QUESTION OBSERVATION'S. (Hansard, 1 June 1893)

§ *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY
called attention to the condition of County Limerick; and asked Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to deal with the unsatisfactory state of that county? He said their Lordships would remember throe months ago he brought under the notice of the House the serious condition of the County of Clare, and called upon Her Majesty's Government to say what steps they proposed to take with reference to the appalling condition of that county. On that occasion Her Majesty's Government did not attempt to soar into the higher regions of anything approaching statesmanship; but they contented themselves with responding to his arguments by the crude and schoolboy retort, the well-known tu quoque. They said the county was not in a more unsatisfactory condition than it had been under the former Government. On this occasion, with reference to the County Limerick, such a to quoque was absolutely impossible. He defied anyone to say that Limerick was in an unsatisfactory condition when Mr. Morley undertook the government of the country. On that point he would make a quotation from a Charge delivered by Mr. Justice O'Brien at Limerick Assizes on the 11th of July, 1892, a short time before Mr. Gladstone came into power. The learned Judge said— Almost all forms of exception to the ordinary state of society in the County Limerick in reference to the violation of the law have. I may say, entirely disappeared. Life is more secure, not only against violence, but against the menace or the apprehension of violence; property is more secure from all forms of invasion or interference; and all forms of social relations are relieved from the burden of that intolerable restraint upon personal liberty with which, unhappily, we have been too long familiar in this country. It was, therefore, no exaggeration to say that when Mr. Morley undertook the government of Ireland the county was in a satisfactory condition; now it was 1714 not in a satisfactory condition, but it was in a state of absolute lawlessness. He read with some surprise a statement made by Mr. Morley in the House of Commons a few days ago. The right hon. Gentleman said— Excepting in two bad areas I should regard the state of the Counties of Clare, Kerry, and Limerick as not any more serious, but as less serious at the present moment than it was when the present Government acceded to Office. With that statement he joined issue; he gave it the flattest contradiction; and he hoped he should, from Mr. Morley's own mouth, make out his case that Limerick was in a most unsatisfactory condition compared with what it was when the present Government came into power. It ought ever to be remembered that Mr. Morley possessed the aid and support of very powerful auxiliaries in his endeavour to maintain law and order in Ireland. He had at his back the priests and both sections of the Nationalist Party, and their Lordships could at once discern where the fault lay when there existed the present state of lawlessness. The machinery was there, but it was not used. The Government were responsible, because, in defiance of warnings and in defiance of the fact that there had been the most palpable miscarriage of justice, they utterly refused to apply the remedy. In proof of his statement that Limerick was at present in an unsatisfactory and lawless condition he quoted from the Charge of Mr. Justice Gibson delivered in March last. Mr. Justice Gibson stated that— Although there was no form of the worst crime, such as murder, or attempt, to murder, nevertheless there is in the Police Returns evidence of crime, and of a very formidable state of affairs. There has been an increase of specially reported crime of a very substantial character. The number this year was 81, as against 54 last year. His Lordship was by no means an alarmist, and he trusted that the apprehensions he might be induced to feel from reading these colourless Reports might be perhaps shown not to be warranted by the result in the future. He would deal with the future later. At the time he delivered that Charge the learned Judge was referring to the following crimes committed in the county:—Twenty cases of arson, ten of moonlighting, two of firing at the person, ten of malicious injuries to property, nine of killing, cutting, and maiming cattle, and two cases of intimidation. Since that 1715 Charge there had been one murder, seven cases of arson, one of attempted arson, seven cases of moonlighting, including the case of Quirke, whom they beat about the head; his son, whom they shot in the legs; and Brosnan, whom they beat about the head. He found that Mr. Morley stated that— The number of moonlighting outrages committed in Limerick between August 22, 1892— that was when Mr. Gladstone assumed the reins of Government—and April 30th, 1893, was 17, of which nine were agrarian and eight non-agrarian. In the corresponding months of 1891–2 there was but one case of moonlighting in the county. He wished to know—and here he was addressing himself specially to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer), who on two occasions had represented Her Majesty in Ireland—how many of the men who were concerned in the 17 cases of moonlighting had been laid by the heels; and what was the course the Government proposed to take with them? Also, what was meant by "agrarian" and what by "non-agrarian" moonlighting? He had no doubt non-agrarian moonlighting meant raiding for arms or attacking houses; but, having looked with considerable care through the Returns in regard to agrarian outrages when he (Earl Spencer) was responsible as Viceroy for the government of Ireland, he found that raiding for arms and attacks on houses were included in agrarian outrages. But whether they were called agrarian or non-agrarian, these attacks on houses showed a condition of lawlessness very different to the condition which prevailed when Mr. Morley undertook the government of the country. To say that this lawlessness was confined to one small area was no excuse whatever; because, in that case, if the proper machinery were used, the perpetrators ought to be all the more easily detected and arrested. He knew well that in 1887 the condition of Limerick was very nearly as bad as that with which the Government now had to deal. And here he would again quote a Judge of Assize. Mr. Justice Johnson, on March 4, 1887, said— It is quite idle for us to shut our eyes and say there is peace where there is no peace while these things are going on throughout the country. In these nine cases no single person has been made amenable. … This state of things is disorder of the worst possible character. I hope it is not sympathy. I believe it is vastly 1716 more terror than sympathy, for people whose peaceful homes are invaded in the darkness of the night are probably greatly apprehensive that the next visit may not leave them as it left them before. It is my duty to remark this, not to point out any remedy. I can only say that the lawless state of the county shows no improvement. That was about the time when that politician, Sir G. Trevelyan, who, however able he might be, had not shown he possessed the gift either of consistency or perspicuity, enunciated the idea that the game of law and order was up in Ireland. All he could say was—Thank God they had Mr. Arthur Balfour and not Sir G. Trevelyan in power! Mr. Balfour lost no time in introducing a Crimes Act, with the result which he had already described. It was perfectly possible, by judging the statistics of crime alone, to know whether a Crimes Act was in force or not, for the simple reason that when it was not crime increased almost with the regularity of a barometer. In 1880 there were 123 cases of agrarian crime in the County of Limerick; in 1881 there were 190. That was the year of Mr. Gladstone's famous Suspects' Act. In the next year—1882—when Mr. Gladstone brought in his famous Crimes Act, they fell to 126. In 1883 there were 54 cases; 1884, 49; in 1885 they rose to 61, for the simple reason that the Crimes Act lapsed; in 1886 they rose to 67. In 1887 Mr. Balfour introduced his Crimes Act, with the result, although it was the latter part of the year, that crimes dropped to 57 cases; in 1888, to 34; in 1889, to 25; in 1890, to 26; in 1891, to 17; while in 1892 they rose to 26. In the first half of that year, when Lord Salisbury's Government was responsible, the number was less than in the latter half. The reason of that was that convictions were obtained in the Crimes Courts in the county. He did not know why the noble Earl (Earl Spencer), who administered the law with so much courage and impartiality, did not now insist on the law being administered in the same spirit which he formerly displayed. In 1887 he found there were 18 convictions; in 1888, 94; in 1889 there were 33; in 1890 they were 7; while in the last two years of the Marquess of Salisbury's administration of English and Irish affairs not a single Crimes Court was held, for there was no necessity for them, and there was, consequently, not a 1717 single conviction. When a Crimes Act was in force in Ireland and administered with firmness and impartiality crime had invariably decreased. Serious crime between 1887 and 1892 was dealt with in the same firm and fearless manner by the Irish Executive taking advantage of the power to change the venue. In Limerick, according to Mr. Morley himself, the total number of cases in which orders for change of venue and special juries were made in that period was 41. These cases, which all proceeded to trial, affected 65 accused persons, of whom 28 were convicted. The noble Lord who represented the Irish Office in that House said that by change of venue you might get special juries, but how would you get better witnesses? There was not a man who had any experience of Ireland who did not know that the evidence given out of the county in which crime was committed was very different from the evidence which would be given in the county, because out of the county the witness was free from surveillance, espionage, and intimidation. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer) knew that most of the crime in Ireland had been stopped because juries in other counties, to which the venue had been changed, were found willing to convict. He would quote various cases in which convictions had thus been obtained. From Clare, in 1890, cases were tried at Sligo, with the result that fair sentences were passed. Timothy Lalor got penal servitude for life for firing at the person; Denis Cooney, James Cooney, Martin Moloney, John Hurst, and Cornelius Howard, convicted of firing at James Donnelan, got 20 years' penal servitude; John Neylan and Thomas Tudhy got two years for moonlighting; and so on. Then with regard to Kerry cases. In his (Lord Londonderry's) Viceroyalty, Kirby and Conmane were found guilty at Wicklow for the murder of Quirke, May 7, 1888; Hayes and Moriarty wore convicted at Wicklow of the murder of James Fitzmaurice March 29, 1888; Leanlan, found guilty at Maryborough of the murder of Robinson, the schoolmaster, July 18, 1888; while in Earl Spencer's Viceroyalty Patrick Walsh, tried at Dublin before Mr. Justice Lawson, August 21, 1882, for the murder of Martin Lyden, of Lotterfrack, was sentenced to 1718 be hanged August 22; his brother, Michael Walsh, was sentenced in Dublin to be hanged for the murder of Constable Kavanagh at Lotterfrack September 29, 1882; and the Lough mask murderers were found guilty of the murder of the Huddys December 13, 1882. He would be glad to know why Mr. Gladstone had gone back from his own words? Mr. Gladstone said on April 8, 1886— In the first place, with certain exceptions, for the case of winter juries, it is impossible to depend upon the finding of a jury in a case of agrarian crime according to the facts as they are viewed by the Government, by the Judges, and by the public, I think, at large. He should be glad to know why, therefore, Mr. Gladstone did not insist upon Mr. Morley reviving change of venue? Since the O'Hagan Jury Act there had never been a conviction in any important agrarian case before a common jury, and, consequently, the repeal of the jury and venue sections of the Crimes Act was a declaration of immunity for that class of crime. He had proved beyond doubt that the condition of the County Limerick was unsatisfactory and lawless at present, and he now asked the Government to give the House some definite idea of what they were going to do. To restore law and order nothing but a revival of the clauses enabling the Government to change the venue of trials could be of any avail. He asked, were they going to allow the present state of things to continue? Mr. Morley sail— The only steps I propose to take are to continue those I have already taken—namely, to rely on the vigilance of the police, which has been attended by a decline of agrarian crime in two out of three of the counties mentioned. A more miserable answer was never given by a responsible Minister. He had been told in March that police were going to be drafted into the County Clare. But what was the use of the police in Clare? Since March 2 there had been in Clare six cases of moonlighting, four of firing at the person (including the case of Mr. Blood, which was fresh in their Lordships' recollection), one of intimidation, one of attack on the person, one of maiming cattle, and four of incendiary fires. He would read a telegram dated Ennis, just received, which had been put into his hands— About noon to-day Weldon Moloney, solicitor, Dublin, Agent to Moloney trustees in this county, was fired at and wounded near Tullas, close to where Perry was shot. 1719 Were the Government going to take no steps to put an end to such a state of things? Mr. Morley said the other day— He thought that denouncing in this case pointed an individual out to public disapproval. if it led to overt acts, or if the denunciation was so directed to the individual in question as to intimidate him in the exercise of his legal rights then the Government would interfere. Well, he would tell them at once of a case in which they ought to interfere. At a meeting held at Coore, West Clare, a few days ago, the following resolution was passed:— That we again call on all good and earnest Nationalists to assist us in putting down land-grabbing. And the newspaper from which the resolution was quoted added— Pat Donnellan, of Dunogan, and Pat Mungovan, of Clounlaheen, were censured —the former for intercourse and intimacy with the grabber Sexton, and the latter for his connection with the aiders and abbettors of the grabber. Other matters of an important nature were discussed, the consideration of which was adjourned to next meeting, when it is expected the parties concerned will be present.—Michael McMahon, Hon. Sec. That was published in the newspaper United Ireland, 20th May, 1893. As he came into the House a paper was put into his hand, in which it was stated that if a certain grabber persisted he would be denounced by name, and a circular would be sent out calling upon all patriotic Irishmen to have no dealings with him. Another meeting was also held at which a so-called land-grabber was denounced, and that meeting was presided over by Mr. J. Chines, who had been recently appointed a J.P. for Limerick by Mr. Morley. He wished Mr. Morley joy of his new man. What he wanted to know was this: Was Mr. Morley going to redeem his pledge or not? Was he going to prosecute these people or not? He had a right to demand an answer to that question. There was no use in telling him that, in order to restore peace and order in Limerick, the Government were going to draft in a certain number of policemen. The conduct of Her Majesty's Government would be far more straightforward if they got up and said that they intended to take no steps; that they intended to truckle to the Leaders of the Nationalist Party, in the House of Commons, and that they meant to hand over the loyal inhabitants of 1720 Clare, Kerry, and Limerick to the tender mercies of the moonlighters and boycotters, and not go through the farce of pretending to do something when they were doing nothing that could be of any use for protecting either their lives or their property. He addressed himself to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer) more especially, because his Lordship was constantly referred to and quoted in the House as a great authority on Irish matters, and because he knew that nothing would be done in Ireland without the noble Earl's sanction. Still more, he knew that without the noble Earl's approbation the Home Rule Bill could never have been introduced. He called upon the noble Earl to reply, either then or on the following day, to the charges and statements he had made. If Her Majesty's Government were content to remain silent, torpid, apathetic, and indifferent to the misery and crime that prevailed in Limerick; if they refused to avail themselves of the powers they had in their hands and could exercise if they had only the courage to do so for dealing with such a state of things as he had shown to exist, then on them must be the responsibility of every outrage and crime that might yet be perpetrated —on their shoulders must rest the responsibility of the blood of every unfortunate victim who might be assassinated. If they refused, they would undertake a responsibility which no honest man would undertake. He thanked God with all his heart that he could look back to the time when he was in office in Ireland and say—as all his colleagues could say—that no weight of responsibility of so horrible, disastrous, and bloodthirsty a character could ever be laid at their doors.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
Are we to expect no reply?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
We are waiting to know whether the Debate is to be adjourned.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
The noble Earl wants to know whether the Debate is to be adjourned. The speech of my noble Friend behind me no doubt requires a great deal of digestion, and time must, I suppose, be taken for that purpose. Besides, I understand that a discussion on the subject is going on in the House of Commons, and I dare say 1721 noble Lords opposite would find it convenient to ascertain before they reply what Mr. Morley has said, so us to avoid any unpleasant discrepancies. Under those circumstances, if noble Lords opposite will not do so, I am prepared to take upon myself the responsibility of moving the Adjournment of the Debate. That would be a convenient arrangement, for I understand there are several Irish Peers who wish to address the House on the question, and I am quite sure that if the reply of the noble Earl opposite is to be measured by the mass of Papers in his hands, it must occupy a considerable time. I move the Adjournment of the Debate, and I suppose that it may have precedence over the Business for tomorrow.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
My noble Friend is perfectly ready to give the answer now, and we are certainly not open to the remarks of the noble Marquess. Probably, as other Peers wish to address the House, my noble Friend would like to hear more upon the subject. As to the figments of the noble Marquess, they may he very convenient jokes at the moment, but we know that they have no foundation in fact.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I entirely sympathise with the noble Earl, and I think it would be inconvenient that it should become a precedent for one speech to be made and the Debate then adjourned interfering with the business of the next evening. Quite admitting that the practice should not be made a precedent, I think that course would on the present occasion be very convenient.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
I do not think the business for to-morrow will throw any obstacle in the way, and I have no objection to the Adjournment of the Debate.