Sitting of 8 February 1870

Preamble
The House met at half after One of the clock.
Message to attend The Lords Commissioners;—
The House went;—and having returned;—

NEW WRITS DURING THE RECESS.
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House that, during the Recess, he had issued Warrants for New Writs, for Chester County (Eastern Division), v. Edward Christopher Egerton, esquire, deceased; for Tower Hamlets, v. Acton Since Ayrton, esquire, First Commissioner of Works; for Hastings, v. Frederick North, esquire, deceased; for Whitby, v. William Henry Gladstone, esquire, Commissioner of the Treasury; for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities, v. Right Hon. James Moncreiff, Lord Justice Clerk in Scotland; for Chester City, v. Earl Grosvenor, now Marquess of Westminster; for King's Lynn, v. Lord Stanley, now Earl of Derby; for Merioneth County, v. David Williams, esquire, deceased; for Waterford City, v. John Aloysius Blake, esquire, one of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries; for Tipperary County, v. Charles Moore, esquire, deceased; for Queen's County, v. Right Hon. John Wilson Fitz-Patrick, now Baron Castletown; for Longford County, v. Colonel Fulke Southwell Greville-Nugent, now Baron Greville; for Mallow, v. Right non. Edward Sullivan, Master of the Rolls in Ireland.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Acton Smee Ayrton, esquire, for Tower Hamlets; William Cunliffe Brooks, esquire, for Chester County (Eastern Divi-
58
sion); William Henry Gladstone, esquire, for Whitby; Hon. Reginald James Macartney Greville-Nugent, for Longford County; Captain Hugh de Grey Seymour, for Antrim County; Samuel Holland, esquire, for Merioneth County; Ughtred James Kay Shuttleworth, esquire, for Hastings; Lord Claud John Hamilton, for King's Lynn; Edward Strathearn Gordon, Doctor of Laws, for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities.

New Writ for College of the Holy Trinity of Dublin, v. Anthony Lefroy, esquire, Manor of Northstead.
Ordered, That a Committee of Privileges be appointed.
OUTLAWRIES BILL.
Bill "for the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries," read, the first time; to be read a second time.
THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
MR. SPEAKER reported Her Majesty's Speech, made by Her Chancellor, and read it to the House.

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY ON HER MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
CAPTAIN EGERTON: I rise with sincere regret to ask the House to agree to the Motion with which I shall conclude—regret that it has not devolved upon some younger and more eloquent Member of this House, one to whom it might have been a better opening to Parliamentary distinction, with the probability of a longer period wherein to enjoy it. But as it has devolved upon me, I would ask from the House such consideration as it is so ready to accord to one who, though not addressing it for the first time, yet has not frequently trespassed upon its time and attention.
The House will, I am sure, see with regret that Her Majesty has not been able to carry out her intention to be present at the opening of Parliament, and will join with me in the hope that the indisposition of Her Majesty may be only temporary and of no serious nature; and further, that the House and the nation will join in the prayer that Her Majesty may be speedily restored to her usual health, and that a life so valuable to her subjects may be long spared.

59
I may, with one exception, congratulate the House upon tie information contained in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech.
With regard to our Foreign Relations, it will be satisfactory to observe that, not only are our own relations with foreign Powers on a satisfactory footing, but also that there is a growing desire upon the part of foreign nations to conduct their negotiations and to settle their differences by requesting, not the interference, but the advice of disinterested neighbours. We, in this House, represent the vast interests of a great nation, which requires in an especial manner the blessing of peace, in order to develop its resources; and it is, I am sure, a satisfaction to know that the probability of war will in future be much diminished, and that wars will be much less frequent than they have hitherto been.
The House will observe with satisfaction that it is proposed to amend the Laws respecting the Occupation and Acquisition of Land in Ireland. The difficulty and delicacy of the subject are only weighty reasons why the Government should attempt to deal with it, and though there will be an immense number of conflicting interests to deal with in working out this question, I believe still that it will be possible for the Government to discover some measure that will reconcile those interests, and bring the question to a Parliamentary settlement. Possibly, when the question shall come to be more looked into, those interests may be found to be not so entirely separated as at first sight they may appear to be. I am sure that the Government will give to this measure all the attention that they can possibly direct to it, and that they have also during the Recess studied it with the utmost care; still I can hardly hope that the measure will be one that will satisfy all parties; but yet I do hope that it will satisfy the moderate men of both sides, and will have equal regard to the interests of the landlord, the tenant-farmer, and the agricultural labourer. If such a measure as this should be brought into the Housel fool certain that it will command the support of Members of both sides of the House. It is impossible, I suppose, to hope that party feeling shall be kept entirely out of the discussion of this matter; but I know that there are
60
many Members who are superior to the more vulgar indications of party feeling, and I think we may confidently hope that by the assistance of such Members on both sides of the House, a measure may become law that will be satisfactory to the whole of the nation.
A hardly less important measure has been promised in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech—I mean that of National Education. That is a question which excites very considerable interest within the walls of Parliament, and the House must be aware of the intense interest which it excites out-of-doors. There are differences of opinion on the matter, but one thing has been decided by the voice of the nation, and that is that the children of England shall be educated. It is not for me to discuss the merits of rival schemes, or to speculate as to what the provisions of the Government measure may be; but I think that upon examination it will be found that the great difficulty which is supposed to exist in the way of the Bill—the religious difficulty—is not so very great a difficulty as is generally supposed. I feel sure that, among those who have taken an active part in the various assemblages that have been held all over the country to discuss the question, there are but few earnest and sincere men who wish to exclude religion from the education of the country. I believe that they simply understand the application of the principle in different ways; and it would be hard if when the measure is discussed, means should not be found for arriving at a settlement.
Among the other important measures that are to be submitted to the House are those concerning the Incidence of Rating, amending the Laws relating to Licences for the Sale of Fermented and Spirituous Liquors, and for amending the Laws as to the Disabilities of Members of Trade Combinations.
As regards the incidence of rating, there is hardly any subject that is of more importance to the working classes than that of local taxation. No hon. Member can but be aware of the great inequalities that exist, and the way in which those rates press upon the labouring classes; and the discussion that has already taken place cannot be otherwise than beneficial and tend to some beneficial settlement.
As to the licensing system, the enor-

61
mous interests involved are well known to many Members of this House. There are many Members who are aware of the enormous amount of capital which is invested in houses which it is intended to bring under the operation of a new law, and no doubt much good will be derived from the discussion, even if no settlement should be arrived at.
Now, with regard to the disabilities of members of trade combinations. I am not aware what the measure is likely to be, but it seems to me that it will require considerable care and attention. I do not know whether it is intended to assimilate the law of trades unions and friendly and benefit societies; but it will be an object of deep consideration whether the funds of societies which the officials are permitted to employ in promoting strikes should be placed under the same protection of the law.
I observe with satisfaction that it is intended to bring in a Bill to consolidate the Laws as to Merchant Shipping. It seems to me that any measure which tends to the improvement of the merchant navy must tend, sooner or later, to improve the service to which I have the honour to belong; and not only this, but tend also to the general welfare and interest of the country.
In that part of Her Majesty's Speech which is more particularly addressed to this House, it will be observed with satisfaction that there is a prospect of the reduction of taxation, and the promise of economy as well as efficiency in the maintenance of the public establishments. The House and the Government will, I am sure, remember that there can be no true economy without efficiency, and though it is perhaps necessary that reductions in the public expenditure should be made, I trust that the Government will endeavour to carry out such reductions without injustice to individuals or any undue desire to reduce the efficiency of Her Majesty's forces. I am sure that the Government will keep this matter in view—that a proper force should be kept up to give strength without extravagance.
I would now gladly conclude, but there is one more subject to which I must allude. Her Majestry has expressed her regret at the extension of agrarian crime in several parts of Ireland, and the House will share most deeply in that regret. I am sure that neither you nor
62
Her Majesty's Government have any intention to make things appear better than they are, and the House will be gratified to observe that there has been a partial improvement in the state of affairs in Ireland. It is consolatory to know that after many years of well-meant legislation for Ireland an improvement, although but partial, has occurred. For myself, I believe that the effects of recent remedial legislation for Ireland has yet to be felt. I hope, at all events, that the Irish nation will believe that it is the sincere desire and intention of Parliament to do away with those grievances under which, until lately, they have suffered. The present disturbed state of certain portions of the country may be traced to the evil influence exercised by only a small body of men. I think it is hardly possible that a high-minded and generous people like that of Ireland can resist the softening influences of just and impartial legislation, or that they will be swayed by the machinations of secret and cowardly assassins. It will be for the Government to consider what measures may be necessary for maintaining the public peace, and I am certain that no powers which it may be proper for the Government to demand in the present state of Ireland will be refused by the House. Her Majesty has declared it to be her intention to cause the law to be respected, and it will be for the Government and for the House to support Her in that determination. I thank the House for the attention with which they have received these few and imperfect remarks. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to thank Her Majesty for the Most Gracious Speech delivered by Her Command to both Houses of Parliament, and to express our sincere regret that recent indisposition has prevented Her Majesty from meeting us in person:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the friendly sentiments which are entertained in all quarters towards this Country, and which Her Majesty cordially reciprocates, the growing disposition to resort to the good offices of Allies in cases of international difference, and the conciliatory spirit in which several such cases have recently been treated and determined, encourage Her Majesty's confidence in the continued maintenance of the general tranquillity:

63
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for directing that Papers shall be laid before us with reference to recent occurrences in New Zealand:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the Estimates for the Services of the approaching financial year are in a forward state of preparation, and that they are not only framed with a view to the effective maintenance of the Public Establishments, but that they will impose a diminished charge upon the Subjects of Her Majesty:
"To assure Her Majesty that we hear with pleasure that the condition of the Revenue has answered to the expectations which were formed during the past Session; and to express our readiness to carry to its completion the inquiry which was last year instituted into the mode of conducting Parliamentary and Municipal Elections, and thus to prepare the materials of useful and early Legislation:
"Humbly to assure Her Majesty that our most earnest attention will be given to the Measure which has been prepared with a view to amend the Laws respecting the occupation and acquisition of Land in Ireland, in a manner adapted to the peculiar circumstances of that Country, and calculated, as Her Majesty believes, to bring about improved relations between the several classes concerned in Irish Agriculture, which collectively constitute the great bulk of the people; and that we share in Her Majesty's confidence that these provisions will tend to inspire among persons, with whom such sentiments may still be wanting, that steady confidence in the Law, and that desire to render assistance in its effective administration, which mark Her Subjects in general, and thus will aid in consolidating the fabric of the Empire:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that, among many other subjects of public importance which appear to demand our care, a Bill has been prepared for the enlargement, on a comprehensive scale, of the means of National Education:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that in fulfilment of an engagement to the Government of the United States, a Bill will be proposed to us for the purpose of defining the status of subjects or citizens of Foreign Countries, who may desire naturalization, and of aiding them in the attainment of that object; and that we shall be further invited to consider Bills prepared, in compliance with the Report of the Commission on Courts of Judicature, for the improvement of the constitution and procedure of the Superior Tribunals of both original and appellate jurisdiction:
64
"To assure Her Majesty that we humbly join in Her Majesty's opinion that some satisfactory legislative settlement should be effected of the question of Religious Tests in the Universitie and Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, which may contribute to extend the usefulness of these great Institutions, and to heighten the respect with which they are justly regarded:
"To thank Her Majesty for acquainting us that Bills have been prepared for extending the incidence of Rating, and for placing the collection of the large sums locally raised for various purposes on a simple and uniform footing; and to assure Her Majesty of our readiness to undertake the amendment of the Laws which regulate the grant of Licences for the Sale of Fermented and Spirituous Liquors:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that Measures will be brought under our consideration for facilitating the Transfer of Land, for regulating the Succession to Real Property in cases of Intestacy, for amending the Laws as to the Disabilities of Members of Trade Combinations, and for both consolidating and improving the body of Statutes which relate to Merchant Shipping:
"Humbly to assure Her Majesty that we participate in the concern with which Her Majesty has announced to us the recent extension of Agrarian Crime in several parts of Ireland, with its train of accompanying evils:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the Executive Government has employed freely the means at its command for the prevention of outrage, and that a partial improvement may be observed; but that, although the number of offences, within this class of crime, has been by no means so great as at some former periods, the indisposition to give evidence in aid of the administration of Justice has been alike remarkable and injurious:
"To assure Her Majesty that, humbly trusting with Her Majesty to the permanent operation of wise and necessary changes in the Law for the removal of such evils, we shall be prepared for the adoption of special provisions, should such a policy appear during the course of the Session to be required by the paramount interest of peace and order:
"Humbly to assure Her Majesty that we fervently join in Her Majesty's prayers that our labours may be constantly attended by the blessing of Almighty God."
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Mr. Speaker, in entering upon the responsible duty which has been entrusted to me, I must express my wish that it

65
had been committed to some one of greater experience in the House. I cannot lay claim to the customary privilege of those who address you for the first time, but during the one Session in which I have had the honour of a seat in Parliament I have attempted to confine my brief remarks to matters of which I had previously some knowledge. On the present occasion I cannot but speak with all the hesitation of a wholly unpractised Member, for I find myself called upon to follow the hon. Gentleman into the discussion of a vast number of subjects, with many of which I have less acquaintance than almost any Member of the House. My embarrassment is in creased by the complete manner in which my hon. Friend has dealt with Her Majesty's most gracious Speech, and I should hardly venture to detain you with any additional observations that could be made, were it not that in attempting to escape the task which has been imposed upon me I should seem to be wanting in respect towards the House, and to the great constituency which I represent.
We may, I think, congratulate ourselves upon the brevity with which Foreign Relations are treated in the Speech. The words "friendly sentiments" form, however, this year, no unmeaning phrase. I believe that, were it diplomatic, it would be nothing more than true to say that we are upon a footing of intimate friendship with all the Powers. For many years we have not seen the world so entirely at rest, We are not reminded that to the good offices of England, not merely tendered, for that they always are, but joyfully accepted by the interested nations, this tranquillity is largely due. During the late difficulties that arose between Turkey and Greece, between Turkey and Egypt, and between Belgium and France, our mediation is understood to have calmed angry feelings, and in at least one case to have prevented war. I think, then, that while expressing our gladness at the continuance of harmony we should not forget, on the one hand, how we ourselves have helped to bring about the now prevailing concord, nor on the other how happily increased are the chances of the maintenance of peace by the triumph of the principle of popular sovereignty in France and Spain.
Speeches from the Throne have often
66
clauses that seem to remain standing from year to year, and, whether or no it be always very apposite, the paragraph about foreign relations is one of these. But this year it has attached to it a rider which is novel to the point of being bold—the phrase in which we are congratulated upon the readiness the nations show to submit their differences to their allies. Those instances of the happy practice which I have already stated to the House are familiar to all, but circumstances which have occurred would seem to warrant this generalization from them: that there is no nation in Europe which would venture now to act in opposition to the opinion of a majority of the Powers. We have often had suggestions and oftener dreams from writers of much distinction, in which they have proposed the creation of a League which they style "The United States of Europe," but, putting aside the impracticability of their scheme, I would ask the House what end it could attain which we do not now secure? When nations know that not only their rivals, but their friends will expect that the opinion of the Powers should be taken upon the international actions which they propose, they will hesitate before they so much as discuss within their council chambers measures which in the old bad times they would have executed without a thought. There may be gracious promises, there may be phrases of sympathy for all our fellow-citizens, but there is nothing in the Speech to which we have this day listened which is fuller of the hopes that reach all hearts, than the simple words in which we are told that the nations have decided that in future they will refer their differences to friends.
With one foreign Power, if the word "foreign" be strictly applicable to a people whose tongue and whose thought are ours, relations are returning to something better than their former state. Time and the sympathies of race are too strong for politicians and for Governments. As the days roll by bitter words are forgotten, and men begin 10 wonder where the angry feelings of the past can have had their rise, when they note the calmness of the reasoning with which former subjects of dispute are now approached on either side of the great seas. We are told in the Speech that we are soon to deal with the Naturaliza-

67
tion matter. No declaration could give more pleasure to the millions of persons, now citizens of the United States, who were born on British soil, and there is reason to believe that the settlement that has been reached conflicts with no sentiment of English dignity, and with no principle of modern English law, but that it will prove even more satisfactory to the Americans than the arrangements they have made with Prussia.
The list of the principal measures that are to be proposed to us during the present Session is, perhaps, the longest that was ever set before a Parliament; but the measures are neither more numerous nor more weighty than the House has a right to expect when Her Majesty is advised by Ministers who possess in a remarkable degree the confidence of the country and of the House. Not only are there the two great measures to which my hon. Friend has referred, but some of the other Bills proposed are so intimately connected with these two that it is difficult to discuss the one without the other. I believe, for instance, that when we reflect upon the opinions that prevail in the enlarged constituencies by which the present House of Commons has been returned, we shall see that it would have been impossible for a Minister to have dealt with that which is peculiar in the land difficulties of Ireland, without at the same time proposing to us legislation upon those evils which are common to the land systems of both the British Isles. Nor are the twin land Bills, to which I have referred, more closely connected than the twin measures which are proposed to us on Education. A Bill for the abolition of University Tests is required to complete the nationalization of the Universities, and these must be made the nation's if you are to systematize education throughout the land. Indeed, such a measure appears to be desired as a supplement to the Education Bill by so large a majority within these walls, that without going beyond the limits which are set by custom to those who take a somewhat formal part in the discussion of a Speech from the Throne, I may, perhaps, be permitted to express a personal hope that, whatever the difficulties that may arise, the Session will not end without the University Tests Bill having passed into law.
The announcement that an Education
68
Bill is to be proposed by Her Majesty's responsible advisers has been received with pleasure by the House. There will be many who will read the declaration by the light of the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council in his speech at Bradford. I venture to think that the promise that he made, that no religious or irreligious difficulty would be allowed to stand in our way, is not merely the intention of the Government, but the deliberate opinion of the people. Whether or not this is so, it is at least a. conviction firmly held by those who dwell within the towns of England; and were we unhappily to fail to obtain our end during the present Session, nothing can prevent our carrying on the struggle until the reproach of ignorance shall be removed from off the land. It is not we who cause the religious difficulty, but those who insist that sectarian teaching shall have a place in all schools that are supported from the public funds. Whenever the people have been consulted, whenever they have been asked whether they would have education hindered by sectarian differences of any kind, their answer has not been doubtful; and it would almost seem as though in this controversy the whole of the people were collected on one side, and confronted only by a few of those who ought to be their leaders. There is one thing in this matter that we must not forget, and that is that if the people are determined that sectarian differences shall not stand in the way, it is because they are prepared to insist that at all hazards the greatest possible spread of education may be secured, and, if I may speak now for myself alone—for I am ignorant of the details of the plan that Her Majesty's Government will propose—I know not how, without compulsory attendance you will secure the education of every child. If, however, opinion be too much divided still for such a scheme, it might be possible to recognize the vast differences, both of opinion and of fact, that separate some portions of the country from the rest, and to pass a Bill which, while it should be final as regards those parts of the land where no defence could be founded on existing facts, should elsewhere supplement the system which has already secured so many good results. Such a measure would meet with the support of all friends of education, but

69
it would only inspire the inhabitants of the towns to continue the fight until they have secured for every portion of the British Isles those blessings which the Bill would carry to certain of the more favoured spots.
In debating the remaining clauses of the Speech from the Throne, we stand even less than we have done hitherto upon controverted ground. Her Majesty, addressing Her then Parliament two years ago, was graciously pleased to say that the frequent occurrence of disagreements between employers of labour and the workmen they employed, had induced Her to issue a Commission to inquire into the organization of trades unions, and to suggest an improvement in the law. Of that Commission the Ministers have now had time to study the Report; but in introducing a measure upon trades unions they are but carrying out a promise they have already made within these walls. For my part, I do not entirely agree with the views of my hon. Friend as to the details which ought to find a place in such a scheme; but it may be sufficient to say that a House—in the election of which the working classes have had so large a share—will not be indifferent to a measure which they conceive to be their due.
It is with some hesitation that I approach the last of the paragraphs of the Speech, for the subject of Ireland is already so familiar, and has been treated so exhaustively by my hon. Friend, that I could not with any conscience detain the House while I might attempt to show that if the condition of Ireland be such as to need exceptional remedy, it is also such as to require exceptional care. It is true that we have to congratulate ourselves that agrarian outrage has of late been less, and that Her Majesty's Government hare not thought it necessary to propose the suppression of the Habeas Corpus Act. On the other hand, no one can wonder that they should have shown that, if necessary, they will be prepared to supplement the deficiencies of the law. Those who supported the Church Bill of last Session never pretended that it would reconcile the irreconcilable. No one ventured to assert that for all our endeavours to solve that question there would be immediately one Fenian the less. But those whose case it is proposed to meet this Session—the occupiers of the land in Ireland—
70
they who with their families form the bulk of the Irish population—they who are not Fenians, but through whose sympathy Fenianism obtains that half support which alone has made it formidable—these men we may perhaps detach from the forces of rebellion. It is not proposed to bribe the tenants, to win them to our side by measures which would be indefensible except in the emergency of a desperate case; what is to be done is to shape into legislation a recognition that there is in the relation of landlord and tenant in Ireland a something which we have not here. Whatever may be our differences as to the means by which our end is to be wrought, it may perhaps be admitted upon both sides the House that the anxious thought that was displayed in the preparation of the Church Bill of last Session, is not likely to have given place to unthinking rashness in the drafting of the land scheme of this year. There is no hon. Member but will admit that it is our duty to deal with a question without a settlement of which no lasting peace in Ireland is possible, and it is in the feeling that the Session will not end without a satisfactory settlement being reached that I beg, Sir, to second the Address.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That," &c—[See Page 62.]
MR. DISRAELI: Mr. Speaker—The Speech from the Throne promises the introduction of many important measures, but I think, Sir, this is hardly an occasion when it would be convenient to the House that we should enter into any general criticism upon them. I will, therefore, only express a hope that when these measures are brought forward we shall find they are treated by Her Majesty's Government in a manner not unworthy of their importance. Nor, indeed, should I have ventured to trouble the House at all to-night had it not been for some passages towards the end of the Speech, which refer to the condition of Ireland. Those passages, I confess, appear to me to be neither adequate nor altogether accurate. Her Majesty's Government acknowledge that the condition of Ireland is not at all satisfactory; but, while admitting it is bad, they remind us that on previous occasions it has been worse. They tell us that they have employed freely the means at their com-

71
mand for the prevention of outrage—a statement which the House must have heard with satisfaction from so authoritative a quarter, because certainly the popular and general impression was the contrary. As I understand the language, which to me seems involved, and certainly is ambiguous, the Government inform us that, contingent upon their passing certain measures, they will resume the duty of a Government, and protect life and property. I confess I am sorry to see in a document of this Imperial character that any body of men who are responsible Ministers of the Crown are of opinion that to protect the life and property of Her Majesty's subjects is a contingent duty.
Now, with respect to the condition of Ireland, and why I think this notice of it by Her Majesty's Government is neither adequate nor accurate. Unquestionably before this we have had murders in Ireland, and assassinations, and mutilations, and violence in all its multifarious forms—threatening notices, secret societies, turbulent meetings, and a seditious Press. All this has happened before. But on all previous occasions when such disorders have pervaded that country reasons have been alleged, and, if not universally, have been generally adopted by influential persons in the country as explanatory of their occurrence. I remember, Sir, that when I first came into Parliament—thirty years ago now, and something more, I am sorry to say—the state of Ireland was most unsatisfactory; and then it was commonly alleged that it was in a great degree to be attributed to what was called the maladministration of justice; and the conduct of high personages on the judicial bench was impugned and defended in this House, and recriminations were indulged in with all the animosity of party conflict. Well, no one can pretend now that the scenes of outrage which extend over a considerable portion of Ireland can be attributed to maladministration of justice. For the last ten years—I may say twenty and even more—the administration of justice in Ireland has been as just, as pure, and as learned as in this country; and I say this, well knowing that those who sit upon the bench in Ireland have, in the majority of cases, been appointed by the party opposite, and that most of them are members of the Roman Catholic
72
community. Generally speaking, too, if you take also a large view of the conduct of juries in Ireland, particularly under the trying circumstance of the last few years, the law has been vindicated by them with courage and loyalty. Maladministration of justice, then, cannot be alleged to-day as the cause of the crime and outrage which prevail in Ireland at this moment. Another cause which used to be alleged was religious dissension. People said—What can you expect from a country where you allow the minority of the people great privileges in respect of their religion, and permit ecclesiastical inequalities to exist; put an end to the Protestant ascendancy which you support with so much zeal, and you will put an end to these disorders?" Religious dissension was very generally received as the cause of the disturbances and disorders of Ireland; but that plea cannot be urged now. The Protestant population of Ireland now possess no exclusive privileges, their Church has been despoiled and her prelates have been degraded. You have established certainly in theory ecclesiastical equality—though I fear in practice it will be found that those who were lately in possession of those privileges will hardly rise to the level of those who are now considered in theory their equals. But no one can any longer say that it is Protestant ascendancy which is the cause of these horrible disorders. Well, during the long discussions which have occurred in this House now for so many years a third reason has been frequently alleged as the true cause of the disturbed state of Ireland, and that was a seditious priesthood. Now, I am not going to maintain that things have not been said and things have not been done by isolated members of the Roman Catholic priesthood of late which every man of sense and honour on both sides of the House must reprobate; but we know that the great body of the priesthood is arrayed in support of Her Majesty's Government, and therefore it cannot be alleged that a seditious priesthood is the cause of Ireland's trouble. The Roman Catholic congregations are exhorted from the altar to uphold the Ministry of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am told that, even amid the perplexities of the Œcumenical Council, right rev. Prelates have found time and opportunity to despatch canvassing letters to the hustings

73
of Longford and Tipperary. Then we have sometimes been told that all those outrageous occurrences which periodically happen in Ireland are solely occasioned by an organized system of agitation conducted by individuals who in ado agitation profitable. "Get rid of agitators," we were told, "and you will soon find Ireland tranquil and content. "That appears to have been the opinion of a right hon. Gentleman who is a Member of the Administration; for I observe that in addressing his constituents lately he informed them that the condition of Ireland at this moment, in respect of all its crimes and outrages, was the consequence of the desperate condition of the Irish agitators. He told them that these mischievous men are up in arms because they know a Ministry is now in office which is resolved to carry measures to put an end to their profession; and he admitted, with his characteristic candour, that if there had not been a change of Government it is not at all impossible that the agitators, interested in always maintaining a grievance, would have permitted Ireland, under the late Administration, to be tranquil and content. Now, I must say, it strikes me as the most remarkable circumstance in the present condition of Ireland, that she is agitated without agitators. Of course, at such a critical period like the present—a good many of the old hands have appeared, and there is no doubt they thought the time was come when, to use a classical Liberal expression, they could carry on a "roaring trade" in the way of agitation. But the most curious thing I have observed in the course of events in Ireland during the last twelve months is that the agitators mean in station, not very distinguished in ability, have invariably contrived to be on the unpopular side. Although the state of Ireland has been such that, now for a considerable period, once in every week some deplorable outrage has been perpetrated, I must do the agitators the justice to say that, in my opinion, none of those acts can fairly be ascribed to them. Again, all must agree that there have been moments in the history of Ireland when disorders and disturbances there could be traced and attributed to the influence of a foreign country. Notably at the beginning of this century—or, probably, to speak with greater accuracy, I ought to say at the end of the last cen-
74
tury—there were Irish traitors residing in France, in direct alliance with the French Republic, who threatened, and did certainly accomplish, the invasion of Ireland; and this foreign influence was undoubtedly the main cause of the disturbances in Ireland. And recently, within our own immediate experience, some of our Irish fellow-countrymen who are alienated in feeling and sentiment have, in another republic, the republic of America, by peculiar means, exercised a foreign and disturbing influence upon Ireland. We should be, I think, glad to admit, and proud to remember that the same thing can never be said of the American Republic which, was justly said of the French Government—that they ever, for a moment, tolerated, sanctioned, or encouraged the Fenian conspiracy. [Murmurs.] I speak of course only so far as my own experience extends; but, to that extent, I say that the conduct of the American Government was marked by a spirit of honour and political integrity. But, no doubt, the Irish in America have had the means of founding associations and of acting on the opinions of the population of Ireland. Accordingly, there is no doubt that in these two instances foreign influence produced these disorders. Now, with regard to the Fenian conspiracy, which some little time ago was alleged as the cause of these disturbances, I must express my own opinion—I have expressed that opinion before, and its accuracy has been challenged; but, at least, it is an opinion formed after considerable thought, with some responsibility, and with some means of arriving at an adequate conclusion. And the opinion which I so expressed was that the Fenian conspiracy was of foreign growth. Under the Government of the Duke of Abercorn, that conspiracy was, in my opinion, completely broken and baffled. That happened in America which happened in Europe after the Thirty Years' War. In America, as in Germany, the majority of the people, on both sides of the important questions then at issue, were actuated by high principles. But there were naturally a great number of military adventurers who mingled in the fray, and who, when peace was somewhat unexpectedly brought about, wished to employ their military knowledge and experience to some purpose. And the Irish, who are

75
a military nation, had in the American army a great many of their race. But it is an error to suppose that the scheme of invading Ireland and establishing a Republic in that country was confined to Irishmen. If the projected Fenian army had taken the field, the commander, and, I believe the second in command, would neither of them have been Irishmen, nor, so far as I am informed, Roman Catholics. The result of that conspiracy was that, baffled in every way, with all their schemes thwarted, they found, when they came really to the pinch of the question, that both parties to the plot had been deceived. The military adventurers could not count, as they had been led to believe they could do, upon an armed nation rising to receive them; and that part of the Irish nation which sympathized with the conspiracy was disappointed at the inadequate means with which these great intentions were proposed to be accomplished. Hence between the two parties there arose feelings of suspicion and disgust And, notwithstanding all that we have heard, I do not believe that there is any reason for now tracing the disordered state of Ireland to Fenian machinations. I have ventured to mention five causes which, during many years have been brought forward as accounting for the disorders and disturbances which periodically occur in Ireland; and I say that they are all obsolete or non-existing as regards the present state of affairs. There is, I admit, a sixth and a final cause which must be noticed, which has been alleged on previous occasions—and that is the tenure of land. The tenure of land is also now mentioned as the cause of the discontent and dissatisfaction of Ireland; but the tenure of land in Ireland is the same as it was at the Union, except that it has been modified in some degree, and always to the advantage of the occupier. ["No"] At any rate the tenure of land is the same now as it was when Lord Carlisle governed Ireland, and it must be the same as when the Duke of Abercorn governed Ireland. But the tenure then did not produce those scenes of disorder and outrage which have excited the fears and attention of the whole nation for a year, and which are now mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech. It seems that has happened in political affairs which is
76
said to be impossible in physical affairs—namely, spontaneous combustion. The Irish people—that is to say, a great portion of the Roman Catholic population, in Ireland—have rushed into a riotous hallucination. They have suddenly assumed that a great change was about to occur in their condition—a change which, if it should be accomplished, would weaken and perhaps destroy the amount of civilization which they already possess, and which, if carried to its last consequences, would resolve society into its original elements.
I want to know what is the reason that this great portion of the Irish people has suddenly indulged in the wild dreams that have led to this wild and evil action? It cannot be the policy of the Ministry. However we may differ as to the measures of Her Majesty's Government with respect to Ireland, there is no doubt that their policy as regards the Roman Catholic portion of the population is a conciliatory policy. Her Majesty's Government announced their intention to redress all the injuries of the Roman Catholic population, to remove all the abuses of which they have long complained, and under which they have suffered, and generally to ameliorate their condition. The announcement of such a policy could not have brought about the wild and destructive conduct of which we now are all complaining. The truth seems this—The Irish people have misinterpreted the policy of the Government. They have put a false interpretation on the policy of the Government; they have considered that the Government meant to do something different from that which I assume, and shall always believe, it is the intention of the Government to do. But I want to know this—Were the Irish people justified in the erroneous interpretation which they put on the avowed policy of the Government; and if they fell into the dangerous error of misinterpreting that policy, did the Government take all the steps, or any of the steps, that were necessary to remove that false impression and to guide the mind of the Irish people to a right conception of the state of affairs and a duo appreciation of the intentions of the Government? It is unnecessary for me to dilate on the Irish policy of Her Majesty's Government: whatever may be its merits in the opinion of some, or

77
its errors in the opinion of others, there is one point on which I think we must all agree, that it has been expressed on the part of Her Majesty's Government with the utmost frankness and explicitness. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, when he was in a scarcely less responsible position than the one he now occupies, at a time when he was a candidate for the highest post in the country, challenging the confidence of his Sovereign and of his country upon his Irish policy, and speaking, no doubt, with a sense of responsibility not less than that with which he would speak now, told us what his view of the Irish question, as it was called, realty was. He said that the state of Ireland was to be attributed to Protestant ascendancy, and that his policy was to put an end to Protestant ascendancy. Nothing could be clearer, more frank, or more explicit. Protestant ascendancy, the right hon. Gentleman said, was at the bottom of all the disorders and all the grievances and misery of Ireland; it was a tree which had produced three branches which I shall call—not in the language of the right hon. Gentleman, but in accordance with his meaning—branches of predominant perniciousness, extending into the Church, the land, and the education of the country. That was the declaration made to England and to Ireland. England can not complain of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, because that policy was announced before the General Election, and the vote of the English constituencies ratified the determination of the right hon. Gentleman to insure the destruction of Protestant ascendancy in Ireland. But, now what have been the two great causes of excitement and disorder in Ireland? There have, no doubt, been several, but there were two which were prominent last year. One was a desire to free the political prisoners, and the other a demand to transfer the property of one class to another class. Those were really the two great causes. Now, unfortunately, from some observations made first in the course of debates in this House, but afterwards dwelt upon and amplified elsewhere, the public mind, not only of Ireland, but also of England, had been led to believe that Her Majesty's Government in some way connected the destruction of the Protestant Church with the Fenian conspiracy. It was generally understood to
78
be the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that the Fenian conspiracy, if it had not entirely occasioned, at all events precipitated the fall and decided the fate of the Protestant Church in Ireland. When the Government of the right hon. Gentleman was formed there was a desire exhibited by that portion of the Irish people who were then apparently his supporters—that is, not by those who professed the Protestant religion, and who viewed the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman with alarm, but by the mass of the Roman Catholic population of that country—to receive the Government of the right hon. Gentleman with favour; and they agitated the country in no unfriendly spirit upon the two subjects I have named. It is of importance, in clearly understanding the condition of Ireland at this moment, that the House should discriminate between the way in which the freedom of the prisoners, for instance, was advocated in the beginning of the year by some persons in Ireland, and the mode in which it was agitated towards the close of the year. The House will remember that when we assembled last year a remarkable and dramatic scene took place. The Lord Mayor and Corporation of Dublin presented themselves at the Bar with a Petition to Parliament. In their Petition they requested us to support the Church policy of the right hon. Gentleman—a policy which might be regarded as a foregone conclusion, and about the success of which, though there might be some question about the details, there could be no doubt. But in that Petition, couched in a friendly spirit, with the view of making Her Majesty's Government popular in Ireland, they also urged that an amnesty should be granted to the Fenian prisoners. I have received some Irish deputations in my time, and I thought I saw at the Bar some faces that I recollected. To be historically correct, I ought to add that the completeness of their Irish policy was that the Government should purchase all the Irish railroads and immediately reduce the tariff for passengers and goods. That was their policy then. The Lord Mayor and the Corporation of Dublin were the supporters of Her Majesty's Government. They came in a friendly spirit, and in asking for an amnesty for the Fenian prisoners they believed that they were supporting the Government. But

79
what happened? No doubt there is no more difficult question for the Minister of a constitutional State to decide than that of granting an amnesty to political offenders. It is much more difficult for a Minister of a constitutional State than it is for the Minister of a State where what is known as "personal rule" prevails. In such countries there are revolutions, strokes of State, and other manœuvres which continually render it necessary that, without much inquiry or discrimination, large bodies of subjects should be imprisoned; and as it is of course very inconvenient to keep thousands of subjects in prison—and very expensive—when order is restored and tranquillity can be depended upon, the throwing open of the prison doors and releasing the prisoners is a convenient way of celebrating the birthday of the Sovereign or the marriage of his son or daughter. But in a constitutional country it is entirely different. A political prisoner, generally speaking, cannot be imprisoned without his guilt having been proved to the satisfaction of a jury of his countrymen; and even under the rare circumstances in which a man in a free country may be arrested and imprisoned without being condemned by a verdict of a jury, still, if there be a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act it is suspended with the free will of Parliament and its suspension is under the vigilance and control not only of Parliament but of a free Press, It may, therefore, be fairly assumed that political offenders in this country are in a very different position, in regard both to the merits of their conduct and to the comparative sufferings they endure, from the political prisoners who by squads and battalions are immured in dungeons in countries where no constitutional rights are in existence. Therefore it is the most difficult of all duties to decide upon the question of an amnesty in a constitutional country. As a general principle, though I do not say it is one from which you should never deviate, an amnesty, if there is to be one, should be complete. Now, what was the conduct of Her Majesty's Government? Her Majesty's Government responded to the friendly invitation of the Lord Mayor of Dublin and people of that kind—I mean those friends who were, to use a barbarous expression, "ventilating" the question, in order to
80
get support and popularity for the Government—by deciding upon a partial amnesty. Now, let us see what were the inevitable consequences of a partial amnesty. You had a Paper placed upon the Table last year which gives some account of the prisoners who were freed under the partial amnesty. Now, who were the first three men thus freed? Men who had been found guilty of high treason, and whose sentence of death had been commuted into one of imprisonment? With that commutation I am not here to find fault. Possibly I may myself share its responsibility, but this I will say—that when the Government of which I was a member had to deal with questions of this kind, and we had to assert the majesty of the law and to establish order and tranquillity, no one can accuse us of vindictive conduct in the punishments we retained. Now, the effect of releasing these three men, who had incurred the severest penalty of the law and whose sentence of death had been already commuted to imprisonment, was that others who had a brother, a son, or a sweetheart, perhaps, in prison, naturally complained that those whose conduct had incurred the penalty of death should be released, while those whose crimes were not so great should still be detained in prison. On the part of the Government it was urged that they must exercise some discretion, and that, in considering the case of these prisoners, they determined to free those in whose harmlessness they were pretty confident and secure, and that none were let out but those who could do the State no injury. Well, now, was that the fact? Look at the next three men who were let out. They were three men who had incurred long terms of imprisonment, from twelve to fifteen years, men of decided opinions and violent conduct, not one of whom had ever given the slightest sign of penitence. One was an able writer. He emerged from his cell and immediately wrote a leading article against the Government, calling upon his fellow-countrymen to commence their efforts to free themselves from the slavery under which they had so long laboured. Another of them—and that is a mysterious case, which may by-and-by be brought under the consideration of Parliament—went to a banquet and made use of his liberty to excite Irishmen—they say he was not an Irishman him-

81
self—to violence, and he told them that the sabre was the only solution of their sufferings. Well, then, I say the great body of the Roman Catholics of Ireland who had relatives in prison naturally felt indignant. They regarded this partial amnesty as a most ill-considered act. These people who before were unhappy in the fate of their relatives—who no doubt felt that they were unfortunate, and that they did not deserve their doom—began now to smart under a great sense of injustice. They said—"You have let out men, some sentenced to death, others to long periods of imprisonment, who immediately use the liberty you have given them to excite hostility against the Crown and to create sedition in the country. But our relatives are still immured, who have not been convicted of offences so heinous or incurred sentences so heavy." Well, what happened? The feeling for the Fenian prisoners, which was at first got up rather to assist the Government than not, became a great national sentiment, and culminated at last in an incident which has been referred to with solemnity this evening, an incident most humiliating to the Government, and stimulating to violence and disturbance, and other classes of crime. The country was raised to a high degree of excitement when it was most important that it should be appeased and kept quiet. I said just now that you must remember this—that the great body of the Roman Catholic population, without being Fenians themselves, may justly sympathize with the Fenians. Let me explain this, for it is important the House should bear it in mind. The people of Ireland had been told, now for a great many years, that the Protestant Church in Ireland was a badge of conquest. They had been assured that it was an enduring testimony of their ignominious position as a nation, and that though these might not seem its immediate effects, it was indirectly the cause of all the humiliation and discontent of the country. Now, when the great body of the Roman Catholic population found that the badge of conquest was destroyed, and, at the same time, that it was in consequence of Fenianism that they were rid of that which they had been educated to believe a badge of conquest and a source of infamy, was it not very natural, without being Fenians themselves, that
82
they should evince some sympathy for the Fenian prisoners? For they naturally reasoned—"It is not necessary for us to vindicate their conduct in making war on Her Majesty, of whom we are willing to be the dutiful subjects; but we have the highest authority in the land to lead us to believe that if they had not committed these crimes we should not have been released from this enduring badge of our servitude and humiliation. And surely, if over there was an occasion when bygones should be bygones, it is this, when there has been a change of Ministry to carry into effect the avowed consequences of Fenianism." The people naturally thought that with the destruction of the Protestant Church the offences of these men ought to be condoned. That is the reason why you have such a strong feeling among the Irish people on behalf of the Fenians, and that is the real cause why you have had all this terrible excitement in Ireland, and why you have been called upon to do an act which would be a blow to all government—namely, without security and on no intelligible plea suddenly to open the gates of all the prisons of the country and free men who were condemned by the solemn verdict of juries and after trials the justice and impartiality of which have certainly never been impugned, even by the Fenians themselves. So much for one of the two great causes which have brought about this condition of Ireland. So far as I can form an opinion upon the facts as they appear to us, it seems to me that one of the great causes of the excitement in Ireland, of the spirit of turbulence, discontent and disloyalty which have been rampant during the last twelve months is to be attributed to the conduct of the Government with regard to the Fenian prisoners.
And now let me ask the House to consider the other cause. The agitation in Ireland has been for two things—to free the political prisoners, upon which I have already touched, and in the second place—it is better to state it in plain language—virtually to transfer the property of one class to another. Now, let us see what has happened with respect to that. Let us inquire what excuse, what reason there is for the erroneous interpretation which the people of Ireland have put on the intentionally beneficent policy of the right hon. Gentleman.

83
Now. I apprehend that they reason in this manner:—"The policy of the Government is to put an end to Protestant ascendancy. That there is no mistake about; we have it on the highest authority." Then they would go on to say—"It is the cause of all our miseries, but its three most enormous products are the Protestant Church, the tenure of land, and the present system of education." We all know how the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the Protestant Church. It was not necessary for the people of Ireland to wait until the termination of the last Session of Parliament to know the policy of the right hon. Gentleman on this subject, because, at the beginning of the Session, the right hon. Gentleman was pledged to the destruction of the Protestant Church. Therefore, so far as the formation of public opinion among the Irish people was concerned, from the beginning of last Session they took it as a foregone conclusion, as an accomplished fact, that the Irish Church was abolished. Well, they reasoned in this way—"The Irish Church is abolished; the Bishops and rectors are deprived of their property. The next grievance, according to the same high authority, is the laud. Is it not a natural consequence that, if you settle the question of the Irish Church by depriving the Bishops and rectors of their property, you will settle the question of the land by depriving the landlords of their property? "I do not say that that is the policy of the Government; I do not say that we thought that was the policy of the Government; but I say that is not an unnatural inference of the Irish people. I say, in the next place that it was the actual inference of the Irish people. There could be no mistake in Ireland about it, because a right hon. Gentleman, too short a time a Member of this House, now the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, on his appointment by the new Government to an office which, as far as the interest of the country was concerned at the particular time was second to none—the office of Attorney General for Ireland—addressed his constituents, and he used these significant terms—that the Prim Minister would introduce three Bills, one about the Church, one about the land, and the third about education; and on this declaration of policy he was elected. Therefore, there is no doubt
84
that the Irish people drew the inference that the same policy was to apply to the land as to the Church. Now, I will give a proof of that. In 1868, the Irish land question occupied the attention of the Government, as it had occupied for some time the attention of successive Governments. There was a desire, I must say, on the part of those in Ireland who had been called agitators, and who had been very much abused, to bring it to some settlement, and they made communications to the Government. Now, I think their plan was—first, utterly irreconcilable with priciple; secondly, that it would have ultimately aggravated the evils it was intended to cure. But throwing those great objections aside for a moment, it was not an outrageous proposition. Those who had taken the most active part with regard to the question of the tenure of land in Ireland, those societies and bodies of farmers attended a meeting which had been convened, and agreed to accept what was recommended by Mr. Butt—namely, a lease for sixty-three years, with rents fixed at the Poor Law valuation and 20 per cent added, a reassessment to be made at the end of the term, and the improvements to be then given to the landlord. I will not enter into the argument now, but I could never have sanctioned that proposition. But, though it may have been an unwise one, everybody will admit that it was not a revolutionary proposition. Well, that was in 1868. But the moment the agitation arose about the Irish Church, or rather at the period when it was quite clear from the vote of this House that the Irish Church was doomed, those societies and bodies of farmers all receded from that engagement. They all said instantly—"The question has now assumed a totally different aspect; we will no longer be bound by the offer that we made"—and which I believe they made in all sincerity—and the question entered into a now phase, until it culminated in the resolution arrived at by the meeting of Munster fanners when they declared, that nothing short of perpetuity of tenure would be satisfactory. Well, is it not clearly demonstrated, that they did expect that an analogous policy would be applied to the land to that which was applied to the Church? And I say, was there not ground for the false interpretation that they thus put on the policy of the Go-

85
vernment? And what steps did the Government then take to remove that false impression? Why, Sir, we had a discussion on this head last year. I will read a passage, a very short one, from the speech of a noble Lord, who, for every reason, I regret is no longer a Member of this House. Lord Stanley, on the 30th of April, 1869, addressing the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister, said this—
"What we want—and it is for that purpose alone I now rise—is to obtain from the Government a declaration—it need not be in many words, but I hope they will be plain and distinct—that, while on the one hand, the claim of the tenants to compensation shall be admitted and respected, the proprietary rights of the landlords, on the other hand, will be firmly maintained. Let them only be firm upon that point—let them only act upon what I have no doubt is their own view of the subject—let them only maintain the law calmly and resolutely, and depend upon it you will get over this agitation, as you have got over hundreds of similar agitations. But, if everything is to remain in a state of obscurity until next year, if the Irish people are left in the dark, if they are left, unchecked and uncontradicted, to entertain any wild fancies upon this matter that may float through their minds, then I fear that the present excitement and disturbance will continue, and will even increase; and in that case, but in that case only, I will say, that for what may occur in the next few months the Executive authority must be held responsible."—[3 Hansard, cxcv. 2001–2.]
Lord Stanley sat by me when he made those observations, and they had my entire assent. They were clear, they were firm, they were temperate, they were wise. They were made in April, when there was excitement, disorder in Ireland—when there had been even some dreadful deeds committed. But, looking at what happened at the end of the summer and throughout the autumn, that period of April was a period of comparative tranquillity. Now, I ask the House to consider this question calmly and impartially. Did the Government, when those wild misconceptions and excitement prevailed in the minds of the great body of the Irish people, take any step to enlighten them, to guide them in a right direction, and to avert the fearful acts which have been their consequence? Sir, what happened in Ireland? Generally speaking, these farmers often acres, those millions of peasants, are naturally influenced by the example of leading men on these subjects. What means have these poor people, who scarcely ever see a newspaper and have nothing
86
it all to guide them—what means have they of forming an opinion as to the probable course and intentions of Parliament or of Ministers, but by the words and the conduct of those who are leaders in the society to which they belong? Now, I do not say that Her Majesty's Government are responsible for the words or the conduct of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray). I have no doubt that hon. Gentleman is a perfectly independent Member of Parliament; and it is not for me for a moment to insinuate that Her Majesty's Government are responsible for anything that he says or does. But the people of Ireland know that the hon. Member for Kilkenny has great confidence in Her Majesty's Government; he has taken every opportunity of expressing it. They know well that he took a decided line on the Irish Church question; they know, or at least they believe, that if not in confidential, he was in friendly communication with the Prime Minister on that subject; and they know that whenever he spoke on it there was sympathy from official quarters with his remarks and his general views. They know very well, moreover, that upon his general views Her Majesty's Government ultimately acted. I take the hon. Member for Kilkenny to be a fair specimen of an influential and bustling class of Members of Parliament, who are naturally looked up to by their fellow-countrymen, who think them knowing men and acquainted with what is going to happen. Well, he attends meetings, makes speeches, moves resolutions on the land question, and speaks with all the authority of a man who was right on the Irish Church question; and he says to his hearers—"We must be firm; we are sure to get what we want if we are firm; but nothing must satisfy you except fixity of tenure." Is it, then, at all surprising that the Irish people should suppose that by the same course as they got rid of the Protestant Church, of the Protestant Bishops and rectors, they will also get rid of their landlords and obtain fixity of tenure? But there were persons of more exalted position who took a leading part in the affairs of Ireland during the last year. I am not going to make the Chief Minister responsible for the conduct of a Lord Lieutenant of a county, who may have his own views, and may act upon

87
them. He may be independent, and may be imprudent, but a Prime Minister is always in confidential communication with Her Majesty's representatives in every place; and if Her Majesty's representative happens to be not only a Lord Lieutenant of a county, but also a strong partisan and supporter of the Government, it is quite clear that a man of the authority of the present Prime Minister need only give a hint, or order others to give a hint, to a Lord Lieutenant to prevent any imprudent or violent act on his part. But what do the Irish people see? They see a Lord Lieutenant, a Knight of St. Patrick, calling meetings, attending meetings, making violent speeches—I should say incendiary speeches—and counselling his audience to call upon the Government to grant to Ireland fixity of tenure—that is, the transfer of the property of one class to another. Well, is it surprising that all these circumstances should have created in Ireland another and a second source of great excitement on a subject so much calculated to quicken the feelings of that people? In connection with these incendiary speeches, let me, in passing, remind the House of what happened many years ago with reference to one of the most respectable Members of Parliament, who was held in the highest personal esteem by both sides of the House. When Sir William Verner, at an obscure local dinner gave as a toast, "The battle of the Diamond"—one of those unhappy conflicts, as hon. Gentlemen are aware, between Roman Catholics and Protestants in the worst days of Irish history—the matter was immediately brought before Parliament, and I am not sure that the Sovereign was not advised to deprive him of some of the honours he possessed. I am speaking from memory; but was that offence of Sir William Verner—and I would not extenuate it—more outrageous or more incendiary than the allusion of the Queen's representative to "the glories of Vinegar Hill?" Let us see what occurred in Ireland after this to induce the Irish people to entertain a soberer view of affairs. There was the elections. If anything can elicit opinion, it is an election. Her Majesty was advised to elevate an hon. Member of this House (Colonel Greville-Nugent) to the peerage. If blood and large estate qualify for that great post, I think Her Majesty
88
was wisely advised; nor, Sir, as far as I am concerned, do I object at all to see the son of that noble Lord (Captain Greville-Nugent) his successor in this House. I think that if that is the natural result of local influences, of the affection of his neighbours, and of the respect in which he is borne, it is a salutary result, and one which I should never question. But that hon. Gentleman, who may probably at this moment be sitting in this House, could not come into Parliament without expressing the opinions which he came in to support. And what were those opinions? Why, they were described by two solemn declarations—namely, that he was in favour of a complete amnesty for the Fenian prisoners, and for fixity of tenure in respect to Irish land. Of course Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for the opinions of independent Members of Parliament; but, as the hon. Member for Longford is not a very old man, the poor people of Ireland may be pardoned for thinking that he would not be offended if some good advice had been given him by men in authority. It would not be unnatural if they said—"Depend upon it, he would not pledge himself to the emancipation of the Fenians and to fixity of tenure (which is the transferring of one man's property to another) unless he knew what he was about. They made his father a Peer, and he is here to say the right thing." That was the Longford Election, and I think the circumstances to which I have referred were calculated to much mislead the minds of the people. All this time, while the minds of the people were so much misled and such a degree of excitement was added to that which had existed on the subject of the Fenian prisoners, deeds of outrage, crime, and of infinite turbulence were perpetrated simultaneously, and I believe as a necessary consequence of that misleading of the public mind. But there was another Election—a very interesting Election, which has been already alluded to tonight. What happened at that Election? There was a Gentleman who occupied a post of trust and confidence in the late Whig Administration, of which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) was the organ in this House. If there be any post which more than another requires dis-

89
cretion and prudence, and one which, more than another requires a man who weighs his words, it is that of Law Adviser to the Castle. Well, the Gentleman who had filled that honourable post was, I will not say the Government candidate, because hon. Gentlemen opposite might blame me for using so unconstitutional a phrase, but the only candidate who came forward to vindicate the policy of the Government, and to support them. I know nothing of the green scarf which he is said to have worn, but I think it highly probable that he did attire himself in that way, for his mind seems thoroughly permeated with that hue, as appears from all his observations. He came forward as the advocate of the immediate release of the Fenian prisoners, and gave three cheers for the people in prison—a most remarkable exhibition of discretion on the part of the late Law Adviser of the Castle. He declared himself a firm supporter of fixity of tenure in land. Now, Sir, notwithstanding the reckless manner in which the late Law Adviser of the Castle—who it was generally supposed was going to be something greater than Law Adviser to the Castle if he succeeded in securing his Election—notwithstanding the reckless manner in which he pledged himself to his intended constituents, he was defeated. He was defeated under circumstances which we shall have to consider in the next eight-and-forty hours. The people of Ireland had to choose between a sham Fenian and a real Fenian, and it is astonishing what a preference is always given to the genuine article. But now I must call the attention of the House to what occurred when the Government candidate was defeated, though he had pledged himself to all those revolutionary doctrines. All this time, especially from the period when Lord Stanley delivered those observations which I have quoted, horrible scenes of violence had been occurring in Ireland, but the Government would never move. Landlords were shot down like game; respectable farmers were beaten to death with sticks by masked men; bailiffs were shot in the back; policemen were stabbed; the High Sheriff of a county going to swear in the grand jury was fired at in his carriage and dangerously wounded; households were blown up, and firearms surreptitiously obtained. All this time the Government
90
would not move, but the moment the Government candidate was defeated on the hustings—a Government candidate pledged to confiscation—pledged to a course of action which would destroy all civil government—the moment that occurred there was panic at the Castle, there was confusion in the Council; the wires of Aldershot were agitated; troops were put in motion, sent across from Liverpool to Dublin, and concentrated in Waterford, Tipperary, and Cork. And all this because the candidate who was prepared to support the Government had lost his election. I remember one of Her Majesty's Ministers saying, I think last year—"Anyone can govern Ireland with troops and artillery." So it seems; even that right hon. Gentleman. But I will not further notice on this occasion anything that may have been said or done by that Minister, because I hear with deep regret that he is obliged to be absent.
Now, I ask the House to consider whether this state of things has not resulted from an erroneous interpretation which the people of Ireland have put on the avowed policy of Government, and from the circumstance that the Government have refrained from attempting in any way to remove that misconception; and what is the position in which we are now probably to be placed. Her Majesty's Government have given notice of their intention to bring forward in a few days a measure respecting the tenure of land in Ireland. I have every hope—I will say every expectation—that it will be a just and prudent measure. If so, it will obtain impartial consideration on both sides of the House, and, so far as I am concerned, it will obtain cordial support. I apprehend it will be a measure that will deal with all necessary points, and with none other; that it will contain nothing that is visionary and fantastic. But if it be a measure of this kind what will the late Law Adviser of the Castle say? What will the Earl of Granard, Her Majesty's representative, Lord Lieutenant of a county, and Knight of St. Patrick say? Above all, what will the hon. Member for Kilkenny say? And when men in their position—men of intelligence and education—are disappointed, what will be the feeling among the great body of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland? What will be the feeling of

91
the farmers and peasants who denounce the proposed settlement of 1868, and who said at their last great meeting that nothing but perpetuity of tenure would do, because that was a word about which there could be no mistake? Sir, I think this is a matter of very serious consideration for the House. I object to the position taken by the right hon. Gentleman. He will excuse me if I say that on this point the language in the Speech from the Throne is ambiguous and confused. Are we to understand that no measures for the protection of life and property are to be taken until these Bills have been passed, and the effects of them hare been felt in Ireland? If that is the case we may be prepared for a scene of disorder and disturbance in that country such as has never been before experienced, and such as we shall find great difficulty in successfully encountering. The mention of Ireland in the Queen's Speech is to me inadequate and inaccurate. I may be asked by the right hon. Gentleman—"If that be your opinion why do you not move an Amendment on the Address, and give us what you conceive to be an adequate and accurate description?" I believe that would be not only unwise, but under the present circumstances of the case a most improper stop on my part. If we are to have a Bill on the tenure of land brought in, we ought, if possible, to consider it free from party feelings, and with the anxious desire, not to satisfy the wild vagaries of the Irish people, but to lay the foundation of the future welfare and prosperity of Ireland. Then, if so, I can imagine nothing more unwise, or I would say unprincipled, than to precipitate a party division on such a subject only a few days before the introduction of the measure. But I do wish to impress upon the House the great responsibility which they incur on this subject. This is still a new House of Commons. Men have entered it who are proud, and justly proud, to be Members of such an Assembly; but they may depend on it that if they do not resolve to consider the question of Irish government not only in a large but a firm spirit—if they think it possible that the spirit and sense of the people of England will long endure the chronic state of disturbance that now prevails in Ireland—they are much mistaken. And they may be equally certain that
92
when this Parliament comes to a conclusion, which they have entered with so much pride and so much justifiable self-complacency, if they err in the course they take on this question—if they sanction a policy which, if unchecked, must lead to the dismemberment of the Empire and even to the partial dissolution of society—they will look back on the day they entered Parliament with very different feelings from those which now influence them, and they will remember this House of Commons with dismay and remorse.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid: I may be allowed to tender my thanks, and the thanks of the Government—in conformity, I am sure, with the feelings of the House—to my hon. and gallant Friend the Mover and my hon. Friend the Seconder of the Address in answer to the Queen's Speech, for the able manner in which they have discharged the arduous duty committed to them. It was hardly to be expected, after the events which have occurred in Ireland, that the short debate of to-night should pass over in a manner as absolutely pacific as has been the case on some former occasions. And yet, having listened to the lengthened remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), I am bound to say that I cannot regard them with dissatisfaction. In one part of his speech, indeed, I found the greatest cause of congratulation—namely, that the right hon. Gentleman, however he may feel the difficulties suggested by the recent revival and extension of agrarian crime in Ireland, yet, acting wisely and prudently, hesitates to recommend, and declines to recommend, a resort by Parliament at the present moment, and under present circumstances, to the use of coercive and special measures; and in listening to the entire tenour of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I derive this topic of congratulation—that he feels and is aware of the gravity of the present position of affairs as between Ireland and England. He feels that the questions which have been opened in Ireland have now reached a point which may be the last of all our opportunities for their satisfactory solution; and although will reply to the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman upon the conduct of the Government, I will first thank him for this, that in the speech he has made he has done nothing to aggravate the diffi-

93
culty which as a Parliament we shall have to encounter. Rejoicing, therefore, Sir, that no practical issue is raised between us, I do not make any complaint of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The essence and bulk of his speech have consisted of criticisms liberally bestowed, partly on the Executive Government, and partly on those who may occupy a position towards the Executive Government—more or less qualified, of confidence and support. But the right hon. Gentleman also complains of ambiguity in the speech from the Throne, and he makes a demand in this respect which it is but fair I should answer. I confess I do not understand out of what terms of the Speech it is the doubts and difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman have arisen; but I think I can remove them by an express declaration. In the intention announced by the Government, and embodied in the gracious Speech of Her Majesty, so far as that intention imposes a careful daily regard to the condition of Ireland and their duty to propose everything which that condition requires, there is nothing ambiguous or contingent. That duty is absolutely paramount and primary; and, anxious as the Government are that they should give the first place in the order of the Session, as it is also in the mind of Parliament and of the country, to those remedial measures of permanent operation on which their permanent hopes are fixed, yet they feel there are duties which, under certain circumstances, might impose the necessity of immediate action, and occasions which might compel them—although God forbid they should be compelled—to suspend the great purposes of the future, in order that they might meet the crying and irrepressible wants of the present. I hope that in that declaration there is nothing that can be called contingent, with reference to Ireland, between remedial measures and special provisions, if such should be unhappily required. The right hon. Gentleman, by an ingenious and exhaustive process, sought to show—or, perhaps, I ought rather to say desired to leave on the minds of his hearers the impression that Her Majesty's Government are responsible in some manner or other for the recent aggravation in the condition of Ireland with respect to agrarian crime. [Opposition cheers.] Yes, just so, and I think
94
I see in those cheers, and in the spirit from which they proceed, the whole reason and purpose of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that he intended to drive home the charge to Her Majesty's Government. He did not, I think, mean to strike us under the fifth rib or to produce a permanent impression on public opinion. The right hon. Gentleman is not to be severely blamed. He has a party at his back, and it is not surprising, if some members of that party, being shocked, as indeed all must be, at recent outrages in Ireland, rushed to the conclusion that strong measures ought to be taken. I think that courtesy to his party required that arguments of this kind should be found for them, when, after the Recess, we meet with appetites a little whetted by disuse of politics, and when hon. Gentlemen opposite were naturally desirous that our proceedings should be criticized in the most innocent and moderate manner. Before the right hon. Gentleman introduced the real culprits he paraded the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. He began by citing everybody and then acquitting everybody. It is not the maladministration of justice which is the cause of these outrages. We admit it. It is not the conduct of the landlords that has been to blame. It is not the conduct of the Roman Catholic priesthood, for the right hon. Gentleman, with a manly and just spirit, bore testimony to their conduct. It is true that, according to the reports in the newspapers, there were individuals of that body who may have been concerned; but there were a very few individuals who had used language ill-becoming the positions they hold as ministers of peace, bound to consider alike prudence and the interests of religion. But it is also true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that, speaking generally, and with the rarest and most trifling exceptions, the influence of the priesthood has been exerted in the support of order and of the Executive Government. I join most heartily, then, with the right hon. Gentlemen in their acquittal. The right hon. Gentleman has also acquitted the Fenians, and to a degree to which I can hardly follow him, and I will only say that this part of the case will well bear an adjournment. I am not sure that any one else was acquitted; but I may say generally that the right hon. Gen-

95
tleman acquitted all and sundry. At last it appeared that the causes of all that has happened are to be found in the false interpretation of the policy of the Government. I admit that it is difficult to render an accurate account of the cause of these evils, and I should not presume to dogmatize in regard to them. But I now come to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that the policy of the Government has been misunderstood in Ireland; that the misunderstanding was natural in consequence of the part they took, and that such misunderstanding has been the cause of the mischiefs we must all deplore. These statements are supported by two allegations—first, that there appeared last Session at the Bar of this House an imposing group of the official representatives of the municipality of Dublin, who were staunch supporters of Her Majesty's Government; and that, deferring to the representations which were then urged upon us—first in regard to the support of the Irish Church Bill, and next in regard to the liberation of the Fenian prisoners—we granted an amnesty of which the right hon. Gentleman complains, because he says it is a bad amnesty under the circumstances, and secondly, because it is a partial amnesty. Now, I must take the liberty to say that the right hon. Gentleman here takes a slight liberty with history. It is true that the deputation was headed by the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs of Dublin, and that it appeared at the Bar of this House. It is true that the Government permitted the release of a certain number of the Fenian prisoners; but it is not true that this release was due to that solemn apparition at the Bar, and for this reason, that the release of these prisoners was a measure adopted by the Government before the Session of Parliament began, and was announced by the Government within a week of the Session, and three weeks before the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs of Dublin gave us the honour and satisfaction of seeing their characteristic costumes within our walls. But, Sir, I cannot find much fault with the right hon. Gentleman if he has used slender and flimsy material in the construction of the fabric which it was almost a necessity that he should roar tonight; because no workman is responsible for doing anything more than the best he can with the materials which are
96
placed at his disposal. I cannot see where the right hon. Gentleman could have found any materials in the slightest degree more favourable for his purpose than those of which he has made such an ingenious use. The challenge of the right hon. Gentleman was that the amnesty of the Government was bad because it was a partial amnesty. I take issue broadly with the right right hon. Gentleman upon that point. I do not, of course, blame the right hon. Gentleman for not having challenged the amnesty at an earlier period—he was perfectly in the right to wait until the consequences likely to flow from it had unfolded themselves; but I take the liberty of challenging the right hon. Gentleman's proposition that a partial amnesty must of necessity be wrong. I, on the other hand, maintain the reverse proposition. In my humble opinion it is the duty of an Executive Government—and upon this principle the Government acted in the present instance—to make an examination into the various characters and classes of the prisoners. In conducting that examination, the Government found among those who were confined many of whose reclamation no present hope could be entertained, and others who would become formidable to the public peace if released. But when large numbers of men, after a movement like that of Fenianism, are taken before the Courts, not with indecent haste, but still with something of rapidity, and found—and justly found—guilty by the score of offences, and it is required by public necessity that they should be sentenced to prolonged terms of imprisonment, it is impossible that any amount of care can enable punishment to be meted out to them in strict accordance with the amount of guilt attaching to them, and, therefore, it became the duty of the Executive Government, and of those who fill the offices of my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. C. Fortescue) and of the Viceroy of Ireland—not in consequence of any agitation either in or out of this House, but from their own sense of what is due to public policy, to public justice, and to public humanity, to inquire into the case of each individual prisoner, and to deal with it in the manner they sincerely believe to be right and just. The grounds upon which all those prisoners to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred have been released

97
were these three:—In the first place, release was granted to all those who were regarded as not being deeply implicated in the conspiracy, but who might rather be regarded as having been misled than as having been deeply tainted with disloyalty. In the second place, those who inquired into the matter asked themselves what was the significance of those particular persons, because in cases where they were without influence or consequence, and without following or power to act upon their countrymen, it is a poor satisfaction to keep a large number of men of that description in penal servitude for a long term of years for a political offence. Well, there was only one who belonged to the third class, namely Kickham, who has not been named, but was referred to in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman as a writer in the Irish Press. The case of Mr. Kickham is a very simple one. I do not know whether it would have been in his power to have pursued his occupation in prison: but the case turned entirely upon the question of his physical condition. That was so bad, and the maladies which threatened him were so serious, that the Government must have contemplated that his prolonged imprisonment would have led to a fatal termination. Now, does the right hon. Gentleman think with reference to a single person of this kind, of no great faculty or influence after all, that it would be wise in us, in the face of the Irish people, to have prolonged an imprisonment, when we were professionally advised and warned as to its probable termination? So much, then, for partial amnesty, as it is called, an expression which means that it was a discriminating amnesty founded upon a comparison of severity of punishment with degrees of guilt, and which, in this case, is synonymous with a just and wise amnesty. "Then," says the right hon. Gentleman, "the amnesty has been one of the most prolific causes of Fenian outrage." But the amnesty was granted early in February, and the right hon. Gentleman himself admits that it was not until the autumn that the main outbreak and outrages occurred, and surely that alone is calculated to tell greatly against the right hon. Gentleman's objection. Has, however, the right hon. Gentleman been able to show in any measure that there was any connection whatever between
98
the augmentation of agrarian crime to which he has referred and the partial release of the political prisoners by Her Majesty's Government? It is perfectly true that some of the individuals to whom the amnesty was offered have refused to abide by its terms at first—whether they have since altered their minds on the subject I know not—but they are utterly insignificant persons, and in making them the theme of a discussion in this House the right hon. Gentleman has bestowed upon them an honour to which they were not by any means entitled. The right hon. Gentleman then challenged the conduct of the Government upon this ground, which, he said, by causing our policy to be misunderstood, had also in no slight degree contributed to the agrarian outrages in Ireland. He said that the people of that country had misunderstood the policy of the Government, who had so conducted themselves as to allow the conclusion to be drawn that having destroyed the Irish Church by the Act of last year they intended to destroy the Irish land by their Bill to be introduced in the course of the present Session, as being part and parcel of what had been denounced under the term of "Protestant ascendancy." Of course the right hon. Gentleman carefully disclaimed holding any such an opinion himself. I am very reluctant to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the meaning of the term Protestant ascendancy, because I wish to disassociate, as far as possible, the land question of Ireland from all former discussions, in order that it may be decided solely on its own merits. As we cannot usefully draw illustrations from the controversy of the past for the controversy of the present, let us start afresh. I, for one, am quite willing to forego any proof of connection between the land laws of Ireland and Protestant ascendancy, rather than quicken in the minds of hon. Members or of the public any sentiments that can associate the proceedings they are to set about, I hope, next week, with the necessarily controverted subjects we dealt with in the last Session of Parliament. But there is another part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument to which I must refer. He says it was known that we were going to destroy the Church, and consequently inferred—if it had been a parallel argument he would have said

99
the land of Ireland, but the right hon. Gentleman felt that it would not do to put the proposition in that form, so he said it was known that we were going to strip the Bishops and clergy, and therefore it was inferred that we were going to strip the proprietors. But to strip the Bishops and clergy was the very thing that we were not going to do, and there is no Bishop or clergyman in Ireland who does not possess, and will not possess, after the disestablishment every shilling he owned previously. In order to make out his argument, the right hon. Gentleman, hopelessly pressed by the poverty of his materials, refrained not only from stating accurately the nature of the Irish Church Act, which was a measure for destroying the Establishment, and saving the rights of the Bishops and clergy; but he turned the measure inside out; but he saw that if he had stated what it was it would have been absurd to attribute to an Irishman, or any one else, the parallel reasoning that we were going to destroy the land or the cultivation of the land in Ireland. The right hon. Gentlemen undertook, apart from these arguments of parallelism, to adduce some proofs of the statement that it was owing to the declarations, or the non-declarations, of the Government that our intentions had been misunderstood, and hence had arisen all this mischief in Ireland. Accordingly, he referred to a speech delivered by the present Lord Derby, whose absence from this House I, and I am sure every Friend who sits near me, cordially join in regretting; although we are glad to think that his absence from this House does not mean the withdrawal of his time or his abilities from the service of his country. And when the right hon. Gentleman drew a cheer from his supporters by quoting from the reply to the noble Lord the statement that great would be our responsibility if we refrained from making a declaration of our intentions, I sat in fear and trembling, thinking to myself, "Here has the right hon. Gentleman hit upon some unfortunate expression of mine in answer to that Question, or of one of my Colleagues,"—which was much more unlikely. I sat in misgiving, waiting for the quotations which the right hon. Gentleman was about to make from the declarations of the present Government; but I was considerably comforted when I
100
found that the right hon. Gentleman did not make any reference to those expressions, and advisedly so, for, having ransacked all my speeches, he could not find anything of the nature he had described. I will not quote my own speeches, which are to be found in the usual and orthodox volumes of record; but I may quote two or three lines from an indisputable witness—my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir Thomas Bateson). It may be objected that he is an English Member, but it is with a strong Irish flavour. The hon. Baronet has given notice of a Question to-night which I think ought to immortalize him. If he has no other title to go down to posterity he will be recollected from generation to generation as the author of the longest, the most complicated, and the most entangled question that was ever by one human being administered—or proposed to be administered—to another set of human beings. My hon. Friend followed me on that occasion, when it seems I had threatened the rights of property, and he said this—"He rejoiced that the First Minister of the Crown had not declared for fixity of tenure." Then what becomes of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that we have given any ground for the supposition that we intend to destroy the land of Ireland? Well, I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman must not be blamed for not making bricks without straw. We must not be held responsible for what Mr. A, or B, or C, or D) say, who have received no authority whatever from us. A noble Lord, the Lord Lieutenant of a county in Ireland (the Earl of Granard), has been spoken of; but as that noble Lord is included in the Question which the hon. Member for Devizes is to put on a future day, it would be more convenient that any discussion to be raised upon that question should stand over until then. I think I have a little right to complain of the right hon. Gentleman for an act of suppression. He quoted my hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny. The hon. Member for Kilkenny certainly did excellent service to the country in connection with the question of the Church Establishment in Ireland. I am not ashamed to make that declaration. But we had no covenant or compact with my hon. Friend; he is free of us, and we are free of him. We shall, as separate constellations—each of them finding

101
abundant and ample room in space—continue to march in our own orbit, I have no doubt, very good friends with each other, but each claiming liberty of thought and liberty of action. So much for the case of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of the son of the noble Lord, lately Member for Longford, against whom it was very difficult indeed to establish a charge; but the most important and telling charge of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—his real culminating accusation—was the case of Mr. Heron, "the Law Adviser to the Castle." The right hon. Gentleman fell into an error about the Dublin Corporation; but his error with regard to Mr. Heron was of a more serious character. Mr. Heron, as Law Adviser to the Castle, is said to have given certain cheers, or to have worn a certain scarf, indicative, or supposed to be indicative, of sentiments which perhaps the Government could not approve. But the fact is he had not been Law Adviser to a Liberal Government for a period of between three and four years; he had ceased to be the Law Adviser to the Castle, and had returned to his native and primitive independence. Is it not rather hard upon him that he should be expected to tune his instruments according to what in our view constitute instrumental or vocal harmony, when he is as free in the face of the Government as the right hon. Gentleman? This is a very serious doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, that Leaders of a party, such as must necessarily form a Government, are to be responsible for all the sentiments uttered by all their independent supporters; and not only so, but, that the people of Ireland, and, I suppose, other people—for the right hon. Gentleman will hardly insist that the people of Ireland are under any intellectual disability—are not to take the declarations of the intentions of the Government from the mouths of members of the Government or from the measures of the Government, but are to take them from those stray speeches made, or articles written, by their independent supporters. Before the right hon. Gentleman fully adopts that doctrine, let him well measure the length to which it will extend. If the doctrine be laid down for a Government, it cannot possibly stop short of touching the Opposition. I had not intended to re-
102
fer to a subject of this kind. I almost feel as if I were making an ungrateful return to the right hon. Gentleman, after the pledge he has given that any measure of ours on the subject of Irish land shall have his careful consideration. I will make my reference only sufficiently distinct to show that it is not idle or without meaning. But if we are to be held responsible for the declarations of those to whom he has referred, is the right hon. Gentleman to be held responsible for the declarations of those who held the very highest Executive offices in connection with his Government? He has said that he indulges in the cheerful hope that our measure upon Irish land will be conceived in a spirit of justice and sound policy. Is that what has been said by those with whom he was connected in the late Government? I think the right hon. Gentleman could not have read the speech made by a nobleman who received a very high mark of approval from the Crown in reference to his administration of the Government of Ireland, and who lately, in public, warned the Protestants and people of Ireland that any measure which we might produce relating to the land of Ireland would be no better than either a party manœuvre or an engine to augment the influence of the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to observe that I do not consider that he is responsible for that declaration; but if I offer him such liberal terms—if I do not take account of observations made by a noble Duke standing in such close political relation to himself—I may very well claim that he shall not consider as our political and public mouthpiece a gentleman who—though we may highly respect him, and though we should be very glad if we could obtain his confidence—has, nevertheles, ceased for three or four years to be the Law Adviser of the Liberal Government. Indeed, had Mr. Heron succeeded in his candidature, we have not the slightest notion whether he would think fit to support or oppose the Government measures. He was not the Ministerial candidate for Tipperary; he never called himself so; and no idea existed that he had any claim to the title until the right hon. Gentleman, with befitting condescension, was pleased to bestow it. I think I have shown that we are not responsible for this supposed

103
misunderstanding of our policy, which the right hon. Gentleman thinks is the cause of the late extension of agrarian outrage. I will not dwell on that subject, We have reached, perhaps, nearly the close of this discussion, and I will add very few and very modest words. It is quite possible that Gentlemen opposite, like others, may recognize that in the paragraphs of the Speech relating to Ireland, we have endeavoured to give a true and unvarnished account of the actual state of things in that country. Undoubtedly there has been an erroneous impression existing with regard to the number of outrages now and in former times; but we have not kept out of view this aggravation with regard to recent outrages, that there has been a complete failure in obtaining such evidence as would bring the offenders to justice. There are, no doubt, two sets of people in Ireland with regard to whom the perpetration of crime at this particular period would appear to be conducive to their aims. In the first place, those who are connected with Ribband societies would, perhaps, not unnaturally argue, from their most false point of view, that by establishing a reign of terror they would extort a larger measure with respect to Irish land from the fears of Parliament. Most false, most untrue; but, at the same time, an idea not unlikely to be entertained, especially when we consider that whenever there is a tendency, either from permanent or temporary causes, to the general commission or to the general indulgence of crime, the same period tends to bring to the surface all the really bad and vicious elements of society; and the criminals and bad men, who are to be found in Ireland, as in every other country—though it is due to Ireland to say that they are not to be found there in extraordinary numbers—these bad men will find at such times the opportunity of giving vent to feelings of vengeance and of carrying out plans of private revenge. There are two things to be borne in mind. The first is this—To the Fenians it is of vital importance that, by some means or other, this House should be impeded in the work of giving effect to its determination to establish just laws in Ireland. There is no uncharitableness in charging that upon the persons who call themselves Fenians, because they have shown
104
that disposition by the most undeniable public manifestations, and by violent interference with the right of public meeting and of freedom of speech. I cannot wonder at it; for I believe that if we should happily succeed in proposing to the House, and the House should co-operate in passing good and just laws for removing the evils now accompanying the tenure and cultivation of land in Ireland, it will be from such laws, and from such laws alone, that Fenianism will at length receive its death blow. The very best exertions of the best Executive Governments can do no more than put down its outward manifestations; let us go down to the root—let us go inward to the source; and that is what we hope and mean to do. That is what they are determined that we shall not do. And I cannot hesitate to say that they would, indeed, be blind to the whole nature of the question in which they are engaged, unless they took every legitimate means—and sometimes, I am afraid, very illegitimate means—of producing disturbance and want of confidence in Ireland; everything, in fact, that may provoke Parliament to turn aside from the path of beneficial legislation to discuss angry and coercive measures in reference to the present state of Ireland. It is fair to admit that, while the direct action of Fenianism has had its stimulating effect upon the general lawlessness, and has contributed to the increase of outrages and of public mischiefs, a share of responsibility is also duo to us, which I do not seek to evade. I admit that whenever great questions of this kind are raised, and especially whenever they are raised, by an Executive Government, a certain excitement is necessarily communicated to the public mind in any and in every country, most of all in a country where the public mind—under long suffering, consequent on innumerable errors of government, has fallen into a morbid state. This certainly is a remarkable circumstance—that, as far as our evidence goes—and we have heard the statement from many quarters—last year has been distinguished by somewhat more than the ordinary regularity and punctuality of I payment of rents in Ireland. That is a satisfactory thing in itself; but the feeling to which this circumstance is attributable may lead in different directions to very important results. It betrays

105
an expectation in the minds of the people of Ireland that hereafter they are to pursue their avocations as cultivators of land with greater advantage than they have done hitherto; and if they think that some reparation is to be made to them in respect of the unrequited labours which they have heretofore bestowed upon the soil, their tenacity of attachment to the particular spot which they have held is quite sufficient, on the one hand, to account for an increased desire to discharge their share of the covenant implied in the payment of rent to the landlord; while, on the other hand, it leads them to regard with greater jealousy and apprehension the process of eviction, and to entertain the determination, even with the strong hand, to resist its application. These are matters which, as it will be necessary for us to discuss hereafter, I need not trouble the House, I think, at the present moment with details with regard to the condition of Ireland; but having defended—and I think it due not only to my Colleagues but to the right hon. Gentleman himself that I should endeavour to defend—the Executive Government against the charges in which he has most immeasurably indulged, I will conclude by thanking him for the evidence he has given that he feels the gravity of the situation of England in the face of Ireland, as an Imperial question, and from the promise which I have on the part of others, as well as himself, I hope that the propositions we are about to make will receive a fair and candid consideration.
MR. NEWDEGATEobserved that it was a curious circumstance that as last Session there appeared to be practically but little difference between the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition on the principle of the measure for disestablishing the Irish Church, so now upon the tenure of Irish land their unanimity would lead to the question out-of-doors, where does this policy come from? The right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had stated the Fenian conspiracy to be the cause of legislative interference with regard to the Irish Church, and that the Fenian conspiracy was of foreign origin, while the Prime Minister admitted that the Fenian conspiracy was the motive power which impelled his policy with respect to the Irish Church, and now the right hon, Member for
106
Buckinghamshire endorses the policy of an interference with land, which is the sequel of the foreign policy with respect to the Irish Church. He (Mr. Newdegate) had last Session a suspicion that the policy which overthrew the Establishment of the Irish Church was a foreign policy, but he had scarcely expected that his suspicion would be verified by the high authority of both the right hon. Gentlemen. There was a strong feeling out-of-doors that during the last two Sessions the attention of the Legislature had been too much devoted to Irish matters. He had risen for the purpose of directing attention to an omission in the Speech. It was notorious that for the last two or three years the artizans in our manufacturing districts had been suffering from grievous want arising from the absence or scarcity of employment. The remedy proposed by certain benevolent individuals was emigration, and he would remind the House that banishment was once regarded as a very heavy punishment. Enforced emigration was, after all, nothing but banishment, and he could assure the House that banishment with many had not yet lost its sting. Over and over again they had been told that among the crimes of England must be numbered her policy, which had led to the expatriation of many of the Irish people, and yet they were told by those who thought themselves philanthropists that thousands upon thousands of English and Scotch artizans might do well if they should follow the course of the expatriated Irish. He could not help thinking that it was significant that they should have put into their hands a Speech from the Throne in which no allusion was made to this depression. There was not a word in it having reference to the sufferings of the working classes of this country, although they formed a large proportion of the English people. He had heard them express the opinion that Ireland was permitted to occupy too much of the attention of Parliament, and that it was time some hon. Member should call attention to the great distress which existed amongst a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects in England, a distress not of recent origin, but existing now for three years. The pressure which those men felt had touched but lightly the wealthier classes. Some two or three years ago, when the collapse of certain speculations took place,

107
some of the wealthier classes felt the pressure; but large classes of operatives and artizans were suffering most acutely from the depression of trade for a period of three years continuously. In addition, they were now beginning to feel the pressure of foreign importation. They found that their products were now superseded by the importation of foreign manufactures, and they ask the House not to ignore their case during the present Session, as they did in the previous one—and there was an immediate occasion for such a discussion. They were told that the Treaty with France was about to be renewed. Under that Treaty many articles were imported into this country which displaced the labour of the British operatives. And not only articles of French origin, but articles from other countries were allowed to pass through France, and come into England duty free, by virtue of the French Treaty. The operative classes of this country had come to the knowledge that the external trade of this country was not increasing so largely as that of other countries which adopted a different commercial system; and they complained of the total want of reciprocity exhibited by those other countries towards us in respect to certain articles of trade. While the head of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition agreed in so wonderful a manner upon general policy, there was a feeling growing up among the operatives that they were not represented in that House. True, the people had their remedy in their own hands under the present extended suffrage. He should be greatly deceived if they did not now use the power they possessed in proving that fact, and of showing that it was not just or wise, when the people were suffering dire distress from the depression of trade for a period of three years, that no notice of their condition should appear in the Speech from the Throne. He was willing to accept the fact of the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Bright) as a reason for postponing the discussion of the subject on that occasion. He lamented the indisposition of the right hon. Gentleman; but this did not, in his opinion, justify the omission of notice of this depression of the working classes from the Speech delivered that day from the Throne. This bore an appearance of neglect on the part of Her Majesty's
108
Government. It was an idle hope, if the Government thought that they had, as it were, washed their hands of the interests of those men because they succeeded in passing sundry measures which they called free trade measures. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was so uneasy about the action of the Fenians in Ireland that he had changed the whole policy of the United Kingdom towards that section of it. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that there were men actively at work now amongst the operative classes of this country who would readily catch hold of any evidence of neglect on the part of the Government, or that House, to carry out their own views in spite of either. He simply rose to beg the House not to ignore the state of depression which existed amongst the operatives, on account, as it were, of the patience with which these sufferings had been borne; as by so doing they would only be increasing a wide-spread feeling of discontent, which would speak trumpet-tongued in the ears of the Government.
MR. EASTWICKsaid, that the hon. Member who had just sat down had done good service in calling attention to the omission of any reference to the existing distress in the Speech from the Throne. Thousands would be calling for an explanation of that omission. Her Majesty's Government were well aware of the distress that existed, and that it had gone on increasing up to this moment. This fact had been brought to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and, if it had not, the statistics on the subject ought to have forced it upon his consideration. If Her Majesty's Government were not prepared with measures to alleviate the distress they should, at least, have expressed sympathy with the suffering to which they might not be able to apply a remedy. They had heard a great deal about Ireland during this discussion, but very little of England. The case of Ireland was not one of distress, but of discontent and disaffection, and he could not suppose that the discontent and disaffection in the sister country created a stronger claim upon the attention of Her Majesty's Government than the sufferings which were borne so uncomplainingly by the people of this country. He hoped the Ministers would offer some explanation upon this subject, and show that they were prepared to deal with the facts

109
which it was idle to deny, and impossible much longer to overlook.
MR. ORMSBY GOREsaid, that at the close of last Session ninety Members of Parliament waited upon the Prime Minister to induce him to take measures for the reform of the railway system in Ireland. He hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland would allow him to ask whether Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to legislate on the subject this Session.
MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he did not know whether it was the intention of the Government to fuse several counties into one for the purpose of holding assizes. If they contemplated doing away with the old boundaries of counties he should offer the proposal his most decided opposition.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that the Government did not intend to make any declaration upon any great question with regard to Ireland until they had introduced their measure about the land. But in a short time they would be prepared to announce their intentions with respect to the subject to which the hon. Member (Mr. Ormsby Gore) had referred.
MR. MACFIEsaid, that the sufferings of the shipbuilders in the port of London had, no doubt, been in the minds of some hon. Members; but that was due to a change in the location of trade, for the business which was so bad in London was one of the most prosperous on the Clyde, where a great part of the shipping, not only of this country, but of foreign countries, was built. He gave, he hoped rightly, a large meaning to the expression in the Speech in regard to the Empire, and trusted Government would have the honour of consolidating the Colonies and the United Kingdom in one great and prosperous Britannic Empire. But the Queen's Speech could not contain everything. If there was any fault to be found with the Speech it was that, it presented too large a bill of fare.
Motion agreed to.
Committee appointed, to draw up an Address to be presented to Her Majesty upon the said Resolution:—Captain EGERTON, Sir CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE, Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. Secretary BRUCE, Mr. Secretary CARDWELL, Mr. CHILDERS, Mr. GOSCHEN, Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSIER, Mr. AYRTON, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. OTWAY, Mr. STANSFELD, and Mr. GLYN, or any Five of them:—To withdraw immediately:—Queen's Speech referred.
House adjourned at half after Eight o'clock.

Preamble
THE PARLIAMENT,which had been Prorogued successively from the 11th day of August, 1869, thence to the 28th day of October, thence to the 10th day of January, 1870, thence to the 8th day of February, met this day for Despatch of Business.
The Session of PARLIAMENT was opened by Commission.
The HOUSE OF PEERS being met—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House,
"That it not being convenient for Her Majesty to be personally present here this day. She has been pleased to cause a Commission under the Great Seal to be prepared, in order to the holding of this Parliament."
Then Five of the Lords Commissioners, namely—The LORD CHANCELLOR, The LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl Do Grey and of Ripon), The LORD PRIVY SEAT, (The Earl of Kimberley), The LORD STEWARD OF THE HOUSEHOLD (The Earl of Bessborough), The LORD CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (The Viscount Sydney), being in their Robes, and seated on a Form placed between the Throne and the Woolsack, commanded the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod to let the Commons know "The Lords Commissioners desire their immediate Attendance in this House, to hear the Commission read."
Who being at the Bar, with their Speaker;—the Commission was read by the Clerk:—Then

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR delivered HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH to both Houses of Parliament, as follows:—
My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"WE have it in command from Her Majesty again to invite yon to resume your arduous duties, and to express the regret of Her Majesty that recent indisposition has prevented Her from meeting you in person, as had been Her intention, at a period of remarkable public interest.
"The friendly sentiments which are entertained in all quarters towards this country, and which Her Majesty cordially reciprocates, the growing disposition to resort to the good offices of allies in cases of international difference, and the conciliatory spirit in which several such cases have recently been treated and determined, encourage Her Majesty's confidence in the continued maintenance of the general tranquillity.
"Papers will be laid before you with reference to recent occurrences in New Zealand.
Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"The Estimates for the services of the approaching financial year are in a forward state of preparation. Framed with a view in the first place to the effective maintenance of the Public Establishments, they will impose a diminished charge upon the subjects of Her Majesty.
"The condition of the Revenue has answered to the expectations which were formed during the past Session.
"Her Majesty trusts that you will be disposed to carry to its completion the inquiry which you last year instituted into the mode of conducting Parliamentary and Municipal Elections, and thus to prepare the materials of useful and early legislation.
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"It will be proposed to you to amend the laws respecting the occupation and acquisition of land in Ireland, in a manner adapted to the peculiar circumstances of that country, and calculated, as Her Majesty believes, to bring about improved relations between the several classes concerned in Irish agriculture, which collectively constitute the great bulk of the people. These provisions when matured by your impartiality and wisdom, as Her Majesty trusts, will tend to inspire among persons with whom such sentiments may still be wanting, that steady confidence in the law and that desire to render assistance in its effective administration which mark Her subjects in general; and thus will aid in consolidating the fabric of the Empire.
"We are further directed by Her Majesty to state that many other subjects of public importance appear to demand your care; and among these especially to inform you that a Bill has been prepared for the enlargement, on a comprehensive scale, of the means of National Education.
"In fulfilment of an engagement to the Government of the United States a Bill will be proposed to you for the purpose of defining the status of subjects or citizens of foreign countries who may desire naturalization, and of aiding them in the attainment of that object.
"You will further be invited to consider Bills, prepared in compliance with the Report of the Commission on Courts of Judicature, for the improvement of the constitution and procedure of the Superior Tribunals of both original and appellate Jurisdiction.
"The question of religious tests in the Universities and Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge has been under discussion for many years. Her Majesty recommends such a legislative settlement of this question as may contribute to extend the usefulness of these great institutions and to heighten the respect with which they are Justly regarded.
"Bills have been prepared for extending the incidence of rating, and for placing the collection of the large sums locally raised for various purposes on a simple and uniform footing.
"Her Majesty has likewise to recommend that you should undertake the amendment of the laws which regulate the grant of licences for the sale of fermented and spirituous liquors.
"Measures will also be brought under our consideration for facilitating the transfer of land, for regulating the succession to real property in case of intestacy, for amending the laws as to the disabilities of members of Trade Combinations, and for both consolidating and improving the body of statutes which relate to merchant shipping.
"While commending to you these weighty matters of legislation, Her Majesty commands us to add that the recent extension of agrarian crime in several parts of Ireland, with its train of accompanying evils, has filled Her Majesty with painful concern.
"The Executive Government has employed freely the means at its command for the prevention of outrage, and a partial improvement may be observed; but although the number of offences, within this class of crime, has been by no means so great as at some former periods, the indisposition
6
to give evidence in aid of the administration of justice has been alike remarkable and injurious.
"For the removal of such evils Her Majesty places Her main reliance on the permanent operation of wise and necessary changes in the law. Yet She will not hesitate to recommend to you the adoption of special provisions, should such a policy appear during the course of the Session to be required by the paramount interest of peace and order.
"Upon these and all other subjects Her Majesty devoutly prays that your labours may be constantly attended by the blessing of Almighty God."
Then the Commons withdrew.
ROLL OF THE LORDS—Garter King of Arms attending, delivered at the Table (in the usual manner) a List of the Lords Temporal in the Second Session of the Twentieth Parliament of the United Kingdom: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester—Took the Oath.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

NEW PEERS.
Reginald Windsor Sackville West Baron Buckhurst, having succeeded to the title on the death of his mother Elizabeth Countess Do La Warr (created Baroness Buckhurst) by virtue of a special limitation in the patent dated the 27th April in the twenty-seventh year of Her Majesty's reign—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
James Earl of Southesk of that part of the United Kingdom called Scotland, Knight of the Order of the Thistle, having been created Baron Balinhard of Farnell in the County of Forfar—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
William Earl of Listowel of that part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called Ireland, having been created Baron Hare of Connamore in the county of Cork of the United Kingdom—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Right Honourable Edward George Fitzalan Howard commonly called Lord Edward George Fitzalan Howard, having been created Baron Howard of Glossop in the county of Derby—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Right Honourable John Wilson Fitz-Patrick, having been created Baron Castletown of Upper Ossory in Queen's County—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Thomas James Agar Robartes, esquire, having been created Baron Robartes of Lanhydrock and of Truro in the county of Cornwall—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Fulke South well Greville - Nugent, esquire, having been created Baron Greville of Clonyn in the county of Westmeath—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

SAT FIRST.
The Earl of Derby—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Dinevor—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his cousin.
REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND—Writs and Returns electing the Lord Oranmore and Browne a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the late Lord Castlemaine, deceased, with the certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto—Delivered (on oath), and certificate read.

SELECT VESTRIES.
Bill, pro formâ, read 1a.

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH— ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
The QUEEN'S SPEECH reported by The LORD CHANCELLOR.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, I rise to move that a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in Answer to her Most Gracious Speech. I venture to ask your Lordships' indulgence in discharging the duty which I have undertaken. I trust that any errors I may be guilty of may be laid to my want of experience, and that your Lordships will look upon my shortcomings with a lenient eye. I am sure your Lordships will have heard with regret of the recent indisposition of Her Majesty. I am happy to be informed that there is nothing serious in Her Majesty's illness, but that she has been suffering an amount of
8
pain and discomfort which made it medically impossible for her to execute her gracious intention to open such an important Session of Parliament.
The existing relations of this country with Foreign Powers must necessarily be a source of gratification to your Lordships. It is obvious that the words of Her Majesty's Speech must refer to the satisfactory settlement of the questions concerning Belgium, Turkey, and Egypt—which might have led to serious consequences, if it had not been for the judicious policy of the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs, and the conciliatory disposition evinced by the other great Powers.
I regret that the settlement of the questions between this country and America which had been agreed to in London has not been ratified by the United States Government, and that up to the present time the differences have not received a favourable solution. But it is to be hoped that under the guidance of the noble Lord they will be satisfactorily adjusted, and it is gratifying to behold that on both sides of the Atlantic the feeling exists that it is important for two such powerful countries to be in harmony.
The most important subject in Her Majesty's Speech is the Land Question of Ireland. I venture to state that there is a general feeling, which will be shared in by your Lordships, that the time has arrived for the settlement of this question—it is one which ought not to be treated as a party question. It is clear beyond all doubt that the present state of things cannot be allowed to continue, and abundant evidence can be adduced to prove the necessity for immediate legislation. Although there may be many cases in which the landlord has behaved liberally towards his tenantry still there is a multiplication of testimony disclosed before Parliamentary tribunals, and from other sources of information, which establishes beyond a doubt the crying necessity for a well-defined measure for the protection of the occupier of the land. In considering the present position of Ireland as regards the occupancy of the land, it must be admitted that a glaring anomaly exists when one considers the tenant-right of Ulster, and the absence of such right in the south and other parts of Ireland. Without wearying your Lordships I would remind you of the cruel and arbitrary manner in which the proprietor of the Ballycohey property

9
exercised his legal rights over the tenantry. As to the mode of dealing with the question practically I have no doubt that the measure which will be brought before Parliament by Her Majesty's Government will be just to both landlord and tenant, and Her Majesty's Government ought not to be deterred from bringing in such a measure, although it may not meet the views of unreasonable individuals. I feel that it is my painful duty to call your Lordships' attention to the frequent occurrence of outrages in Ireland. I am assured by the concluding paragraph in Her Majesty's Speech that the Government are fully determined to adopt every proper measure for the suppression of agrarian crime and conspiracy, and for upholding the supremacy of the law. It is to be hoped that the condition of Ireland will not continue in its present state; and it is the duty of all classes to assist the Government in putting the law in force. Your Lordships will be of opinion that the time has arrived for the introduction of an efficient measure for the education of the people. I am unaware of the nature of the measure to be introduced by Her Majesty's Government, but I trust that it will be a solution of the difficulties which surround the consideration of this important question. I cannot refrain from bearing my humble testimony to the valuable services rendered by the clergy throughout the country, in connection with the education of the labouring classes, but what the country requires is a thoroughly national system of education, to remove the ignorance in which the masses of the people live, and above all, such an extension of that system as will reach the vagrant classes. The introduction of an efficient measure for enlarging the means of education will have the effect of improving the condition of the country, of elevating the morals of the people, and of diminishing the occurrence of crime. It must always be a matter of deep interest to your Lordships—the organization of the Departments connected with the Services, and, I doubt not, that the measure to be introduced by the Government for their re-organization, will tend to their increased efficiency, and, at the same time, to a diminution of taxation. It cannot be denied that economy and efficiency are not incompatible. In consequence of negotiations between the
10
United States and this country, it is proposed to change the existing law of Naturalization for the convenience of the citizens of foreign countries. The Speech makes reference to measures affecting the Courts of judicature in England; and it is proposed to make extensive alterations, which will, no doubt, tend to the improvement of the administration of justice. The proposal in Her Majesty's Speech for the introduction of a measure relating to University Tests is satisfactory, inasmuch as the question has been discussed in Parliament over and over again, and there exists throughout the country a strong desire for an effectual and final settlement of this vexed and long agitated question. The other measures referred to in Her Majesty's Speech are grave questions, which will require the exercise of impartial judgment, and will doubtless be considered by your Lordships with the care and thought which they demand. It is useless for me to enter into their merits, which must depend upon the measures themselves.
My Lords, there has been, and, no doubt, is now, much distress in different parts of the country, but trade is gradually improving itself. It appears more than probable that that depression will gradually disappear; and one test of the improved condition of the country is the satisfactory state of the revenue, as alluded to in Her Majesty's Speech. My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not appear to have shrunk from presenting a large number of measures to Parliament, notwithstanding the importance and difficulties of some of them. I can only hope that that which I heard so strongly expressed in this House last year, and which was reported by a joint Committee of both Houses—namely, that a certain portion of Bills should be introduced at an early period into your Lordships' House, will not be neglected by Her Majesty's Government.
I must thank your Lordships for the indulgence you have shown to me, while briefly touching upon the most important points of Her Majesty's Speech. It is impossible not to feel how much depends upon the wisdom with which, in both Houses of Parliament, the different questions may be considered during the coming Session; and I cannot doubt that all political parties will join in Her Majesty's prayer that their labours may be

11
constantly attended by the blessing of Almighty God. the noble Marquess concluded by moving an humble Address to Her Majesty, in Answer to Her Majesty's most Gracious Speech, as follows:—
MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
"WE, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which Your Majesty has commanded to be made to both Houses of Parliament, and to express our sincere regret that recent indisposition has prevented Your Majesty from meeting us in person on this occasion.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that the friendly sentiments which are entertained in all quarters towards this country, and which Your Majesty cordially reciprocates, the growing disposition to resort to the good offices of allies in cases of international difference, and the conciliatory spirit in which several such cases have recently been treated and determined, encourage Your Majesty's confidence in the continued maintenance of the general tranquillity.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for directing that papers shall be laid before us with reference to recent occurrences in New Zealand.
"We humbly assure Your Majesty that our most earnest attention will be given to any measure that may be brought before us with a view to amend the laws respecting the occupation and acquisition of land in Ireland, in a manner adapted to the peculiar circumstances of that country, and calculated, as Your Majesty believes, to bring about improved relations between the several classes concerned in Irish agriculture, which collectively constitute the great bulk of the people. We humbly share Your Majesty's confidence that these provisions will tend to inspire among persons with whom such sentiments may still be wanting, that steady confidence in the law and that desire to render assistance in its effective administration which mark Your Majesty's subjects in general; and thus will aid in consolidating the fabric of the Empire.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that among many subjects of public importance which appear to demand our care, a Bill has been prepared for the enlargement, on a comprehensive scale, of the means of National Education.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for acquainting us that in fulfilment of an engagement to the Government of the United States, a Bill will be proposed to us for the purpose of defining the status of subjects or citizens of foreign countries who may desire naturalization, and of aiding
12
them in the attainment of that object, and further that we shall be invited to consider Bills, prepared in compliance with the Report of the Commission on Courts of Judicature, for the improvement of the constitution and procedure of the superior tribunals of both original and appellate jurisdiction.
"We humbly assure Your Majesty that we share Your Majesty's opinion that some satisfactory legislative settlement should be effected of the question of religious tests in the Universities and Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, which may contribute to extend the usefulness of these great institutions, and to heighten the respect with which they are justly regarded.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Bills have been prepared for extending the incidence of rating, and for placing the collection of the large sums locally raised for various purposes on a simple and uniform footing.
"We humbly assure Your Majesty of our readiness to undertake the amendment of the laws which regulate the grant of licences for the sale of fermented and spirituous liquors.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that measures will also be brought under our consideration for facilitating the transfer of land, for regulating the succession to real property in case of intestacy, for amending the laws as to the disabilities of members of trade combinations, and for both consolidating and improving the body of statutes which relate to merchant shipping.
"We humbly assure Your Majesty that we participate in the painful concern with which Your Majesty has announced to us the recent extension of agrarian crime in several parts of Ireland, together with its train of accompanying evils.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for acquainting us that the Executive Government has employed freely the means at its command for the prevention of outrage, and a partial improvement may be observed; but that although the number of offences, within this class of crime, has been by no means so great as at some former periods, the indisposition to give evidence in aid of the administration of justice has been alike remarkable and injurious.
"Humbly trusting with Your Majesty for the removal of these evils to the permanent operation of wise and necessary changes in the law. We shall be prepared for the adoption of special provisions, should such a policy appear during the course of the Session to be required by the paramount interest of peace and order.
"We humbly assure Your Majesty that we fervently join in Your Majesty's prayer that our labours may be constantly attended by the blessing of Almighty God."
THE EARL OF FINGALL: Before I proceed to second the Address, which has been so ably and so effectively proposed by the young and noble Marquess beside me. I would ask forgiveness of that noble Lord, if I, who until this night, was a perfect stranger to him, should take it upon myself to anticipate the congratulations of his friends, and I think I may also say the favourable comments of the general public, by offering him ray congratulations on his very neat and appropriate speech, and by wishing him a long and successful career of public utility, for which he has shown such very promising talent.
My Lords, when I undertook to second the Address to Her Majesty, which has been thus ably proposed by the noble Marquess. I felt that I owed the distinction which is conferred upon me to no claim or merit of my own, but to the peculiar position which I occupy in your Lordships' House; I may almost presume to call it a sort of representative position. I am, my Lords, one of a very small body. We are, I think, but six of us in all, who by community of religion, may be said more particularly and more intimately to represent the feelings and the interests of a considerable number of Her Majesty's subjects, the Roman Catholics of Ireland. My Lords, I am fully alive to the responsibility which this position imposes upon me, and I am deeply sensible of the honour of being brought thus prominently forward at the opening of this Session, which promises to be so interesting to Irishmen and so important to Irish interests. The only one drawback to the feeling of pride and satisfaction, with which I rise to address your Lordships, is a fear that Irish interests may suffer in your Lordships' estimation from not being committed to abler hands than mine. But, my Lords, though I may prove but a poor exponent of Irish feeling, and a feeble advocate of Irish interests, I yield to none, my Lords, in a desire to give prosperity to my country, and to bring our people into more harmonious relations with the rest of Her Majesty's subjects.
Her Majesty expresses her regret that she is unable to meet your Lordships, and to open Parliament in person. We must all share in this regret, my Lords, and we must feel it the more, from the knowledge that ill-health is the cause
14
of Her Majesty's absence; but, my Lords, we must hope that this indisposition may be both slight and temporary, and we must pray that Her Majesty may be long spared to us, to continue for many years to come, a reign which up to now has been one uninterrupted course of honour, of wisdom, and of progress.
My Lords, I shall not trespass on your Lordships' time by any observations of mine upon several of the topics referred to in Her Majesty's Speech: but I shall proceed at once to tread upon ground where I shall feel myself to be more at home—
"It will be proposed to you to amend the laws respecting the occupation and acquisition of land in Ireland, in a manner adapted to the peculiar circumstances of that country, and calculated, as Her Majesty believes, to bring about improved relations between the several classes concerned in Irish agriculture, which collectively constitute the great bulk of the people. These provisions when matured by your impartiality and wisdom, as Her Majesty trusts, will tend to inspire among persons with whom such sentiments may still be wanting, that steady confidence in the law and that desire to render assistance in its effective administration which mark Her subjects in general; and thus will aid in consolidating the fabric of the Empire."
I would ask your Lordships to face this question in a liberal spirit. I, my Lords, who make this request of you, have everything at stake in this Irish land question. Many noble Lords around me have much more extensive possessions, and vastly greater rent-rolls; but it is not everyone of those noble Lords, who like me, live by Irish land, and by Irish land alone. Of course there are several of your Lordships, who, like myself, are Irish landlords, and nothing else. To those noble Lords I would more particularly appeal, and I would ask them to join cordially with the rest of your Lordships' House, in giving their consent to such a reform of the land laws as will give security and contentment to the tenant, and thereby, as I hope and pray, peace and prosperity to Ireland. And we, my Lords, whose lot is inseparably bound up with Ireland, must, in my opinion, be benefited by whatever conduces to the general welfare of that country—
"Recent extension of agrarian crime in several parts of Ireland, with its train of accompanying evils, has filled Her Majesty with painful concern."
My Lords, it is with sorrow and with shame I say it that there is only too much

15
ground for the regret that Her Majesty expresses in this paragraph. I have already, my Lords, asked you to deal in a liberal spirit with the Land Question, and I am rejoiced to find that Her Majesty places her chief reliance for the settlement of Ireland upon measures of conciliation; but should these unfortunately fail, and should crime and outrage still continue, they must at least cease to go unpunished, and I am pleased to hear that Her Majesty will not hesitate to recommend the adoption of "special provisions, should such a policy appear during the course of the Session to be required by the paramount interest of peace and order." The preservation of peace and order, my Lords, is the first condition of civilization, the first necessity of all good government. Before all things the laws must be respected; where life is not secure there can be no prosperity. But, my Lords, let us hope that the necessity for these repressive measures may not arise, let us look forward more cheerfully to the future, and let us hope that better days may yet be in store for Ireland. I admit, my Lords, that appearances are not re-assuring, and that the past few months have not been all that a well-wisher of Ireland and a loyal subject of the Crown would desire to see. But, my Lords, I am one of those who hope that the worst is now over. In the last Session of Parliament your Lordships gave your sanction to a measure of grace, which showed your disposition to moot the wishes of the greater portion of the people of Ireland, and to do them an act of justice, which apparently trenched upon the privileges of the more favoured minority. Believe me, my Lords, that act of grace and justice has been deeply felt and fully appreciated by the Roman Catholics of Ireland. Notwithstanding all that has been said and done since last Session, I dare venture to express my conviction that, when that great concession shall have been crowned by a generous and comprehensive reform of the laws between landlord and tenant, that Ireland will settle down, that we shall have quiet and contentment in that country, that we shall feel our interests to be so completely bound up with your interests that we shall all become a happy and a united people, and a source of pride and strength to the British Empire. The noble Earl concluded by seconding the Address.
THE LORD CHANCELLORhaving read the Address, [See Page 11.]
LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, at no time and under no circumstances, as it seems to me, could any question arise with respect to our assent to the first part of this Address, and your Lordships, I have no doubt, will unanimously join in carrying to the foot of the Throne the expression of your deep regret on the announcement of Her Majesty's recent indisposition, and of your fervent desire and prayer that She may speedily be restored to that health and vigour which have always been devoted to the benefit of her subjects. My Lords, I am not much surprised that both the noble Marquess who moved the Address and the noble Earl who seconded it found in the Speech of the Royal Commissioners but little to claim attention with the exception of the one prominent paragraph on which they both enlarged. In fact, this Speech is not without a certain singularity as regards topics which sometimes—and indeed more generally—are referred to in these compositions, but which are here omitted. The circumstance that only a few lines are devoted to Foreign Affairs cannot, I think, be deemed otherwise than grateful to your Lordships, inasmuch as it leads us to the belief that there is nothing whatever connected with foreign affairs which can be other than a subject of congratulation to this country. But with regard to our colonial interests the case is somewhat different; and I own that for my part, having regard to events which have occurred since last we met, to opinions which have been expressed, and to desires which we know are largely entertained in some parts of our colonial possessions, I should have been well pleased if some notice had been taken of the existence and circumstances of our Colonies, if only for the purpose of showing those important territories that their well-being, their prosperity, their attachment to the mother country, are not and never can be subjects of indifference to the Parliament of the Empire. With regard to another subject, I think the noble Marquess who moved the Address exercised, perhaps, a more correct judgment than those who framed the Address itself. He referred to a matter of which I should have been glad to have seen some notice in the Speech—the distress and destitution prevalent in this country at the present time to a very considerable

17
extent. I am not one of those who think that such distress and destitution—I hope of a temporary nature—can be met effectually and removed by Acts of Parliament; but it has always been the custom—and I think a right and proper custom—that when Parliament assembles and distress prevails notice should be taken of it, if it were only for the purpose of assuring the sufferers that their distress is understood and that sympathy is felt for them.
My Lords, passing from these topics which are not found in the Speech, I turn to those which are mentioned in it. We are told that a measure on the subject of Education is to be laid before Parliament. Now, I rejoice to think that that subject is one upon which, though we may differ as to the means, we can entertain no difference of opinion as to the desirability of the end to be attained; and I am willing to express a sanguine hope that, the same object being in the minds of both sides of the House, the Session may not pass over without the passing of a large and comprehensive measure for the improvement of education. I must take notice that, from no Bill being spoken of, it would appear that it is not the intention of the Government to introduce a measure on the subject of education in Scotland, or to propose any legislation with regard to education in Ireland. I notice these matters merely because they are subjects of great interest, and because I feel assured your Lordships would desire every information on the point which it may be in the power of the Government to give. The Speech invites us to consider a measure with regard, to the important subject of Naturalization, which has already been inquired into by a Royal Commission. That, I have no doubt, is a subject which is entirely ripe for legislation; and I only venture to add an expression of regret that I do not observe the same notice as to the recommendations of the Commission which sat lately upon the Laws of Neutrality. I am rather surprised it is not thought possible to embody in a measure their very judicious and moderate suggestions on that subject. Upon the question of the improvement of our Courts of judicature I am glad to see—for I take some personal interest in the subject, having had the honour of acting as Chairman of
18
the Commission—that its recommendations are to become the subject of legislation. The noble Marquess referred—and the Speech also refers—to the subject of University Tests. Now, whatever opinions may be entertained on that subject, I am extremely glad that the measure has passed into the hands of the Government, and is to be proposed as a Government measure. It is a measure of such importance that I think it ought not to be left in private hands; and coming, as it is about to do, into the hands of the Government, I hope that that will not occur which occurred last year, when the Bill came up at such a period that it was impossible for your Lordships to consider its provisions, and yon were obliged to adjourn it by moving "the previous Question." Passing over the subjects of Rating and Licences, I must be allowed to express my satisfaction at the statement that a measure is to be proposed for the purpose of facilitating the transfer of Land. Most of your Lordships are interested in land, and I have always entertained the opinion—and have entertained it strongly—that there I are no persons so deeply interested in promoting facilities for the transfer of laud as the owners of land themselves. We are told also that we shall have to consider a measure for regulating the succession to Real Property in cases of intestacy. My Lords, I was under the impression that the succession to real property in cases of intestacy was already regulated by law; but, without dwelling upon verbal criticism, we shall, no doubt, be told at the proper time what the meaning of that somewhat obscure paragraph of Her Majesty's Speech really is.
These, my Lords, are, I think, all the topics referred to in the Speech, with the exception of the paragraphs which relate to Ireland. With regard to the first of those paragraphs, we are told that it will be proposed to us to amend the laws respecting the occupation and acquisition of land in Ireland. My Lords, I am always unwilling to stop for the purpose of verbal criticism, and I certainly was never more disposed to rejoice that, in acceding to an Address in answer to a Speech, we are not supposed to commit ourselves either to the somewhat questionable grammar or the very singular diction in which some parts of

19
the Speech, are framed. But I would observe upon this paragraph that I was not aware that there are at present any law or laws in Ireland respecting the acquisition of land, with the exception of those laws which are generally styled the laws of supply and demand—the laws of political economy—as to which I will venture to express a hope that the Government do not think they will be able to amend those particular laws. As to a measure respecting the occupation of land, I certainly think it would be entirety out of place to anticipate the character of that measure, or to follow some of the observations made by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Huntly) upon what he thinks the state of evidence on the subject of occupation. I quite concur with his observation that the proper time to enter into that subject will be when the measure is introduced, and I venture to hope that when introduced it will be found commensurate with the gravity and importance of the subject. But I turn to that which is of more pressing interest—the paragraphs of the Speech with regard to the present state of Ireland. Those paragraphs certainty—I have read them more than once—have filled me with considerable surprise. They tell us that agrarian crime in Ireland has greatly increased. They tell us that agrarian crime in Ireland has diminished. They tell us that there have been former periods in the history of Ireland when agrarian crime has been greater than even at the present moment. They tell us that the Executive Government has used all the powers which were confided to it for the purpose of repressing crime and outrage in Ireland; they tell its that all the powers which have been confided to the Executive Government for the purpose of repressing crime and outrage in Ireland have been used, but used in vain. They tell us that the Executive Government will not hesitate to apply to Parliament for the purpose of obtaining greater powers if it should be thought necessary; they tell us that it is necessary to obtain greater powers, because the present powers are insufficient; but they tell us finally that the Government do not apply to Parliament for greater powers. Now, as we all know, a Cabinet is a composite body, and we know that the members of a Cabinet may fairly be expected to look upon the
20
same subject from different points of view. Indeed, it is not unreasonable that there should be a certain amount of contribution to the Royal Speech from the different members of the Cabinet; but I have always understood that it was the great duty of the master-builder of the Speech so to harmonize these contributions that these marks of composite work should be, as carefully as may be, obliterated from the finished performance. I am afraid that that duty has not been successfully discharged on the present occasion. I think even that without much difficulty we may imagine ourselves present at the composition of the Speech. I can fancy that when the earlier paragraphs were completed it occurred to some member of the Cabinet—"Well, but before we finish surety we must say something with regard to the present condition of Ireland;"—whereupon a paragraph was inserted by which Her Majesty was made to express her regret at the recent extension of agrarian crime. "Oh! but" remonstrates the Chief Secretary, "that won't do; things are not quite so bad as you represent them—almost forty-eight hours have passed without a murder; therefore you must qualify that statement, and represent the condition of things as not quite so bad as is supposed." "Well, then," says the Prime Minister, "put in a small paragraph to say things are improving;"—and accordingly the paragraph is put in, but unfortunately put in with such rapidity that it remains doubtful whether the partial improvement has occurred in the state of the country or in the activity of the Executive. But then, some other Member of the Cabinet, probably the noble Earl who presides over the education of the country, and is of an historical turn of mind, says—"There was a rebellion in '98, and another rebellion of a smaller kind in '48. Why should not we remind the public that Ireland is not quite in the state in which it has been before?" Accordingly a small paragraph is inserted to say that things have been worse at other times. Well—but then the Chief Secretary thinks some credit ought to be given to the Executive, and that it must not be supposed they are to blame for anything which has occurred. Accordingly, he wishes it said that the Executive have done their best to repress crime and out-

21
rage in Ireland—and a paragraph to that effect is added. But some Minister of a logical turn of mind—I dare say the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for it is exactly what he would say—remarks, "If you hare done all you can, and cannot repress it, why not ask for further powers?" But then, the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade say—"What, ask Parliament for measures of coercion—we who came into office upon a protest against measures of coercion? It would be fatal to us as a Government which was to bring a message of peace to Ireland." Accordingly, the absurdity of the position is realized, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is silenced. But then, the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary says—"We are the laughing-stock of Europe. Every Minister in every Court in Europe is asking us what we are going to do with Ireland, and whether we are able to govern the country or not." At last, some one suggests—"We will reconcile that, and say if it should be necessary we will ask for further powers." Accordingly, the views of all the different Ministers are fully represented in the Royal Commissioners' Speech, and the Speech becomes the extraordinary composition we have heard road.
Now, I must say I agree with the noble Earl the Seconder of the Address that the present state of Ireland is not merely very sad, but very shameful. I find that the gentleman who prepares the official statistics of the state of crime in Ireland, Dr. Hancock, than whom no person is more competent to speak on the subject, says with regard to the first six months of last year—
"From information on the subject collected by the police I may state that the number of agrarian outrages specially reported in 1868 was loss than in any of the last twenty years, except 1866 and 1867. The great increase in these outrages has been in 1869: as indicated by the latest returns, which are for the first half of the year, 169 agrarian outrages have been reported during this period, which is double the number (eighty-seven) in the same half of 1868, and four times the number (forty-three) in 1866, and greater than in any year since 1855, except the years of pressure, 1862 and 1863."
My Lords, important as the statistics on the subject are, the statistics, it appears to me, by no means represent the whole extent and gravity of the position. I have looked at the annals of what I may call the delicta majora for the year 1869—I
22
have not seen the catalogue for the beginning of the present year, but they have not been infrequent—I have put aside all minor offences, threatening letters, threatening visits, disturbances without loss of life, and I find that taking greater offences alone, such as murder, mutilation, burglarious entry into houses and abstraction of arms, riots attended with loss of life, the number of offences in the reports for 1869 amounts to fifty-nine, and out of those there were no less than eighteen assassinations. Well, that is bad enough, but it is not the worst part of the case. What I think is by far the worst feature of the case is that out of those fifty-nine cases—so far as I know and am able to discover, there is only one of them in which any person has been brought to justice for the crime committed. For one a man was tried. It is stated that there was considerable difficulty in obtaining a jury to serve; that the evidence against the prisoner was clear and distinct; that the half-murdered man appeared in court, and was hooted because he identified the prisoner as the person who had attacked him; that the judge, who was supposed to have summed up in favour of a conviction, was insulted by the mob; that one of the jurors who was supposed to have been favourable to a conviction was obliged to run for his life and take shelter in a police barrack; and the jury of course disagreed and there was no conviction. That is the only case, as far as I know, in which any man was brought to justice out of those fifty-nine cases, and in that there was no conviction. Well, I repeat that the statistics are not the worst feature of the case; the worst part of it is, as it seems to me, the effect which these things have had over the face of the country. These are the cases where the disposition to crime and outrage crops out; but in addition to this there underlies the whole surface of society, a substratum of dissatisfaction and proneness to outrage, of which statistics give us no idea. I read not many days ago a statement—not made for any political purpose—by the Dublin correspondent of The Times to this effect—
"Threatening letters and notices warning tenants not to pay rent are exciting alarm in Westmeath and other counties. The attempt to intimidate is not confined to landlords and agents, but is extended to other classes. A few days ago

23
a member of the Inner Bar, who also holds a judicial office, received a letter threatening him with the same death as his client if he ventured to argue a question pending in the superior courts between a landlord and a tenant. In many instances persons who receive threatening letters conceal the fact lest their friends should be needlessly alarmed, and from a belief that there is no use in giving information to the police."
About the same time I observed in another journal among the records of the Courts at Dublin this very singular notice. It was as follows:—
"A simple motion made yesterday in the Court of Exchequer attracts attention by the singularity of its heading in the legal reports of this morning's papers—'—v.—.' It was merely an application to substitute service of a summons and plaint in ejectment by sending a copy to the defendant's address through the Post-office, and advertising it in the local journal. But the circumstances which rendered the application necessary, as disclosed in the statements of the plaintiff's counsel, give a truer picture of the lamentable condition of the country, the paralysis of the law, and the utter subversion of all the feelings of right and justice in the minds of the agricultural population, than any number of sensational orations. The defendant holds a farm, in which he has no legal interest, and for which he refuses to pay rent. The landlord has offered him £200 for giving up peaceable possession, which he refuses to do, and the owner of the soil can get neither rent nor land. He is, therefore, obliged to institute legal proceedings for the recovery of possession, but is stopped in limine by a formidable difficulty—such is the state of feeling in the country that no process-server or bailiff—and those who follow this dangerous and unpopular avocation in Ireland are a shrewd, crafty, and daring class of men—can be induced to serve the process, although large remuneration has been offered for the discharge of the duty. The presiding judges (the Chief Baron and Baron Deasy) reserved their decision on the motion, wishing to consult their learned brethren on so exceptional a case, and for the sake of the landlord on whose behalf the motion was made it was considered prudent not to allow the names of the parties, or that of the locality, nor even of the county in which it is situated, to transpire in court. Hence the anonymous beading under which the report appears."
My Lords, a statement has been made to me, on authority which I cannot doubt, that it was desired the other day to have a property in the South of Ireland surveyed. Application was made to an eminent surveyor in Dublin to go down in the usual way and make the survey; but he replied that it would be as much as his life was worth, and he would do nothing of the kind. The same letter tells me that an estate being put up for sale in the Landed Estates Court at Dublin, the Judge said that he would not allow the sale, for it was idle to
24
suppose that in the present state of Ireland any sale of the kind could take place with fairness. Again, I read in a newspaper, which vouches both for the respectability and for the means of information of the gentleman who makes the statement, although, for the reason to which I have just referred, the names are not given, and sometimes not the locality, the following:—
"The reign of terror has been completely established in the county Meath. Five respective farmers in the parish of Athboy found, on Monday morning, the 31st of January, a grave dug in the centre of one of their fields, and a part of the field dug up and marked for potato ridges. A threatening letter was left in the grave, stating that this field must be broken up and set for potato land, or else the tenant would be buried in that grave. On Sunday evening last a party of eight men, well armed with revolvers, entered the gate lodge of the Earl of Darnley's place, at Clifton Lodge in Athboy parish, and, presenting a revolver at the head of the gate-keeper, compelled him to give up his gun. Parties were heard with regular measured tread parading the roads all Sunday night, to the great terror of the inhabitants of the houses by the roadside, and several doors were violently shaken by the marauders, and attempted to be forced open. It is well known that a gentleman of large property in this county is entirely confined to his house, and obliged to take exercise by walking up and down a passage in the centre of his house, in which there is no window opening to the outside of the house. He had asked a party of ladies to his house to go to the Kells ball. They were warned they would be shot if they went from that to the ball, and were obliged to remain at home. Several Iadie3 who were in the habit of paying morning visits at the house received threatening letters to warn them not to do so in future. Several gentlemen residing on their properties in the county are obliged to walk about their own fields, looking at their cattle, with two policemen accompanying them. Nine men on Sunday night attacked the house of Mr. Anthony Dunne, of Clonbarron, near Athboy, and took a double-barrelled gun, worth £20. The priest of the parish is afraid to say a word in his chapel against the marauders for fear he would be shot. Some of the police have an intention to resign, lest they might be shot from behind a hedge when patrolling the roads at night. In short, the reign of terror is completely established, and no man would dare to prosecute parties that take their guns, for their lives would be the forfeit. Several cars proceeding from the town of Athboy to Kells to attend a recent fair were stopped in open daylight by armed men, who jumped over the hedge and scrutinized all the occupants of the cars, to find one man they wanted to beat, but he was not on the cars. That very active sub-inspector, Mr. Murphy, was out all day on Monday with the police, scouring the country and searching for arms, but without effect."
My Lords, these statements might be multiplied but I have read enough to

25
show what is the present state of Ireland. The question, however, naturally occurs, what is the cause of this state of things which I have thus inadequately endeavoured to describe? My Lords, I observe there is great anxiety on the part of some who deal with this important question to make it clear that, whatever may be the cause, it has nothing to do with the legislation which was concluded in the last Session of Parliament. The noble Earl who seconded the Address referred to that legislation; and it seemed to me was anxious to show that no connection could be traced between that legislation and the present state of the country. My Lords, I am not going to inquire whether that legislation has had anything to do with the present state of Ireland; but I would venture to point out that for those who are anxious to disconnect the two subjects it is not enough to say—as I observe many persons now say—we never expected that the measure of last year would produce peace and harmony. The perorations still ringing in our ears of "messages of peace to Ireland," of "the contentment and satisfaction of the country" are now all forgotten by these persons, and they tell us now that it never entered into their minds that it would give contentment and peace to that country, or that the peace of Ireland would be secured or even generally promoted by that measure. But the difficulty these persons have to contend with is this—the state of the case is not that Ireland remains in the unsatisfied condition she was in before the Act of last year, but that there has been a large and extended increase in the agitation throughout the country. I observe that a Member of the Government—the Vice President of the Committee of Council of Education (Mr. W. E. Forster)—the other day gave an explanation on this subject—I do not know whether Her Majesty's Ministers agree with him, but his explanation was this:—He said, my view of the case is that all the outrage and violence occurring in Ireland at present arise from the Fenian agitators. Those persons, he argued, live by agitation; they are very unwilling that good measures should be passed which should have the effect of restoring order and tranquillity; as long as the late Government were in Office, they knew very well no good
26
measures would be passed, and therefore they might be quiet; but now a Government is in Office that is sure to pass good measures and satisfy the country, therefore they have become very much alarmed, and are straining every effort to prevent such measures being passed. That was the explanation of the Vice President of the Council. But, my Lords, it appears to me that there is this difficulty about that explanation—it is without foundation both as regards its facts and its reasoning. As regards facts, it is not the case that these Fenians were quiet while the late Government were in Office. Just the opposite—they were extremely violent. But the difference was that the late Government obtained powers to deal with them and suppress the insurrection; and they succeeded. But with regard to the reasoning, the explanation is still more peculiar. In the speech we have before us, the Royal Commissioners tell us there is this unsatisfactory state of things that prevails throughout the whole of Ireland, that crime and outrage have extended, and they proceed to confess that this state of things cannot be grappled with, because, from the indisposition on the part of the mass of the population, there is an impossibility of obtaining information to detect crime. The theory, therefore, of the Vice President of the Council must be that not only a few agitators, but the mass of the people of Ireland are under the impression that measures which are good for them are about to be passed—the mass of the people are unwilling that good measures in their own interests should be passed—and, therefore, they are agitating the country in order to prevent those measures being passed. Now, my Lords, I think, we may find a good deal much nearer home that will assist us in explaining this point. We may find a; good deal both in the declarations and conduct of the Government which will go far to account for the state of agitation that at this moment prevails in Ireland. My Lords, the agitation is a land agitation. We know, as a matter of history, that at all times and in all countries there is no kind of agitation which ever has been so serious or so difficult to deal with as an agitation on the subject of land. It is extremely captivating. It comes home to a great number of people. It conies home to

27
those who occupy land, and it comes home to those who desire to occupy it. It conies homo to those who have very little to lose and a great deal to gain. It comes home to those who are anxious for change in the hope that through change they may obtain some advantage to themselves. It is an agitation in which, of all others, wild and visionary views are sure to be put forward; and in which wild and visionary views, stated with ambiguity and plausibility, can be made extremely captivating to the great mass of the people. I do not mean to say that a Government may not feel it their duty to deal with and modify the laws in regard to the tenure of land—it is quite clear that occasions may arise in which they ought to deal with and modify them; but I maintain there is a first duty incumbent on the Government on this subject, and it is this—if they are about to deal with the laws relating to the tenure and occupation of land—it may be that they may not be in a position to state at the moment the form and manner in which they intend to deal with them—but I maintain it is their duty to let it be known at once, clearly and explicitly, what are the evils which they have discovered, and which they think ought to be remedied; to let it be known that their measure, whatever its details, will be directed to remedy those evils, and to no other purpose, and to make it clear that no agitation and no excitement will induce them to go beyond the remedying of those evils which alone call for amendment. My Lords, if they do not adopt this course—if the Government bring a general impeachment and accusation against the land laws and the landlords of the country—if they throw down into the arena so important a subject to be torn to pieces by every comer—if they allow it to be supposed that just in proportion to the excitement and agitation so will be the concessions on the part of the Government—I say if the Government adopt that course they act in the very way to invite excitement and agitation, and they are in no small degree responsible for the agitation that exists. Let us look for a moment both at the statements made and the conduct held by Her Majesty's Ministers on this subject. T pass by the theories and suggestions put forward by journalists and pamphleteers, and I ask what have been the announcements of Her Majesty's
28
Ministers during the fourteen months in which this subject has been exciting the minds of the people? What have been the representations made by them of the measures they desire to introduce on this subject? We all remember the Prime Minister's statement. He said there was the great and evil tree in Ireland with its three branches—the Church, the Land, and Education—he and those associated with him were banded together to overthrow the system of Protestant ascendancy which was represented by that tree—a few strokes more and that tree would be prostrate on the ground. And we remember at the same time two other declarations from the same quarter—Ireland must be governed according to Irish ideas; and the chief reason why, in the year 1866, when the present Prime Minister was before in Office, he did not address himself to the question of the Irish Church was that he was at that time ignorant of the extent and intensity of Fenianism. Now, my Lords, from those three declarations I ask you what must have been the view entertained by the peasants and population of Ireland. Here, they would naturally say, we have a Minister who holds the opinion that the Church, Land, and Education are all branches of the same tree; he desires to overthrow that tree, and hopes to accomplish it; if he overthrows the tree, he will overthrow the branches. He has already overthrown the Church. He is willing to govern Ireland according to Irish ideas, but he could not be made to take the first step for the overthrow of one of these branches until he became aware of the extent and intensity of Fenianism. What then must we, the people of Ireland, do? Surely, they would say, the way to induce him to take the step which he is willing on pressure to take, is by agitation, and if necessary by means more forcible than agitation. But, my Lords, let us turn to another and very important Member of Her Majesty's Government—a right hon. Gentleman of whom I desire to speak with great respect, both on account of his ability, and because, however I may differ from him, I believe the propositions he has made with respect to Ireland proceed from a sincere desire for the good of that country, and because he has stated that, so far as he is concerned, he would be no party to any measure

29
which he considered unjustifiable, as taking property from one class or section of the people to give it to another. I refer to Mr. Bright. But what has he said? That, in his opinion, there never could and never ought to be any contentment in Ireland until the population were placed in greater numbers in possession of the soil of their country. At a later period he has told the Irish people that Government were prepared to offer them free land. Now, I do not understand what the Government may mean by the expression "free land," but I ask what would an Irish peasant understand by "free land?" What is a "free house" or a "free garden" to a peasant?" And would not the Irish people believe that Mr. Bright is of opinion that the population of Ireland should be plated in possession of the soil of the country, and that to this end they would be offered land for which they would not have to pay. Again, the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whom I am sorry to say I do not see in the House to-night, made use of a phrase—accompanied, it is true, by certain qualifications, and I am convinced he never intended to utter the words with the meaning which has since been attributed to them—the noble Earl speaking of certain hypothetical acts supposed about to be perpetrated by landlords, characterized them as "felonious acts." What has been the consequence? The words have rung from one end of Ireland to the other; it has been repeated over and over again, and the peasants have been taught to believe that the landlords of Ireland are "felonious" or "felons," and I observe that the ingenious argument has been made use of in that country that, as according to law it is legal to resist felony to the last extremity, ergo it is allowable to resist the landlords of Ireland to the last extremity, though that should be death. These are literally, so far as I know, the only declarations made by the Government as to the views they entertain with regard to legislation on this subject during the last fourteen months of agitation and excitement.
But I will now pass from the expressions to the conduct of the Government. I have given to your Lordships some statistics as to outrages in Ireland. I maintain that the first duty of the Government—the object for which Go-
30
vernment exists, and which constitutes its justification for being a Government—is that it should repress outrages and should enforce security for property and life. I regret to say that, in my opinion, the Government during the last twelve months have in Ireland abdicated their office. It might almost seem that the noble Marquess and the noble Earl, the Mover and Seconder of the Address, spoke in irony when they mentioned the firm administration of law in that country. The same Member of the Government to whom I have already referred (Mr. Forster) expressed his opinion that outrage should be punished in Ireland in the same manner as in England and Scotland. Could those words have any meaning? Has there been any firm administration of the law for the last twelve months? There has been law in abundance on the statute book, but has there been any point of contact between the law and the offenders against the law—has there been an instance in which the law in Ireland has, by a firm administration, been brought to bear on the men who have violated the law? There has been no law in Ireland for the last twelve months in reference to the matters I am now alluding to but the law of assassination and sedition. We see the Press teeming every week with articles seditious and rebellious to a degree which would not, I believe, be permitted in any other country in Europe. What more have we seen? We have seen men who were convicted and imprisoned not long ago for offences of which they were guilty, and were a twelvemonth since released by what I hold to have been a mistaken exercise of leniency, publishing articles exciting to outrage, and exhorting the youth of Ireland to arm and drill in order to drive what they term the invaders from the soil. We have seen platforms on which speakers—and some of them, I grieve to say, ministers of religion—have uttered words and offered advice which, however ingeniously interlarded with negatives and qualifications, could have no other effect on the minds of those who heard the: advice than that of excusing or exciting to outrage or assassination. We have seen—by the catalogue of black crimes to which I have referred—a crop spring up such as might have been expected from the seed that was sown, and which the Government is powerless to check;

31
or, if they have the power, they hare not exercised it for the repression by punishment of those outrages in any single instance.
My Lords, if ever a Government were without excuse for allowing this state of things to continue it is the present Government. It is the boast of the present Government that they are a strong Government, and that they have a large majority in the House of Commons. The Government came into Office by the voice of a Parliament elected on the broadest suffrage ever known in this country. They boast that they represent the opinions of the people of the country. Now, I want to know—are the Government of opinion that the people of this country desire that Ireland should be governed? I believe that the people of this country have that desire. I believe that, whatever may be their individual wishes and opinions respecting the best method of healing the discontent of Ireland, they are unanimous in their dissatisfaction at the absence of proper government in that country—and in their desire that, whatever measures may be required, outrage and disorder in Ireland should be repressed. Well, then, have the Government at present sufficient powers? It is rather difficult for us perhaps to form a definite opinion on that point, and we have not heard from the Government that they want further powers; but I say that if powers be lacking, it is the duty of the Government, without delay, to ask for what further powers may be requisite. It has been suggested that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act would not be sufficient to deal with cases of isolated outrage and assassination. But if that suspension be not sufficient and some further powers are necessary, it is the duty of the Government to ask for even further powers. There have been instances even in the modern history of this country when powers greater than those supplied by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act have been asked for by the Government and conceded. But, my Lords, I cannot help fearing that the Government have not themselves made up their own minds as to what course they ought to pursue. I read the other day a representation made by the magistrates of Meath to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. They described the state of the country and ap-
32
plied to him to put them in a position to check the outrages prevailing. I also read the answer of the Chief Secretary, and I confess I read it with some surprise. He acknowledged the receipt of their memorial, and then, in what appeared to me, the bewilderment of incapacity, the Chief Secretary appealed to the magistrates to say what they would recommend the Government to do.
My Lords, I am afraid that it is the truth, and the sad truth, that at this moment there is no country in Europe in winch property and life are not more secure than in Ireland. I well recollect, my Lords, that during the debates last year on the Irish Church it was the favourite fashion of noble Lords opposite to appeal to the opinion of foreigners on the question—so much so that on one occasion my noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) was prompted to refer to it very happily as "the foreign friend argument." I wish those noble Lords would think a little of that argument now. I ask them what their foreign friends at present think of the state of Ireland. Is there a country in Europe in which intelligent men are not filled with amazement at the manner in which we are governing Ireland? And I want to know what prospects there are for the future? I want to know what is the proposal of the Government for quieting that country? We are going to have a Bill on the subject of the occupation of land in Ireland. I do not wish to speculate on the nature of that Bill, and I am willing to believe, from the character of Members of the Government and the opinions expressed by them on other occasions, it will not be a Bill trenching on the rights of property or on the sound and well-established principles of political economy. But if so it is certain that the great mass of the Irish people will not be satisfied. Well, then, when you have introduced your measure and passed it into law, and when there still remains a large portion of the agitators of the country utterly dissatisfied with the measure, what security do you offer that the law will be more observed in Ireland than it is at present? I have heard, it said, for instance, that it is the intention of the Government—or at least that it would be a good thing for the Government—to institute special tribunals in Ireland to deal with questions between landlord and tenant. Supposing that

33
be true, how are you going to bring the law to bear on the results of the decisions of those courts? Recollect what took place last year. Perhaps the saddest of the outrages perpetrated last year was that of Mr. Bradshaw. Mr. Bradshaw, a gentleman in the South of Ireland, was appointed to arbitrate upon a disputed question between a landlord and some tenants. This was, therefore, an instance of the very thing which those who are anxious for a court desire to see attained. Here was the tribunal to which they would appeal, and it existed under the most favourable form, because it had not been forced on one party or the other, but it was one to which landlord and tenants had both agreed. The arbitrator decided against the tenants; he received a threatening letter, and he was shot. If these things be done in the green tree, I wish to know if anything1 better is to be looked for in the dry? If you cannot enforce the law now, how will you enforce it after considerable modifications have been made in the rights of the various parties, and when there will remain agitators as vehement against the law as there are now?
The Royal Commissioners, in that paragraph of the Speech to which I have already referred, say—"The Executive Government has employed freely the means at its command for the prevention of outrage." My Lords, I own that I should be rejoiced to know in what manner the Executive Government have employed those means. We have seen no traces of their employment. We have heard of flying squadrons in the country, but we have not soon the employment of means which has led to any result. The other day I saw in the newspapers a statement which gave me some hope—the Government had dismissed an Irish magistrate and a Deputy Lieutenant. I read this paragraph while I was absent from England, and I said to myself. "At last the Government are acting; I have some hope." "No doubt." I said, "this is one of these gentlemen who has been attending seditious meetings; he has been preaching to the people about the injustice of the land laws, and calling upon them to agitate and to drive the Government to bring in an extensive measure for their benefit; or at least he has been present at a meeting where language of a
34
violent kind had been held by some of the speakers. The Government," I said, "have done right to dismiss him, and I hope his dismissal will have a good and wholesome effect." My Lords, I am sorry to say that my sanguine expectations were deceived; the story was quite different. I discovered in the course of time that the state of facts was really this—A country gentleman, of the county of Leitrim, who had never taken any part in politics, and had seldom or never attended a public meeting, had, unfortunately for him, been one of the three names selected by the Judge of Assize to fill the office of High Sheriff of the county. In answering the communication of the Lord Lieutenant announcing the fact of his appointment, he protested against being called upon to servo as Sheriff. So far as his protesting was concerned, I do not suppose any serious blame could be imagined to attach to him for that act; certainly, in this country, every year, numerous protests come in from those who are appointed to serve the office of High Sheriff—some of them couched in strong and forcible language; some of your Lordships have occasionally assisted, as I myself have done, at an inquest into the validity of such protests; but I never heard of anyone being taken to task for sending in such a protest. The ground of the protest in this case appears to have been this—The gentleman was under the impression that, in being appointed to the office by the Government, he was in some way brought into closer relations with the Executive than he otherwise would have stood in, and disapproving, as he did very much, of the policy, or want of policy, of the Executive Government, and of the manner in which they were governing Ireland, he remonstrated, and protested against being called upon to serve under a Government between which and himself there were such serious differences of opinion. I do not agree with the gentleman in thinking that his excuse was a valid one; I do not think he was at all right, even supposing he was brought into closer relations with the Government, to imagine there need have been any conflict between his private opinions and the public duty he would have to perform. The line of action to be pursued by the Executive under the circumstances appears to me

35
to be perfectly clear. I should have thought it was clearly a case in which the Lord Lieutenant should have overruled the protest; but the Lord Lieutenant seems to have left undone that which he ought to have done, and to have done that which he ought not to have done; he let off the gentleman from being High Sheriff, which he ought not to have done, and he dismissed him from the Deputy Lieutenancy, and obtained his dismissal by the Lord Chancellor from the Commission of the Peace. I will read to your Lordships what the gentleman said in his letter—
"While I am fully aware the law enables the Lord Lieutenant to give such an order, I feel it my duty to enter my formal protest against being called upon to servo under the present Administration, who have conducted the affairs of my unhappy country in such a way that in less than a year we have been reduced from a state of comparative prosperity to a condition where law, order, and security, for cither life or property, may be said to have practically ceased to exist, and the very fabric of society itself seems threatened with dissolution; when no man can tell whether he will be allowed to reap the fruits of his own industry, or enjoy the property which his own money has purchased on the security of titles granted under the guarantee of the State; when, too, I find my-self, as an Irish Protestant landlord, in common with the rest of my brother landlords, held up by members of the Government to the hatred of our Roman Catholic neighbours as oppressors of the poor and exterminators of the people, enriching ourselves by the spoils wrung from a defenceless peasantry—when I consider these things I can only say I solemnly protest against being called upon to act as the chief guardian of the peace in the county of Leitrim."
As I have said, I admit the reasons to be insufficient, and Mr. Madden ought not to have been excused from serving the office of High Sheriff. But I ask your Lordships, is it to be understood that in this country a man may not protest against serving the office of High Sheriff, that he may not beg to be excused, and that he may not state frankly what he thinks to be the character of the policy pursued by the Government; and is it to be termed an insult, which is to incapacitate a writer for every office, that he frankly and fairly, and in words in which I can find no insult whatever, slates his opinion on a question of policy? My Lords, I cannot help regretting every part of this transaction. I think in the answer of the Lord Lieutenant there is an additional and very serious error, because, after stating to this gentleman that he had removed
36
him from the office of Deputy Lieutenant, he proceeds to state that he had requested the Lord Chancellor to consider the propriety of retaining his name on the Commission of the Peace. Observe the position in which the Lord Chancellor was placed. The Lord Chancellor had a judicial duty to perform; it was his duty, if the facts were brought before him, to determine in a judicial manner upon the course he would adopt. But the Lord Chancellor was placed in such a position that he was obliged to do one of two things—either to condemn Mr. Madden or to condemn his own Colleagues. If he had not dismissed Mr. Madden he would have condemned the Lord Lieutenant, because he had already expressed his opinion and had dismissed Mr. Madden from the office of Deputy Lieutenant; yet the farce was gone through of calling upon the Lord Chancellor to perform a judicial duty by arriving at a judgment as to which it was impossible he could arrive at any other than that at which his Colleague had already arrived. When I read the correspondence, I said, "Well, we have gone back nearly 200 years." I remembered the story of Sir Samuel Baniardiston, who, in the time of Charles II., was deprived of his property because he wrote a letter reflecting on the Government of the day; and I could not but think that we had here a repetition of the story except that Mr. Madden is removed from the Deputy Lieutenancy and from the Commission of the Peace, instead of being deprived of his property. My Lords, upon this subject I would appeal—not to the Government, who, of course, are committed by the act of their Colleague, but I would appeal with confidence to the great Liberal party of this country—to that party who are proud of their opinions and traditions—and I would ask the great Liberal party of the country, are they prepared to abide by this policy of the Government, and to hold that it is right that any man is to be deprived of the offices which he holds under the Crown because forsooth he ventures, in a manner to which it is absurd to say that any serious objection could be taken, except as regards the opinions which are expressed, to differ from the policy of the Government? I remind that great party that the question is, not whether these opinions are right orwrong—whether Mr.

37
Madden is right or the Government are right as regards their policy; suppose, if you please, that the opinions of Mr. Madden are altogether wrong;—but the question is whether freedom of opinion and freedom of discussion in this country are to be reduced to this—that no man, in a communication with the Government, is to express his disapproval of the acts of the Government upon the pain of losing his office. I ask the great Liberal party, if this state of things were reversed, if a Conservative Government had been in power, if a Conservative Lord Lieutenant, because some one appointed to the office of High Sheriff had expressed his disapproval of the policy of the Government, had removed him from the offices of Deputy Lieutenant and Justice of the Peace, would the great Liberal party of this country have remained tranquil and silent, and allowed the transaction to pass as one consistent with the great and high principles which they have always upheld? Look what the Government have exposed themselves to. What has happened since the Lord Chancellor has thus dealt with Mr. Madden? Why, forty or fifty magistrates surrounding him, of the same county and the adjacent county, met together, agreed to a declaration, and flung it in the face of the Lord Lieutenant; they said, in effect—"With every word of Mr. Madden we agree; his opinions are ours; dismiss us if you choose." Could the Lord Lieutenant venture to do it? He knows he could not, and the Government know they could not; and by the rash and incautious step they have taken they have allowed this insult to be flung in their face.
But there is something further. The county of Leitrim is a happy county; it possesses both a High Sheriff and a Lord Lieutenant; and the Lord Lieutenant of Leitrim (the Earl of Granard) is a Member of this House; but I have no charge to bring against him, and all I have to say has reference to Her Majesty's Government. The Lord Lieutenant of the county of Leitrim will surely have dealt out to him the same measure of justice that the High Sheriff and Deputy Lieutenant had meted out to him. I find the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Leitrim holds a meeting, at which he presides, and the mooting is held at Enniscorthy, which is close to Vinegar Hill. In opening the meeting
38
the Lord Lieutenant is reported to have said—
"I am proud to address you on this classic ground"—I am not quite sure what is meant by applying the term "classic ground" to Vinegar Hill—"I am proud to address you on this classic ground, teeming as it docs with the associations of the past and the aspirations of the present, within view of that historic hill where your fathers, lashed into armed resistance by the injustice of the times, made their last gallant stand."
My Lords, there is indeed a chapter—a dark chapter—in the history of Ireland—in which the narrative of Vinegar Hill may be read. I should have thought anyone connected with Ireland would have been glad to have thrown around that chapter the veil of concealment and oblivion. It is a chapter with not only chronicled acts of rebellion: it is a chapter of the vilest cruelty that, perhaps, was over practised in any war—above all in any civil war. It is a chapter the very mention of which recalls to the minds of Irishmen memories of the direst animosity, of the deepest hostility, and of feelings which I am sure all of us desire to see buried in forgetfulness. Yet the Lord Lieutenant of Leitrim thought it not improper to speak of Vinegar Hill and its traditions, and to rejoice in the opportunity of reminding those around him what those traditions were. I ask again here—because sometimes if we reverse a case we get a better illustration of the argument—suppose the Lord Lieutenant of a northern county had assembled another county meeting upon the field of the Battle of the Boyne, which is connected with histories in which this country takes some interest and feels some pride; and suppose he had said that he was glad to meet upon that classic ground and to remind those around him of traditions and memories connected with that spot, and of those feelings which we all know some Irishmen are ready enough to cherish—suppose this had been done, I ask, would the Liberal party have been satisfied with the Government which did not call that Lord Lieutenant to account, and inform him that he had mistaken his duly, which was to preserve the peace of the county, when he resorted to expressions and speeches which, of all others, were calculated to excite animosity? And that is not all. For at the same or another meeting, over which the same Lord Lieutenant (the Earl of Granard) presided, a minister of reli-

39
gion spoke, and this was what the Lord Lieutenant of the county Leitrim, charged with the preservation of the peace of the county, was found ready and willing to listen to—
"The Rev. Mr. Doyle, P.P., told the landlords that the people would have no more patience with them, that their crimes had gone too far, that they had robbed too long, and that their conduct would not be tolerated any longer. He denied their right to an absolute ownership of the soil, and maintained that the land was created, not for kings or governors, or an aristocracy, but for the people, and that no Government on earth had anything but a conditional right to it. He remarked that a great change was coming over the people. He himself was terrified at some things he had witnessed. He declared that he bad nothing but a feeling of kindness for the landlords, but he warned them of the influence of certain messages which came across the Atlantic. He read one of these messages, which was from John Mitchell, a man, he said, who had perhaps greater influence with the Irish race than any living Irishman. Mr. Mitchell had written recently in his paper as follows:—'If the landlord evict you, shoot him like a mad dog.' He (the Rev. Mr. Doyle) did not approve that, but yet the landlords should deal with it as a fact, and a very important fact. Mr. Mitchell continued:—'If the landlord hides in London, shoot the agent; and if you cannot shoot the agent, shoot the bailiff, or all three together.' He said he did not read this as a threat; but with such advice coming from the American Press, he saw that, unless a radical change be made, there will be terrible work in the country. The meeting loudly applauded during the reading of the extract."
And the Lord Lieutenant was in the chair. Sic vos non vobis. It is the old story of the chief butler and the chief baker; the chief baker is hung, while the chief butler is patted on the back and promoted.
My Lords, the noble Marquess who addressed us first this evening (the Marquess of Huntly) said that he hoped the legislation about to be submitted to us on the subject of the land would not be treated as a party question. My Lords, I do not know why it should be treated as a party question. Whatever differences of opinion have prevailed with regard to them, measures for the purpose of improving the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland have been submitted by both sides of the House, and we have always dealt openly, fairly, and candidly with the question. But while making this remark I must be permitted to say that if there was any one person who could have succeeded in turning this into a party question, that person is the
40
Prime Minister himself, by that speech of his to which I have already referred. He not only made this a party question, but a religious question; and, my Lords, if it should become a party question—a consummation I shall deeply regret—the Prime Minister will have himself to blame for it. My, Lords, how far the Bill of the Government will be accepted by your Lordships will, I have no doubt, depend on the contents of the Bill; but if the meaning of the hope expressed by the noble Marquess be that the measure, whatever it be, shall not be criticized in any hostile spirit, I will answer for this side of the House, that we will approach the subject in an earnest, in a patient, and in an impartial spirit. We will endeavour to discover what are the real evils to be remedied. We will not assume them, as I think the noble Marquess was perhaps prone to do. We will consider what those evils are, and we will endeavour, by legislation fitted for the purpose, to remedy those evils. But, my Lords, as regards the past, as regards the months which have gone by, and as regards the present condition of Ireland, I for my part should feel that I had not properly discharged my duty if I did not place upon record my solemn protest that, however strong a Government may be, however numerous may be its followers, and however great the ability of its members, that Government has not deserved well of its country which has not succeeded in realizing the first end and object of civilization—the repression of outrage, and the security of property and life.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence throughout the very few observations that I am about to make, as I am suffering from the effects of a very common and uninteresting indisposition which rather clouds one's thoughts and makes it very difficult to convoy them to others. My Lords, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) will not, I hope, think it presumptuous on my part if I express my sincere gratification in hearing him again in the position which he occupied at the prorogation of Parliament. For nearly forty years the great Conservative party in this House was led, first by one of the great characters in our history, and afterwards by a noble Earl who was lost to the country this autumn (the Earl of Derby), and who, whatever our opi-

41
nions may be as to his political opinions, was, as we are all ready to admit, one of the most brilliant ornaments of this House. For the last two years the great majority of your Lordships have followed two Leaders; and during this autumn, up to within a very few days ago, we have been disquieted by the announcement that the Conservative party in this House was without a Leader. All the details were given to us. We were told that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) felt that his judicial duties were incompatible with those of a political leader in this Assembly. We were further told that some Peers were a little too exclusive in their political opinions; some preferred to remain in a private capacity, and others were too modest as to their possession of the qualities which would enable them to undertake this office. Now, it might seem at first sight that such a state of anarchy in the Opposition, if it had been continued to the end, would have been an advantage to Her Majesty's Government; but, in fact, however strongly I feel the gravity of having opposed to me a noble Lord of such powers as the noble and learned Lord, I am quite sure that nothing could be worse for the Government, nor for the Conservative party itself than that that party should remain without a Loader, without discipline, and liable to be carried away by any sudden impulse. My Lords, the noble and learned Lord alluded to the shortness of the paragraph in the Speech upon foreign affairs as in-indicating a very satisfactory state of things. I am sorry that the indisposition which is now so rife prevented my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Clarendon) from hearing this implied compliment. On the other hand, the noble and learned Lord said that the very short paragraph with regard to colonial affairs is not satisfactory, and that it is a matter of surprise and regret that when there existed in the colonies feelings of alarm with regard to their relations to the mother country, something reassuring was not said in Her Majesty's Speech. Now, my Lords, the Speech is not unusually short; I am quite sure it is not unusually deficient in matter, and to bring in merely commonplace sentiments because certain persons, absolutely without foundation, have declared
42
that Her Majesty has been advised to separate herself from her colonies, would, I think, be unworthy of any English Minister. Then, my Lords, with regard to the working classes, in whom we all feel a deep interest, the noble and learned Lord guarded himself against giving support to any exaggerations as to their distressed state; and the truth is, as I believe, that there are indications of improvement in our great staple trades, and though undoubtedly in Lancashire and in portions of London great distress exists, we believe there are symptoms that a turn is being taken, and that better things may be expected. I will not now go over the very short review which the noble and learned Lord has made with respect to the various measures which Her Majesty's Government are about to introduce, but I will confine what I have to say to the comments which fell from the noble and learned Lord with regard to the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne which relates to the prevalence of crime and outrage in Ireland. Nobody is more willing than I am to admit the admirable qualities which the noble and learned Lord possesses as a party leader; but in the criticisms which I sometimes heard urged last Session against his qualifications for that position it was suggested that, though full of legal and other knowledge, he wanted something of that lightness and airiness by which, the speeches of chiefs of Opposition are sometimes distinguished. The noble and learned Lord to - night has shown that the criticism was not quite well founded, and that he is not wanting even in those qualities; but I think it somewhat unfortunate that he should have chosen for the display of his fancy a paragraph which relates to a subject so serious and solemn as that which I have just mentioned. For the long hypothetical account which he gave your Lordships as to the manner in which that paragraph was composed, there is not the slightest foundation in fact, though there might be much in fancy. As to the noble and learned Lord's general discussion of the state of crime and outrage in Ireland, I must, however, admit that there is in it nothing which I am in a position to contradict. The state of that country is, no doubt, in that respect most unsatisfactory. I thought it, however, quite unnecessary,

43
as adding nothing to the strength, of his arguments, for him to treat us to a great number of isolated facts, collected from newspapers, some of them true, some of them probably false, but all of them quite irrelevant as regards their connection with the state of Ireland; and I think we need not have been treated to them. With regard to the crimes and outrages, and the difficulty of punishing them, I am not here to deny or to diminish in the slightest degree their enormity; but the noble and learned Lord went on from his description of those things to give us his views respecting them; and, in doing so, he entirely denied what Mr. Forster mentioned the other day in the country, and with which I entirely agree, that the Fenians would wait when no remedial measures were proposed, but could not wait now. There is much difficulty even in the case of those who are best acquainted with Ireland of tracing the lines of demarcation between Fenianism and Ribbonism. I believe that these are distinct in some cases, but that in others they tend to act and re-act upon each other. I entirely agree with Mr. Forster, and disagree with the noble and learned Lord, if he thinks that the Fenians are not most heartily opposed to all that is judicious, and reasonable, and wise in the measures of improvement which Her Majesty's Government have effected, both with respect to the Established Church of Ireland and the improvements we hope to effect on the vital question of the land. You may depend upon it that no party in the State is so anxious as those very Fenians that the grievances on which their influence depends should continue, and that no party would be so completely discomfited as they would be by the passing of a good Tenant Right Bill. But the noble and learned Lord, treating the subject of agrarian outrage in Ireland as if it were a thing really quite new, has again referred to the speeches of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright, and has quoted their words as if they were calculated to create those wild expectations which, as his party have maintained, have been raised in the minds of the Irish people in consequence of those speeches. The noble and learned Lord quoted portions of those speeches verbatim to us last year. I will not, however, enter into a discussion of those words beyond saying—as, indeed, I said
44
last year—that if they did engender such feelings as the noble and learned Lord seems to imagine, they were increased, and will be increased, by the vague and general gloss which the noble and learned Lord and others have put upon those statements. These remarks he has repeated, forgetful that I, myself, last year, made a statement denying that the Government were going to do some of the things attributed to them, and that I adopted the very words which the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had stated would be sufficient to dispel such a belief. But the noble and learned Lord went further. He said that it was not only the Government that was the cause of this unhappy state of things in Ireland, but that we were wanting in the very first duties of a Government in not establishing peace and order in that country. The noble and learned Lord went on to give us a catalogue of the crimes which have been committed, and told us that we have failed to punish them. He treated with extreme ridicule the answer which the Chief Secretary for Ireland gave to the magistrates who desired that the law should be put in force, by asking them how they could do it? My Lords, Sir Robert Peel once said—"Call me in and I will prescribe," and such an answer is perfectly just where a party is prepared to form a Government. But it certainly does appear to me inconceivable, in such a state of things as we are referring to, the leader of the Opposition should have a remedy for the evils which he deplores, and yet should abstain from mentioning what that remedy is. Does the noble and learned Lord forget the great difficulty which there is in procuring the necessary evidence to enable the Government to deal effectually with the outrages to which he has called our attention tonight? If he is aware of any means by which that evidence can be produced, and if he knows how these crimes can be repressed, it would, I think, be but patriotic in him to give Her Majesty's Government some hint, either privately or in public, as to the means by which an object so desirable could be accomplished. But more than that, I should be glad to know what was the advice which he gave when the Government of the day had to deal with the case of Mr. Scully. I believe that case to be the most unfortunate that has

45
yet arisen: that it has given more encouragement to the Fenian cause than anything that has occurred—it is most I unfortunate in every way. Now, that murder was effected in consequence of the careless arrangements made by the authorities. What steps did the late Government take to bring those who committed the outrage in that case to justice? Again, there was—I think it was in 18G7—the case of Mr. Duffy, when the Peace Preservation Act was put in force, and an additional police force sent into the district where the crime was committed; the expenses of so doing were charged upon the district. He refused to pay them, and from 1867 to the time when the present Government came into power no measures were taken to enforce the payment. I do not wish to enter into recrimination in these matters, but I do say it is not fair to weaken the Government in Ireland by these violent accusations, and entirety shut your eyes to the difficulties that took place before we came into power. The noble and learned Lord left it particularly vague whether the Government had or had not put sufficiently into exercise the powers they already possess, or whether they should have had recourse to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Now, with regard to the powers we possess, I can say there is no power that we have which we have not put into execution, with one exception, which I shall shortly touch upon. We have increased the military and the police, we have doubled the patrols, and have charged their maintenance upon the districts. One question has been asked, which I read the other day in the Autobiography of Earl Russell, who asks why, following his example, we did not proclaim some of the districts of Ireland? Our answer is, that at this moment there are only two counties—Down and Antrim—that have escaped. And when the noble and learned Lord takes upon himself to blame Her Majesty's Government for not instituting Press prosecutions, I think he takes some responsibility upon himself—speaking, as he always does, with authority—because he must know the seriousness of such an undertaking, with all its possible contingencies. My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have not felt lightly their responsibility with respect to Ireland. It is melancholy to see what is occurring there, in a
46
country which, in many ways, has improved in prosperity, in all the elements which constitute the elements of civilization, well-being, and safety of a State. Cabinet Councils have been held on the subject, and we have been in communication with the Irish Government as to the expediency of its being intrusted with additional powers, and we should not have hesitated to summon Parliament together at an earlier period to furnish us with those powers had we deemed such a course to be expedient and necessary. In 1851 and 1852, for instance, the state of things was much worse than it is now. In the latter year the late Lord Derby, in criticizing the Speech from the Throne, said he should have been satisfied if it had contained expressions in reference to Ireland almost identical with those which have been introduced into the Royal Speech on the present occasion. Your Lordships ought not to forgot that, however bad may be the existing state of Ireland, things have been worse in former times. I would refer in particular to the year 1833, when a severe measure of coercion received the sanction of the Legislature. I may just mention, however, with regard to that Act, that one of its principal provisions does not exactly meet one of the great difficulties of the present time, for it is useless to establish a court-martial unless you can obtain evidence to be laid before it. Again, in 1847, Sir George Grey gave a most frightful account of the crime and outrage prevailing in Ireland. The powers conferred by the Peace Preservation Act itself have, indeed, in a slightly modified form continued in existence to the present day. In 1852, after Lord Derby's Government came into Office, no steps were taken by them, although crime and outrage prevailed in Ireland to a much wider extent than it does now; and I am not aware of any of the powers conferred which Her Majesty's Government have not put into execution. Further, there have been greater agrarian outrages since this Act than there are now. I think that it is always unadvisable to strain the constitution of the country without absolute necessity; but I would guard myself from convoying to those misguided men who are working the ruin of their country that Her Majesty's Government would think it impossible in certain cases and in a certain manner to deal with a state

47
of things in Ireland that is intolerable there. The noble and learned Lord opposite spoke with the greatest warmth when he touched upon the circumstance of Mr. Madden's name having been removed from the Commission of the Peace in consequence of the course he thought fit to adopt. After referring to an historical incident which occurred 200 years ago, the noble and learned Lord made an appeal to the great Liberal party, and asked whether it was tolerable that a gentleman should be deprived of a public office merely because he had made use of violent language against the policy of the Government of the day. But I would in turn ask the noble and learned Lord whether many other persons, besides Mr. Madden, have not recently used violent language in the north of Ireland? Some Conservatives, indeed, have uttered language, which, in my judgment, was absolutely disloyal, and have even gone so far as to rejoice in Fenian successes. I am not sure that the noble Duke (the Duke of Hamilton) took a wise or judicious course, considering his position as a representative of the late Government, in crossing the Channel and using language which decidedly had not a tendency cither to create harmony between different religious creeds or to give strength to the Government which was then charged with the maintenance of peace and order in that country. I am not going into a minute examination of what different persons on either side of the Channel may have said in public, but I mention that in no instance has Her Majesty's Government taken notice of language used in times of public excitement on one side or the other merely because it was disagreeable to themselves. But when Mr. Madden chose to decline to serve an office which the laws required him to assume, and couched his refusal in language of a character tending to bring all government into disrepute, I think it was the undoubted right and duty of Her Majesty's Government to take notice of such language, which was perfectly distinct and different from violent words uttered without reference to the Crown, but merely attacking the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. The noble and learned Lord at first disclaimed all intention of making an attack on Lord Granard, though he afterwards made what I regard as a very
48
strong attack upon the noble Earl. Complaints have been made on previous occasions as to no notice having been given of charges about to be made. Now, I should like to know whether the noble and learned Lord gave Lord Granard, who I believe is detained in Ireland by the sickness of his wife, the slightest notice of his intention to bring so weighty a charge against him, and also whether he has really taken any pains to verify the accuracy of the report to which he alluded. With regard to the noble and learned Lord's expressions concerning party feeling, although I regretted to hear him bring an unfounded charge against Mr. Gladstone of having introduced party feeling in a question of great national importance, yet I listened with great pleasure to his declaration that your Lordships realty do mean to look at this most grave subject of the tenure of land in Ireland free from all prejudice and from all party feeling. There are, indeed, occasions on which party feeling should be in a great degree subjugated in consideration of the great public importance of the questions brought forward, and I am sure the measure now about to be introduced is one of the gravest character. I cannot sit down without saying how much I admired the remarks of the noble Earl who seconded the Address (the Earl of Fingall), and who spoke with great authority and knowledge of the subject, and also the speech of my Friend the noble Marquess who preceded him. In conclusion, I have to gratefully accept the assurance of the noble and learned Lord that he and those with whom he acts will disregard party feeling while assisting in our deliberations.
EARL GREY: My Lords, is it or is it not true, as the noble and learned Lord behind me has stated, that for some months there has been in Ireland a practical suspension of all laws and of all security? For my part I think no one can have listened to the documents he read without being convinced that it is. My noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville) says that crime and outrage have prevailed heretofore in Ireland. No doubt they have, and at some periods they have been very common; but, as far as I am aware, it now happens for the first time that there has pervaded the whole country a general sense of the powerlessness of the law,

49
and a general feeling that the Government is insufficient to protect the peaceable and well-disposed subjects of Her Majesty. It is no longer a question of agrarian outrage. As the noble and learned Lord told your Lordships, these people now actually threaten the Judges of the land and counsel for acting in the discharge of their duty, and positively attempt to ill-use jurymen for having honestly discharged their duty. We hear, too, of persons in business not being allowed freedom in engaging or dismissing the persons in their employ. We are even told of an unfortunate man who was actually murdered for no other offence than that he was a more enterprizing dealer in eggs than, his neighbours. How, I ask, can the great natural resources of the country be developed as long as a man is unable to carry on his trade or business without rendering himself liable to be shot if he ventures to be more enterprising than his neighbours? No doubt the great misfortune of Ireland has long been that there is no occupation for the people but the cultivation of the land; and what has been at the bottom of agrarian outrage is the intense desire for land created by the want of any other means of earning a subsistence. But, then, how can other employments grow up, and how can internal resources be developed in Ireland so long as there is no security for life or property? And then we are told, in Her Majesty's Message, that we are to trust mainly to an improvement in the law of landlord and tenant. Now, the law of landlord and tenant is not different from what it was some years ago, and yet every one acknowledges that up to the year 1868 there had been for some time a great diminution of agrarian outrage, a growing feeling of security, and generally an improvement in the industry and trade of Ireland. What has checked this? My Lords, I fear we shall find that the real cause is associated with that measure of last Session relating to the Church in Ireland; which, unhappily, though a wholesome measure in itself, was carried through Parliament in a manner which has treated in the minds of the Irish people the persuasion that they owe that measure not to a sense of justice on the part of the Government and Parliament in England, but to intimidation and to the necessities of party government. That
50
fatal impression was created by the manner in which those who are now Her Majesty's Ministers dealt with that question in 1866, and then in 1868 and 1869, and the evil has been greatly increased, as I ventured to say last year it would be, by the injudicious language on the land question—ihe imprudent and dangerous language—of persons in high authority. I ventured to say last year that such language could not fail in the ensuing winter to produce a crop of outrages, for which, in my opinion, the members of Her Majesty's Government would be, to a great extent, morally responsible. My Lords, what has since happened has confirmed me in that opinion, and it does appear to me that, while I quite agree in the absolute necessity of dealing with the land question in Ireland, still I say that even before you do that Government is bound to show that we are prepared to assert the authority of the law. There is no shifting from the responsibility. Either the laws for insuring order are sufficient, or they are not. If they are sufficient, why have they not been used to create a greater sense of security? If they are insufficient, why is there any delay in remedying the insufficiency? Why is this vague intimation held out to us that hereafter perhaps we may be asked for for extended powers? Why is there any delay in proposing measures, however severe they may be, which are necessary for protecting the loyal subjects of the Crown? I say Government is not doing its duty in this matter. My noble Friend (Earl Granville) has referred to the winter of 1847 when outrages were frequent, and he has told us that the measures which were thought necessary at that time for the preservation of order and were adopted by Parliament are substantially in force still. Now, my Lords, that may be perfectly true; but let me remind my noble Friend that, although those measures were successful then, they may not be adapted to a new state of things; and if new exigencies have arisen, and the powers at present in existence are insufficient, then, following the example of the period referred to, new measures should be passed to supply the deficiency. It is quite unworthy of statesmen, unworthy of men holding high positions in the Government of this country, to say that the cause of the outrages now occurring in Ireland is

51
beyond their power. I am quite persuaded that if you would take proper pains to ascertain what are the real causes of the difficulty now experienced in enforcing the law, and if you do not shrink from applying the remedies, whatever they may be, which on examination should prove necessary, it is not impossible to discover means by which this system of violence might be put an end to, and the peace of the country once more established. In my opinion this is the first duty of the Government, which they might well discharge without suspending or delaying any improvements in the law which may be thought necessary.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I am not desirous of prolonging this debate, or to travel over the ground of the heavy and serious indictments which have been brought against the Government by my noble and learned Friend behind me; but I must express my opinion that tie Government has loft the question as regards Ireland in a most unsatisfactory condition. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) has told us that every means has been used which the Government has in its power in order to keep down the state of lawless insurrection at present existing in Ireland. But, my Lords, you must remember that this question does not now arise for the first time. During the whole of last year these outrages were increasing in Ireland, until the country has grown into a condition of chronic disorder and danger such as to call for the serious intervention of Her Majesty's Government. I must remind your Lordships that as early as the 30th of last April the question was put to the Government on the occurrence of one of those serious outrages which have horrified the country, as to what steps they proposed taking for the preservation of peace and order in Ireland, and the answer which the noble Earl gave on that occasion was this—The noble Earl said—
"All I can say now—and I do not think your Lordships will expect me to say more—is that we are determined to put into practice all the provisions of the present law, and that Her Majesty's Government have been and are in earnest communication with the Government in Ireland, in order to ascertain whether it be expedient or not to take any further legislation for the purpose of putting down outrages of so terrible and lamentable a character as those which have lately occurred."—[3 Hansard, cxcv.1958]
52
Since these words were uttered outrage after outrage has occurred in Ireland, and that country has been the scene of some of the most cruel and dastardly murders that have over been recorded in the annals of crime; yet, when my noble and learned Friend draws attention to the state of Ireland at the present time, the noble Earl tells us that every expedient which the law at present provides has been put in force, and that the Government has left no remedy untried for the pacification of Ireland—the noble Earl alluded to the Crime and Outrage Act which at present exists—and yet crime runs rampant in Ireland unchecked. Her Majesty's Commissioners have told us to-day that, for the removal of such evils, Her Majesty places her main reliance on the permanent operation of wise and necessary changes in the law: yet she will not hesitate to recommend to you the adoption of special provisions, should such a policy appear during the course of the Session to be required by the paramount interest of peace and order. I should like to ask the noble Earl, and I hope he will inform your Lordships, what state of things in Ireland would, in his opinion, justify the Government in asking Parliament for fresh powers? My Lords, we have had during the past year fifty-nine cases of serious outrage. What number will satisfy the noble Earl that the danger is sufficient to justify special provisions? How many more murders and outrages must occur before the Government will seek repressive powers? The remedial measures they may propose will take the whole Session to discuss them. Must we wait till they are passed and till we can see their future operation, which must be of a slow and progressive character? Till then is the Government to allow murder after murder to occur without bringing forward any repressive measures? The very fact that Government intend hereafter to introduce such measures is a confession that they are necessary now. My Lords, I look on the state of things in Ireland as lamentable, dangerous, and unhappy; and I cannot but think that what has just fallen from the noble Earl is the true explanation—that the measure passed last Session, dealing so violently with property, gave a sanction to lawlessness among that excitable population, which

53
will not be eradicated for many years to come; and I cannot look forward to the future without very grave apprehension. Such being the case, and repressive measures not being adopted, a state of feeling will be encouraged in Ireland which must produce its own fruits in an intolerance of British legislation, and the demand will grow in intensity that the Irish people should have a separate Legislature for themselves. If that state of things should arise in Ireland, I hold the Government will be responsible for it on account of the measures which they have passed—measures not remedial—not a message of peace, but measures fraught with the utmost danger—measures which must bear in time revolutionary fruits.
LORD MONCK: I wish, my Lords, to make a very few remarks on what has been said in the course of this debate with reference to the condition of Ireland. I think there has been a tacit assumption that the state of Ireland is worse than it in reality is. In some parts of Ireland undoubtedly outrages prevail, and they have for some time prevailed in a limited portion of that country. But if you look over the last twenty-five years you will find that at successive periods these identical portions of the country have exhibited the same system of lawlessness. If you examine the statistics of crime you will find that in several periods the condition of the country with respect to this kind of crime was much worse than at this moment. The noble Earl below me alluded to the different influences affecting the ordinary current of Irish society, and distinguished them into three classes—namely, the desire and agitation for a change of the law of landlord and tenant, the outrages which grow out of that desire and agitation, and the Fenian and revolutionary Press that exists in Dublin. With respect to the meetings in connection with the first of these—notwithstanding the language used at some of them, and which I do not for a moment attempt to justify—I, upon the whole, look on them as legitimate and constitutional exhibitions of public feeling, seeking in a constitutional manner to obtain redress of what the people conceived to be a grievance. With regard to the agrarian outrages, they are simply injurious to the best interests of the country, and to none more so than
54
to those who engage in them; but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that they are mainly due to the refusal of Parliament for a series of years to redress grievances which all parties in this House admitted to exist. With regard to the third cause of disturbance—the existence of the revolutionary Press in Dublin—I must say I entertain a very strong feeling, and I trust that Her Majesty's Government will before long see their way to some effectual means of curbing the license of that Press. It is not a case of free discussion—it is a case in which the unhappy population of that country see only one side of the question and have no opportunity of knowing the answer that should be made to the deleterious doctrines of that Press. I believe that real danger to the country arises from the action of that Press, which ought in some way to be dealt with. But the question which has been raised to-night is, whether the Government is or is not deserving censure for not coming to Parliament to ask additional powers to repress agrarian outrages. Now, I trust I shall not be considered presumptuous if I say that I think this question demands somewhat broader treatment than it has received from the noble Earl. The question has been debated as a mere question of police—a question of the suppression of crime; but our view must extend beyond that. No doubt the Government are conservators of the public peace, and in that character ought to take the necessary means for the prevention of crime. But they are bound to look not merely to the present but to the future; and they are bound, in their endeavours to suppress present crime, not to adopt a policy which may have the effect of alienating from the law the affections of the people of that country. In the course of my reading I have found a speech delivered in this House some years ago, and which so fully and forcibly expresses my own feelings that I must ask permission to read a few extracts from it. The speaker says—
"Why is it that the ordinary law is in that island utterly powerless to protect the peaceable subject and to maintain good order? I believe every person who has at all attended to the situation of Ireland will at once say that the reason for this is that, unhappily, the whole body of the population are adverse to the administration of the law.
"Until that temper is altered it is in vain to

55
multiply Coercion Acts; it is quite impossible that by such means you can establish real security. The object must be to change their disposition. I ask you, my Lords, has the Coercion Bill any tendency to do so? Are the severe provisions which we are compelled to adopt when endeavouring to repress crime, while the population continue anmated by the spirit I have endeavoured to describe—are those severe provisions calculated to reconcile the people to the law, and bring them to look upon its Ministers as their friends instead of their enemies? I think no man will maintain such a proposition.
"Remember that the unhappy tendency of laws of this kind is to alienate from your Government all the Irishmen—constituting, as I hope and believe, a still numerous body—who understand and value constitutional liberty.
"To adopt such a measure is to drive into the ranks of your opponents such men as those, and you gain but little if you repress agitation by means which exasperate the feeling of hostility to our existing institutions which is really dangerous, and cause it to extend to thousands not before infected by it.
"I contend, then, that we must look further. We must look to the root of the evil, and we must see whether it is not possible to change the temper of the Irish population; to effect a reconciliation between them and their rulers; to make them the friends instead of the opponents of the administrators of the law. This I say is the object to which our efforts ought to be directed, and I say if those efforts are honestly directed to its accomplishment, I believe it is one not beyond our reach to attain.
"In the first place, then, in order to convince the people that the law really exists for their benefit, you must amend it both in its provisions and its administration, for I believe both are defective. I am persuaded that the law as it now exists in Ireland is inadequate to secure to the poor man, who cannot afford the cost of litigation, that justice to which he has a right. I believe it is more particularly so inadequate in those parts of the law which relate to the tenure of real property.
"As has been observed very recently by the Minister of the Crown who is more particularly responsible for the peace of Ireland—the Home Secretary—the state of the law, and the opinions of the people in respect to the tenancy and occupation of land, are at the root of the disorders by which the country is afflicted. I believe that the law as it now exists requires, and is susceptible of, improvement. I believe that the most frightful injustice can and does take place under it.
"We are also told that by the law as it now stands it happens, though I hope not very often, that when an industrious man has spent two or three years in improving a small allotment of ground, and has thus given a new value to it, depending upon it for the subsistence of himself and family, he can be, and at the pleasure of the landlord sometimes is, turned out to starve on the wide world. Can these things be? Is it possible they should exist and not create a strong feeling of exasperation in the minds of the peasantry?
"Not a day, not an hour ought to be lost in devising such a measure and bringing it before Parliament."—[3 Hansard, lxxxiv. 1352–1364.]
56
Those words were uttered on the 23rd of March, 1846, by the noble Earl who spoke last but one (Earl Grey). What has been the course of Parliament during the twenty-four years which have elapsed in reference to this subject? Government after Government have brought in Bills in respect to the matter, discrediting in the eyes of a half-educated, but sensitive, people, the present state of the law, for they were informed that they had a grievance, and yet Parliament neglected to redress it. Can these things exist without creating in the minds of the peasantry of Ireland a bitter feeling of exasperation, and can Parliament, with a clear conscience, pass extra-constitutional and repressive measures for the prevention of crime which was directly due to their own neglect? I trust that the Bill to be brought in by the Government will realize the anticipation expressed in more forcible language than my own by the noble Earl to whom I have already referred, and who said—
"In framing that measure you must be prepared to go to considerable lengths, and to act not in the spirit of mere technical lawyers, but with the comprehensive views of statesmen; you must look to the principles of the public good on which the law of real property is founded, and not to conventional and technical notions as to the practice of that law. A reform conceived in that spirit is absolutely necessary, and I trust Her Majesty's Government will do their duty, and bring some such measure forward with the least possible delay."—[3 Hansard, lxxxiv. 1360.]
I notice that at the conclusion of the Royal Speech the Government do not hesitate to say that if after passing remedial measures the tranquillity of the country is not restored, they will come to Parliament for additional powers. I for one would under such circumstances gladly support them, as I believe the majority of Ireland would support them, in that proceeding, because then it would be manifest that extra - constitutional measures were necessary for the purpose, not of stifling the demands of the people, but for assorting the supremacy of the law.
Address agreed to, nemine dissentiente, and ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The LORD REDESDALE—Appointed, nemine dissentiente, to take the chair in all Committees of this House for this Session.
COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES—Appointed.
SUB-COMMITTEE FOR THE JOOURNALS—Appointed
APPEAL COMMITTEE—Appointed.
House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.