30 MAY 1885, Page 4

TOPICS OF THE DAY.

THE RADICALS AND IRELAND.

WE suppose we are bound to believe that there really has been a grave difference of opinion in the Cabinet as to the renewal of the provisions of the Irish Crimes Act. The amount of testimony on the subject, proceeding from quarters where it is hardly possible that there were not the best means of knowing the truth, is considerable, while there has been no authoritative contradiction of any kind. At the same time, we do not think that there should have been any reason for so serious a division of opinion ; and we will explain why. That Liberals should ever approve of what may be called "coercive legislation," exceptwhen they are thoroughly convinced that it is essential for the protection of the innocent and the enforcement of justice, is of course impossible. At the same time it seems to us equally impossible that Liberals should ever be willing to let a carnival of crime break out afresh, even though they may have to enforce coercive provisions by way of preventing it. So far as we can judge, the difficulty might be met, and met very efficiently, by the plan we have repeatedly advocated, the plan of asking Parliament to pass a Bill, applicable to all three kingdoms, which would embody the three most useful provisions in the Irish Crimes Act, and which would drop all the others,—we mean the provisions empowering a change of venue and the summoning of special juries wherever the responsible authority had reason to fear that ordinary juries would be under such influences as to prevent them from delivering a perfectly free and unbiassed verdict ; making intimidation an offence of which the Stipendiary Magistrate could dispose summarily, without trial by Jury ; and permitting the examination of witnesses on oath in the case of crimes of which no individual had been as yet accused. If that were done, we are persuaded that the change in the law of England, and the very much slighter change,—if, indeed, there were any change at all, of which we are not sure,—in the law of Scotland, would be a change wholly in the right direction, and that there would be no danger in remitting all the other special provisions in the case of Ireland,—unless, perhaps, it were the power to prohibit public meetings likely to lead to a breach of the peace, a power which, if in Lord Spencer's judgment it is deemed needful, might be embodied in an Act of one or two clauses, which no one could properly describe as a Coercion Act. Even Lord Monteagle, we observe, who has a short paper in the Nineteenth Century on the subject, thinks that the three provisions we have named are far the most important for preventing the return of anarchy in Ireland, and does not seem to attach very much importance to the power of prohibiting public meetings, though he is not clear that there is no necessity for it.

But surely, if our view be correct, there ought not to have been any grave division in the Cabinet on the subject. There is not a Whig in the Cabinet who can wish to humiliate Ireland by specially coercive provisions which have not proved essential to the peace of the country. There is not a Radical in it who can make light of the danger that if the Crimes Act be simply allowed to drop, we may find the autumn and winter of 1885 repeating for us the horrors of the autumn and winter of 1881. We cannot believe for a moment that the most conservative-minded member of the Cabinet,—say, for instance, as the matter relates to Ireland, on which he is likely to feel a deep horror of anything like premature relaxation of precautionary measures,—Lord Hartington, would wish to keep those provisions of the Irish Crimes Act to which the Government have hardly ever resorted. Nor do we believe that the most Radical member of the Cabinet—say, for instance, Sir Charles Dilke—would be disposed to take upon himself the responsibility of refusing to so sagacious and moderate a man as Lord Spencer any special provision which, in the LordLieutenant's belief, is really necessary to secure the country against a relapse into crime. We find it very difficult to think either, on the one hand, that Lord Spencer asks for the renewal of genuinely coercive provisions in Ireland which have been practically found of little or no use, or that either Sir Charles Dilke or Mr. Chamberlain would be disposed to refuse the concession to him of any special power which, not being needful for the suppression of crime in Great Britain, is still regarded by so unprejudiced a judge as Lord Spencer, essential to the peace of Ireland. After all, there can be no liberty without the effectual protection of peaceful citizens from outrage ; and Libprals are as much bound to support a cautious Administration in protecting the innocent from violence, as they are to abolish useless and cruel fetters on individual discretion. Surely it would be easy,—and if easy most desirable,—to apply to all three kingdoms those provisions of the Irish Crimes Act which have proved most efficient in preserving order, and for the want of which we in England have failed to detect the authors of very serious crimes. And surely if that were done there would remain very little necessity for exceptional legislation for Ireland, and that little ought.to be at once accorded to Lord Spencer, if he, on his own responsibility, declares his belief that without it there may be a new outbreak of violence there. It seems to us folly to say that we ought always to wait for the evidence that repressive legislation is necessary, and never to adopt it as a precaution. If that were so, the Irish Irreconcileables might have maintained,—and we believe did maintain in 1882,— that the rush of crime which had broken out so suddenly would die away as suddenly as it had broken out, without exceptional precautions. All legislation of this kind must be more or less precautionary. Even in the midst of exceptional crime it is open to any one to maintain that though it has lasted month after month, it will disappear in a day. Lord Spencer knows, what English politicians cannot know, how far the change of venue, the summoning of Special Juries, the punishment of intimidation summarily by the Magistrates, and the examination of witnesses where no person had been accused of the crime, have suddenly pacified regions where crime was chronic; he has seen from day to day the operation of these provisions ; he has had to deal with the actual collisions between Nationalists and Orangemen, and knows exactly how much cause for regret he has had when a meeting had not been prohibited concerning which he had been in doubt; he can judge far better than any of us whether peace and order will suffer, and will suffer increasingly, from the loss of the Crimes Act. Hence it seems to us, we confess, a very grave and a very unwise exercise of responsibility, to give notice that in the absence of special crime in Ireland the renewal of any of these precautions against crime will be resisted. We dislike as much as any one can dislike exceptional laws for the prevention of crime, especially if they endanger the liberty of those who are not criminals. But we dislike still more the chronic impunity of crime, and believe that it involves far greater grievances to quiet and honest citizens. That is why we wish to see England armed,—as Scotland is already armed, —with some of the better provisions of the Irish Crimes Act. And if there be in Ireland a much greater danger of violence under specially existing circumstances than there is in either England or Scotland, we hold that no Government would be justified in not asking for exceptional powers to guard against the occurrence of those specially existing circumstances.

Looking, then, to the actual facts of the case, at the absolute uselessness of the most objectionable provision in the Irish Crimes Act, at the very slight use made of many very stringent provisions, at the urgent need of England for some of the most useful and least objectionable of these provisions, and at the confidence which all reasonable men feel in Lord Spencer's courage, moderation, and sympathy with Irish feeling,—we do hold that there ought to be no room for a serious divergence of opinion in the Cabinet, and certainly no excuse for anything like a disagreement between its members at so critical a moment as this.