TORY OLIVE-BRANCH TO IRELAND (1885).

=Source.=--_Hansard_, Third Series, vol. 298, col. 1658. (House of

Lords, July 6, 1885.)

THE LORD-LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (THE EARL OF CARNARVON): My Lords,

my noble friend [Lord Salisbury] has desired that I should state to

your Lordships the general position that Her Majesty's Government

are prepared to occupy with regard to Irish affairs, and I hope

to do so in comparatively few sentences. I need not tell your

Lordships what everyone in this House knows, the nature of the

events which have brought us to the present position. It will be

perhaps sufficient if, by quoting a few figures, I show what the

state of agrarian crime was a few years ago, what it has since

been in the interval, and what it is at the present time. In 1878

agrarian crime in Ireland stood at 301 cases. In the following

year there were 860, and in the three following years--1880, 1881,

and 1882--the cases reached the enormous totals of 2,580, 4,439,

and 3,433 respectively. In 1883, after the Crimes Act had passed,

agrarian crimes fell to 870, and last year to 762. I ought perhaps

to supplement that statement by saying that in 1884 I think that

there was no case of the worst form of agrarian crime. I think that

there was not one case of actual murder, and the calendars promise

to be of a comparatively, if not singularly, light character. The

substance therefore of the statement is that, whereas crime rose

in those three years to an enormous figure, it has since fallen

to what I do not call an absolutely normal level, but to the same

level--in fact, below the level of 1879. In these circumstances the

question has naturally arisen--what Her Majesty's Government are

to do; and it is impossible to conceive a graver or more serious

matter on which to deliberate. Within a very short time--indeed,

within a time to be numbered by weeks--the Crimes Act expires, and

the question is, What course should be taken? Three courses are

possible. Either you may re-enact the Crimes Act in the whole,

or you may re-enact it in part, or you may allow it to lapse

altogether. I think very few persons would be disposed to advocate

its re-enactment as a whole. The more serious and practical

question is whether it shall be re-enacted in part. The Act having

produced, as all agree, its effect, and three years having lapsed,

it seems hard to call on Parliament once more to re-enact it.

I believe for my part that special legislation of this sort is

inexpedient. It is inexpedient while it is in operation, because

it must conjure up a sense of restlessness and irritation; and

it is still more inexpedient when it has to be renewed at short

intervals, and brings before the mind of the people of the country

that they are to be kept under peculiar and exceptional coercion.

Now I have looked through a good many of the Acts that have been

passed, I may say, during the last generation for Ireland, and

I have been astonished to find that ever since the year 1847,

with some very short intervals which are hardly worth mentioning,

Ireland has lived under exceptional and coercive legislation.

No sane man can admit that this is a satisfactory or wholesome

state of things. It does seem to me that it is very desirable,

if possible, to extricate ourselves from this miserable habit,

and to aim at some wholesome and better solution. But, more than

being undesirable, I hold that such legislation is practically

impossible, if it is to be continually and indefinitely re-enacted.

I think it was Count Cavour who said that it is easy to govern in

a state of siege. It may be easy to govern in a state of siege

for a time, but to attempt to govern permanently is, I believe,

utterly impossible. It may be said that this is a question of

trust. No doubt it is a question of trust; but trust begets trust,

and it is after all the only foundation upon which we can hope

to build up amity and concord between the two nations. I know of

nothing more sad than to see how, instead of diminishing under

the healing process of time, there has been a growth of ill-will

between these two nations; and I think it is time to try how far we

may appeal to better feelings. I for my part believe that Ireland

will justify the confidence which is shown her when this Act is

allowed to lapse. If I am asked further as to policy, I will speak

generally in these terms. So far as the mere administration of the

law is concerned, it is our hope and intention to administer the

ordinary law firmly and effectually. So far as the larger field of

Government, which includes law, and more than law, is concerned,

I hope we shall deal justly, and that we shall secure perhaps a

somewhat better, wholesomer, and kindlier relation, I will not

say merely between classes, creeds, or races, but between the

rulers and the ruled. I cannot and will not lightly believe that

the combination of good feeling to England and good government

to Ireland is a hopeless task. My Lords, I do not believe that

with honesty and single-mindedness of purpose on the one side,

and with the willingness of the Irish people on the other, it is

hopeless to look for some satisfactory solution of this terrible

question. My Lords, these I believe to be the views and opinions

of my colleagues. And just as I have seen in English colonies

across the sea a combination of English, Irish, and Scotch settlers

bound together in loyal obedience to the law and the Crown, and

contributing to the general prosperity of the country, so I cannot

conceive that there is any irreconcilable bar here in their native

home and in England to the unity and amity of the two nations.

Imperialism and Mr. Gladstone (1876-1887) · 第 96 / 117 题