliament, declared that he, for one, would never advocate the restoration of an Irish Parliament; but that protest was signed 93 years ago. And it might be asked why Peers, who only nine years ago had the same convictions as the majority of the House, should have now foresworn the truths they then held to. That protest was recorded 93 years ago; nine years ago the then Viceroy of Ireland—to his eternal honour be it said—stemmed, and successfully stemmed, the rising flood of anarchy and rapine.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, the noble Viscount has referred to the position in which Her Majesty's Government are placed in regard to the majority in your Lordships' House. I fully realize that position. I fully realize that we have a large and important body in your Lordships' House in opposition to ourselves. The Irish Members, with few exceptions, are, we are aware, opposed to our Irish policy; at the same time, while admitting that, and fully admitting the difficulty it places upon us, it is our duty to take part in your Lordships' House, urging the arguments in favour of the principles we think right—principles applying not only to Great Britain, but to Ireland. We have always met with, from the opposite side of the House, a courteous hearing, and I am sure we shall continue to do so during the Session, when perhaps it may be our duty often to take up subjects which do not find favour with your Lordships. Before I turn to the subject of Ireland, I wish to say a few words with regard to the speech of my noble Friend the noble Duke (the Duke of Devonshire), who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place on the opening of the Sitting. The noble
  194
  Duke alluded to the multiplicity of the subjects embraced in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne. I do not deny that we have placed a considerable number of important measures in that Speech. First of all, in this subject, I would appeal to the noble Duke, and ask him whether he himself has not been a party to proposing in Her Majesty's Speeches a considerable number of measures, more, in fact, than could be carried through in the course of a Session? I wish, also, to say this. During the last six years that we have been in opposition and have been brought into contact with the constituencies in different parts of the country—I am referring not only to those of my Colleagues who sit in this House, but also those of my Colleagues who sit in another place—we have heard the wishes and ascertained the views of the constituencies on many subjects. We have considered them, and where we agreed with them we have given pledges that we would support measures giving effect to them, such as the constituencies desired to see passed. We are pledged, therefore, in principle, to a considerable number of measures, and I should like to know, if we had not included a number of those measures in the proposals in Her Majesty's Speech for the coming Session, whether we should not have been justly attacked for not maintaining the pledges we have made in the country? Of course, it is a very different thing to make general statements in favour of principles, and to carry out those principles in an Act of Parliament. We thought it our duty, in order to fulfil the pledges we made during the last six months, to endeavour to put into practical measures the principles we advocated up and down the country. I confess I should prefer to carry out my pledges, even if we cannot carry many of the measures, rather than to give the go-by to those pledges, and to place only a few measures in Her Majesty's Speech. Now, my Lords, I come to the subject of Ireland. The subject of Ireland has been debated in this House to-night and on Tuesday night under two heads. There has been discussion as to the condition of Ireland and as to the administration of Ireland during the last six months, and there has also been discussion as to the measures which we intend to propose

  195
  to Parliament for the better government of that country. With regard to the latter of these two heads, my noble friend the noble Duke made an appeal in very elaborate terms to know more particulars of that measure. I should like to know whether the noble Duke could produce any precedent for Her Majesty's Ministers in the debate on the Address foreshadowing the details of a measure they have announced their intention of introducing to Parliament. If I were to answer the appeal of my noble Friend and deal with all the questions he put to me, I should be disclosing the clauses of a measure now ready to be presented to Parliament. There is no precedent for that course, and I maintain that we should be altogether neglecting our duty if we were to attempt to go into the details of that measure on the present occasion. What does my noble Friend ask these questions for? Does he mean to say that if any member of Her Majesty's Government were to give—or if any member of Her Majesty's Government gave—a satisfactory response to his appeals to us he would support the measure we are bringing forward? We all know that has been done before. There have been at different times various conditions imposed upon Bills which we were to introduce, and it has been hinted that if this condition were accepted, then those who sit below the Gangway, but who, I am sorry to say, act with us no longer, though they used to be our colleagues, might support the measure we propose. We know, however, very well that no such thing would follow. We could not expect the support of my noble Friends below the Gangway, for I believe they would think it their duty, in whatever shape we produced a Home Rule Bill, to offer it their most unqualified opposition. If my noble Friend is so anxious to know the details of this measure, all I can say is, he has only got to use his influence with noble Lords opposite, with whom he is allied, and their supporters in another place. He will learn the details of the measure all the sooner if the Debate on the Address is not prolonged. My Lords, I will say nothing further with regard to the appeal of my noble Friend. It is impossible for me to forestall the announcement which will be made on the introduction of the Bill.
  196
  Now, my Lords, I come to the other part of the subject, and I will deal, as far as I am able, with what has been said as to the condition of Ireland and as to the administration of Ireland during the last few months. My noble Friend behind me, the Lord President of the Council, has replied to the noble Marquess opposite, the Leader of the Opposition. The noble Marquess spoke in more moderate terms than the noble Marquess who has spoken to-night. The noble Marquess has attacked Her Majesty's Government for the acts they have committed. He said they have shown more sympathy with criminals than the Government that preceded them. I altogether deny that. The noble Marquess did not support that view, as I fully expected. He confined himself to two points, namely, to the question of the Gweedore prisoners and the appointment of the Evicted Tenants Commission.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: And the proclamations.
  EARL SPENCER: I beg the noble Marquess' pardon—and the proclamations. I shall deal presently with those two points. As the noble Lord has appealed to my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack upon the Gweedore question, I will not deal with it, because I know very well my noble Friend will be able to do so, fully and entirely. I will only deal with the points to which the noble Lord has referred, and I hardly think he has been able to justify the wide statement he has made. My noble Friend the noble Viscount appealed to me with regard to the release of the dynamiters. I was glad to see from a report of what was said in another place that the Leader of the Opposition there had referred to this matter. He referred to the release of Mr. Egan in very clear and distinct terms. I do not know that I need quote Mr. Balfour's words, but they came to this—that he declared that the late Home Secretary had told him that he thought that Egan should be released. Mr. Balfour did not refer to the case of Callan, but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does not shrink from any responsibility with regard to his case. First of all, my Lords, you will find that the late Home Secretary told Mr. Balfour that he thought Egan's case might be dealt with.

  197
  The case of Callan is still more remarkable. His release was practically recommended by the late Home Secretary. It is left on record at the Home Office that the late Home Secretary thought the proper time for the release of Callan would be in January this year.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl is of course aware that, according to the uniform practice, having quoted that official document, he is bound to produce it.
  EARL SPENCER: If it does not transgress any of the rules of the Home Office, there will, I suppose, be no difficulty in regard to that. The fact has been current for some time, and has not been in any way denied. So much, my Lords, for the release of these two men. Now I come to the matter the noble Marquess referred to, namely, the appointment of the Evicted Tenants Commission. The keynote of the appointment of that Commission is to be found in two speeches in the House of Commons by the right hon. Gentleman who was then Leader of the Government of the day—I allude to Mr. Balfour. On 30th January, 1891, Mr. Balfour, speaking, I believe, in a Debate on the Land Act, used this language—
  "If I were an Irish landlord, I would beg my bread rather than give in to the Plan of Campaign…But when once the illegal conspiracy came to an end, I should remember that, after all, these men were acted upon by those whose advice they thought they could trust. I should remember that they were compelled by intimidation to follow courses in many cases which they bitterly regretted, and for my own part, even if it were not wholly to my own personal and pecuniary interest, I should desire to restore peace to that part of the country in which my property was situated, and to see that, upon fair and equitable or even generous terms, the tenants were restored to their ancient homes."
  My Lords, it was in the spirit of those words of Mr. Balfour that my right hon. Friend decided on issuing the Evicted Tenants Commission. Up to a certain time the landlords accepted the nominations to that Commission, and it was only after the commencement of its proceedings that they withdrew. There is no doubt a great deal to be said with regard to the appointment of a learned Judge at the head of the Commission. I, for one—and many others—have a strong objection, as a general rule, to mixing up the Judicial Bench with matters con-
  198
  nected with politics. At the same time, when there are matters which are to be treated in a perfectly judicial spirit—when there is a great difficulty in obtaining a Chairman in Ireland who would command the confidence of both sides and of all parties—I say it was natural to turn to the English Bench and find a Judge to take the chair. This has not been done by the present Government alone. The late Government, in 1886, appointed Mr. Justice Day Chairman of the Commission on the Belfast Riots. Something was said about cross-examination; that was one of the reasons given by the landlords for refusing to go before the Commission. I believe it has been an almost universal rule of Royal Commissions that cross-examination should not be permitted, and Mr. Justice Day, in the case of the Belfast Riots, refused to allow cross-examination, just as Mr. Justice Mathew did the other day. I must make a remark upon some of the expressions of the noble Marquess in his somewhat fiery harangue. He alluded to the tenants who were to come before this Commission as fraudulent and criminal bankrupts. The 13th section of the Land Act of 1891 gives power to sell, through the Land Courts, to this very class of men.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Within six months.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not without the consent of the landlord.
  EARL SPENCER: These men are the very class who are dealt with by the 13th clause of the Act of 1891.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble Earl mean to say the consent of the landlord was not required?
  EARL SPENCER: I did not say that. I say that clause applied to these tenants whose cases were to be inquired into by this Commission; these very tenants who are now said to be fraudulent and criminal.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I referred to tenants who had the money to pay their rent, and who paid it into the Plan of Campaign instead of paying their rent.
  EARL SPENCER: The noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, referred to the question of revoking proclamations. Her Majesty's Government have never approved during the last six Years of the policy which introduced the

  199
  Act under which those proclamations were issued, and when they came into office naturally at once made careful inquiry whether the state of the country was such that it necessitated the continuance of several of those proclamations, several of which had been revoked by the late Government. When the present Government found that they could with safety carry out the policy they had, themselves advocated, then, and not till then, did they revoke those proclamations. The noble Marquess referred to districts in Ireland which he said are in a very disturbed condition, and he named Clare and Kerry. I quite admit that parts of those counties have always been exceedingly difficult to manage and very lawless. But the late Government with all their powers were not able to cope with crime in those districts, and in Clare they failed to get convictions.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: "No, no."
  EARL SPENCER: Then let the noble Marquess quote some case where this power of secret inquiry enabled them to get convictions in Clare. We were taken to task for what we said in the Queen's Speech of improvement in Ireland. We never said every part of Ireland was quiet, but that, generally speaking, agrarian crime had diminished, and I think the figures bear that out. In Ireland, in 1891, there were 472 agrarian outrages, and in 1892 there were 405, a diminution of 67. Deducting threatening letters, there were 257 outrages in 1891 against 213 in 1892. Those facts show we were justified in the statement we made. With regard to Clare and Kerry, I was anxious to see whether we were justified in the statement there. In County Clare, during the period for which the present Government are responsible—from 23rd August, 1892, to 22nd January, 1893, the agrarian outrages, inclusive of threatening letters, were 22 in number, and during the same period in 1892 there were 33, so that there has been a diminution of ten in Clare. Exclusive of threatening letters the figures are for 1892–3, 15, and for 1891–2, 22, or a diminution of seven. In Kerry during the same period the figures are 1892–3, 17, and 1891–2, 22, and exclusive of threatening letters 14 and 15 respectively. Lord Midleton
  200
  quoted West Kerry, but I have not got separate figures for that part of the county. I say those facts amply justify the statement in the Queen's Speech and contradict the noble Marquess, who made such broad assertions as to the increase of crime in Ireland. With regard to district asylums, I was surprised to find that the late Government had introduced a very Important change, and I congratulate the noble Marquess, the late Viceroy, on having in I889 changed the appointment of the Governors from a permanent to an annual one. I consider that a very desirable change. I understood the charge to be that the Government had been Improperly packing these Asylums Boards with their own supporters. I have made a little inquiry, and I can give two examples which will illustrate what has been done by my noble Friend. I may mention that the contributing bodies appoint one-half the Governors and the Lord Lieutenant of the county the other half. In the county of Armagh the Board consists of I8 members. In I892 the Grand Jury representatives were nine Protestants and no Roman Catholics; and the Lord Lieutenant appointed seven Protestants and two Roman Catholics. This is in a county where the Roman Catholics are 46·1 per cent. O the population. I maintain that, without any truckling to popular feeling, it was expedient and Important that an injustice to the Roman Catholic population should be redressed. Accordingly the present Lord Lieutenant has appointed five Roman Catholics, and the Board now consists of 13 Protestants and five Roman Catholics. On another Board with which the noble Marquess is familiar—The Board of Downpatrick—in 1892 there were I6 Protestants and two Roman Catholics. In 1893 the Grand Jury nominated nine Protestants and the Lord Lieutenant three Protestants and six Roman Catholics, making 12 Protestants and six Roman Catholics. That does not seem to be an undue representation of the minority on that Board. In several cases the Lord Lieutenants, after putting on the Boards representatives of the minority of the population, selected the remaining nominees from gentlemen who had served the longest and were reputed to be the best administrators. There is no pretence for saying that men were put off because

  201
  of alleged fanlts on their parts; but a grave injustice plainly existed in the minority of the population not being represented, and it, was necessary in redressing that injustice to leave out the names of some men who had done good service on the Boards. I must make another remark with regard to the speech of the noble Marquess. I confess it was with some wonder I heard one who has held the high position he has held express himself in such strong terms with regard to the majority of the population in Ireland; he said the people of Ulster would never submit to be placed under the disloyal Catholic yoke. This is a very remarkable declaration to be made by a former Lord Lieutenant who has had under him an enormous Roman Catholic population. I admit there is an Important Protestant population, and no one believes more than I do that it must be considered; but who ever has to do with the government of Ireland knows that he has to deal with a vast majority of Roman Catholics; and I am surprised that one who has held the highest office in the country should have spoken as he did of the majority of its population. I have said that we must have regard to Ulster as a most Important part of Ireland. No one who wishes to deal with Local Government in Ireland can for a moment disregard the interests of Ulster; but is it to dictate to the whole of Ireland? Is it to dictate to the Imperial Parliament? Is it loyal on the part of one who has represented Her Majesty in Ireland to use words such as these—that Ulster would never consent to Home Rule and would be justified in shedding blood to resist it?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDON-DERRY: I was only quoting the words of the noble Earl in his Bristol speech.
  EARL SPENCER: I adhere to what I said at Bristol, which is perfectly consistent with the attitude I now hold with regard to Home Rule; but one who has held the office of Viceroy in Ireland has no business indirectly to encourage the people of Ulster to oppose as they say "even to the shedding of blood "the decrees of the Imperial Parliament. Considering the long time measures of reform are discussed in this country, and that we thus effect by constitutional means changes which lead to bloodshed
  202
  in other countries, it is a serious thing for one who has held so high and responsible a position to use language which, as far as I can see, is little short of encouraging Ulster, in certain circumstances, to rebel.
  MARQUESS OF LONDON-DERRYI must interrupt the noble Lord. What I said was that after the solemn warnings we had had from Ulster, and the way in which she had spoken last month, Ministers were taking a great responsibility upon themselves in forcing Home Rule upon Ulster. I ventured to appeal to those who have had practical experience of the Government of Ireland, and who have not hesitated to say that Ulstermen would be justified in shedding blood to maintain their institutions, and I said that upon Ministers would rest the responsibility.
  EARL SPENCER: I have nothing to withdraw from what I have said. Her Majesty's Government are fully sensible of their own responsibility, and I do not think Ulster has the right to dictate to the Parliament of the United Kingdom or to put herself in the position the noble Marquess expects she will assume on this occasion. The noble Marquess said our policy was truckling. I entirely deny it. We do what we consider right and good for the people of Ireland. I quite admit vast Improvements have been made in Ireland, but, notwithstanding all these Improvements, did you find in 1885 or 1886. any Improvement in the loyalty of the majority of the people? It is because we find that there is still an intolerance of British rule, and because we find, after all our experience of governing and after all the concessions that have been made, the people of Ireland are still resolutely opposed to the present Union, that we say a new policy is absolutely indispensable for the country. Talking of truckling, to the Irish, I. should like to ask the noble Marquess whether there was any truckling to the Irish Party in the summer of 1885? I speak with some reluctance on this point; I was keenly interested in the attitude taken on that occasion by the Conservative Government. Then, what was the object of that long Maamtrasna debate, and the attacks on the Liberal Government for what they thought it their duty to do with regard to those prisoners? Was it not to

  203
  catch the Irish vote; and was not that truckling to the Irish vote? I do not wish to dwell on this painful subject; but I thought it right, as the noble Marquess has spoken so vehemently, to state plainly, and I hope fairly and honestly, the views I entertain with regard to what he said. There are other points which have been referred to, but I shall not deal with them, as an appeal has been made in reference to them to my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. He will be able to deal with the Gweedore case, and the other cases which have been referred to. I am sorry to have troubled your Lordships at such length, but I think I am justified on this occasion in making the remarks I have addressed to your Lordships.
  LORD ASHBOURNEI have listened, as all your Lordships have, no doubt, with most earnest attention to the speech of the noble Lord who represents the Government; but he has not added to our knowledge of the Home Rule Bill; and as the Government have kept their secret so long, it would perhaps be unfair to grudge them the luxury of a few more days' silence. We have not asked at any time for the details of the measure; all we have asked was that they would take the country into their confidence on some of its great principles, and that they would not keep them hermetically-sealed in their own breasts. The noble Earl has said that the object of the Government is to endeavour to conciliate those who are disloyal, and who have not been made loyal by former concessions. There is a vast loyal population in Ireland, and the Government deliberately sets aside the earliest wishes of that loyal population in order to run the chance of conciliating those who are not loyal after all that has been done for them. The whole point of the speech of the noble Marquess (Lord Londonderry) was to show that in the administration now going on in Ireland we have a foretaste of what would happen if Home Rule were carried. That the powers of the law have been weakened no man can deny. The landowners have been threatened and the Unionist party have been slighted; and whether you call it a policy of truckling, or prefer some more elevated name, it has been a policy of steady disparagement of all Unionists and all landlords.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: What?
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Steady disparagement of all Unionists and all landlords. I do not say this is Mr. Morley's desire. Very likely, nay certainly, he has been a victim of circumstances. His hand has been forced by his position. He had the priesthood all ranged on his side; those who had heretofore been preaching sedition refrained from doing so in order "not to embarrass the Government"—the phrase has become a catchword in Ireland—while the law-breakers were in the novel position of desiring not to break the law. But these advantages were, of course, counterbalanced by relative disadvantages. These people wanted their quid pro quo, and thus it happened that the Chief Secretary has been fettered by the yoke of his taskmasters, who wanted to keep him up to the mark. There was a desire to make a contrast between him and Mr. Balfour by endeavouring to get him to do something that would capture the popular eye and arrest the imagination. I had understood that the proclamations under the Crimes Act have been put aside as an unclean thing, and by way of redeeming pledges made all through the country; but the noble Earl has said that was not the reason at all, the Government, on a consideration of the whole matter, having come to the conclusion that they could, as a matter of expediency of administration, drop the particular clauses. That takes the question out of the region of principle and places it in the region of administrative expediency. Who, however, can say that the clauses about change of venue and special jury are susceptible of abuse in the hands of any Government? I should think the present Law Officers in Ireland must often feel themselves seriously embarrassed when they consider how they will deal with serious crime from the want of those elementary clauses that should be found in every Criminal Code. Clause 1, enabling secret inquiries to be held, is found in every Bill Mr. Gladstone has ever brought in with reference to Ireland. It is found in the Explosives Act of 1883; Sir W. Harcourt has himself testified to its singular efficiency and value, and so the Executive in Dublin, in dealing with the explosion at the Castle, found ready to their hand what probably they did not

  205
  know at the time, a power which they had ostentatiously set aside in connection with the Crimes Act. I do not go into the question of statistics, because the figures of crime, are one thing and the detection of crime is another. Let your figures be many or few, have not you by your action since you came into office weakened your power of detection? And if you tell your statisticians to contrast the number of crimes detected before your advent to office—
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Does the noble Lord deliberately accuse us of having made false Returns of crime?
  LORD ASHBOURNE: No, no. The noble Earl will not get an angry word from me.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I entirely repudiate the notion that any member of this House has the right, without sufficient ground, to insinuate that we prepare false statistics.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I protest against such an assumption. It never crossed my mind. Though I differ from noble Lords opposite in politics I have the greatest possible respect for them, and I would be the last man to make an unworthy suggestion. But I am passing by the figures and making another contrast. I ask, have you, in dropping these clauses, lessened your powers of detection of crime? I say that is a contrast that would be a real and valuable statistic, more valuable than the statistics with which we have been favoured tonight by the noble Earl. A remark on the Evicted Tenants Commission. The noble Earl has endeavoured to found a case for the Commission on Clause 13 of the Act of 1891, but that fallacy has been disposed of over and over again. Under the Purchase Acts only occupying tenants were capable of becoming purchasers, and to enable those who were not occupying, but were evicted, powers were given to the landlord himself, if he thought right, without restoring the tenant to his position to make a voluntary agreement or contract of purchase with him. All depended on the consent or volition of the landlord, and there is no analogy between that and the appointment of the present Commission. That Commission was a most unfortunate piece of statesmanship. The order of reference was one-sided and partisan. The names of the Commissioners were one-sided and
  206
  partisan. To say, as Mr. Morley did at Newcastle, that two out of the five Commissioners, Mr. Redington and Mr. O'Brien, were representatives of the landlords was a grotesque absurdity. When Mr. Morley succeeded in getting a Judge of the English Bench to be President, it was thought there would be an effort to get at the truth, that the evidence would be fairly sifted, and that the landlords would get a perfect opportunity of making their case. But the opening proceedings were a revelation. A political party speech was made by the President of the Commission, and unquestionably the point of that speech was to put Lord Clanricarde in the pillory before a single witness had been heard or any evidence had been taken. If Lord Clanricarde did stand alone, if he was not a fair representative of the landlords of Ireland, if they would all repudiate him as a fair representative, was it right to commence the proceedings, not by a representative case, but by the case of such a man? Sir James Mathews himself conducted the case against Lord Clanricarde and pilloried him before he was tried. The hearsay evidence of Mr. Roche, a leader of the Land League and a notorious agitator, was taken against Lord Clanricarde, and although there were abundant grounds for the cross-examination of the witness to be found in the Report of the Parnell Commission, Sir James Mathews did not deem it desirable to ask Mr. Roche one single question by way of cross-examination, and therefore the damaging direct evidence of this witness was given to the public without one syllable to convey that it was capable of being challenged. Mr. Carson, a most distinguished counsel, and Mr. Kenny, a man of large practice at the Bar, endeavoured to cross-examine, but they were not allowed. Sir James Mathew's action was most unfortunate. He allowed to go forth to the public through the various reporters the hostile evidence against Lord Clanricarde, but he did not ask a question himself by way of cross-examination which would affect that evidence, or allow counsel to ask it. Mr. Morley says that he was proceeding under Section 13 of the Act of the late Government and was trying to give effect to that section. Now one of the few estates on which that section had been availed of was the Ponsonby estate,

  207
  and when Sir James Mathew went down to examine into the state of things there he advised the tenants who had entered into contracts with the Land Commission to take legal advice whether they were bound by that arrangement. I cannot conceive anything more likely to disturb the minds of the tenants than to tell them that they ought to take a lawyer's advice as to whether they were bound to fulfil the contract into which they had entered. It would have tended more to the peace of the estate if Sir J. Mathew had followed a different course. The practice of Royal Commissions in taking evidence had been to keep the control of the examination of the witnesses in their own hands, and to take care that no attacks were made on any persons unless an opportunity was given for answering any charges which might be brought. Then, as to Viceregal Commissions—that is, Commissions acting solely by the Lord Lieutenant's warrant—the practice for 50 years has been uniformly at variance with the course pursued by Sir J. Mathew.
  EARL SPENCER: I should like to put myself right if I have made any misstatement. I quoted the case of the Belfast Commission under Mr. Justice Day. I am perfectly aware that another course has also been pursued by Viceregal Commissions.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Mr. Justice Day's Commission was appointed after full discussion in the House of Commons; there was an Act of Parliament under which it acted, and therefore Mr. Justice Day reserved to himself the power of permitting cross-examination, when he thought proper, and he thought proper at a very early time. Therefore the precedent of Mr. Justice Day's Commission does not support the course taken by Sir J. Mathew, and I repeat that in the case of Viceregal Commissions the course has been to permit cross-examination, though I do not say that there is a right to cross-examine in all cases. Lord Clanricarde may be open to any charges which Sir J. Mathew might allow to be made; but, like any subject of the Queen, he is entitled to fair play. Again, why did Sir J. Mathew desert his ordinary official duties in order to engage in such a business? Sir J. Mathew laid aside his judicial office for
  208
  the purpose of sitting, at the request of the Government, upon a Commission in which he divested himself of his judicial position. Was the Executive right, without an Act of Parliament, in withdrawing a Judge front his judicial duties for a political purpose like this? And was the Judge right in venturing to desert his judicial duties to involve himself in a transaction of the kind? Can another precedent be found of any Judge, obeying the bidding of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, leaving his work here and going over to Ireland to do other work? The Judge's ditties are fixed by law, and I know of nothing in Common Law or in Statute Law to sanction a Judge withdrawing from his duties here, and taking part in a roving party Commission such as this. He is not given Irremovability from office, and his salary is not placed upon the Consolidated Fund to enable him to do political work for the Executive Government without the sanction of an Act of Parliament. It is no wonder that under the circumstances the landowners refused to appear before the Commission, or that one of Mr. Justice Mathew's colleagues resigned. It has been urged that we ought not to criticize these matters and the action of the Commission until the Report has been produced. Why not? Have we no right before that Report comes out to show the constitution, the mechanism, and the working of the Commission, in order that the public might know what respect and attention shall be given to the Report when it does appear? I think it right to make these statements in my place in Parliament, in order that they may be met, to whatever extent they can be met, by those who are constitutionally bound to defend, as far as they can, the action of Mr. Justice Mathew. The cardinal and primary error, the unfortunate mistake made by Mr. Justice Mathew, in my opinion, was ever to leave his judicial duties to embark in a political transaction like the present, and I know of no Judge or lawyer, or lover of the Constitution, anywhere who has defended that course. My conviction is that Mr. Justice Mathew went to Ireland and undertook this task without the sanction of the Judge at the head of his Division. I should like to say one word about the constitution of the Lunacy Boards. I do

  209
  not think the noble Earl quite realised the exact point of the charge in reference to the appointments on these Boards. I do not object to Mr. Morley, or any one, on suitable occasions, appointing men of particular opinions, polities, and creed if those appointments are proper additions to the Boards. But the point is that on many occasions and in many counties some of the best attendants and the best workers, who have been the mainstay of the Boards for a large number of years, have been left off the Boards without rhyme or reason, while far less able and useful men have been allowed to remain. This has naturally caused a very angry and bitter feeling among Loyalists, and it is regarded as part of a policy to which I referred at the outset—a policy of deliberate disparagement of Loyalists and Unionists, and therefore from that point of view it is material, I think, that some attention to this matter should be given. The last topic to which I wish to refer is the question of the release of the Gweedore prisoners, who were convicted with reference to the brutal murder of District inspector Martin. It is unnecessary to trouble your Lordships with the full details of the case. The unfortunate police officer, it will be remembered, lost his life in the endeavour to serve process of law on Father M'Fadden, the parish priest of Gweedore. Father M'Fadden made several inflammatory speeches at the time in connection with the matter, but I will only quote front one which he made on September 20th, 1887. He used these expressions—
  "I will not appear to the summons;" "then they must issue a warrant to arrest me, but will they dare to arrest me at Gweedore among my own people"; "it would take the whole British Army to do it"; and "some blood will be spilt before they take me out of it."
  These are the words of Father M'Fadden, and the prophecy was verified, for blood was spilt, and a heavy responsibility was incurred by him. Now, the law is too plain to be questioned. Every one who offers resistance to the police in the execution of their lawful duty is responsible for wilful murder if any policeman is slain in the discharge of that duty, and I assert that that is the charge which applied to those persons by whom District inspector Martin was done to death on this occasion. A great many
  210
  persons were made amenable and were returned for trial—one man, named Coll, on the charge of murder, but that charge was afterwards mercifully reduced to one of manslaughter. All the prisoners, except Coll, pleaded guilty to charges of obstructing the police. The prisoners were convicted, and the greatest discrimination was shown by the Judge in differentiating the sentences passed on them. In the case of Coll only, who was sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude, a point arose for further consideration. It was referred to the Court for Crown Cases Reserved, and here again the greatest discrimination was observed by the Judges in dealing with the ease, but the decision at the trial was upheld. In a civil action that took place after the trial Mr. Healy, who had been counsel for the prisoners, was asked—
  "in your opinion, as counsel, were the prisoners getting off easily?"
  And he replied—
  "We originally believed that some of them would be convicted. I thought, to use a popular phrase, 'they got off in a coach.'"
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble and learned Lord mean to say that those remarks of Mr. Healy relate to the prisoners who have since been released? Did not they relate to those who were released at the time?
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I think it would be better if the noble and learned Lord would direct his question to those in Ireland who ordered the release of the prisoners. That was what Mr. Healy himself said, and I cannot give it any explanation or justification. Well, the prisoners, whose sentences had not expired, were released on Christmas Eve. Your Lordships know the offence for which they were imprisoned and understand the gravity of such an offence, especially grave in a country like Ireland, where the police want all the protection that can be given them, and where the murder of a policeman is anything but a light matter. Now, these prisoners were not released upon licence. I ask, would it not have been a reasonable precantion to take, before sending these men back to the place where this appalling catastrophic took place, to release them only under such conditions as would secure that, for some time at all events, they would

  211
  be law-abiding and peaceable? The other day the Government were asked whether the Judge who tried these prisoners had been consulted about their release, and the answer given was—
  "The late Government consulted the Judge as to the case of Coll in 1891, and, having regard to his report, the Government did not think it fair to the learned Judge to trouble him again upon the subject."
  That, I say, was a very curious and insufficient answer, and I ask again, Why was the Judge not consulted about the release of these prisoners? One would think that the Government were going themselves to release Coll. I speak in the presence of the noble Earl (Lord Spencer), who, when Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, always exercised the closest supervision over the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, and I ask whether a case can be cited where the whole procedure of a trial has been undone, where the whole measure of sentences has been set aside, where the differentiating of different degrees of guilt have all been swept away without any appeal having been made to the learned Judge who tried the case as to his view of the matter? What reason was there in this particular case for not following the usual practice? I do not know of any. The opinion of the Judge was asked with reference to the case of Coll, but that was two years ago. What right has the Executive to say, "We did not like to trouble the Judge again"? A Judge cannot think of trouble in the discharge of his duties; he is bound to furnish the Executive with his advice. It is a wise, just, and reasonable practice in a ease of this kind to ask the opinion of the Judge who has presided at the trial and represented the majesty and impartiality of the law. The course taken by Her Majesty's Government in not seeking that opinion is exceptional, strange, and dangerous, and their action must tend to diminish the respect in which the judicial office is held. Is the reversal of our known judicial methods a thing to be undertaken lightly? Is it wise, in a country like Ireland, where the law is too often attacked and Judges are too often assailed, and motives imputed to them—is it wise to set at naught the ordinary practice? Mr. Morley, on Tuesday, interrupted a speech that was being made on this subject to shelter himself under the "great authority of the Lord
  212
  Chancellor of Great Britain," as he described it; but until the Lord Chancellor says it, and until the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who, I presume, was consulted, says it, I will not believe that they intended that the Judge should be ignored and his office contemned. What were the grounds of the release? If they were legal, was it wise or in accordance with constitutional practice to come to a decision in camera without argument? Were the prisoners released in consequence as to a doubt as to their guilt? Why, they all pleaded guilty except Coll. Then the sentences were carefully differentiated and measured at the trial, and vet now they have all been equalised by the release of the prisoners on the same day and at the same hour, and the Judges' measuring and differentiating between them all set at naught. What materials were before those who gave this decision? Were the depositions looked at, examined, and collated? I defer further criticism upon this question until I hear what may upon this subject fall from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I am not opposed in proper cases to mercy and clemency. I admit that a time may come for mercy and clemency being shown, and that many things may be taken into account in permitting people to go free who have committed even grave crimes in the past, but the circumstances here are grave and peculiar, and I think I am not erring when I say that they demand full explanation. These, my Lords, are the only topics that occur to me in regard to Ireland, and I have endeavoured to present my views to your Lordships temperately and moderately, recognizing that there may he many differences of opinion on the question. I have dealt with four points in a short period of five months all of importance, and I think all of them go to show that weight should be given to many of the observations of the noble Marquess who introduced this debate. This administration is a prelude to the Home Rule Bill. It has, at all events, the merit of frankness. It tells the loyalists how little they have to expect, and it tells the other classes in Ireland, some of them mixed up somewhat with crime, how much they have to expect. Does it not give an advance sketch in dim outline of Ireland as it would be under

  213
  a Home Rule Government? My Lords, if these things can be done in a green tree, what must be done in a dry? These things that have happened in this short time would be enough to discourage and disappoint the loyalists of Ireland were they not sustained by a confident hope. They do not believe in the existence of the present Government. They are sustained by the expectation—which I believe some of them have themselves—that their tenure of office will be short, and they are cheered by the further reflection that the cause of the Union will be safe in the hands of the succeeding Government.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord is so completely satisfied that the tenure of office by the present Government will be so short, it seems hardly worth while wasting so much powder and shot on their acts during the last few months. They might have been left to die, as he expects they soon will die, from circumstances entirely independent of the criticism he has just addressed to you. My Lords, I shall make no apology for devoting the remarks I have to make to questions connected with Ireland, because the whole of the debate this evening, with the most trifling exceptions, has been devoted to that topic. I think it cannot fail to strike any impartial observer that there has been a strange change of view in certain matters since the last occasion and previous occasions upon which Her Majesty's Speech was suggested from the other side of the House. There was not one of the debates on those occasions in which the references to Ireland were not chiefly devoted to those statistics of crime which my noble and learned Friend treats with so much contempt to-night. In truth, my Lords; it was upon these very statistics that reliance was placed by the late Government as proof of their efficient and successful government of Ireland, and yet to-night, because those statistics do not happen to suit them, they denounce them as absolutely contemptible. I venture to think, my Lords, that if these statistics, which are the same and prepared by the same authority as those upon which they relied when they were in office, had shown a different result, and, instead of showing a diminution of crime, had shown an increase, do your Lordships
  214
  believe for a moment they would have been spoken of with contempt? If, my Lords, it was just in previous years to appeal to such statistics as a proof that Ireland was being well governed, why is it unjust to do so now? If they proved the fact in previous years, surely they must prove it to-day; and if then the only and best proof of good government is the diminution of crime, upon what ground in reason can an impartial man deny a fair consideration to these statistics to-night? The noble Marquess who introduced this debate favoured your Lordships with some statistics of his own, culled from the newspapers. He is evidently still in the happy condition of believing all he reads in the daily Press, and treating it as more authentic than even Government statistics. That is a happy condition which he will not be in when he has learnt from experience that such statements are not always in accordance with facts. But is it fair to pick out certain particular cases of increase of crime and say nothing about the rest of the country? Why did the noble Marquess take isolated facts? The noble Marquess alluded to the Charges of two learned Judges who said that crime is increasing, but where the observations were made by the other Judges he was silent upon. He selected two out of them, and has given your Lordships some observations of those; Judges to show that crime in Ireland is increasing. I submit that is hardly doing justice in this matter.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDON-DERRY: I was specially careful to lay stress upon the tact that in certain districts, especially in Counties Clare and Kerry, the increase of serious crime was very marked in my opinion. I expressly stated that I had no official information, but only the ordinary channels in the Press. What else could I allude to? I put before your Lordships the meetings held in different districts calling upon the Government to cope with the fact that crime is increasing, and I ask the noble and learned Lord how else he could expect me to offer any other opinion upon a point like this.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No doubt the public Press may be the only source of information open to the noble Marquess; but if it is an imperfect source, it is hardly fair to make positive and

  215
  extremely strong assertions with regard to the government and condition of Ireland without waiting to ascertain all the facts of the case accurately and what the truth is. The noble Marquess alluded to the Charges of two Judges—Chief Justice O'Brien and Mr. Justice Harrison. Chief Justice O'Brien was not dealing with Clare and Kerry, but with another part of Ireland. It is quite true he alluded to two cases of counties in which there had been an increase of crime, but he said that, on the whole, there had been a decrease. Leitrim being one of the counties to which he alluded, the County Court Judge there said he did not agree with the Chief Justice as to the County being in the serious state described. Then the noble Marquess alluded to Mr. Justice Harrison's Charge, and said there were some cases of an unpleasant character, but he did not read this passage, that
  "The police reports are very valuable in guiding us in understanding what the state of society is. I am happy to tell you the reports appear to be of a favourable character."
  That is part of the Charge by the same Judge which the noble Marquess read. When your Lordships have heard the official statistics prepared on the same basis and in the same office as those which have been laid before your Lordships year after year, surely we have in all fair dealing established a claim to have it considered that the administration of Ireland has not led to an increase of crime on the whole, but to a diminution. The noble Marquess also alluded to the withdrawal of the Proclamations, and has said that they contain provisions which might well be found in any Code of Jurisprudence, and ought to be in all. That may well be so, but I would remind your Lordships of what was pointed out by the late Lord Carnarvon, when Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when this question of repressive legislation was being dealt with in 1885. At that time the Conservative Government of the day decided not to renew what was known as the Coercion Acts, and his Lordship expressed the opinion that there were, no doubt, provisions which it might be desirable to pass into law, butt if so they ought to be made applicable to all parts of the United Kingdom; and he called attention to the feeling of Impatience, irritation, and
  216
  hostility engendered by exceptional legislation for one part of the United Kingdom. I admit that it may be well that the Government should have some such power as those provisions afford; but then, I say, let them apply to all parts of the United Kingdom if they are good provisions, and do not deal with one part of the United Kingdom and put it under an exceptional law. That is the position I have always taken up. I know that in objecting to those provisions for Ireland one lays oneself open to the reproach that one loves crime and criminals; but I assure your Lordships that reproaches of that sort touch me very little—not at all. The objection I formerly entertained on the subject I entertain still. I believe it is an evil and an undesirable thing that any part of the United Kingdom should be put in this way under an exceptional Criminal Law so long as you are dealing with other parts of the kingdom in a different way. It seems to me, in absolute consistency with all our previous conduct, that it should appear to us to be our duty to put an end to that exceptional state of the Criminal Law, unless there was some overpowering reason to the contrary. You can conceive such a state of things that exceptional legislation is absolutely essential. My noble and learned Friend has spoken as if the repeal of those provisions has tended to the maladministration of the law in Ireland. Has he cited one single fact that has given colour to this suggestion? The truth is, you will find, that the diminution of crime since they ceased to be enforced has been quite as great as the diminution going on whilst they were in force. I turn to the question of the release of the Gweedore prisoners. I can assure your Lordships, whether you accept my assurance or not, that in the advice which I gave my right hon. Friend in that matter I was not influenced in the slightest degree by any political idea, or sentiment, or motive. I assure your Lordships it never occurred to me—perhaps, being a question affecting Ireland, it ought to have occurred to me—that it was a matter with which politics could be in the slightest degree regarded as mixed up. It has been suggested it was done to gain some political support, and I confess that even now I fail to see what political support was to be gained by this exercise of the

  217
  prerogative of mercy. But, whether that be so or not, I assert, with the utmost frankness and truth, that any political idea was as far from my thoughts as it ever was from the thoughts of any man. The exercise of the prerogative of mercy is always a serious matter and ought to be governed by certain principles; and I will tell your Lordships the principles which it seems to me ought to regulate the exercise of that prerogative, and which guided me in the advice which I gave in this case. What is the object of inflicting punishment? The object of inflicting punishment is not to wreak the vengeance of society upon the offender, it is, I apprehend, to deter the offender from repeating his offence and to deter others from imitating it. That, I apprehend, is the object with which punishment is now inflicted. No doubt this was not always the view that was adopted, but I shall doubt whether any noble and learned Lord in the present day would maintain the absolute fulfilment and the crueller phase of punishment which obtained in former days. It was with that view, and guided by those ideas, that I approached the subject. The question that had to be determined was whether the time had come at which, with regard to all the circumstances, these prisoners might safely be set at liberty. My Lords, that is a question—whatever it may be in Ireland—which is not at all new, rare, or exceptional in this country. Nothing is more common or usual than that sentences passed upon offenders should he re-considered from time to time, and that those who have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment should be set at liberty before those sentences come to a conclusion. If that is not the practice in Ireland, in my opinion the sooner it is made so the better. In considering this question, it is absolutely essential to look at the circumstances of the crime and the condition of the country. As regards the circumstances of the crime, one most Important question is whether the prisoner whom you are asked to release is likely to repeat the offence. There are some men of the criminal class whom one would be loth to let loose on society, while there are other men, sentenced for crimes of sudden passion, who would not be likely to repeat the crime again. The
  218
  present appeared to me to be just one of those cases. The noble and learned Lord has treated these men who have been set at liberty as having brutally done to death Police-inspector Martin, but he has not alluded to the circumstances which no doubt for the time drove these men into a passion. ["Oh, oh!"] I think if noble Lords will listen for a moment or two I am not going to say anything which is not perfectly true. He did not allude to the circumstances which drove these men into a passion, and which for the time set them beyond themselves. Is it to be doubted that decent and honourable men have at times lost themselves in the violence of passion? I do not suppose that anybody can dispute that. Now, what happened on this occasion? I am not going into the question of making the arrest, when and where it was, nor am I going to say that their crime was not a serious one. They have suffered a serious punishment. Noble Lords have talked as if the prisoners had been let loose without any serious punishment at all, but that was a mis-representation. What happened was the priest had come from mass, which these Donegal peasants had been attending; the Inspector went to arrest him; and suddenly—I do not know how it came about—the Inspector drew his sword. I am stating this from the evidence given by the police themselves. As it flashed in the light a woman cried out, "He has struck the priest!" Those in the crowd did not know what had happened, there was a rush forward, and stone-throwing began, and unhappily the police-constable was slain. Unquestionably none of those men who have been released struck the fatal blow, although they were no doubt in the crowd and throwing stones. The whole thing was the transaction of a moment. These men, thinking their priest had been struck with the sword, rushed forward and began to fling stones, and so the tragedy took place. I venture to say that under circumstances such as these you may well consider that those who have suffered three years' penal servitude for taking part in a transaction such as that are as little likely to repeat it as if they were released after seven years. They are not men of the criminal class, who are likely to repeat their crime. Then there is another matter for

  219
  consideration. The remission of part of the sentences of these men by no means impeaches the sentences which were passed at the time. That is the extraordinary fallacy which underlies the whole of the noble and learned Lord's speech. There are constant remissions made by the Home Office in this country. Time after time when a sentence has been passed which may be far beyond that which is called for by the offence that happens, it may often be necessary and wise to pass at the moment a severer sentence than, if happier circumstances arise, it may be necessary to carry out. But, my Lords, supposing that the condition of the country changes, supposing the part of the country where the disturbances took place has calmed down, that the country is absolutely peaceable and free from crime, surely that is a most potent element in determining whether you may justly and wisely give to these men their liberty again. Would anybody in these circumstances desire to keep these men longer in prison? Everybody would feel it was right to set them at liberty as soon as it was possible to do so with safety. That was my view; it may be right or it may be wrong. I am quite content to be judged by my fellow-countrymen for having taken that, view. I quite agree that it would be base, indeed, to use the prerogative of mercy for a political end. Nobody would express that opinion in stronger or more vigorous terms than I should; but there is one thing, which I think would be baser still, and that is—for fear of political attack to keep in prison a day or one hour longer those whom you would otherwise set at liberty. The noble and learned Lord has asked, "Why were those men who were sentenced to shorter tenets of imprisonment not let out before?"
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon. I asked why men who were sentenced to different terms of imprisonment were all let out together without consulting the Judge.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the time had arrived when the man sentenced to the longer term might be let out, why should the others not be let out at the same time? I came to the conclusion that Coll had suffered severely for his offence. I altogether dispute the
  220
  assumption that a sentence of three years' penal servitude is one to be spoken of as if it were trifling or insignificant. Now, the noble and learned Lord has asked why it was the learned Judge was not consulted. There were similar Petitions presented to the late Government from the wives of these men praying for the exercise of the prerogative. I do not know whether each of them had a wife, but I know the wives of some of them petitioned, and I think I am right in saying that the year before, a Petition having been presented for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, the matter was referred to the learned Judge who tried the case, and he made his Report to the then Executive. That Report was before the present Executive and was before me. I do not know what they do in Ireland, and whether they do refer to the Judge every year.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Certainly not. The noble and learned Lord has entirely missed the point given by his own colleague in the other House. I, quoted Mr. Morley's statement that the Government had consulted the Judge as to Coll. There were no wives in the case at all.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This shows how little my noble and learned Friend really knows about the case.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I only know what has been stated—that the Government consulted the Judge as to Coll.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord is a very clever advocate. When I am dealing with one point he immediately slips away to another. It is a very old device when you see you are getting into a hot corner to slip away from it and take up quite another point. I am quite accustomed to that. The noble and learned Lord spent a quarter of an hour in asking why the learned Judge was not consulted, and my answer is that the learned Judge had been consulted a year before on that very question of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, and he had made a Report to the Executive. Who could suppose that the learned Judge could say more than he had already stated if he had been appealed to in the year following?
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Again I must remind the noble and learned Lord that

  221
  that only refers to Coll, but I am asking as to the others.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can only deal with one thing at a time. We have the Report as to Coll, and I know of nothing which makes it necessary to ask a Judge the same thing year after year. When the Executive have got the opinion of the Judge it is always a question for them how long afterwards it may be before they deal with the matter. They do so as seems to them fit and right. What the learned Judge said in his Report was certainly one of the elements that I took into account before giving the advice I did. As to the other cases in which the prisoners pleaded guilty, all the facts were upon the depositions, as in Coll's case, and nothing could be added by the Judge. Those who read the depositions had exactly the same opportunity of judging in the matter as the learned Judge who tried the case. In fact, those cases were not tried at all, because those prisoners pleaded guilty, and all the information the Judge had when he sentenced them was upon the depositions. Now, my Lords, there is the case with regard to the remission of these sentences; and I venture to say that if these had not been Irish cases, and if attempts had not been made to get political capital out of them, nobody in this country would have dreamed of uttering a word of complaint. I cannot attempt an explanation of an answer given in the other House to a question I did not hear. If I am right in the description I have given of those cases, they were not cases in which it was necessary to release the prisoners upon tickets-of-leave, which are used only when there is reason to apprehend the prisoners may offend again, and not when the remainder of the penalty is remitted on grounds wholly different from those on which tickets-of-leave are granted. I think I have answered fully the questions put to me with regard to the Gweedore cases. I am sorry to have detained your Lordships so long upon them, but I have been so bombarded with questions that it was impossible for me within a shorter time to answer them all. I turn now to the question of the Evicted Tenants Commission, with whose proceedings I am not so fully acquainted as my noble and learned Friend. He has said that it is a partisan Commission
  222
  appointed for a political purpose; but that I absolutely deny. It was never intended to be a partisan Commission or to serve a political purpose. It was appointed to inquire into a state of things which had arisen out of disputes between landlords and tenants. The noble and learned Lord has said the landlords were not sufficiently represented. No landlords were upon it; but let me ask him what tenants were there? My noble Friend does not reply; and I assume there were none. Does the noble and learned Lord mean to say that a Commission to inquire into the condition of tenants is a partisan Commission unless you pack it with landlords? How could it be a partisan Commission unless one party or the other were over-represented? The matter depends really and truly upon the purpose for which the Commission was set on foot. As to that purpose the reference to the Act has been a little misunderstood. It was not instituted for the purpose of parading before the world the wrong-doings of the landlords any more than it was for the purpose of parading the wrongdoings of the tenants. If the Commission can work out or suggest solutions of difficult questions, those who are not Home Rulers, those who expect to maintain the present condition of things, who expect to govern the country in the old fashion, are interested in it quite as much as, or more so than, those who advocate Home Rule. Can anyone doubt that the existence of evicted tenants and of districts without tenants is a condition like that of smouldering embers which may at any time break out into flame, and that those who have in view the good government of Ireland were justified in appointing this Commission? Therefore, I deny that it had a political or Party object in the sense which has been Imputed to it, though I admit it had that object in the wider and nobler sense, for it is always a political object that outrage and disturbance should be put an end to; and surely even landlords who have not these evicted tenants at their doors would desire to see an end put to such a state of things. What good end is to be gained, however wrong the tenants may have been in continuing a state of things which, if it goes out, will breed further disorder and outrage? Surely everyone has an interest in putting an end to it.

  223
  That is a good motive which might actuate any Government; and where is there any conceivably wrong motive, any mean reason to be appealed to? The sole object was one of peace, to allay bitter feelings and to find a fair and just solution of difficulties. Considering that the late Government considered it right that public money should he spent to convert occupying tenants into owners of land to assist in reinstating evicted tenants and converting them into owners must wish to see the whole question peaceably settled. Certainly the member of the Commission who retired was not a political any of those who appointed him. When I recall well-known Commissions that were appointed with much more political objects, I must say that the charge of partisanship comes with a bad grace from those who now make it. Now, my Lords, with regard to the conduct of the learned Judge, I will point out, in the first place, that it is not a matter without precedent, quite apart from Statute, to appoint a learned Judge a member of a Royal Commission. I admit there is not, so far as I know, any ease in which a learned Judge in this country has been appointed on an Irish Commission who has not, at all events, been referred to in some Statute; but I do not know that there is any point of principle in that, although there may be a matter of policy. When my noble Friend alludes to the action which was taken by the learned Judge on the first day of the sittings and complains of what he calls an attack on a certain noble Lord, whose name has often come before the public in connection with his estates, he overlooks the material fact that that noble Lord had written a letter to the Commission of a most insulting character, in which, before he knew anything of the proposed action of the Commission, he intimated that he was not going to come before them or give them any assistance at all.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: If I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord, he is not accurate as to the contents of that letter, and Lord Clanricarde has since explained it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course, you may explain away anything. The noble and learned Lord will not deny that there was a letter written.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: It was all published.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know what was all published. That letter was written by Lord Clanricarde before the Commission could have displayed any proclivities at all, and that is a very material fact which ought to have been brought before your Lordships when it is said the learned Judge spoke without anything having gone before.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Without a particle of evidence.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is another point. There were certain matters in regard to Lord Clanricarde which were in evidence for the purposes of the Royal Commission in every sense in which there is ever evidence before such a Commission. Certain transactions had been investigated by the Courts of Law and certain observations by a learned Judge had been made in reference to those transactions, and the Commission were perfectly entitled to make use of them. It seems to me an unbecoming thing that I should undertake on the present occasion a defence of the Commission or their proceedings until, at all events, I have them regularly and completely before me. I call only deal with them on such Imperfect knowledge as I possess. My learned Friend says there is a right of cross-examination in the case of Viceregal Commissions. Well, everything seems to be different in Ireland to what it is in England, but certainly it is an unheard-of thing in the case of any English Commission. I really do not know what those Viceregal Commissions are to which the noble and learned Lord refers. Was Lord Bessborough's a Viceregal Commission?
  LORD ASHBOURNE: No; Royal.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Was. Lord Cowper's?
  LORD ASHBOURNE: No Royal.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What the peculiar efficacy or differentia between a Viceregal Commission and a Royal Commission may be, which gives a right to appear and cross-examine before the former when there is no such right in the case of the latter, I fail to understand. In my profound ignorance on the subject of Viceregal Commissions, I can say nothing further on that matter. I should like, however, to say a word or two with reference to the great question foreshadowed in Her Majesty's Most

  225
  Gracious Speech. My Lords, to hear some noble Lords talk one would think there was no Irish Question at all, that everything was as nearly satisfactory as could be, and that by pursuing the old path, a happy end would be arrived at. Is not the reverse notoriously the case? Our policy may be right or wrong, but surely there is an evil to be encountered, and, if possible, to be remedied. A mistake may be made as to the policy to be pursued, but surely we must all admit the existence of the problem to be solved. A noble Lord shakes his head. He thinks, apparently, there is positively no problem to be solved. Out of this House and the ranks of noble Lords coming from Ireland, I do not believe you will find one human being in any part of the civilised globe who is of that opinion. Attempts have been made time after time to deal with this question, and failure has followed upon every one of them. It is only in connection with Ireland, of all the Queen's dominions, that it is possible to talk of the great hulk, or, at all events, tire majority, of the people as disloyal. When we speak of other nations unduly oppressing some nationality connected with them Ireland is thrown in our teeth. We are told to look at home, and we have with shame to confess that a portion of our people are governed by exceptional laws and kept down by force. Surely these are serious facts. The great cry has been "Law and order," as though there was nothing further to be aimed at, as though the happiness of a people was not an object to be attained if it does not exist. That is the problem to be solved: to bring into contentment, peace, and plenty a large portion of the people of whom it cannot be said that those conditions at present exist. Noble Lords have spoken of the danger of the new policy. Is there no danger in pursuing the old? Have we not sent from these shores multitudes of men who now form Important sections of great nations; and in some of our own Colonies, who have carried with them their hostility to England, and who feel that their fellow-countrymen in Ireland are still suffering wrong? I have heard it said that in any time of difficulty—God forbid it should ever arise!—between ourselves and the great nation on the other side of the Atlantic, those men would be a most
  226
  potent force in increasing our difficulties and our dangers. This, I repeat, is surely a serious state of things. It is not in mere wantonness that we have taken up this question. It is the policy of the past 90 years which has made ours the only policy which is now possible. It is said ours is the policy of despair; but it seems to me that is the true description of the old policy. I am not going to argue the question to-night; it is far too large to attempt an argument of it now. All I will attempt to do is to bespeak for the measure, when it sees tile light, fair, candid, and dispassionate consideration. I am quite aware it is one which excites strong feeling. It necessarily must do so. We shall, at all events, endeavour as far as we can to form our opinion calmly and without passion or prejudice, and at least to allow to those who are our political opponents that, however mistaken they may be, they have the same object as ourselves—the contentment and prosperity of every part of the country.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, as there were still ninny Members on the Opposition side of the House who were anxious to have an opportunity of speaking upon this important question, and doubtless there were noble Lords on the other side who also desired to do so, he would move the Adjournment of the Debate.
  Moved, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Of course, we are in the hands of my noble Friends on both sides, but it is now rather early to adjourn. Though I will not oppose the Motion, I should like to know whether we are to go on sitting as long as the House of Commons? It would be rather unusual to adjourn the Debate front day to day.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know that we have any business so urgently pressing that the prospect of an adjournment should be so alarming to the noble Earl. I do not think, myself, it would be necessary to go on with the Debate beyond to-morrow, but I ant bound to say that I think the new plan has been rather a success. We have listened to an interesting Debate this evening; and if that Debate had gone on at the end of Tuesday night, we should

  227
  have listened in a state of either agonising hunger or of disorganised digestion. It seems to me, especially after listening to the eloquent exhortation to calmness from the noble and learned Lord, that we should take all physical means of ensuring that calmness.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I simply wished to enter my protest against the possibility of having too much of a good thing.
  Motion agreed to; Debate further adjourned till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.