"I am one of those who do not attach the think they never represent any intention to same importance to them as others do, for I

that the words "business, and means of foe. Mr. Justice Barry, speaking at the living," were all-important, and could Winter Assizes of 1882, saidnot be omitted from the clause without upsetting the main purpose for which the clause was intended. His hon. and learned Friend asked if the "Boycott-commit the injury threatened; but I think the ing" the Government meant to strike against was an individual act, or an act of conspiracy? If it was an individual act, he contended that they would create an offence unknown to the law. The Government were not so careful to deny that; but they said it was recognized as an offence which was almost universal in large parts of Ireland. He was very glad to think there were large districts of Ireland he believed that at this moment there were 10 counties-where "Boycotting" might be said to be an almost unknown offence. Where, however, it did exist, it was aimed at a man's "business, or means of living," words which the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to exempt from the scope of the clause. What was "Boycotting," and how was it carried on? He would give them a description by a friend of the system. A rev. gentleman, speaking at a public meeting, used these words [Mr. HEALY: Name?] It was the Rev. Mr. Rowan. He said

"He wished to remind them that to meet this array of mighty warriors, great generals, and English gold and influence, they had but one weapon-that weapon the substitute of the old pike that did such good service in 1798 (applause), and that was the all-powerful weapon, the power of 'Boycotting,' the power of crushing by social ban, as by a Nasmyth steam-hammer of a thousand tons, every traitor to the country (cheers). Use that weapon with discretion, use it wisely, but, when needed, use it without mercy (renewed cheers)."

Now this was the systematic nature of this offence, this system of resistance to law.

MR. DILLON asked on what date the speech was made?

MR. TREVELYAN said, the speech was delivered on the 27th September, 1881, and the extract was taken from The Freeman's Journal.

MR. DILLON: The place?

MR. TREVELYAN said, he did not know the place. The worst of all was, that this systematic resistance of the law was carried out at the expense of the personal suffering of individuals. Now, that was a description of a friend of the system. He would give them at description of it by a very determined

posting extensively through the country of threatening notices promoting a system of intimidation stands upon an entirely different footing, especially if they are used for the promotion of that terrible system of intimidation recently introduced into this country, and now known by the name of Boycotting; and more especially when the injuries that are threatened property in various parts of the country. In are daily and hourly inflicted on persons and this county (Waterford) we find threatening notices on all sorts of subjects. Not to use a mowing-machine,' is one. 'Not to deal with a ticular man.' And to a shopkeeper-Not to certain shopkeeper.' Not to work for a parsupply goods to a particular man. Such notices as these spread terror and intimidation." "Boycotting" notices were directed also against magistrates for doing their duty on the Bench; in consequence of which, in one case-and here he could give the gentleman's name; it was the case of Mr. Stopford-provisions were refused to be served to the magistrate of the village by those with whom he had been in the habit of dealing, and who were deterred against their will from serving him. He had given this gentleman's name; but in these cases, for obvious reasons, he should be by no means ready to give names. A baker in a neighbouring town bad also received a threatening letter, warring him not to supply this magistrate of whom he spoke with bread. This was an instance of interference with a magistrate for performing his duty as a magistrate. In another instance, the absolutely necessary police system for the preservation of law and order had been interfered with. The Resident Magistrate wrote that, referring to the Government Minute, he begged to state that a certain man who was a pawnbroker, and who carried on other trades, had been " Boycotted" in the various branches of his business, because he had given the use of his cars to the police. The letter went on to say that the system of "sending to Coventry" and persecution of every possible kind-this more than petty persecution-was regulated and conducted by notices, which were posted in all parts of the town and frequently renewed. MR. DILLON: May I ask the date of that letter?

man.

MR. HEALY: Why was he not arrested under the Protection Act? [Cries of "Order!"

dated by threatening letters, her servants were similarly intimidated and compelled to leave her; while a manservant, an old man named Simmonds, 77 years of age, was shot dead by his

MR. TREVELYAN said, the date was September 27th, 1881. Then, another most necessary condition of "Boycotting" to bear in mind was its close connection with terrorism. It was impossible to separate the system of "Boy-own fireside because he refused to leave cotting," properly so called, from ter- her. He would not occupy any more of rorism. In one case, a bailiff and the time of the Committee by reading under agent was "Boycotted," because cases which proved how inextricably he was supposed to have recommended "Boycotting was connected with loss the eviction of a man who owed several of business and means of living. "Boyyears' rent and would not pay. The cotting," which was, in his opinion, so "Boycotting" was commenced in August, marked in every respect by the result 1881, and, in order to effect it, a well- attending every other class of outrage known ruffian in the vicinity went about and intimidation, was mixed up with actively engaged in intimidating the those grosser forms of outrage that persons who had been working for that everyone recollected, and that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had not lost sight of. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member, he looked upon it with great suspicion, because he could not but think that it laid itself open to the same difficulty that they experienced in connection with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford. He did not think it was easy to bring home cases of intimidation without assistance from the intimidated person, which that person was so often unwilling to give. He would give an instance, which might have been adduced against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), which would show to hon. Members the conclusion which attended so many of these cases of "Boycotting," and the reason why considerable power should be put into the hands of the magistrates, to draw conclusions from the facts before them as to whether intimidation was practised or not. Some years ago, a man named Geelan was evicted from Lord Leitrim's property in the County Leitrim. About a year ago a man named Bernard Beirne took the farm formerly occupied by Geelan, and had since been unpopular. On the 8th November, Bernard Rutledge, a farm-servant of Beirne's, was met on the farm by a party of four men, disguised by having their faces blackened, was knocked down, and a spear held to his chest, one of the men threatening him and a fellow-servant of his-not present-and saying that if Beirne did not give up his farm he would be killed. Police protection had since been afforded to Beirne. On the 11th November, the people at the fair of Mohill refused to have any dealings

MR. TREVELYAN said, he would read three or four instances to the Committee from the Government Return, which would show how inextricably this system of "Boycotting" was mixed up with the grosser forms of terrorism, and how impossible it was to separate them. Shots were fired into a house, and the inmates were warned not to deal with a shopkeeper who had been "Boycotted" because he had paid his rent. A threatening notice was posted on a man's door for having taken conacre on the landlord's farm. In the county of Clare shots were fired into the house of a farmer, who had in his employment a workman whose mother acted as laundress to a 66 'Boycotted" smith. He could give various other instances from the Papers before the House, in which outrages had been committed to support the system of "Boycotting," and where that system had been directed against men's businesses and means of living. The extreme cruelty inflicted by the system could be illustrated from every class of life. A blacksmith became thoroughly "Boycotted;" although doing a very good business before, and earning 30s. a-week, he was soon reduced to penury and sickness, and even the medical officer who attended him incurred great unpopularity for doing so. That cruel system was pursued very far indeed. He would mention a case, which had often been referred to as one of hardship inflicted by the authorities-the case of Mrs. Maroney, of Miltown Malbay. She was "Boycotted," she was intimi

with either Beirne or his son, in the the word "discharged" in the Motion way of buying or selling. On the 25th of the right hon. Gentleman the MemNovember, a letter, signed "Bernard ber for South-West Lancashire, his proBeirne," appeared in The Leitrim Adver- posal being virtually one for the retiser newspaper, saying that, as he was jection of the Bill. He (Mr. Arthur unable any longer to stand the "Boy- Arnold) would be very greatly emcotting" to which he had been sub- barrassed, no doubt, if he were putting jected, he pledged himself to surrender his opinion on any matter of law against the farm. Beirne had since given up that of the right hon. Gentleman, or possession of this farm, and the police of the noble and learned Lord (Earl protection afforded him had been with- Cairns), who was the author of the Bill. drawn. That was an instance of the But the opposition which he offered to combination of violent outrage and the measure was not inconsistent with a "Boycotting," or interfering with a great admiration for the masterly skill man's business or means of living, by which had been displayed in its framing, which thousands of people had been and the power the noble Author of the brought to ruin. In this case and so Bill had shown in dealing with that many others that system was trium-"tortuous and ungodly jumble," the phant. The Government were determined that they would only endeavour to administer Ireland on condition that that system should triumph no longer. They were glad to think that the system was only local, and that there were some counties he might say many counties -which were free from it; but where it existed they were quite determined that they would not put up with it; and, in order that that end might be accomplished, they considered it necessary for the House of Commons to give them power to deal with the subtler and, generally speaking, with the earlier stages of this dreadful malady.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"-(Mr. Dillon,) put, and agreed to.

English law with regard to real property. In the clauses of the Bill there was not a tittle of amendment of the Law of Settlement in regard to land in this country. If it were reasonable to think, as he confessed he had always hoped, that great learning was combined with a strong desire for the welfare and improvement of mankind, what must be the pain with which such a distinguished lawyer as Lord Cairns framed a measure of this sort, in which he made not the slightest effort to reform abuses which, for many years, had been cried out against. In 1859, Lord Cairns, in this House, had spoken against the law as to transfer of land in language quite as strong as he (Mr. Arthur Arnold) could himself have desired to use. And when the late Government were in the waning months of their power, it was

Committee report Progress; to sit proposed to bring in this amongst other again To-morrow.

SETTLED LAND BILL [Lords].

(Sir R. Assheton Cross.) [BILL 120.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read.

Bills. In the last year of Office of Lord Beaconsfield's Government, the Bill now before the House was brought in by them, with a great flourish of trumpets. To put the matter shortly, his objection to the Bill was four-fold. He objected to it-First, because it was not compatible with any comprehensive measure for Land Law Reform, and could not possibly form a part of any effective dealing with the laws relating Motion made, and Question proposed, to the transfer of land, or the law relating "That the Order for going into Com-to the settlement of land. Secondly, he mittee be discharged, and that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.". (Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS said, he wished to move that the Order for going into Committee on this Bill be discharged.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD said, he proposed to leave out all the words after

objected to it, because it came to this House from another House

MR. MONK said, he rose to a point of Order. He wished to ask whether it was competent for the hon. Member, at this stage, to enter into an argument

against the Bill after half-past 12|--and he was sorry to interrupt the cono'clock ? versation of hon. Members opposite-he objected to the Bill, because Her Majesty's Government were pledged to introduce a measure dealing in a compre. hensive manner with this subject. The present Parliament, he held, was specially charged by the people of this country to deal with the question of Land Law Reform-some said to restrict the practice of settlement

MR. SPEAKER: I consider that the Rule with regard to opposed Business does not apply in this particular case, because the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill does not propose to advance it, and, hereafter, the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair will be put from the Chair in the usual manner. The hon. Member (Mr. Arthur Arnold) proposes to leave out all the words after the word "discharged." I must point out to the House that the Motion before the House consists of two parts. First of all, the House will have to determine the Question whether the Order of the Day shall be discharged; and I presume that the hon. Member would have no objection to that proposition. Then, the second Question put would be "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee," and on that Question the hon. Member would be in Order in voting the negative. If the hon. Member will allow me, I will first put the Question which refers to the Committee being discharged.

Question, "That the Order for going into Committee be discharged," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee."-(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD said, he thanked Mr. Speaker for putting him in Order. He would now propose that they should reject the Motion for referring the Bill to a Select Committee. The second reason why he wished to see the measure thrown out was because it had been sent down to this House from another House, which was composed mainly of tenants for life, for whose benefit, together with other tenants for life, the measure had been composed and devised. The House of Lords told them distinctly that they did not think that settled land required legislation of a more extensive character. He objected, in the third place, to this measure, because, whereas the great need of the country was the liberation of the land, this Bill would certainly provoke a further settlement of landed estates, and would, it was absolutely certain, largely increase the area of land under settlement in this country. And, fourthly

Mr. Monk

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to be discussing the Bill in detail, although the question before the House is simply that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. I must point out to the hon. Member that upon a question of this character he is not entitled to discuss the Bill as a whole.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD said, he should be careful to confine himself to the matter before the House. Why he thought the measure should not be referred to a Select Committee was because he believed it would promote the settlement of land, and because the House of Lords told them, by the voice of Lord Cairns, that this was the full measure of their views as to the legislation that was required on the subject. As to his third objection, the area of settled land in the country was now estimated at 50,000,000 acres――

MR. WARTON said, he rose to Order. The hon. Member was now going into the question of the area of land.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD said, the effect of this Bill would be to increase the area of land under settlement. He would only refer to the opinion of a very distinguished authority on this Bill, which would certainly be very much in point, and which, he thought, would decide many hon. Members with regard to it. Sir James Caird said that, under Lord Cairns' Bill, a limited owner would have power to sell-first, in order to pay off debt; and, secondly, to raise money for improvements

MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that he is not in Order in going into these subjects. On the Question to go into Committee on the Bill, or on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, the hon. Member would be in Order; but he is not in Order in going into these matters on the Question that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD, resuming, | great concessions. He felt that on these said, then he would only say that he matters of detail the Bill would be best objected to the measure, because this dealt with by a Select Committee, esBill could form no part whatever of any pecially as, he hoped, that Committee comprehensive measure for dealing with would be composed of Members having the subject with which it professed to special knowledge and experience of deal, because it would tend to increase the matters relating to real property. He area of settled land and hinder the pro- hoped the Bill would come out of that gress of reform by producing some satis- Committee in a shape that would effect faction among the limited and powerful a substantial reform, and as a measure class of tenants for life; because it tended which any sincere reformer would sacrito confirm and perpetuate the public fice personal opinions to obtain. evil of settlement. He asked the House to reject the proposal for a Select Committee, joining with himself in the hope that Her Majesty's Government would, at the earliest possible date, engage themselves in a comprehensive measure for dealing with the whole of this important subject.