Lord opposite (Lord Aberdare) appeared | being reasonably suspected of treasonas a witness to character, and delivered his testimony with the greatest energy, and conferred all that advantage upon the case for which he was summoned which witnesses to character usually do. But the noble Lord, in exhorting us to believe and accept implicitly the account which he, no doubt, most sincerely gave of these transactions, omitted to think whether that account was itself consistent with the account which we have received from the Government themselves. As I understand the noble Lord, the fact which suddenly flashed upon the Government, and caused them to reverse their previous policy and to release Mr. Parnell, was the discovery that Mr. Parnell, having been hostile to the Land Act, was now favourable to it. I think that is a very sorry comment on the discretion of the Government in the use of the vast powers placed in their hands. Having been given the power of suspending the liberty of the subject and imprisoning Members of Parliament, if it be really true that they shut up a Member of Parliament for nine months because he was hostile to the policy of an Act of Parliament to which they were particularly attached, nothing that any Member of the Opposition ever suggested has conveyed a deeper censure on the action of the Government. And that was the defence made by the noble Lord. But a very different account of the matter was given by the Lord Privy Seal; and though it was ingenious and plausible, I venture to think it was historically weak. The noble Lord represented it to us that Mr. Parnell was released because the "no rent" policy failed. Well, then, I presume he was imprisoned because the "no rent" policy was threatened. As a matter of fact, the "no rent" circular was never issued until Mr. Parnell was safe within the walls of Kilmainham. The noble Lord tells us the state of things was very different in May from what it had been in the previous October, when Mr. Parnell was shut up. But Mr. Parnell was not imprisoned, as the Lord Privy Seal seemed to think, on a Warrant drawn in October for offences committed in October. Mr. Parnell was in Kilmainham on a Warrant that was drawn, I think, on the 12th of April, and he was released early in May. He was imprisoned on a Warrant charging him with able practices. The Act of Parliament had provided for the possibility of a change of circumstances. It had carefully anticipated the contingency that the causes for which a man had been originally incarcerated might, in course of time, disappear, and the justice of the incarceration might no longer be manifest; it had provided that every six months each case should be wholly reconsidered, and, I believe, a new Warrant had to be issued by the Lord Lieutenant in order to continue the incarceration of Mr. Parnell; so it was not for his conduct in October or upon any conclusions formed then that he was further imprisoned; but it was on account of circumstances which presented themselves with complete and absolute vividness to the minds of the Government in the middle of April, that Mr. Parnell was further detained. And the change of circumstances, if change there was, must have occurred between the middle of April and the first few days of May. If that was the case, is it unreasonable to suggest that the real change of circumstances must have been some undertaking, some profession, some compact, that came from Mr. Parnell, and of which we may or may not have all the articles and undertakings? The noble Lord seemed to treat it as a light matter that they should have come to an understanding with Mr. Parnell. It is difficult to find a phrase which, in the minds of noble Lords opposite, will precisely express the conveyance of ideas between their minds and that of Mr. Parnell; they are sure that there were no negotiations; but, at all events, there was information which was mutually exchanged between the parties. They seem to think this a light thing. Has it occurred to them that it is an absolutely new thing in English history? We have had the Habeas Corpus Act suspended again and again in England and in Ireland; but I have never heard of an instance-and I think I can safely defy the production of one-in which a person arrested under a recent Warrant on reasonable suspicion of treasonable practices was released on having announced that he would do his best to stop certain crimes, complicity with which he was not accused of, and that he would follow the Liberal Leaders. This transaction has been compared with the Lichfield House course of their government has this fatal mistake been so strongly manifested as in this unlucky Treaty of Kilmainham; and the justification of my noble Friend for desiring to throw the most brilliant and the clearest light on all the details of this transaction, and to bring forth its true character to the light of day, is that, if it is innocent, its real character cannot be too widely known. The belief which Her Majesty's Government have contrived to impress on the Irish peasantry is not a belief which will hamper fair legislation or hinder their policy alone. The measures of the last two years have so deeply impressed on the minds of all-whether they are loyal to England or the reverse, whether they compact with Mr. O'Connell. That was always thought to be at once a disgraceful and a fruitless transaction; but there is a difference, like light and darkness, between that and the present transaction. Mr. O'Connell was a free and an unaccused man. He bartered Parliamentary support for a promise of legislation and of political patronage, and it was not usually thought the most creditable thing in his career, or in the career of the Government with which he bartered; but there is no comparison in that case with a Government bargaining with a man in prison under their own Warrant, on suspicion of treasonable practices. Much has been said in the present debate about conciliation and the value of conciliatory measures to Ire-approve the policy of the Government or land. I am very far, indeed, from disputing that view or from wishing to adopt any other tone in dealing with the Irish Question. I am fully aware of the enormous superiority of methods of conciliation over methods of coercion, where methods of conciliation can be successfully applied. But, unfortunately, conciliatory legislation and deterrent legislation differ in another most material particular. Conciliatory legislation is infinitely superior; but it depends for its efficacy on the circumstances under which it is used, and on the manner in which it is applied. Deterrent legislation, if vigorous and strong, at least deters, whatever the value of that process may be. But conciliatory legislation only conciliates where there is a full belief on the part of those with whom you are dealing that you are acting on a principle of justice, and not that you are acting on motives of fear. Where there is a suspicion or a strong belief that your conciliatory measures have been extorted from you by the violence which they are meant to put a stop to, all the value of that conciliation is taken away. Now, the peculiarity of the action of Her Majesty's Government has been throughout that they have so contrived their conciliatory measures that, whatever their own motives in their own minds may have been, they have done their very utmost, by the time and the manner of applying those conciliatory measures, to enforce and strengthen the belief that they had been extorted from them by apprehension, and are used by them as a means of buying off outrage and crime. In no transaction in the The Marquess of Salisbury the reverse-that each successive step of concession has been extorted by a constantly rising demand of agitation and of outrage, that for years and generations the impression will remain. It will be a shadow that will fall not only on the path of this Government, but on the path of many future Governments that will succeed it. It will hinder every effort at conciliation. It will make the necessity of coercion again and again a lamentable incident in English policy; and, therefore, the Treaty of Kilmainham-not only of itself, but as the culminating point, and the typical incident of the system on which the Government have proceeded in their legislation towards Ireland-will long be remembered as the cause of constantly-increasing evils in Ireland, and as threatening with serious danger the connection which is of vital importance to both countries. EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in the few words I shall address to your Lordships, I shall begin by saying that I agree with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) in saying that he is glad the noble Marquess below the Gangway (the Marquess of Waterford) has brought on this discussion. It appears to me that this discussion will be of great use, not only in this House, but with the public, in dispelling many of those insinuations which have been made, I am sorry to say, by men in very high stations-insinuations which have absolutely no foundation in fact. The noble Marquess opposite paid a very great compliment to my noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and described his speech, though not with perfect accuracy, as a strong con- portance. Perhaps more than anybody demnation of Her Majesty's Govern ment. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The policy of Her Majesty's Govern ment. EARL GRANVILLE: Of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. My Lords, the noble Earl's speech was certainly not one entirely in favour of Her Majesty's Government, and it condemned certain things which had been done by them; but, at the same time, it repudiated, in the strongest manner, all the principal charges which have been brought, more particularly by the noble Marquess, against Her Majesty's Government. There was one part of the late Lord Lieutenant's speech which the noble Marquess did not like at all, for he devoted about 10 minutes to an elaborate defence of himself because the noble Earl had expressed his regret at the way in which the noble Marquess had introduced a hearsay story which the noble Earl believed to be entirely without foundation. The noble Marquess defended himself by a reference to the unfortunate death of Mr. Burke. We do not complain that Mr. Burke, having done an unofficial act, mentioned it in conversation to a friend; but we do complain that the noble Marquess, with that impulsive feeling which always makes him think any stick is good enough to beat a dog with-when Her Majesty's Government are concernedintroduced this hearsay story into a speech at a moment which all admit is a critical one, and one of great importance, and that, while the noble Marquess does not make any attempt to turn Her Majesty's Government out of power, he does everything he can to tarnish and damage them, and to weaken them in the important task they have to perform. It is precisely because Mr. Burke is dead and cannot contradict the interpretation which has been put upon the story, that we object to it. It is a singular thing, and I hear it from various quarters, that all persons who knew Mr. Burke well think that the condemnation he is said to have given of Mr. Gladstone is quite contrary to his habit of expression and line of thought. The noble Marquess then complained of my noble Friend behind me coming forward as a witness to character. Well, my Lords, I think character is of some im in this House I have lived in close intimacy with public men during the last 30 or 40 years; and, whatever the noble Marquess's experience may have been, I state most positively that I have not known one who did not think it right to apply the rules of private morality also in public life and who would not be utterly ashamed, either for himself or for his Colleagues, to publicly state things which were contrary to the fact. I regret that my noble Friend (the Earl of Dunraven) should have continued that sort of insinuation, asking us to inform ourselves, and find out. We believe that we know all that passed, and we know what passed among ourselves; and when you talk of "compact" I deny it. The noble Earl asked whether Mr. Parnell was aware that the Prevention of Crime Bill was about to be introduced? I answer him Certainly not," for the simple reason that Mr. Parnell was not informed by the Government of one single step, right or left, they meant to take. It was not a question of policy or expediency, but one of common sense. We have such difficult problems to solve in Ireland at this moment, that when information was volunteered to us of an important character we were bound to act upon it according to our light. The noble Earl was astonished at the difference of opinion between us and Mr. Forster. The only difference between us and Mr. Forster was, that Mr. Forster indicated the three modes in which he would have consented to the release. I am very glad to remark that both the noble Marquess and the noble Earl did not really question that it was desirable to release the suspects." The difference between Mr. Forster and ourselves was this-that Mr. Forster wished that the Prevention of Crime Bill should pass, or that we should get a perfectly explicit and public declaration from the "suspects "that would satisfy him. He may have been right or wrong; but it appeared to us that we should by such a course be adopting that very arrangement, that compact with Mr. Parnell, which we succeeded in avoiding. Information was given to us. The noble Earl has spoken of a communication with Mr. Chamberlain as a communication with the Government; but does the noble Earl think it really bears that character? I read Mr. Chamberlain's 66 THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The expression I probably used was that, when properly administered, they had always deterred. letter, and I think it is an excellent | very sorry to bring the House down from letter. But does the noble Earl really the somewhat spicy personalities of the think that there is a compact between last discussion to the prosaic level of a the Government and "suspects" in pri- discussion upon a Scotch Bill. The son, because, in answer to a letter from a nature of the House at this moment does Member of the Liberal Party who has not encourage me to think that any proconstantly supported Her Majesty's Go- tracted statement such as I should have vernment, asking for a more sympathetic thought it perhaps necessary to make treatment of the Irish Members, Mr. under other circumstances would be Chamberlain answered that some re- favourably received at the present mosponsibility rested upon the Irish Mem- ment; and, under these circumstances, I bers not to do that which gives offence shall, with your permission, confine myto the whole of England and Scotland? self to lay before your Lordships, as This is the sort of nonsense which is briefly as possible, the proposals of the talked when we ask for evidence about Government on this somewhat important the Government compact with Kilmain- subject. I would not even have done ham. The noble Marquess has expressed this; I would have postponed the Notice his views about repressive measures and which I have on the Paper, had it not measures of conciliation. He said it was been for the fact of the numerouslya historical fact that deterrent measures signed requisition-signed both by Scotch had always succeeded. Conservatives as well as by Scotch Liberals-which has been presented, asking Her Majesty's Government to bring in, as quickly as possible, a measure which is loudly demanded by the great mass of public opinion of Scotland, and which will be of great advantage. Of course, the whole fabric of entail in Scotland, which has not yet lasted in a legislativo form for two centuries, has been piecemealed and worn away by successive enactments. The last great enactment which dealt with the question in the form of the Act under which we at present exist in Scotland was the Rutherford Act. The Act, while dealing in a stringent manner with entails existing at the passing of the Act, did not in the same way give free trade to persons affected by entail after the passing of the Act. It is with the view of redressing that condition of things that Her Majesty's Government propose to bring in the Bill on the present occasion. They propose, in the first place, to put the heir of an entailed estate made subsequent to the Rutherford Act in the same position as an heir of entail before the passing of that Act. The 3rd clause of the Bill which I propose to lay on the Table provides-"That heirs under new entails may disentail by the same consent as an heir of an old entail"-that is to say, that with the consent of the three next heirs, whoever they may be, the heir of entail in possession will be entitled to disentail his estate. The next provision which is of importance is that under the Entail Act of the year 1875 power was given to force, as it is technically called, the con EARL GRANVILLE: My knowledge of history is not so extensive as that of the noble Marquess, but I am not perfectly certain that his facts in this case are more accurate than some of his information about the Government. I agree with him that measures of conciliation depend upon the mode and time at which they are done. My limited historical recollection brings to mind many measures of conciliation which have lost all their force, all their grace, and all their efficacy in consequence of having been delayed too long. I have only, in conclusion, to say that I am really grateful to the noble Marquess for giving us the opportunity of debating this question. THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD said, that he was not aware that there was no Correspondence on the subject, or he should not have gone on with his Motion. EARL GRANVILLE said, there might be the order for release. The noble Marquess might, no doubt, see that if he wished. Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn. ENTAIL (SCOTLAND) BILL. BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING. THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, in presenting a Bill to amend the Law of Entail in Scotland, said: My Lords, I am Earl Granville sent of two of the next heirs, but not of | Scotland, not merely to the class affected, the nearest heir-that is to say, by paying whom it will, indeed, directly benefit, them the value of their interest in the but it will be a great benefit to the succession, and getting rid of their con- owners of the land, and will benefit the sent. The Bill which I shall submit to occupiers, who will find landlords able your Lordships will go one step further. to effect improvements on their estates It will propose to buy out the interest of which in their present hampered condithe nearest heir, as well as of the two tion they cannot do; and, in the third others, if necessity is shown, and in that place, it will be a boon to the commuway to get rid of the necessity of obtain-nity at large, as promoting that free ciring his consent so long as his interest be compensated. The third and leading provision is this-that the tenant of entail will be enabled to sell the estate which he holds under entail, and to convert the same into money or Consols, to be held under the same trust as the entail of land. With regard to this, it will be lawful for an heir who wishes to sell his estates to apply to the Court of Session for permission, and the Court shall order intimation to be made to the heirs of entail affected by this announcement, and such heirs and creditors shall be en titled to appear for the purpose of seeing that their respective interests are protected; but they shall not be entitled to oppose the application. The next step will be that the Court shall procure a report of the value of the estate, and, unless it shall appear that any pecuniary interest is involved injuriously, they shall have power to order it to be sold. Then there are clauses as to the way in which the money shall be paid into the Court of Session, as if it were paid into the Court of Chancery, and the way in which it may be held under the same trusts as the land is held. There are other minor provisions which enable the heir in possession, or a minor with the consent of his curators, as if he were an heir of entail in possession, and of age, to make this application. There will be also provisions for curators to appear on behalf of persons suffering legal incapacity of another kind. And, lastly, there will be clauses enabling the Court to dispense with the consent of an heir who has been absent from this country for a certain time. We know there are estates in Scotland of which the possessor has been absent 30 or 40 years, and it is thought, under these circumstances, there should be some power to administer without his consent. I shall not further detain your Lordships at this hour of the evening, ex. cept to ask you to give a first reading to this Bill, because I believe it would be a great boon to the community at large in culation of land which is desirable in every country. I beg to ask your Lordships to read the Bill a first time. Bill to amend the law of Entail in Scotland-Presented (The Earl of RoSE BERY). THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY did not wish to criticize the measure, but to make a suggestion. When a Bill such as that presented by the noble Earl contained matters of a complicated character, it was ordinarily accompanied by a memorandum explaining its practical effect, which was drawn up, of course, by a legal gentleman. The difficulty, of course, in this case was that the law large number of Members of the House, was not very clearly understood by a and being a Scotch law it was still less understood. If ever there was a case where a memorandum would be advis able, this was one, although the impression was that the Bill was an inno cent one. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that though there was some speciality in the Scotch law on which it might be well to receive proper information, the more to the power of sale, was really in subimportant part of the Bill, which related stance what was proposed, as to settled estates in England, to be given by his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns) in the Bill now before the House of Commons. THE EARI OF ROSEBERY said, he knew the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had a fancy for memoranda, and on this occasion he would provide him with one. Bill read 1; and to be printed. (No. 115.) PARLIAMENTARY OATHS ACT (1866) A Bill to amend the Parliamentary Oaths Act, House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock. |