Lords Sitting of 3 March 1893

Preamble
The Lord Clarina—Took the Oath.
PROBATION OF FIRST OFFENDERS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the Lord President whether Her Majesty's Government would follow up the Home Office Circular of 25th April, 1892, by making the Probation of First Offenders Act, 1887, compulsory in cases of theft by offenders under 20 years of age; and if Her Majesty's Government would amend the Education Act of 1870 in accordance with the recommendation of the majority of the Royal Commission on Education contained in paragraph 60 of the Report dated 27th June, 1888. He said he was sorry he had been unable to comply with a request that he would separate the two questions, for they hung together, and could not be separated. By the efforts of the late Lords Fitzgerald and Milltown the extension of the First Offenders Act, 1887, to Ireland, which had been opposed in the House of Commons by Mr. Healy, was carried out by their Lordships. A Home Office Circular, signed by Sir Godfrey Lushington, and dated 25th April, 1892, was sent to all the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, urging them to make more use of the Act. Sir Horatio Lloyd, Chairman of the Chester Quarter Sessions, stated there last June that he had received the Circular, and that he had put the Act in force in 15 cases; he spoke highly of it, and of the desirability of not sending boys to prison to be contaminated, but two stipendiary magistrates had told him that they had disregarded them. About the same time an undergraduate at Cambridge, who was 19 years of age and who had taken a good degree, carried off some books from the town and University libraries. He did not sell or pawn them, and when he was brought before the magistrate he pleaded guilty, and got a sentence of eight months. It was believed that he had gone off his head from over-pressure; and he himself and the sitting Member, and also his
  918
  opponent at the elections, had all made representations to the Home Secretary to induce him to give this young fellow the advantage of the First Offenders Act, but Mr. Matthews, with much inconsistency, was obdurate, and, in spite of the Circulars he had issued throughout the country, would do nothing. Last winter a boy of 14 stole some silk and was sentenced to two months' imprisonment at Macclesfield. Petitions numerously signed were sent from that town to Mr. Asquith to give him the benefit of the Act; but Mr. Asquith also was obdurate, and the boy finished his two months, and since that time had gone to a home. Meantime the newspapers said that further Circulars had been sent by the Home Secretary to the Magistrates at Macclesfield urging the use of the Act. Assuming that the Act was a good one—and all the Law Lords in the House had supported it—and that it was a necessary Act, since the Magistrates did not sufficiently use their discretion, it would appear that the discretion of the Home Office was not to be trusted, and it would therefore be better to make the Act compulsory for all thefts by first offenders under 20 years of age. But a stronger argument was that it would be a great injustice to condemn to prison boys who had not been taught any better. Many of the Board school children received no religious instruction whatever, and it was not fair to thus condemn young offenders who had not been taught to discriminate between right and wrong. This amendment of the First Offenders Act was, in short, the necessary corollary of the Education Act of 1870. Mr. Justice Stephens, in his history of the Criminal Law, had shown that the Criminal Law was an expansion of the second table of the Decalogue, and that the Catechism taught children to observe the Decalogue and the Criminal Law. There was a legislative precedent for such an amendment—every dog might have his first bite; every boy his first theft. If anyone said that was not a precedent for human beings he would reply that the Education Act of 1870 brought up the boys in Boards schools worse than dogs, for dogs are born with true and honest instincts, whilst those of mankind were of the contrary nature. He might be asked why he had restricted

  919
  himself to the Eighth Commandment. He had done so on account of the great difference between theft and murder. He would call attention to the difference between the Sixth and Eighth Commandments. Everybody had an instinctive horror of murder; but it was only religion that inculcated the difference between meum and tuum. The natural instinct of man was not in favour of an observance of the Eighth Commandment, and man was always inclined to follow his predatory instincts. With primitive man and with all men not under the influence of religion might was right. With us a pirate was hostis humani generis, but with the ancient as well as the modern Greeks it was a title of honour, and etymologically it meant a man who endeavoured to get his livelihood. Again, klepht, a robber, was a title of distinction in modern Greece. That the natural instinct of man was towards theft was proved by both language and customs. The ancient Britons had no word for stealing; and the Eighth Commandment in Welsh had to be rendered by a Latin word, "Na ladratta;" there was, indeed, another word in Welsh, but it only meant "to bear" or "to carry," in the sense of Shakespeare's "convey." Mountaineers, again, had always plundered the plains, and a Welsh war-song had the words given by Mr. Peacock—
  "The mountain sheep are sweeter, But the valley sheep are fatter; We therefore deemed it meeter To carry off the latter."
  On the other hand, men made use of euphemisms to disguise theft; the Borderers called cattle stealing, cattle lifting, and Disendowment was the Parliamentary word for plundering a Church. In fact, wherever there was no religion, or where it was disregarded or obscured by ambition there was no difference between the instincts of a pre-historic man with a bigger stone-axe than his neighbours, or those of the Leader of a Parliamentary majority. With regard to the Education Act of 1870, the country had learned much by experience, and had lost many of the illusions with which Mr. Forster introduced it. The 3d. rate, which he in his optimism said was all it would cost the country, soon increased beyond four times that amount in many places, and we had not yet seen
  920
  the end of its cost. But worst of all had been the deception of those who trusted to Mr. Cowper Temple, and we had lost belief in what he and his friends called "common Christianity," which was expected to cause the Board schools to teach religion much as the voluntary schools did. It should rather be called Christianity reduced to its lowest terms; and "common" had now more the sense in which it was used by St. Peter in describing his vision at Joppa. The Bishop of St. Asaph proved, not long ago in the leading journal, the truth of his assertion that in Wales the teaching of central doctrine of Christianity was in precarious hands. How could it be otherwise when creeds, catechisms, the Decalogue, and the Bible were excluded from 37 Board schools in two counties of Wales? Even in the voluntary schools religious education was much restricted and hampered. Whether in the case of pre-historic man, of Board school children taught no religion, or of people who disregarded it or had forgotten it, the distinction between meum and tuum was soon lost. He would not refer to what went on in another place, but would ask what other explanation could be given of the Lord President's statement in that House a few nights ago that no Irish landlord had been robbed. The people who could, but would not, pay rent, and followed out the Plan of Campaign, had robbed their landlords. The Pope himself had condemned that as dishonest, and surely the Lord President was not going to set himself up as a better judge of morals than the Pope? He would ask the Lord President whether he would consider the necessity of re-establishing religious education in the schools throughout the country? Whether crime had increased or not was uncertain; it was denied by Sir Edmund Du Cane in this month's Nineteenth Century, but it was certain that the moral condition of the country had deteriorated, and fraud and dishonesty leading to suicide had increased. He would ask the Lord President to take into consideration the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Education, and to re-establish at least the Catechism, the necessity of which had been so well pointed out by Mr. Justice Stephen. The London School

  921
  Board had at last voted by 37 to 8 in favour of Christian moral instructional the schools. From Mr. Gladstone they were accustomed to hear what they did not often hear from other people, and also it perhaps mattered little what might be the opinions of the noble Earl as Lord President, but in his other capacity of Secretary of State for India it certainly was of importance that he should not show indifference to religion when he had in his care the destiny and welfare of 40,000,000 Mussulmans and 200,000,000 Hindoos, who, though idolaters, were deeply religious subjects of Her Majesty.
  LORD ROOKWOODasked the noble Lord representing the Home Office to pause before assenting to the idea of making the probation of first offenders compulsory, and to consider the difficulties which might arise in pursuing such a course. He had a good deal to do with this Act in another place, and since then, as Chairman of Quarter Sessions, he had seen the Act put into force; and he believed one of the greatest advantages of the Act was that, when a young criminal was convicted, a householder was bound over to bring him up during 12 months if called upon. In his judgment that provision was the greatest incentive to a young man not to commit a second offence, and to lead an honest life. He therefore hoped the application of the Act would not be made, as proposed, compulsory, and therefore ineffective.
  LORD VERNON: The noble Lord has asked two questions rolled into one, and has travelled in doing so over such an enormous extent of ground that it would take all the few Members of the Liberal Party present in your Lordships' House to fully answer him. I shall only deal with the first, because the second does not concern the Department for which I am instructed to respond. He asks that the Probation of First Offenders Act shall be made compulsory in cases of theft by offenders under 20 years of age. The heading of the Act as it now stands is, "An Act to permit the conditional release of First Offenders in certain cases." The provisions of the Probation of First Offenders Act, as well as similar provisions in Section 16 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, are no doubt, very useful when applied in appropriate cases, and a Home Office Circular issued in
  922
  April, 1892, recommended magistrates to take more frequent advantage of them. As the noble Lord has read the circular that was issued to all Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, I will not read it again; but in it noble Lords will observe that a very small percentage of persons dealt with under the Act have been called upon to appear and receive judgment, or were known to the police to have been subsequently convicted of a fresh offence. The Secretary of State, in these circumstances, felt justified in issuing the Circular urging on magistrates the advisability of making more general use of these enactments. But to make their application compulsory in all cases of persons under 20 convicted of larceny, without regard to the circumstances of the individual case, would be most mischievous. It would be an intimation that children and youths under 20 might safely go on committing theft until they had been at least once convicted. This would not only affect children of the criminal classes, but would put temptation in the way of young servants and employés. It would also be an inducement to older criminals to corrupt children and young persons and employ them in crime, as they could tell them that even if caught they would not be punished. The application of the powers under the Act are clearly a matter for judicial discretion. The question asked by the noble Lord may bear some fruit by accentuating the Home Office Circular of April, 1892, but I am sure that he would not wish to press forward anything that might increase criminal actions by younger members of our population.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, my noble Friend who asks the question will not think me guilty of discourtesy to him in asking my noble Friend behind me to answer that part of it relating to the Home Office. I know that my noble Friend is anxious that I should not be over-burdened with work, and I will point out to him that having already two Departments to answer for it is scarcely reasonable to call upon me to reply for a third. I will, however, say a few words with regard to that part of the noble Lord's question which refers to the Home Office, because I hold a very strong opinion

  923
  upon the matter. I regret that more advantage is not taken of the Act, and I hope that magistrates will avail themselves more frequently of the power granted by the Act. I gathered from my noble Friend that we ought to put in the same class pre-historic man and Board school scholars. He also gave us a very interesting digest of the Ten Commandments, and he gave a certain character to the Welsh people which they might hardly be inclined to accept. I am not quite sure whether he finally acquitted them of a predilection for stealing, but as far as I could discover he came to the conclusion that stealing was not naturally a crime in the eyes of mankind, and he thereupon drew the somewhat curious conclusion that it was desirable first offenders should not be punished. I must say that I do not see the connection in logic between the two proposals. I am not going to revive the old controversy which raged so fiercely concerning the Cowper-Temple Clause and the kind of religious instruction which was given in Board schools, but unless I am wrongly informed, except in a minority of those schools, religious instruction of a certain kind is given. I am sure my noble Friend will recognise that, and also what has been done in the London Board schools, where the resolution he approves has just been come to. I do not think it would be at all desirable to re-open this very difficult question—and certainly not on this occasion—of the precise amount of religious instruction which should or can be given in those schools which are attended by children belonging to so many religious denominations. Every right-minded man I suppose would desire that his children should be brought up religiously and morally; but into the mode in which religions instruction should be given in Board schools I must respectfully decline to enter now. The noble Lord may, however, I think, console himself, for I have never heard that there is any connection between Board schools and crime, and when the noble Lord is able to show that a larger percentage of Board school scholars than of children in other schools or from the remaining portion of the population are addicted to crime, I have no doubt that his statement will be carefully examined into, and will, if necessary, form the subject of inquiry.

THE STATE OF CLARE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYasked Her Majesty's Government whether their attention had been called to the Charge of Mr. Justice O'Brien, who, addressing the Grand Jury of the County Clare, at Ennis, was reported to have stated that—
  "The picture which the Constabulary Returns made presented to his mind a condition of lawlessness in the county far exceeding in amount that which came under his or the Grand Jury's experience in past times, and destined, he feared, unless checked by some vigorous hand, to increase. The facts were all known to the Grand Jury, who were aware there was no security for life in this County of Clare, and property was not more secure than life. What was more, a system of intimidation existed which was carried into all the relations of private, and domestic life, and carried into all the relations that arose out of trade and every kind of occupation in the county;"
  and what steps Her Majesty's Government had taken to cope with so appalling a condition of affairs? He said: My Lords, having postponed the question of which I have given notice from yesterday until to-day, I may be asked whether it is absolutely necessary to put it now, as the same subject was under discussion last night in another place; but when I see present so many noble Lords closely connected with Irish affairs, especially my noble Friend the Lieutenant of County Clare, who will be able to supplement the facts and figures brought forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Tyrone and Armagh in another place, I think it is important that everything connected with Clare should be discussed in your Lordships' House in the present state of affairs in Ireland, and seeing the deplorable condition (which nobody can contradict) of that county itself. If the Debate had not taken place last night I should have thought that steps would be promised to be taken by Her Majesty's Government to bring about a totally different state of affairs, but I fear I may not receive the answer which would satisfy everybody to whom the interests and welfare of the poor and law-abiding population of Ireland is dear. Without any scruples as to the unhappy necessity, I should have thought it would have been the absolute duty of the Government to proclaim County Clare and to revive the

  925
  clause which enables a change of venue to take place. I had intended, had I had the opportunity last night of discussing this question, to have brought the condition of Clare fully before your Lordships, and the enormous and horrible class of crime there; but after the Debate last night I think that is unnecessary. I think also that it is not necessary I should detain your Lordships by giving details showing that County Clare is in a most unsatisfactory and disgraceful condition. The Chief Secretary for Ireland himself declared last night that the state of Clare was one of "demoralisation and lawlessness." Your Lordships may remember that on the occasion of the Address I ventured to dwell at considerable length on the unsatisfactory state of affairs at that time existing in Clare and Kerry. I laid special stress on the action of the Clare magistrates, and drew attention to a meeting of magistrates at which they unanimously called upon the Government to take such steps as might be needed, if necessary, by legislation, to put an end to a state of affairs which was a disgrace to any civilised society. Those remarks and resolutions of public bodies have been, as far as I can gather, entirely ignored by the Government up to the present moment, but I do not think any Administration, even the present Government, dare ignore the Charge of Mr. Justice O'Brien. The Times in its report omits some words from the Charge of the Judge which greatly strengthens the case—
  "Unless some power intervenes of greater efficiency than mere judicial statement or interposition, I cannot but foresee that this evil will go on increasing"
  —by that he meant lawlessness. I read in The Times to-day that at the conclusion of the Assizes Mr. Justice O'Brien, again addressing the Grand Jury, said—
  "I consider it my duty now to draw the attention of those who are charged with the maintenance of the law and the preservation of life and property and all civil society to the result of the present Assizes, which is, that no kind of security any longer exists for property, for the person or life, so far as it depends on the law in the County of Clare."
  The gist of Mr. Justice O'Brien's weighty remarks is that, in his opinion, such a state of intimidation existed in the County of Clare at the present time
  926
  that it is impossible to get juries to convict, because they believe that if they dared to convict those whom they believe to be guilty, and therefore ought to be convicted, their lives would be made a burden to them. What was evidently in the mind of his Lordship was that without a change of venue it is absolutely impossible to obtain convictions of law-breakers and criminals. No doubt it is possible in Ireland, as in England and Scotland, to change the venue under the ordinary law; but the clause which I myself when in Ireland found so useful enables the venue to be changed without the complicated processes which are necessary under the general system. I hope that the special clause which we found so necessary in Ireland was suspended in ignorance by the present Chief Secretary, who could not have been in Office a week before he got rid of it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman had no ulterior motive; but he could scarcely have taken such a step if he had consulted those who had special knowledge and experience of Ireland. I think he would have done well to have done so, for he should have known that his own experience of the condition of that country was absolutely worthless. If he had consulted those who had that knowledge and experience he would have found that it was nothing new for County Clare to be in this unsatisfactory condition, for when I undertook the responsibility of the Government of Ireland, the County of Clare was in precisely the same condition as now; lawlessness abounded in all directions. In addressing the Grand Jury in 1887, Mr. Justice O'Brien said—
  "All these Returns which I have before me, and the information which has reached me from other quarters of an unquestionably authentic character, lead me to the conclusion that law, to a great extent, has ceased to exist in the county."
  At that time, in the early spring of 1887, no power existed for grappling with that condition of lawless crime and outrage; but we were not apathetic, and we were not disposed to let that condition of things continue. Mr. Balfour appealed to Parliament, which granted him the powers necessary for grappling with the evil. The exercise of those powers was followed by a decrease of crime, for the Returns showed that there were 153 in 1887, 104 in 1888, when the Crimes Act

  927
  had begun to work, 63 in 1889, and 52 in 1890. Now I wish to ask the noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer), who administered in Ireland a stringent Coercion Act with ability and severity, the reason why Mr. Morley relaxed the powers of secret inquiry and change of venue, which had been found so useful, a step which he could not have taken without the approval in the Cabinet of the noble Earl himself. I am beginning to learn that the noble Earl's usual method is to ignore the question and reprove me for using strong language; but he will admit that I have now abstained from using strong language, although if it were ever permissible it would certainly be on the present occasion. Language too strong could not be brought to bear upon those who watch with apathy, unconcern, and absolute indifference the miseries daily perpetrated on the humble but law-abiding population of Clare, and do not lift one finger to bring to justice the miscreants who wrought those miseries. Then I would ask the noble Earl to give some statistics of the number of arrests as compared with the number of offences; but I do not ask for statistics of convictions of those found guilty of outrages, simply because it is hopelessly impossible, as we find from Mr. Justice O'Brien's Charge, to obtain convictions in County Clare. It may be true that the condition of Clare is not worse now than it was under Mr. Jackson, Mr. Balfour, and Sir M. Hicks-Beach, but surely that is no reason for relaxing the powers necessary to bring offenders to justice. Neither is it any answer to say, as the Lord Chancellor has said, that Ireland, as a whole, is in a satisfactory condition, notwithstanding the condition of Clare, because the humblest inhabitant of Clare is entitled to protection equally with any inhabitant of the most prosperous county in Ireland, and I hold that the Government are as responsible for the protection of those inhabitants of Clare who are so frequently shot at, but fortunately, owing to the miscreants' inability to hit, are seldom actually murdered, as for that of the Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary in their respective Lodges in the Phœnix Park. I believe the noble Earl is as anxious as anyone that Clare should be in a comfortable position; but if the present Government are un-
  928
  able to bring about the change they desire what would be the state of Clare with a Parliament on College Green, led by the men who have advocated and gloried in intimidation and boycotting? Miserable as the people now are, they are living in paradise as compared with the hell upon earthwhich would then exist. Remember, my Lords, that if Home Rule is ever granted these are the people who will be the first to suffer at the hands of a Parliament in Dublin. What course does Her Majesty's Government propose to take? I maintain that it is their duty to revive the clauses they have suspended, and to proclaim the County of Clare, in spite of the threat of Mr. William Redmond that he will oppose them if they do so. If they are conscientious they will put that threat on one side, proclaim the county, and earn the gratitude of every law-abiding man who lives in it. In The Times of to-day I read that Mr. Justice Gibson, in opening the Limerick Assizes the previous day, said, addressing the Grand Jury, with regard to the general condition of the county, that—
  "There was in the Constabulary Returns evidence of a very formidable state of affairs; there was an increase of specially-reported crimes as compared with last year, the number being 81 as against 54 last year; and, commenting on some of the cases, he said that to his mind they showed two things—one a certain amount of hardy lawlessness in the community, and the other an utter and highly objectionable disregard on the part of those who were the victims of these outrages to come forward and give evidence."
  I propose at an early day to draw attention to this Charge of Mr. Justice Gibson's, because, if my memory serves me right, the Judge of Assize at this time last year had a totally different account to give of the condition of that county. My Lords, I beg to ask the question which stands in my name.
  LORD ACTON: My Lords, the noble Marquess warned us the other day that he meant to continue dredging his convenient newspapers, avowedly without taking any very great care to inquire into or verify their statements, and apparently with no great solicitude whether he thereby made the Government of Ireland, once committed to his hands, more difficult and dangerous to his successor. When I saw the paragraph to which he has given the sanction of an illustrious name, and which he has nailed to the

  929
  pillory for too many days, I thought he had missed an unusally good opportunity of avoiding a mis-statement. The words which he quotes as those of the learned Judge were spoken by him; but they have been rather ingeniously dove-tailed from different parts of his speech, and still more ingeniously separated from their context. They are remarkable by their isolation, and remarkable by their companionship. The learned Judge remembered the days of old, and the lamented sway of the noble Marquess, and, as I learn from an authentic report, spoke as follows:—
  "Traditions of lawlessness have existed in this county for a long period of time that cannot with any degree of accuracy or justice be attributed to recent causes, but still I must say"—
  and then comes in the portion of that statement which has been given by the noble Marquess—later on comes another portion. Then he said—
  "There are 117 cases reported to the Constabulary since the Summer Assizes last year. The number is slightly less than that reported for the corresponding period of last year," he means the preceding year, "but so far as my information leads me to know, the total of crime is distributed nearly equally over the whole period of the year, and it will not be accurate to attribute it to any change that has recently been made affecting the administration of the law."
  Having said that, the learned Judge remembered the days of old and the lamented sway of the noble Marquess, and spoke of the past. He invites us, in the terms which have been referred to, to look back, to go into the figures, and to consider what happened in former times. My Lords, I have done so. I have carefully examined the detailed Returns. I did so yesterday, and the postponement of the question has enabled me to do so again to-day. I have not been able to discover evidence of increasing lawlessness here imputed. I will go into no numerous figures. The whole town is full of figures to-day, and I will give you as few as possible. Here is the latest Return of agrarian outrages, specially reported in Clare during the six months ending the last day of February, and compared with the last corresponding period in 1891–2, that is to say, it contains the first six months of the present Administration as compared with the corresponding six months under the former Government: Murder and firing at the person, two in the earlier period, three in
  930
  the later; incendiary fires, six, which have fallen to three; killing or maiming cattle, five, which have fallen to two; threatening letters, 14, which have fallen to 10; firing into dwellings, two, which have fallen to one; injury to property, four, which have fallen to one; riot or demand for arms were none, but have been in this period two. The totals are 33 cases, which have gone down to 22. I am very far indeed, my Lords, from quoting these figures as satisfactory, for there is an increase in cases of attempted murder, and I know that the test of morality and security is not the number of murders committed, but of murders attempted, and of those unfortunately we have three. Nevertheless, by every rule of arithmetic, I can discern no actual increase in crime. I pass to the question of Constabulary. In March, 1892, there was an extra force in Clare of 144 men, and a reserve of 24. This was then reduced to 109 and 12. Whether this measure was a wise one, or whether it ought to be reversed, is a question now seriously engaging the attention of the Irish Government. But it is clearly a proof that neither the late Government nor the Grand Jury of the county thought the condition of things a year ago appalling, when it was certainly not better than now. My Lords, the specific evil in Clare is not the aggravation of crime, but the impunity of crime. The learned Judge has stated that, in his opinion, the remedy is change of venue. I listen with respect to the observations of the learned Judge, as I do to everything I do not understand, and I should be glad to think him right. But I cannot see how that can be. By change of venue you get a different Jury; but how do you expect to get a better witness? On this point, however, it is difficult to form an opinion at present. I should be glad to think that the thing was possible, but we cannot consider that it is in any way promising until we have been enabled to examine more closely the results obtained by the late Government in the cases when it resorted to that expedient.
  THE EARL OF ARRANasked what was the source from which the noble Lord had quoted Mr. Justice O'Brien's Charge?
  LORD ACTON: I quoted from what I think was the organ of Dublin Castle in the time of the noble Marquess.
  THE EARL OF ARRAN: The noble Lord said he learned the facts from an authentic report.
  LORD ACTON: I said it was authentic in this sense—that I have received information from some person who heard it that it was strictly accurate.
  THE EARL OF ARRAN: What was the paper?
  LORD ACTON: It was The Irish Times.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid it was with regret and shame that he felt compelled to address their Lordships again, as he had unfortunately had to do on more than one occasion during the last 20 years, on the condition of the County Clare. That condition was now so serious that even if the learned Judge had not thought fit to make the important remarks he had made at Clare Assizes, he should have felt it was his duty to call their Lordships' attention to the present condition of that county. On the 21st of January he, as Lord Lieutenant of the county, called a meeting of the Magistrates to consider this matter. It had been said that he ought to have called them together at an earlier period, and he would state the reason why he did not think it advisable to do so. There was no doubt that the condition of the county had been anything but satisfactory during the last 10 or 12 years, but he must ask their Lordships to go back for a moment to consider what was the whole origin of the existing state of things. It commenced, first of all, 12 years ago by the formation of the Land League. At that time he protested against allowing a body of that kind to go on without check or hindrance, and he could not get people to understand the mischief that was being wrought, but now they had a specimen of it before them. Before the formation of the Land League Clare was comparatively quiet; but during the last 10 years crime and outrage, previously infinitesimal, had varied from 200 to 300 serious cases. In 1887, speaking from memory, he made an earnest appeal to Her Majesty's Ministers—the Conservatives were then in power—upon the state of things that then existed, and that very night a most brutal and terrible murder of an emergency man was committed not far from where he lived. After that the Crimes Act was brought in, and, as far as he
  932
  and others were able to see, that Act was working its way gradually, and putting down crime. Upon the question of change of venue, he would like to answer what he heard Mr. Morley say last night in the House of Commons. Mr. Morley seemed to think that this change of venue was of very little importance, and he said that there were only two cases in which it had been put in force in the County Clare. But when the venue was changed to Sligo convictions were obtained, and those convictions had a considerable effect in the County Clare. He believed that convictions were also obtained in Cork. Therefore, he maintained that change of venue was of the very utmost importance. Another thing which Mr. Morley said was that the Magistrates, at a meeting over which he (Lord Inchiquin) presided, had made no suggestions as to what should be done. Now, he did not think it was within the province of the Magistrates to make suggestions as to what ought to be done in regard to the government of the country. Their business was to carry out the law, and to see that it was respected. But it so happened that in this case the Magistrates did make suggestions at his instance. Mr. Morley last night alluded to two resolutions which the Magistrates had passed; there were seven in all. The first expressed regret at the return of lawlessness. The Returns connected with crime last year were sent to him monthly, as Lord Lieutenant of the county, by the police, and apparently they were not classed in the same way as the Government quoted them. They simply gave what the crime was, and if anyone had been made amenable. Taking the whole of the Returns for last year, he divided them into two classes, serious and less serious crime, and he challenged the Government to say that the figures were not correct. He called such offences as malicious burning, firing into dwellings, and firing at the person serious crime. Mr. Morley said that during last year there was no murder in the County Clare. But, at all events, there had been three or four attempts at murder. As to what were considered less serious crimes, such as threatening letters, he must say that they were not of such slight importance as some people imagined. There were many cases in which it had

  933
  come under his observation that threatening letters had been followed within a very short time by the threatened persons being fired at and sometimes killed. No one who received threatening letters could feel in a very comfortable position. He might have to be out by night and at times when he might be exposed to great danger, and if a person received letters of that kind what security had he that the threats would not be carried out? In the month of January, 1892, there were nine serious crimes committed in Clare and six less serious; in February there were five serious and nine less serious; in March, six serious crimes; in April five; in May seven; in June eight; or a total of 40 serious crimes in the first half of last year, and 62 less serious. During the last half of the year there were 43 serious and 44 less serious, so that the serious crimes of the last half exceeded the total of the first half of the year by three. But what were those serious crimes? On October 17 Michael Hogan's house was fired into, and à propos of that he would mention that last night the Chief Secretary talked very lightly of houses being fired into. On that occasion no one was killed, but in very many cases there were murderous results. Only three months ago he passed two houses in the West of Clare which had been fired into at night a few years ago with fatal results. In one case Mr. Moloney, who was sitting by his fireside, was shot dead. In the second case his attention was drawn to a house where the broken glass had been replaced by brown paper, and a girl showed him the bed she was sleeping on when her sister was shot dead by her side. Those cases had happened only within the last year or two. A day or two after Michael Hogan's house was fired into his cattle were mutilated, and what could be more horrible than the mutilation of dumb animals? On December 5, a very few days after the other outrages, Mr. Thomas Crowe, a magistrate of the county and a deputy-lieutenant, was fired at, and his coachman, who was sitting behind him, was shot in the back of the head. In another case two or three ruffians, with blackened faces, entered the house of the Misses Brown in the evening and told them if they did not dismiss a certain man in their employment they would be shot, and they fired at those helpless girls and then left. Were not
  934
  such things as bad as murder? And close to that spot, Mr. Perry, the agent, was murdered last year. On January 3 bailiffs went to assist Captain O'Callaghan at Bodyke in seizing cattle; but the place was surrounded by men who fired from the hills down upon the bailiffs. All these crimes and another of the same kind were committed between October 17 and January 17, and they were all of a serious character. Now, to deal with such a state of things it was absolutely necessary, in the first place, that the Government should renew the Crimes Act. He had had a much longer experience of County Clare — where he had resided almost entirely for the last 20 years—than Mr. Morley, and his experience was quite contrary to that of Mr. Morley's. Mr. Morley had said on the previous evening that secret societies did not exist in Clare. He was as convinced that they did exist as he was convinced that he was standing in their Lordships' House. On every occasion during the last few years when it was thought advisable by the Nationalists to increase outrages, crimes had followed at once. The proportion of free police to the population in Clare was actually less than in Kildare—one of the most peaceful counties in Ireland. It was true that the Grand Jury last year asked for a decrease of the police force; but that was only on the ground of expense. The present Government had at their backs a power which the late Government never possessed—the power of the priests; but even with that aid they had not been able to suppress outrages and secret societies. If these things were done now, what would happen when the police force was disbanded under the Home Rule Bill? There would then be no chance whatever of rents being collected or of contracts being fulfilled. There was no earthly reason for the proposal to disband the existing police force, except that the Nationalists who supported the Government demanded that it should be done. With regard to the withdrawal of the troops by the late Government, objections were entertained by the Military Authorities to breaking up regiments into small detachments; but, if necessary, Government should again send troops into the county, even if the discipline of the regiments should be a little put out by it. Compensation, or "blood-money" as it

  935
  was called, should also be paid in cases of murderous outrage, as recommended by the Magistrates. It was now the interest of Nationalists and priests alike to keep the country quiet at present while Home Rule was being debated in Parliament, otherwise the attention of the country would be drawn to the probable results if the Government policy was carried out, but they were nevertheless unable to stop these crimes and outrages. He had not intended to treat this matter in a political light, but he would ask their Lordships to consider what would happen then with the police disbanded, as proposed by the Home Rule Bill? He apologised for having detained their Lordships, but he was anxious to answer the statements so recently made by the Chief Secretary.
  EARL COWPERsaid that for obvious reasons noble Lords from Ireland should not be left to discuss this subject alone, but they ought to know that they had the sympathy of those whose personal interests were not involved. The matter was very serious. A Judge, with all the responsibility of his station, and accustomed to weigh his words, described the state of Clare in the gravest language, alleging that there was no security for life in the county; that a system of intimidation was carried into all the relations of private life; and that property was little more secure than life itself. No statistics could explain that away. The attempt had been made to show that things had been as bad under the late Government. That tu quoque argument might be good as against the late Government; but it afforded no comfort to those connected with Ireland, or to those who had nothing to do with the late Government. It was no reason for the present Government being unable or unwilling to deal with the existing state of things. Besides, the mere fact that the present state of lawlessness had now gone on for another year made it much worse. During the late Government there were a certain number of people who encouraged crime in order to make government impossible; but now, although their influence was in an opposite direction, yet crime was practically at the same point, showing that the spirit of the country was worse than before. Figures could not be entirely relied on as the only test of the disturbed state of the country. There was a general feeling in the
  936
  atmosphere, a state of terror amongst the inhabitants, which could only be judged of by those who went amongst the people. A Judge was in communication with all sorts of men, and was in a position to gauge the general feeling. The Constabulary, also, were able to tell when there was danger abroad; and he believed that the statement of Mr. Justice O'Brien was founded very much on the Returns of the police. It would be interesting to see what those Return were. They had been asked for in the other House, but had been refused. Probably, if they had been of a reassuring character, they would have been produced. No answer had been given to the case brought forward in both Houses, and no assurances had been given that the present state of things would, in some way or another, be put an end to. The chief thing complained of by Mr. Justice O'Brien was not so much the amount of crime as the amount of intimidation and the' difficulty of obtaining convictions. He distinctly said there were seven cases, and those seven cases were not a fair representation of the amount of crime, in which he pointed out the impossibility of obtaining a conviction, in spite of every attempt having been made to stir up the juries to a sense of their duties, and to induce them to do what they ought to have done. But they were frightened, and the only remedy was a change of venue. The difference between the present time and a year ago in the feelings of the unfortunate inhabitants of Clare was that then they knew that by a stroke of the pen the Government could reintroduce any clause of the Crimes Act, if they found it necessary, and could in a very short time put a stop to what was going on. No doubt the Government could do this now, but it would require a distinct going back from what they had said during the last six years, and he doubted if they would so far humiliate themselves. That showed the danger of using, even in Opposition, unbridled language, because they might have known that the time might come when they would be responsible, and when they would be so hampered by the rash statements they had made that they would find their hands tied. The present Government found their hands tied now because prominent Members of it

  937
  had gone about the country denouncing what they called coercion, which consisted of measures that they in their own hearts must have known to have been necessary. He hoped that they would have sufficient public spirit, if the present state of things continued in Clare, even at the expense of personal humiliation to use the great and sufficient powers already in their hands.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he was surprised to see noble Lords opposite taking up the line that no case had been made out showing an increase of crime in Clare since the present Government came into power, and that being the case they seemed unable to understand what there was to complain of. He assured them that in bringing forward the question of the lawless condition of the County of Clare noble Lords on his side of the House had not been actuated by any political or Party motives whatever. They did not desire to make out that crime had particularly increased since the present Government came into Office. They wanted to know what steps the Government were going to take to put down the present state of things. If his noble Friends had been actuated by Party motives they would surely rather rejoice than otherwise at the state of things in Clare, because it presented a sort of object-lesson of what would take place in Ireland if the Bill for the repeal of the Union should become law. It would be of immense value from a Party and partisan point of view. He did not rely much upon the statistics as to crime in Ireland, nor did he know exactly what constituted agrarian crime and what differentiated it from crime not agrarian, but he would be curious to know whether the mere fact that the Crimes Act had been withdrawn from the County of Clare would not in itself diminish the amount of crime as reported by the police. His impression was that simple intimidation, unaccompanied by violence, was not, except in a few cases, a crime, either at Common Law or by Statute, but it was a crime under the Coercion Act, and therefore if that Act were withdrawn it was perfectly obvious that a large proportion of crimes would disappear, because those offences would not then be crimes which should be reported by the police. Noble Lords opposite seemed to look upon the present state of
  938
  crime in Clare as a matter of very little importance. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had put shooting into houses in the same category as football or hockey, or anything of that kind. It might be very amusing to the people who fired, but it was not so amusing to the people fired at. The general attitude of the Government towards the condition of Clare was not one to inspire the country with very much confidence in them. When the late Government came into Office they were in a very difficult position, for they had to re-introduce civilisation into a completely demoralised country in the face of the avowed determination of the leaders of the Nationalist Party to make it impossible to govern Ireland, and Members of the present Government and their Party assisted the Nationalist leaders with great ability by their speeches and by their general attitude. Since the present Government had been in power their allies or leaders—he did not know which to call them—the Nationalists, had done their utmost to keep the country quiet. But the Nationalist Party were powerless to allay the evil spirits which they had themselves raised, and the men who would form the first Executive Government in Ireland would be equally powerless. It was lamentable to hear from a Judge's Charge to a Grand Jury recently that the terrible state of things in Clare was also rapidly spreading into the neighbouring County of Limerick. The condition of that county had so improved between 1887 and 1892 that it might fairly claim to be, in respect of crime, the model county of the South of Ireland. The noble Lord opposite seemed to think that change of venue would have little effect because you could not change the witnesses, but the learned Judge strongly pressed home his opinion that criminal proceedings should be taken entirely out of Clare on account of the manner in which juries were intimidated. He would ask whether Her Majesty's Government intended to take any steps to carry out that opinion; and, if not, what steps they intended to take to restore Clare to something like a state of law and order?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, I think it is quite necessary I should say a few words in reply to the

  939
  speeches which have been made on this subject. I shall not be led, as I might be tempted, into illustrating our future policy for Ireland by incidents which have taken place in this Debate. I shall wait until the proper opportunity for discussing that question comes before your Lordships, and then I shall not in any way shrink from defending the principles which Her Majesty's Government have put forward. Anybody listening to the Debate which has taken place in this House to-night would suppose that Her Majesty's Government were going to say that they consider the state of Clare satisfactory. The Government, as your Lordships know, have no such opinion. They consider the condition of Clare most unsatisfactory. They consider it, I imagine, as unsatisfactory as do noble Lords opposite, and they desire to rectify the existing state of things and to restore law and order to all the subjects of Her Majesty in that county. The real question is one of administration—what is the best method to adopt in order to remedy the evils which are complained of? In the course of the remarks that I shall make, I shall try to show that Her Majesty's Government have not neglected anything which they could properly do, nor any measures which might be expected to yield satisfactory results. But before I go into that I should like to refer to remarks and appeals of the noble Marquess with whom I am sorry to be so constantly in difference of opinion in this House. He imputed to me that I am, so to speak, rather apt in answering him "having a bad case, to abuse his clients' attorney," and he said that when he puts questions to me I accuse him of using strong language. I am afraid the noble Marquess does not differ from some of his compatriots in that respect; he does frequently use it, and even to-night again I might quote his words. I will not do so. But what would your Lordships think if I passed over those remarks in silence and allowed Her Majesty's Government to be accused of all sorts of iniquities which he is constantly imputing to us? I have never allowed, and never shall allow, the noble Marquess to impute all sorts of iniquities to us without making some reply to them. In the first place, however, I wish to appeal to the noble Marquess, or to any noble Lord who is acquainted with proceedings in Parlia-
  940
  ment, whether it is possible to meet offhand and without hesitation statistics which a speaker may bring forward, unless the Government know beforehand what is going to be done? I am sorry that we could not answer the statistics brought forward by the noble Marquess in the Debate on the Address. I could only bring the facts which I knew and thought sufficient to support the argument which I wished to lay before your Lordships. But the noble Marquess made a very solemn appeal to me, which I will answer at once. He asked me, as one who has had considerable experience in Ireland, whether my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary referred to me before the proclamations were repealed. The noble Marquess also said that the Chief Secretary had not been in Ireland a week before this action was taken. I have not had an opportunity of refreshing my memory, but I cannot think that my right hon. Friend did this within a week. He took some time to inquire into the facts, and when my right hon. Friend had been in Ireland some considerable time he did write to me, saying—
  "I have looked into the facts; my opinion is that with perfect safety we can repeal this and other proclamations,"
  and he asked my opinion. I said, in these circumstances, that I agreed he should carry out the policy he intended. I cannot recollect at this moment, without looking at the correspondence, whether my right hon. Friend referred to the County of Clare, but he told me, having inquired into the whole position, he had come to the conclusion that as a matter of policy it was desirable to repeal these proclamations, and on that I gave him my opinion. The whole of the Government were responsible for the action of the Chief Secretary; but perhaps I am more responsible on account of my right hon. Friend having appealed to me. I accept the whole responsibility of the advice or answer which I gave. Looking at this Debate to-night and in another place, and to the facts that have occurred, I have not altered my opinion one whit. I will tell your Lordships why. The late Government had these powers at their command for six years. We admit that the state of Clare has been exceedingly bad for a long time, but notwithstanding their having those powers the late Government were not

  941
  able to cope with the crime in any way. That is a point which ought to be considered, and I think we are justified in not continuing measures which were perfectly ineffectual to meet the difficulties which existed in this county. The noble Marquess referred to the clauses in the Act designed to facilitate the change of venue. I quite admit clauses in the Act gave greater facilities for the change of venue. What is the position now? The Assizes have just been held in Clare. As far as I know, there were two cases which went to the Assizes at Cork, one, the case of the emergency man, for which there was a conviction. It was found, according to, the Judge and his Charge, that it was exceedingly difficult from the state of Clare to obtain a conviction; it is perfectly open to the Government at this moment, under the ordinary law, to obtain a change of venue in any case they may bring from the County Clare.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It is a most complicated process.
  EARL SPENCER: I am aware it is not so easy as the other process, but it is a process well known, and can be adopted if wanted. They have not, therefore, cut themselves off from this important provision and from the possibility of asking for a change of venue. Since the Government have been in Office there has been no case of proceeding under it. I had considerable experience with regard to secret inquiries when I was in Ireland. I admit that on one memorable occasion a secret inquiry was most effective; but I had during the three years that I was in Ireland considerable experience in the rural districts of applying this mode of investigation, and I hold a strong opinion that, except the one memorable case in Dublin, there was not one single case where the secret inquiry brought any prisoners to justice. The late Government have had the power of secret inquiry in Ireland during six years. They have put it in force four times in Clare without its leading to a single conviction or without any beneficial results. I maintain, therefore, that this question of secret inquiry was not one of the slightest importance for meeting the difficulties in Clare, and if the Chief Secretary had maintained this system of inquiry we should not be nearer to getting
  942
  prisoners convicted of crimes of which they are justly accused than the late Government were. Several noble Lords have said that the Chief Secretary spoke lightly of firing into houses. I cannot conceive that possible. I have had many conversations with him on the subject, and he has always expressed his dismay and abhorrence at this terrible mode of intimidation, which, though they may not intend it to end in murder, may do so at any moment. I, therefore, on his part entirely repudiate the notion that my right hon. Friend treats lightly any of these crimes. Another offence referred to is that of threatening letters. It is the custom to record the number of threatening letters when considering the state of crime in Ireland. It is probably right to do so, though no doubt many of those letters are due to foolish persons who do not mean really any harm; but I have always held that the increase of threatening letters is a mischievous sign, and a sign of the state of the country which is not at all satisfactory. I do not think, therefore, that the increase in the number of threatening letters is a thing to be treated lightly at all. With regard to the withdrawal of troops and police, I may say that the late Government are alone responsible. I am aware that the Military Authorities always object to breaking up regiments into small divisions, but it is, of course, the duty of the Government to do what is necessary, when the peace of a district is threatened, to give protection and moral confidence to the people, and, if necessary for that purpose, the objections of the Military Authorities ought to be at once overruled. I have frequently done this myself, and any Government ought to do so if, in their opinion, the state of the country requires the military to support the police. As to the free police force, I wish to point out that this depends on the quota, and varies according to the condition of each county. That is given triennially. I have had a great deal to do with these matters, and I have altered the proportion enormously. I was one of the first who made a radical change in this respect, and to give one county a larger force of free police as compared with other counties under different conditions.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: May I ask, is it necessary to wait until 1894?
  EARL SPENCER: As far as my experience goes, it is absolutely necessary to wait the proper triennial period for making a change in the free quota of police. Would the Government of the day have removed 47 police if they had thought that by remaining they would have done any good? They are responsible for it. If it had been considered necessary last year to make some reduction in this paltry charge for 47 men they might have done so; but instead of doing so they withdrew the 47 men, and therefore they did more than Mr. Morley has done, because they not only diminished the number of soldiers in the county, but also the police. This question is being considered very carefully by my right hon. Friend with a view to reconstituting the districts, and he is sending Inspectors in order to see what can be done to bring guilty persons to justice. I shall not follow all that has been said in this Debate, or the different proposals which the Grand Jury of Clare have made to the Government; all I wish to say is that the late Government, with exactly the same state of things and with all the powers at their disposal—much stronger than those at the disposal of my right hon. Friend—failed to cope with the disorder in this county. I admit that the condition of Clare is far from satisfactory, and I do not know that there is anything more to say beyond this—that it will receive the careful attention of Her Majesty's Government. I have not read the Charge of the learned Judge, but I am informed that last March—in 1892—there was another condemnatory Charge from Lord Justice Fitzgibbon on the state of Clare. But we on the other side did not take that matter up. We did not hold you responsible; and I maintain that this matter of the Charge of Mr. Justice O'Brien has been taken up now on account of political motives.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: No.
  EARL SPENCER: Then all I ask is, why last year, when exactly the same Charge to a Grand Jury was made by a very eminent Judge indeed, was no notice taken? And why, instead of taking fresh measures in consequence, 47 police were removed from the county in that year, and the troops as well?
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I have not had the opportunity of read-
  944
  ing Lord Justice Fitzgibbon's address; but I doubt whether he called upon the Government to put down the disturbances in the county, as Mr. Justice O'Brien has done.
  EARL SPENCER: The Government are bound to take anything of that kind into account, and they will do their utmost to restore order. Nothing that they have done, I maintain, will prevent them from doing it effectively if it is to be done at all. They will take every measure to restore order. The same state of things existed under the late Government, and I regret extremely that it exists now. I feel that it is necessary we should endeavour to put an end to it, and all I can say is that the Irish Government are endeavouring to do so. It would be wrong in me to forestall any act which may bring about that happy result.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am not surprised that the noble Earl who has just spoken has thought it desirable to leave this matter in the position in which it was left by the noble Earl who spoke before him from the Treasury Bench. The answer which the noble Lord who preceded the noble Earl on the Treasury Bench gave was exactly that which was anticipated by the noble Marquess opposite. He was perfectly satisfied to prove that the state of affairs in Clare was no worse than it had been in the last few years. The noble Lord adduced a singular argument when he stated that he was totally unable to understand the meaning of Mr. Justice O'Brien when he recommended or suggested the desirability of obtaining a change of venue. I am glad to hear the noble Earl who has just spoken does not think the fact that Clare has been continually in a very unsatisfactory state is an excuse for absolute acquiescence in that condition on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I think we have obtained from the noble Earl more satisfactory assurances than those previously given either in this or in the other House of Parliament. I understand him to undertake on behalf of the Government the question of the change of venue as applicable to the case of Clare shall, at all events, be considered, and I should be inclined to hope, if the Government should find difficulties under the ordinary law, they

  945
  will not be above considering the desirability of extending the Proclamations of the Crimes Act to that county. What we want to know a little more about than we have yet is, What are the reasons which induced Her Majesty's Government to think that the whole of Ireland, including the County Clare, was last autumn in such a state as to justify the withdrawal of the Proclamations? The noble Earl says he does not recollect whether the case of Clare was specially considered or not. That is a somewhat remarkable statement, because I believe the County Clare was the only part of Ireland that was under Proclamation at the time when the Proclamation was withdrawn, and it is somewhat remarkable that the noble Earl should not recollect whether it was a case of absolutely withdrawing the Proclamation from Clare when the case came under his consideration or not. If he could have said that these Proclamations had been withdrawn after the careful consideration of the whole of Ireland—if he could have assured us that these Proclamations had been withdrawn because Her Majesty's Government had come to the conclusion that the ordinary law was sufficient in every part of Ireland to enforce good government and order, it would have been very satisfactory. On the contrary, it appears to me that the Government were more actuated by what is called "general considerations of policy" than the state of any particular part of Ireland. It is admitted that the County of Clare is, and has been for a very long time, in a most unsatisfactory condition. Well, then, surely one would have thought that it would have come under the consideration of the noble Earl whether any signs of improvement had appeared in that part of the country which would justify the Government in relaxing any precautions for the security of life and property. It is, however, satisfactory that my noble Friend has completely thrown over the contentions of his noble Colleague who preceded him. He said that he could not understand the remarks of the Judge when he suggested that the administration of justice should be removed as far as possible from the county itself. My noble Friend, on the other hand, says that he can quite understand that the change of venue might secure better
  946
  juries, but he could not see how they could secure better evidence. The remarks of the Judge pointed solely to the failure on the part of the juries. The evidence brought forward was ample, and the failure of justice was due to the system of intimidation which makes it absolutely impossible for any jury to do its duty. It is at least satisfactory to know that the gravity of this state of affairs is under the serious consideration of the Government, and that my noble Friend has undertaken on their behalf not to neglect to take all the precautions which may he found to be required in order to remove the administration of justice to some other part of the country where there is some possibility of finding a jury that will do their duty.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): I do not think the noble Duke can have read the Charge of the Judge carefully, or he would not have made the remarks which we have heard with regard to witnesses, because I find that the Judge said that intimidation "had reached the jury-box and it had reached the witness-box." And although I quite agree that the fact that witnesses may have been intimidated does not prove that juries had not been intimidated, I think that quite answers the noble Duke's remarks, which do not betray, it seems to me, a complete understanding of the case. We are taunted with having referred to the state of crime under the régime of the late Government, and it seems to be thought that, because there was then a state of crime as bad as that which exists now in Clare, we were of opinion that we were justified in neglecting the measures we might think necessary for its repression. That is by no means the argument we use. We say that the state of things in Clare, under the exceptional measures of the late Government, was quite as bad as the state of things which has prevailed since, and the conclusion we came to, on a review of the whole case, was that the measures of the late Government were offensive to the general body of people of Ireland, and had failed in their object. What possible reason can we have for believing that any good can come from recurring to a system which we found had already

  947
  signally failed? The County of Clare remained then just as much infested by crime, and presented just as much difficulty in bringing criminals to justice, with all the stringent measures applied by the late Government, as it has done since they were withdrawn. I am simply asking your Lordships to consider what the results of the Coercion Act were. I think they were failures; and, if so, what ground was there for continuing them? Therefore, the Proclamation was withdrawn by the Chief Secretary, and I think wisely and rightly. I do not know the precise amount of consideration given to the matter by the Chief Secretary, but I cannot conceive that any one in his position could by any possibility omit to consider the condition of the County of Clare. The questions which present themselves to us are—Was it worth while to retain those measures? And is it necessary now to resort to them? The expediency of secret inquiry is practically given up; I think no one except the Lord Lieutenant of the county referred to it as being useful, and it has been proved to have failed. The only point which remains is that of change of venue, and, as I have said before, the change of venue in the hands of the late Government did not enable them to bring about an improvement in the state of the county. At the same time it will be right, if this state of things continues, to apply the power which exists under the present law and see whether by change of venue convictions can be obtained. It is exceedingly painful to admit, but all who have had practical experience know, that it has been found very difficult and often impossible to repress crime at certain times and in certain parts of Ireland. I should be more hopeful with regard to Clare if its lamentable condition had not lasted so long. But it is well known that there are from time to time outbreaks, which seem inexplicable, in particular counties. We had terrible outbreaks in Westmeath, Mayo, Meath, and Louth. But in these counties that state of things has passed away, and no one speaking without bias would be able to put his finger on the precise causes of change. It may have been owing to measures then had resort to, but I have seen the same measures applied in other places without success; or it may be, as has been suggested, that the County of
  948
  Clare suffers from that greatest of all curses, the influence of secret societies. It may be so, but I should like more knowledge; and that of the noble Lord opposite can hardly be so great as that of Mr. Morley, derived, not from personal observation, but from the Reports of the Constabulary, which, at a time when they were hardly tried, I found to be singularly correct. If they say that the crime now existing in Clare is not instigated by secret societies I should be disposed to think they were right, and I should be more hopeful that the crimes may be repressed; but that does not bring us to the means of uprooting them. It has always been extremely difficult to deal with these crimes prevailing in Ireland. I deny that the present Government are averse to using such measures as they believe to be really necessary for dealing with crime, and I cannot do more than say I entirely concur with every word that has fallen from my noble Friend behind me (Earl Spencer) who spoke on the subject.
  EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I am bound to say I am rather in the position of the noble Lord who answers for Irish business in this House, who said he respected anything which he did not understand. I have the greatest respect for noble Lords who are members of the Government; but it is impossible for me and most of us to understand what is the exact course the Government propose to take with reference to the unfortunate and appalling condition of affairs in Clare. We have all along said we are aware that noble Lords themselves have no sympathy with crime; we none of us intend to impute that they are in any way careless as to any measures that ought to be undertaken to mitigate and deal with crime. Unfortunately, they are not complete masters of the situation at the present moment. They owe their existence as a Government to the sympathy and support of those who are, unfortunately, and have been proved to be, in sympathy with those who commit crime; and the noble Earl opposite who has just spoken, in the Debate on the Address at the beginning of the Session, threw a good deal of light upon the operations of Her Majesty's Government with reference to Ireland. He said—
  "We have all along explained that we were opposed to the system of coercion,"

  949
  as he was pleased to term it—
  "which was pursued by the late Government; and if we shape our course now in any particular manner is it not a sufficient explanation that we are anxious to show, not only that we are opposed to coercion, but that our opposition is not confined to speech?"
  From that pregnant sentence it has occurred to me that all the separate causes of action which may be adopted by the Government are to be explained by this—that noble Lords opposite see a necessity to prove that they are opposed to coercion, so as to satisfy those who all along opposed the late Government in their efforts to preserve law and order in Ireland. The question raised by the noble Marquess is not a question of statistics; it is not whether the state of Clare is worse now than it was during the existence of the late Government. It cannot be denied that, whatever may be said of the state of Clare, the state of the law is different from what it was under the late Government. The present Government, for reasons which they have never yet explained, have thought it right to dispense with the only weapons by which they could expect efficiently to deal with the existing state of things. For what reasons have the Government denuded themselves of these powers? The noble Earl told us that these two weapons—the secret inquiry and change of venue—had not been found to operate largely on the diminution and extinction of crime. How does he know that if they had not existed in the time of the late Government the condition of Clare would not then have been worse than it is now?
  EARL SPENCER: How can anyone know?
  EARL CADOGAN: You yourself admitted it in reference to the suspension of the Crimes Act when you first came into Office. What argument can the noble Earl found upon that statement? Seeing that Clare has always been worse than any other part of Ireland, why do you believe you will strengthen your hands in dealing with crime by giving up two weapons which you found ready to your hands? No Member of the Government in either House has given any satisfactory explanation of the reasons for that course of action. We cannot conceal from ourselves the real reason why noble Lords opposite have with-
  950
  drawn these provisions is because they are bound from time to time to act at the bidding of their political supporters, and because unfortunately they do not realise thoroughly the danger of so acting upon the advice of those who now are their masters. With reference to the second question, what action the Government are about to take, with Clare in a condition about which there appears, to be no doubt, I am entirely in the dark. I have not even the mitigated satisfaction felt by the noble Duke who gathered that the Government was prepared to take some steps. But, if so, what are those steps? I understand the Chief Secretary stated last night that he was about to increase the number of the police force in the County Clare. But I understood the noble Lord who answered for the Government to say that even that was problematical and that the Government was still considering the course they should pursue.
  LORD ACTON: That they were considering it; the word "problematical" is introduced by the noble Earl.
  EARL CADOGAN: Then we are to understand that while the Government acknowledge the condition of Clare is one of danger, one which reflects discredit on the condition of this country or on any civilised country, they yet part with the weapons ready to their hands, when the power of applying these two clauses of the Crimes Act, whatever they may say, must be productive of the greatest possible good in the prevention, if not in the detection, of crime. Even now they maintain their passive attitude, and give no further answer than that the matter is under consideration. The First Lord of the Admiralty, at the conclusion of his speech, was good enough to say that this Motion was brought forward on political grounds. If he meant by "political" grounds that my noble Friends behind me are actuated in this matter by feelings of Party politics, then I repudiate such a charge with all the warmth of which I am capable. If, on the other hand, this question is to be considered political in the ordinary sense of the word, I have no objection to the taunt of the noble Earl. There can be no questions of greater or higher importance in political life than those which affect the social welfare of any portion of Her Majesty's dominions, Ireland or else-

  951
  where; and I believe noble Lords from Ireland will be doing less than their duty if they do not call the attention of this House and the country to the conduct of the affairs of Ireland by Her Majesty's Government, and if they do not continue to bring forward from time to time matters which they conceive to be of the greatest importance, and upon, which they wish, if possible, to modify the policy of the Government; and I can only trust that by such continued action they will succeed in bringing the Government to a sense of the importance of preserving law and order in Ireland, and of so guiding their policy as to lead to a considerable improvement in the condition of that unhappy country.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, the noble Earl, having repudiated all thought of Party spirit or motive in this Debate, concludes by expressing the hope that we shall have many discussions similar to this in your Lordships' House in order that the Government may be brought to a sense of the importance of preserving law and order in Ireland, I will not express my opinion as to the character or aim of an observation of that description, but I will leave it to the judgment of the unprejudiced public outside this House, who, I think, will see in it an insinuation not altogether justifiable that Her Majesty's Government at the present time are indifferent to the preservation of law and order in Ireland. To speak of a Motion and such speeches as we have heard in this House as devoid of all Party significance, and then to conclude with language of that description, appears to me to be a proceeding which will be perfectly well understood, if not in this House, at least outside. Her Majesty's Government are as much alive as the noble Earl to the importance of putting an end to a state of crime existing in any part of the country. They are as conscious as they will be, even if the question is discussed a hundred times in this House, that that is an imperative duty resting upon the Government in any country. What is the foundation for the suggestion made by the noble Earl that the Government are indifferent but this—that Her Majesty's Government do not estimate at the same value as the noble Earl some of the methods by which it has been thought
  952
  crime may be repressed and this county brought into a more satisfactory condition. The noble Earl says that the Government have thrown away two weapons that were in their hands; but the noble Earl has not brought forward a tittle of evidence to show that either of those weapons would have been effective to strike a blow that would have improved the condition of things in Clare. And then he says the Government are responsible for that condition of things because they have thrown away two weapons which did not prove effective in the hands of those who used them in the Government of Ireland. What reason is there, then, for saying that the Government are blameable for throwing them away? That is the only charge that can be brought against the Government in this respect. As regards one of them, I deny that it can with any reason be spoken of as having boon thrown away. The power to obtain a change of venue exists in point of law now as it did under the system of proclamation. The machinery is different machinery—that is all. Yes, it only depends upon an application to the Court, and to say you cannot through the Courts obtain change of venue when you wish to obtain it is an imputation cast upon the Courts of Ireland without necessity or justification. What proof is there that in any proper case—although there may be certain increased facilities under proclamation—if it be necessary, a change of venue cannot be obtained? There in no such proof, and therefore the charge is reduced to this—the giving tip of secret inquiry, which I believe was seldom used by the late Government in Ireland, and which certainly did not prove effective. We know what the state of things was after the Government had for six years the government of that country under their charge, and it seems ridiculous to suggest that all would have been well, or likely to have been well, if only these two weapons had remained in our hands and to ask us again to possess ourselves of these weapons. To suggest that is simply inviting the Government to trifle with the condition of things that exists in Clare at the present time. This discussion would have been much more fruitful if noble Lords could have suggested to us some means by which to cope and grapple with the present con-

  953
  dition of things in County Clare. The noble Earl who was once Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Earl Cowper) made use of strong language towards Her Majesty's Ministers. I should have rather thought that one who filled that high office in a time when Ireland was in a state of violence and disorder, who wielded for a long time great powers, and who yet found that in spite of those powers he was not able to cope with and put an end to the state of things which existed, would have seen that it is not enough to say the Government has a duty to put an end to it. The only advantageous thing you can do is, if you wish crime to be put an end to, and if you have knowledge of any means whereby that evil may be successfully combated to suggest those means. The Government are asked what course they intend to pursue. Do noble Lords really think that as regards any question of police administration it would be wise in the interests of law and order in that county to disclose what you are going to do? In many other respects I could mention, if you want to cope with unsatisfactory conditions, the less you say of what you propose or intend or desire to do the better. Matters of this sort are not best helped by public discussion and announcement. Past experience seems to show that the patient use of vigorous administration is probably the most hopeful—the most fruitful means of putting an end to the condition of things which exists, but it is like one of those diseases which we all may behold and regret, but in regard to which even the wisest doctors find it difficult to pronounce what is the best remedy. Her Majesty's Government will not fail, as I am sure no Government would fail, to regard most seriously so grave a state of things as exists, and whilst they cannot take to themselves in the slightest degree blame for its existence, any more than blame would attach to their predecessors, they do not seek to shield themselves under any such appeal to the action of those who have gone before them, but they are perfectly conscious that, as they are intrusted with the Government of the country, they must do all that in them lies to bring about a better state of things in that county. But I would appeal to noble Lords who in previous Administrations have had to
  954
  cope with the same evil with the largest powers in their hands which Parliament could give them to enable them to do so, and who could have got further powers if they had known what to ask for, that at least a claim can be made upon them to show some consideration for those who in a few mouths have not been able to do more than they were able to do in as many years.

  POLICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 27.)
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.