Lords Sitting of 17 March 1893

THE EASTER RECESS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I should be glad to know whether the Lord President can give the House any information as to the arrangements which the Government propose to make with regard to the commencement of the Easter Vacation and its termination?
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, the day when the House adjourns must depend upon when the Money Bills come up to this House. It will be necessary that we should meet one day in Holy Week in order to pass a Money Bill which must receive the Royal Assent before the Adjournment; but we do not propose to take any contentious business after next Friday. Whenever the House adjourns, we do not propose that it should reassemble until Tuesday, the 18th April. I have communicated with Lord Salisbury, whose absence from illness I greatly regret, and he informs me that he has no objection to that arrangement.

THE MILITARY FORCES OF THE CROWN IN IRELAND.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD ASHBOURNE,in moving for
  "Copies of the Letters Patent or Commissions of the Viceroys of Ireland at the dates following: 1st January, 1780, 1st January, 1790, 1st January, 1802, 1st January, 1893; and to draw attention to the position of the Lord Lieutenant in reference to the military forces of the Crown in Ireland,"
  said: My Lords, in moving for a copy of the Letters Patent to the Viceroys of Ireland at certain dates, I would like to state to your Lordships why I have selected those dates. I have done so because I think it would be interesting and important, both practically and historically, to know what were the powers conferred upon the face of the Letters Patent by the Crown on the Viceroy
  342
  before the change which was made in the constitution of Ireland in 1782, to know what they were under the form of constitution established after 1782, to know what they were immediately after the Union in 1800, and to contrast them with what they are at the present time. I should like to have this information because I believe that it would be of importance at the present time, considering what, if any, were the changes proposed to be made that might affect the position of the Lord Lieutenant in reference to the Military Forces of the Crown in Ireland. This matter came before your Lordships in consequence of an answer made by the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty in a Debate in this House on March 3, on the condition of County Clare. On that occasion he used words which struck me as being very interesting and very important, particularly as falling from a former Viceroy of his ability and experience, and who took so great, so active and energetic, a part in the Government of Ireland during each of the periods during which he filled that very important and responsible office. In that Debate on the condition of County Clare the noble Earl used these words—
  "I am aware that the Military Authorities always object to breaking up regiments into small divisions, but it is, of course, necessary that the Government should do something when the peace of a district is threatened. I maintain, therefore, that the objections of the Military Authorities ought to have been 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."
  I was not myself present on the occasion when the noble Earl, in the course of his speech, made that statement, but I read it with interest and attention, and in consequence of it I ventured to ask a question of the noble Earl on the 13th March, as to the power, authority, and jurisdiction he was exercising when he acted in the way he has described so very clearly, fairly, and fully, in the passage I have just read, and the noble Earl was good enough to give me a detailed reply. I am not in the slightest degree questioning the fairness and reasonableness of the reply the noble Earl made mo, but am only regarding the fact of what took place on that occasion. I quite understand that the word "over-

  343
  ruled" was only used as an expression, not intending to convey that he actually asserted his powers of Viceroy, but that, in conversation or otherwise, he had indicated his views to the Military Authorities, and that those views had been accepted after a very strong expression of opinion from him; and that so the matter was. But I did not think that, having regard to the great practical importance of the present position of the Viceroy with reference to the Military Forces in Ireland, it was desirable to leave the matter so, and I intimated that, having regard to the great importance of the power of the Viceroy over the Military Forces of the Crown, it would be necessary for me to bring this matter before your Lordships at a later date. The noble Earl then stated, in a further observation that he made on the 13th March of extreme interest, that he had received an opinion. He said—
  "An opinion had been given as to the powers of the Lord Lieutenant. That opinion stated that under his Patent he was entitled to give such orders to the Commander of the Forces in Ireland as he, as the highest civil authority, might deem to be necessary. In the exercise of his authority as the direct representative of the Queen, he had all the powers and prerogatives of the Crown in Ireland."
  That statement of the noble Earl and of the opinion given to the noble Earl, I am sure, was given as representing the result of very deliberate thought on the part of those who gave it—I assume it must have been the Law Officers of the Crown, either in England or Ireland. In the absence of the Patent itself, I, of course, accept that statement. I only reserve to myself the right of saying, after perusing the Patent, whether I would like to qualify any of the terms of that opinion; but I speak of it with no possible disrespect, and I, of course, accept it as the opinion of the responsible advisers of the Crown with reference to the position of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in relation to the Military Forces of the Crown. But the matter does not rest there, because the noble Earl, although he is one of the most trusted members of the Government, is not himself the member of the Government who is directly responsible for the Army, and I find that Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, in the other House of Parliament, last month, he being Secretary of State for War, when
  344
  he was asked by Colonel Warning, one of the Members for the County Down, what would be the position of the troops in Ireland under the Home Rule Bill, gave this answer—
  "The hon. and gallant Member asks what will be the position of the troops under the Home Rule Bill. Was it ever expected that it would be altered from that which they now occupy? Both the troops and the Militia will remain just as at present, under the supreme control of the Commander-in-Chief under the Queen."
  In other words, the noble Earl having stated the opinion he had obtained as to the power of the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland over the troops, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman stated that at present the troops were under the supreme control of the Commander-in-Chief under the Queen, and that they would still remain under that control. My Lords, I am only dealing at present with the power of the Lord Lieutenant, and I venture to submit that the answer of the Secretary of State for War does not, at all events at first sight, appear to convey the same meaning as the answer of the noble Lord as to the present power of the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, and in order to prevent all possibility of misconception on this most important point, and to leave myself open to correction, if correction should be needed, I think it desirable to refer shortly, in order that I may get explanations, if possible, to what I conceive to be the powers of the Lord Lieutenant at the present time, having regard to the answer I have received from the noble Earl, and accepting as conclusive upon me for the purpose of my present observations the answer given by the noble Earl as to the powers of the Lord Lieutenant, at present, under his Patent in reference to the Military Forces of the Crown. I take it to be this: that it is competent for the Lord Lieutenant, as being clothed during his appointment with the powers and prerogatives of Her Majesty, and representing the Supreme Civil Authority in Ireland, to give such orders as he thinks right in reference to the troops in Ireland; or, in other words, that it is competent for the Lord Lieutenant now to direct the movements of troops from one part of Ireland to the other as he may think right and necessary in the exercise of his Constitutional discretion, and that he may for that pur-

  345
  pose send either a large force or a small force, and that he can make the larger forces subdivide into smaller forces, and break up regiments, if need be, for the purpose of achieving his object. But the matter does not rest there, for the noble Earl was only dealing with the powers of the Lord Lieutenant under the Patent which clothed him with the powers and prerogatives of Her Majesty in reference to this mutter. It is not uncovered by statutable authority. In the Army Act of 1881 there is an express reference to the Lord Lieutenant us an important factor in reference to military organisation in Ireland. In Section 115 of that Act it is stated that the Lord Lieutenant
  "may authorize the requisition of carriages by the Military in cases of emergency."
  But more than that, in that Act we find another Section, 122, which more in detail presents one of the statutable aspects in which the Lord Lieutenant may be regarded in reference to the Army—
  "'Qualified officer,' for the purposes of this Act, in so far as it relates to convening or confirming the findings and sentences of General Courts Martial, means the Commander-in-Chief, and any officer not below the rank of Held officer in command. It also includes the Lord Lien-tenant of Ireland, the Governor General of India, and a Governor of any Colony on whom the command of any body of Regular Forces may be conferred by Her Majesty."
  So that it would appear under the Code Military in the two sections which I have read, as well as under his Patent, the Lord Lieutenant has a distinct and active power of interference in the business of the Army at present; he is brought by Section 122 into distinct privity with the action of Courts Martial, and that is a circumstance of considerable importance in considering what is the power of the Lord Lieutenant at the present moment in reference to the Military Forces of the Crown. I want to be absolutely assured, and I hope I make my meaning plain, that there is really no intentional difference of opinion between the Military Authorities at the War Office as represented by the Secretary of State for War in the other House of Parliament, and the noble Earl as representing the authorities in this House, upon the question of the power of the Lord Lieutenant to control the troops of the Crown in Ire-
  346
  land. The whole Code as to billeting our soldiers — regulating their transit en route, finding them houses where they are to live, and punishing the offences which may be committed by officers and soldiers called "billeting offences"— every bit of that in Ireland is vested at the present moment in the Civil power. It is an officer of the constabulary, who is the most active officer in those matters, and the summary jurisdiction wielded by the local Magistrates is on every occasion invoked to work out the punishment for those offences. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is at present, of course, the head of his own civil establishment. He represents, as the chief and supreme Civil Authority in Ireland, the various Departments and Boards which are found in that country. The prisons in Ireland have to be used by the military authorities for the punishment of all military offenders, penal and under sentence to imprisonment; and, more than that, the whole prerogative of mercy in reference to soldiers convicted and imprisoned in Ireland is at present vested in the Lord Lieutenant. Those are matters which are of considerable importance, and it is not desirable to minimise, even in a general statement, what is the position of the Lord Lieutenant, at the present time, in reference to matters connected with the military forces of Her Majesty. Again, the Magistrates, who are part of the judicial machinery working under the Lord Lieutenant, have the power of applying for troops in support of the Civil Authority—the power of calling for the aid of the military forces of the Crown. That is a matter which rests both upon long usage and habitual practice, and I dare say upon what has been upon many occasions the necessities of the case. There are some Statutes, extending as far back as the reign of Charles II., passed for the purpose of enabling that aid to be given on special occasions; but I find it is laid down in a book of authority that a Privy Council Order issued in 1817, in the reign of George III., is regarded as the foundation of the exercise of this practice of enabling the Civil Power to call upon the Military Authorities for assistance. We are aware, of course, independent both of Statutes and Orders of the Privy Council, that soldiers, by being arrayed in uniform and

  347
  being armed, do not cease thereby to be citizens or to be required to perform their duties as citizens. If a Magistrate is present on an occasion when the military have been called on for assistance, and he would always be present, I believe it is also regarded as necessary that the officer should act under the orders of the Magistrate who has invoked his assistance, even when the grave responsibility has to be taken of giving the order to fire upon citizens who are breaking the peace. That is a matter of great importance; and I believe that an officer who would refuse to obey that order would incur grave and serious responsibility, and possibly the risk of being called upon to give explanations by the Military Authorities, whom he might not find it easy to satisfy. There is another point—I will only mention, I will not go fully into it, but it is historically interesting—and that is, the power of proclaiming martial law. It has not been often exercised in Ireland, and I hope will not be exercised again, for that is a matter which no one can contemplate without the deepest pain. In 1798, in 1802, and in 1833 martial law was proclaimed in Ireland by the Lord Lieutenant for the time, acting through orders of the Privy Council. On all these occasions Statutes, I believe, were subsequently passed supporting what had been done, and giving bills of indemnity; but it has been laid down in a book of authority that some of those Acts of Parliament are looked upon as giving statutory recognition of the fact that the Lord Lieutenant is the person who is entitled, if the exigency arises, of proclaiming martial law. Now, my Lords, it is quite obvious that these are powers of great and high importance, and if they are exercised at the present time, if these are a portion of the powers capable of being exercised at the present time by the Lord Lieutenant, and under his directions, it is obvious that he has very grave and considerable powers, and that the Lord Lieutenant and the civil power under him have large, have enormous powers, both connected with the Army and over the Army, and I assume that when the Secretary of State for War in the House of Commons said that
  348
  "The Army was at present under the supreme control of the Commander-in-Chief under the Queen,"
  he had all these facts present to his mind, and that he was not in the slightest degree desirous of ignoring the actual position of the Lord Lieutenant. I, therefore, assume that in saying the Army is under the supreme control of the Commander-in-Chief, he must be held to have added by implication
  "Subject to any order given by the Lord Lieutenant to help the civil power in Ireland."
  I venture to think, however, that there are few people reading the tranquil and composed statement of Mr. Campbell Bannerman in the other House when he was asked about the powers which might be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant in the future, that the troops would remain, as at present, under the supreme control of the Commander-in-Chief under the Queen, never mentioning the Lord Lieutenant, never referring to his powers under the Patent or under Statute, or one particle of the jurisdiction in Ireland—there are very few people who would have supposed that such powers as I have glanced at were behind that concise statement given by the Secretary of State for War. It is obvious that it was given in entire good faith, but it is plain by the statement made by the noble Earl here that it minimised, if it did not entirely ignore, the power of the Lord Lieutenant in reference to this important matter. I think it right to state, as I have stated as plainly as I can, and I hope moderately, the points which strike me, and I hope this statement will enable the noble Earl on the part of the Government to explain that there is no real divergence of statement or of intention or opinion between what was stated here by the noble Earl and what was stated elsewhere by the Secretary of State for War; and if I have erred as to any of the suggestions made as to the jurisdiction exercised by the Lord Lieutenant and those acting under him in reference to the military resources of the Crown, I shall be quite prepared to receive the explanation, and to receive it with every respect.
  Moved, That there be laid before the House,

  349
  "Copies of the Letters Patent or Commissions of the Viceroys of Ireland at the dates following: 1st January, 1780, 1st January. 1790, 1st January 1802, 1st January 1893."—(The Lord Ashborne.)
  LORD CLARINAclaimed the indulgence usually accorded to a Member of the House who addressed their Lordships for the first time. When he held military command in Ireland, as he had done under no fewer than five Viceroys, he had ordered out troops in aid of the Civil Authorities as frequently as any man in Her Majesty's Service, and he would briefly state what he believed to be his duty as a military man. Under the rule of Earl Cowper he once ordered a battalion of Guards to move to Limerick in the middle of the night to reinforce the garrison there. Application was made by the Civil Authority in view of expected disturbance; and, as it was necessary that the troops should be on the scene at an early hour, they were conveyed by special train, and started three hours after the application was received. He need hardly tell many of their Lordships that Limerick was not within the district under his command, but he did not hesitate a moment with regard to the course he considered it his duty to adopt. Again, in Sir George Trevelyan's time, when the Dublin police struck, owing to some real or imaginary grievance, his troops, at the request of the Civil Authority, undertook police duties for several days, until the dispute with the police was settled. Another instance of how his troops were employed in aid of civil power occurred, when the Royal Irish Constabulary, perhaps Physically the finest armed force in Europe, which the Government now, with a light heart, contemplated disbanding, had their hands very full indeed in dealing with moonlighting outrages committed by brutal ruffians who dragged unfortunate women out of their beds, and tore the flesh off' their backs with cords and combs; pulled poor harmless old men out of their beds because they had in some way disobeyed the unwritten law of the Land League, and shot them in the legs, and mutilated dumb beasts—the refinement of barbarism. Of course, the only way to stop those outrages was by the vigilance of the police patrolling at night. At that time there was not much security for either life or property, and threatening letters
  350
  were a matter of every-day occurrence. The consequence was that the Civil Authorities found it impossible to supply the requisite number of men for special protection duty, and they had to come again to the soldiers for assistance. Some years had elapsed since that time, but he believed he was correct in stating that at least 200 men under his command alone were scattered through the country in twos and threes, affording protection to persons whose lives were threatened. One gallant young soldier was shot dead at the same time that the gentleman-whom he was protecting was brutally murdered. Those instances showed how completely under the control of the civil-power the Military Authorities were. He might say with truth that he and the 15,000 officers and men whom he had the honour to command had assisted the-Civil Authorities by every means in their power to restore law and order. At that time a disgraceful condition of lawlessness existed, and the country was reduced to a state of semi-barbarism. A great many of the outrages at that time might, in his opinion, have been attributed to the dislike which the Government had to interfere in any way with the right of public speaking, which was often greatly abused. The country was overrun by a parcel of political agitators—most of them men of straw and a good many returned Americans—penniless individuals who had glib tongues, and who found ready listeners amongst the tenant-farmers who had already obtained large remissions of rent through the passing of the Land Act, which had ruined a vast number of the landlords in Ireland, and bad left most of them more or less incumbered. It therefore struck him, with his knowledge of the state of the country, as being somewhat strange that the noble Earl, who had gained the respect of everybody by the manly way in which he had performed his difficult duties in Ireland, should have so completely turned his back upon his former self, as to recommend the handing over of the government of that country to the men he had endeavoured to describe.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, I need not follow my noble and gallant Friend in the interesting remarks he has made, but I will very shortly reply to my noble and learned Friend's question.

  351
  Her Majesty's Government have no difficulty in giving him the Return which he desires. I ought, perhaps, to say a few words with regard to the allusions to what I said the other night in the explanation given by me in answer to the noble and learned Lord on and before the 13th of March. I have merely to repeat what I said then that, as far as my experience in Ireland went, I never had the slightest difficulty in carrying out the wishes of the Civil power. The Military Authorities had always done exactly what was desired, as my noble and gallant Friend said they always wished to do, and I never had any difficulty in coming to an arrangement with them. With regard to what fell in another place from the Secretary of State for War, I know for certain that we have no difference of opinion whatever on this subject. My right hon. Friend alluded to the management of the Army being vested in the Commander-in-Chief, under the authority of Her Majesty. That no doubt is perfectly true, but it is perfectly consistent with the opinion I read out the other night, which gave a very large and wide power to the Lord Lieutenant in the exercise of his authority over the troops. The noble and learned Lord alluded to various matters in which the Lord Lieutenant has to come in contact with the military authorities in Ireland, but as far as I know there is no difference in the law between Ireland and England in respect to many of the matters to which he referred. The same arrangements are made in Ireland as in England when the police are being assisted by the military. He referred to billeting, the same arrangements are made as in England when troops are being billeted in the country. With regard to the Magistrates, exactly the same law, I believe, prevails; and as to courts martial, I remember most distinctly having a great many cases before me in my daily work, as Lord Lieutenant, in which military offenders were imprisoned in Irish prisons. They were submitted to me, but I invariably referred them to the Home Authorities.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: To the Military Authorities.
  EARL SPENCER: Yes; the War Office, as these military sentences were
  352
  always dealt with by the Military Authorities.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: But may I venture to ask the noble Earl whether the matter was not submitted to him as Viceroy in the ordinary way, in the exercise of the prerogative, to say whether the law should take its course— that it required the Minute of the Viceroy?
  EARL SPENCER: The Viceroy has complete power over the doors of the prisons, he alone can release a prisoner, and in that way the sentences of courts martial, no doubt, come before him; but the Lord Lieutenant invariably takes the advice of the Commander-in-Chief or the War Office before he acts. Since the other day, I have had the opportunity of looking at the Patents, and I will read to your Lordships that part of the Patent bearing on this question, which I received during my first Viceroyalty, because I think it is better to be quite clear and distinct on the matter, though I should be surprised if the noble and learned Lord has not himself consulted a Patent to make himself aware of its terms.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I am not now in reach of a Patent.
  EARL SPENCER: It is not very difficult, I think, to get at a Patent; they are not all in the hands of public officials. I think the noble and learned Lord has some friends who have Patents; I do not suppose they burn them. This is the Patent I received in 1868, and there has, I believe, been no alteration since. I have looked back to some of the earlier patents, and no doubt there has been some difference in the terms used. One, in the year 1801, has some difference in the powers specified; but they have remained, I think, the same from the earliest date to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, though, of course, the words have been altered according to the altered change of circumstances. But I will read the words in this Patent, which I had the honour to receive when I was first appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—
  "We give likewise to the said John Poyntz, Earl Spencer, our Lieutenant General and our Governor General, power and authority to give such orders and directions to the Commander of our Forces for the time being in that part of our said United Kingdom called Ireland, as he, our Lieutenant General and our Governor General, may judge necessary for the support of the Civil

  353
  Authority, the collection of our Revenue, the protection of our loving subjects, and the defence and security of that part of our United Kingdom called Ireland, and for the suppression of tumults and insurrections, and of all traitorous and rebellious practices within the same."
  That seems to me so clear that, having read the Patent, I am content to leave the matter in that position, and I will only repeat that Her Majesty's Government have no objection to giving the Return for which he asks.
  Motion agreed to.

IMTIMIDATION BY IRISH LANDLORDS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATION'S.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENasked Her Majesty's Government whether, in their opinion, any pressure was being put upon farmers and labourers in Ireland to induce them to refrain from signing Petitions against the "Government of Ireland Bill;" whether any foundation of fact existed for the alleged intimidation of farmers and labourers by landowners for the purpose of procuring signatures against that Bill? and moved that the evidence, if any, be laid upon the Table of the House. He said their Lordships were doubtless aware that there had been rumours, accentuated by questions and answers in another place, to the effect that landowners in Ireland, armed with the powers they possessed, wore engaged in intimidating their unfortunate slaves — the tenants and labourers on their properties — into signing Petitions against the Home Rule Bill. Several questions upon this subject had boon asked in the other House, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland was reported to have said that he did not know whether it was true, but that he thought it was very likely, and he went on to say that he thought the statement was within the reasonable probabilities of the case. Therefore, in the opinion of the Chief Secretary, it was very likely, reasonable, and probable that the owners of land in Ireland were pursuing a course which every honest man would consider a very dishonourable course, in endeavouring to compel men to take up a political position and to express political opinions which they did not conscientiously hold and feel. Their Lordships might perhaps think he was attaching too much
  354
  importance to utterances of the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant. That, of course, depended a great deal upon the estimation which many evidently held of the knowledge and judgment of the Chief Secretary, but they must also bear in mind the character of the gentlemen who had made these allegations in another place. These accusations were made by hon. Gentlemen who were, it must be admitted, great authorities on the subject of intimidation—Mr. Sexton, Mr. Healy, and Mr. Flynn, all convicted by the Special Commission of having incited to intimidation leading to crime and outrage, and of promoting agrarian agitation by coercion and intimidation. It was obvious, therefore, that those hon. Gentlemen were past masters in the art of intimidation; they understood it thoroughly, and their opinion must command the respect of the House. The only thing he would venture to doubt about the matter was their strict impartiality, because these hon. Gentlemen were inclined, perhaps from native modesty, to under-estimate their own success in intimidating the people of Ire-land, and it was possible that, for political reasons, they might exaggerate the success of their opponents, even if any attempt had been made, which he greatly doubted, to carry out this kind of intimidation in that country. He did not wish to comment on the utterances of the Chief Secretary, but it appeared to him that it was a somewhat hard thing to accuse a whole class of one's fellow-countrymen of a most dishonourable action without sufficient information and knowledge of the fact. He therefore asked Her Majesty's Ministers in that House what their opinion of the matter was—whether they knew anything about it? The noble Earl opposite (Lord Spencer) had immense experience of Ireland. Probably the noble Earl knew more of Ireland than any man who was not resident in the country and to the manner born. Did the noble Earl think it likely, reasonable, and probable that the landowners in Ireland were intimidating their farmers and their labourers? did he think that they were in such affluent circumstances that they could afford to evict tenants for the sake of their political opinions; whether, if landlords were willing to do this dishonourable action, they had the power? Anyone who

  355
  knew anything of Ireland would say it was impossible this system of intimidation could be carried on—he would not say so much about the system of intimidation on the other side. Their Lordships were aware of the terrorism that had been exercised over large districts in Ireland by the Land League and other Associations of that kind, and of the nature of the Charges made by Judges to Grand Juries in Clare and other counties; and The Times, and other newspapers, had published letters giving many instances where the tenants and labourers had been intimidated and prevented from signing Petitions against the Home Rule Bill. He should be content if some Minister of the Crown would state, as an English gentleman, that the expression of public opinion was perfectly free in the South and West of Ireland; that in Clare, Kerry, Limerick, and other districts, public opinion was so free that such men as tenant-farmers and labourers and small tradesmen would dare to sign Petitions against the Bill if they wished to do so. If he were told that they were so free from clerical influence, secret societies, and armed ruffianism that they dare express their opinion, he would say no more on the subject, though he should be very much surprised. The reason of these accusations was obvious; it was to discount that expression of public opinion which he was proud to say was making itself heard in the South and West of Ireland in spite of all obstacles. He had the greatest respect and gave the greatest honour to those men who were brave enough in that part of Ireland to express their honest opinion, and these allegations of an impossible intimidation being exercised over them by landlords was a mere foolish attempt to detract from the value of that opinion. Unless it could be substantiated this very grave charge should not have been made against a whole class of men in Ireland, and he therefore asked that the evidence, if it existed, should be laid on the Table of the House.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid, before the noble Earl rose to reply, he should like to ask him a question of a similar nature—whether Her Majesty's Government was aware that in some of the Roman Catholic churches of the South of Ireland those Catholics who had
  356
  signed the anti-Home Rule Petition had been denounced from the altar, and whether, in the event of Her Majesty's Government not being aware that such was the case, and if reliable evidence on the subject was tendered to them, they would take steps to prevent intimidation of that character?
  EARL SPENCER: With regard to the question just put, I may say that the matter is entirely new to me. I have not heard of it until this moment, and I must therefore ask the noble Lord to give notice of his question. As to the question asked by the noble Earl opposite, I have only to say that Her Majesty's Government have no evidence on the subject whatever.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid, he had only asked whether the noble Earl would make inquiry, and whether, if he found that evidence existed, he would lay it on the Table?
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I venture to think that is rather a meagre statement to be made by the noble Earl, considering the present condition of things. I do not think, with great respect to noble Lords opposite, that what occurred in the House of Commons on the 14th March, and this is now the 17th, St. Patrick's Day, so that there has been an opportunity to get information, was either just, or generous, or fair to the Irish landlords living in the South and West, struggling for their safety, for the security of their lives and property, and for their whole future. There has been every opportunity to enable the Government to say whether they would re-assert their words or frankly withdraw, and state that they regretted them as they had no foundation. An hon. Member from Ireland put the matter plainly: he asked the Chief Secretary whether the landlords, having been refused by their tenants signatures to the Petition against the Home Rule Bill, had gone to the tombstones in the neighbouring churchyards and copied the names on them, and the Chief Secretary in reply admitted his ignorance. That was the question put in the first instance, and then a further question was put by another Member: Whether the police had informed him that the landlords were going round to the labourers and farmers in arrear and compelling them to sign, and to the answer then given my noble Friend has drawn attention. "I daresay that

  357
  is so; I have no knowledge of the fact." Then when his attention was drawn to the injustice of taking away men's characters in that way, his answer was, "I thought it was within the reasonable prohabilities of the case." I put it to your Lordships, is it reasonable or fair? Is it just or is it generous? These men are fighting, as they believe, for their lives. It may be that noble Lords opposite think they are wrong, but these men believe that their whole future, the future of themselves and their families, their security and their property, are all involved. These men living in the South of Ireland are in a very small minority, surrounded by a majority who are hostile to them in many ways. Is it reasonable when a question is asked of the present Chief Secretary, whose duty it is to hold the scale evenly between all parties, to say lightly, as he did when this accusation was made against these men, "I daresay it is so"? I venture to think that had any of your Lordships committed yourselves to such a statement, you would, on consideration, be glad of an opportunity of withdrawing it, and explaining that in the baste of the moment, not seeing its significance, you were hurried into it and regretted it; but not so the right hon. Gentleman, for he goes on to say when he is asked how he came to make such a statement when he had no knowledge of the fact, "Because I thought it lay within the reasonable probabilities of the case." Then, when Her Majesty's Government are afforded an opportunity in this House of saying something reasonably conciliatory and fair within the fair requirements of what might be legitimately expected even in a contest like the present, I think the opportunity might have been availed of to explain the words, and to express regret that they should have been used without any foundation for doing so.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I do not at all complain of the tone in which the noble and learned Lord has just spoken, but he will forgive me for saying in a matter of this kind that the question should be addressed to Mr. Morley, in the House of Commons, in order that he may make any explanation he may have to give. I have no authority to say anything myself for Mr. Morley, but from my knowledge of my right hon.
  358
  Friend, I am perfectly certain he cannot, have intended to pass what may be supposed to be an affront upon all the landlords in the South and West of Ireland, and I think if he had the opportunity of himself stating what he intended, he would not at all shrink from expressing his views, and would say that he did not intend that which has been supposed to be his intention. With regard to the rest of the matter as to the evidence, Mr. Morley himself distinctly stated there was no evidence; and as to the gravestones, I must confess I do not understand in the least what it means. Why the landlords should go round the graveyards and take down some names from the tombstones seems to me inexplicable. If anything of the kind was done, I daresay it was a very wrong thing to do, but as I do not understand what it was that was done I can give no explanation of it. I put it to the noble and learned Lord opposite whether he attributes to us—I think he is not disposed to attribute tons—that we are desirous of bearing hardly upon men in the position of the landowners in the South and West of Ireland? While I do not admit that they are fighting for their lives, I acknowledge that they are fighting for a cause, and for what they think is very important to them; and,, for my part, I have no desire that any false charges should be brought against them, imputations which they do not really deserve, or that any affront should be put upon them.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, the noble Lord had answered the larger part of the question, and asked if he would see whether there was any information which could be obtained on the subject, as it was not a light matter. The answer given in another place gave the impression—and could not fail to give the impression—that this intimidation had been practised, and, therefore, he was not making an unreasonable request in asking the Government to see what evidence there was in support of the allegations, and, if they found there was any, to give the information to the House at some future time.

BILLS OF SALE BILL.— [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
CHOLERA HOSPITALS (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Bead la, and to be printed. (No. 40.)

DAY INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read la, and to be printed. (No. 41.)
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.