Sitting of 1 March 1881

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Contagious Diseases, Colonel Alexander discharged, Mr. Tottenham added.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Coventry Canal Navigation *.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Peace Preservation (Ireland) [98].
Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Godalming, &c.) * [88]; India Office (Sale of Superfluous Land) [91].

QUESTIONS.

  PARLIAMENT—ASH-WEDNESDAY—THE THEATRES.
  MR. WOODALLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the conflict of jurisdiction affecting places of public amusement under which the Metropolitan theatres and certain patent houses in the Provinces are compelled to close on Ash Wednesday, while the music halls on the Surrey side, and all theatres not subject to the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain are free from such disability; and, whether the Government will endeavour to remedy the injustice whereby some thousands of people are thus denied the opportunity of earning their livelihood while all other trades and professions may be legally pursued?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, I beg to state that the subject is engaging the attention of the Secretary of State. It is a somewhat complicated one, and he is not yet in a position to express an opinion upon it.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—TRICHINOSIS—IMPORTATION OF PORK FROM THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he has been informed of the prevalence of trichinosis amongst swine at Chicago, and is aware that large quantities of pork, ham, bacon, &c, are exported from that city to this Country; whether he is further aware that the French and other Governments have, in consequence,
  1942
  prohibited the importation of pork from the United States; and, whether, in view of the deadly character of the disease propagated by the consumption of diseased meat, two deaths having been reported from Dublin within the last few days, he has taken any, and, if so, what steps, to ascertain if any infected meat has been imported into the United Kingdom; and, if not, what steps he is prepared to take to prevent such importation?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, we have no evidence of the prevalence of trichinosis among swine at Chicago. Chicago is merely a centre to which hogs are sent from hundreds of miles around to the curing-houses which exist there, and the cured pork is exported thence to this and other countries; but it must be remembered that the disease cannot be detected in the living animal, and generally only by a microscopic examination of the flesh. We are aware that the French have prohibited the importation of American pork. Their import, we are informed, has been comparatively small—not more than 1–12th of the import to this country. Italy, Greece, Spain, and Portugal prohibited American pork about two years ago, when some alarm prevailed as to trichinosis disease; but it should be noticed that these are self-sustaining countries, and not dependent, as we are, upon external supplies of animal food. With respect to disease as it affects the population in England and Wales, the Local Government Board is alone responsible. The Irish Government is responsible for public health in Ireland. The functions of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council are confined entirely to the diseases of living animals. I think it is only right to say that no facts have been brought to our notice to justify any alarm. I can only repeat what I stated last week, that the prohibition of such an enormous food supply could only be justified by the most urgent necessity. As regards the two cases referred to in Dublin, there is no evidence to show that death resulted from trichinosis, or that the deceased had been in the habit of consuming American pork.

  CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND)—CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department,

  1943
  If his attention has been called to a case tried before the Police or Burgh Magistrates' Court, Greenock, on the 21st instant, in which a woman was convicted of being drunk and disorderly on the night of the 19th, and was ordered to pay a fine or go to prison for five days; whether it be true that two policemen swore to her being the guilty person; also, that the Law officers produced copies of two previous convictions against her; whether it was afterwards found that the wrong person had been tried and convicted, and had to be discharged, and the really guilty party tried; whether, for the bettor protection of the public against such acts, he will order the policemen and the Law officers to be put on their trial for perjury by the Public Prosecutor; and, if it be in conformity with Law, he will order the suspension of the magistrate from the exercise of magisterial duties, and the assessor from being the adviser of the court?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN): Sir, I have received a report on this case of mistaken identity from the Sheriff of Renfrewshire, who has inquired into it personally. His statement is too long to be given to the House; but I may say that as regards the conduct of the police there is some reason for the complaint implied in my hon. Friend's Question. I do not intend to direct that the constables should be prosecuted for perjury, because the facts do not warrant such a charge; but I have requested the Sheriff, in conjunction with the Chief Constable, to deal with the offence in such a way as may tend to prevent its repetition. I am happy to say there is no ground for any reflection on the magistrate or his assessor, who only decided on the evidence as laid before them.

  EAST COAST FISHERIES—DEPREDATIONS OF FOREIGN SEAMEN—THE REPORT.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Mr. Higgin, Q.C., has reported upon the inquiries respecting the alleged depredations by Foreign upon English fishermen on the East Coast of England; and, if so, whether he will lay the Report upon the Table?
  MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, that the Report had been received, and that it was placed yesterday in the hands of the printers for presentation to Parliament.

  THE PASSENGER ACTS—SHORT SHIPS.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he is aware that the following ships belonging to the Castle Line of steamers were cleared from Dartmouth during the months of August and September last year as "short ships," although carrying a larger number of passengers than is allowed for "short ships "under the Passengers Acts:" the "Kinfauns Castle," the "Warwick Castle," the "Flamingo," the "Balmoral Castle," the "Grantully Castle," and the "Conway Castle;" and, whether he will produce any Correspondence which has passed between the Board of Trade and the managers of the Castle Line, and any Reports made by the officials of the Board of Trade with respect to the steps taken to prevent a similar course being pursued in the case of the "Dublin Castle," belonging to the same line, which was cleared from Dartmouth on 1st October last?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had received no information which led him to believe that the Passenger Acts had been violated in the case of the ships named in the first part of the Question. With regard to the Dublin Castle, he received information some time ago that more passengers had been carried than appeared in the list sent to the Department. On making inquiry of the owners he found that the list sent to the Department was correct at the time the ship loft London; but that, subsequently, they had received a very urgent message from the Cape Government asking them to take over a small body of Cape Riflemen whose presence was immediately required, and that they had not felt justified in refusing. He thought this reason for infringing the letter of the law sufficient; but he had caused a letter to be addressed to the owners directing that in future cases of the kind they should first obtain the permission of the Department. He did not think that the public interest would be served by the production of the official Correspondence which had taken place on this subject.

  SCIENCE AND ART—INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION OF ELECTRICAL APPARATUS.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any, and, if so, what arrangements have

  1945
  been made to afford facilities and meet the requirements of British exhibitors at the forthcoming International Exhibition of Electrical Apparatus at Paris?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, It is not intended, to appoint a Commission for the purposes named by the hon. Member. The Government has never yet undertaken the task of affording facilities to British exhibitors at foreign exhibitions of a special character. Past experience in connection with international exhibitions of a general character has shown that there is no kind of expenditure more difficult to keep within bounds. The expenditure so incurred has varied between the limits of £28,000 spent in connection with the exhibition at Vienna, and £115,000 spent on that of Paris in 1867. Although the expenditure upon exhibitions of a special character would, doubtless, be of a very much smaller amount, it would be equally difficult to control; and if the precedent were once to be set it would be impossible for the Government to refuse equal facilities in the case of the numerous exhibitions of a similar character that will, doubtless, be held hereafter. In coming to the conclusion that they have done the Government in no way wishes to disparage the importance of the proposed exhibition. Upon the contrary, they recognize its great interest, and the Postmaster General has been authorized to accept the invitation which has been addressed to him to exhibit specimens of telegraph appliances, both past and present. Delegates will also be sent from the Post Office to take part in the Congress of Electricians, which will be held at the same time as the exhibition. I may add that there is nothing to prevent the formation of a Committee to afford facilities to British exhibitors, as was done on the occasion of the Brussels Exhibition, and on some others when the Government took no direct part, and I hope that such a Committee may be formed.

  NAVY—SEAMEN (TEN TEAKS' SERVICE).
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If be will lay upon the able a Return showing in each year since 1875 the number of Seamen who take their discharge at the end of ten years' service, and the number of
  1946
  men who re-entered for further service in the Navy, specifying their ratings?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said that be could give the hon. and gallant Baronet much of the information ha asked for, but not quite all.

  VACCINATION.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it be true that a practice of vaccinating infants as early as the first week after birth, and even earlier, has been adopted in some workhouses; if it be done under the sanction of the Local Government Board; and, is the free consent of the mother in these cases first obtained?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, it is quite true that a practice of vaccinating children in the first week after birth has been adopted in some workhouses, and in some individual cases I have ascertained that the operation has been performed earlier than the completion of the first half of the week; but in the Circular recently issued by the Local Government Board it was pointed out that the children might, as a rule, be vaccinated when six days old, so that the result could be ascertained on the 13th day, and before the mothers leave the workhouse, which is often at a very early period. If these children were not vaccinated in the workhouse, they would probably not be vaccinated at all. No complaints have reached mo with regard to these early vaccinations. In many cases the free consent of the mothers to the vaccination of the children has been specifically obtained. In others, where it has not been so asked for, acquiescence, in the absence of objection, has been assumed; but I am not aware of any instance where a child has been vaccinated after the refusal of the mother.
  MR. FIRTHasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that, owing to the increase of small-pox in Western London, many inhabitants are being re-vaccinated; and, whether, having regard to the fact that no lymph can be obtained from secondary vaccination and that great difficulty exists in obtaining lymph, he is prepared forthwith to provide a proper supply of calf vaccine or humanized lymph for all duly qualified persons applying for the same?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, there is no doubt that, owing to the increase of small-pox in Western London, many persona are being re-vaccinated. It is very desirable that persons should be re-vaccinated; but it would have been much better if, instead of waiting for an epidemic of this kind, as has been done in too many instances, they had been re-vaccinated at the age at which the Board recommend it to be done. With regard to the supply of lymph, it must be borne in mind that the national vaccine establishments only undertake to supply stock, and do not supply lymph for the vaccination of every individual. I do not find, however, that any registered practitioner who has applied for lymph has yet been refused. Arrangements are in progress for providing a supply of calf vaccine; but considerable difficulties have been experienced in organizing the necessary establishment. I trust, however, that these difficulties will shortly be surmounted.

  AFGHANISTAN—RETENTION OF CANDAHAR—SIR DONALD STEWART.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary of State for India, If the Sir Donald Stewart, whose opinion is recorded in the late Blue Book, in a memorandum dated April 18th, 1879, as adverse to the retention of Kandahar, is the same Sir Donald Stewart who, on the 25th March, 1880, assured the Chiefs of Kandahar that "There was no chance of Kandahar again falling under the authority of the Supreme Ruler in Kabul"(Afghanistan, No. 1, page 20, 1881); and, who again on the 2nd July, 1880, expressed his "hearty agreement with the drift of a paper" of Sir Frederick Roberts, in which it is pointed out that "The Military occupation of Kandahar is, as I have before stated, of vital importance;" and, if so, whether the Government have any ground for believing that these later opinions do not express Sir Donald Stewart's present views.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTLNGTON: In reply to this Question, and to another of which Notice has been given by the right hon. and gallant Member for Wigtown (Sir John Hay), I have to say that the Sir Donald Stewart, whoso opinion, adverse to the retention of Candahar, is recorded in the late Blue Book, in a
  1948
  Memorandum dated April 18, 1879, is the same officer who, on the 25th of March, 1880, communicated to the Chiefs and people of Candahar certain arrangements, by order of the Government of India, which arrangements, as the House is aware, it has not been found possible to maintain in practice. Sir Donald Stewart subsequently expressed his hearty agreement with the drift of a Paper written by Sir Frederick Roberts. I have reason to believe that Sir Donald Stewart's full and latest opinion on this question will be contained in a Minute which will shortly be sent home from India, and which I hope to be able to lay on the Table of the House.

  THE IRISH LAND ACT COMMISSION—THE EVIDENCE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the impending discussion of the Irish Land question, he can indicate how soon the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Irish Land Act Commissioners, and referred to in their official report, bearing date the 4th of January, will probably be placed in the hands of Members; and, also, whether he will cause to be laid upon the Table of the House, in time for the debates upon the relation of landlord and tenant in Ireland, a Return of the amounts lent to Irish landlords under the Relief of Distress Acts (1880) for execution of improvements on their properties, specifying the amount of the loan allotted and issued to each landowner, and the amount certified by the Board of Works as having been expended on improvements by each landlord up to the present date?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Sir, the first volume of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this Commission will be delivered to the hon. Members on or before Friday next. I understand that this volume will consist of about 900 pages—namely, 752 pages of evidence, and 146 of digest. The second and concluding volume of evidence will follow as soon as possible. With regard to the second subject alluded to in the Question, I think the hon. Member will find that the greater part of the information asked for has already been presented to the House, on the Motion

  1949
  of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), who, on the 11th of January, obtained a Return dealing with all such loans up to the 31st of December, 1880. That Return was presented on the 21st of February, and ordered to be printed on the 23rd; but I do not think it has yet been circulated.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (NEGOTIATIONS).
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any orders were given to restrain the Army in the Transvaal from advancing until the result of the negotiations with the Boers was known?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, Her Majesty's Government regret that they are still unable, consistently with due regard for the public interest, to make any statement to Parliament as to the communications between the Boer leaders and the late Sir George Colley, or as to instructions given to Sir George Colley in reference to those communications. This is the more necessary, as, in consequence of Sir George Colley's lamented death, we are not quite certain of the exact position of those communications. I must, therefore, ask the House to excuse me if I do not reply to the Question of my hon. Friend.
  LORD ELGHOwished to ask a further Question. The hon. Baronet had asked whether orders were given to restrain the Army in the Transvaal from advancing. He wished to ask whether we had any Army at all in the Transvaal, for he had reason to believe that all these military operations took place in Natal.
  MR. CHILDERS: Both Mount Prospect and Laing's Nek are in Natal; but, on the other hand, we have, unfortunately, garrisons of considerable strength shut up in the Transvaal.

  MEDICAL RELIEF (SCOTLAND).
  CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in framing the Estimates for the ensuing year, the Government have taken into consideration the advisability of granting to Scotland an amount of medical relief in proportion to that given to the rest of the United Kingdom?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord
  1950
  of the Treasury stated last year, in reply to a Question upon this subject from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, that the Government was considering the subject of grants-in-aid at large with the view of devising, if possible, some better method of regulating the appropriation of public money for local purposes. It is impossible, in the present state of Public Business, to undertake that this subject, which is one of very great extent and importance, and connected, in a considerable degree, with the general question of local government, can be dealt with in the present Session; but my right hon. Friend is anxious to do so on the first opportunity; and the inequality referred to in the Question of the hon. Member and others now subsisting in the relative proportion of grants-in-aid in Scotland and England makes him especially anxious to find such an opportunity for dealing with the question in Scotland. In the meantime it has not been considered advisable to insert an additional sum in the Estimates for medical relief.

  STATE OF IRELAND—JOHN DEVOY.
  MR. SCHREIBERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true, as stated in the public press, that he has received a telegram from Mr. Devoy, or a telegram purporting to come from Mr. Devoy, and threatening him with assassination; and, if so, whether any and what representations have been made to the Government of the United States upon this subject?
  MR. HEALYsaid, that before this Question was answered perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would allow him to ask who it was that supplied the Press with the statement that Mr. Devoy had sent a telegram threatening the life of the Home Secretary, whereas, according to The Times of today, Mr. Devoy did not send a telegram threatening the life of the Home Secretary or of anybody else?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I am sorry that the hon. Member who put the Question on the Paper should have thought it worthy of the notice of the House of Commons. I do not think it so myself, and I am utterly unable to tell the other hon. Member who sent the statement to the public Press, I did

  1951
  not. With reference to the first Question, I have to say that I did receive a telegram signed "John Devoy." It was somewhat of a menacing character. It proposed to stamp me out. [Mr. HEALY: No!] But it did not explain the exact method in which that operation was to be performed, nor whether the resources of modern science would be employed for the purpose. With reference to John Devoy, I would venture to say that as long as he and his confederates, the leaders of the Land League, think fit to remain beyond the seas, whether on the other side of the Atlantic or the Straits of Dover, the less notice we take of them the better. We may be quite content to say, as was said of a certain gentleman of old, Abiit, evasit, erupit. If John Devoy were to come within the Dominions of the Queen, no doubt it might be my official duty to pay him some personal attention. But the hon. Member asks me another Question—namely, whether I propose to make any representations to the United States. Now, I certainly do not propose to do that. If we were to enter into an international discussion on the matter I am not quite sure whether we or the United States would have most ground for complaint. We got rid of John Devoy out of a convict prison, and the United States have acquired him as an American citizen. And as we have to very much the best of the bargain think we had better leave the matter as it stands.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE BASUTOS (NEGOTIATIONS).
  MR. CARINGTONasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government intend to instruct Sir Hercules Robinson to treat direct with the Basutos, so as to ensure fair and reasonable terms of peace being offered to them?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I must refer the hon. Member to the following passage in the Instructions addressed to Sir Hercules Robinson on the 30th of December last:—
  "If the Colonial Government should desire that an effort should be made to bring about a settlement through the Imperial authority and you should be satisfied that the Basutos would be willing to place themselves in the hands of Her Majesty's Government, I should be ready to receive favourably any proposition for the
  1952
  appointment of a Commission to consider and recommend terms of settlement, or for the direct intervention of the Crown if that should appear preferable."
  Neither of the conditions contemplated being fulfilled at the present time, He Majesty's Government are unable to give Sir Hercules Robinson instructions to treat directly with the Basutos; but he will continue to use his influence in favour of a settlement upon fair and reasonable terms.

  MEDICAL REFORM.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Vice president of the Council, Whether it is decided, as stated in the "Times," to refer the question of medical reform to a Royal Commission, instead of permitting the inquiry commenced before a Select Committee to be concluded?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, after consulting several Members of this House who served on the Committees on Medical Acts, we have arrived at the conclusion that a Royal Commission will afford the best means by which a satisfactory investigation and Report upon these Acts can be obtained.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION (THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH'S).
  COLONEL TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the evidence taken before the Land Commission, presided over by Lord Bessborough, which was presented to the House of Commons on the 11th of February last, will be in the hands of Members?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the first volume of the evidence referred to will be delivered on or before Friday next, the 4th instant. It will contain about 752 pages of evidence and 146 of digest. A second volume will appear subsequently.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—TELEGRAMS.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, To produce all the telegrams from the 4th December, 1880, to the 27th February, 1881, between Her Majesty's Government and the late Sir George Colley, relating to the Military operations that had then taken place?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to state that it

  1953
  is unusual to produce telegrams between the War Office and Commanders abroad on military operations, most of which, from their very nature, are confidential, except such as are included by the Colonial Office in Papers presented to Parliament about the Colonies where such operations are conducted.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—DEFEAT OF THE BRITISH FORCES.
  COLONEL STANLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he could give the House any information as to the defeat in the Transvaal subsequent to that given yesterday; and whether he could, without detriment to the public service, state what steps had been taken in consequence of that unfortunate disaster.
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my right hon. and gallant Friend I have to say that we have received two telegrams to-day. The first is as follows:—
  "I hope that the loss was exaggerated in the first news from the front. The road is open to Newcastle. Fraser, of the Royal Engineers, walked into the camp at Mount Prospect at 4 a.m."
  The second runs thus—
  "The officer in command at Mount Prospect reports that Fraser arrived there this morning unwounded. Cornish, Landon, and Chard have come in. No news yet of Lieut.-Colonel Stewart."
  As to the last statement, I am happy to say that Colonel Stewart has arrived in camp, or, at any rate, that he is not killed, as at first reported. [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: From whom are these telegrams?] The first is from Sir Evelyn Wood, and the second from the officer in command lower down. As I have just alluded to news of Colonel Stewart received in an unofficial despatch, I will venture to say a few words to the House, and through the House to others, upon a subject which, I am sure, will justify me in calling attention to it at the present time. I wish to say, in the first place, that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Press, both in London and in other parts of the country, for the exceedingly valuable news that they have furnished to the country in connection with the operations in this war—news which, I ought to say, in many instances they have sent to us even before
  1954
  it went to the public. I think our best thanks are due to the Press for the exertions that have been made in placing at the seat of war such excellent telegraphic correspondents. I wish also to make an appeal that I am certain will not be misunderstood, and it is this—although very little as yet has been contained in any of those telegraphic despatches to which the least exception can be taken, there have been passages in some of them, the purport of which, if it became known to the Boers, would certainly tend to give them information of some importance. I would, therefore, while thanking the Press for the great assistance given, ask that, before the telegrams are published, the question may be considered whether they do not contain hints of intended movements which, however much they may be welcomed by the curiosity of the public, cannot but be injurious to the public interests. My right hon. and gallant Friend asks, in the second part of his Question, whether I can supplement my statement of yesterday by any further information. I may say that a very short time after he asked the Question yesterday evening I should have been in a position to state to the House that Her Majesty's Government had decided to appoint Sir Frederick Roberts to be Commander-in-Chief of our Armies in Natal. We do not appoint him from the smallest want of confidence in Sir Evelyn Wood, who is a most distinguished officer, but because, considering the large force which is and will be employed in these operations, we thought it desirable to send there in supreme command an officer of the position of Sir Frederick Roberts; and I think and believe that the House and the country will approve the course we have taken. Secondly, with respect to what we are doing still further to strengthen the force in South Africa, I may say this—in the first place, we decided yesterday to send three additional Infantry regiments to Durban, and all the necessary orders were given with that object. I am not sure that some part of those orders has not already been communicated to the public through the newspapers. The 85th Regiment from Bombay, and six companies of the 102nd from Ceylon, will proceed to Durban in the Euphrates, which is now at Bombay, and will arrive on the 23rd of this month. The Orontes,

  1955
  which ought to be at Bermuda to-day on the service of transporting the 99th Regiment from Bermuda to the West Indies, will proceed to Durban with the 99th, and will arrive about the 30th of this month. In addition to these three regiments, we decided to-day, after consultation with Sir Frederick Roberts, to carry out what we thought yesterday would probably be necessary, and for which preliminary arrangements have been made—I mean the despatch of three more regiments of Infantry to Durban. They will be conveyed without loss of time by ships that will carry them from Gibraltar and Malta. I am not quite sure about the day on which they will arrive; but, at any rate, I believe it will not be much, if at all, later than the three first regiments to which I have referred. We have also telegraphed to Sir Evelyn Wood to inquire whether he requires any more transport, and especially whether he will have mules for that purpose; and if his answer is in the affirmative—and we expect it tonight—we shall at once make arrangements, and have already made preliminary arrangements, to send the mules across from Buenos Ayres. We have also asked him whether he thinks it desirable to have more Cavalry and another battery of Artillery. This has been done after consultation with Sir Frederick Roberts; and although I have some doubt about the Cavalry, I think an additional battery of Artillery will be sent. In addition, we are sending out, besides the i,500 drafts I mentioned some days ago, still further drafts to the regiments at the Cape, which will, in part, consist of men of the Army Deserve. We invited, under stringent limitations, men to volunteer from the Reserve, and they have come up well. We are now inviting more men, under less stringent conditions, and I do not doubt that the result will be satisfactory. I have stated now to the House all that was decided yesterday afternoon and this morning, and I have reason to believe that all these arrangements are likely to be carried out promptly.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I wish to ask whether there is any intention on the part of the Naval Authorities to land men from the fleet now at Simon's Bay, with a view of increasing the strength of the Naval Brigade at the seat of war?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Earl of Clanwilliam, who is in command of the Detached Squadron, being within reach of the telegraph, will not land a Naval Brigade without orders from the Admiralty, and those orders will only be given after application from the Military or Colonial Authorities. No such application has yet been made. I may be allowed to read a passage from the instructions to the Earl of Clanwilliam, as they express the policy of the Admiralty with regard to Naval Brigades—
  "You will not land any officers or men to take part in active operations on shore without the sanction of their Lordships obtained by telegraph or letter; but you will afford every assistance in your power afloat and on the seaboard in co-operation with the naval and military forces engaged in suppressing the revolt in the Transvaal. In the event of circumstances, which it is hoped will not arise, necessitating the landing of a Naval Contingent, with their Lordships' sanction, care is to be taken to provide for the safety of the ships, and such contingent is to he re-embarked at the earliest time which may be practicable, in order that the squadron under your command should be ready for any service that may be required of it."
  These instructions were sent off six weeks ago, and have, of coarse, been long in Lord Clanwilliam's hands. By a very recent order the Detached Squadron has been directed not to leave the Cape until further orders from the Admiralty.
  COLONEL STANLEY: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any telegram has been received stating whether the wounded have been recovered from the scene of action or any wounded brought to the camp?
  MR. ELLIOT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question I would like to ask if the report in this evening's Standard purporting to give a list of the wounded is correct?
  MR. CHILLERS: Sir, I have road to the House all the telegrams bearing on questions of the kind which we have received to-day and, therefore, I cannot verify the list of the killed and wounded which I read in the very admirable telegrams published in the morning papers. But while my right hon. and gallant Friend was asking the Question two more telegrams were put into my hand, and they are such, I believe, as I may read to the House. The first, dated 20 minutes to I this afternoon, is from the officer commanding at Mount Prospect. It is as follows:—

  1957
  "The number of troops engaged in the action of the 27th—30 officers, 693 men. Casualties—3 officers killed, 9 wounded, 7 prisoners, I missing. Non-commissioned officers and men killed 82"(very much fewer than was thought),"wounded 122, prisoners 50, missing, but believed to be wounded, not yet brought to camp, 12."
  The second telegram is dated 2 o'clock this afternoon. It is as follows:—
  "Lieutenant Colonel Stewart is a prisoner, not wounded. Surgeon Major Cornish died this day."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: What is the strength of the effective forces in the field?
  MR. CHILDERS: I would rather not answer that Question.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.—EXPLANATIONS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It may be for the convenience of the House that I should put a Question to the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington)—whether he can give the House any further information as to the course it is proposed to take with regard to Public Business? We have been a little bewildered of late by the Notices which have appeared on the Paper and disappeared. But, as far as I understand the course proposed is to take the Peace Preservation Bill as the First Order of the Day, under the Order of precedence of the 26th of January, and which I understand you, Sir, consider to be still in force; and that the noble Lord intends, before the Motion on that subject is proposed, to ask the House to declare that the Bill is urgent, and that the House shall vote Public Business to be urgent. So far the course is clear. We are most anxious to assist the Government in the difficulties in which they find themselves; but we are also anxious for further in form action as to the statement which I understand was made last night, when I was, unfortunately, not present, with regard to the course proposed to be taken during the progress of the Bill for which we are asked to vote urgency. I understand that urgency is not to be continuous urgency, but to be of an intermittent character; that there will be opportunities occasionally, by interrupting its progress, of taking certain Government Business,
  1958
  but not private Members' Business. I understand that in those cases in which the progress of the Bill would be so interrupted, it is intended that the House should be consulted, and should express its opinion whether the Bill should be so interrupted. I wish to ask, therefore, whether that be so, and whether Members will be afforded a convenient opportunity of voting "Aye" or "No" upon the suspension, or whether it will be considered a sufficient redemption of the pledge if an opportunity is afforded only at the end of an evening's Sitting, when perhaps not more than 50 or 60 Members are present? I should also be glad to know whether Notice, and, if so, what Notice, will be given in the event of the House being asked to suspend proceedings on the Bill, and especially whether we shall be asked to do so during the next day or two? I imagined, from something I saw reported of what passed last night, that it was intended to suspend the proceedings on Thursday next. If so, it would be convenient and only fair to the House that we should be informed of the intention of the Government before being asked to take such measures.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I stated yesterday, as well as I was able, the class of Business which it might be necessary to interpose before the conclusion of the Peace Preservation Bill. I stated also the reasons why it was necessary that a certain class of Supply should be disposed of before a date not very distant. But I hope, if this Bill does not consume a greater portion of the time of the House than it ought to consume, it will not be necessary that any frequent interruptions to the progress of the Bill should be made. At all events, at present it is not the intention of the Government to ask the House to interpose any Business whatever except the Order for Supply, for the purpose of taking the Army Estimates. I stated yesterday that it was extremely desirable that my right hon. Friend should have an opportunity of making a statement upon several very important questions connected with Army organization. We shall, therefore, propose that the House do adjourn the debate upon the Peace Preservation Bill about 9 o'clock on Thursday night, for the purpose of taking up the Order of Supply. But as, after what took place last night, I am

  1959
  afraid it is not by any means certain that my right hon. Friend will be able to go at once into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I will state to the House the course he intends to pursue. It would not, I believe, be regular—at all events, it would be unusual—if my right hon. Friend were to enter into any detailed statements on the subject of the Estimates with the Speaker in the Chair. My right hon. Friend therefore does not propose to take that course; but he does propose, on moving that the Speaker do leave the Chair, to make some important statements, not connected in the least degree with the details of the Estimates, but which he thinks it very desirable that the House should have an opportunity of considering before giving a vote on the Army Estimates. That statement, not connected with the details of the Estimates, he proposes to make on Thursday next at 9 o'clock. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman, should it unfortunately be necessary to interpose any other Business during the progress of the Peace Preservation Bill, that as ample Notice as possible should be given, and that the intention of the Government should be communicated to the House at the opening of the Sitting on the previous day. I should not wish to be understood as giving a positive pledge on the subject, because I can conceive that occasions may arise when it would not be convenient to be bound by a hard-and-fast rule. For instance, if a stage of the Peace Preservation Bill were concluded earlier than was expected, it might be desirable that some Business might be interposed next day, if the subsequent stage might be likely to take up a long time. But I quite agree that it is desirable that the most ample Notice should be given from day to day as to the progress of the Bill.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask a Question as to the course to be pursued by the Secretary of State for War on Thursday next. That course will be of a novel character, of a character which has been commented on unfavourably on former occasions even by the right hon. Gentleman himself. In a similar case in 1877 the right hon. Gentleman rested his objection to the course which the late Government proposed to follow with respect to the Education Estimates, partly on the ground that no Notice was given—in the present
  1960
  instance Notice has been given—partly on the ground that Motions might be made with the Speaker in the Chair which it would not be possible to discuss when the House was in Committee. From the explanation given by the noble Lord as to the statements to be made on Thursday, and with the understanding that we are not to be asked to pass any Vote on that occasion, I think the second objection will not so fully apply as it would to cases in ordinary circumstances. I think, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, the House will not be unwilling to agree to the course proposed, with the object of enabling the Secretary of State for War to make a statement which is important outside, beyond, and apart from the mere question of the Estimates. Is it not that which is meant?
  MR. CHILDERS: I wish to confirm entirely the description of what I wish to state on Thursday given by my noble Friend and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I shall limit myself, if the House allow me to make the statement on Thursday, to the large question of Army Organization and other questions of that character, and if, by accident, I should mention anything which may relate to details of the Estimates, I shall not take advantage of it, but shall be careful, when I come to move the Vote, to state clearly the financial questions with which the Estimates are concerned.
  MR. J. E. YORKE: As we are now about to enter into a state of what my right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford North-cote) calls "intermittent urgency," I wish to ask you, Sir, how we are to judge of the period at which this urgency would intervene. I shall be glad if you are able to say when a Bill which is urgent may be interrupted.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the House agree to a Resolution of Urgency, the urgency would only apply so long as the matter declared by a Minister of the Crown to be urgent was before the House.
  COLONEL STANLEYwished to ask, Whether the right hon. Gentleman who proposed to make a statement to the House on Thursday, with the Speaker in the Chair, would avoid, as far as possible, matters which were properly dealt with under the head of Charge, and would be good enough to intimate that in moving his Estimates he would not commit those who wished to reply.
  MR. CHILDERS: I am quite aware of the objection of my right hon. and gallant Friend; but I thought I had just now explained to the House that if it should so happen in the course of my explanation of those large questions to which I shall refer that I should touch on matters of figures, I shall take care that in moving the Estimates nothing shall be omitted that is usually stated by the Secretary of State for War.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSwished the question to be perfectly clear before giving his vote. They assumed for the moment that urgency was voted at the request of the noble Lord, and that the Government wished to take Monday for the purpose of Supply. What the House wished to be informed upon was, whether, in case Monday was given to Supply, it would be absolutely free from the Rule of Urgency?
  MR. SPEAKER: Monday will be free from the Rule of Urgency, unless a Bill declared to be urgent is before the House.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: The noble Lord has given Notice of his intention to move—
  "That the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill is urgent, and that the state of Public Business is urgent."
  I want to know from you, Sir, in what way the urgency is to apply. In the first part of the Resolution a particular Bill is declared to be urgent; but in the latter part, Public Business, in an unlimited sense, is declared urgent, and would apply to the Motions of private Members, as well as to all other Business of the House. I respectfully ask your direction upon this point, whether a Motion, "That the state of Public Business is urgent," does not cover all the Public Business that is before the House, as well as the Peace Preservation Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I wish to know, if we go into Committee of Supply, whether the noble Lord will move that the state of Public Business is no longer urgent? You have ruled that Supply is not urgent; and, in order to re-establish urgency, would it not require another Resolution when the Peace Preservation Bill is taken up again?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: On the same point, in reference to the
  1962
  answer you have been good enough to give my right hon. Friend near me (Sir E. Assheton Cross), when you stated that urgency will not apply in cases of Supply on Monday unless an urgent Bill were before the House, I wish to know whether, supposing that the first Order of the Day is Supply, and the second the Peace Preservation Bill, would it, in such a case, be before the House, and urgency apply to it, notwithstanding the fact that Supply stood before it; or would urgency apply to the whole of the proceedings of that evening?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Rule relating to urgency would apply when the urgent Bill is actually under discussion. If the House passes from the consideration of an urgent Bill to another matter that is not urgent, the Rules of Urgency will not apply. With regard to the Question of the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), I have to state that the Rules of Urgency apply to the Bill or measure declared urgent in the manner prescribed by the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister on the 3rd of February.
  MR. O'DONNELLrose and cries of "Order!"
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?
  MR. O'DONNELL: I have a Question to ask, and I have risen two or three times to ask it. I wish to know from the noble Lord if what he proposes is, that where an urgency Bill is before the House, and has been declared urgent by a majority of three to one, it may be set aside in favour of non-urgent Business by a mere ordinary majority? In that case I should certainly oppose.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is not possible for me to answer the Question. As I understand the Rule, an urgency Bill may be set aside by an ordinary Motion; but it is not for me to say what majority would be necessary.
  MR. CALLAN: I would ask Mr. Speaker, as the chief authority of this House, to answer the Question which the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) has put to the noble Marquess. I wish to know whether the Business which this House, by a majority of three to one, has declared to be urgent, can be set aside by an ordinary majority?
  MR. SPEAKER: It can only be set aside in the manner prescribed by the

  1963
  Resolution of the House of the 3rd of February—that is to say, by a declaration from myself, that the urgency has ceased, or by a vote of the House taken in the ordinary way.
  MR. R. H. PAGET: I wish to put a Question to the noble Marquess, which it may be convenient for him to answer. Is it his intention, on Thursday, to move the postponement of the debate on the Arms Bill, with a view of taking up Supply at 9 o'clock? I want to know whether the House will have an opportunity of deciding upon that question by a formal Motion being made to that effect at half-past 4.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is not for me to interpret the Rules of the House; but I believe it would bo absolutely irregular to move at half-past 4 o'clock that a debate on any subject be adjourned at any particular hour. It can only be done on a Motion at the time when the House can decide on the question. I have now, Sir, to state, as a Minister of the Crown, that the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill is urgent, and that it is of importance to the public interest that the same should be proceeded with without delay, and to move that the state of Public Business is urgent.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the state of Public Business is urgent."—(The Marqueas of Hartington.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 395; Noes 37: Majority 358—.(Div. List, No. 99.)

MOTION.
  PEACE PRESERYATION (IRELAND) BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I rise to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the carrying and possession of arms, and for the preservation of the public peace in Ireland. I regret very much that the duty should have devolved upon me of introducing this Bill rather than on my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who, with far greater knowledge of the subject with which it deals, would have discharged the duty more to the satisfaction of the House. But as my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India
    1964
    stated yesterday, the present Bill is only a supplement to, and, practically, a continuation of, the Bill which the House has already passed this Session. In that light it was regarded by the Government, and in that manner it has been received by the House, for the House, by the Resolution of the 26th of January, gave precedence to those two Bills, and decided that they should proceed de die in diem as if they formed parts of one measure. It may, perhaps, be thought that it was a useless proceeding to separate the two Bills, and I may state that that was done because the Government considered the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act a matter of such paramount importance that it ought to be passed at once, and not to be encumbered with any other measure. That was the reason why we separated from it the Bill which I now ask for leave to introduce; and in making this Motion I have, at all events, the advantage that I am not under the necessity of presenting to the House any new case with reference to the condition of Ireland. I suppose, after the long and protracted debates which we have had, every Member of the House has made up his mind as to the actual condition of Ireland at this moment. I need not, therefore, discuss that subject generally further than to call attention to the particular facts which have a bearing on this Bill. I hope, I may add, that we shall hear no more of recrimination on the subject. There are, no doubt, many hon. Members who think that this Bill has been introduced too late, while others think that the Motion for its introduction is made too soon. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) I thought not very consistently with some of the language which he has used, or with the opinions of his Friends, was met with applause from some hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side, when he spoke of a Liberal being always more in favour of coercion than a Tory Government. ["Hear, hear !"] I hear the Leader of the Opposition, if I am not mistaken, cheer that remark; but I was under the impression that the great charge made against us by those who sit on those Benches was that we were the first Government who made the attempt to govern Ireland by the ordinary law, and that we refrained last year from continu-

    1965
    ing the Peace Preservation Bill. ["No, no !"] I thought that in introducing this Bill it might be necessary to say something on that point: but as I find that no such charge is made against me I will pass the matter by in order to avoid all subjects of controversy with hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am delighted to hear from them that there is no charge against us. ["No, no!"] Well, you cannot have it both ways; you cannot blow hot and cold. You cannot say we are a Party of coercion, and then condemn us for not renewing the Coercion Bill.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: I rise to Order. I wish to know whether it is open to hon. Members, in the course of the present discussion, to refer to debates which have taken place on another Bill?
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is illustrating his argument.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I can assure the hon. Gentleman who rose to Order that no man desires less than I do to refer to former debates, and I will entirely abandon that topic. I only thought it necessary to say a word as to why we did not think it our duty last year to propose a Peace Preservation Bill, while we are of opinion that we are called upon to do so now. I have, however, great pleasure in dismissing that matter, and I shall at once proceed to lay before the House what the conditions have been in previous times in reference to measures of this character. There has been, since 1847, a very complicated system of Peace Preservation Acts for Ireland; but the Acts with which we are most conversant are the recent Acts of 1870 and 1875. Both those Acts contain various provisions. I will not refer to them in detail, because the Bill which I ask leave to introduce deals with one of those points, and one only, and that is the question of arms and ammunition. This Bill is simply an Arms Bill. The other provisions which were contained in the Acts of 1870, 1875, and in that of 1847, we do not deem it expedient to renew, because, in our opinion, the instrument which the House has just placed in our hands in the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act is suificiently powerful to render it unnecessary to revert to those particular provisions. This Bill, then, is an Arms Bill pure and simple, and what I have
    1966
    to show the House is that such a Bill is necessary and urgent. No doubt, we did last year think that we could do without an Arms Bill, and I will say no more on that subject, except that the experience of the period which has since elapsed has served to show that the hope which we then entertained was unfounded, though not, I trust, in the opinion of the House, ungenerous. That it was not altogether as unreasonable a hope even then as some hon. Gentlemen may be disposed to imagine, I shall be able to show from one or two passages in the Charge which Mr. Justice Fitzgerald delivered at the Winter Assizes for Munster, which describes what was the state of Ireland in August last and in the month of December. The Judge to whom I refer said—
    "Now, the matters to which I shall have immediately to advert will be found to have arisen within a very short period previous to the present time; and you will recollect hero, and I recollect, that throughout the whole country, save the Province of Connaught, at the last Assizes—that is the Summer Assizes, which we may say terminated about the first week of August last—the general tone of the observations of the Judges—they did not pretend to see beneath the surface—was that in the other three Provinces in the country there was a very small amount of crime indeed to be dealt with. Of course, a Judge has no greater opportunity than you have of knowing what is passing, save that he is armed with reliable official Reports of all crimes reported to have been committed during a certain period. I must say that, at the last Summer Assizes, at the close of it, it was my duty to address the jurors of a neighbouring district, and in all cases to point out the great absence of crime."
    That was the condition in August last. That was the condition of Ireland which the Government found on their a: cession to Office, and which, according to Justice Fitzgerald, continued to August last. Now, what happened in August? That is what is important. What change did the condition of Ireland undergo between August and Christmas? That is the point to winch I shall ask the careful attention of the House, because that is really the foundation of the Bill. At the return of the Summer Vacation, at the end of October last, we found all that changed. And Judge Fitzgerald said—
    "In place of the description that I have given you we found that some organization—1 do not profess to say or to know what it was—but some organization, acting on the cupidity, the passions, and the fears of the people, had reduced some districts in the country into anarchy and confusion—little, if at all, differing from civil war.

    1967
    In addition to that, it was obvious to everyone that you had to deal with an armed population, The offences, or possible offences, which I shall have to describe to you were all committed by armed people. As far as I can judge from the official Report sin certain districts in the Province of Minister, which we are now dealing with, every farmer's boy, every farmer's son, and persons of that class seems to be armed with a rifle and revolver, and they certainly have been used freely in the commission of the outrages which I shall have to advert to."
    That is the description furnished by the Judge of the state of things in August, and the change which took place in the condition of affairs in the autumn and winter. There are other circumstances which again led, at the close of last Session, to a certain amount of irritation and exasperation in the minds of the Irish people. I must say that, under these circumstances, men who ought to have known better took advantage of that feeling of irritation, and they instigated the people of Ireland to resistance of the law. Now, I have to remind the House of a speech to which, indeed, attention has formerly been called—a speech which, I venture to say, the leaders of the Land League cannot decline the responsibility. It was a speech made at this very critical time to which the Judge refers—in the middle of August—by the hon. Member for Tip-perary (Mr. Dillon). Now, although I shall have to speak of the language of that speech, and of the conduct of the hon. Member for Tipperary with severe reprobation, I shall certainly not speak of the hon. Member himself with personal disrespect. The hon. Member for Tipperary is a man who has the courage of his convictions. He is not a man who advises the people one day to break the law, and who recants the next day, and disappears from the scene the third. There are others who have taken that course, and who remind me of no one so much as the gallant French sea captain whose exploits were sung in the Anti Jacobin. His name was, I think, Monsieur Bon Jean, and the lines ran—
    "Bon Jean was a gallant captain,
    In battle much delighting,
    He fled full soon on the 1st of June,
    But bade the rest keep lighting."
    [Laughter.] Yes, Sir; they do keep fighting; but, if I may say so without offence, with a spirit which is worthy of a nobler leader and of a better cause. But the hon. Member for Tipperary is
    1968
    not a man of that character. Although, in my opinion, his politics are dangerous and mischievous, he is, at least, a serious politician, of whose sayings and doings it is worth while to take some account. He is a recognized representative of the Land League, both in America, where the objects of that body are openly avowed, and in Ireland, where its designs are cloaked more carefully. Now, on the 15th of August, when the Land League was becoming active, and beginning, as I think has been amply proved, to change the condition of Ireland in respect of crime, the hon. Member for Tipperary, in a speech at Kildare, used this language—
    "The only way to achieve victory was to have organization in this country so close and so well knit together, that every farmer should belong to the branch of the League in the parish or townland in which he lived, and that all the young farmers and all the young men should be brought to attend the meetings, and to march to the meetings, and in proper order too."
    Coming to details—and I would ask the House to mark these words—the hon. Member said—
    "Let them get two active young men—men who were not afraid of anyone—and let those young men go to every farmer on their townland and see if he would join the League.…Then it would be the duty of those organizers to tell how many men they could march to a meeting, and they should march those men like a regiment of soldiers."
    The House will hear by-and-bye what those active young men, who were afraid of no one, did to induce people to join the League. The hon. Member afterwards explained the objects of the organization, which was to extend even to this House—
    "He believed that those in Parliament faithful to the cause of the people could paralyze the hands of the Government, and could prevent them from having such laws as would throw men into prison for organizing themselves. In Parliament they could obstruct, and they could set the people free to drill themselves and to organize themselves, and to take it out of the power of the police to arrest every man who was out after 8 o'clock at night. They in Parliament would see that every man in Ireland had a right to have a rifle, if he liked to have a rifle."
    That is what is called Constitutional agitation. It is in favour of an organization of that description that hon. Gentlemen opposite appeal to the sacred principles of free discussion. Now,

    1969
    those might have been idle words; but what followed? In September crime began to follow that teaching, as it was likely—-nay, as it was bound to do. In the succeeding months, as the organization became more complete, outrages became more frequent and more atrocious. The hon. Member for Tipperary, in his first speech on the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland, very frankly avowed that the law had not taken its course in Ireland, and said he rejoiced at it. Now, why did not the law in Ireland take its course? In my opinion, it was because the Irish people followed the recommendations of the hon. Member for Tipperary. The hon. Member, and those who act with him, have raised a direct issue between themselves and the Government, and also, I will venture to say, the Parliament of the United Kingdom—namely, whether or not they are to be allowed to paralyze the Government and obstruct the law. That is the direct issue; and the object of this Bill, and the Bill that has pre-coded it, is to decide that issue. Now, I am to show you what the consequence of the teaching of the hon. Member for Tipperary was, and how it was acted upon. I will just take one Return—the Return of 29th December—it is unnecessary to travel over the whole ground—and here I find some instructive examples of the manner in which the Irish people used the rifles which the hon. Member for Tipperary pledges himself that, whatever Parliament might do, they should still have. On page 9 it is stated—
    "Armed men visited the houses of several tenants on Lord Seaton's estate, fired shots, and warned the tenants against paying more than Griffith's valuation as rent."
    Is that a Constitutional agitation for the repeal of the Land Laws? I go to page 12—
    "Eliza Reilly permitted a man named Hamilton to stack some of his turf in her yard on the night of the 9th of December. 1880. A party of men, one of whom was armed, visited her, and warned her to have the turf removed or they would burn her house down. They fired a shot when leaving. Hamilton would not join the Land League."
    That is the way in which the active young men induced people to join the Land League. On the same page I find—
    1970
    "A party of men came into the yards of each of the injured persons, warned them to pay no more than Griffith's valuation, and fired shots when leaving."
    On page 13 it is stated—
    "Matthew M'Namara got about one acre of land from his landlord which had been in possession of another tenant. On the night of the 15th of December a party of men called at his house, fired a shot through the window, and ordered him to give back the land, and to announce that he had done so at the next Land League meeting in Edge worthstown."
    I turn to page 14—
    "On the night of the 2nd of December, 1880, several shots were fired to intimidate Bernard Sandes, who had taken some land from which the previous tenant had been evicted."
    On page 19 it is stated—
    "A shot was fired at night through Sinnott's window, slightly injuring his niece."
    We heard a good deal under the last Bill of the crime of interfering, in any circumstances, with women; but I do not find that the chiefs of the Land League have had any scruples in that respect. On page 23 I read—
    "William O'Donnell, his wife, and six children, were sitting round the kitchen fire, when a shot was fired through the window. One of the children was struck on the cheek by a grain of the shot. O'Donnell had paid his rent, and would not join the Land League."
    That is the police of the Land League. They fire shots through the windows of people who have paid their rents or who will not join the Land League. If a shot hits a child in the cheek, that is one of the incidents of Constitutional agitation. At page 27 of the Returns, an account is given of an armed party who knocked at the door of the Rev. M. Tomes in the night-time. The door was opened and shots were immediately fired. Mr. Tomes had been observed taking notes of a notice threatening any person with death who paid the usual rent, and, having informed the police, they removed it. On page 29 of the Returns the following outrage is reported—
    "A party of armed men visited Donovan's house at night, fired several shots, and put two notices under his door threatening him with death if he did not surrender a farm."
    Again—
    "A party of armed men with blackened faces visited the house of M'Grath, and looked over all his receipts, &c, to see if he had paid more than Griffith's valuation for his rents."
    In the course of the discussion on this

    1971
    Bill we may, perhaps, hear something about the police of the land making domiciliary visits; but the police of the Land League have no objection to make domiciliary visits. Another outrage was thus described—
    "Three men were unlawfully driving cows off the land of the injured person's father. He called out to them to leave the cows after them, when one of the party fired at him; young Murphy, who had a pistol, returned the fire without effect. Murphy's father took a farm which had been surrendered by another person."
    On the next page I read—
    "A numerous party, armed and disguised, entered the House of Jeremiah Donoghue and other farmers in the townland of Toneagh; they asked at each house if the owner belonged to the Land League, and if he paid more rent than Griffith's valuation, and on receiving answers that they belonged to the League and had not paid their rents, the armed party went away, firing shots in some instances."
    Again—
    "Two parcels of dynamite, each weighing about 2 oz., were found at Donovan's outhouse, attached to two trees, one with a detonating cap; an explosion was heard, and shortly afterwards the thatch of an outhouse was found on fire. The attempt to explode the cap was a failure, as both the fuses were fired, but the dynamite remained. Donovan is a bailiff and rent-warner."
    Then I read on page 38 of the Return—
    "Between 1 and 2 A.M. an armed party broke into Griffin's cabin, dragged him out of bed, and administered to him an unlawful oath as to his employment as care-taker of a farm from which the former tenant was evicted."
    Another case is thus described—
    "At about 1 o'clock A.M. a shot was fired into Sullivan's house, which pierced the curtains of the bed in which he and his wife were sleeping at the time; his windows were broken, and a violent threatening notice was posted on his door. Sullivan had paid a portion of his rent."
    I have now gone about a quarter through the book, but I will not weary hon. Members with further extracts; but I can assure them that what I have read are only samples of the rest. If hon. Members went through the book, they would find, page after page, the same history of these abominable outrages by armed men, threatening every man who did not join the Land League or suspend the payment of rent. In the month of December there were 73 cases of intimidation, seven of firing at the person, and 22 of firing into dwelling houses. It might be said that that was in the
    1972
    month of December, and it may be asked, what is the present state of things? I take up this morning's paper, and what do I read there? First of all I read of a horrible murder, and I find that—
    "A report has been received from Ballinrobe, that Mr. John Hearne, Clerk of Petty Sessions, and land agent to the Hon. Mr. De Montmorency, brother of the late Lord Mountmorres, was fired at about 3 o'clock on Monday afternoon, when within about 40 yards of his residence. He was proceeding home on foot from Ballinrobe, which is about a mile distant. He received six wounds, and was not expected to survive the night. No arrests have yet been made. A woman who was on the road at the time of the outrage states that she saw two men fire at him, but she does not know them."
    This outrage is believed to be without doubt agrarian. It is also stated in today's paper that—
    "On Sunday night five shots were fired into Stonehall House, Crossmolina, the residence of Mr. George Scott, High Constable of Twrwilly. The shots were fired into the room in which Mr. Scott was sleeping, and the bullets and slugs were subsequently found embedded in the wall near his head. The police are now staying in the house."
    We are asked to believe that these are not the doings of the village ruffians, and that the people who countenance and preside over those organizations and associations are the parish priests. I think, however, that the parish priest is getting tired of this business. I read in this morning's paper that at a largely-attended meeting at Mallow a letter was read from the Rev. Father Connor, severing his connection with the League, and assigning no reason. The reverend gentleman was denounced as a coward, who was afraid to face the Coercion Bill; but I should imagine that, as a Christian man, he is afraid to face the conscience of such deeds as these in any association with which he was connected. He was also declared to be a rogue, and, upon a poll being taken, it was determined not to return his subscription. I notice that, whether in America, or in Ireland, or in Paris, there is very great solicitude about the charge of the cash. Well, I also learn from this morning's paper that—
    "A series of daring outrages was committed on Monday night in the County Kerry. A band of 60 men, armed and disguised, visited several houses in the vicinity of Ballymacelligott, and demanded arms, and in some instances money. One of the first houses visited was that

    1973
    of the Rev. Nicholas Foster, rector of Ballymacelligott. They also went to the houses of several farmers, whom they compelled to swear they would not pay more rent than Griffith's valuation. The marauders are stated to have taken away about 40 guns and some money. Two policemen appear to have been stationed at one of the houses visited for the protection of the occupier. They threatened to fire, and the party quickly withdrew."
    These are the descriptions given of the state of things at present existing in Ireland, and this is the way in which the instructions given by the hon. Member for Tipperary last August have been practically applied. ["No, no !"] What did he mean, then, when he spoke of people having rifles and marching in military array? These outrages, it will be observed, are not committed on landowners alone. There is an opinion in some quarters that because people hold real estate they are not entitled to the same amount of protection by the law as people who are owners of personal estate. As a lawyer, I may, perhaps, be excused for demurring to that proposition, for, although there are some distinctions in the law which I should wish to see done away with between real and personal estate, I should always desire the owners of both kinds of property to receive the protection of the law. The police of the Land League do not attack landlords alone. They spare neither age nor sex. You will find that young women and old women have been attacked. We lately had an impassioned appeal in favour of wives from one of the hon. Members opposite, who spoke as a husband; but the police of the Land League have not the least regard for wives. This book is full of attacks upon herds for herding cattle, upon artizans, upon mechanics, and upon small farmers and tradesmen—upon everybody, in short, who will not serve the Land League. The question I have to ask the House is this—Is this state of things to continue? The hon. Member for Tipperary and his friends say that it shall continue, in spite of the Government, of the Queen, and the Parliament of the United Kingdom. [Mr. M'COAN: He did not say so.] In my opinion, as long as the people of Ireland are armed, as they are armed now, for the purpose of carrying out the teaching for which they were told to procure arms, that state of things will continue. The object of the Bill is to
    1974
    put an end to that state of things. And now I will briefly describe to the House what the Bill is. It is purely and simply an Arms Bill. It declares that—
    "It shall be unlawful to carry arms in any district proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant by a proclamation he shall make for the purpose."
    The general rule is that within a proclaimed district the carrying of arms is unlawful, except subject to such conditions and licences as may be provided for in the proclamation. The Bill will contain, as these Bills have always contained, power to search the persons and homes of those suspected to be in possession of arms unlawfully, and not according to the terms of the proclamation; but it will follow the rule of the Act of 1875 in this respect—that the hours of search will be limited to the hours between sunrise and sunset, and the warrants will be of a special character—that is to say, the person and the house to be searched will be named. We have, in fact, adopted the mitigated Code of the year 1875. Besides this, the Bill will give power to the Lord Lieutenant, by Order in Council, to prohibit and regulate the importation and sale of arms in Ireland. Of course, it would be desirable to interfere as little as possible with the legitimate trade in such things; and the Lord Lieutenant will, therefore, be able to alter these Orders in Council from time to time as he thinks the public safety may permit. Then I come to a material part of the Bill—namely, the penalties. In former Bills there were generally two forms of procedure—either by indictment, when there was a high penalty of two years and afterwards of one year, or by summary conviction. Now, in a matter of this kind, when you wish to take the dangerous weapons out of the hands of the men whom you believe to use them, I think you cannot employ too speedy a mode of procedure; and, if that be so, it is clear that indictment is not an appropriate method. We therefore propose a speedy procedure and a mild penalty, and the Bill provides for summary convictions and the imprisonment of the offenders for not more than three months without hard labour. In order to prevent objections that will easily occur to hon. Members, we propose, in adopting a summary procedure, that there shall always be a resident magistrate upon the Bench, either alone or with other

    1975
    justices; and, lest the Lord Lieutenant should abuse his power of issuing Proclamations and Orders in Council, it will be provided that the Proclamations and Orders in Council shall be laid upon the Table of the House. I may add that the Definition Clause of the Bill forbids, under the head "Ammunition," articles like dynamite and nitroglycerine. We propose that the Bill shall remain in force for five years. Now, Sir, I know that it will be at once said that the Bill will not take all their arms away from the people. It is true, of course, that arms will remain in their possession hidden away; but there will be this advantage—armed gang's will not be able to march along the roads and intimidate people without running the risk of having their guns taken away by the police. This measure the Government present to the House as one that is urgent in its necessity, reasonable in its aim, and moderate in its penalties. In my opinion, it is a Bill the discussion of which ought not to occupy a very long time. Ever since 1847 there has always been an Arms Act in Ireland, and when the country is moderately tranquil the pres-sure is not felt at all. But when times arise like the present, and men teach the use of arms to the Irish people, then an Arms Bill becomes absolutely necessary to law and order. Why, Sir, the possession of these arms tempts men to use them. I think we may say of them, as King John says to Hubert—
    "How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds, Makes ill deeds done."
    And I think I might go on to apply to the animate as well as inanimate instruments of this organizations the lines which follow:—?
    "Hadst not thou been by, A fellow by the hand of nature marked, Quoted, and sign'd, to do a deed of shame, This murder had not come into my mind: But, taking note of thy abhorr'd aspect, Finding thee tit for bloody villany, Apt, liable, to be employed in danger, I faintly broke with thee of Arthur's death."
    I should like to ask whether these misguided and guilty men have not some right to reproach with their silence those to whom they looked for counsel and teaching. May they not say of the leaders of the Land League—
    "Hadst thou but shook thy head, or made a pause,
    When I spake darkly what I purposed;
    1976
    Or turn'd an eye of doubt upon my face,
    As bid me tell my tale in express words;
    Deep shame had struck me dumb, made me break off,
    And those thy fears might have wrought fears in me:
    But thou didst understand me by my signs,
    And didst in signs again parley with sin."
    Why, Sir, in the character of King John, as it seems to me, the great painter of human nature has left behind him a portrait that is true, generation after generation, of those criminal poltroons who, having incited others to crime, endeavour to shuffle off the responsibility upon someone else. I have detained the House too long. I ask the sanction of the House for a Bill that will injure and touch no one who seeks lawful ends by lawful means. I have a right to claim for it the support of those who profess to be the champions of Constitutional agitation. Pikes, revolvers, and dynamite are not the instruments of legitimate reform; but in such a state of society as has been created in Ireland, they are the secret armouries of treason and revolution, of the midnight brigand and the skulking assassin. It is against such persons that the Bill is directed. It leaves wholly unimpaired the resources of Constitutional agitation; and I ask the House, for the sake of the Irish people, for the reputation of a civilized State, for the honour of a Christian country, to take from the hands of these misguided men the implements of temptation to crimes which are darkly instigated and foully accomplished. I move for leave to bring in the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the carrying and possession of Arms, and for the preservation of the public Peace in Ireland."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt)
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had begun his speech by reference to the cases in the Blue Book in support of the Bill, and had concluded it by reading a studiously prepared, but singularly ineffective, peroration. He had also treated the House to a quotation from King John, which was inapplicable to the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had attempted to defend the introduction of this Bill by stating that it was a supplement to the Coercion Bill. It could not be so re-

    1977
    garded. The Coercion Bill was introduced on the distinct ground that it was directed against a certain number of persons justly suspected by the police, and that there was no danger of its being wrongly applied. But this was a Bill of suspicion against the entire nation. It provided for searching for arms among the guilty and innocent alike. The right hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, who made a speech by way of charge, which played very well into the hands of Liberal coercionists. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that outrages did not prevail to any great extent in Ireland till August last, and be traced the exasperation of the Irish people to a speech of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon). But if the right hon. Gentleman were speaking last year, he would have attributed an increase of exasperation and outrage, not to the speech of his (Mr. O'Donnell's) hon. Friend, but to the action of the House of Lords. Now, however, in order to secure the co-operation of the Conservative Party, the right hon. Gentleman found it convenient to drop all reference to the action of the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman professed his admiration for the candour and courage of the hon. Member for Tipperary, as compared with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). But the comparison was as unjust as it was unworthy. The hon. Member for the City of Cork having given erroneous advice, afterwards withdrew it; and the hon. Member for Tipperary, in somewhat similar circumstances, had done the same. Having made a speech in Kildare, which in the Ministerial view was susceptible of being taken as recommending cruelty to animals, the hon. Member for Tipperary took the first opportunity, both in that House and in Ireland, of repudiating any such meaning. The hon. Member for the City of Cork was not absent from any fear; he was absent on a mission confided to him by the loving confidence of his Colleagues—he was enlightening Continental Europe as to the falsehood of Liberalism in place. The Home Secretary had drawn a distinction between Land Leaguers who showed signs of skulking behind the scenes, and those who came openly and boldly to the front and took the responsibility upon themselves; but they knew, by the treatment meted out to the brave and candid
    1978
    Michael Davitt, what respect Her Majesty's Government had for bravery and candour. The Home Secretary fastened upon words spoken by the hon. Member for Tipperary in August last, when his hon. Friend recommended his countrymen to hold up their heads and not be afraid to look any man in the face. Englishmen had a right to carry arms, to drill, and to march in order; and the hon. Member for Tipperary told Irishmen in the open day not to be afraid to drill, to march in order, and to carry arms. That manly address was tortured by the right hon. Gentleman, throughout his whole speech, as if it meant midnight assassination and cowardly outrage. No charge against the Irish nation deserved consideration from such lips. The Home Secretary's speech was pregnant with mischief to Ireland, for it implied that the landlords were to continue their abominable tyranny, and no hope was held out to the down-trodden tenants. It was not the speech of the hon. Member for Tipperary that bad caused the outrages which had stained the annals of Ireland during the last two months. That responsibility must be shared by those who now sat on the Treasury Bench. It suited the political convenience of the Government to placate the Conservative Party—to go all lengths in order to obtain the contemptuous forbearance of those whom they bitterly denounced last year; but they appeared to forget their own conduct so long as Irish discontent fell in with their Party purposes. It now pleased the right hon. Gentleman to say that Ireland was in open revolt against the law. What law? Only one law—the Land Law, which sentenced the honest Irishman to starvation and death. When the Government brought forward their measure of Land Law Reform—if, indeed, it should ever be forthcoming—however slight its character, its Preamble must be "Whereas the existing Land Law is unendurable and ought to be reformed." That was the accursed law against which the Irish people were in open insurrection. With regard to every other law the Irish nation were a virtuous and law-abiding people. The hon. Member for Tipperary told the people to act up to their Constitutional rights—to seek equipment, and arms, and discipline; but no single outrage could be traced to the rifle-bearing columns, It was a base and paltry idea

    1979
    to ascribe to a man like the hon. Member for Tipperary the intention of hounding on the people to midnight crime and cruel outrage. The hon. Member would have been in the House if it had not been for the carefully-prepared surprise on the Irish Party. For days it had been insinuated that the Arms Bill would be dropped, and thus had been secured the absence of the Members it was desired to calumniate. The hon. Member would not hesitate to inform the English nation that it was his desire to see the Irish nation in possession of national independence, in union with Great Britain on Imperial questions, but with a Citizen Army such as England possessed. To stab him behind his back with the paltry accusation that his advice to Irishmen to conduct themselves like soldiers was an exhortation to behave like cowardly assassins was a foul stain which would always attach to the memory and reputation of the Home Secretary. Mysterious and undiscovered crime was not confined to Ireland. There was no clue to the recent murder of a woman in the King's Road. Chelsea, and of an officer at Chatham. Scores of cases could be cited of horrible murders, the perpetrators of which could not be brought to justice. In regard to undiscovered crime, Ireland would compare favourably with any portion of Her Majesty's Dominions. This Bill was meant to be a real measure of disarmament, or it was meant to be a gratuitous offence to the Irish nation. If it was meant to be a real Bill, it should be capable of being applied in reality. It would be utterly ineffective for its alleged purpose if the search for arms was to be strictly confined to the day, when, according to the Government, it was in the night that illegal use was made of arms. The main object of the Bill seemed to be to support the Government policy of attaching stigma to the Land League, who, after all, would be the real authors of whatever was good in the forthcoming remedial legislation. There was bitter internecine rivalry between the Liberal reformers and the Irish reformers who had conducted the Land League agitation. The Land Leaguers got the start of the Government in organizing their agitation, while the Government were wandering over Europe in search of adventure; and the Government were surprised to find the field of domestic legis-
    1980
    lation occupied by Mr. Davitt, the hon. Members for Cork and Tipperary, and their associates. Thereupon they set about employing the machinery at their disposal to blacken the character of the Laud League The Bill would not have the effect of depriving any murderous association which might exist of a sufficient number of weapons to carry out their murderous work. In the case of an outrage cited by the right hon. Gentleman there was a largo party, including one man armed with a gun; and there would still remain one gun at the service of 100 men who had half the 24 hours of the day in which to hide their weapons. This Bill would be used as an instrument to insult and wound the feelings of the Irish people; it would make village life almost unendurable; and it would have only one good result—it would make Liberal Administrations, if possible, more unpopular in the country. The right hon. Gentleman said arms would not be searched for at night time; no doubt the Government did not wish to interfere with the perpetrators of outrage who had already rendered such service. But respectable people could have their houses entered, the earthern floor of the kitchen dug up, the parlour carpet torn up, and the furniture knocked about by the local toadies and tools of the Irish magistrates, who would in this way gratify private spite and malice. What guarantee was there that this Bill would not be put into operation by persons like the Sligo landlord already referred to? The right hon. Gentleman had referred to one miserable case of a dispute between a priest and a Land League; but the priests and Prelates in Ireland, as a body, were in favour of the Land League, and by none would the wretched attack made by the Home Secretary on the hon. Member for Tipperary be read with greater scorn and contempt than by the priests and Prelates of Ireland. It was said that outrages still continued; seeing what human nature was, it would, indeed, be remarkable if they did not continue. The Government was doing all in its power to secure a continuance of that feeling in Ireland, which naturally had led to outrages. The Government had arrested Michael Davitt, whose voice day and night was raised against outrage; but though they had flung Michael Davitt into prison, the Irish people would never cease to

    1981
    feel grateful for the services Michael Davitt had rendered. The Government had stated openly that they did not intend to bring forward any remedial legislation until their Coercion Bills had been passed, and that being so, the course of the Irish Members was clear. They were in the House, not merely to protect the material interests of their country, but also to maintain its honour, which was attacked by these miserable projects of coercion. He did not, of course, know what would be the nature of the remedial legislation that might be proposed; but this he did know—that the Irish people would not accept any such project at the price of her previous degradation. The Irish Members stood there, as long as the Forms of the House would allow them, to exercise a remnant of Constitutional freedom in opposing the degradation of their country—the degradation which was contained in the projects of the Government, and such speeches as that which had been delivered by the Home Secretary. So far as he and his hon. Friends were concerned, as Representatives of the people of Ireland, they would unquestionably oppose the imposition of every fetter and of every manacle which the Government, in these coercive measures, were imposing upon the free action and free thought of the Irish people. Let the Government postpone their land legislation, and it would be worse for the Liberal Administration, and it would be worse for their landlord protéges in the long run. Lot the Government persevere in their policy of brute coercion, and the Members from Ireland would know how to deal with the perjured Liberalism which came into Office with promises of amelioration on its lips, and which now clung to the Ministerial Benches by the aid of its political opponents, for whom not long ago it had no word of calumny too bitter or too reckless. Now it was in Office, and was called upon to fulfil its promise of remedial legislation. But the Liberal Government had found it more convenient to secure the aid of their hereditary political enemies in England by accepting, by borrowing their principles. In a speech full of misrepresentation the Government had introduced this second Coercion Bill. It was a Bill insulting to the Irish nation. It placed in the hands of a maddened magistracy and a panic-stricken land-
    1982
    lordism and criminal tyranny of every description the opportunity of harassing and insulting every honest homo in Ire-land. So far as it went it was a Bill for the special protection of the disreputable class. It was a Bill for harassing men found pursuing their avocations in broad daylight, while it avoided all interference with the exploits of men who concocted murder in the night time, the period of outrage. It was the assassins in Ireland who supplied a Liberal Government with the wish for an opportunity of casting dirt at the reputation of the Reform Party in Ireland. The gratitude for the signal service rendered by the assassin in Ireland to Her Majesty's present Ministry, and the care with which the Government proposed to except midnight depredations from the purview of the Bill, was as singular a coincidence as had been noted in their proceedings either in or out of Parliament. The Home Secretary certainly did not display a very intimate knowledge of the ordinary law when he said that without a Bill of this kind the Government could not interfere with the marching of 50 men on the high road armed with bayonets and rifles on their shoulders. Irish Members had seen many specimens of the knowledge of the ordinary law displayed by the Irish Officers of the Government, and now the Home Secretary added one more to the number. Surely the right hon. Gentleman did not address such arguments to the Irish Party. It must have been addressed to the intelligence of the right hon. Gentleman's Liberal following. If, however, the intelligence of that Liberal following was to be tested by the arguments which the Government had thought fit to address to it, the estimate of the right hon. Gentleman was not very flattering to his Liberal following. In moving the rejection of the Bill, he (Mr. O'Donnell) did so in the interests of law and order. He was not in favour of exceptional facilities being given to midnight organizations as compared with the open and above board agitations carried on in the day time. The Irish Party were under no obligation to the party of assassination. They did not feel constrained to support their policy. They protested against that portion of the Bill, and they claimed a real right to protest against it from their point of view, which was an insult

    1983
    to the Irish people, inasmuch as it would worry, harass, and inflict moral torture, by bringing to bear a cowardly terrorism against every honest home in Ireland. At the same time, it was his firm conviction that long before the five years during which this Bill was to be in operation had expired the so-called Liberal Party would suffer much more from the course they had inaugurated than any section of the Irish people.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary seemed extremely anxious to dwell upon the political character of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon). He abused the hon. Member for the City of Cork very bitterly for being absent, while he indulged in extravagant praise of the hon. Member for Tipperary. He (Major Nolan) should certainly say that the censure bestowed upon the one was far safer than the praise lavished on the other. It was well known that a great number of people in Ireland considered that the hon. Member for Tipperary would be in some danger from the operation of the Bill which was now before the House of Lords, and which, probably, would be law before three or four days. They also knew that the Member for Tipperary was the gentleman who entertained an almost extravagant sense of honour; and he, therefore, believed that the speech of the Home Secretary would be sufficient to make him run still greater risks of being deprived of his liberty, so that the Executive, while loading him with praise, could at the same time put him into prison. That would be, from many points of view, a great calamity; but he could not help saying that the speech of the Home Secretary appeared to lead very much in the direction, because, while he praised the hon. Member for Tipperary at the expense of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, he was very careful to say that what he had been doing was illegal. He (Major Nolan) was not fond of giving advice to his brother Members; but he would very much prefer, particularly after the speech of the Home Secretary, to see the hon. Member for Tipperary present.
    1984
    He was sorry to say it had always been the policy of the larger number of the English Members of the House, and of a large section of the English Press, to praise the second man of the Irish Party. It had been their policy to praise anyone who was not actually leading the Irish Party for the purpose of depreciating the Leader, and he believed that had been principally the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill. He remembered that that had been the case with regard to the late Mr. Butt and Mr. P. J. Smyth in the last Parliament. The Irish Members, under existing circumstances, were not free agents in the ordinary sense of the word, and therefore, very great forbearance ought to be shown by their opponents in the House in criticizing their absence. They had been led to believe, by statements made in the Press, that this Bill was abandoned; but whether Her Majesty's Government changed their mind within the last three or four days, or whether a very considerable pressure had been brought to bear upon them from the Front Opposition Bench to bring in this Bill, he could not exactly say; but it was pretty generally believed that it was owing to the action of the Conservatives that they decided on bringing in this Bill at once. But whatever was the cause, the result was very unfortunate for the Irish Party. They had been treated very badly, and had no reasonable opportunity of bringing up their Members to vote on this Bill. As to the general policy of the Bill, he had great fault to find with the five years' clause. He doubted very much whether that Bill would have the effect of reducing the number of murders. It was quite impossible, in his opinion, by any precaution they might adopt, to keep arms out of the hands of people who were bent on committing assassination. But, in his view, the whole policy of successive Governments on that question of arms was an exceedingly bad one. It was injurious to the manly spirit of a nation to forbid the possession of arms; and he thought the Government should have permitted Volunteer Corps to be formed in Ireland, because they would have been under discipline, and the people would have got gradually accustomed to arms. If, however, they began by allowing magistrates only to have arms,

    1985
    they ought to have extended the same principle by degrees to the large farmers, and then to the smaller farmers and other respectable classes. Last year the democracy were suddenly allowed to obtain arms, at a time, too, when arms were very cheap all over the world. No wonder if the possessors of them acted like children who had a new toy, and showed it off a good deal. That was the fault of the policy of the Government more than anything else, and it did not warrant the introduction of this measure. He suggested that a certain description of arms might be taxed, that all descriptions might be registered, and that all respectable men might be allowed to have a rifle under certain conditions. During the last seven or eight years the policy of the English Government in regard to arms in Ireland had alternated between extreme repression and extreme laxity—a mode of proceeding which no wise statesman could look upon as sensible and judicious. He knew, however, this Bill would pass in the present state of feeling. The Cabinet did not seem to be very united, and he had observed that they were getting into the habit this Session of yielding to the pressure of the Conservatives, who were a more solid and compact body. The Government faltered a little whenever the screw was put on by the Leader of the Opposition, and went a good way in the Conservative direction. There could be no doubt, then, that the Bill would go through; and, that being so, he would ask his hon. Friends to allow it to pass on certain conditions—namely, that the Government would so modify the measure as that every man who had a vote should be allowed—if he so desired—to keep a fowling-piece, provided that what arms were kept should be registered. The effect would be to place arms in the hands of those who might be relied upon not to make a bad use of them, and to keep them out of the hands of dangerous characters. He was afraid, however, that the Government would not grant even that reasonable concession. The Home Secretary referred to speeches about using rifles and pikes, and asked was that Constitutional agitation. He agreed with him that it was not; but be was not sure that talking of the right to possess arms was open to that objection. There was no
    1986
    document more intimately associated with the Constitution of England than the Bill of Bights, and in that document it was laid down as part of the Constitution that every Englishman, being a Protestant, had a right to carry arms. He was sorry to say that he thought history would pronounce that Her Majesty's Government were very good Constitutionalists for England, but bad Constitutionalists for the South Africans and for Irishmen.
    MR. HEALYcongratulated the House that they had in the Home Secretary a more lively performer than the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had complimented the hon. Member for Tipperary on his courage, candour, and manliness, and had done so for the purpose of casting a reflection upon other Members of the House. The speech delivered last autumn by the hon. Member was declared to be wicked and cowardly; but his speeches now were candid, courageous, and manly. The right hon. Gentleman had laid before the House a number of so-called Land League outrages. He, for one, disputed the authenticity of the details given. They were compiled by the Irish Constabulary, and then doctored at Dublin Castle. Crimes of a far more serious character had occurred in England; but the Government dealt with them, not by repressive, but by remedial measures. On a former occasion it had been denied that outrages had been committed by trades' unionists; but he held in his hand the Report of the Royal Commission on the Sheffield Trades' Unions, in which it was stated to have proved that rattening had been largely resorted to by members of the trades' unions. The rattening was always done in the interests of the union, and commonly at the direction of the secretary. He challenged the Home Secretary to establish any such complicity on the part of a secretary of the Land League. Cattle were maimed, gunpowder was exploded, and persons were fired at, and yet there was no Arms Act for Sheffield; but inquiry was followed by remedial legislation. Irish Members naturally objected to the unjust application of principles to Ireland which the Government refused to apply to England under similar circumstances. The hon. Member proceeded to quote from

    1987
    the Report of the Commission their statement of the facts in a number of cases, when—
    MR. SPEAKERintimated to the hon. Gentleman that he was going at too great length into the case of the Sheffield Trades' Unions.
    MR. HEALY, resuming, challenged the Government to produce from Ireland cases half so harrowing as those that occurred at Sheffield; and there they wont on for a number of years. With what conscience could the Government propose this Arms Bill, seeing that they did nothing of the kind to put down the outrages at Sheffield, which in magnitude and number exceeded those of Ireland? The Bill would be ineffectual for its alleged object. No man who had the inclination to murder would want for the tools of assassination through the Bill depriving him of them. If there were secret societies which prescribed the punishment of death, they would have secret armouries which the Bill would not reach. As to gatherings of as many as 50 armed men, they would constitute riotous assemblies which could be reached by the Common Law and by the White boy Acts; and, therefore, special legislation was not needed to prevent them. A great many outrages were committed every year by Orangemen. Would the right hon. Gentleman give the assurance that the Bill would be applied to those persons? The prohibition of arms would tell very severely upon the Irish farmers, who would have no means of keeping down the wild birds and ground game which attacked their crops. The Home Secretary based his case on a Blue Book which had been produced so late that there had not yet been time to procure a refutation of its alleged facts. The Home Secretary, in fact, told them to pass the Bill first, and then study the reasons afterwards—much on the principle of hanging a man, and then trying him afterwards. The statement of the Home Secretary that the members of the League never denounced crime was absolutely inexact. They had constantly done so, though they had not chosen to do it precisely in the way which would please their English critics. He maintained that the language which Judge Fitzgerald had put in his speech was that of the authors of the Bill—the voice was the voice of Judge Fitzgerald,
    1988
    but the language was that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Members of the Land League had not been obtained by intimidation, as had been stated, but by the unjust laws which prevailed in Ireland. He did not thank the present Government for saying that no search should be made by night; on the contrary, that was a provision inserted in the Act of 1875 by the Tory Administration. This Act, unless remedial measures were passed meanwhile, would have to be renewed about the end of the five years over which it was designed to extend, from the same occurrences as those which it was alleged made it necessary now. It was always the old story—instead of finding out the sources of the crimes, and stopping them by ameliorative legislation, they had constant recourse to coercion. They had been promised ameliorative legislation, but were in the dark as to what it was to be, or as to when it was to come. They had been told, however, from the Treasury Bench, that crime and outrage in Ireland were entirely owing to the state of the Land Laws, and that the persons mainly responsible for agrarian crime were the landlords. There was never an agrarian crime committed by tenants that was not preceded by an agrarian crime by the landlords; and he would only say, in the words of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, 10 or 15 years ago, that crime and outrage in Ireland were inevitable, if only as beacons and warnings to the Administration of the iniquity of the Laud system there.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, the Home Secretary had laid great stress upon two classes of crime—the first being threatening letter-writing, which everyone knew could be increased to order; and the second, firing at the person and at property, which was also capable of explanation. In Minister, where Judge Fitzgerald delivered his famous Charge, there was no firing at the person in August; in September there was no tiring at the person; in October there was one case. He would like to know how many there were in England? In November there was one case, and in December there were three. There had been firings in Ireland, no doubt. The great query was, who fired? It was a curious coincidence that while the police

    1989
    had been patrolling cases of that description occurred with alarming frequency. The Homo Secretary said that they should now find parties of 50 or 100 men marching with arms through the country at night to attack persons obnoxious to them, and that they could arrest them red-handed in the act. Why did they not arrest those persons before? It did not require an Arms Bill to do that. Hon. Members had heard a good deal about Judge Fitzgerald's Charge. It should be remembered that Judge Fitzgerald was once a great patriot himself; and though he did not fire shots, he made very strong speeches before he ascended to the high position he now held. His Lordship read a threatening letter in Court, which contained French and other foreign languages, as if it came from an Irish farmer. Curiously enough, from August forward threatening letters steadily increased. In August there were three threatening letters; in September there were 10; in October there were 76; in November 183; and in December there were 211. Therefore, the reading of a threatening letter in Court had a wonderful effect. He had already told the Prime Minister that it was dangerous and unfair to say that threatening letters had increased in proportion to the meetings of the Land League; and he repeated now, that nothing could be more unjust than to deprive a whole people of their liberty because of the increase of a class of offence which could be regulated to order. The Home Secretary had told them that the hon Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) advised active young men in that county to go about canvassing for the Land League. Why should not they do so? He had seen active young men in Dublin canvassing for much less laudable objects. Oh! but the hon. Member for Tipperary said every young man should carry a rifle. What was there reprehensible in that? Every person was anxious to exercise the right of a freeman to bear a rifle and arms in his native country. And it would be the proudest boast which Her Majesty's Government could make, if every Irishman was allowed to carry arms as a defender of the Law and the Constitution. They had heard that certain Members were almost instigated to use arms in that House. Well, the only appeal to arms in Parliament during his experience was made
    1990
    by the Speaker, when he invoked superior force against the Irish Members. The Home Secretary dilated with great force upon the danger of discharging fire-arms where there were numbers of women. Could the right hon. Gentleman, after all the use he made of his Blue Books and of the Land League, point to one single instance in the province of Munster, to which he alluded, where a woman had suffered a hair's breadth? The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had shown the right hon. Gentleman that in his own country—at Sheffield—women were not spared. He asked the House to wipe out the stain which the right hon. Gentleman had attempted to put upon his country, but which was unsupported by a single fact. If the right hon. Gentleman had a Blue Book prepared in reference to crime in his own country, he would be forced, from the argument he had used, to suspend the Constitution in England. Did he ever hear of dynamite? Ever hear of explosives being placed on railways in England? They had actually seen the right hon. Gentleman driven to support the case he attempted to make out in support of the Bill, which was announced in the Queen's Speech, by referring to outrages committed a few days ago. How exceedingly absurd and weak must be the case of the right hon. Gentleman, when he was obliged to appeal to newspaper reports of that very day to support a Bill which Her Majesty's Advisers thought necessary two months ago. Whatever occurred—whether crime increased or decreased—the Government had the hardihood to advance it as an argument in favour of coercion. They had been told that there were arms in the country. There might be. They knew how spies and informers, under previous Acts like this, found arms concealed in the thatch of the widow's cottage; how they got the widow's son, and only support, imprisoned and transported beyond the seas, and how it transpired after the unfortunate victims had died in exile, that they had never perpetrated the crimes, but that they were committed by those who swore their lives and liberties away. A sub-inspector holding an high position was tried for that in Dublin Castle, and his myrmidons were convicted and dismissed from the Force. But it was then too late, for their vie-

    1991
    tims had spent years in exile. Really, this Bill out-Heroded Herod. There was some excuse for the tragic air of the poor Chief Secretary, because he found that a few sheep had fallen over a cliff, and that a few hairs had been pulled out of a horse's tail; but, really, the Home Secretary had thrown the whole question into ridicule, and they had how arrived at a stage when it was manifestly unworthy of the consideration of the House.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLventured to congratulate Her Majesty's Government which he feared a few days ago he would not be able to do, on their having exhibited a certain amount of firmness of purpose with regard to this Bill. Within the last 48 hours the Arms Bill had been in great peril, and it was a grave question whether it would be introduced. Her Majesty's Government—who had very curious relations with the Press of this country—had circulated in one newspaper an announcement that the Bill would not be proceeded with; but they instantly qualified it by announcing in another paper that they would not give up the Bill, and the House was left in a state of uncertainty whether the Bill would be brought in or not. What had been going on in the Government was somewhat analogous to a process not unknown in Ceylon. When the Indian Government wanted to recruit its troop of elephants they sent out into the jungle old and tried elephants to seduce the young and untried ones into the official enclosure, and, after some violent struggling, the wild young elephants became tractable and, sometimes, even useful. Her Majesty's Government received a great accession of strength from the Radical Party when they took Office, and that Party, no doubt, contained Members of great intelligence, eloquence, and ability, but who were firmly impressed with the idea that they themselves wore perfectly capable of reforming and governing the universe. It had always been difficult when a Government took in a Radical section to harmonize the section with Whig traditions and Whig ideas. This process, however, seemed to be going on with great care, and to have been conducted with some amount of success. The wild elephants were represented by the right hon. Members for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright and Mr. Chamberlain), the
    1992
    hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and the right hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), who, if they had been asked the question 12 months ago as to whether they would have submitted to Bills of this kind, would have replied, as Hazael did to Elisha—"Is thy servant a dog that he should do this great thing?" The wild elephants had been greatly tamed by the overpowering Whig section, and appeared to have fallen into the ordinary common-sense methods of governing a country. It was clear, after the speech of the Home Secretary, that the Arras Bill could not now be abandoned; but it was also clear that no Business could be interpolated before the Bill became law, because the right hon. Gentleman had put forth all his strength to make out an unanswerable case for the Bill. He hoped the Home Secretary would excuse him if he did not find himself in a position to congratulate him altogether on his speech, which appeared to him to be provocative and defiant. He was not quite sure whether it was expedient, in introducing a Bill of this exceptionable character, and which must be viewed by a great portion of the Liberal Party with disfavour, if not with positive dislike, to assume such an attitude. No doubt, it was easy to be defiant; but they were now legislating under Rules of Urgency, and a defiant attitude might be taken up with far greater safety than if they were not legislating under such Rules. When the Home Secretary introduced his Hares and Rabbits Bill, he did so in a defiant manner. But there were no Rules of Urgency then; and before the Bill passed the Home Secretary was far tamer than any hare or rabbit. In taking up this defiant attitude the right hon. Gentleman was hardly politic, and certainly not generous. The Irish Members in opposition to the Protection of Person and Property Bill, after the lapse of seven weeks, had been trampled upon. They were told they had failed, and the Home Secretary dilated on the feebleness of the opposition with which this Bill was likely to be met. Now, he would ask Irish Members to contrast the tone of the Home Secretary with that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) when he introduced the Peace Preservation Bill of 1875. ["Oh!"] He recollected the last Parliament,

    1993
    and he used to think then that the Tory Party were impatient with Irish opposition; but he never saw the Tory Party exhibit one-tenth so much impatience as had been displayed by the Liberal Party. If they went over all the speeches of the right hon. Member for Gloucestershire when he introduced and carried through the Bill of 1875, they would find the most marked and favourable contrast to the speech of the Home Secretary in introducing this measure. The right hon. Gentleman said he wished to avoid matters of controversy, and not to be acrimonious. But he fell foul of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), and transgressed the Rules of the House in alluding to past debates. Then he fell foul of the hon. Member for Tipperary and the hon. Member for the City of Cork, who were not in their places to reply. If that was the right hon. Gentleman's idea of avoiding acrimony, he would like to know his idea of producing harmony. His belief was that the right hon. Gentleman had that evening delivered a speech which he had intended to deliver on the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill, but which the Government, in a state of nervous anxiety to get the Bill through the House, prevented him from delivering, and which he would not have delivered but that, the Chief Secretary having gone to Ireland, it fell upon him, as a matter of etiquette, to introduce this measure. The right hon. Gentleman raked up old speeches and paraded facts which the Attorney General for Ireland had dwelt on for four days in the Pour Courts, which had been repeated by the Chief Secretary and by the Prime Minister. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman had occupied an hour and a-quarter in a speech which might have been delivered in 20 minutes.
    MR. RAMSAYrose to Order. He wished to ask whether the remarks of the noble Lord were in accordance with the Rules of the House, or whether they tended in any way to elucidate the subject of the Arms Bill?
    MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord is replying to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he could not but admire the chivalry of the Scotch Member in coming to the defence of the Home Secretary.
    1994
    A considerable portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech had very little to do with the question of carrying arms. He appeared to forget that urgency had been voted for the measure he was introducing, and that the time of the House should not be taken up with matters which had been exhausted over and over again. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the Blue Books which had been produced by the Government; but he might have remembered that those Blue Books had not been compiled with any very great care, and it was dangerous to invite hon. Members to treat them with microscopic inspection. The Home Secretary had to acknowledge with a very ill-grace that this was a mere renewal of the Peace Preservation Act of 1875. There was no part of that Act to which more importance had been attached by the late Government than that which related to the carrying of arms. This was the part of the Peace Preservation Act which could not be said to press hardly on anyone, for he could not recollect any case in which a man, having a legitimate use for arms, for sporting or agricultural purposes, and who could not be suspected of any intention to make an improper use of fire-arras, had been refused a licence. It was only the mauvais sujets that were refused. It would have been perfectly possible for Government to have introduced this Arms Act in April last by a most simple renewal clause, which would not have taken a week's discussion. If that had been done, and if the ordinary law had been administered with the same vigour in summer and autumn as in January last, there would have been no occasion for coercion. He looked on the Arms Bill as a necessary consequence of the very stringent and unprecedented Coercion Bill, to which it would operate as a check. If the Arms Act had been abandoned a great many arrests would have been made by the police on the suspicion of possessing arms. They must not expect to recover arms under the Bill. Search-warrants for that purpose would practically be of little use. Immense expeditions had been organized from time to time for that purpose. They had been carefully conducted with every kind of preparation and precaution simultaneously over large tracts of country, but they had never resulted in the recovery of any great number of arms.

    1995
    No doubt, arms were possessed; but they would be hidden away very often in a manner which would tend to destroy them. The great importance of this Bill was that it would prevent the exhibition of arms, which was attended with so much danger. It was also of extreme importance to prevent the importation of arms, which was the life-blood of the Fenian movement. But the Home Secretary had given a very brief account of the Bill; and, therefore, he ventured to ask whether it was intended to revive in to to the Act of 1847? Then, with respect to the warrant for search, the Act of 1875 continued general warrants; but he now understood that the warrants were to be special, general warrants being liable to be abused. Warrants under the Act of 1847 were allowed to run for three months; but the late Government, always endeavouring to do away with the more objectionable features of such Bills, had modified the Act by reducing the time of the warrants to 21 days. He wished to know whether the Home Secretary had adopted the three months or the 21 days?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was obliged to the noble Lord for reminding him that he had omitted to state that he had taken 21 days.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he was glad to hear it, and he must again congratulate the Government on having so slavishly copied the Act of his right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). Then, as to the question of summary jurisdiction under the Act of 1875, the persons found in possession of arms might be either tried summarily or sent to the Assizes. If under this Bill a man was to be deprived of the opportunity of having his case dealt with by a jury, that was a departure from the former Acts, under which a man had the option of being sent to prison and awaiting a trial. This was more or less an abrogation of trial by jury for a new offence, which would require careful consideration. The present policy of the Government was satisfactory to the Tory Party. It appeared to him that the Tory Party, although in a considerable minority, for a considerable time had directed, the internal policy of the Government in such an exceedingly satisfactory manner that the responsibility for any miscarriage would not fall upon them.
    1996
    They had some title to enlarge on this conversion of the Government to sound and rational principles, because it was their lot last year in various debates on Irish affairs to point out to the Government that these measures would be the inevitable result of the policy they had chosen. In the debates on the Compensation Bill he ventured to tell the Chief Secretary that the policy of mock conciliation, appeals, and bribes would inevitably end in a policy of severe repression. He did not recall those opinions with any idea of exulting over a fallen Minister; but he did it rather with the object of expressing a hope that as Irish affairs of great moment and importance would undoubtedly continue to occupy their attention for a considerable part of the Session, the opinions and arguments of Conservatives might possibly be treated with a little more respect and attention by right hon. Gentlemen opposite than they had any chance of obtaining last year.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the noble Lord who had just spoken had referred to the conduct of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), while Chief Secretary for Ireland in 1875, as conciliatory; but he did not think that description was quite accurate. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Comparatively conciliatory.] For his own part, of the present Chief Secretary and his two Predecessors, he preferred the right hon. Gentleman who was recently candidate for Cumberland—Mr. Lowther—for while the right hon. Gentleman was at Dublin Castle, he had no fault to find with the manner in which he discharged his duties. What had been said by the noble Lord about the Radical element in the Cabinet was justified by the fact. In dealing with the Blue Book, the Home Secretary dived into the middle of it, passing over the first few pages, in which there were scarcely any cases in which firearms had been used. And, with one or two exceptions, in the cases which had been referred to, the guns were not fired, or, if they wore, no harm was done. He had never fired a gun or a revolver, and, therefore, he had no prejudice in favour of carrying or using firearms; but there were many in Ireland who had a fancy for using them innocently, or merely in bravado. The Government should understand that men in possession of arms

    1997
    might exhibit even gross rudeness without having any very vicious purposes in view. He had himself been surrounded by political opponents with deadly weapons in their hands, but they had done him no harm. There was one thing that pleased him very much in the speech of the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman did not express his regret that he had to bring in a Coercion Bill; he did not add hypocrisy to his other sins. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Charge of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald in justification of the measure; but at the time the learned Judge made that oration the number of serious crimes in the county of Cork was very small. He was not prepared to contend that Mr. Justice Fitzgerald was a corrupt Judge; but, when considering what weight ought to be given to his testimony, he could not forget that that learned Judge was a Whig partizan, who was likely to make out a good case in favour of the existing Government. The probable effect of this Bill would be that persons of a timid nature, who would never make a bad use of arms, would give them up; but persons of a vicious nature, likely to use arms for an improper purpose, wore pretty certain to dispose of their arms so that the police could not get them, and thus the object of the Bill would be completely frustrated. His constituents were not greatly interested in this particular Bill, which would press far more hardly upon the extreme Protestant section of the population than upon the Roman Catholics. In fact, a good many of his constituents would be pleased to see the Bill become law. Nevertheless, he was disposed to vote against it on general principles. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the warm terms in which he had spoken of the character of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon); but he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had fallen into some errors when criticizing the speeches of the hon. Member. It was not the fact that his hon. Friend had advocated the formation of an illegal society; he had advised organization, and, if he had mentioned rifles, had certainly not recommended that they should be put to an improper use. At any rate, his words did not justify the introduction of an Arms Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had laid some stress on the number of cases of firing—73 in all—
    1998
    that had occurred in December. He presumed that those figures formed part of the strong arguments on which the Bill was based; but, after all, only one person was wounded, and no other damage whatever was reported to have been done. He was glad to see that the Bill only gave power to search for arms between sunrise and sunset. That provision would get rid of much discussion similar to that which had taken place in the last Parliament. He did not think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had made out a case for the Bill, the instances of crime he had adduced on which to base it being too trivial to justify such a measure. He should, therefore, vote against its introduction.
    MR. E. COLLINSsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, who had recently spoken, had referred to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks - Beach) had, when in Office, brought in a Bill similar to the present. The noble Lord contrasted the manner in which that Bill and the present had been introduced, and certainly the right hon. Gentleman had expressed much regret for having to deal with what he styled a very painful subject. When the right hon Gentleman introduced his Bill in 1875, the condition of Ireland, if not altogether tranquil, was, at all events, much more so than it was supposed to have been in the last two years. But although he did not absolutely complain of the present Bill, he must say that he disapproved it very much. It might, he thought, be very well dispensed with, especially after the severe and drastic measure which had just passed through the House. He regretted that it should have devolved on the Government to bring in this Bill as a supplement to the one to which he had alluded, and he could not help thinking that they might very well have deferred this measure to another period, and might have better employed their own great abilities and the time of the House in discussing another subject to which they were all so anxious to devote their attention.
    MR. BYRNEoffered his strongest opposition to this Bill, and retorted upon the Government which had introduced it the charge which they lately brought against the Irish Members—namely, that

    1999
    they were delaying the remedial measures which were so necessary for redressing the grievances of Ireland. Instead of bringing in an Arms Bill, the Government ought to proceed at once with a Land Bill. The proposal to fix-the duration of the Bill at five years was most unjustifiable, a year or 18 months being quite sufficient to meet all its professed objects. The people of Ireland would look on the action of the Government as intended utterly to grind them down. Their Constitutional liberties had been taken away, and now they were not to be allowed to carry arms. Where was that repressive policy to end? If it was pursued much further, the Irish people would be reduced to the position of slaves in their own land. He emphatically protested against this Bill, not because he was afraid it would do much mischief, as very few people in Ireland, as far as he could learn, had guns, but because it would deprive people of liberties to which they were entitled.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in the speech with which he introduced the Bill, took credit to himself for both the possession of candour and of courage. He (Mr. O'Connor) did not wish in that House to discuss the personal courage of any man; but as the right hon. Gentleman had thought it appropriate to attack absent men, he felt justified in saying that a spirit of swagger and a tone of bluster from those who sat on the Treasury Bench were by no means satisfactory proofs of the possession of personal courage. He certainly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to establish his courage upon a better basis than his candour. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman bristled with results, and was crowded with misrepresentations. There was a kind of dramatic appropriateness in giving the duty of introducing the Bill to the right hon. Gentleman, who, he firmly believed, would find it impossible to make a civil speech upon the most ordinary and commonplace subject. ["Oh!"] He was sorry that his observations did not commend themselves to hon. Gentlemen behind the Treasury Bench. If, however, they did not wish to have a repetition of them, they should endeavour to restrain the right hon. Gentleman in the use of provocative language, and adopt the advice once addressed from that side of the
    2000
    House to a previous Administration—to"muzzle"their Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman professed to take his facts at random from the Blue Book. He said that he would begin at the beginning of the Blue Book; but the first county mentioned was the county of Carlow, and in regard to that county no single case was given of the use of a gun. The second county was Dublin; in that case, also, there was no instance of firing a shot or of using a gun. The third—Kildare—was in the same position; in the fourth—Kilkenny—there was only one case; in the fifth—King's County—only one; in Longford, only three; Meath, none; Queen's County, none; Westmeath, one; and Wicklow, one. Out of 123 crimes in the province of Ulster, there were only nine cases in which mention was made of the use of firearms. That was the candour of the right hon. Gentleman. He certainly hoped the right hon. Gentleman's courage would bear better proof. In Munster there were 135 cases of outrage, in only 37 of which had firearms been used; in Leinster, 139 cases, and 10 instances of the use of a gun; in Connaught, 263 cases, in 32 of which the use of a gun was mentioned. He would leave the case of candour and the fairness of the right hon. Gentleman where they stood after this assertion of the true facts. The right hon. Gentleman still prided himself on the possession of courage as well as of candour; and, to prove his courage, he quoted a speech of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon). But he (Mr. O'Connor) ventured to say that a grosser, or a more unfair, or a more prejudicial misrepresentation of the speech of an absent man was never presented to the House. The hon. Member for Tipperary recommended the young men of Ireland to form Volunteer corps. In the course of a few days the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would give a glowing account of the noble and martial spirit produced in the country by the arming of young men for the Volunteer Force. If it was an ennobling thing in this country to see the ardour with which the young men volunteered for military training, surely there was nothing wrong in recommending the encouragement of the same martial spirit in Ireland. He pronounced no opinion as to whether the Volunteer Force was a good force or not. Indeed,

    2001
    he was somewhat of the opinion of a right hon. Gentleman who was formerly a Member of that House (Sir Robert Peel), that although he knew there were many fools in the country, he never knew who they were until he saw them in the Volunteer uniform. The hon. Member for Tipperary, in his speech, recommended the young men of Ireland to form Volunteer corps, and he was represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary as having recommended the cowardly formation of bodies of assassins. What could be worse than accusing a man behind his back of inciting others to assassination! Yet, the right hon. Gentleman—this man of candour and courage—got up in his place, and, without the slightest foundation, charged an hon. Member with encouraging assassination. Such was the text of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and he quoted from the Blue Book cases which he said were fair specimen cases. He (Mr. O'Connor) utterly traversed that statement. The cases selected by the right hon. Gentleman were cases of exceptional atrocity. Without knowing it, the House found that they had among them two distinguished melodramatists—first, the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and next, the Home Secretary, who, in introducing the present Bill had borrowed some of the dramatic effects of his right hon. Colleague. The Chief Secretary introduced the Coercion Bill by citing two or three cases of shocking and exceptional atrocity, and induced everybody to believe that when the Blue Book was published every page would bristle with similar cases. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman said "Hear, hear!" He would test the accuracy of the statements made by the Chief Secretary by-and-bye; but he must be at liberty to select his own time. The instances cited by the Chief Secretary were given as fair specimen cases. The Blue Book had not been published then, and the Ministry, the Parliament, and the whole British public were pledged to coercion before it was laid on the Table. The Blue Book had now been produced, and, on examining it, it would be found that the horrible cases of outrage consisted principally of throwing down a few perches of an old wall, sending threatening letters, and maliciously spilling a barrel of coal-tar. In most cases
    2002
    the injury inflicted was most infinitessimal, and the malice open to doubt. The cases of atrocity were entirely exceptional cases, and cases where women had been exposed to injury were most exceptional. In most of the instances given, it would be found that a number of persons visited a farm-house in a secluded part of the country, that they frightened the in mates without absolutely injuring them, and, on going away, they fired a shot, not at any human being, but into the air. He would not contend that this was not an offence for which the offenders might be deservedly punished. But the habit of using firearms with recklessness was increasing in this country as well as in Ireland. He had heard the Home Secretary speak of the detestable practice of carrying revolvers in England; but he had never heard the right hon. Gentleman gravely propose in consequence that the house of every man and woman should be thrown open to his minions, in order that the revolvers might be seized and carried away. He (Mr. O'Connor) was inclined to believe that the detestable practice of carrying revolvers had been introduced into Ireland from England and America; but it was only in regard to Ireland that Her Majesty's Government proposed to deprive her subjects of the right to carry firearms. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his very extraordinary speech, gave the House some idea of the character of the Bill. But a misrepresentation purposely ran through the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks—namely, that the men who had committed outrages in Ireland were the employés of the Land League. Now, he (Mr. O'Connor) was a member of that body, and he said deliberately that a more cowardly calumny was never uttered than the statement that these men, in any sense of the word, were encouraged by, or were the agents of, the Land League. The fact was, that the whole teaching of the Land League had been to wean the poor tenants of Ireland from that secret conspiracy and midnight assassination; and if it had not been for the Land League, the agitation which had been disturbing Ireland would have given 50 for every single murder that had been committed. Had they indulged in any of the arts of conspiracy? Had they not even ostentatiously proclaimed their principles?

    2003
    Was there a single county in Ireland in which they had not done this on public platforms with all the publicity they could give, with police agents reporting their proceedings, protected by the League, enjoying its patronage, and supplied with more comfortable places for taking notes than some of the speakers had for delivering their speeches? The idea of accusing the members of the Land League of conspiracy was one of the most absurd notions that ever entered the mind of a Minister, and he had certainly heard a few that were very absurd since he became a Member of that House. The supporters of the Land League had not advised the people of Ireland to resort to the dark ways of assassination. They had told the people to use moral excommunication and social excommunication; but it was a system which was practised even by right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. It was resorted to every hour in that House in this supreme moment of Liberal betrayal and apostcy. What hon. Member on the Liberal side of the House who had ventured to raise his voice on behalf of Ireland had not been "Boycotted" by his Party? They talked of social and political excommunication; but they were themselves the greatest of social and political excommunicators that existed. If they wished to find a real tyrant and discover true intolerance, let them go to the Party opposite who professed free dow and Liberal toleration. It was quite true that the Land League had recommended moral and social excommunication. But was it not the fact that the trade unions of this country did precisely the same thing? Every trade and profession in the country practised it. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was practising at the Bar, if he ventured to see a man in the interests of his clients without the intervention of a solicitor, he would have been "Boycotted." If any Member of that House who happened to belong to the Medical Profession took a smaller fee than the league of doctors permitted, he would soon find himself "Boycotted." If any member of that body which regulated all their electioneering proceedings, and selected the candidates—that excellent body of Conservatives known as the Reform Club—if any member of that body were to give a vote against Her Majesty's Govern-
    2004
    ment, he would at once be "Boycotted," and would soon find that it was a great deal more comfortable to be out of the Club than in it. The right hon. Gentleman said this measure was required as a kind of policeman in Ireland. No policeman was wanted. The National Land League, in the feeling of reprobation against the perpetration of atrocities which they had implanted in the breasts of the Irish tenants, had a policeman far better than any under the control of the right hon. Gentleman. It was the healthy sentiment they had implanted in the breasts of the Irish tenants that it was not well to overbid each other for farms from which persons had been unjustly evicted, and by that means to play into the hands of the landlords, that was the backbone and strength of the Land League movement. Not even the threats of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would remove the impression which the action of the Land League had created. He spoke of the threats of the right hon. Gentleman. Ever since this unfortunate legislation had been spoken of hon. Members representing Irish constituencies had just cause to complain of the tone and manner of the right hon. Gentleman. He would not say that the right hon. Gentleman intended to be offensive; but some men were offensive unintentionally, and, whether he intended it or not, the feeling which the right hon. Gentleman's speeches always produced was one of irritation and resentment. On this occasion the right hon. Gentleman, shaking the keys of his prison doors in the faces of the Irish Members, talked of establishing law and order in Ireland. Now, the Ministry did not want to establish law and order in Ireland. That was not their purpose; but he would tell the House what the object of the Bill and of its anther was. Their object was to remove out of the way of the Administration the inconvenient rivalry of more powerful politicians than themselves and of more sensible plans of Land Reform than they were able to bring forward. They knew very well that the Irish tenants needed a larger scheme of Land Reform than the Whig and Radical combination in the Government could devise. They knew very well that the tenantry of Ireland were now associated and working together in a way that would ren-

    2005
    der it difficult to put them down. Her Majesty's Government wanted to clear the board in order that they might pose as the saviours of Irish society, and that their Land Bill might have no opposition from the Irish tenants. That was their plan; that was their strategem. How could any man speak with respect of a Bill which would leave the midnight assassin untouched, and only gave the police the right to enter the houses of the people-in broad daylight? The Bill was not a Bill to put down assassination or to disarm the Irish people. It was a Bill for the disarmament of the opposition. It was a mere tactical move. They had probably heard among dramatists of a stage-carpentry scene. It was not easy in stage-carpentry to have two large set scenes follow each other immediately. Accordingly, some person went on in front and delivered a soliloquy, which nobody understood or listened to, while the scaffolding of the first set scene was being removed, and that for the new one being set up. It seemed to him that the present measure was a mere stage-carpentry Bill. Either the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, had not yet succeeded in managing the Conservative opposition to the Land Reform, which, according to popular rumour, had been developing in the revolutionary mind of the Prime Minister; or the happy family had not yet had time to arrange their minor differences, and, accordingly, the stage-carpenters' scene of the Arms Bill was put on until the two Parties were ready, like stage lovers, to fall into each other's arms, and commence the comedy of professing their mutual affection and cordial agreement in principle. Perhaps there was another explanation of this Arms Bill. It might be that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had important proposals to make which might lead to a prolonged discussion, and a discussion that might not be very agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. Her Majesty's Ministers desired to get the large and nebulous scheme for the future organization of the Army, to which such dark and mysterious references had been made, cleared off the board; and, therefore, his right hon. Colleague was making a bid for Conservative support by bringing forward this miserable Arms Bill, the pettiness of which was concealed
    2006
    under the swagger of the right hon. Gentleman. If that were the true history of the Arms Bill, what were they to say of the tone of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary? It was his (Mr. O'Connor's) main charge against Her Majesty's Ministry for bringing forward this measure, that they were sowing the seeds of discord between the two countries, and he knew no man who was engaged more persistently, more unscrupulously, and more wickedly in sowing the seeds of that discord than the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. Every speech the right hon. Gentleman had made on this question had been a distinct provocation to the passion of despair among the Irish people, and the passion of national hate among the English people. He had sought in every quarter for the wild ravings of foolish and wicked men, in order to drag men, to whom he knew these ravings were novel until they heard them from the right hon. Gentleman, into prison. He had sought to cast the responsibility of these opinions upon hon. Members who had risked their lives in times past in defence of Constitutional as contra-distinguished from revolutionary action. The right hon. Gentleman sought to drag these hon. Members down into the mire of revolutionary incendiarism in order to excite passion and prejudice against them. At that moment, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) was sitting beside him, a man whose life for many a day was in danger because of the bold stand he made against unconstitutional agitation. Then, again, there was his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. M'Carthy), of whom they had all some reason to be proud. Had his hon. Friend ever, by any single word or act, shown that he was in favour of any course but that of strictly tranquil and Constitutional agitation? So far as he (Mr. O'Connor) was personally concerned, he challenged the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, or any hon. Member, to consult the notes of his speeches, which were probably in the possession of the Home Secretary from his police and shorthand spies, and point to a single passage among them in which by a single word he had insinuated that the people of Ireland should leave the broad and safe path of Constitutional agitation. The work which

    2007
    the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues had done in sowing the seeds of discord between the people of England and Ireland was a work that 10 years of conciliatory legislation by a different Ministry would fail to undo. He had himself vainly endeavoured—not that his humble voice could possibly have any effect against that of a powerful Minister like the Home Secretary—he had vainly endeavoured to protest against the evil work the right hon. Gentleman was doing. He had not hesitated to attend numerous meetings of his English fellow-subjects and attempt to dissipate the vile calumnies which the right hon. Gentleman was spreading. He told the right hon. Gentleman that no man could commit a higher offence than to excite the people of England against the people of Ireland, or to excite the people of Ireland against the people of England. ["Hear, hear !"] He accepted that cheer with gratitude, because his withers were unwrung. He could point proudly to the fact that, when speaking hundreds of miles away from England and from that House, he had said to his countrymen—"I have spent 10 or 12 years of my life among Englishmen, and my feelings are those of esteem and respect for the English nation. But I have no feeling of esteem or respect for the English Ministry." In endeavouring to impress these views, he knew that at least the heart of the people of England and Ireland was sound; that the heart of the people of England would refuse to be led astray oven by wicked appeals to bad passions. He repeated, that the highest crime a man could commit was to excite the people of one country against the people of another. To do so was in the highest sense of the word a criminal policy; and, if so, he was afraid that the uncomplimentary epithets which had been employed against the Irish Members must be cast back again upon the Members of Her Majesty's present Government.
    COLONEL MAKINSwished to express the satisfaction he felt that the Government had not abandoned the Arms Bill. Apart from the circumstances of Ireland at the present time, such a Bill was not, in his opinion, an objectionable one. Indeed, he did not consider that it would be objectionable for England either, seeing that the practice of carry-
    2008
    ing firearms had become so common that he had heard of many cases in which schoolboys went about with revolvers in their pockets. Why was it that the Irish Members wore resisting this Bill so much? For what purpose did they require arms? Certainly not to use against the enemies of their Queen or the enemies of their country. They could only, therefore, require them to protect themselves against each other; and surely for that purpose the national weapon was sufficiently offensive. The speeches of the Irish Members had a very hollow sound; they sounded like the language of despair. In point of fact, hon. Members below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House felt that the game was well nigh played out; but they were determined to pursue their old tactics of wasting time and obstructing Public Business as long as possible. ["Question!" At any rate, that was his opinion. They had compelled the House to alter some of its Rules, and they had now succeeded in abolishing the observance of Ash Wednesday. ["Question !"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is not now speaking to the Question before the House.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he would bow to the decision of the Chair. His only object in rising had been to express the satisfaction he felt that there was no intention on the part of the Government of abandoning the Bill. He should certainly vote in favour of its introduction.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANhad hoped, a few days ago, that they had seen the last of the cruel contention which now, for five or six weeks, had arrayed the Irish Members against the Supporters of the present Government. Many of them who had taken a prominent part in that contention—some of them who had been in the hottest part of the battle—most warmly welcomed the close of the combat. They had fondly hoped that those who had been friends before might, in the course of a few days, learn to forget much of what had been said and done during the continuance of the struggle, and that a period of repose, and of peace, and, he might add, of returning friendship, was at hand, for the organs of the Ministry had given out that satisfied, as they well might be, with their savage and merciless Coercion Bill, Her

    2009
    Majesty's Ministers intended to repose, as it were, upon their blood-stained laurels—["Oh !"]—and seek no further glory in triumphing over the Irish people with all the might of their Ministerial majority. The dream that they had seen the close of the cruel war had been rudely dispelled, and even the Ministerial journals—the journals which received communicated leaders from the Treasury Bench—for, in this respect also, Napoleon III. had furnished a model to the present Government—even the Ministerial journals, supplied with Ministerial pap from the Home Secretary's Office, gave forth to the world the pleasing intelligence that, now the Government had passed the Coercion Bill, it was by no means certain that it would be necessary to take up the Arms Bill. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker was allowed to rise in the Chair and to sever, with a stroke of his authority, that marvelous "urgency" which had been declared for the benefit of this Bill. But the illusion had been dispelled. A mysterious change had come over the political atmosphere of Downing Street, and Her Majesty's Ministers had, for some reason, thought better of it; There was no doubt that they had meditated the abandonment of the Bill; but, with miserable vacillation, they had thought since that they should like another change of front. Why was this? It was whispered in the Lobby that it was all a bit of stage-play—that the people of Ireland were not to be hurt by the Bill at all; but that it was a blind for the Tory Party. It had been made very clear to the Government that unless they kept their pact with their Tory masters, whose policy they were carrying out, they would see a change on the Front Opposition Benches, and, in plain language, the question had been put to them—"Do you mean to break away from your noble pledges of coercion; can it be possible that you have deluded us into supporting you in a measure of urgency and that you are going to give us no reward?" Even that night there had been indications of the same character from those hon. Gentlemen who wore enabling the Home Secretary to carry out this Bill, which it had been the intention of the Government to abandon on Friday last. The Government, therefore, had set up again that evening the urgency which had been
    2010
    severed on Monday, having, so to speak, marched up the hill, and then marched down. The present Bill was brought in in order to keep faith with the Tory Party, and the Irish Members were told that the Bill, having been lightened exceedingly, was not to hurt them, but to please the Conservative Opposition. To such miserable expedients could a Ministry sink after having abandoned their principles to carry out the policy of their foes. He declined to accept the statement of the Home Secretary with regard to the harmless ness of the Bill. On the contrary, he resisted the measure, although he was prepared to admit that it had been shorn of one feature that would have made it most hateful and objectionable to him—namely, the power of making midnight domicilliary visits. Some of his hon. Friends had intimated that a tender affection for the midnight assassin was a reason why this had been struck out of the Bill; but, however that might be, he was glad that this hateful and miserable expedient was not to be again resorted to. In removing it, the right hon. Gentleman had shown that he was contented with the coercion precedents of his Tory opponents, so far as this measure was concerned. Nothing could have been more objectionable than making provision for searching the homes of the Irish people at the dead of night. But the Government were about to complete the mischief which their policy was doing in Ireland. They had first stripped the people of all Constitutional protection; they had given the power of striking the people with a mysterious terror—the power of unlimited arrest—and they had given the power of depriving the people of confidence in justice, and in the belief that innocence could be a protection, because the most innocent man in the country would not be able to make his innocence heard. Guilt and innocence were thereby put upon the same level; and in order that there might be wanting no hateful cause of irritation, the police by the present Bill were to be brought upon the scene under circumstances most likely to lead to conflict and bloodshed in the country. The House was now asked to give the police authority, under the pretext of searching for arms, to enter into actual struggles with the Irish people on the floors of their houses in the Western and other portions of Ireland. If that

    2011
    did not succeed in bringing forth its bloody crop of conflict and outrage to make the justification for the Coercion Bill which the Government wanted, all he would say was that effect would not follow cause. If that effect did not follow, it would be due to the exhortations of men now sneered at on the Treasury Bench—Land League leaders, numbering amongst them the Catholic clergy of Ireland in a largo measure; men accustomed to be reviled in this country, but who it was certainly new to hear calumniated in language used against them on the Treasury Bench, as "confederates in assassination." It was an easy thing to make use of grandiloquent language. With 800 docile Members behind one, it was easy to mount on the stilts of the Home Office; and especially was it easy to be brave behind the backs of absent men. After the language held forth with regard to the Land League leaders and their "confederates in assassination," he thought the Home Secretary should know that the persons he had calumniated were men but for whom all the police in Ireland would be useless. They numbered amongst them the Mayor of Limerick City, as well as some of the most eminent Catholic Ecclesiastics in Ireland. Such were the men with regard to whom this language had been used. Did the Government or the House believe they were about to pacify Ireland by a measure passed with such bitter language as that? He would imagine for a moment that the Government were sincere in their desire to tranquillize the country. Would it not have been one chance of success to win to the side of order and law every element of strength and moral support that they could command in Ireland? Would it not have been a wise and prudent policy to use moderate and conciliatory language on the Treasury Bench, and to rally to the support of the Government the Protestant and Catholic clergy in Ireland': But the Government had pursued a contrary course. The language held forth by them had sought out every wound that could be made to rankle; every man who could be personally affronted had been insulted by speeches made on the Treasury Bench. Members of the House had been scowled at amidst the jeers of too many hon. Members opposite; and insults had been hurled
    2012
    against men in that House which no one dared to utter against them in the Lobby. The last insult to Irish Members had been given by the Home Secretary, who, within 24 hours of his receiving this Bill, had become exceedingly un-Parliamentary in his language. Now, he asked the House to consider the position of affairs. The Government might deceive themselves for a moment; but the hour of reflection must come for them. Did they not know they were making war upon the Irish people by means of this measure? They would say they were only making war on a faction—a faction or a Party. He invited the Government to ponder this serious question. It was not only those hon. Members near him who opposed this Bill. If they were not listened to as Members for Ireland, where, he asked, were the men who could give the Government a warrant to pass this measure? Where were the non-Home Rule Liberals of Ireland in these Divisions? Let not the Government say that by this measure they were not drawing the sword of war in Ireland, and that they were warring with a faction only. It was with Ireland, as a whole, taken through its Constitutional representation, that the House was warring by means of this Bill. Again, he asked, how many of the 103 Members which Ireland sent to Parliament followed the Government in these Divisions? The Government had found their strength in that section of Irishmen who hated their policy—from the Tory section of Irish Members who were true to their principles, which the Government were not—and they were, therefore, face to face with the tact that there was no test which could be applied to the expression of a country's will, mind, interest, or views, that was not against them. But the Government had to deal with a Constitution which would take cognizance of the Ireland that was represented on the floor of the House of Commons. No doubt, they ought to take cognizance of every element of society in Ireland; but the actual Ireland they had to deal with was that presented by Constitutionally-elected Irish Members. If the Government had paused on Friday night, many Irish Members would have been glad that an end of this business had been reached. There was no need that the work, which would not only injure Irish Members, but other hon.

    2013
    Members opposite, should have been carried to this bitter extremity. Again, the feeling with regard to the Bill in Ireland had been proved by the Municipal and Poor Law elections, so that there was no test known to the Constitution of the Realm by which the voice of Ireland could make itself heard, that was not against the Government. But it was said that all the lovers of order, and the best elements of society, were against the Irish Representatives. That was the story which the followers of Henry V. told in France. Her Majesty's Government must face the fact that they were absolutely dealing with Ireland to-day as the Emperor of Russia had dealt with Poland. He did not say this for the purpose of taunting them; but for the purpose of serious argument that would have weight, not that night,' but hereafter. As he had said before, he and his hon. Friends would have been glad if an end had been made of this work last Friday; but, instead of that, they now found the Government had driven them to their last position in the House, with their backs, so to speak, to the wall—they found there was no resource of arbitrary Parliamentary despotism which had not been used to crush their country on the floor of that House. He denied the competency of the House morally to introduce this Bill against the pronounced will of the overwhelming majority of Irish Members in every Division. The Bill might be forced upon his country; but it could never be made obligatory upon his conscience. Irish Members had been driven to a position in which, if they had the spirit of men, they would, at least, turn to consider how they were to defend themselves, and assert the power of their country in an Assembly which disregarded every consideration of political weight in dealing with Ireland. Was it worth the while of the Liberal Party to so embitter matters as to dig a gulf between them and hon. Members who came from Ireland? He could not join with some of his Colleagues, who scorned to speak with affection of Members of the Opposition above the Gangway because of their natural enmity to the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was too candid to say that he did not regard those Conservatives as greater culprits than hon. Members opposite who were carrying out the policy of coercion. All
    2014
    he would say of them was that they had the courage of their convictions, and were wise in their generation, availing themselves of the opportunity when they found a majority willing to carry out their views. For himself, he would declare that it was with pain and regret that he saw this gulf dug, in so large a degree, between the English and the Irish popular Representatives. He would assure hon. Members opposite that with the passing of this Bill, that which was possible on Friday would have become impracticable, and that the determination of the Irish Members would have become formed, and their policy accepted. Let it become known to all whom it might concern, that all the Irish Members proposed to themselves, as rational men to do, with regard to the Coercion Bill, had been accomplished through their perseverance and courage. With all the power of this House, the Irish Members had been able to effect a certain amount of protection, the utmost they could have reasonably aimed at, for their countrymen. This should be his last as well as his first word, on every stage of the present measure, that he believed it to be unnecessary. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in this, that the present was a very small measure; but, small as it was, it would be a most irritating, a most offensive, and a most insulting Bill to the Irish people. For his own part, he had no sympathy with men who, for purposes of armed resistance to public authorities, provided themselves with arms and munitions of war. They who played at bowls must expect rubbers, and he who prepared to strike against authority could not complain when repression came upon him, for all constituted Governments would defend themselves from attacks such as these. He had said nothing on behalf of these people. He did not wish, either, to enter into any personal matters with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, because personal considerations should be put aside in an affair of this sort. The measure must take its chance as a measure of repression; but he would call attention to this fact, that through this Arms Bill Ireland stood before the world as a reproach to Great Britain, as she did when the King of the Two Sicilies, on receiving a despatch from our Foreign Secretary, throw her in the face of that official. From the

    2015
    North to the South of Europe there would not be a country in whose internal affairs we could take an interest without herreplying—"You have a country under your own sway in which you dare not trust the people with arms, whose Representatives you silence and expel from your Legislative Chamber, and to whom you do not allow the first principles of Constitutional Government." Let England no longer talk of the Czar, or the miserable King of Ashantee—she must abandon that which was once her proud boast, that she was the example, the model, and the propagandist of National liberty from the North to the South of Europe. The day for such a boast had gone by. Ireland now, 80 years after the Unification, was in the miserable plight that she was in when the flag of Bonaparte was flying over Europe, in spite of the cry raised in England for Constitutional liberty. Was not this a disgrace to all their English statesmanship? How far had they progressed in the course of conciliating the Irish nation? What were her conditions and her relations with this country in 1813, and what were they now in 1881?—the Constitution was again suspended, the right of carrying arms again denied. Let them remember the liberties their fathers had won for them. What remained to the Irish people of those liberties now, save the one right the Irish Representatives exercised here in the House of Commons?—and he thought, without egotism, he might say that the small band of Irish Representatives had shown England and the world how to arrest a Bill which trampled the liberties of a country under foot. For his own part, if his public life were to end to-morrow, there was no chapter, the recollection of which would afford him more pride than that in which it was permitted to him to be one of the handful of men who—as was once said of the British Army—"Never know when they were beaten." There they stood, a few men against hundreds; but with a nation at their backs, and the sympathy of that nation, not alone upon the Irish shore, but that nation stronger than the one at home, scattered wherever the British flag floated, and that still stronger one living beneath the protection of the Stars and Stripes. There were millions of the Irish people at their back. He would put it to every man who was
    2016
    a statesman—and there were many of eminent ability amongst them—he would put it to anyone of reflective mind whether it could be a wise policy in the interest, either of England or Ireland, to persist in a constant warring between the two countries? He would put it to every reflective mind whether it could be a wise policy that had made the Irish millions all over the world burn, as they unfortunately did, with such hatred for the power of England? Why should this be? Why should they not, by a policy of conciliation, make of these men, all over the habitable globe, lovers of their power and sympathizers with their greatness? As to what Irishmen abroad were doing to-day, let them ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of the Legislatures in the United States had publicly passed Resolutions of sympathy with the Irish Members in their struggle here against the Government? How many of the Legislatures of that great Republic which would soon divide with England the Empire of the English-speaking world, in formal assembly, had passed resolutions sympathizing with the Land League—for which the right hon. Gentleman the Homo Secretary had nothing but words of scorn and contumely—and with that man, the Leader of the Irish Party, who had been insulted in his absence? There was this to be said, that the Congress of America and the Senate, the highest Assembly of the power and the political greatness of that glorious Republic, had paid to Mr. Parnell a compliment never extended to Princes of this country—the compliment of inviting him to the floor of their House and giving him a hearing there to plead the wrongs of Ireland. Had they not reached the end of this sorrowful chapter? Were the Irish Members for over to bo speaking in these tones on the floor of this Assembly? Why was it they were repeating history to-night? Let them open the pages of any record of the proceedings of this Chamber, and let them say whether this tone of complaint of want of conciliation on the part of the Irish Members was not to be found in every decade from the year 1801 to the year 1881, and let them say whether, correlatively, was not to be found some Coercion Bill, some Arms Bill, some Arms Bill, some Coercion Bill, for Ireland? He would invite the

    2017
    Government to turn over a new leaf, to burn their Arms Bill, and produce their Land Bill. Do not tell him about pacifying Ireland—he knew a little about the country. The production of a satisfactory Land Bill would paralyze disaffection in Ireland, and would do more than 100 Coercion Bills to bring peace and contentment to the country. For this he would cite as his authority the Irish Liberals, for they, too, knew their country. He would cite the hon. Member for Monaghan and another Irishman, although he held an official position, the Attorney General for Ireland, or he would take his authority from Ulster alone, leaving out, for the moment, the rest of Ireland. The feeling was unanimous that a good Land Bill would put an end to disaffection. It was no pleasure to him to have to speak in that House in the tones and with the sentiments that had been wrung from him within the past six weeks on this matter. On Friday night he had gone home blessing Providence that it was all over—thinking that they might shake hands and be friends again; but it was all a dream. They were on the verge of another chapter of hateful strife, because they might depend upon it the language used to-night had had its effect, and the Irish Members, who had been over-mastered in every division, crushed by the laws of Parliament to put down the minority, small as they were, yet knew how to face an unequal contest, and to dare everything in defence of their country.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I hope the House will not assent to this Motion; but that it will determine to conclude this debate to-night. If we may judge from the tone and character of most of the speeches recently delivered, it appears to me that there is not material for another discussion. I have heard a great many of the speeches which have been delivered to-night, and many of them have come from hon. Gentlemen opposite. From that quarter we have heard eloquent speeches, especially from the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), who has just sat down; but we have heard extremely little of the proposal of
    2018
    the Government, or of the necessity, or want of necessity, for an Arms Bill. We have heard a great deal of criticism of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, a great deal about the relations of the Government to the Press, and about an imagined change of front in this matter. We have heard a disquisition by the hon. Member for Galway about a guilty compact with rival factions that is supposed to exist, and we have heard a great deal from the hon. and learned Member for Meath declaring that the Government may rest on what he is pleased to call their "bloodstained laurels." The hon. Member for Galway gave us 20 minutes of description of the various forms in which"Boycotting"—political and social—was practised—[Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: No; only seven minutes on that subject.]—and the hon. Member then gave us a disquisition upon stage carpentering; but of arms, and the necessity for this Bill, of the allegations that are made as to the general armament of the people of Ireland, and of the armament that has been recommended to the people by some of their leaders, we have heard very little indeed. We have heard nothing about the alleged intimidation—intimidation largely practised by armed parties. We have heard scarcely anything about all these matters, and the discussion has turned almost entirely upon matters irrelevant to the subject of this Bill. Now, let me remind the House that it is not in accordance with usual practice to debate at great length the introduction of a Bill. I do not think there will be any disposition on the part of the House unduly to curtail discussion on the principle of the Bill when the stage of second reading is reached; but I must say I think the House will expect that the discussion on that stage of the Bill will be confined a little more closely to the subject than it has been to-night. It is not unreasonable to ask that one whole night should be considered sufficient for the discussion of the introduction of a Bill which is not of an extraordinary or unusual character; which is, as I reminded the House the other night, only a portion of an Act in force this time last year; the character of which was thoroughly known to the House, and which does not afford scope for the unlimited discussion which hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed

    2019
    inclined to give it. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will not persevere in his Motion for the adjournment of the debate. If he is not induced to withdraw it, I trust the House will not assent to it.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYhoped his hon. Friend would persevere with his Motion for adjournment, and trusted the House would have the good sense and fairness to assent to it. The noble Lord who was now the Leader of the House had said that he had heard very little practical discussion as to the actual points of the Bill; but he (Mr. M'Carthy) had been in the House during the greater part of the night, and had heard a great deal of very practical and close discussion on the points of the measure. But he agreed with the noble Lord that the actual measure itself was not so closely and fully discussed as it well might have been. Who was to blame for that? The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was decidedly responsible. It was he who, in the beginning of the evening, led the House away altogether from the practical reasons for which the measure, presumably, was introduced, and made the greater part of his speech a series of strictures upon hon. Members, some of whom were present and some absent. The right hon. Gentleman had made an attack upon the Irish Members, calling them the confederates of the men whom he himself described as inciters to assassination. It was that that had turned the discussion away from its reasonable and proper path, and had compelled hon. Members to rise in their places to reply to his extravagant and unjustifiable calumnies. ["Oh !"] He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) could use no words less strong than these to describe the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, who got up deliberately and, having described certain men as assassins and persons who incited to assassination, went on to speak of their confederates, the leaders of the Land League. It was impossible, after a speech such as that, for the Irish Members, or the friends of the leaders of the Land League, to turn away to the calm discussion of the measure, and leave the character of those absent and honourable men under the stain that the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to set on them. He would tell the noble Lord who led the House that
    2020
    he was mistaken in supposing that it was usual to allow the first reading of a Coercion Bill to pass without discussion. However it might have been in the feeble days, when there was no organized Irish Party, it was not usual in other days. If the noble Lord would turn to history he would see he was mistaken in supposing that it had been the practice to allow a Coercion Bill to be read a first time without discussion. He (Mr. M'Carthy) only now rose for the purpose of showing why the discussion had not been kept so closely as it might have been to the points of the Bill. The Home Secretary was solely responsible, and had, in his speech, done as much mischief as it was possible for any statesman, under the circumstances, to accomplish. It might be said of the right hon. Gentleman, as was said formerly of a much greater statesman, that it had rarely fallen to the lot of any human being to do so much good as in the course of one single night he had prevented.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 202: Majority 181.—(Div. List, No. 100.)
    And Mr. SPEAKER, having stated that he collected from the last Division that it was the general sense of the House that the Question be now put:—
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Question be now put."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
    The House divided:—Ayes 200; Noes 22: Majority 178.—(Div. List, No. 101.)
    Original Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 196; Noes 26: Majority 170.—(Div. List, No. 102.)
    Bill to amend the Law relating to the carrying and possession of Arms, and for the preservation of the Public Peace in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Secretary Sir WILLIAM HAR-COURT, Mr. GLADSTONE, and Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER.
    Bill presented accordingly.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be read a first time."
    The House divided:—Ayes 188; Noes 26: Majority 162.—(Div. List, No. 103.)
    Bill to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

  ORDER OF THE DAY.
    INDIA OFFICE (SALE OF SUPERFLUOUS LAND)BILL.— [BILL 91.]
    (Lord Frederick Cavendish, the Marquess of Hartington, Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
    MR. FINIGANsaid, he objected to the second reading of this Bill, which concerned a large area of land, being taken at that hour (1.50). Of late there had been a great deal of jobbery with respect to the purchase of land, and it was quite open to suspicion that the Bill might practically be due to that cause. In the absence of any explanation, he did not see why the Bill was brought forward, and was, therefore, opposed to the second reading.
    MR. HEALYpointed out that hon. Members had been induced to postpone their Bills, and the time was now being used by the Government for the purpose of putting forward a Bill of their own. As no explanation of the measure had been offered, he objected to the second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Healy.)
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he should have certainly made some explanatory statement had he not believed that the Preamble of the Bill contained all information that could be desired. The circumstances were that the India Office bought the land in question for their own purposes; and, having decided that they had no further need of it, they offered it to the Government in connection with the extension of Public Offices. It was agreed that the question should be referred to arbitration. Accordingly, arbitrators were appointed, and an award was made, settling the amount of money to be paid. It had been subsequently discovered that the India Office was unable to sell the land without an Act of Parliament, and the present Bill was introduced to complete the arrangement.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 78: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 104.)
    Original Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. REDMOND: I beg to move that this House do now adjourn, and my object in doing so is this—that if the Bill is of any importance—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seconded the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, therefore is not entitled to speak again.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he would move the adjournment of the House. So far as the substance of the Bill could be gathered from its title, only a very inadequate idea of the measure could be obtained. He had very much desired to understand the noble Lord; but though the noble Lord's statement was evidently offered with a wish that it should be comprehended, he (Mr. Sexton) was completely in the dark as to its meaning. ["Oh !"] Well, he congratulated hon. Members opposite upon the possession of more penetrative intellects than his. It was opposed to the interests of careful legislation that any Bill, even one of this trivial character, should be proceeded with without the House having a full appreciation of the propriety of the course it was taking.
    Motion made, and Question proposed}"That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the House would agree that the explanation given by the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was insufficient—
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to second the Motion?
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORreplied in the affirmative. The House would agree that the noble Lord's explanation was of a very "scrappy" character. He had said little more than was to be found in the Preamble of the Bill, which was totally insufficient to give the House an adequate notion of the proposal. So far as he (Mr. O'Connor) could understand it, the case was this—some land having been purchased some years ago as a site for an office, when the building was completed a portion remained unused. This land, unless he was under a wrong

    2023
    impression, was paid for out of the Re-venues of India. The Revenues of India were not protected here; the people of India had been made to pay many millions without that protection being afforded to their Revenues and resources which was afforded to the Revenues of Great Britain. It was due to the people of India that a great deal more scrutiny and examination should be given to everything connected with the Revenues of that Empire than hitherto had been afforded. What he wished to ask was whether this proposed purchase by the Commissioners of Works would inflict a loss upon the Revenues of India—whether the sum now to be paid over to the Indian Revenue was greater than, equal to, or less than, the sum originally paid for the land now to be sold? He would also like to ask whether any attempt had been made to place this land in the open market, or whether there had been some quiet transaction between one Department and the other for the purpose of meeting departmental convenience; whether the open market had not been passed by, thereby inflicting upon the Revenues of India a considerable loss?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHwas glad the hon. Member took such an active interest in the affairs of India; and was pleased to be able to inform him that the arrangement was not susceptible to the charges he had made.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I made no charges.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that at the suggestion of the India Office itself the valuing of the piece of land in question had been referred to one of the most eminent and able valuers in the Kingdom. The valuer had been jointly appointed by the India Office and the Board of Works, and the sum to be paid was the sum appointed to be paid by this gentleman. If the hon. Member opposite wished to protect the Revenues of India he would support this
    2024
    Bill, because, from a financial point of view, he could conceive nothing worse than that the India Office should be compelled to keep this piece of land.
    MR. FINIGANwished to know what amount of money was paid in the first instance for this piece of land; whether it was £68,000, or more, or less? A great deal would depend upon the original cost.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHwas afraid he could not inform the hon. Member, as this piece of land was what had been left after the building. The other part had already been utilized.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 6; Noes 75: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 105.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
    MR. HEALYasked to what hour tomorrow the House was adjourning. He understood that it had been usual to adjourn until 2 o'clock on Ash Wednesday instead of 12 o'clock as on other Wednesdays. The noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) had said nothing on the subject; and if he continued silent he (Mr. Healy) would move that the House adjourn till 2 o'clock to-morrow.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I stated yesterday that if the House agreed to the Motion I had to make today, to the effect that the state of Public Business was urgent, we would not ask the House to meet on Ash Wednesday at a later hour than usual. I propose that the House should meet at 12 o'clock to-morrow.
    Motion agreed to.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Committee negatived—Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) (40).
Committee—Local Taxation Returns (Scotland) * (37).

AFGHANISTAN (MILITARY OCCUPATION).—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, in the event of the Government determining to withdraw the troops now occupying Candahar, a force would be retained at Pishin; and, whether he would state, before the debate on the noble Earl's Motion (the Earl of Lytton), whether it was intended to continue to occupy Quettah by British troops?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: It is the wish and intention of Her Majesty's Government that the troops should be withdrawn from Pishin as well as from Candahar; but with regard to Pishin, communications have been made to the Government of India authorizing them to use their discretion with respect to the time when such withdrawal shall take place, and this subject is now under the consideration of the Government in India. With respect to Quettah, which is not in Afghanistan, and which stands on a different footing, there is no intention to make any change in its occupation by British troops.

ARMY—THE QUEEN'S REGULATIONS—PUBLICATIONS BY OFFICERS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD DORCHESTERasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether the following paragraph still appeared in the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Army:—
  "Furthermore, officers and soldiers are forbidden to give publicity to their individual opinions in any manner tending to prejudge questions that may at the time he undergoing investigation by the military authorities."
  A paper, he explained, had recently appeared in The Nineteenth Century, cri-
  1914
  ticizing the condition of non-commissioned officers and of the Army generally. In the article to which he referred, the gallant author (Sir Garnet Wolseley), who described the officers as affected with a
  "Military disease of chronic grumbling and whining pessimism—the same yesterday, today, and will be so for ever,"
  said that non-commissioned officers were very badly remunerated, and were not provided with as good accommodation as they deserved. For his part, he believed that the condition of non-commissioned officers had been materially improved of late years. He did not wish to disparage the military merit of the gallant author of the article in question; but he could not refrain from expressing the opinion that had that article been written by an officer of low rank it would have been very severely commented on.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY, in reply, said, that a similar Question had been asked in "another place." He could only say that the Regulation quoted by the noble Lord had for many years been honoured more in the breach than in the observance. There was no doubt that it had been the habit of officers to discuss, both in speeches and in writing, a great many important questions connected with the organization of the Army; but the Secretary of State for War did not intend to take notice of the article referred to, or of similar articles, at the present time.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—DEFEAT OF THE BRITISH FORCES.

  QUESTION.
  EARL CADOGANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any fresh information had been received by the Government from South Africa?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: In answer to the Question which has been put to me by the noble Earl, I will read the two latest telegrams which we have received. The first is from Brigadier General Wood, and is dated March 1. It is as follows:—
  "Estcourt, 8 35 a.m.
  "I hope that loss was exaggerated in first news from front. Road is open to Newcastle. Fraser, Royal Engineers, walked into Camp Prospect at 4 a.m."

  1915
  The other is from Assistant Adjutant General Wavell, and is dated Pieter-maritzburg, March 1, 1881, and is in these words—
  "Officer Commanding Mount Prospect reports Fraser arrived this morning not wounded. Surgeon-Major Cornish wounded. Surgeon Landon and Lieutenant Trower, R.N., dead. No news yet of Lieutenant-Colonel Stewart."
  I am glad to say that we have just received news that Lieutenant Colonel Stewart is among the prisoners and not wounded, and that the body of the late Sir George Colley has been brought into camp. The officer commanding at Mount Prospect reports (just received)—
  "Total engaged, 35 officers, 693 men. Casualties.—Officers—killed, 3; wounded, 9; prisoners, 7; missing, 1–20. Non-commissioned officers and men—killed, 82; wounded, 122: prisoners, 50; missing, 12–266,"
  The loss is, therefore, not quite so large as we were at first led to suppose. My Lords, I promised yesterday that I would inform the House of the arrangements made in consequence of this disaster. In the first place, your Lordships are aware that Sir Frederick Roberts has been appointed Commander of the troops. He will also hold the offices held by the late Sir George Colley—that is, Governor of Natal, Governor of the Transvaal, and High Commissioner of South-East Africa. It is advisable, as your Lordships will see, that these appointments should be held in conjunction, because it is necessary that all the civil and military authority should be concentrated in one person. I observe that it has been stated in some quarters that Sir Hercules Robinson's commission as High Commissioner over all the Colonies was revived on the death of Sir George Colley. That is the fact; but we are of opinion that, in present circumstances, it is out of the question that he should continue to act for all the Colonies. I may mention that, at the present moment, Sir Evelyn Wood is Commander of the troops and temporary Governor of Natal; and Mr. Mitchell, Colonial Secretary, acts as Deputy Governor. I will now state the arrangements which we have made in consequence of the lamented death of Sir George Colley, and the force which is to be sent out. Orders have been issued that six Infantry regiments shall proceed to Natal. Two regiments of Cavalry are prepared
  1916
  to be sent out, and Sir Evelyn Wood has boon asked whether he would have the means of supporting another Cavalry regiment, and whether he desires another regiment to be despatched. He has been further asked whether he desires transport animals, such as mules. These communications have all been made after consultation with Sir Frederick Roberts, and in accordance with his opinion. He himself is also in communication with Sir Evelyn Wood, and all the force I have mentioned will be very shortly in the Colony. I should also mention that drafts to the extent of 1,500 men have been ordered to fill up the regiments already abroad, and that the men of the Reserve will at once be asked to volunteer for the regiments going out, without any preference being given as between those men who are of six and seven years' service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has reason to believe that the Reserve men will answer the call in a very satisfactory manner. One observation, my Lords, I wish to add before I sit down. I am sure your Lordships must have seen, with the greatest interest, the admirable accounts which have appeared in the newspapers from the Correspondents and others on the spot. They are of invaluable service, and we all must admire the courage and intelligence with which these gentlemen discharge their duty; but I hope I shall not be misunderstood if I take this opportunity of appealing to them to be extremely careful, while they give us all the information as to what takes place, not to communicate any information in regard to future movements which may be of advantage to our opponents. In the present condition of rapid communication everything can be known in South Africa in the course of a few hours. I am sure, my Lords, we may rely upon these gentlemen to exercise a wise discretion in the matter.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I may be allowed strongly to express the same opinion. I think, while the public are informed by those gentlemen, who have shown the greatest amount of talent in their vocation, that their communications should be limited to what actually takes place. It would be most serious if they gave—I am sure it would be given unintentionally—any information as to what is to be done, seeing that such intelligence may be

  1917
  made known in the Colony in a few hours. That information should be only within our own knowledge and the knowledge of our officers. Therefore, while we admire the manner in which those gentlemen perform their duties, I do appeal to their patriotism and good feeling towards their own country to be extremely careful in their communications, and to give no information which may be of harm to us. My Lords, I think that the selection of Sir Frederick Roberts for the chief command in South Africa, in succession to Sir George Colley, is a most excellent one. With regard to the late Sir George Colley, I am sure there is no one in this House who does not appreciate his gallantry, and who does not feel that his loss is a serious one. I shall make no observations as to how this unfortunate disaster occurred; they would be here quite out of place.
  EARL CADOGANasked, was it to be understood that Sir Hercules Robinson now filled the office of High Commissioner in South-East Africa, as well as his present position?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYreplied, that until General Roberts arrived he would hold that position.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL,—(No. 40.)
(The Lord President.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
EARL SPENCER, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: My Lords, it is my duty to call your Lordships' attention to a subject nearer home than that which has just been occupying your Lordships. It is my duty to propose to your Lordships to read a second time the Bill for the Protection of Person and Property in Ireland. My Lords, I feel that I must ask your Lordships' kind indulgence, because I feel that I have very little, if anything, that is new to tell your Lordships. Luring the last few months the attention of the country has been greatly absorbed by the condition of Ireland, and since the meeting of Parliament there have been almost continuous debates on the subject in another Assembly—debates which, I think, will be memorable in the history of Parliament. It will be my duty to
1918
give your Lordships the reasons which have induced Her Majesty's Government to ask that so stringent a measure as this should be applied to one part of Her Majesty's Dominions. My Lords, the Bill which I have in my hand is one which touches one of the most cherished liberties enjoyed by the subjects of the Queen. That liberty cannot be touched lightly by any Government or Minister, and Parliament has always refused to take any such measure into its consideration except under circumstances of the greatest necessity or in cases of supreme danger to the State. My Lords, I think it was Lord Macaulay who very eloquently said, in speaking of the Habeas Corpus Act, that it was one of those bulwarks of freedom bravely and successfully won by the struggles of our ancestors, for which Sovereigns had been deposed and dynasties changed, and for which a noble army of martyrs had shed their blood. Those are eloquent words, and I feel that we must not on any occasion attempt to touch this liberty unless we can prove an. overwhelming case—prove not only the necessity of legislation of this stringent character, but also that such legislation is likely to lead to successful results. My Lords, I am afraid that I shall be able, in the remarks which I shall address your Lordships, abundantly to show that necessity. I must go back a short time to describe the condition of Ireland. During the few years ending in 1879 there was great agricultural depression over all the Kingdom. That agricultural depression was felt in Ireland as well as in Scotland and in England. For two or three years that depression was felt severely and culminated in the year 1879. It was more felt in the Western parts of Ireland than in the rest of the country. In the West of Ireland will be found the smallest holdings, on which, even in times of prosperity, it is difficult for the people to maintain themselves. One source of income failed. As your Lordships are aware, many of the peasantry of the West of Ireland come to this country to reap the harvest; but this source of income was not forthcoming. This deficiency, then, has to be added to the bad harvest, and on occasions of that sort those holdings are utterly unable to support the population. The people who live in those holdings are the people

1919
on whom agitators operate; and it is in this state of affairs that an organization was formed in Ireland which has had a great and pernicious effect over the whole country. That organization, which, I believe, was instituted in 1879, gradually acquired influence over various parts of the country. I shall not detain your Lordships by showing the progress that Association made; these facts are sufficiently known. I think I can show that this organization has greatly tended to bring about that condition of disorder in Ireland which we all so much deplore. That Association, whatever its original object, has at different times, through those who belong to it, openly advocated the uprootal of landlordism in Ireland. It went much further, and proclaimed sedition and rebellion in Ireland. I do not say for a moment that there were some men who began this agitation who were not earnest in their views, and who did not believe there was some great evil which they had to remedy; but I fear a great number of them used the depressed state of agriculture to foment political agitation and promote their own selfish ends. Well, my Lords, if we look at the state of crime in Ireland, we find that it lamentably increased during the agitation. In 1878, agrarian crime, exclusive of threatening letters, amounted to 176; whereas in 1879 there were 390 cases. But even that does not show how rapidly crime has increased; for if we take the last quarter of that year, we find that the average for that quarter was greatly in excess of what it was in the corresponding period in 1878. Agrarian crimes continued in very formidable numbers during the early part of 1880; but by the end of that year they numbered 1,253 outrages, exclusive of threatening letters. I am not, in excluding threatening letters, for one moment saying that this is not a very formidable offence, and one which ought to be watched with very great care. There is no doubt that threatening letters are an indication of the condition of the country, and tend very greatly to increase the terror which other crimes create in that country. But in some of these Returns it is convenient, for the sake of comparison, to leave out the threatening letters, which swell, to a great extent, the number of agrarian crimes. The increase, however, irre-
1920
spective of this class of offence, is a very large one; and if we compare it with former periods, we shall find that it is very serious indeed. I find that there wore 417 more outrages of an agrarian character in 1880 than in 1870, which was, as your Lordships may remember, a year of much agrarian disturbance in Ireland. If we go back still further, the agrarian crimes in 1880 were 303 more than in 1845. When you remember that the population in 1845 was 8,250,000, and in 1880 5,250,000, and that the police had been increased from 13 per 10,000 of the population to 21 per 10,000 in the years between, you will find that a very formidable state of things has been brought about. I will show your Lordships that homicide and firing at the person reached a very serious figure in 1880; but that is the only point in which crime has not increased quite so rapidly as in the case of crime against property. Other crime—the maiming of cattle, has increased to 101 in 1880; the next highest year recorded was in 1845, when this crime numbered 87. Of incendiary fires and arson, the number in 1880 was 210; whereas the yearly average for 20 years down to 1878 inclusive was 32¼. This was a crime which carried great terror with it, and the total in 18 80 exceeded every year since 1845. Then, firing into dwellings. Last year the number of offences was 67; the highest since 1844 was the year 1845, when the number of offences was 55; and the average for 20 years was 5·7. To add to the force of these figures, I should add that there have been, during the period to which I refer, a large number of persons who have been protected by the police. On the 1st of January last there were 153 persons under police protection—that is, having two policemen continually attending upon them to protect their lives; and besides that, there were 1,149 persons who were more or less under the supervision of the police. In 1870, I find that only 23 persons were similarly protected. That shows that the police have been enabled, by their exertions and their information, to prevent an extension of crime, which would have made it oven more serious than the figures I have given your Lordships. I do not want to trouble your Lordships at any great length; but I am desirous of showing how these outrages and this intimida-

1921
tion are directed. They are directed against landlords, agents, and servants in every class of life, and against animals. I regret to say that the outrages, though they have diminished, are still going on. I have in my hand a copy of a telegram received this afternoon from Dublin Castle, which gives an account of a typical outrage—
"Yesterday afternoon, at 3 o'clock, as Mr. John Hearne, clerk of Ballinrobe Petty Sessions, county Mayo, was returning homo after Court, he was fired at on the public road by two young men, who came behind him with revolvers. At least six shots were fired, there being four wounds on his body and two on his right hand; it is feared one will prove mortal. So close were the assailants in making the attack, that the discharge burned Mr. Hearne's coat, and he struck one of them with his walking-stick. The outrage is believed to be, without doubt, agrarian. Mr. Hearne had received a threatening letter in November last. He is agent to a small property of Mr. De Montmorency, from which three tenants were evicted in May last for nonpayment of rent, two of whom have since been reinstated. No arrests."
That is one case. Here is another—
"At about a quarter past 7 p.m., from 50 to 70 shots were fired at the house of a national school teacher by an unknown party of men. There were two policemen protecting him, and they were in the house at the time. They fired 23 shots in the direction of the attacking party, but, as far as can be ascertained, without effect. Neither the schoolmaster nor the police were injured. The police are of opinion that there were from 10 to 15 men firing. There was a bank about 150 yards from the house, and this had been used by the attacking party as a cover. There were marks of two shots upon the house, and a third entered the kitchen, passing through the open door. Four empty Snider cartridge cases were found. In September, 1880, he summoned the chairman of the Tulla branch of the Land League to Petty Sessions. Since that time he has been very unpopular, and the children, with the exception of five, have been removed from the school. He is a native of the North of Ireland, and is regarded by the people as a Government spy."
Now I come to another kind of outrage. I shall read the Report of the Sub-Inspector. The Report is dated February 5, 1881:—
"I have to report that on the 3rd instant,—publican, of this town, missed five bullocks off his farm at—, valued at £12 each; and as all attempts to find them on his part failed, he swore an information this day that 'the animals were taken to a distance and destroyed.' He intends seeking for compensation for £60. The police also failed to get the slightest trace of the animals; but I am of opinion that they will turn up yet.—believes they have been done away with by the Land Leaguers of—, who are very
1922
opposed to him since September last, when he took a grazing farm from Mrs.—. This man was very strongly alluded to at a Land League meeting at—on the 7th of November last. Since then—believes he is a marked man in the country, and that efforts were made to 'Boycott' him as to his business; this, however, failed. I report this on outrage form, as—swore the cattle, he believed, were not stolen but destroyed."
The next Report is as follows, dated February 11—
"With reference to my Report of the 5th instant, I have to state that four of the five missing bullocks, the property of—, of—, were this day found drowned in a dangerous hole, called—, in the townland of—, one mile from—'s farm. Two of the animals were tied together, and had heavy stones tied to their necks; the other two also had weights fastened to them. The fifth bullock was found alive on the same farm. This outrage, it is evident, has been done by the Land Leaguers of—, who have been most determined in their hostility to—since the—Land League meeting, and—secretly got information that his property would be destroyed and that he would be made a bankrupt of by 'Boycotting.'—does not suspect anyone in particular; but believes the outrage was got up and carried out by eight certain Land Leaguers of—, and the local police are of the same opinion. Every step will be taken to throw light on this outrage."
These are typical instances of outrages which have been committed in certain parts of Ireland. The operations of those who break the law are not confined to the present. In the year 1851 a man named Long, a tenant of Major Armstrong, of Holy Cross, County Tipperary, owed £235 rent. He surrendered this farm, having another about 10 miles distant. He was forgiven the £235 and allowed to take the crops. Major Armstrong, and after his death his widow, used to let this as a grazing farm. Long died about nine years ago. In 1880, 29 years after the surrender of the farm, at a meeting of the Holy Cross branch of the Irish National Land League, held on the 30th of December, Mr. Stephen Butler in the chair, the following resolution was passed—
"That we, the Committee of the Holy Cross branch of the Irish National Land League, do look upon all parties who propose for or take grass upon the farm belonging to the late Michael Long, of The Grove, is a traitor to the country, inasmuch as a daughter of the said Michael Long is anxious to come into the possession of her father's place."
The place was in the charge of Ryan, a caretaker. Crowds of people, some of

1923
them on horseback, proceeded towards the place of Ryan, the caretaker. Two vans arrived, accompanied by people carrying banners and wearing sashes and rosettes. He saw what appeared to be whisky being distributed among the crowd. They forcibly entered the demesne, shouting and with bands playing. The crowd shouted and rioted, and then the main portion went to Farney Castle, and shouted and made a noise at the gate, so that the people inside could hoar them. Their object was to terrify Mrs. Armstrong into abject submission to the decree of the Holy Cross Land League, in execution of the "unwritten code of law." The prisoners were committed for trial for taking part in an unlawful assembly. The magistrates refused bail, and an application to the Queen's Bench was refused. This was a proposal to go back 30 years to reinstate a tenant's relative. I think the facts as to outrages which I have given your Lordships are sufficient to prove that a reign of terror has been established in the country which has defied all the efforts of the Government to put it down. But that is not all that the Land League have done. They have proceeded by other means to terrorize the loyal subjects of the Queen. They have established publicly—in former days the same mode of proceeding was only advocated privately—a system of social ostracism, which has contributed, to a great extent, to terrorize the population. The speeches delivered by members of the Land League fully bear out this assertion. In a speech made some time ago by a leading member of the Land League, he said—
"If perchance any man among yon should so forget himself as to go and bid for the holding of his neighbour or take possession of it, if any one among you should do it, I will tell you how I wish to see you treat him. I do not want you to commit a breach of the law by assaulting him or hurting him. By that means you rather serve the cause of your enemy than your own cause. I want you to bring down the force of public opinion upon him. If you see him at church or chapel, fair or market, pass him, hate him; let him be a thing of loathing, a leper so unclean as not to be lit to be touched or associated with by any of his fellow-men. If he has cattle to sell, let he man bid for them; or cattle to buy, tell the unclean wretch to move a way from you. (Laughter.) If he has potatoes to dig, or stubble to dig, or corn to cut, or anything else, let him go out and do it himself. (Laughter.) If he has a shop and offers goods for sale, let no man who has respect for God or country leave
1924
a penny in the house. (Cheers and laughter.) Let him eat his stock-in-trade. When that is is done, let him go away. (Laughter.) By these means you will do infinitely more good than if you went out and committed a broach of the law and took his life."
That is the kind of advice which was given by speakers at Land League meetings. Certainly some of those speakers professed that the law was to be respected. But when speeches of an inflammatory nature are made to a very excitable people, on a subject on which their passions are always very easily aroused—namely, on that most cherished object of all Irish farmers, the possession of their land—I leave it to your Lordships to suppose what the result of such teaching will be. Not only have outrages, as was well said "elsewhere," dogged the steps of the Land League meetings, but the system which is called "Boycotting" has prevailed and had extensive influence in the country. This is what I find in a Charge of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald. He quotes from a newspaper, The Nation, on October 16, describing what has taken place in different districts. He said—
"The Nation of that date says.—'The work of socially excommunicating persons who take evicted tenants' farms is being carried on with great thoroughness and success in various parts of the country. Thus, in Limerick a few days ago, a farmer who had sinned in the way referred to offered for sale in the market some butter and oats; but both merchants and brokers refused to transact any business with him. The consequence was that he had to bring his produce homo, and on leaving the market he was groaned at and hooted by a large crowd of farmers. We believe it is the same farmer who went to buy some bacon in Limerick, and when he told his name failed to induce the bacon merchants to sell him anything whatever. In Clare, again, a farmer has been made for the same causes such an outcast among his neighbours, they refusing to hold any intercourse with him or sell him the necessaries of life, and even going so far as to keep him out of the parish chapel on Sundays, that he has found his now position intolerable, and surrendered to the landlord the banned farm on which he cast his eyes in an unhappy moment.'"
That is the result, as stated in one of the Irish papers, of the teaching of the Land League. Now, I think I ought to show your Lordships that besides this large amount of crime existing in the country the law has broken down in dealing with it. I am afraid that the same terrorism exercised in the way described in the extracts which I have read has been exercised

1925
towards witnesses and juries, so as to render it very difficult to obtain evidence in regard to agrarian crimes, and the difficulty of procuring convictions by juries for those offences is enormous. Out of the whole number of agrarian outrages committed in 1880—namely, 2,305, only 83 convictions were obtained, or rather less than 4 per cent. Only 295 were made amenable by the police, or a little more than 12 per cent. If you look at the non-agrarian crime the state of things is not so formidable. I draw attention to it to show how much directed against the land this particular movement has been. Out of the total number of non-agrarian offences, 3,084, as many as 1,425, or nearly 50 per cent, were made amenable; while the number of convictions was 694, or about 25 per cent. At Waterford the Judge was obliged to postpone one very important trial, connected with the most brutal murder of Mr. Boyd, on account of the jurors not attending. At the close of the Munster Winter Assizes at Cork, speaking on the 21st December, 1880, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald said—
"I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that there have been considerable failures of justice, and failures of justice which I do not hesitate to say have been produced by external influences operating upon some of the jurors.…No person of sense could fail to see that there were powerful influences operating upon the minds of jurors, preventing them from performing their duties."
That shows how the course of justice has been impeded, and, in fact, paralyzed, by the terrorism which has prevailed in various parts of the country. I have referred to the Judges, and I hold here a very interesting letter, which was written by one of the County Court Judges of a district in Ireland, and which, I think, illustrates very forcibly how completely the law has been paralyzed. The learned Chairman says—
"… The number of civil cases was the smallest ever known, not amounting nearly to half the average. This was accounted for by the statement that a decree of the Court is quite useless and unproductive. I had, in nearly 20 cases of ordinary civil bills, not ejectments, to make orders that posting copies in the nearest market town to the residences of the defendants should be deemed good service, as it was proved on oath to my satisfaction that the process officers could not attempt to serve the processes without risk of personal injury. A process officer who did not attend the Court at the beginning of the Sessions explained his absence
1926
by stating on oath that in serving processes he was so badly beaten that he was unable to come. I had to excuse two jurors who were summoned to attend the Quarter Sessions, and who did not attend on the ground that they could not with safety leave their houses, and one of them sent me a copy of a notice alleged by him to have been posted, warning the public not to give him accommodation in any town of the county.…These several facts will prepare you for my opinion that in the present state of the county, particularly in the southern portion, the jurisdiction of my Court is paralyzed."
That, my Lords, was the state of the law in various parts of the country, and I regret to say that there is another law—that of the Land Courts established by the Land League—which has been much more respected. The Land League Courts, set up in different districts, have administered their own unwritten law with all the power with which the law of the Realm is administered in this country. I need not detain your Lordships by describing at length any of the proceedings of these Land Courts—they are, no doubt, familiar to you all. We hope, my Lords, by this Bill, to put down the village tyrants and dissolute ruffians who carry out that unwritten law, and we hope to bring back obedience to, and the execution of, the law of the land. I think I have now sufficiently shown your Lordships to what an enormous extent crime has increased in Ireland; how crime and terror prevail in a large portion of the country. I can show further that the Irish Government have done all that they could do to carry out the law with their existing powers. They have increased the military force, they have increased the police in the various districts, and they have left no stone unturned to put the ordinary law into vigorous operation. But these measures have all failed, and Her Majesty's Government now think it their duty to come to Parliament and ask for additional powers to restore law and order in Ireland. My Lords, this Bill is a very short one. It proposes to give the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the power to proclaim certain districts of the country. In those districts he will be able, by his warrant, to arrest any person whom he may reasonably suspect of being concerned, either as a principal or as an accessory, in any crime punishable by law which has been committed at any time after the 30th day of September last, being an act of violence or of intimidation, or an incitement to an act of violence

1927
or intimidation. I have seen it stated in various places that when the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended before in Ireland agrarian crime was not suppressed. That is perfectly true. It was only on one occasion that this power to deal with any crime but that of treason was given. That was in 1871. In that year an Act was passed which enabled the Lord Lieutenant to arrest anybody belonging to a Ribbon Society, or aiding a Ribbon Society in one county and parts of other counties in Ireland. I do not wish to dwell on this subject. I was Lord Lieutenant and had to put this power in force. It was not an easy task. But that Act was completely successful at the time. I believe that a marked diminution of agrarian crimes resulted from the enforcement of the Act. At the present time the case is very much more difficult; but I feel sure that the Lord Lieutenant and his Adviser the Chief Secretary will conduct the arduous responsibility which the Act will place on them with perfect firmness, justice, and, I trust, success. Then there is a greater power given under the Act—namely, that of issuing warrants against those reasonably suspected of being guilty, either as principal or accessory, of high treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices. Your Lordships will not expect me to go at great length into the evidence which has made it necessary for Her Majesty's Government to propose this stringent power. I ask your Lordships to place confidence in Her Majesty's Government that this power at the present moment is necessary. I do not for a moment want your Lordships to suppose that Her Majesty's Government think that a rebellion is coming in Ireland. We do not think that to be the case; but though there is no present danger, there may be great danger hanging over us at no distant time. We know that at this moment in America the Irish Press is publishing most violent denunciations of this country, and is stimulating the feeling of the people of Ireland, not only to rebellion, but also to assassination and outrages of the worst kind. We think, therefore, that the Government should, under the circumstances, take precautions to defend the country from such danger, and it is with that object that such stringent power is introduced into the measure. I apologize to your Lordships for having
1928
detained you so long. I hope I have shown that we have not asked your Lordships lightly to pass this stringent measure. I believe that we have abundant proof of necessity for it. We have been told that by introducing this measure we are sacrificing the principles of the Party to which we belong. I do not think that we are in any way sacrificing liberty in proposing this measure. I do not think that there is real liberty when you see an unauthorized society having nearly the same power as the law of this country in Ireland. I do not think it liberty when we hear of people being compelled to subscribe to the funds of the association. I do not think it liberty when no one can go to bed and rest in safety with his family in Ireland, or walk abroad along Her Majesty's highways with safety. That I do not call liberty; I call it rather despotism, and Her Majesty's Government introduced this measure to put down such despotism. They hoped by this measure to restore true liberty and freedom of action to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Ireland. My Lords, this is the first duty of the Government. We have a very painful sense of the task before us; but, having accomplished it, we shall propose measures which we trust will remedy certain great matters of injustice in Ireland; and, if we succeed in passing them, we hope, at no distant date, to see in Ireland, as we now see in Scotland and in England, law and order reigning in the country, supported and carried out by the united Irish nation.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord President.)
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, I rise to support the second reading of the Bill which the noble Earl has just moved; but I do it with reluctance. I support the Bill because I think it is necessary—absolutely necessary—in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. But I confess that I cannot divest myself of some sense of shame that, in the 19th century, in the very heart of our Empire, in the United Kingdom itself, such scenes and circumstances should exist as justify—and not only justify and sanction, but render absolutely necessary—the measure which has been brought before your Lordships' attention. My Lords, this periodical disquietude in Ireland has

1929
been accounted for at various times by various causes. When I first entered public life, nearly half a century ago, there was then in Ireland great disquietude. We were then taught by great authorities that the cause of that disquietude was political, and that the only remedy for it would be to extend to a portion of the community in Ireland those civil privileges which were enjoyed by only a part of the population. Measures were brought forward and carried at the time which effected that great object. But the periodical disquietude of Ireland re-appeared in a few years in due course, and then we were told that the cause was not political, but ecclesiastical, and all the philosophers and politicians gave their energies and their minds to the consideration of new remedies. They commenced by abolishing tithes; they ended by abolishing the Church, which those tithes were destined and intended to support. And yet, my Lords, we find ourselves in the present situation, and neither of the causes alleged—political and ecclesiastical—appear to have been adequate, or to have been the real reason of this disquietude. Well, now, we are told that the cause is quite different. It is at last found out that the cause is agrarian, or even territorial; but, generally speaking, we are led to believe that the remedy which alone can remove for ever the discontent and uneasiness in Ireland is, in fact, to transfer the property of one class to another. Now, I should be very sorry, after such failure, even of the wisest and most experienced statesmen, to discover the main cause of this constantly recurring state of affairs in Ireland, to pretend for a moment to lay down dogmatically any opinion of what that cause must be; but I think it would not be presumption in me if I attempted on this occasion to indicate what I believe are the immediate causes which have produced the existing state of things—the disquietude, discontent, and outrage in Ireland—and which have caused the introduction of this measure by Her Majesty's Government. Well, I think there are three causes to which the present state of affairs is to be attributed. In the first place, no doubt, as the Lord President of the Council correctly intimated in his speech, there has been, and is to a certain extent, great suffering in Ireland from a series of bad harvests, and bad
1930
harvests in a country peculiarly dependent upon the harvest. There is no doubt of the distress of the country in that respect, and there is no doubt there has been great suffering. But Ireland has been visited by famine, and stricken by panic of coming famine before, and yet it has not resulted in the condition of outrage and lawlessness which it presents at this moment. The liberality of England, poured forth on all occasions with readiness, and the good nature of the Irish people themselves has so combined, that when a period of distress like that has occurred, means of alleviation adequate to the occasion have generally been found; and, so far as the present instance is concerned, when that distress first began greatly to pinch the people, I did not observe traces of organized disaffection, which subsequently manifested themselves. The Irish people, not deficient in sense, know very well that sterile harvests were not peculiar to Ireland during the last few years, and that they extended to all European countries, and even beyond the limits of Europe; and England, which was the one country which sympathized the most with Ireland, was, perhaps, the one which suffered the most from that calamity. Then, how is it that the present unfortunate state of things has been brought about in Ireland, when on former occasions it has been avoided? This brings me to the second point which I wish to advert to. It is most unfortunate that after a period of agricultural distress which has rarely been equalled—and probably its continuity has never been equalled—it is most unfortunate, I say, that at such a time the United Kingdom should have become the scene of a great Party struggle, which has not been paralleled for many years in the fierceness of the passions which it elicited and fostered. Those who appealed at such a time to the passions of the country felt that they were in a position of great advantage in appealing to a population that was suffering as the Irish were. Inflammatory orations were addressed to the Irish people; in point of fact, it was impressed upon them by accomplished orators, and by trained and skilled agitators, that the sterile harvests under which they suffered were in some degree connected with the existence of the late Government. One thing was quite clear, though

1931
others might be ambiguous, and that was the Opposition to the then Government were the only men who could bring forward remedies equal to the occasion which could rescue them from the fell consequences of those bad harvests. This style of oratory unfortunately brought about that which spreads like wildfire in Ireland—namely, an agitation of great fire and fierceness; and the most preposterous opinions were set afloat. Even in such circumstances I myself should not have despaired of the good sense of the country ultimately steering us through all these difficulties and dangers. But, unfortunately, the moment that there is in Ireland an organized agitation of considerable dimensions and promising great changes, and obviously offering the means by which considerable results might be obtained—the moment that occurs, we are under the influence of an organized conspiracy of foreigners, or men living in foreign countries, who immediately act upon the circumstances which are soon under their control, and place, no doubt, society in that part of the United Kingdom in considerable danger. I know it has been recently mentioned in "another place" that this is a great exaggeration, and that it is not the fact that there is any considerable power, or considerable resources, in a foreign country that acts upon Ireland at this moment, or, under similar circumstances, has acted at other times. I believe that Her Majesty's Ministers are perfectly aware of the truth of this business, and have wisely acted in asking for powers in that respect which the Lord President of the Council has stated that this Bill proposes. Those who have served Her Majesty when there have been troublous times in Ireland—especially of late years—know the truth of my assertion, and of the existence of a state of things which makes it absolutely necessary that Her Majesty's Government should possess the powers asked for, to defend Her Majesty, not from rebellious subjects, but from foreign conspirators who are constantly passing to and fro between the American Continent and these Islands, and whose efforts are unceasing, and whose resources are vast. Weil, those are the three causes which, to my mind, have brought about the present state of affairs. Anything more distress-
1932
ing than the condition of Ireland it is not easy to conceive. The moment the people of Ireland are suffering they have remedies announced to them which amount, in fact, to the acquisition of the property of their neighbours, and they are bid to seize that property at once. The country is no longer safe when doctrines of that kind are taught, and when, the next step, no man is allowed to protect his property by lawful process without peril to his life. Then, when the greed for another's property attains its present dimensions in Ireland the foreigner appears, and the third influence appears; first, confiscation, then assassination, and then explosive patriotism of dynamite. That being the state of things in Ireland at the present moment, I cannot doubt the propriety of the course which Her Majesty's Government are now pursuing, and the wisdom of the measure which they have introduced to our notice. There are two things which I regret in this respect. I regret that so long a time has elapsed before Her Majesty's Government proposed a measure of this character to Parliament; and I regret that, having proposed it, so long a time has been wasted in "another place" in passing it before it could reach your Lordships' House. I am confident that your Lordships, in supporting this Bill, are supporting a measure which will command the sympathy of all loyal subjects of Her Majesty. I believe in its efficacy. I hope its provisions will be carried into effect with moderation and mercy, but that its powers may not be too quickly withdrawn; and I trust that the material condition of Ireland, improved by Providence, as I think we have a right to count on, with a continuance of good harvests, which have already commenced there, may become more satisfactory. I believe that, under those circumstances, the country will regain that quantity of common sense which is absolutely necessary to good government; and I trust that when that happy condition has been attained we may be able to find the country flourishing, happy, and contented without the aid of a Coercion Bill.
EARL GRANVILLE: I should wish to say a few words in support of the Motion for the second reading of this Bill. And, in the first place, I have to thank the noble Earl opposite for the spirit in which he has approached this

1933
question, and I can assure him that he has expressed with accuracy the feeling that has actuated us in bringing forward this measure. We did feel great regret at the necessity that compelled us to introduce this Bill to Parliament, and it was in our view humiliating that we should have to do so. I cannot, however, quite agree with the noble Earl as to the causes which have contributed to bring about the present state of things in Ireland. The noble Earl referred to the different measures dealing with civil and religious questions which have been passed with the view of restoring tranquillity in Ireland during the last 50 years. I do not believe, however, that he meant to say that he regretted the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act, or of the measures that restored Ireland to civil life. I pass over lightly the remarks of the noble Earl with reference to the statute that disestablished the Church of Ireland, an institution that, in my opinion, was one of the greatest anomalies that ever existed in the world. But, when the noble Earl goes on to say that we are now in an unexampled state with regard to Ireland, the seriousness of the situation completely justifying the measure we now propose, I am surprised to hear the noble Earl talk of the condition of Ireland as one which has sprung up during the last six months of the present Government being in power. Has not the constant occurrence of coercion during the last 80 years shown that there was something wrong to be dealt with? Have there not been manifestations of a very much worse character than that which we deplore now? Was there no coercion in 1814 and in 1830, and at other times when the prevalence of violence was much greater than it is now? The noble Earl has traced the present state of Ireland to three causes—first, bad harvests, and I have no doubt a great deal is due to that; and then, the efforts of those living in a foreign country, and passing to and fro between another Continent and these Islands; and also to certain parties having made the question of Ireland a Party question. With regard to the first of these two causes, I entirely agree with the noble Earl; but with regard to the third, he appears to forget who it was who appealed to the constituencies at the last General Election
1934
on the subject of Ireland. The noble Earl's case is that this new state of things in Ireland has arisen since he left Office. Does the noble Earl think that the Land League started into life after he left Office? Had it not been in existence for more than a year before that time, and had it not then held upwards of 200 meetings, in which it was resolved to compel the landlords to reduce their rents? Has the noble Earl never heard of a man named Michael Davitt, whom the late Government prosecuted and then released without consulting the Irish Government? The noble Earl seems to have forgotten that outrages in Ireland connected with the Land League had been increasing up to the time that he left Office. I think that, during the noble Earl's last year of Office, these outrages wore something like three times as many as in the year preceding, and more than six times as many as in the year before that. It is idle to fix on any one Government the responsibility for the state of Ireland. There are reasons that create very great difficulty in dealing with Ireland; and, while we are introducing measures going beyond the usual powers of the Constitution in order to restore the power and majesty of the law in that country, we ought always to remember that this country has a very heavy debt against it for having misgoverned Ireland to a degree hardly known in other countries up to a very recent time; and when he sneers at the reforms made during the last 50 years, which have been according to right principles and according to the principles which I hope we shall continue to observe, I think he is doing that which can only excite that feeling between the two countries which it is most undesirable for one in so high a position to encourage. I am happy to say that I entirely concur with the concluding sentences of the speech of the noble Earl. I believe that it is absolutely necessary to pass such a measure as this at the present moment; but, having passed it, we should administer the law both with firmness and mercy. We shall do exactly what is necessary to produce the end desired without the slightest exaggeration, without doing anything that is unmeaning or unnecessary, or anything that savours in the least of persecution.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, the question their Lordships had to ask

1935
themselves was whether the state of affairs in Ireland was sufficient to justify the introduction of this measure; and he was sorry to say, from what he knew, that he believed it was. During the late General Election he was in Ireland, and conversed freely with the people, and there was no doubt they were completely misled as to what the real intentions of Her Majesty's Government were. This was due to the imprudent speech of Mr. Gladstone in Mid Lothian, and to the fact that when they came into Office the present Government took no means to renew the Peace Preservation Act, though it was a matter of notoriety that the great majority of resident magistrates had reported in favour of its renewal. Then came the introduction of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, which he voted against, because he knew if it was passed it would create false hopes in the minds of the Irish people. When Mr. Childers visited Ireland also, he took no occasion to speak in deprecation of the disorders which were then going on. It was not until last Lord Mayor's Day that the country heard from the lips of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack anything definite as to the views of the Government in reference to this matter. There could be no doubt that the delay had had a most deleterious effect upon the state of Ireland; and the delay was the more to be wondered at because there were in the Cabinet two Members (Earl Spencer and the Earl of Kimberley) who had administered Ireland in troublous times, with an amount of coolness and courage that deserved the utmost credit, who could have given advice to their Colleagues which would, he should have thought, have saved any needless delay. It might fairly be said that these were bygones; but, nevertheless, he had thought it right to refer to them in extenuation of the conduct which had been displayed on the other side of the Channel by a comparatively ignorant, but imaginative population. But their Lordships were now face to face with the question whether the state of Ireland at the present moment was such as to justify the introduction of this Bill. He was bound to say, apart from all considerations of Party, and looking simply to the state of that country, that he thought it was. He could not, however, call it a statesmanlike measure, because
1936
it was the business of statesmen to foresee evils, and to guard against them, and in this instance he could not honestly say that that had been done. The noble Lord then proceeded to quote instances in support of his view, refraining, for reasons which he said would be obvious, from mentioning names or localities, but vouching for the accuracy of his facts. In one case a landowner charged a rent lower than Griffith's valuation for his farms; but not only were no rents paid on many holdings last autumn, but in several cases where the payment was tendered the money was returned to the tenants, in order that they might be able to inform the agents of the Land League that they had paid no rent. In other cases, kind and indulgent landlords had been driven from the country by the terrorism exercised over their tenants and themselves; and there was an instance of a land agent who had advised the tenants to subscribe to the Land League, on the same principle as they would secure their liberty by paying blackmail to the brigands of Southern Italy or of Sicily. Only a few weeks ago a Liverpool firm declined to support works in Ireland in which they were interested, and which they had theretofore assisted, stating that they would not risk a penny of their money in a country where life and property were insecure; and the result was that a large number of people would be thrown out of employment. Again, in the East of Ireland, money was required to complete a railway and works of great local, even of national importance, and three of the largest landlords in the neighbourhood came forward and offered their joint and several bonds and mortgages of their estates as security; but the Board to whom the application for the advance was addressed declined to make it, holding that landed property had ceased to be a valid security. They heard this question spoken of as though it was a tenant farmer's question for Ireland; but they were not the only people who were affected by the agitation which was going on. In fact, they were only a part of the population, numbering, as it was said, some 600,000; but actually it had been shown by the Returns that the total did not exceed 430,000, and that, he believed, was a liberal estimate. But what about the labourers? The labourers, whose numbers exceeded

1937
those of the farmers by some thousands, could gain nothing by the agitation which was going on; and if the agitation continued, they would be at the mercy of the tenant farmers, and in a worse position than they were now. Coming to the main question, he had no doubt there was a necessity for legislation. The necessity for it, however, arose, in a great measure, from the incendiary publications which were scattered broadcast. He did not know whether any of their Lordships had seen a copy of The Irish World—an American paper—which circulated by thousands in Ireland week by week, and contained the most inflammatory and revolutionary articles and doctrine. It was impossible that such a publication could be read by the Irish people without producing the worst results. The time had therefore come when it must be shown unmistakeably to the Irish peasantry who were masters in Ireland, whether the Government of the Queen or the Land League. He did not believe that when the present Bill had passed, and the fact that it had passed was published, there would be much trouble in Ireland. He did not believe that under the Bill there would be any necessity to take very strong measures; but the result would prevent much misery in Ireland to those whom he was sure were acting against their will through fear of the Land League. He desired to say a word in reference to the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland. They were absolutely dependent upon the bounty of their flocks. The loss of popularity to them meant the loss of their means; and yet they had come forward—not, he was sorry to say, universally—and advised their people not to break their contracts, but to fulfil the obligations into which they had entered, and then trust to the liberality of Parliament to redress any grievances which were found to be real. For his own part, he could only say that any measure which might be introduced to redress proved grievances should have his hearty support. He believed, in regard to the landowners, that not one in 100 wished to do anything which was not strictly fair and right by those who occupied the land. Under the present system hardships might, and no doubt did, prevail; but they were the exception, and not the rule. The Government, however, ought
1938
to have taken the matter in hand earlier, and decided what they intended to do with reference to the question of law and order in Ireland. The measure itself he could not regard as a statesmanlike measure; but he believed it was an honest attempt to grapple with a thorny subject which had agitated the country for the last 30 years, and for that reason he gave it his earnest support.
LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he would detain their Lordships but for a few moments upon the most important subject which was before them. In the first place, he must say that he supported the measure with extreme regret; but it seemed to him that it was absolutely necessary, and he believed that was the feeling of nine-tenths of the country generally. It was not only the people of England, but the people of Ireland who saw the necessity for the Bill; and if he had a regret at all in supporting the Bill it was intensified by the fact that it was not introduced at an earlier period. He thought the Government should have been at least three or four months earlier in introducing the measure; and if they bad been, a great deal of the misfortune and misery which had lately fallen on Ireland would have been avoided. He was aware of all the difficulties which the Government might have had to contend with, and that it had been said Government could not have taken such a course. But when they had to deal with the welfare of a country and preserve law and order, a Government, and especially a strong Government like the present, could disregard all that was said. He believed that such a Government ought to be supported in their policy; because, acting on the voice of the people, and placed in position by the constituencies, they were responsible for that position, and if they required a measure of the kind to preserve order, however much he regretted it, he felt bound to support it. With respect to what had fallen from the noble Earl the Leader of the House—that the state of Ireland had been unsatifactory long before the late Government left Office—he would remind him that in one of his Mid Lothian speeches Mr. Gladstone told his audience that there was then in Ireland an absence of crime and outrage and a general sense of comfort and satisfaction such as had been hitherto unknown there. On the 7th of December last Mr. Justice

1939
Fitzgerald stated from the Judicial Bench that for the then last month true liberty did not exist in the country, and that life and property were not safe, and yet the Government took no step to remedy that state of things. He regretted that he had not heard from the Government the expression of an intention to deal boldly with the leaders of the Land League, who were responsible for the state of things which had been seen in Ireland during the last eight months. It could easily be proved that the agrarian crimes had increased in proportion to the increase in the number of the Land League meetings. In the county of Clare the number of meetings in 1879 was 4, and the number of outrages 21. In 1880 the number of meetings was 20, and of outrages 93. In the East Riding of the county of Cork the meetings in 1879 were 6, and the outrages 27. In 1880 there were 42 meetings, and 157 crimes. In the West Riding, in 1879, no meetings were held, and there were only 16 outrages. In 1880, 27 meetings were held and 133 outrages wore committed. In Kerry, in 1879, 4 meetings were held and 13 outrages committed. In 1880, 23 meetings were held and 298 outrages committed. In the West Riding of Galway, in 1879, 14 meetings were held and 146 outrages were committed. In 1880, 34 meetings were held and 324 outrages were committed. In Mayo, in 1879, 37 meetings were held, and 170 outrages were committed. In 1880, 55 meetings were held and 343 outrages were committed. He would not weary the House by reading through the list. What he had already read was sufficient to show that agrarian crimes had kept pace with the number of land meetings held, and that crime had been induced by the influence of the Land League. He maintained that until the Government put down the Land League there would be no peace in the land. The Government might introduce what Land Act they pleased; they might confiscate a large portion of the land which had come down to the present landlords for centuries. He said, with no feelings of shame, that he and his family had been connected with Ireland for centuries, and they might rob them of their property, or a large share of it; but they would never restore peace in Ireland until they had put down the League, which had reduced
1940
the country to its present unhappy condition. The Government ought, in his opinion, to have suppressed the meetings of the League in the autumn months, when it was found that treasonable doctrines were being preached, and they merited great reprobation for having disregarded the advice then given to them, and having allowed these meetings to continue. The Returns that had been published did not represent a tithe of the agrarian crimes that were committed during the autumn. He himself knew of many crimes that were not reported to the police. He might mention a case that had come under his immediate observation. A tenant of his who had paid his rent subsequently came to him and asked that the money might be returned pro forma, as the local Land League had threatened to "Boycott" him unless he should produce evidence of having received back the rent which he had paid. Another Return showed the comparatively few instances in which juries had convicted in Ireland. This and other circumstances confirmed him in the opinion that the jury system ought to be placed on a better footing. The present temporary measures would only have a temporary effect, and as soon as they were withdrawn the same state of things as now would be found again. In conclusion, he expressed his great regret that it should be found absolutely necessary to have such a Bill before them as they were now reading a second time; and he trusted that whatever measure of reform with regard to land was brought forward it would be carefully considered, and not hastily rejected by their Lordships, because it was essential, in the interests of the landlords themselves, that the Land Laws should be put on such a foundation that the country would not be subjected again to such constant changes as had taken place of late years.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.