Lords Sitting of 6 July 1910

Preamble
Several Lords Several Lords—Took the Oath.
CAVEHILL AND WHITEWELL TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: The Order for Second Reading To-morrow, discharged: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on Wednesday last, discharged, and Bill committed.
BRIGHTON AND HOVE GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
LICENSING (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Report from the Joint Committee on the Licensing (Consolidation) Bill and the Perjury Bill [H.L.], That the Licensing (Consolidation) Bill ought to be allowed to proceed; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The said Report (with the Proceedings of the Committee) to be printed. Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.(No.89.)
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BERKS, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No.4) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
CALEDONIAN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIR MATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order) and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been reported from the Committee: Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

LAWLESSNESS IN IRELAND.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the continuance of acts of lawlessness in various districts in Ireland; and to ask what steps the Government propose to take for the better prevention of crime, the conviction and punishment of offenders, and the protection of the lives and property of peaceful subjects in those districts.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I offer no apology for asking the Question that stands in my name, and drawing the attention of His Majesty's Government to the lawless condition of certain parts of Ireland. Indeed, I regret that as those outrages have occurred, as this lawlessness has increased, this condition of affairs has not been more frequently brought before your Lordships' notice by members on the Back Benches. The Irish Unionist Members in another place have done their utmost to draw the attention of this country to what is going on in the districts to which I allude. They have asked a number of Questions of the Chief Secretary, and the vast majority of their statements they have proved up to the hilt. But the rules of the House of Commons preclude Members elaborating their Questions, and the time of the House is so occupied that it is impossible for Irish Unionist Members to raise a discussion on this very serious state of affairs. In those circumstances, time having been refused only last week in another place to discuss this state of affairs, I at once put down the Question that stands in my name, and, as I said in my opening remarks, I offer no apology to your Lordships for trespassing upon your time in asking it.
I do not hesitate to say that I would far rather have seen this subject raised in another place, where the Minister responsible for the Government of Ireland is face to face with the Irish Unionist. Members. I have another reason for saying this, because although I have on various occasions raised what is called the Irish question in your Lordships' House, I have never succeeded in obtaining a complete or full answer to many of my queries from those noble Lords on the Front Bench who represent the Irish Government. To-day, however, I may be more fortunate. Let me say at once that in the Notice I have put on the Paper to-day I confine my criticisms entirely to certain localities. No one realises more than I do, and no one who cares two straws for Ireland could do other than rejoice at the fact, that the greater part of Ireland can be at the present moment acknowledged to be in a satisfactory condition. It is only the four counties to which I allude which can be considered at the present moment the black spots of Ireland. It is a pleasurable task on behalf of those living in the districts that are of a satisfactory character, to acknowledge that this is the case, but I do not know that that is any consolation to those unfortunate people living in the four counties to which I am going to allude, who are told, "Oh, you must not mind in the least what misery you are undergoing, as the whole of the rest of Ireland is in a satisfactory condition."
What I want to ask is, Why should not Ireland be in a very satisfactory condition? I was in that country a short time ago, and I can assure your Lordships from my own knowledge, having travelled through the country from north to south, that the prospects of prosperity in Ireland are of a most satisfactory character. The crops are most healthy and most abundant, the prices of cattle are very high, the outlook of the agriculturist is most favourable, and one of the best barometers of Irish prosperity is the fact that the investments in the Post Office Savings Banks have steadily increased during the last few years, and that during the last half-year they have increased by upwards of £600,000. Therefore, my Lords, I ask, Why should not Ireland be in a satisfactory condition? There is, of course, one great advantage. The Act of my right hon. friend Mr. Wyndham—the Act of 1902—has worked with the most admirable results. The only check
1094
to it has been the Act of the Government of last year, which certainly has retarded sale and purchase. Why it was introduced I leave His Majesty's Government to explain to the Irish people, but, at any rate, it has not facilitated the transfer of land. On the contrary, it has hindered and impeded an Act which was working with the greatest possible success.
I now turn to the four counties to which indirectly I refer in the Question I have upon the Paper—the counties of Clare, Galway, Longford, and Roscommon. I ask His Majesty's Government to tell me why those counties should be the black spots in what should be a prosperous country. In all probability they will not give the answer which I should give to that inquiry. I say that the reason those counties are the four black spots is that the law of the land is ignored there. The law of the League is all-powerful; and by the Government virtually abrogating the law of the land and allowing the law of the League to be paramount, they are not only permitting but encouraging this state of lawlessness. I do not think that any one on the Benches opposite will deny for a moment that these four counties are in a very unsatisfactory condition, and for this reason, that they remain at the present time subject to proclamation, and so disturbed are they that the presence of additional police is absolutely essential. I notice that the county of Leitrim is not amongst those proclaimed counties. I have no doubt the Government have good reasons for leaving it out, but I do not quite understand why Leitrim is not included in the proclaimed counties when it is the fact that in the county of Leitrim no fewer than sixty-five persons are wholly boycotted. Perhaps the noble Earl the Lord President, who I understand is going to reply to me to-day, will be able to give me an answer. I do not think a county in which sixty-five persons are wholly boycotted can be declared to be in a satisfactory condition.
But the counties to which I chiefly propose to allude are the counties of Galway and Clare. It is now eighteen months since I drew the attention of your Lordships' House to the condition of certain parts of Ireland, and when I last did so I alluded specially to the counties of Clare and Galway. I remember on that occasion that the noble Lord who then replied for

1095
the Irish Office, Lord Denman, admitted that the counties of Clare and Galway were in a very bad condition. Well, so they are now; and I think that the fact that the same condition of affairs exists at the present time as was admitted eighteen months ago proves beyond all doubt that the policy of the Government in the administration of Ireland has failed so far as those two counties are concerned. I propose, in elaborating this question, to draw your Lordships' attention to the various classes of lawlessness which exist at the present moment in those counties and in certain other parts of Ireland.
I allude, in the first place, to cattle-driving. We have had the question of cattle-driving raised in another place and in this House, but His Majesty's Government, as far as I can remember, never really took a serious view of what I think in this country would be described as an illegal action, and which would be punished in the Courts of law if it were attempted. I remember quite well that when Mr. Birrell's Land Bill, to which I have alluded, was introduced, we were told that it would put a stop to cattle-driving. Indeed, in Ireland I believe it was described as the "Cattle-drivers' Charter." That Act has now been in force six months, but no stop whatever has been put to cattle-driving. That Act, which we were told would put a stop to it, has not checked cattle-driving. The only thing which it has checked is the successful transfer of land to the occupying tenants, which was going on most admirably until that Bill was introduced. Cattle-driving at the present moment is flourishing from the cattle-drivers' point of view. There have been 101 drives this year to the end of May; and between April 1 and June 8 there were 61 drives, compared with 66 over the same period last year. Therefore, I do not think that the Government can claim that their Land Act has done any good in the way of preventing cattle-driving. I should like to have from the Government an explanation of the falsifying of their prophecies with regard to what that Act was going to do; for at the present moment we not only see cattle-driving as it existed in the past, but we see it now in its very worst form.
I know that in the early days of cattle-driving His Majesty's Government looked upon it, I think one member of the Government
1096
said rather as a joke, and another said as a harmless amusement. At any rate, they never condemned it; they tolerated it, and now the system of cattle-driving has gone further, and I should like to know whether they will so describe it now when Quarter Sessions on many occasions are giving compensation in respect of cattle that have been injured in the course of these drives. Cruelty, in addition to cattle-driving, has been introduced, and I ask His Majesty's Government, that being the case, why they do not prosecute these people for cruelty even if they tolerate what is known as ordinary cattle-driving. I fully believe that His Majesty's Government are composed of humane gentlemen, and when I tell them that compensation has been given, not only for the beating and laming of cattle in driving them over fences, but for deliberate maiming, cutting off tails, and killing animals by shooting at them, I do not think they will contend that this class of cattle-driving ought to be ignored by a responsible Government. Intimidation is being used in a severer form in order to coerce law-abiding people into obeying the wishes and commands of the United Irish League. What have the Government done to check cattle-driving?
And why does cattle-driving at the present moment flourish from the cattle-drivers' point of view more than it has ever done in the past? It is because the cattle-drivers, whether they injure cattle or not, have no fear whatever of punishment. They know full well that for them there is only one law, the law of the United Irish League; and they know full well, if they carry out the edicts of the United Irish League by systematic cattle-driving, that when the millennium which they hope will come arrives, they will receive a large share in the breaking up of the lands. Is it to be wondered at that the law as administered by His Majesty's Government is ignored when these cattle-drivers realise what are the consequences if they are prosecuted by the Irish Executive? Suppose a cattle-driver is prosecuted, what happens to him? If he is found guilty he is bound over to keep the peace; that is all; and if he refuses to do so he goes voluntarily to prison. But is he when in gaol treated with severe punishment? Nothing of the sort. His time is made as easy as possible for him while he is in prison, and there is no severity whatever exercised upon him.

1097
Consequently the cattle-driver has everything to gain by breaking the law in obedience to the United Irish League, and nothing whatever to fear at the hands of the law as administered by His Majesty's Government. That he should have to go to prison with hard labour as the result of his lawlessness is practically a nonexistent risk.
Now let me give the statistics as to the number of proceedings taken. Of all the 1,300 odd cases, in less than one-sixth have any proceedings been instituted at all. Only eleven cases have been brought before juries, and in only two cases have convictions followed. This year in not a single case have a jury convicted. As long as the Government allow men to obtain a certificate of nationality at so cheap a rate, so long will cattle-driving flourish. After those statistics surely the Irish Executive must recognise that their efforts to put down cattle-driving have entirely failed, and surely it is time that they either reversed their policy and gave full notice that if the law is broken in the future as it has been in the past the Government will see that the full penalty is meted out to the law-breakers, or else tell us at once that they entirely ignore the law and wish every law breaker to carry on his nefarious trade with immunity so far as they are concerned. The failure of insisting on respect for the law in Ireland has gone now beyond cattle-driving. The United Irish League and the law-breakers do not hesitate, if cattle-driving does not meet their ends, to resort to severer means in order to coerce law-abiding and peaceable inhabitants in these parts of the country.
The returns show that there is a considerable increase in the number of people who are under police protection and who are boycotted since the time that His Majesty's Government have been responsible for the government of Ireland. I note that the Government, when they have been attacked on this point, have stated that this lawlessness so far as boycotting is concerned is beyond their control. They have said that nothing can practically cure these spasmodic outbursts of lawlessness, but that given time the state of things will return to the normal. I have never believed that argument, and I have always contradicted it when I have had the chance. During the last three years the increased number of people under
1098
police protection and who are boycotted endorses my opinion that the Government could, if they would, put down this very unsatisfactory state of affairs. But if it is to be put down—and I do not suppose for one moment they will allow that this state of affairs is satisfactory—it must be recognised that a weak Executive encourages law-breakers, and that lawlessness will continue so long as the Government allow it to be imagined that they are unable to check these cases of lawlessness. The Government undoubtedly have powers. They have the powers which we possessed not when I first went to Ireland in 1886, but which we obtained towards the end of 1887. With these powers we coped with a serious condition of affairs, and when the Government of which I was then a member left Ireland in 1892 there was not a single person boycotted in that country. Why cannot His Majesty's Government take advantage of these powers and endeavour to put down boycotting with the same strong hand? So long as they continue not to check lawlessness, so long will this unsatisfactory state of things continue in the districts to which I have alluded.
There is another form of lawlessness to which I wish to allude, and for which, I think, the Government, and the Government alone, are responsible. I refer to the large number of firearms possessed at the present moment by the inhabitants in these parts of Ireland, due entirely to the action of His Majesty's Government in refusing to renew the Peace Preservation Act in 1906. Any one who studies the Irish newspapers must have been shocked at the shooting outrages that have taken place during the last few months. What I want to ask is this—and I hope I shall get an answer to this question—What reasons induced His Majesty's Government to allow the Peace Preservation Act to lapse in 1906? I remember that in this House we asked for the reasons, but we got none. I hope I shall get an answer to-night. Did the Government ask the opinion of their officials in support of their action? If they did, did the officials support them in allowing the Peace Preservation Act to lapse? That is a very important point because it is the officials and inspectors in Ireland who really would have known what was going to be the result of this, and if the officials advised the Government to allow this Act to lapse, then I say these

1099
officials are very much to blame. If, on the other hand, the Government ignored the opinion of the officials, then I say the Government were taking upon themselves a responsibility which no Government had a right to assume. What has been the result of the lapsing of the Peace Preservation Act? There has been in certain parts of Ireland what I may call a free trade in firearms. They have been used with appalling frequency and on the smallest provocation. An Irishman when he gets a revolver looks upon it very much as he would upon a blackthorn, and he uses it in a reckless manner. Knowing this fact I wish to have an answer to my question as to the reason why this Act was allowed to lapse.
Those of your Lordships who have studied the Irish newspapers, and even the London newspapers, will have noticed a series of shooting outrages at Newmarket in Cork, and at Roundfort, in the county of Mayo. Perhaps a description from a Nationalist newspaper of the scene at Roundfort on March 20 may bring home to His Majesty's Government the effect of their policy. The occasion was a conflict of rival Nationalist factions, and the Mayo News thus describes the scene—
"Hand-to-hand encounters continued, sticks being freely used and the fighting arena changed from the fields to the roadway. Stones now commenced to fly through the air, while a further element of danger to life and limb was added by the frightened horses galloping along the road. One of the Claremorris brakes was left some distance behind in the direction of Roundfort, and as many of Mr. O'Kelly's opponents had by this time got on the roadway in front, the driver (Thomas Keane), was subjected to a fusilade of sticks and stones as he drove along at a gallop towards Hollymount. It was a brutal spectacle to witness, as stones, weighing a pound and more, were hurled mercilessly at the unfortunate man as he sat in the exposed position on the driver's seat. The reins got broken and the horses dashed madly along uncontrolled, while both the driver and the animals attached to the brake were repeatedly struck. It is a matter for marvel how the man escaped more serious injury. As it was, he sustained some ugly cuts about the head, while his ribs are also injured. This incident alone will serve to give an idea of the ferocity exhibited, and it is a matter for congratulation that we have not to record loss of life. After the brake had passed, the scrimmages continued along the road, and the shouting and general din created by the combatants was further accentuated by the discharge of revolvers. Several shots were discharged from one of the Claremorris cars, but the bullets luckily found no billets. By this time the police were getting the crowds again in check, but not before some of the police themselves had sustained some injuries from stones."
I have quoted that to show the danger of
1100
allowing the Peace Preservation Act to lapse and these irresponsible people to secure firearms.
There is another point. The shooting outrages since 1906 have steadily increased. In the year 1906 there were sixty, and in the three and a-half years since the lapsing of the Act there have been no fewer than 520. I am not going to weary your Lordships by quoting the answer given by the Chief Secretary in another place, but he virtually admitted that shooting outrages had steadily increased. He also said that he was carefully considering what the alteration in the law must be, and I think he said—I speak subject to correction—that an alteration would be made with regard to the carrying of firearms both in England and in Ireland. I say nothing with regard to England, but certainly with regard to the right of carrying firearms in Ireland there can be no question that there ought to be an alteration in the law and that the Peace Preservation Act ought to be revived. Are the perpetrators of the various outrages to which I have drawn attention—cattle-driving, boycotting, shooting—brought to justice and properly punished? From a reply given in the House of Commons some indication of the failure of the law to punish offenders is shown. It refers to last year and to certain classes of agrarian crime only.
Out of fourteen cases of firing at the person, in only two cases were the offenders brought to justice. Of thirty-eight cases of firing into dwellings every single offender escaped. Twenty-one cases of killing or maiming cattle were recorded; in twenty cases no one was arrested. In only one case out of fifty-one crimes recorded as injury to property was any one brought to justice. In 175 cases out of 178 cases of intimidation by threatening letters and notices, no one was made amenable. The same result is recorded in twenty-four out of thirty-two cases of other kinds of intimidation. Altogether, in only fifteen out of 334 crimes were offenders brought to justice. What does that prove? It proves that the law as administered at the present moment is absolutely powerless to cope with crime. We are told that the reason these malefactors are not brought to justice is that it is impossible to get evidence against them. I have heard that argument put forward both in your Lordships' House and in another place, but I have

1101
always declined to accept it. I consider that the Government are responsible for the peace and safety of the people, and that with the powers they have, if they choose to exercise them, they can get the necessary evidence. But the reason they cannot get evidence at the present moment is that there is no confidence in the administration of justice, and no belief that the law will be fearlessly and honestly administered. So long as terror prevails, so long as the Government virtually permit this terror to prevail, witnesses will not come forward.
Now what are the steps that the Government should take? They should take the steps that we took in the year 1887, when we had the same difficulties to cope with. We took advantage of the provisions of the Crimes Act—I always object to that name myself, and I prefer to call it the Repression of Crimes Act—and by that means we obtained the necessary evidence. We were able to obtain evidence from people when no one was accused. We had the power of summoning these people, and we got evidence without any great difficulty, and by means of that evidence we were able to bring the law-breakers to justice. But at the present moment His Majesty's Government seem to decline to make use of any of these powers.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Might I interrupt the noble Marquess? I think there were at the time he was in Ireland 100 or more cases in some years of firing at the person or into dwellings. Can he supplement his statistics by saying in how many cases convictions were secured?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Crimes Act was not passed until the end of 1887. I admit that the state of Ireland from 1886, when I went there, was one of lawlessness unparalleled in any country, but the instant we got the Crimes Act passed—in August, 1887—we lost no time in putting it into force. We took every advantage of it by changing the venue and in other ways to secure the punishment of offenders, and the noble Earl, I think, will allow that when he took over the government of Ireland there was not a single person boycotted in that country. The noble Earl was quite justified in interrupting me, but I think he was alluding to the early part when we entered into office and before we secured the
1102
Crimes Act. There were then murders in all directions and a great amount of intimidation; but before we left Ireland we had completely altered that. I think the noble Earl will find that after we had secured the Crimes Act all these classes of crime entirely stopped, of course by degrees. This power of examining without anybody being accused is now the law of the land in Scotland, and I cannot understand why His Majesty's Government will not take advantage of these powers, as we did, and put a stop to the state of affairs now going on in Ireland. I venture to say they could get the necessary evidence if they took the steps which we took in the years 1887, 1888, and 1889.
But I expect I shall hear from noble Lords who will follow me that His Majesty's Government object to adopt what they call coercion. I take exception to the use of the word "coercion." I object still more to the coercion of the unfortunate people in these districts who are boycotted and shot at, and whose lives are made a burden to them. That is a coercion which the Government ought to use coercion against. I do not know whether your Lordships realise what it means to be boycotted and the miserable life of a boycotted man in these lawless districts. He cannot get the necessaries of life, he cannot get a servant to work for him, he cannot get tradesmen to sell him provisions for his home, he cannot even get his horses shod, and his children, if they go to school, are ostracised by the other children. Is it right, is it just, that we, a law abiding people, with a Government responsible for the happiness, welfare, and prosperity of every subject, whether he be high or low, should allow this state of things to go on and be absolutely callous with regard to it? I often wonder whether the Chief Secretary really knows what is going on. His visits to Ireland are very few and very brief when he goes there, but I cannot believe that a man who is humane, if he really understood what these unfortunate people are going through, could tolerate this state of affairs.
May I, in conclusion, give a personal thought of my own? I live in the northeast of Ireland, which is peaceful and law-abiding, and only a fortnight ago, on a beautiful night in June, I was wandering at dusk in the grounds of my own demesne, and I could not help thinking that if I

1103
was in the position of one of these poor people in these unfortunate districts I should have to be accompanied by a couple of policemen with rifles. Do you not think that we in the north of Ireland, who enjoy this happiness and prosperity, feel for our fellow-countrymen in the disturbed parts? It is because we feel for them, and because we have that sympathy which I hope is inherent in every true Irishman, that we call attention on every possible occasion to the state of things which now exists in these parts of Ireland. If we did not work on behalf of these people we should be unworthy of being considered Irishmen and unworthy of being considered Ulstermen; and it is on those grounds that I ask the Question standing in my name.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL BBAUCHAMP): My Lords, the noble Marquess who has just sat down has raised once more the question of lawlessness in Ireland, but I am not quite sure to what period he exactly refers, whether he means that the lawlessness has been getting worse during the last few months or whether it has been continuous from the time that His Majesty's Government first took office. But in the midst of his descriptions of the unfortunate occurrences which have taken place, it was gratifying to us to know that the prospects of prosperity in Ireland are so satisfactory at the present time, and I am sure we must all join in satisfaction at hearing the striking and remarkable figures of the increase in the deposits of the Post Office Savings Banks during the last few months in Ireland. One cannot help, in these circumstances, asking oneself whether it is not possible that the noble Marquess has looked at the lawlessness with the eye of exaggeration.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I confined my remarks entirely to the disturbed counties, and congratulated His Majesty's Government on the satisfactory condition of the other parts.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am delighted that the noble Marquess should have so confined himself because on previous occasions when we have had debates on this subject noble Lords opposite have said that we must not isolate different parts of Ireland and deal with one or two counties by themselves, but that we were discussing
1104
the state of Ireland as a whole. It is some step forward that the noble Marquess should this evening allow us to treat the counties where there is more disturbance by themselves, and that he is willing to admit that in far the larger part of Ireland there is perfect peace and great prosperity.
Now let us turn to the exact figures with regard to the outrages that have taken place. There is no doubt, I think, from the figures that there was a marked improvement in 1909 as compared with 1908, and that, on the whole, that improvement has been maintained during the first six months of this year. The total number of agrarian outrages in 1908 was 343; in 1909, 219; and from January to June, 1910, 119. Then agrarian and non-agrarian outrages in 1908 were 2,284; 1909, 2,180; and in the last six months, 1,022. That shows, I think, that the present state of Ireland can hardly be described as at any rate increasing in lawlessness.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Those are the figures for the whole country?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Yes, the figures for the whole country of all outrages, agrarian and non-agrarian. With regard to cattle-driving, I confess it was with special regret that I heard the noble Marquess accuse His Majesty's Government of not having done any good in the direction of stopping cattle-driving. I hope the figures will relieve his mind on that point. The total number of cattle-drives in 1908 was 681; in 1909 the number fell to 200; in the first five months of this year there were only 107; and in the month of June there were only nine. I hope the noble Marquess in these circumstances will realise that a very decided and remarkable improvement has really and truly taken place with regard to cattle-driving in Ireland. And may I ask him whether he has sufficiently considered the encouragement which is given by speeches such as he has made to-night to the lawbreakers and cattle-drivers in Ireland? The noble Marquess has told us that His Majesty's Government do not punish adequately the guilty persons. He has said, with all the weight of his authority as a past Lord-Lieutenant and a large landowner in Ireland, that His Majesty's Government do not think it necessary to take steps to punish this crime. Nothing could be more likely to encourage or assist lawbreaking.

1105
to go on than language such as that when held by one in the position of the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: How have the Government punished it?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I do not know whether the noble Marquess prefers punishing to stopping crime. The steps which His Majesty's Government have taken have succeeded in stopping cattle-driving, and that, surely, is the object at which we should all aim. I hope that is not too advanced a statement to make with regard to the theory of punishment in these days. The great thing is to stop the crime rather than to secure punishment, which very often only hardens the criminal and leads him to repeat the offence. The chief point is that we have managed to reduce cattle-driving to this remarkable extent.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: What about the cruelty to the cattle—cutting off their tails and maiming them?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: If the noble Marquess will allow me I will come to that later. The total number of persons under police protection on December 31,1908,was 344;on December 31,1909,342; and now, 331. His Majesty's Government are prepared to say that, while there has been this general improvement in the country, the state of certain portions, though better than it was, is still far from satisfactory. The noble Marquess wishes me to deal at once with the question of cattle maiming.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: No, but I was afraid you were leaving it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am quite willing to take it now. I cannot help feeling that on this matter, again, the noble Marquess is rather apt to pay undue attention to what happens in Ireland, without sufficiently considering that there are crimes of just as bad, if not worse, a character occurring in England to which he does not think it necessary to call the attention of this House. Take the case of cattle maiming alone. In 1908 there were 22 cases in the whole of Ireland, and during the same year there was an epidemic of cattle maiming in England. At Chatham several horses were ill-treated, at Grimsby
1106
there commenced a series of outrages which went on from February to September, in Norfolk there were, in March, further cases of maiming cattle. At Liverpool a farmer had a number of lambs mutilated, in May cattle outrages took place near Peterborough, and in Staffordshire there were also cases of maiming. It is with deep regret that one realises that there are people who do indulge in this particular crime, but if this crime exists in Ireland it exists also in England.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I should like to know whether in the English cases the perpetrators were found and brought to justice.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble Marquess will remember the remarkable case of Edalje, which created a good deal of excitement at the time. It is not very easy to find the perpetrators. These occurrences very often happen at night.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Edalje was prosecuted and put into prison.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My recollection is that he is not in prison at the present moment.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: You let him out.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think it was one of those very complicated cases in which the police were not at all sure that the evidence at their command was satisfactory. These cases, as I have said, happen at night when it is not easy to find, out who is the culprit; and the series of outrages in Staffordshire went on for a number of months without anybody being caught or convicted for the offence. Then with regard to malicious burnings there were a number of cases near Dunstable. But it was not thought necessary to apply any special measure to these particular districts, either with regard to maiming; of cattle or malicious burnings. His Majesty's Government see no reason for applying the special measures for which the noble Marquess asks.
I might, perhaps, deal with two of the counties to which the noble Marquess made special reference. Of the total of 219 agrarian outrages which were committed during 1909, 110 were committed

1107
in Galway and Clare; while of the 331 persons now under police protection throughout Ireland, 191 live in those counties. As I think the noble Marquess himself realises, Clare and Galway are both a great deal worse than the other counties in Ireland. There has been more cattle-driving lately in Westmeath than in any other county except Galway, and proceedings are now pending against a Member of Parliament, but as the case is sub judice I am sure the noble Marquess will not wish me to refer to it on this occasion.
With regard to the question of firearms, I do not know that there is very much to add to what has already been said in debates in this House. It is a matter which not only concerns Ireland but the whole of the United Kingdom. His Majesty's Government fully accept the responsibility for the step which they took in withdrawing the Peace Preservation Act. The Prime Minister has recently stated in another place, in reply to Captain Craig, that the whole question is under consideration. I should say that this is one of those cases in which His Majesty's Government will certainly refuse to shelter themselves behind the opinion of their officials, and I do not think it is one of those questions which, even when they are put in this House, generally receive an answer. The noble Marquess will himself realise that it is far better and more in accordance with the traditions of our public life that His Majesty's Government should accept full responsibility. Cases of firing at the person or into dwellings decreased in 1909, and although the decline is not maintained this year there is no great increase. The total number of cases in 1908 was 131; in 1909, 84; and in the first six months of 1910 there were 48. The total number of outrages in which firearms were used was 207 in 1908; 127 in 1909—a very remarkable decrease; and 69 in the first five months of this year.
In regard to these figures I should like to turn to a question put by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal to the noble Marquess with regard to cases of outrages in which firearms were used during the period the noble Marquess was Lord-Lieutenant. There were 103 cases in 1888. That was, of course, after the time when the noble Marquess had the full resources of the Crimes Act at his disposal. The information which my noble friend Lord Crewe
1108
wished to elicit was, how many prosecutions and convictions took place in those 103 cases. The noble Marquess could not, of course, be expected to carry the figures in his head; but I am sure we should all be glad, on some future occasion, to know whether the noble Marquess was fully able to deal with those eases in the way in which he now expects us to deal with all the cases that occur in Ireland. If we find that, out of these 103 cases which occurred six months after the passing of the Crimes Act, there was a considerable number in which the noble Marquess did not prosecute, or, if he did prosecute, did not secure a conviction, then at any rate His Majesty's Government will be able to lay this satisfaction to their soul, that they have not been more unsuccessful than was the noble Marquess when he was Viceroy of Ireland. The noble Marquess, if I may say so, entered into no argument to prove that if we had adopted the measures he wishes us to take and put the Crimes Act into force we would have succeeded in improving the present state of affairs in Ireland or in diminishing the amount of crime.
Perhaps I may be allowed to enter one single caveat with regard to these figures. These figures might be said by some people to point two ways. If there is a great deal of terrorism in the country, then no one dares to offend against the unwritten law, and therefore the necessity for police really diminishes, paradoxical though it may seem, and under that aspect of affairs it might be held that the more police protection necessary the greater was the amelioration of the condition of the country. I do not know whether that will commend itself to noble Lords opposite.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Does it commend itself to the noble Earl?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I make it merely as a caveat. Lawlessness is, quite obviously, a great deal less than it used to be, and His Majesty's Government wish that noble Lords opposite would join with them in looking a little more upon the improvement which has taken place rather than scanning with a magnifying glass the unhappy occurrences which still take place. The problem is not an isolated one, but must be considered in relation to the history of Ireland, and more particularly in connection with its agrarian and economic history.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down has presented the case of the Government in a way that I am sure your Lordships will very readily follow. The noble Marquess admitted in the frankest possible way that, taking the whole condition of Ireland at the present time, it is economically prosperous and thriving, and he did not suggest that as to the greater part of Ireland it called for any particular question or censure as to its criminal position. He concentrated attention on the fact, which every one acquainted with Ireland knows, that there are some parts of Ireland where the figures speak in a Way so clearly as to its criminal position as to at once require and demand an explanation as to why it is, when Ireland as a whole is quiet and prosperous, that in those particular four counties, although they share the prosperity, there should exist the present aspects of criminality which call for special attention from the Government.
The noble Earl, in his careful review of the position, contrasted the figures, but when he came to present them he thought it wise to quote the figures for the whole of Ireland. In the few remarks which I shall address to your Lordships I shall confine myself to the four counties to which reference was made by the noble Marquess. The question of the Peace Preservation Act is of immense importance. That Act was in existence for years; it was included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and it contained restrictions upon the carrying of firearms without a licence. The noble Earl has spoken as though the position in Ireland is the same as that in England. That is not the ease, for the use of firearms is restricted in England. If men carry revolvers in their pockets it constantly leads to trouble. That has been pointed out to the Government, and we were told that they would consider the matter. Nothing has been done in the last two sessions. I ask, Is nothing to be done this session?
I venture to think that this is a matter of considerable importance bearing in mind the figures that were given in the House of Commons by Mr. Birrell, the Chief Secretary, which show there have been a great number of outrages by firing into houses. I take the case of Clare. There it appears that there were eleven cases of firing into dwelling-houses, and it is worthy of note
1110
that there were only three people made amenable. It is an extremely grave matter that people should have their houses fired into when they and their wives and families are there, and that they should be exposed, it may be to the anguish of great fright, or to the real peril of being hit by deadly missiles. In the counties in question there has been a large increase in these outrages, and that is a matter which is entitled to serious notice. It is no answer to my noble friend behind me to say that there are bad people in England too. I am an Irishman, and I have never dreamt of saying that the Irish were not a most excellent, deserving, kindly, and courteous people. It is my deliberate opinion that they are. As a rule they are a law-abiding people, and they have other attractions that I will not dwell upon now. It is no answer to say that if crimes have been committed in Ireland you could match them in England.
You have no crime in England corresponding to the terrible offence of boycotting, which exists in many parishes in Ireland. Boycotting is a form of tyranny which is peculiarly an Irish crime. It is a terrible thing that law-abiding, decent, respectable people, because they violate some unwritten law of the agrarian power, should be shunned and avoided by their fellows, their wives not allowed to do their shopping, and their little children not allowed to go to school without interruption and difficulty, and sometimes, it may be, slight danger. The noble Earl said nothing about boycotting. I do not wonder at it. It is one of the gravest incidents connected with our Irish agrarian life. I wish I could say that it was dying out. I believe it has to a certain extent diminished, but any one who considers the figures that were given a few days ago in the House of Commons by the Chief Secretary will see that there are still a considerable number of people wholly boycotted and many partially boycotted. Police protection is peculiar to Ireland. Where is there any one in England boycotted? Where is there any one in England who cannot go about his ordinary avocation free from police protection? In 1904 there were in Ireland 158 people under police protection. Some of those were under complete police protection, and others under protection by patrol. Compare the number in 1904 with the number now. The noble Earl, I think, said there were

1111
now 331, but according to the figures given by the Chief Secretary the other day the number of people under police protection, either exclusive or by patrol, had risen in 1910 to 340. That shows a very grave state of affairs. I have not the slightest desire to exaggerate. It is distressing to me as an Irishman to suggest that any part of Ireland is not prosperous and free from crime, but we must not lose sight of the reality of things.
The noble Earl referred to cattle-driving. For a considerable time cattle-driving almost died out altogether, but in the last week or ten days there has been a substantial revival of it in several places; and I read in The Times this morning that the Recorder of Galway—an able and experienced Judge, of great clearness and moderation of view—had said, in dealing with a case in which compensation was claimed for malicious injury caused by cattle-driving, that in some parts of the county of Galway mob law appeared to be triumphant. That is a very grave statement coming from a man who uses the most moderate language. The Judges' charges at the present Assizes are coming in. I have read those that have been delivered, and they do not suggest too rosy a view of matters. I do not wish to be a Cassandra, but they go to show that there is cause for anxiety, and when we have before us all the charges by the able and impartial men who preside at the Assizes we shall be better able to judge as to the state of the country. There is one point in all this from which I derive encouragement. Land purchase, though set back by the Act of last year, is working steadily for peace and the maintenance of law and order in Ireland, and those who have purchased their holdings are in the ranks of law-abiding citizens. I believe that wherever land purchase has prevailed the tenants who have become the new proprietors are a great element for the peace and prosperity of the country.
The noble Earl appeared to suggest that it would be reasonable that we should indicate what the Government should do. You must govern as if you meant to be obeyed. Your agents—the magistrates and police—must feel that they will be supported in all honest efforts to administer the law. That is not saying very much, but it means a great deal. Every one who has held responsible position in Ireland knows that there are no people that so rapidly
1112
understand what is intended and desired by those responsible for their government. Play-acting will not do in Ireland. The Irish have considerable gifts in that direction themselves, and if things are only said to be quoted they know what they are worth. The Irish people rapidly appreciate the sway and rule that governs fairly, reasonably, justly, and with firmness. That is all I feel at liberty to say now; and I have not sought, in the remarks I have made, to exaggerate the case or in the slightest degree to distort the position.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, this is the second debate upon the condition of Ireland to which I have listened during the short time I have had the honour of a seat in your Lordships House. On the previous occasion, about eighteen months ago, I remember listening to a lurid description of the state of Ireland from the noble Marquess who has initiated the debate this evening, and also from the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken. To-night an entirely different story is being told. We have been informed that all Ireland, with the exception of four counties, is in a state of peace and prosperity, and I submit that, comparing now with then, no more conclusive answer to the impeachment brought by the noble Marquess could be made by the Government than the restatement of his own words. Even that restatement would be somewhat exaggerated, because the entire western portion of the great county of Galway is now, as it has been always within my recollection, in a state of profound peace. So that the disturbance to which allusion has been made existed only in part of Galway and in the other three counties to which reference has been made.
I think sufficient attention has not been called to a recent new departure in the legal administration of Ireland, which I was very glad to notice in the newspapers. It is this: that instead of requiring sureties for good behaviour from persons accused of cattle-driving, the Crown Officers now propose that they shall be committed to the Assizes on the charge of unlawful assembly. That introduces a new departure in the criminal administration in Ireland, from which I expect great and most beneficial results. But cattle-driving in Ireland, reduced as it is to very small dimensions, is nothing new. It has been always the

1113
expression of an agrarian discontent on the part of the people. You will find it described in the pages of Lecky as rampant 150 years ago, and the only way by which it can be removed is by removing the cause. I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord who has last spoken, that wherever land purchase has extended there you find a complete cessation of all these crimes.
I do not desire on this occasion to say anything of an acrimonious nature, but I must be permitted to say that the stoppage of land purchase, such as it is, is due to the action of the landlords of Ireland in this House last year. The noble and learned Lord has found fault with the Act of last year, and I myself, as your Lordships may remember, was not altogether in accordance with all its provisions. But there was one provision in the Act which seemed to me to be singularly in the interest of the landlords of Ireland, and that was the provision which enabled landlords to sell their lands on cash payments. It is quite true that the price of the lands to be bought had to be fixed by a judicial tribunal, but, if landlords were willing to sell and were only anxious to get a fair price, it is only reasonable and proper that if there were a difference with regard to the price it should be settled by a tribunal. It seemed to me a want of wisdom and foresight on the part of Irish landlords to reject that proposal. If that proposal had not been rejected land purchase would now be carried on in Ireland as it was before the Act introducing Stock instead of cash was passed.
It was stated that the objection was that the idea of compulsion was united with it. I think that peace and prosperity will not be thoroughly established in Ireland until the whole of the land of the country is bought, and the time will come when it will be necessary to introduce a compulsory measure of purchase to clear up the whole proceeding. If there was a proper tribunal created, I for my part think that the sooner the Irish landlords face that alternative, the better it will be for them and the better it will be for the peace of the country. I cannot agree that there is any stagnation in the administration of the Land Purchase Acts in Ireland at the present time. So far as I can learn—and in my detached position I have only the same means of information as is available to the man in the street—so
1114
far as I can learn £5,000,000 cash have been allocated during the current year for the purchase of estates of which the agreements had been deposited, and Stock to the extent of £7,000,000 has also been assigned for the same purpose. Therefore in the current year you have funds provided for the final purchase and clearing up of all arrangements connected with £12,000,000 worth of property.
It is true, I believe, that in regard to original purchases matters are not so forward, and that not more than £500,000 worth of Stock has been applied for, but it takes some time to get a new arrangement into working order, and at the same time it takes time for tenants on the one side and landlords on the other to see how far their interests are promoted by the new arrangement. But I do think that, instead of raising a barren debate on such a matter as this, it would be more conducive to the interests of the country and more in accordance with the high traditions of your Lordships' House if attention were paid to those defects which may be in the Act of last year, in order that they may be removed and the only panacea for peace and prosperity in Ireland extended throughout the country.
LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I had hoped that the able and convincing speech of the noble Marquess who introduced this question and the facts that he brought forward might have produced a more satisfactory reply on the part of His Majesty's Government, but it appears impossible to modify their incurable optimism on the state of things in Ireland. We are told, in reply, that the greater part of Ireland is quiet, and therefore the other parts need not be considered. It is very little satisfaction for those who live, as I do, in the county of Galway to be told that they have no reason to complain because the county Kildare is perfectly quiet. The noble Earl the Lord President compared certain classes of crime in Ireland with corresponding crimes in England. There is one very great difference. These crimes in England are the acts of individuals, isolated acts, and are looked upon with horror and reprobation by the greater part of the people of the country. In Ireland they are the outcome of a widespread and serious conspiracy and agitation, and they are, I may say, winked at by the people in the country. A great many people disapprove of them, but from the system

1115
of terrorism that exists they are unwilling or unable to come forward and assist in identifying the perpetrators or express an opinion on the subject publicly.
From the beginning His Majesty's Government have looked upon this agitation as a sort of transient phase of eccentricity on the part of the United Irish League, troublesome, no doubt, at the time, but not deserving of serious attention. The first manifestation was cattle-driving. I am sure everybody in this House is perfectly tired of the subject, and I can only say that if they lived in Ireland where it prevails they would be very much more tired of it. I think the real importance of the matter has not been sufficiently recognised. The importance is not the injury to the cattle, although that is often very serious and accompanied by acts of considerable cruelty, but it is the intimidatory effect on the owners of the land from which the cattle are driven. The Government did take one step at the beginning, and a very wise one. They increased the forces of the police, especially in the districts in which this offence prevailed. It was a wise step and a useful one. The police were, to a certain extent, able to check the practice and where, as often happened, they were unable to stop it, to identify the people concerned in it and make them amenable to justice. But that was all they could do. When the people were brought to justice they were, as the noble Marquess has mentioned, simply bound over to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. That was absolutely nugatory, for if ten or a dozen young men in a district were bound over in this way there were plenty more to take their place.
I was glad to hear from the noble Lord opposite, Lord MacDonnell, that they are now not only bound over to keep the peace, but that the cases are sent to the Assizes. Whether convictions will be obtained or not I do not know, but this shows a greater energy on the part of the Government in dealing with this matter. But their previous action encouraged the idea that they were half-hearted about the matter, and it was urged by some of the delinquents, and even by solicitors engaged on their behalf, that they had the Government at their back; that the Government were so anxious to secure the surrender of grass lands and the breaking of them up among the people, that they did not look too closely at the methods adopted to secure
1116
that object. Those who did not hold this view but saw the immunity with which crime was practised came to the conclusion that the United Irish League was stronger than the law, and that the only way to obtain anything was by violence. Confirmed in this belief the United Irish League proceeded to hold regular courts, to summon obnoxious persons before them, especially those who were guilty of the unpardonable crime of holding land which was coveted by others, and to issue orders to them as to what they were to do; and if they refused or delayed severe boycotting was inflicted upon them. I was therefore very much surprised to see in the newspapers that the right hon. gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland stated the other day that the resolutions of the United Irish League were received with contempt in Ireland. They may be received with contempt by His Majesty's Government, and in a great many parts of Ireland, no doubt, they would not be treated with implicit deference; but in any disturbed part it is a very different matter. I do not say they are always obeyed. I know cases myself where people have stood out against the intimidation of the League, some successfully and some not, but those are people in a somewhat higher station of life.
I remember some years ago hearing of an answer that was given by a man who was urged to make a stand against an agitation that was going on. He said, "It is easy for you to talk, living in a big house in a demesne, but if you lived on the roadside in a little cottage with a thatched roof, to which anybody going along the road could set fire in five minutes, you would hold a different view." That is why these people are living in a state of abject terror, and there is no evidence obtainable. We see continually reports of cases of firing into dwelling-houses and firing at the person, and then, at the end, there appear the words, "No arrest has been made." The police are powerless to obtain evidence As an illustration of this I may mention the case of the medical officer in Athenry district. He was called upon by the Crown to give professional evidence in the case of the murder of Constable Goldrick. Since then he has been boycotted in a severe manner. He has lost the greater part of his practice, car-drivers have been warned not to drive him, he personally has been threatened to "mind himself,"

1117
and he is now living under police protection. If that sort of treatment is meted out to an official witness, your Lordships can imagine what is the case with regard to unofficial witnesses; for it has been always remarked in past times, where similar agitation prevailed, that, while ordinary witnesses who gave obnoxious evidence were subjected to persecution, official witnesses were not molested. In these circumstances it is idle to suppose that the mere increase of police can bring about an appreciable improvement in the state of the country.
Here I should like to bear emphatic testimony to the excellent conduct of the police. I myself have been unfortunate enough to have to welcome their services, not for personal protection, but for the protection of people in my employment, and nothing could be better than the arrangements made by the Constabulary officers, or the able, and at the same time, unobtrusive, way in which they were carried out by the men under their command. They do all they can, but with terrorism of this kind they are powerless to put down the agitation that exists. The police can protect a man's life, but they cannot save him from the persecution which renders that life intolerable. They can to a certain extent protect his property, but they cannot secure him in the enjoyment of it, a privilege which every man ought to possess in a civilised country. I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will turn their attention to the four counties mentioned, and will adopt some steps which will give that security to life and property which everybody has a right to expect.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I am sure this House does not complain in any way of the Question which the noble Marquess has asked, and my only regret is that the noble Earl who replied on behalf of the Irish Government gave no answer to it. The noble Earl the Lord President dealt with the whole of Ireland. I admit that Ireland, taken as a whole, is in a much more prosperous condition than it was some few years ago, but if the noble Earl will refer to the Question on the Paper he will see that the noble Marquess uses the words, "continuance of acts of lawlessness in various districts in Ireland." Let us stick to these districts, and the worst of them are the county of Galway and the county of Clare. Not only did the noble Earl deal with crime throughout the whole
1118
of Ireland, but he gave us the benefit of his experience of crime throughout the whole of England. That, no doubt, is very interesting, and a great deal of what he said is true, but it has nothing whatever to do with the agrarian crime which is going on in Clare and Galway; and as Ireland is better and more prosperous than it was, surely it would be a great thing if we could see these crimes in those two counties entirely stopped.
The Chief Secretary has somewhat changed his manner in dealing with these Questions. Now the cases of crime in Ireland are tabulated for the information of the Opposition. Formerly the Chief Secretary rather resented Questions with regard to such matters, and tried to side track the subject. He also at one time applied certain epithets which were not liked by the Unionist Members who interrogated him. No doubt it is much less trouble to tell off hard-worked officials in the Irish Office to tabulate crime in certain districts in Ireland than to go over to Ireland and set to work to try and suppress that crime. We all know that the present Chief Secretary is rather inclined to be cynical, and what can be more cynical than the tables of crime in these district which decorate the pages of Hansard. I speak more particularly, of course, of the counties of Galway and Clare. If the Chief Secretary is a cynic, I suppose we in Ireland must try and be stoics, and recommend stoicism to these people whose case has been put forward by my noble friend Lord Clonbrock. It is very hard to be a stoic when you have little bits of lead taken out of your body which have been fired from a gun.
Let me quote from the pages of Hansard the figures with regard to Galway and Clare. Of indictable offences—including firing at the person, killing and maiming cattle, &c., firing into dwellings, threatening letters, &c, and injury to property—there were in Galway, East Riding, in the year 1906, 33 agrarian and 52 non-agrarian; and in 1909, 34 agrarian and 37 non-agrarian. In Galway, West Riding, there were, in 1906, 12 agrarian and 32 non-agrarian offences; and in 1909, 45 agrarian and 52 non-agrarian. In Clare there were, in 1906, 29 agrarian and 40 non-agrarian offences. Those figures rose in the year 1907 to 73 agrarian and 76 non-agrarian. In 1908 there was a further rise to 176 agrarian and 90 non-agrarian, and in 1909

1119
the figures were 109 agrarian and 73 non-agrarian. The figures, of course, are better for the whole of Ireland, but they are not very much better for these two counties.
With regard to what the Chief Secretary can do, those acquainted with Ireland know that the position of Ireland's Chief Secretary is unique, especially when he is a member of the Cabinet. His directions are law, and when he goes over to Ireland and desires a thing to be done, the officials of Dublin Castle usually obey his behests. That is my experience, which is a very long one. Has the Chief Secretary used his power to suppress outrage and crime? We on this side of the House say that he has not. Let me take one instance, the dropping of the Peace Preservation Act. There was a long debate in the House of Commons on that subject, and I should like to quote what Mr. Birrell said. Mr. Birrell's words were—
"I have suffered misrepresentation because I have insisted on maintaining my right to carry out Liberal principles, and whilst maintaining the law to the utmost of my power I will not, simply even for the sake of getting a few more convictions than I have been able to do up to the present time, break up the great Liberal tradition and break up my own hopes for the future of Ireland."
Surely the great Liberal tradition is not to allow people to obtain pistols and guns with the greatest of ease. We all know perfectly well that when the Peace Preservation Act was dropped out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill there was free trade in pistols, and common pistols could be purchased in the west of Ireland with the greatest of ease. The result now is that in an Irish row a fellow pulls a revolver out of his pocket. In the fight between the O'Brienites and the Redmondites in the recent election pistols were used freely, and the police had to take very strong action indeed to prevent loss of life. This is a new element, and the Government cannot deny that the dropping of the Peace Preservation Act has led to this trade in firearms. If the present Chief Secretary had told his colleagues in the Government that such a thing was going on, nothing would make me believe that the present Government would have allowed it to continue. I know quite well that this Act has not been thought much of by some people, but here was a case where, when it was dropped, the time was regarded as propitious, and this trade in firearms proceeded with very bad results.
1120
I should like to quote from a speech which the noble Earl the Leader of the House made on December 18, 1906, when there was a short discussion in your Lordships' House with regard to the omission of the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1881, from the list contained in the schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The noble Earl who leads the House then said—
"It always is a grave matter for an Executive Government to undertake a responsibility of this kind. But my right hon. friend the Irish Secretary from his knowledge of the present state of the country thinks he sees his way to undertake it, and, as the noble and learned Lord fairly says, it is with the Government that the responsibility must rest. I should like, however, to protest against the point of view which the noble Lord seemed to take when he said that after all legislation of this kind need not be used, and that if not used it hurt nobody. I am not prepared to admit that. I do not think you can reasonably expect any country to sit down quietly under a system of what I might call in terrorem legislation, which is held in reserve while it behaves well, and left in the cupboard, so to speak, to be pulled out if the country behaves badly. We should not like it in England, and it is not altogether surprising if they do not like it in Ireland."
That is on the point which Lord Clonbrock made with regard to the dropping of this Act. I hope that we shall have an answer to-night to the inquiry put by the noble Marquess, because I consider that this question of getting firearms very easily has become a most serious one.
What has been the effect of this policy? Sixty-nine offences in which firearms were used occurred between January 1 and June 1 this year; informations refused were five, convictions two, persons awaiting trial ten. County Clare has eighteen of such offences. I do not wish to go into the question of boycotting, because I admit that it is most difficult to bring the offenders to justice. When a man gets the cold shoulder it is very hard to find people who will tell about the conspiracy, or do anything at all. It is a terrible weapon to have; but that is another story. If the Government give us a satisfactory answer there is an end of the matter. But the speech which we have heard from the noble Earl was not at all satisfactory. He said that His Majesty's Government take every responsibility. Surely if they take every responsibility, they are responsible for law and order even in those districts in respect of which the noble Earl said we use a magnifying glass to find out crime. No,

1121
my Lords, we do not use a magnifying glass. There is no necessity for that. I am sorry to say that accounts of these outrages appear in the Irish newspapers every day. We should like them stopped.
His Majesty's Government know as well as I do how these crimes can be stopped. It was mentioned by a Judge not very long ago that if the ordinary law of the land was put into force these crimes would cease. The ordinary law of the land—I allude to the Peace Preservation Act—has been dropped. It used to appear in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and pass through without any comment. I am sorry to say that there are blackguards in Ireland as elsewhere, and especially agrarian blackguards in the west of Ireland. They were sharp enough to know that the Peace Preservation Act had been dropped, and these outrages commenced. It is not pleasant, as the noble Marquess said, to get up and make these statements with regard to Ireland. Things are undoubtedly better than they were, but I hope the Government will try and get the country into the state in which it was when they assumed the Government. We have Purchase Acts which are working very well. I only wish they were working quicker. If the Government do not take measures to stop this lawlessness, of course it will spread.
There has been a recrudescence of cattle-driving. The Government know that quite well, and I hope an answer will be given on that subject. It is no good talking about the whole of Ireland. We want a direct answer with regard to the districts to which the noble Marquess has referred. Either you will not do the thing or you will do it. If you will not do what we ask you to do, we must, I suppose, bear it. But if you will do what is asked—namely, stop the crime which is going on in these particular districts—you will have the thanks of every respectable person in Ireland and of a good many of the Nationalist Members who are your allies. It is well known that the leaders of the Nationalist Party are not entirely in sympathy with this sort of crime. I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will give direct answers to the straightforward questions which were put to them by the noble Marquess.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, it is with great diffidence that I venture to
1122
interpose a few observations in this debate, because I suffer from the disadvantage of not having any first-hand knowledge of Ireland, which is possessed to such a marked degree by noble Lords opposite, and I also suffer from other disadvantages. I hope, therefore, that I may be able to claim a special measure of your Lordships' indulgence in the few remarks which I shall address to the House. What strikes me about this debate is the contrast which it presents to a debate which occurred in this Chamber last year. It is true that I had not then the opportunity of hearing that debate from within the House itself, but having to-day studied rather closely the discussion which took place last year—no doubt it is within the recollection of many noble Lords sitting here this afternoon—I must say the contrast between that debate and this is most striking. This debate in comparison with that seems robbed of all its sting and all its go, and I think it goes far to prove that noble Lords opposite hold very different opinions with regard to our management of Irish affairs than they did last year. One proof of that, I think, is to be found in the limited area which now falls under their criticism, for whereas last year they attempted to show that the condition of Ireland generally was very bad, this year they are careful to indicate that their criticisms only refer to four counties.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: If the noble Lord will look at the Question which I put eighteen months ago he will see that I used exactly the same expression—namely, "various districts"—that I use now.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I accept the noble Marquess's explanation, but I was referring at the moment more to the debate which followed than to the speech he actually made on that occasion. At any rate, we now know that in the opinion of all those noble Lords who have addressed the House we ought to confine our attention to the four counties mentioned by the noble Marquess. The fact is that the condition of Ireland improved between the years 1908 and 1909, and the improvement which manifested itself in the latter year has been on the whole maintained during the first six months of this year. If, however, we confine our attention to the counties mentioned by the noble Marquess, far from finding that the general improvement has not manifested itself

1123
in those counties, I think we shall be able to claim that the general improvement is very largely due to the improvement which has taken place in the four counties specified. I have had given to me a statement of the condition of agrarian outrages in the four counties of Roscommon, Galway, Clare, and Longford, and although it is difficult to convey figures to the House, I think I shall be able to prove my point.
Take Roscommon first. In 1908 the agrarian outrages numbered 14; in 1909 the number fell to 5 cases; and for the first half of this year, to June 30, they were also 5. In Galway East and West the figures are 43 and 42 respectively for 1908; these figures fell to 25 and 23 respectively in 1909. In Clare, in 1908, the number of agrarian outrages was 105; that number fell last year to 62. In Longford there were only 2 cases in 1908, and 1 in 1909. That is taking the whole of the agrarian cases. Now look at the figures for cattle-driving. In Roscommon, in 1908, there were 37 cattle-drives, and in 1909 the figure went down to 4. In Galway East there were 65 in 1908, and this number fell to 7 in 1909. In Galway West the number was 41 in 1908, and it fell to 25 in 1909. In Clare, the most disturbed county of all, there were 156 cases in 1908, and only 45 in 1909; and in Longford the number of cases dropped from 16 in 1908 to 5 in 1909. I suggest that that goes to prove that from the general improvement the counties especially under review have not been excepted. An important point to bear in mind when we are considering the number of cases of boycotting is that every case generally includes more than one person, frequently the whole family and the labourers employed. Therefore it is better for the purposes of comparison to take the cases of boycotting and not the number of individuals who fall under the boycotting system. Last year there were 91 persons wholly boycotted, but there were only 17 cases of boycotting.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Is that the whole of Ireland?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Yes. Similarly, in the case of partial boycotts and minor boycotts, the number of individuals is largely in excess of the number of cases; so that I think it is to the case we ought to confine our attention. The noble Marquess opposite asked how many prosecutions there had been for cattle-driving,
1124
and he seemed to take it that the Government had failed to prosecute in these cases and had regarded cattle-driving as a proceeding of not sufficient gravity to call for their best efforts. What happened with regard to cattle-driving in the first half of this year? In eighty-six cases no proceedings were found possible through the difficulty of obtaining evidence. Proceedings were taken in connection with 30 cattle-drives, but there were only 26 distinct prosecutions, some of the persons proceeded against having taken part in more than one drive on the same occasion. In four cases 22 persons have been returned for trial to Assizes charged with unlawful assembly in Galway, West Riding. In two cases proceedings before Justices at Petty Sessions stand adjourned. In 20 cases proceedings were taken before the Resident Magistrates alone, in two of which judgments stand adjourned. The result of these prosecutions is that, of the 213 persons who were brought before the Resident Magistrates, 174 persons were ordered to find bail, 139 of them did find bail, 35 refused to find bail and were imprisoned, and 29 persons were discharged without being required to find bail. I think that shows that the Government do proceed whenever they are able in these cases, and that, having proceeded against these persons, they do take steps to put a stop to the practice of cattle-driving. The number of cattle-drives has decreased considerably. For instance, in the year 1908 there were 681 cattle-drives; in the year 1909 there were 200; and in the half-year to June 30, 1910, there were 116 cattle-drives—practically the same percentage as last year.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Cattle-driving began under the Liberal régime.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I say that since cattle-driving began there has been a great improvement. The figures are, 681 cases for 1908 and 200 last year. That, surely, is an improvement; and the figures for the first half of this year show that the improvement is maintained. It is a great mistake for noble Lords opposite to suppose that the Government are not alive to the necessity for using their utmost efforts to put down these outrages and crimes in Ireland. It would be entirely a mistake to imagine that anything in the policy of the Government leads towards condoning any of the offences

1125
on which the noble Marquess and others have enlarged. I may say, in support of that, that the present police force has been increased. There were 750 more police on the Royal Irish Constabulary establishment in 1909 than in 1906. Extra police are drafted into the districts where disturbances take place, and a point to be borne in mind is that half of the cost of these extra police falls on the district, and in that way acts as a considerable deterrent in connection with these crimes.
Some criticism has been passed, not in your Lordships' House but outside, upon the Government for the reduction in the number of these police, half of the cost of whom is borne by the districts concerned; but under the triennial re-distribution of the Royal Irish Constabulary the Government had no alternative but to take a survey of the probable needs of these districts and so allot the police between them. But even after the triennial distribution was made last year there remain in the affected areas 389 extra police, whose cost is still, to the extent of one-half, borne by those districts. The noble Marquess who raised this question to-day has urged upon the Government the desirability of resorting to more drastic measures to suppress the disturbances to which he has called the attention of the House. I think it is not uninteresting to contrast the condition of affairs in Ireland at the present time with what it was under his administration when he was Viceroy and in possession of the weapon which the Crimes Act gave him. For instance, in 1889, when the noble Marquess was responsible for the government of Ireland, and when, as he has told your Lordships, he was putting into force the full severity of the Crimes Act, I observe that there were 534 cases of agrarian outrage. Now we, without the possession of that engine of repression, only showed 397 acts of agrarian outrage last year.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: You cannot restore a country which in certain parts is in a state of anarchy at a moment's notice. It took us three years to restore order. We only secured our powers, I think, at the end of 1887, and owing to the condition in which the country was it took a couple of years to restore order. But when that Government went out of office in 1892 there was not a single case of boycotting in Ireland.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I am quite willing to recognise the improvement which the noble Marquess effected. He thinks it was entirely due to the possession of these particular powers.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Certainly.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I do not know whether that would be borne out by a review of the situation from the point of view of our present knowledge. But, in spite of this, he was not able to restore law and order—
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Rome was not built in a day. It takes some time to restore a country which was in the state in which we found Ireland. It was considered extraordinary that we had been able to bring Ireland to the condition in which it was when we left it, considering the state in which we found it when we took office.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I quite appreciate that the noble Marquess thinks time was needed for the operation of the Act to prove its full effect. But we may claim that time is needed for our policy to mature to the full extent. This debate shows, and the noble Marquess's speech shows, that there has been an improvement in Ireland between this year and last year and the year before, and I maintain that that will be continued, and that when we have had a few more years in Ireland the improvement will be extended to these four counties also. The fact of the matter is—it is very often said and never contradicted—that many of these disturbances are incidental to the land distribution. They are the necessary accompaniment of the Land Act of 1903. It is practically obvious that that Act, beneficent as it has been and great as are the advantages which will be and are being derived from it, has stimulated in Ireland a land hunger, and has led to natural disappointment on the part of those people who expected to have their long cherished desires gratified almost at once. Moreover, a good many of these disturbances are little more than village squabbles over the particular apportionment of the land which the Estates Commissioners are dealing with. A perusal of the details of the cases will show that in many instances they are disputes between rivals for the same plot of land and so

1127
forth, and, of course, that will disappear as the Estates Commissioners are able to deal one after another with these particular cases. A good deal has been made of cattle-driving and its results. Nobody, of course, can condone cattle-driving, but it is possible, I think, to make too much of it. It is part of a political agitation, and the grazier very often is little inconvenienced by the driving.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Not by the maiming?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I said he was not often inconvenienced by the driving of his cattle. They are recovered by the local police, and frequently the grazier does not trouble to turn out of doors to see what has happened. But so far as maiming is concerned, he is entitled to and receives very heavy compensation for any maiming that is done, and that compensation is borne by the rates. I do not mean for a moment to infer that cattle-driving can be defended in any of its aspects, but it is possible to make too much of it. It is a diminishing factor, and we hope that before very long it will have disappeared altogether.
A good deal has been said about the Peace Preservation Act. It is true that the Government consented to the lapsing of that Act in 1906, but, as has already been stated, they have under consideration the whole question of the carrying of firearms in this country and in Ireland, and before very long no doubt they will be able to make known their decision to the House. At the same time no one in this debate has directly connected the shooting cases which have occurred with the fact that there is no Peace Preservation Act in Ireland. If people intend to commit the outrages which we have to deplore, no Peace Preservation Act would prevent them getting the arms necessary for the purpose. With regard to the policy of reimposing the Crimes Act, the Government do not feel that there is any necessity at present to resort to this drastic and very undesirable procedure. I think we are entitled to time before you can judge as to the full effect of our policy. No doubt a policy of this kind demands patience, and it is only when that patience is given to the subject that we can hope to settle the Irish question on these lines. I hope I have been able to lay before your Lordships
1128
statistics which go to prove that the condition of Ireland, far from being any worse than it has been in the past, shows, distinct signs of improvement.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I am sure we all welcome the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down, and I am sure everyone on this side of the House will hope that it will not be the last speech he will make, but that we may have many opportunities in future of joining with him in debates. The noble Lord commenced with an apology for intervening in the debate. He apologised for the fact that he had no first-hand knowledge of Ireland. That apology I can assure him was quite unnecessary, because if he has no first-hand knowledge of Ireland he is in exactly the same position as every other member of His Majesty's Government. I except, of course, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Crewe), and the noble Viscount beside him (Viscount Morley) who does not take part in Irish debates; but at the time those noble Lords were concerned with Ireland I myself was in short petticoats, and therefore I may be allowed to say that their knowledge, though first-hand, is not very new. The noble Lord commented upon what he called the absence of sting in the attack made upon His Majesty's Government in this debate as compared with that of last year. I am sure we are all sorry if we have failed to give noble Lords opposite an attack of the severity which they think the occasion demands, but I can assure them we feel just as bitterly over the condition of a part of Ireland now as we did fifteen months ago.
I do not think we have been fairly treated as to our attitude with regard to the area in which disturbances take place. I have never claimed that there have been disturbances in North Antrim. I have never claimed that there have been disturbances in County Wexford. I have never claimed that the whole island was in a state of disturbance. But I have claimed that a large area was in a state of disturbance. I think noble Lords are taking a little too much credit to themselves when they say that our attitude has changed, and that we now only admit that certain areas are disturbed. My recollection is rather the other way. We had enormous difficulty when His Majesty's Government first came into power in getting.

1129
them to admit that any area in Ireland was disturbed at all, and therefore we can congratulate ourselves, I think, that we have made some progress if noble Lords now admit that a certain part of the country is disturbed.
The noble Lord went on to argue that even in those four counties the state of affairs is better, but I do not think he went into detail as to why affairs are better in those four counties. Might I suggest two reasons to him? One is that there is no doubt whatever that word was preached by certain Nationalist Members last year that it was desirable that agitation should quiet down in order to give Mr. Birrell a chance in connection with his Land Bill. Do not noble Lords opposite think that those speeches may have affected their statistics? I suggest another reason. Is it not conceivable that in certain districts cattle-driving might have done its work and that therefore it has stopped since the cattle-drivers have got all they want? I am certain that my noble friend Lord Clonbrock, who comes from one of the worst districts in Ireland as regards cattle-driving, could tell your Lordships of actual cases where the men whose cattle have been driven have surrendered, and therefore the cattle-driving has stopped. I suggest these to the Government as two reasons which make their statistics appear better, though they are better not by any action of their own, but rather by their inaction. The Government take the whole credit to themselves, and I am only tempted to ask one question on that point. If you have been able to effect this great improvement, why not complete it and abolish intimidation altogether? If you have some wonderful methods that really are so extraordinarily successful, it is astonishing how slow that success has been.
I will only touch on two other points to which the noble Lord referred. He alluded to the state of Ireland in 1889, and both he and the noble Earl the Lord President took great comfort in comparing the state of the country now with what it was in 1889. May I suggest only one point in mitigation of their comparison? We must remember that there was a far greater field for disturbance and agitation in 1889 than there is now, because half of Ireland had not been sold under the Land Purchase Acts, and it is admitted on all sides that where there has been purchase a less favourable
1130
field for agitation exists. I think that is a fair answer to noble Lords when they set up this comparison which seems to give them such lively satisfaction. The only other point in the noble Lord's speech to which I would like to refer was the last point he mentioned—the action of the Government in allowing the Peace Preservation Act to lapse, and his claim that the non-use of that Act has had nothing whatever to do with the present outrages.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: No direct connection.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I have here some evidence which I do not wish to place too high because noble Lords opposite naturally will not like it as it is evidence from a Unionist newspaper, and it comes from Birmingham, which from their point of view is worse. The Birmingham Daily Post sent a commissioner over to Ireland last year, and he wrote a number of very interesting articles. I do not know who the commissioner was, but a great deal of his evidence was very impartial. I think I may say that because with some of it I do not myself agree. He happens to deal with this very point. Speaking of the well-known Craughwell murder and another outrage where a policeman had his skull cracked, this is what he says—
"These incidents have excited feelings of much disquietude among the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who complain bitterly of the repeal by this Government of the Arms Act under which no person could possess a gun except under licence on the recommendation of two magistrates. Their argument is that the murder of the policeman on the Clanricarde estate would not have taken place had that Act been continued. I am informed that the police know that since the discontinuance of that law there is scarcely a farmhouse in the south and west of Ireland which does not contain a gun—not kept for any necessary and legitimate purpose, such as the destruction of vermin, but because of a lawless instinct or a sense that one is needed for protection against lawless neighbours. These weapons, it appears, are of the cheapest kind, purchaseable at about thirty shillings, and the traffic in them, I am informed, has been considerable. Be that as it may, the murder of the policeman on the Clanricarde property is directly attributable to the facilities granted by the present Government for the peasantry of the disturbed counties to possess themselves of arms and ammunition."
I do not wish to put this too high, but it is the evidence of an observer in Ireland, and it does, at any rate, throw some colour upon our claim—a claim that I should have thought almost proved itself—that the

1131
great increase in the number of arms owned is responsible for the enormous increase in their use.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: There is not such an increase.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Not in the arms possessed?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Not in their use.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I do not think the noble Lord will deny that there is an increase in the seriousness of the offences. I will mention one. The noble Marquess referred to a riot between two forces of Nationalists in County Cork. On that very day there was a more serious outrage in County Clare. A man under police protection was going home accompanied by two policemen and was fired upon with rifles at 600 yards. The rifles were found by the police shortly afterwards close to the place from which they were fired. That is, I submit, an infinitely more serious stamp of offence than that with which we were unfortunately acquainted in previous years. And those rifles could not have been in the possession of those men if the Peace Preservation Act had been in force. I mentioned just now that I thought we had not been quite fairly treated in times gone by with reference to the exact state of Ireland, and I said that at one time we had to complain that the Government were not even ready to admit that there was any disturbance in Ireland at all. Some members of the Government will not even admit it now. I notice that on May 4 the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies made a speech at Reading in which he said that disorder had ceased to exist in Ireland. I merely mention this in passing, as noble Lords opposite have been candid in admitting that there is disorder in certain parts, and I hope the interesting figures which were quoted by the Lord President will be circulated to his colleague with an intimation that it is desirable that he should be a little more accurate in future when he makes speeches on the public platform. No amount of belittling, whether made by junior members of the Government on a public platform or by the Chief Secretary in the House of Commons, can really do away with the truth of the statistics that the Government themselves give us, and more especially
1132
give to our friends in the House of Commons in response to Questions.
I do not think the speeches that members of the Government have made this evening have really fairly attacked the gravamen of our charges. As my noble and learned friend Lord Ashbourne stated, there has been no defence of boycotting, or of the Government's inaction in dealing with it, or of the illegal system of the United Irish League set up in opposition to the law of the land. The proceedings of the United Irish League are transacted in open court. The branches of the League meet and dispense what they regard as justice. I have several reports in my hand. Here is an extract from a paper with which some of your Lordships are familiar, the Sligo Champion—
"When the Creevelea Branch of the United Irish League met on January 2, the shopkeeper who was censured at the last meeting came before the meeting, and gave an explanation which was considered satisfactory. It was reported to the meeting that a man from the Tullylougen district is working with the Reymore objectionable. It is expected that the Killargue Branch will take action in this matter, as this man lives within the ambit of their branch. It was also agreed that a Knockacullen man should get a wide berth from the Nationalists in his district."
The branches of the League have regular sittings, with perfect solemnity and ordinary procedure, just as noble and learned Lords sit in this House to dispense justice; they give their decisions and publish them openly in the Nationalist newspapers circulating in the district. They are not isolated decisions tucked away in the corner of the newspaper, but they fill columns and columns in every issue. Since the cattle-driving conspiracy grew up under His Majesty's Government these resolutions have attained to a depth of formality which is inconceivable compared with the record of previous years. I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Clonbrock protest against an expression used by the Chief Secretary the other day in the House of Commons that these resolutions were treated with contempt in Ireland. They are the weapon and the machinery by which the United Irish League does all its work. I venture to say that the decisions of the courts of the United Irish League in those parts of Ireland which we are discussing to-day are treated with far more respect than the Courts of His Majesty.
The noble Earl the Lord President took us to task for drawing attention to this

1133
state of affairs, but it is a little difficult to persuade oneself how attacks upon a system can possibly do the same harm as the Government's passive acceptance of it. The effect upon individuals is a most unhappy one. But might I suggest that the effect on the nation of the inability of His Majesty's Government to deal effectively with the questions before them is infinitely more serious. In England if a man fails to pay his rent the Courts deal with him at once. The Courts will not touch a man who fails to pay his rent in those parts of Ireland which we are discussing if he has the United Irish League at his back. The noble Lord opposite who addressed your Lordships for the first time described what takes place as "village squabbles," causing little inconvenience to the grazier. May I trouble your Lordships with one more extract from a Nationalist newspaper? It is an example of a "village squabble causing little inconvenience to the grazier." There is a particularly brutal case of boycotting on the borders of Ulster known as the Arva case. The two men boycotted have committed the terrible crime of inheriting from their father farms from which somebody many many years ago was evicted. No agitation was started in connection with the case until the locality realised that Mr. Birrell's appointment as Chief Secretary gave them a favourable opportunity for agitation. This is a description taken from the Roscommon Herald of February 5—
"Friday last was fair day in Arva. William McNeill, the boycotted man in Aughavas, with his usual bodyguard of police and two emergencymen, entered the town about 12 noon. About the same hour Francis Cooke, better known as ' Teapot ' Cooke, also made his appearance, closely guarded by police and accompanied by an emergencyman. Their entrance to the town was heralded by booing, cheering, and blowing of horns, which drew the attention of the people attending the fair, and was the means of gathering the crowd around the obnoxious gentlemen."
A large force of police was present. The report continues—
"On that day week McNeill visited Arva in search of provisions. After being refused in Duncan's"—
evidently the name of one of the shops—
"for the goods, he tried Keith's, who has since supplied him, and is now rigorously boycotted. Early that day a deputation of young men from the Aughavas Branch of the United Irish League went through the town and warned the shopkeepers not to supply McNeill with any goods, as he was boycotted by the League for grabbing the farm at Aughavas, from which Dominick Maguire was evicted some years ago, and which he refused
1134
to give up after being requested to do so several times. No one in Arva would give him any support except one, and he is now enjoying a solitary existence."
That is a concrete case, given in the words of a Nationalist newspaper. It shows what happened in the case of two men, whose sole crime is that they own land which they have inherited and from which somebody was once evicted. When they come in on market day to purchase their provisions they are followed by this booing crowd, who prevent them from getting provisions in any shop except one, and that shopkeeper is immediately put under the ban of the United Irish League. Surely it is grossly unfair to describe that as a village squabble.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I said the disturbances were sometimes due to village squabbles. This is a different case altogether. But there are cases where there are rival claimants for the particular piece of land which is being distributed by the Estates Commissioners.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I can assure the noble Lord that what I have read is not at all unusual, but is the ordinary procedure in a boycotting case. We must not forget that there is the national as well as the individual point of view, and that if you educate the people into believing that while they have a political organisation at their back they are safe from the operation of the law of the land, it is just possible that the public Exchequer may suffer disadvantage from that theory if it is accepted and allowed to be deeply ingrained in the minds of the people. Under the Purchase Acts the security for the payment of the annuities is the land itself, and though I have always strongly believed that there is no great likelihood of any large repudiation of purchase annuities, it is not a very long step for the agitator to take when he finds his business decreasing through the diminution in the number of landlords, to start an agitation against the State with similar weapons as those which he is now using against landlords. Remember that the law of the United Irish League is that no man is to occupy an evicted holding, that no man is to be the caretaker of an evicted holding, that no man is to temporarily graze an evicted holding, and that no man is to bid at an auction for an evicted holding when it is for sale. If the Government had to sell such a holding through failure to pay the

1135
annuity, not due to the inability of the occupier so much as to the encouragement he has received from agitators, the Government would be in considerable difficulty in dealing with it if the United Irish League were still able to enforce the rules which they have made and which they now enforce with almost absolute impunity in the districts under discussion.
The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, and several of your Lordships have referred to the dislike of the Government to use what I believe to be the proper weapon, what is familiarly called, though misnamed, the Crimes Act. But the noble Marquess also drew attention to the fact, and I only wish to enforce it, that this Government do not make full use of the ordinary law apart from the Crimes Act. A number of statistics have been quoted to your Lordships, and I do not wish to trouble you with any more; but the figures given in the House of Commons on June 30 by Mr. Birrell are eloquent as to the failure of the Government to prosecute in cases in which they should prosecute. The stock answer is that they do not prosecute because they cannot get evidence. Why can they not get evidence? For one reason only—the people who can give evidence do not feel that they will get security from the Government after they have given evidence. The confidence of the people in the Government to protect them has gone. So long as that want of confidence in the Government exists you will fail to get evidence. Lord Justice Cherry himself, who I am sure noble Lords opposite would not expect us to think is too much prejudiced in favour of law and order, in the last two days, in an address to the Grand Jury at his first Assizes, complained of this, and said it was due in great measure to the system of intimidation which exists. That system of intimidation could be put down now just as it was put down by the Unionist Government. I think we are entitled to ask, How much longer is this farce to go on of having a Chief Secretary to govern Ireland when he refuses to use the powers that are in his hands and which in past years have proved effective?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, perhaps I may be forgiven at this stage for joining in the debate to say a few words, although, as the noble
1136
Earl who has just sat down pointed out, my knowledge of Ireland is not quite so recent as his own or that of other noble Lords opposite. At the same time it is somewhat more recent than the noble Earl implied, because I think he said he was in short frocks when my noble friend and I were in Ireland. As a matter of fact, I think that in the year when we left Ireland the noble Earl had reached the substantial age of twenty years.
This debate, like all other recent debates we have had on the state of Ireland, although, as has been pointed out, it differs from some previous debates in material respects, really can be concentrated on the one question as to whether His Majesty's Government are or are not prepared to bring the Crimes Act into operation in certain parts of Ireland. That, I think, was the general effect of the question put by the noble Marquess and it has been once more enforced by the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down. The noble Earl said it had been proved that the Crimes Act would do away with crime in such districts as those which have been mentioned in the course of the debate, and in which it is not disputed that an undesirable condition of affairs exists. I may say, in passing, that it is not even accurate to speak of four counties as being disturbed. So far as anything like a dangerous or even what may be called a serious state of affairs can be said to exist, it appears to be confined to three districts in the county of Clare and to a considerable part of the East Riding of Galway. As regards this often argued question of the Crimes Act, the noble Marquess who introduced this discussion said that when he left Ireland and was succeeded by the next Viceroy, Lord Zetland, there was no boycotting in Ireland. That, so far as I can recollect, is accurate, but to speak of Ireland as being then in a condition of complete peace would surely not be accurate.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I left Ireland in 1889. I meant that when the Conservative Government of which I was a member went out of office it was admitted that they left Ireland free from boycotting.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes. Bat I was going to say that there were when we arrived, and there continued to be

1137
during our term of office, a considerable number of persons under police protection. From my recollection I am inclined to think that if those who were completely protected and those who were protected by patrols were added together the number must have run into hundreds, and therefore it would not be accurate to regard the condition of Ireland when we went there in 1892 as one of profound peace and contentment, because there were at that time parts of Ireland which gave and continued to give during our term of office no small anxiety. Something has been said of boycotting, and the noble Earl, Lord Mayo, admitted most fairly and frankly that to deal with boycotting successfully is one of the most difficult tasks which can be set to any Government. There is no doubt that the more coarse and violent forms of boycotting may conceivably be dealt with under the Acts which make conspiracy penal, but when you come to the more refined but not less painful expositions of boycotting it is an exceedingly difficult thing for the law to deal with.
The noble Earl who has just sat down spoke of what he called the courts held by the United Irish League at which resolutions were passed. Does the noble Earl mean to convey to us that when proceedings which we may think undesirable take place at those meetings that they would lay those who take part in them open to prosecution for conspiracy, and that the authorities in Ireland have omitted so to prosecute? Because unless he means this, or unless he means that the League itself ought to be forthwith proclaimed as an illegal organisation, he does not offer any solution of the situation of which he complains. The noble Earl mentioned the Arva case, and gave it, I think, as a typical case. The circumstances, so far as I am aware of them, as regards the complaint against these brothers are as the noble Earl stated, but it is certainly not a typical case, because it seems, from the information which I have, to be one of an extremely unusual character. This particular case has reached rather the dimensions of a feud than of an ordinary boycotting case, because I understand that no fewer than sixty persons are included in the boycott list—eight of the one family, the remainder of the sixty being their friends and supporters. But I am not able to speak
1138
at length of the case, because I understand that as a matter of fact criminal proceedings for riot are now pending against the people who in the town endeavoured to prevent supplies being forthcoming to the McNeill family, and since then the police say that the general position has improved and that they hope that the particular trouble may die down.
We are accused, not only of not applying the Crimes Act, but of not applying the ordinary law; and when we do not prosecute because we say it is useless to go on prosecuting in cases where no evidence is forthcoming, the noble Earl goes on to say that evidence is not forthcoming because those who give evidence are not secure. What exactly is the nature of that charge? The noble Earl can hardly mean that those who give evidence in such cases do not receive the ordinary measure of police protection. It has always been the case, I suppose, ever since there have been disturbances in Ireland, that those who have given evidence in cases of a certain kind have undergone some degree of risk. I dare say the noble Earl knows as well as I do that there have been cases in which people have been altogether taken away from the neighbourhood and have disappeared from the society in which they moved and have been provided for elsewhere.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: What was in my mind was that they are in danger of the boycotting, from which they feel they do not get protection.
THE EARL OF CREWE: But surely that is arguing in a circle, because the noble Earl's prescription for putting down boycotting is, I understand, the bringing into operation of the Crimes Act, and nothing else. He has no other suggestion, so far as I know, to offer, and therefore we come back to the question as to the renewal of the Crimes Act. I do not want to repeat what I have often said before at this Table, but I do not think it can be regarded as proved that the proceedings possible under the Crimes Act ever have in the past succeeded, or if they were now applied would really succeed, in putting down a particular class of crime. The noble Marquess spoke of the gradual improvement which took place under the operation of the Crimes Act. But when the noble Viscount and

1139
I were in Ireland we got on for three years without putting the Crimes Act into force, and therefore it seems to me a large and not a very reasonable assumption to suppose that particular classes of crime can be put down by the application of the Crimes Act. Ireland was not, I am sorry to say, altogether free from crime in our time. The county of Clare, for instance, was in a disturbed condition, and there was at different times a great deal of firing into dwellings and of crime of that kind, but it certainly never seemed to us that we should effect anything in cases of that class by bringing into operation even that provision of the Crimes Act to which allusion has been made in the course of the debate, and which I have always regarded as being in itself a quite unobjectionable provision—namely, that of instituting an inquiry without having a prisoner before the Court. It is only, I think, in rare instances, and in instances of a totally different kind, that even that provision would, in our opinion, be usefully applied.
But the reason that I interrupted the noble Marquess in his opening observations was that I was anxious to know, with regard to the particular class of offences of firing at the person—that is, firing a shot from behind a dyke—or firing into dwellings, when, as noble Lords opposite are aware, it is not very often possible even to suspect an attempt at murder, whether there has ever been a time, Crimes Act or no Crimes Act, when convictions have habitually been obtained in respect of those two classes of offences. My impression is that the failure to bring offenders to justice is not owing so much to the difficulty of getting evidence, although that, of course, is a factor in the case, but to the special circumstances under which those particular crimes are committed, which obviously make conviction exceedingly difficult.
I do not think I need dwell further upon the question of cattle-driving, which by common admission is dying out. I do not say that it is altogether extinct, but so far as I am able to judge there is this difference, that there undoubtedly was a time when cattle-driving, as my noble friend behind me said, represented something like concerted political action; but now I am glad to think that where cattle-drives occur they take place in connection with particular disputes on particular estates,
1140
and though they remain, of course, a most reprehensible and undesirable form of agrarian quarrel, this can no longer, except in rare cases, be said to be anything like an organised policy.
The next point is the demand for the renewal of the Peace Preservation Act. It was the view of the Government when they took the step of dropping that Act that it was in the nature of an experiment which could only be justified by its success. It has been pointed out that in one respect firearms are now more easily obtained in Ireland than they are in England, because the Act for which the noble Earl opposite was, I think, responsible in 1903 does not apply to Ireland, and therefore the would-be purchaser of a pistol is in a better position there than he would be here. But I am inclined to think the noble Earl would agree that if there is anything wrong in Ireland the mere application of that Act to Ireland would not remedy the evil. It might do something towards it, but I do not feel that the mere introduction into Ireland of the provision which I think is the main feature of that Act—that only the possessor of a gun licence may buy a pistol—would cause a very sensible diminution in the number of pistols in Ireland. So far as crimes of a serious nature are concerned, I do not believe that the dropping of the Act has any effect one way or the other. Persons who intended to fire at anybody or into dwelling-houses have not been deterred from doing so by the existence of the Act, and have always been able to possess themselves of firearms for the purpose, Peace Preservation Act or no Peace Preservation Act. But I am quite willing to admit the danger which may attach in a fray or riot of any kind to an indiscriminate possession of firearms. There always has been too much of it in Ireland as well as in England. Even when the Peace Preservation Act was in force—I believe the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, will bear me out—pistols were very freely used, though not for purposes of murder, although there have been, of course, grave cases in which they have been used in actual riots. I do not complain of a certain degree of impatience on the part of noble Lords opposite on this question. I think myself that it is one that ought to be dealt with not specially in relation to Ireland, because I do not believe that there is anything in the state of Ireland which calls for

1141
special urgency in the matter. But I shall be very glad when those of my right hon. friends who are concerned with this matter find it possible to deal with the whole question of the possession of firearms in the United Kingdom in a complete and reasonable way.
My noble friend Lord MacDonnell, who I think is no longer in the House, dealt fully and well with the position created by the passing of the Land Act of last year, which, though not, of course, the subject of this debate, yet is in some respects germane to it. I have no desire to add anything to what he said, but I cordially agree with what fell from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, when he said that land purchase in Ireland tended to make for peace. I fully believe that is so, and I think that whatever may be the objections on different grounds, financial and other, to the policy of land purchase, that fact is one of the great defences of that policy. But, as has often been pointed out, it will not bring about the millennium in Ireland. I do not believe that even if the whole of Ireland was in the hands of peasant proprietors—a state of things which I have no desire myself to see brought about—agrarian disputes would be entirely got rid of, because in any country where attachment to the land is so strong cases of differences which appear trivial to outsiders will sometimes lead to serious and even violent disputes. I suspect that among the peasant proprietors in many parts of the Continent of Europe evidence could be adduced in proof of what I have said, but I do not at all deny the pacifying effect of the various Purchase Acts, beginning with that for which the noble and learned Lord who sits opposite was responsible.
All I think we have a right to ask in discussing these matters is that they should be discussed, as they have been to-night, in a spirit of moderation and without exaggeration. Several of my noble friends behind me have drawn attention to the remarkable difference between the tone of the debate this year and the debate of last year. Certainly I am far from being disposed in any way to twit noble Lords with that. I am only thoroughly glad that it should be so. They have laid before us in measured language what they consider to be the defects of our policy, but they have not broken out into the somewhat
1142
extravagant denunciations to which we have been used in former years. I contrast, for instance, the speech which the noble Earl who immediately preceded me to-night made last year, when, in speaking of the Craughwell murder, he used language to which I think this House is unaccustomed, in which he said that the Chief Secretary must bear a considerable part of the moral blame for that horrible assassination, and he went on to ask how many murders of that kind were to be committed before the Government moved. I am glad to say that that dreadful crime has not found a parallel since. I am afraid that the district in which it took place is in a thoroughly bad state, and that the district of Athenry is honeycombed by a dangerous and pernicious secret society. That is a state of things which, as we know, has always existed in certain conditions of local feeling. But, speaking generally, I think we may say that there are signs, except in those one or two black spots, not merely of a diminution in the statistics of crime, but also of a better and more reasonable spirit; and we may look forward without any real dread of a recrudescence of crime to the future, and also with hope to the steady operation of the Land Act which was made law last year.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, my noble friend who introduced this question to-night at the outset of his remarks said somewhat pathetically that, though he had often had occasion to call the attention of this House to the state of Ireland, he had never yet received what he regarded as an adequate answer from the Bench opposite. I am not quite sure whether my noble friend will be better satisfied with the answer which he has received this evening. I gather that it has two limbs to it. We are told, in the first place, that these disorders are purely local; and, in the second place, that they are less frequent than they have been. We can readily concede that the trouble is a local one, and, of course, it goes without saying that cattle-driving is not likely to be resorted to except in districts where there are grazing farms and consequently where there are cattle to be driven. Then with regard to the question of improvement, I think the figures that show improvement require to be, to some extent, at any rate, discounted by the fact that there are certain districts in which notoriously a condition of apparent quiet has been brought about by

1143
the triumphant successes of these local organisations. It is the old story: You create a solitude and you call it peace. And it has, again, to be remembered that in those areas where purchase has been carried out on an extensive scale the result has been, as Lord Ashbourne pointed out, at once to get rid of a great many of these old-standing difficulties. But, making allowance for all these facts, we are, I think, justified in contending that within these comparatively restricted areas a condition of things still exists which can only be described as scandalous and intolerable. I think the noble Earl took credit to His Majesty's Government for the diminution in the number of cattle-drives. It may be that the statistics show some diminution, but I am told that already in this year no fewer than 119 of these operations have taken place. Surely that is not a figure which can fill anybody with unbounded satisfaction.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think it is only fair to add that in those statistics of cattle-driving are included very small operations when only a few cattle are driven out of a field into the road.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That may be so; but, on the other hand, there are some operations which I can only describe as of the most atrocious character—operations which would be condemned by all right-thinking people, not only on account of what you may describe as their social and political effect, but on account of the ruthless barbarity and cruelty with which they are carried out. The other evening we were morally shedding tears over the maltreatment of decrepit horses that are conveyed to the Continent, but do your Lordships imagine that any of those horses suffer greater cruelty and more abominable ill-usage than do some of those bullocks which are hunted about the country and left in a state of exhaustion by the roadside?
With regard to this question of cattle-driving, noble Lords opposite must really excuse us if we remind them that cattle-driving is a development which has taken place since they came into office. The thing was unknown in Ireland. We call to mind the admission of the present Chief Secretary that he found Ireland, I think the expression was, "peaceful and crimeless," while, unless my memory fails me, his predecessor dwelt with satisfaction on
1144
the fact that Ireland had never been in a quieter condition since the days of Strongbow. Since those days all these malpractices have grown up, and our contention is—and we shall continue to maintain it—that if these practices had not been Weakly and irresolutely dealt with the thing might have been crushed out of existence in its earlier stages. I do not suggest, of course, that His Majesty's Ministers have condoned these offences, but I do suggest that they have never adequately appreciated the gravity of them, and that has been shown by their conduct and by their language. One noble Lord behind me referred just now to a statement made by the present Chief Secretary which was, I think, to the effect that resolutions of the United Irish League denouncing particular individuals were regarded with contempt in Ireland.
THE EARL OF CREWE: "Sometimes treated with contempt," was, I think, the phrase the Chief Secretary used.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not think I noticed that qualification.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: There is no word "sometimes" in Hansard.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend behind me fortunately has the text of the Chief Secretary's statement, in which the qualifying word apparently does not occur. And what a revelation that was when this evening the noble Earl who spoke earlier in the debate compared these Irish cattle-drives with the case of the mutilation of cattle in Staffordshire a few years ago! Does the noble Earl seriously think that there is any comparison between the two things? I would venture to say that if the people of Staffordshire had been able to catch the person who perpetrated those offences he would have had a very good chance of being lynched on the spot. What is the case in Ireland? A cattle-drive takes place. Half the population is probably mixed up in it, and the other half is afraid to give evidence or take any steps in vindication of the law.
The noble Earl said just now that in his view the sole question between us was whether His Majesty's Government were justified in not putting the Crimes Act into force. I do not desire this evening to revive that controversy. We, of course,

1145
have always held that His Majesty's Government had a weapon ready to their hand that they might have used, and the use of which would probably have put an end to the state of things of which we complain so much. The noble Earl differs from us. He told us last year that the Crimes Act was a "rotten weapon." I think that was the expression he used. We do not think it is a rotten weapon. We believe it is an effectual weapon, and we are inclined to suggest that it is a Statute which can be put into force without really doing any wrong or injustice to the law-abiding people of the country in which it operates. I have always been led to believe that the greater part of the provisions of the Crimes Act are to be found in the ordinary Scottish law, and, if that is so, what conceivable reason can there be for not setting in force provisions of the law which have been tried before in Ireland and which have not been found wanting in efficacy? But, as I said just now, I do not wish to revive that old controversy.
I desire, however, before I resume my place, to say one word about another Statute—the Peace Preservation Act. That Act was passed by a Liberal Government in the year 1881 for the purpose of placing necessary restrictions upon the possession and use of arms and explosives. It was kept in operation, and it was tightened up, if I may say so, in 1886 by the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Morley), and I have no doubt quite properly tightened up; and it was defended by him a few years later on the ground that he did not regard it as a measure of coercion but as a measure of police regulation. That is how we regard it; and assuming, as we assume, that you wish to eschew coercion in all shapes, we cannot see, given the condition of things which exists in parts of Ireland, why you should not use this useful measure of police regulation which the noble Viscount regarded with so much favour not many years ago. You allowed that Act to lapse, and if anything appears clearly from the Irish statistics it is that the moment when that Act ceased to operate was the moment when the tide turned in regard to all these crimes accompanied by the use of fire-arms. I am not going to inflict statistics on the House at this hour, but I take a comparison. In 1905, the year before the lapse of the Act, including firing at the person and into dwellings and agrarian and non-agrarian cases, the
1146
number of offences was 29; in 1908 the number was 132, and last year it was 84. The noble Earl who spoke just now repeated an observation that he has made in this House, to the effect that the wide distribution of firearms has very little to do with agrarian crime. He puts it this way, I think, that a man who wants to commit a serious outrage can always get a weapon to commit it with.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Rather more than that—that the class of man who commits this kind of outrage always possesses a firearm whether there is an Act or not.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: But that is not our point. Our point is that, given a condition of disorder in a certain part of the country, that condition becomes immensely aggravated if firearms are scattered about all over the country and are to be found in the pocket of every peasant on the hillside. There have been cases which prove that to the hilt. A noble Lord who spoke earlier referred to a particularly dangerous riot which took place at Newmarket in the South of Ireland, at which pistols were produced and bullets were whizzing about all over the place, with the result that a harmless spectator was killed. Surely that is not a condition of things that anyone can regard with much satisfaction. I do venture to say this, that however much you may dislike the idea of coercive measures there is really no coercion, in the true sense of the word, in placing restrictions on the use of firearms. The wide distribution of firearms and their extreme cheapness all over the world seem to me to be one of the most unfortunate results of modern civilisation. The noble Viscount knows what the wide distribution of firearms in India and in the countries adjoining India means. We are spending many thousands of pounds in endeavouring to stop gun running in the Persian Gulf. Surely it is a perfectly reasonable policy to apply anywhere to say that you shall not be allowed to buy these cheap pistols and cheap rifles, particularly if the state of the country is such as to make it undesirable that these additional incentives to disorder should be supplied. I notice with satisfaction that His Majesty's Government apparently intend to deal with this question of the possession of firearms—I presume by a measure of general

1147
application. I do not care whether it is of general application or not, provided it applies to an extent sufficient to deal with the evil where it notoriously exists.
I will say only one word more before I sit down. These Irish disorders are to some extent excused to-night upon the ground that they are the accompaniment of a transitional state of things—a state of things which I have heard the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack describe as "an agrarian revolution." It is perfectly true that an agrarian revolution is going on in Ireland, an agrarian revolution eminently advantageous to the occupiers of land in that country. I doubt whether, in the history of the world, any concessions have been made to the rural population in any country equal to those which have been placed within the reach of the people of Ireland under the recent Land Purchase Acts. And what I venture to suggest to His Majesty's Government is that these concessions, so generously facilitated by the liberality of the people of this country, carry with them a double obligation—an obligation, in the first place, upon the peasants in whose interests they are made to show themselves by their conduct worthy of the sacrifices that have been made for their sakes, and an obligation, in the next place, upon His Majesty's Government to see that this great experiment gets fair play and is carried out under conditions which will give it a fair and reasonable prospect of success. It is only the people of Ireland who can decide for themselves whether by their conduct they will show themselves worthy of all that which has been done for them; but it is possible for His Majesty's Government, by
1148
showing not only sympathy and generosity, but firmness in the dealings with crime and disturbance, to ensure something like fair conditions for the great agricultural experiment which is now in progress. It seems to me that His Majesty's Government are open to this charge, that they have sometimes forgotten the extent of that obligation, and that in their desire to avoid action which might be criticised or render them unpopular in Ireland, they have allowed a condition of things to arise and continue which in any properly governed country would have been dealt with vigorously and firmly at the outset.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Perhaps I may quote the words of the Chief Secretary in view of what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore. I think it possible that we may be referring to two different occasions, but on June 23 of this year, when an hon. Member asked whether it was a fact that a particular outrage was subsequent to a resolution passed by the United Irish League, my right hon. friend said [18 H.C. Deb. 5 s., p. 479]—
"These matters have again and again been before the police—I am not saying in this particular case—and the constabulary have over and over again reported that it is quite impossible for them to say whether there is any connection between these resolutions and the outrages. I can assure the noble Lord very often in Ireland these resolutions are treated with perfect contempt."
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My version, which I obtained from Ireland, did not contain those words. I am very sorry.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.