LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
MR. RUSSELL AND THE CRIMES PREVENTION (IRELAND) BILL.
[To TRH EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."] [To TRH EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."] SIE,—Permit me to make a brief rejoinder to your note on my last week's letter. You speak of the clause which conferred the unrestricted right of search as one "which Mr. Forster had, we suppose, approved, and which Lord Spencer never approved."
Mr. Forster's resignation was announced on May 2nd, and a Dill for the better prevention of crime was promised on the same day. The Bill was not brought in till May 11th. We therefore have no reason to suppose that Mr. Forster ever saw the Bill draughted, or was consulted about its provisions, much less that he approved of this particular clause. On the contrary, he spoke and voted against it on the report. On the other hand, Lord Spencer was certainly a member of the Cabinet which approved of this clause, and most probably was Viceroy of Ireland before a line of the Bill was drawn. And we have, as far as I am aware, no reason to'suppose that be was one of those who individually objected to the insertion of the disputed clause. All we know is that by June 20th he was prepared. to surrender it ; but we can scarcely suppose that if he had originally thought, with you, that it "would cause much more rebellious feeling than the search in guilty households would cause fear and detection," he would ever have consented to its introduction into a Bill which he, and not Mr. Forster, helped to frame, and which he, and not Mr. Forster, had to administer.—I am, Sir, Howe of Commons, July 27th. GEORGE W. E. RUsSELL.
[Mr. Russell's letter did not reach us till late on the Friday afternoon of last week, too late for our issue of that week. We were quite aware of the dates. But we believed that the Bill had been prepared and considered by the Cabinet, before Mr. Forster's resignation. That may be an error. There was, however, nothing at all in Mr. Forster's own language concerning the .clause to correct the impression that, had. he been in office, he
would have desired that clause. He based his objection to it exclusively on the ground that the then Executive did not deiire it.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
