(i) The Crimes Prevention Act passed by Gladstone in 1882 had lapsed, having been limited to a period of three years.  Mr. Balfour (who had become Chief Secretary) was of opinion that the continual passing of temporary measures was a mistake (as some one has said, it was like a man burning his umbrella every fine day and then complaining of the expense of buying so many new ones), as was shown by the fact that the Irish Parliament had passed fifty-four of such Acts in the seventeen years of its independent existence.  He therefore, in spite of vehement opposition from the combined forces of the English Radicals and the Irish Nationalists, carried the Crimes Act of 1887, which was a permanent measure, to be put in force in disturbed districts by proclamation when necessary.  This was the famous “Coercion Act” which has been the subject of so much violent denunciation.  But in considering the matter, one must ask, What Government has there ever been in the world that did not employ force in the carrying out of the law?  It is true that in the early days of New Zealand Mr. Busby was sent out as a Commissioner with no means of enforcing his orders; but the only result was that he was laughed at by the natives as “a man-of-war without guns”; and no one can say that the scheme was a success.  In fact, how can a law be a law unless it is enforced?  The Act does not make anything a crime that was not a crime before; it merely provides a shorter form of procedure when a district is so completely terrorized by an illegal association that injured persons dare not make complaints, witnesses dare not give evidence, and juries dare not convict.  This, as we have seen, had been the case in parts of Ireland at the beginning of the rebellion of 1798; and the Nationalists, who claimed to be the modern representatives of the rebels of that time, had succeeded in bringing about the same state of things.  In some of its most stringent provisions the Act is a copy of the Police Act permanently in force in London; yet ordinary residents in the Metropolis do not seem to groan much under its tyranny, nor do the Radicals propose to repeal it.

And certainly the Act has worked satisfactorily from the point of view of those who desire to see the country in a state of peace and prosperity, though disastrously in the opinion of those who aim at making government impossible.  Between July, 1887, when the Act came into force, and the end of the year, 628 persons were prosecuted, of whom 378 were convicted and 37 held to bail.  In 1888 there were 1,475 prosecutions, 907 convictions, and 175 persons required to find bail.  By 1891 (the last full year of Unionist Government) crime had sunk so rapidly that in that year there were only 243 persons prosecuted, of whom 105 were convicted, and 81 held to bail.  In 1901 (when the Unionists were again in power) there were 29 prosecutions and 22 convictions.  In 1902 there was a revival of crime; the Act was again brought into operation, with much the same result as before—­there were 157 prosecutions, 104 convictions, and 17 persons were held to bail.  In 1903 there were 3 prosecutions and 3 convictions.