Though fully aware that I have no call to speak on a question of party tactics, I may perhaps be allowed, as one who has lived in one of the most disturbed counties through these troublous times, to offer an opinion as to the principles on which such legislation should be based. Perhaps it can hardly be treated as a foregone conclusion that the ordinary law requires reinforcement or modification, though I do not know that any responsible statesman has gone so far as to state the contrary. But it is hinted not obscurely, in more than one quarter, that the latter is the true policy. It is after all the first question that meets us, and one brilliant example of the success of such an experiment is sometimes quoted as decisive. From 1835 to 1840, under the Government of Lord Melbourne, Ireland was administered without any exceptional legislation, but with marked success, and in strong contrast to the previous period of Lord Grey's ministry, when agrarian crime was rampant under a stringent Coercion Act. If the ordinary law was sufficient in 1835, why not also in 1885 ? The essential differences between the two situations seem to be these: First and foremost, there was practically no systematic agitation between 1835 and 1840. 2 There is a remarkable correspondence between O'Connell, Lord Meath, and Lord Cloncurry, in January 1831, just before the final scenes of the Tithe War, in which O'Connell professes his alarm at the state of the country, and his anxiety to find a modus vivendi with the Government, which would enable him to stop all agitation, and join Lord Grey in promoting Reform and the redress of Irish grievances, exclusive of Repeal. The letters almost read like extracts from more recent negotiations. But, like the latter, they were abortive, and O'Connell resumed his agitation, the result being a stringent Coercion Act on the one hand, and the Tithe Commutation Act on the other. The perusal of these letters leaves no doubt on one's mind that O'Connell was fully aware what edged tools he was playing with in his agitation, and that he was occasionally visited by scruples as to the means he employed. But in 1835 the Tithe difficulty was settled, Catholic Emancipation and Reform were both passed, and O'Connell determined to give the Whig Government a chance. And fortunately for them he had the power as well as the will. He could not only call spirits from the vasty deep of Irish disaffection; not only did they come when he called, but they also returned whence they came at his words. Can anyone count on Mr. Parnell's exercising similar influence? Is it not notorious that on the one occasion when he endeavoured to Written before Mr. Morley's notice was given on the 21st of May. 2 Cloncurry's Recollections, pp. 424–8. assert such a power, after the Phoenix Park murders, the chief result was to endanger his own person and expose him to the disapproval of his own family? Who can now guarantee that, in the event of a relaxation of the criminal law, agitation and agrarian crime will be effectually discouraged? If such a result can be effected now, why was it not effected in 1880 ? 3 But the ordinary law had another signal advantage in 1835 besides the goodwill of O'Connell (which, experience proved to Lord Melbourne, was in other respects rather a doubtful advantage). The Government had the good fortune to secure an Under-Secretary of rare administrative power, and still rarer powers of sympathy, in Thomas Drummond. Drummond was virtually the ruler of the country. He reorganised the police; he infused new life into the magistracy by the introduction of the stipendiary element and resolutely excluding party spirit from the bench. At the same time he showed an interest in the material development of the country which would have produced positive good (and not merely prevented mischief) if the Tory party had not overthrown his schemes.1 But there is even yet another difference. Drummond was not subjected to the ceaseless and microscopic criticism of Parliament. The ordinary law even now might effect much more than it does, but that magistrates and Government officers generally are afraid to take the responsibility of independent action. The centralised system of the constabulary resulted in everything being referred through the various grades to headquarters in Dublin, and a similar control has generally been exercised over the resident magistrates. When Parliament exercises constant and minute inspection of every act of administration, the Government not unnaturally wish to have precise legislative instructions what they are to do. I believe that a less rigid system would work better, but it could only be by giving a larger discretion and more responsibility to those on the spot. We must remember also that the Jury Laws have been revolutionised since those days by Lord O'Hagan's Act, and though no one proposes to reverse the policy of that Act, it was universally admitted before Lord Lansdowne's Committee that some modification was required in times of public excitement and agrarian agitation. On the whole, then, it seems quite impossible to reason from the analogy of 1835 to the present time, or to maintain that no modification of the criminal law is ever to be proposed. But, if this be admitted, are there any principles to guide us as to the nature of the change? 3 On the Queen's accession O'Connell wrote a letter to the Irish people full of praise of Lord Melbourne's Government. Lord Melbourne's remark was, 'His love is only less injurious than his enmity. Such letters from him do us harm in EnglandI know not whether they do us good in Ireland.'—Torrens's Melbourne, vol. ii. p. 240.) Lord Morpeth's Railway Bill, 1839. From the Liberal point of view, three principles naturally suggest themselves. First, to demand only what is really essential, and nothing merely because it may be useful or convenient to the authorities. Second, to avoid temporary measures of exceptional severity. Third, to seek when possible a remedy which may be applicable to the United Kingdom and not to Ireland alone. Coming to particulars, the Act divides itself roughly into five parts. 1. Trial by a commission of judges instead of a jury. 2. Special juries and change of venue. 3. Summary jurisdiction in cases of intimidation, &c. Nobody is likely to propose to re-enact (1), which has never been resorted to. And it is the opinion of many competent and experienced persons that, even if it was necessary to dispense with juries, it would be better to appoint a special tribunal ad hoc outside the judicial bench. The newspaper clause is not likely to be insisted on; if we were seriously to attempt to regulate the teachings of the press some much more summary power would be necessary, such as the seizure of plant, &c., which was effected, I think, in 1866. Public meetings are a more difficult matter, and if Lord Spencer thinks it important to retain the power of preventing them, it could hardly be refused after the experience of 1880-1, though I confess I should infinitely prefer permitting meetings (unless immediately dangerous to public peace or to the safety of individuals) and prosecuting speakers who incited to intimidation. The police and murder taxes are relied upon most confidently by some, and have no doubt proved a most effective deterrent in certain cases where all the holdings are small. But where there is any admixture of large farms on the one hand and labourers without land on the other the tax (at best but rough and ready justice) is apt to work absolute injustice. Unfortunately you must start with the assumption that peaceably-disposed citizens must be protected and will not protect themselves, and any instrument by which you may hope to drive them into supporting law and order will often break in your hand. It would, I am satisfied, be most dangerous to rely much on such provisions. The provisions as to special juries and change of venue I understand exist in principle under the common law both in England and Ireland, and it is inconceivable how any objection can be maintained to these being made operative, nor can I see why they should not be extended to the United Kingdom as a permanent amendment of the law. As regards venue, no one can argue that a man has a constitutional right to be tried by those of his own county or parish; it might next be demanded that the jury should consist of his nearest relations. And as to the selection of jurors, the practice most objected to by Mr. Parnell and his friends is the ancient common law right of the Crown to challenge jurors or make them stand by,' which has nothing whatever to do with the Crimes Act, and which corresponds to the prisoner's absolute right of challenge, both being common to England and Ireland. The power to examine witnesses without a defendant being charged is another provision which has been recommended by high authorities in England as a permanent amendment of the law of the United Kingdom. The discovery of the Phoenix Park murderers would have been impossible without this clause, which embodies one of the leading principles of the procedure specially provided for the investigation of the Sheffield Trades Union outrages. But perhaps not the least important clause is that giving a summary jurisdiction in cases of intimidation, &c., while at the same time it is one almost less open to objection than any other in the bill. It is in fact merely an extension of the summary jurisdiction of resident magistrates, specially fenced round with safeguards for protecting the accused, and I never remember to have heard of any specific complaint being made in Parliament of the way in which the power has been exercised. Cases under it can only be dealt with by two resident magistrates, one of whom must be of 'sufficient legal knowledge' to satisfy the Lord Lieutenant, and neither of whom may have taken any part in getting up the case for the prosecution. The evidence must be all taken down verbatim in writing, and no penalty exceeding one month can be inflicted without appeal to Quarter Sessions. Can this be called coercion ? The fact is, I am convinced, that none of the three provisions I have last enumerated, namely (2), (3), and (4), can by any possibility press unduly on peaceful well-disposed citizens, and if they could only be permanently grafted on the existing law, the violent oscillations of the last few years might be avoided in the future. But I fear it may be said that any permanent settlement is impossible at the present juncture. A moribund, not to say a decrepit, Parliament longs to end its days in peace. Vain hope! From such responsibilities there is no escape, and if you fly from them they will spare you neither here nor hereafter, nor cease to haunt you because they pursue your successors. MONTEAGLE. The Editor of THE NINETEENTH CENTURY cannot undertake to return unaccepted MSS. INDEX TO VOL. XVII. The titles of articles are printed in italics. A CTON (Lord), George Eliot's Life, | Aryan literature, ancient, illustrative of 464-485 Actor's Calling, the, 521-526 Air, imperfect view of objects through Alcohol, influence of, on brain-work, primitive civilisation, 124-126 Asia, Central, the Russian Advance in, Asia, Central, history of Russian con- Alcoholic drink, injurious effects of, 777 BADG Alexander I. of Russia, his government America, Indian population of, see America, Locusts and Farmers of, 133- America, a Word more about, 219–236 Americans, love of poetry and fiction Amoeba, life-history of the, 827-828 - suggested mission of, to the Mahdi, Archer (William), The Duties of Dra- Argyll (Duke of) on savage races, 121- ADGHEIS, a dependency of Herat, Balmer (R.), Whispering Machines, Batoum, importance of, to Russia, 575- Bavaria, tenure of house property in, Beresford ghost story, the, 630-631 speed of the, 107 Bigamy, punishment of, 762 Bogle's lawsuit against the 'Times,' 56- Boiler-inspection legislation, impolicy Bokhara, Russian conquest of, 27 Bowen-Jones (J.), A Farm that really Brabazon (Lord) on State-directed Broadhurst (Henry), Leasehold Enfran- |