anarchy and misrule which required the most urgent and vigorous remedies. The duty of the Government was plain, but Mr. Gladstone could not discharge it plainly. Lord Hartington gave notice of a motion for a Secret Committee, but when the day arrived the Government had been frightened into making the secrecy optional.

Confessing the feelings of painful dismay with which he rose to move for a committee to inquire into "a certain unlawful combination and confederacy" existing in Westmeath and adjoining parts of Meath and King's County, Lord Hartington hastened to explain that the state of things in this quarter was no criterion of the general condition of Ireland. The prevalence of crime in Ireland during the last winter and spring had subsided, and the records of the assizes as well as the constabulary reports showed a marked improvement. He did not ask that this result should be credited to the remedial legislation of the Government, nor did he ignore the unusually large powers for dealing with crime bestowed on the Government by the Peace Preservation Act. The Government had used both the ordinary and extraordinary powers of the law with vigour, firmness, and decision; but while their efforts had been generally successful, Westmeath and the parts immediately adjacent offered a melancholy exception; and of this region he drew a terrible picture:-"In 1869 there were two murders and two attempts to murder in Westmeath; in 1870 there were four murders and seven attempts; there were during the past winter three murders and two attempts; and in January of this and in January of this year there occurred one further attempt to murder. In King's County there were in 1869 one murder and one attempt to murder, in 1870 two attempts, and in January 1871 one attempt. In Meath, I am happy to say, there have been no serious crimes. But I have reason to suppose that part of Meath is as much subject to the Riband conspiracy as any part of Westmeath or King's County. All these acts of violence are, we have reason to believe, the work of the Riband Society. The reports which we receive show that such a state of terrorism prevails that the society has only to issue its edict to secure obedience; nor has it even to issue its edict; its laws are so well known, and an infringement of them is followed so regularly by murderous outrage, that few indeed can treat them with defiance. Riband law and not the law of the land appears to be that which is obeyed. It exerts such power that no landlord dare exercise the commonest rights of property; no farmer or other employer dare exercise his own judgment or discretion as to whom he shall employ; in fact, so far does the influence of the society extend that a man scarcely dare enter into open competition in the fairs or markets with any one known to belong to the society." This reign of terror was not due to any remissness on the part of the Government. They had exercised the extreme powers of the law. The police force had been strengthened at the expense of the district, patrols established, detectives employed, and numerous arrests made. Some of

40]

the worst characters had been almost constantly watched, but so perfect was the organization of the conspiracy that the Riband leaders could concert measures and project a scheme of retaliation by the meeting of two or three men in the road or in the middle of a fair. Loud Opposition cheers emphasized the marquis's declaration that this state of things was altogether intolerable, and that it must not be dealt with in haste and panic, for there had been "quite enough of hasty legislation." They did not ask for a committee to provide them with a remedy; it was their own duty to do that. A committee was wanted only in order to secure a thorough investigation of the case, and to satisfy the House that when the Government asked for any further powers, their demand was justified by necessity. He held that the House would be evading the responsibility which properly fell to it, if they were to accept the word of any Minister on such a matter without inquiry. It had in the first instance been thought desirable that the committee should have the power of giving gentlemen who might be willing to be examined the protection of secrecy; but he confessed that the precedents of such years as 1812 and 1818 were not derived from the best periods of our history, and the Government were quite willing to leave the question of secrecy to be determined in the event of the committee applying for it. As to the general propriety of such an inquiry, he referred to the precedent of 1852, when Attorney-General Napier obtained a similar committee in regard to Armagh, Monaghan, and Louth. That the recent legislation of the Government had not put a stop to Ribandism was argument against such legislation. He certainly did not appear in the white sheet of a penitent, or admit that his proposal involved any confession of failure on the part of the Government.

his

Contrasting the opening and the closing sentences of the marquis's speech, Mr. Disraeli remarked that his "dismay," however natural when viewing the result of two years of constant legislation, was not consistent with the assurance that there was nothing in the present state of Ireland which was not to be expected. If that were the case, why should the noble lord be dismayed? He should have He should have come forward not as a plucked up courage. daunted, but rather as a triumphant Minister. He should have said, "It is true that murder is perpetrated with impunity; it is true that life is not secure, and that property has no enjoyment and scarcely any existence; but this is nothing when in the enjoyment of abstract political justice—and by the labours of two years we have achieved that for Ireland; massacres, incendiarism, and assassinations are things scarcely to be noticed by a Minister, and are rather to be referred to the inquiry of a committee." But this committee, it was now announced, was not to be secret, and was not to devise means for remedying these evils. Under the Act of last year the Government had already much greater powers than any parliamentary committee possessed, and the House would support

them in any demand for further authority if they required it. But as for a committee on such a matter, there was one always in existence, and that was the Cabinet, who had the best information, and whose business it was to act upon it. In his distress the Chief Secretary must needs dig up the poor, weak Government of 1852, and cite Mr. Napier's committee. "If," said Mr. Disraeli, amid loud and renewed cheers, "I had had a majority of 100 behind my back, I would not have moved for that committee." But how stood the case now? The First Minister persuaded the country that with regard to Ireland he had the philosopher's stone in his pocket, and was accordingly returned with an immense parliamentary majority. Had any thing been grudged him? Time, labour, devotion, whatever had been demanded, had been accorded, whatever had been proposed had been carried. Under his influence and at his instance we had legalized confiscation, we had consecrated sacrilege, we had condoned high treason, we had destroyed churches, we had shaken property to its foundation, and we had emptied gaols; and now he could not govern a county, and he must come to a parliamentary committee. The right hon. gentleman, after all his heroic exploits, and at the head of his great majority, was simply making Government ridiculous.

The leader of the Opposition was vehemently cheered by his party, and a certain excitement pervaded the assembly, while from the Liberal benches Mr. Serjeant Sherlock, resenting the reference to his constituents in King's County in the motion, moved the previous question; and Mr. G. E. Browne, also a Liberal, delivered his maiden speech against the Government. Mr. Downing also opposed the motion for a committee. The only members on that side (not in the Government) who supported it were Mr. Gregory, who refused to believe that party spirit, however strong, would lead any member of the House to tamper with assassination, and Mr. Agar-Ellis.

Mr. Hardy taunted the Irish Secretary with having to take out of the fire the chestnuts which were too hot for his predecessor's fingers. Fastening on a statement by Mr. Gregory that the contrivers and perpetrators of these outrages were perfectly well known to the police, he denounced the wanton delay and cruel mockery of a committee in dealing with such a state of things. If they would only suspend the Habeas Corpus Act they could to-morrow lay hands on the authors and instigators of these crimes. He felt so strongly upon this question that if the Government would only do something, he would even-although he thought it was cowardly and dishonourable for them to ask for it-give them their committee. As it was, the Government was only making itself contemptible.

Mr. Hardy's vigorous attack called up Mr. Chichester Fortescue, who insisted, amid loud cries of "Oh," that Ireland was never so prosperous, so calm, so contented and prosperous and loyal as at this moment, though he knew there were some members who hoped

for the failure of the measures that had been passed. He appealed to the Opposition not to be misled either by the passionate and genuine partisanship of Mr. Hardy or the more calculating partisanship of their leader.

Lord Sandon opposed the committee, and after an adjournment the debate was resumed by Colonel W. Patten, who adopted a studious moderation of tone, and not abandoning the hope that the Government might yet be induced to withdraw this motion, abstained from imputing to them any improper motives. He professed himself ready to give the Government all means necessary for the repression of crime; but, amid expressions of approval from both sides of the House, implored the Prime Minister to adopt a course which was still open to him to take with honour, and to withdraw this proposal.

Mr. Gladstone, while admiring the moderation of tone displayed by the hon. member for North Lancashire (Colonel W. Patten) felt compelled to characterize his recommendation as one which the Government could not, consistently with their sense of public duty, adopt. Referring to the speeches of Mr. Hardy and Mr. Disraeli, the right hon. gentleman described them as highly coloured by party feeling; and, attributing to Mr. Hardy the impression that forcible language meant forcible ideas, congratulated himself that Mr. Disraeli's assertion, that under his influence the Government had legalized confiscation and consecrated sacrilege, was more moderate than his declaration in 1868, that the disestablishment of the Irish Church would be equivalent to a foreign conquest. This committee was asked for by the Government to assist them in the full elucidation and establishment of facts; and if it was necessary to the protection of individuals, they would not shrink from asking the House for authority to restrain not only the publication of evidence, but the entry of members into the committee-room. The necessity for the committee arose in great part from the fact that they desired to prove not only acts that were done but acts that were not done, and to show how the system of terrorism was applied to all the transactions of private life. This information could not be communicated merely upon the authority of the officers of the Government, and they expected to obtain valuable information from persons who were accurately informed, but who would not venture to give evidence unless they were protected against its publicity. He reproached Mr. Disraeli for the admission that in the year 1852 he did not adopt the means which he believed most suitable for the protection of life and property in three counties of Ireland, because his Government was weak; that because he sat on the Treasury Bench, and wanted to sit there, he did not propose the measures which the situation demanded, and this was the most successful "hit" in his speech. Upon the question of precedent, he did not shrink from citing the instances of 1812, 1817, and 1818. And in answer to the argument that those were "bad times," he replied that their badness consisted in the fact that the House of Commons was

subservient to the Ministry, and that the Government did not sufficiently confide in the House. The appointments of those committees were therefore exceptions to the badness of the times, and might well be quoted as precedents for this proceeding. The only remedy suggested by his opponents, the right hon. gentleman alleged, was the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act; and, abstaining from any recognition of the necessity for such a measure, which, he pointed out, had never been adopted in the case of ordinary crime,-that was crime against persons, and not against the State, he maintained that it was the duty of the Government to ask the House of Commons to exchange counsel with them, and expressed a confident hope that the present proposal would receive the approval of the reflecting and deliberate judgment of the House.

Mr. Chaplin, who declared the explanation of the Prime Minister to be most unsatisfactory, called attention to the fatal effects of delay in a matter so pressing as the state of Westmeath, and asked who was the guiding spirit that inspired the vacillating policy of the Government.

Sir Robert Peel was very generally cheered in pronouncing the motion to be a gross mistake, and desired somebody to get up from the Treasury Bench, and state in an unmistakable manner-not in vague words, entertaining to listen to, but too vague to understand -whether the committee was to be secret or not. He contrasted the language of the present and late Irish Secretary, and if Mr. Fortescue's description of the condition of Ireland were correct, why should she be held up to the reprobation of Europe as a country teeming with assassination, and only to be dealt with by extraor dinary means. He ridiculed the idea of an inquiry, for which no Irish member, he anticipated, would dare to vote, and could only account for it by some dissension or some under-current in the Cabinet at any rate, he entirely acquitted Lord Hartington of all responsibility for it. Sir Robert went on to indulge in some amusing strictures on the inconsistencies of the Government. I want to point out to the House the position we are in (said the hon. baronet), because the policy of the Government, not only on this question but on a great many others that come before us, exhibits a series of contradictions, of compromises, commissions, and committees that really are most perplexing. ("Hear," and a laugh.) I have been in this House for now a quarter of a century, but I never recollect a Government conducted on such principles before. Every one admits that last year was a session of compromises; this year we have nothing but commissions and committees to inquire into different matters. Last year the Prime Minister announced a policy of complete religious equality and the full development of civil and religious liberty. This year it seems the Minister, under royal authority, supports the spirituality of the Pope, who condemned as heresy these same principles of civil and religious liberty. Then just consider the position of Ireland with regard to the Land Bill. The right hon. gentleman the member for Louth told his