§ The QUEEN'S SPEECH reported by The LORD CHANCELLOR.
THE EARL OF FINGALLMy Lords, in rising to move an humble Address in answer to the Speech of Her Most Gracious Majesty, I have to ask that indulgence which your Lordships never refuse to one so young and wholly inexperienced in Parliamentary life as I am.
Your Lordships will have heard, with unqualified satisfaction, the announcement of the proposed marriage of His Royal Highness Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, with Her Serene Highness 9 Princess Helena of Waldeck and Pyrmont. A union which promises so much happiness cannot fail to win universal favour. And I feel certain that your Lordships will gladly avail yourselves of your privilege to be the first to present to Her Most Gracious Majesty and the Royal Family your respectful and most sincere congratulations on an event so pleasing to Her Majesty.
I am sure that it will have given your Lordships much pleasure to have heard that the long and difficult negotiations respecting the boundary between Greece and Turkey have been successfully concluded, and I think that your Lordships will all unite in the hope that the fine territory recently ceded to Greece may prosper under the government of its new rulers.
Owing to the great importance of British interests in Egypt, I think your Lordships will be all of opinion that the rights which England has in that country should be maintained.
My Lords, we must all regret that the negotiations for a Commercial Treaty with France have not so far proved successful. But we all, without distinction of Party, I am sure, would see with pleasure a satisfactory settlement of the matters in controversy, so that there should be nothing to interrupt the intimate relations of trade which have now for many years subsisted between us and our nearest neighbours.
Having now briefly touched upon a variety of topics, I feel less diffidence in referring to that country to which it is my lot to belong, and with whose affairs I am most concerned. Her Majesty's Speech deals with Ireland in a hopeful tone. My Lords, there is hope. Of course, throughout large districts Ireland is in a most unsettled state; but even in these districts there are signs of improvement. There is a decrease in crime, evidence is more freely given, and the verdicts of the juries show that the farmers, who are themselves the principal sufferers from the outrages that are committed, are growing weary of the intimidation which they have so long endured. Law is steadily, if slowly, perhaps, asserting itself over violence and disorder, confidence appears to be somewhat reviving, and rents are beginning to be more generally paid. Besides, we may hope much from the influence of the Land Act, an excep- 10 tional but, I believe, necessary measure, without which the country would now be in a much more turbulent state than it actually is. As yet the Act has only been a few months in operation; but, when it comes to be more fully understood, the increased value which it gives to the property of the tenant must tend to withdraw him from the ranks of the disaffected, as the result of further agitation would be to put in peril his newly acquired interest. But, my Lords, there are other districts which have been throughout, and still are, in a more fortunate condition. For instance, in the county of Meath, in which it is my good fortune to reside, matters have always been tolerably satisfactory. Landlords and tenants go about their business or their amusements as they did in former and happier times. In very many instances the old good relations between landlords and tenants have continued undisturbed. Of course, even here I must allow that there have been exceptions to this state of quiet which all must most sincerely regret. My Lords, my own belief is that a very large majority of the tenants of Ireland are peaceably and quietly disposed, and would be generally willing and ready to meet their obligations; but, unfortunately, many of them allow themselves to be carried away by a small but violent minority supported chiefly from abroad. But I trust, my Lords, that the day is not far distant when the well-disposed majority will prevail, when order will be restored, and precautionary measures will become unnecessary. My fervent hope is that Ireland, at length allowed to be at rest, may enjoy a long period of prosperity and contentment. I should ill deserve the indulgence which your Lordships have extended to me if I were to trespass further on your patience. I beg to move an humble Address in answer to the Speech of Her Most Gracious Majesty as follows:—
§ "MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
§ "WE, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
§ "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty has given your approval to a marriage between your son Prince 11 Leopold, Duke of Albany, and Her Serene Highness Princess Helen of Waldeck and Pyrmont, and that Your Majesty has every reason to believe that this will he a happy union.
§ "We rejoice to hear that Your Majesty continues in relations of cordial harmony with all foreign Powers.
§ "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that the Treaty for the cession of Thessaly to the Greek Kingdom has now been executed in its main provisions, and that the transfer of sovereignty and of occupation was effected in a manner honourable to all concerned.
§ "We thank Your Majesty for informing as that, in concert with the President of the French Republic, Your Majesty has given careful attention to the affairs of Egypt, and that Your Majesty will use your influence to maintain the rights already established, whether by the Firmans of the Sultan or by various international engagements, in a spirit favourable to the good government of the country and the prudent development of its institutions.
§ "We learn with pleasure that the restoration of peace beyond the North-Western Frontier, together with continued internal tranquillity, plentiful seasons, and increase of the revenue, has enabled Your Majesty's Government in India to resume works of public utility which had been suspended, and to devote its attention to measures for the further improvement of the condition of the people.
§ "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that the Convention with the Transvaal has been ratified by the Representative Assembly; and that Your Majesty has seen no reason to qualify your anticipations of its advantageous working.
§ "We share Your Majesty's regret that, although hostilities have not been renewed in Basutoland, the country still remains in an unsettled condition.
§ "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty's communications with France on the subject of a new Commercial Treaty have not been closed, and that they will be prosecuted by Your Majesty with a desire to conclude a Treaty favourable to extended intercourse between the two nations.
§ "We rejoice to learn that the trade of the country, both domestic and foreign, has for some time been improving, and that better prospects are opened for the classes immediately concerned in agriculture, although the public revenue has not yet exhibited an upward movement in proportion to the increased activity of industry and commerce.
12§ "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that the condition of Ireland exhibits signs of improvement; that justice has been administered with greater efficacy; and that the intimidation which has been employed to deter occupiers of land from fulfilling their obligations and from availing themselves of the Act of last Session shows upon the whole a diminished force.
§ "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that we shall be invited to deal with proposals for the establishment in the English and Welsh Counties of Local Self-Government, together with financial changes applying to the whole of Great Britain; that a measure will be submitted to us for the reform of the ancient and distinguished Corporation of London, and the extension of Municipal Government to the metropolis at large, and that measures will again be laid before us concerning Bankruptcy, the repression of Corrupt Practices at Elections, and the Conservancy of Rivers and Prevention of Floods.
§ "We humbly assure Your Majesty that our careful consideration shall be given to these measures and others which may be proposed to us, and we earnestly trust that the blessing of God will attend and guide our deliberations."
§ LORD WENLOCK ,in rising to second the Motion for an Address, said: My Lords, I have to claim the same kind indulgence as my noble Friend who has so ably moved it (the Earl of Fingall), as it is the first time I have risen to address your Lordships.
My noble Friend has alluded with great satisfaction to the first part of the Speech, and I cannot but echo the expression of respectful congratulations which has fallen from him as to Prince Leopold's marriage.
I concur, also, with the hope expressed by my noble Friend that the complicated affairs of Egypt may be quietly settled by the maintenance of existing arrangements and the success of the delicate and difficult negotiations that are now pending.
As regards our own Colonies and Dependencies, we are glad to hear nothing but tidings of peace from India, where troubles so lately prevailed. When Parliament separated, Afghanistan was the scene of civil war. Abdurrahman, whose authority had been recognized by the British Government, was face to face with his rival and foe, Ayoob Khan, who was in possession of Herat, had defeated 13 the forces of the Ameer at Candahar, and was threatening even Cabul. Since that time, Abdurrahman, who has displayed administrative and military capacity of a high order, has defeated and overthrown those hostile tribes who adhered to Ayoob Khan, has by a succession of defeats driven him into Persia, and has established his authority over the whole of Afghanistan. Throughout these transactions Abdurrahman has shown himself to be anxious to be on friendly relations with the British Government. He has intimated to the British authorities, by a special Envoy to Simla, that he desires to visit the Viceroy of India; there is no reason to doubt that his wish may be gratified; and, whatever Treaty or arrangements may be entered into, it is not likely that anything will occur to disturb our friendly relations. A great deal of these results is undoubtedly owing to the wise policy of withdrawing the British troops from the neighbourhood of Candahar. Physically, the presence of a large body of British troops divided the country of Afghanistan into two portions, so that it was hardly possible for one established authority to exercise control at the different points of Herat and Cabul. Whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the manner in which the policy was carried out, the end which all have in view has finally been acquired. On the North-West Frontier we have a friendly, a strong, and a united State. I believe that there is every prospect of peace and internal tranquillity reigning in Afghanistan, and statesmen of both Parties must hail with satisfaction the fact of this result being arrived at. Again, Her Majesty's Speech conveys to us the information that now the Government of India are able to devote their energies towards the development of the resources of that country. Since the termination of the Afghan War there have not been such heavy charges on their Exchequer, and they are now able to devote the money formerly applied to the expenses of the war to purposes for which they are really intended. They have also been able to attend most carefully to the Report of the Famine Commission appointed by the late Government, and they have established an Agricultural Department from which much good is expected. It is also satisfactory to know that the noble Marquess 14 who is at the head of the affairs of India (the Marquess of Ripon) has, with the unanimous consent of the Indian Council, been able to repeal the law which shackled the freedom of the Vernacular Press, and has restored to it that freedom of which it has been so long deprived. The Vernacular Press does more than any other agency in the country to show the Government what the aspirations, the hopes, and the feelings of the Indian population really are.
The Speech from the Throne turns next to the question of the Transvaal; and it must be a matter of satisfaction to your Lordships that, without further bloodshed, peace has been restored in that part of the world. No doubt, in some parts of the country, especially on the Western Border, there is a certain amount of disturbance; but, on the whole, the Boers have thoroughly carried out the spirit of the Convention entered into between them and this country. At the meeting which they held to celebrate the formation of their own Government, the Suzerain's health was cordially drunk, and the British Resident, who was present on the occasion, was well received. As regards Basutoland, it is a matter of regret that the country is still in an unsettled condition. The Cape Government are carrying out the award made by Sir Hercules Robinson; and although some of the Basuto Chiefs have not fulfilled their engagements, and some districts are not yet under the authority of the Government, it is hoped that in time more peaceful arrangements will be come to between both parties.
The Estimates to be presented to the House of Commons, to which Her Majesty next alludes in the Speech from the Throne, bring us away from foreign Powers and foreign Dependencies to the state of trade and agriculture in this country. It is a matter of congratulation that the trade of this country is reviving; but at the time when trade first began to revive it did not leave its signs immediately on the Revenue. There is every reason to hope, however, that in a short time the Revenue will exhibit symptoms of improvement.
The agricultural depression has now lasted some years, and your Lordships will feel with me the deepest sympathy with those who have been engaged in agricultural occupations, and will entertain an earnest hope for the revival of 15 better seasons, which alone are able to bring about a better state of things in the agricultural districts.
Then Her Majesty's Speech foreshadows the introduction of a measure for giving Local Self-Government to the counties; and there is no reason, as far as I am aware, why the counties should not have Local Self-Government as well as the towns. I infer it will be proposed that representative bodies shall be elected on the broad basis of giving proper representation to owners and occupiers. The Speech also points to some system by which the incidence of local taxation can be shifted and distributed more equally on personal and real property. Next, the question of the Municipal Reform of London is referred to, and I trust some measure will be introduced which will be acceptable to all parties. Great importance attaches to the re-introduction of various Bills which had been dropped last Session, particularly the Bill for the Prevention of Floods. This reminds me of a well-known passage by a Latin poet, beginning "Jamsatis;" but I hope your Lordships will not apply those words to myself for a few minutes longer. The poet, speaking of the heavy rainfall which swelled the rivers and alarmed the inhabitants of the towns, went on thus—
Terruit gentes, grave ne rediretSæ;culum Pyrrhic nova monstra questræ;Omne cum Proteus pecus egit altos Visere montes.Now, my Lords, history repeats itself. It appears that the "grave sŒculum PyrrhŒ" has returned and visited us with a persistency and a constancy most deplorable in its results. Now, unfortunately, I live in a part of the country—and there are many others similarly situated—where there are no lofty mountains, to which, on the appearance of these devastating floods, Proteus can drive his flocks and herds for safety and protection. Therefore it is that I am most anxious for an immediate consideration of this measure.I am glad to hear the noble Earl who preceded me express his belief that, in regard to Ireland, the present time compares favourably with 12 months ago. I trust that the improvement will continue, and that in time peace and contentment will be restored to that distracted country. Meanwhile, Scotland has not had that share of attention 16 which, in other circumstances, she might have looked for; but the Speech from the Throne mentions that measures are to be introduced for the amendment of the Laws relating to Entail and Educational Endowments. A measure is also to be presented for improving the means of education in Wales. I hope some means will be devised for pressing forward all these measures, after mature deliberation in "another place;" and, in conclusion, I beg to thank your Lordships for the indulgent and patient manner in which you have listened to my remarks. I beg to second the Motion of my noble Friend. [See page 10.]
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I can assure the noble Lord who has just sat down (Lord Wenlock), that, so far from being able to quote "Jam satis" against him on the plea of trying our patience, I could have listened to him a little longer, and I hope the ability he has shown on this occasion will continue to adorn our debates. Like the noble Earl who preceded him (the Earl of Fingall), he has shown much quickness of appreciation. I must, however, confess that I could not help being struck by the circumstance that while the gracious Speech from the Throne is remarkably long the speeches in support of it were unusually short; and there is no circumstance which more tends to convince me of the discernment and judgment of the noble Lords, and of their fitness for the posts for which they were selected, than their instinctive sense of the propriety of saying as little about the Speech from the Throne as possible. It is an obscure and wordy document, and even if I were inclined to take any hostile action upon it I should find it difficult to fasten upon any point sufficiently precise upon which an Amendment could be moved. I hope, therefore, I shall be pardoned for rising thus early in the debate to say that we have no intention of taking any measures hostile to the adoption of the Address moved by the noble Earl. We should do so, if we were to do so, with the more reluctance, as the Speech contains an announcement on which all Members of this House will join in congratulating themselves and the Sovereign. It was with great pleasure and satisfaction that we heard the announcement of the Duke of Albany's marriage. He has been distin- 17 guished by all the qualities which have made the Royal Family dear to the people of this country; he has shown on more than one occasion an earnest desire to use for the public service his great hereditary talents; and I am convinced that in this critical and momentous period of his life he will be followed by the sympathy and good wishes of Parliament and of the people of this country. My Lords, there is in the Royal Speech an allusion to one subject—I can hardly call it more than an allusion—which, at the present moment, is of pressing anxiety and interest. Yet, though it is of pressing interest, it is one on which your Lordships, although desiring some information, will not be inclined to express yourselves at great length or in much detail. I see that in France the First Minister of the Republic has expressed a desire that all discussions on the subject of Egyptian policy should be put off for a fortnight. No opportunity has occurred of expressing a similar wish in this country; but I think, on the whole, that it will be better not to enter closely into the matter when what we say may have a tendency to affect negotiations which are pending. I only wish, therefore, to notice some points in respect of which, on a future occasion, we shall feel disposed to ask for, and hope to receive, explanations from the Ministers of the Crown. The control which the late Government accepted from the Khedive, and to which only they gave their consent, was purely a financial control. But if I understand rightly the Joint Note, of which copies have appeared in the newspapers, something more than a plain financial control has been asserted and supported by intimations of a somewhat menacing character. Rumour asserts that such an interpretation has been disavowed and will be abandoned. At all events, we shall a wait with anxiety, whenever it seems to be expedient, for explanation of the reasons which induced the Government to give this expansion to the share which they already possessed in the guiding of the destinies of Egypt. There are other matters, too, about which rumours have been abroad, and in respect of which we shall in due time, no doubt, receive satisfactory assurances. When the late Government interfered in the affairs of Egypt it did so with the 18 concurrence and authority of the Porte; and I hold that in the present state of things no interference with Egyptian affairs which is not protected by a similar authority will be safe or likely to prosper. It is said that the authority of the Porte has been distinctly repudiated. I hope the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) will be in a position to tell us that rumour is incorrect, for I am sure no greater mistake could be committed by this country than to place in opposition to European influences the impulses—the unguided and uncontrolled impulses—of Mussulman fanaticism. But if difficulties have arisen in the working of a scheme which I believe to have been originally beneficial, and which the Government themselves admit to have been beneficial, I cannot but feel it is because attempts have been made to work it under conditions and in a spirit somewhat different from that in which it was originally commenced. In particular, cordial relations with the great German Powers and hearty cooperation with the Sultan were the conditions under which the interference of the late Government in the affairs of Egypt, so far as it went, took place. The unfortunate utterances of the Prime Minister some two years ago, and the more recent conduct of the Government in Turkish affairs, have tended to separate this country from the great German Powers, and still more have tended to weaken our influence in Constantinople, and thus added to the difficulties in satisfactorily solving the problem which Egypt has presented to us. I hope, however, that we may hear from the Government that they are prepared, whenever they think right—I do not ask the noble Earl to speak tonight, pending negotiations may make it difficult for him to do so—to co-operate with the Sultan, and to recognize fully the position which the Sultan occupies in respect of Egypt; that they are prepared to maintain our good relations with France; to walk side by side with France so long as the respective paths of policy are parallel; but that we reserve to ourselves entire liberty to diverge whenever the maintenance of the interests which England has in the East demand that we should adopt a policy required specially to protect those interests. There is one thing more which I would press upon the 19 Government. I have heard remarks about the application of the European Concert to the management of Egypt. In one sense there is no doubt that the Powers have an interest in Egypt, as guarantors under the Treaties of Paris and Berlin, and they have commercial interests in the question of the liquidation and of the judicial tribunals, which we have recognized. But it is possible to recognize their claims, to admit that other Powers have some interest in Egypt to too great an extent, for if you assemble a Congress to negotiate on the basis that they have the same interests in Egypt that we have at present, you will be exposed to the danger arising from that admission, and this demand will be made against you. It will be said that the Suez Canal is the property of Egypt, and ought to be declared incapable of being used by one of the Great Powers when it is at war with another. In other words, that the Suez Canal shall be neutralized. I need hardly tell your Lordships what will be the fatal results of that policy. It would land England in this position—that she would be cut off from the shortest way to India, whilst Russia was close to Herat—the very portals of our Indian Empire. I know not what dangers military men may anticipate. But I feel certain that to retain our position in India, and maintain our authority among the population, in such a condition of things would be a task of no ordinary peril. My Lords, passing from Egypt, there is not much on which I can usefully dwell. I admire the ingenuity of the noble Lord who seconded the Motion in making so large, so marked, and so very interesting a portion of his speech turn on the paragraph which refers to the North-Western Frontier. Considering the speech we all read the other day of General Skobeleff, and considering the steady advance of Russia in Central Asia, it required no little courage in the noble Lord to congratulate us on the condition of things outside the North-West Frontier. Then, my Lords, we come to the interesting information that communications with France have not been closed. I presume they will never be closed. But I imagine that these words must be taken as an indication that the expectations of the Government of coming to an agreement with France on commercial subjects are not of the most 20 sanguine kind. I will only say upon that matter that I hope the Government will adhere to their resolution not to make any Treaty worse than the Treaty at present in force, and that they will remember the great advantages which may result in the future from having the hands of this country absolutely free to deal with its Tariff as it pleases. Then, my Lords, we come to much interesting information to the effect that "the mildness of the winter-season has been eminently suited to farming operations." It is quite evident that the attention of the Prime Minister has been recently turned to agricultural questions; and, having on that subject made certain novel discoveries, he hastens to make them, with a generous mind, a present to your Lordships. I have no doubt your Lordships will be struck with their novelty and value. But if it is the desire of Ministers that useful information is to be conveyed in Queen's Speeches he might have gone on to furnish us with further remarks of the like nature. We might as well have been told that the London fogs are eminently detrimental to household furniture. Passing from that point and still harping on agriculture, the author of the Speech has produced a paragraph which seems to assert that the efforts which Her Majesty's Government have made have been attended with abundant harvests in Ireland; but they can hardly have arrived at that pitch of self-complacency. Whether it is meant that the abundant harvest was due to those efforts or not I do not know. At any rate, the English of the paragraph, so far as it goes, seems hardly to admit of any other interpretation. But I cannot help thinking that, with the exception of that striking piece of information as to the influence of the Government on the harvest, the paragraphs with respect to Ireland are singularly jejune. One would have imagined that the things which were going on in Ireland were matters of no serious interest—that there were no formidable difficulties presenting themselves to Her Majesty's Government, and that all was very much in an ordinary condition. The Government, in fact, seems scarcely to be aware that since this House last parted a great transformation scene has taken place. When we left we did so having passed a Bill with respect to 21 which we received the most earnest and the most confident assurances that it would have no detrimental effect on the property of the landlords in Ireland. The noble Lord (the Lord Privy Seal) told us it would not take any money from the landlords. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (Lord Selborne) told us that the landlords would not be injured but benefited by the measure. Similar language was used in the other House, and, in fact, the whole of the debates upon the Bill were conducted upon this understanding—that no considerable or general reduction of rents would be the consequence of the Bill. If that assumption was not made the main argument used from the Treasury Bench and the House of Commons, the arguments were absolutely unmeaning; and it was on the faith of these assurances that your Lordships passed many provisions to which otherwise you would certainly have taken exception. I have no doubt of the sincerity of the noble Lords who used those arguments. They, no doubt, believed what they said; but they seem to me to have taken little, if any, trouble to acquaint themselves with the opinions of other Members of the Government, because I find that, while they were thus asserting that a general reduction of rents would not be the result of the Bill—or, at any rate, a few months afterwards—their own Law Officer the Solicitor General for Ireland, appearing as the Government candidate on the hustings, made diametrically opposite assertions. I find he said this—
Was the Land Act passed because rents were too low? No. It was passed because the fact had been forced on the attention of the Legislature of Great Britain that the vast bulk of land in this country was excessively overrented. If the present rents had been fair there would have been no need for the Act; it was simply because it was demonstrated that rents throughout the country were too large that it had become necessary to pass the Land Act at all.Now, if that statement is not diametrically opposite to the assurances upon which we passed the Bill there is no meaning in the English language. That is not the only point with regard to which we have a right to complain. We have to complain further that, in the execution of the Act, Her Majesty's Government paid no heed to the as- 22 surances which induced the House to pass the Bill. The Bill was notoriously one containing provisions for vesting large and despotic and uncontrolled powers in Commissioners, and on the appointment of suitable men to those offices the successful working of the Bill depended. If the Government had meant that the Bill should be an impartial one; if they believed that it would fulfil the assurances which were given as to its character in both Houses of Parliament, they would have appointed impartial men to administer it. Instead of that, they appointed men like Professor Baldwin, who had already deeply pledged himself on the side adverse to the landlords, and whose conduct had been the subject of animadversion in this House, and, moreover, not mainly on this side of the House. In some cases they appointed tenant farmers from the very districts where justice was to be administered, and in one case they actually appointed a man who stood by the side of the Solicitor General for Ireland when he was uttering the sentiments I have just read to your Lordships. It is impossible, under those circumstances, to contend that they made impartial appointments; and if the action of the Bill has been such as to falsify all that they undertook, and all they assured the House upon the subject, the result has flowed from the recklessness or the partisanship with which these appointments have been made. My Lords, if you could have been told in this House that one of the Chief Commissioners would commence the administration of his duties by announcing that it was the mission of the Commission to provide that existing tenants should live and thrive on their lands, and if it had been announced to you, as Professor Baldwin subsequently decided, that it was the capacity of the tenant, and not the capacity of the land, that was to be the measure of the rent, I apprehend that your decision would have been different from what it has been. You were kept in the dark as to the real nature and intention of the Bill, and the ruin of large numbers of the landlords of Ireland has been the result. My Lords, there is another disenchantment which this state of things has borne upon us—another disappointment of the promises and assurances by 23 which we were over-persuaded last July and August. We were told that the Bill was to bring peace to Ireland. We were told—the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said, and there is no more sincere man in this House—that it was to be a compensation for the landlords, that they were to exercise the rights that were left to them without the hindrances which force and insurrection at one time opposed to them. But what is the actual state of Ireland as we see it now? The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Fingall) tells us he sees signs of improvement. That may be so in his district; but I hear from other noble Lords from other districts in Ireland that there are not only no signs of improvement, but that matters are worse. If matters have improved in one district, they have become worse in another. What is the condition of things at this moment? Rents are not paid. Attempts made to pay them are visited with outrages of the most formidable kind, and attempts to collect them are hindered by murder. Throughout large parts of the country the law of the Land League reigns undisputed, and all attempts to execute the law, unless sustained by armed force, are absolutely vain. It cannot be laid to the charge of Her Majesty's Government that they have not made efforts of a kind, however ill-judged or ill-directed, to restrain this evil. One of the Ministers of the Crown stated during the Recess that coercion was natural to the Tories. If it is not natural to the Liberals, I can only say that they acclimatize to it very readily. Since the Revolution, I imagine that Parliament has never met under such circumstances as are existing now. Has there been a time when the Representatives of the people have been detained in prison by the authority of a Minister of the Crown under a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act at the time when Parliament met? Has there ever been such a thing as 60,000 men being found necessary to keep up the faint vestiges of order now remaining in Ireland? Has there ever been a time when 500 men have been kept in prison simply on the authority of a Minister, without trial or proof of guilt? Has it ever been the case that the Government, without authority, without warrant of law, trusting, I suppose, to the passing 24 of a Bill of Indemnity by Parliament, which Parliament will, no doubt, most readily grant, has seized newspapers by its own authority, and not only in Ireland, but also in this country, and in such a manner that it could not have known before seizure what they contained? Yet, notwithstanding this state of coercion, a terribly grave state of things prevails, of which this coercion is a symptom; but I do not quote it for the purpose of saying that it is unnecessary. I must leave that to the responsible Ministers of the Crown; but I do put it for the purpose of showing to you that your message of peace has not succeeded—that you have not moved forward a single step in the policy of conciliation to which you have sacrificed the fortunes of the landlords of Ireland. I cannot help thinking that if your policy has not succeeded in Ireland, and if your coercion has failed to produce the effects which were hoped for, it is because you have mistaken the applicability and value of the remedy which you asked Parliament to place in your hands. It might be well to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act and imprison the Leaders at the commencement of the agitation, and before the poison which they disseminated had spread; but now there is no need for those whom you have placed in Kilmainham Gaol to teach the people of Ireland how the law maybe set at defiance, and how the rights of property may be disregarded with impunity—that is being taught them every day by the impotency of the Government themselves. The people of Ireland are learning that more surely and more rapidly from what takes place constantly in every district in Ireland, from the gradual ruin of the Irish landlords, and from the 18 months of anarchy which has prevailed in that country, than they would ever learn it from the most eloquent and most ingenious utterances of Mr. Dillon or of Mr. Parnell. I confess that in these circumstances I have seen with regret that Her Majesty's Speech promises no measures more effective than those indicated in the verbose sentences which we have heard read. I had hoped that, in view of the injury which the Land Act has undoubtedly inflicted upon the Irish landlords, an effort would have been made to provide a means of securing in one form or another, by purchase or otherwise, 25 pecuniary compensation to those who have been stripped of their property in order to forward some great Government aim of public policy. I had hoped that some effort would have been made at least to redeem the assurances on which Parliament had been induced to pass this measure, and that Her Majesty's Government would have condescended to look with pity upon the sufferings of the victims of their action. I had hoped that in the unexampled state of things in Ireland—a state of things which I believe is unexampled in the history of that country and in that of other civilized nations in the world, a state of things which would not have been allowed to exist for six months, I do not say under strong Monarchies like Austria and Germany, but in the free Republics of France and America—some steps would have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to prevent the utter ruin of the landlords. I, however, looked in vain in the Speech from the Throne for any promise that went beyond a declaration of an intention to persevere in the course which they have hitherto pursued, which is to let anarchy have its way, and to merely offer a feeble sop to those whom they hope to conciliate because they are unable to conquer them. Any further delay in an attempt to restore order in that country, even if it were pleaded for by the Government, would, I am satisfied, not be permitted by Parliament or by the country. We have had too much delay in this matter already. If vigorous measures had been taken 18 months ago this conflagration of lawlessness and anarchy would never have spread as it has done throughout the length and breadth of the land. Parliament feels, and the country feels, that the longer we wait the further the evil will go and the more unmanageable it will become unless it be grappled with at once—not by mere perseverance in the feeble course which has been pursued, but by means of vigorous measures suited to an abnormal and terrible situation, which, if permitted to exist much longer, will attain such proportions that no Government whatever will be able to grapple with it. Capital is more and more leaving the country, the seeds of just resentment are being sown in the breasts of those classes of Irishmen which have hitherto been loyal and steady to the Crown 26 of England, and a profound contempt is arising for the powers of the Government and for the majesty of the law which is taking the place of that hatred of the law which the Irish peasant used to feel; and if there is any more delay in re-asserting the power of the law these evils will have passed the point at which it is possible for them to be cured. I am convinced that, in spite of the feeble utterances of the Speech from the Throne, Parliament and the country will resolutely demand that the Government shall make due provision to meet the calamities of which the policy and the doctrines the Government preach have been the cause.
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, it is satisfactory to me to know that there is, at all events, one point on which the noble Marquess and myself are in accord. I can very heartily join the noble Marquess in concurring in the satisfaction which was expressed by the noble Earl who moved and by the noble Baron who seconded the Address with so much ability and judgment, and in a tone so acceptable to the House, with regard to the approaching marriage of Prince Leopold. I entirely concur in what the noble Marquess said in reference to the character and the capacity of the Prince, and I am happy to say that the concurrent evidence from all quarters gives us every reason to expect that the illustrious lady who is about to become his bride, for which position she is so well fitted, both by her education and by her personal qualities, will share the fate of those other foreign Princesses who have adopted this country as their own through their marriage with the Queen's sons, and who have been received by the people of this nation with great attachment and affection. I must, however, now turn to a different matter. Hume, when he published the second edition of his History of England, stated that he had omitted all superlatives in order to strengthen his style. I do not think the noble Marquess opposite thinks that a good way of strengthening his style, whether addressing your Lordships here or speaking to large assemblages in different parts of the country. We have had a very difficult task before us in Ireland, and the Prime Minister has appealed to the country to support the Government in the discharge of the difficult duties which they have under- 27 taken in governing that country; and, with but few exceptions, I believe that the country is willing to give them the support they ask for. I am bound to say that the Irish landlords, who naturally had some ground for feeling discontented with the operation of the Land Act, and who have criticized the action of the Government—I see some of them here now—have in a most manly manner adopted the law passed by Parliament, and have agreed to support the Government in the measures which were necessary for putting that Act into execution. I cannot, however, say as much for some of the Leaders of the Conservative Party in this country. They have certainly said that the Government ought to be supported in the matter; but their only mode of tendering that support was to heap every kind of vituperation upon the law of the land—a law which they themselves, from wise and statesmanlike motives, had agreed to pass, and to hold up to every sort of obloquy the Government which was pledged to carry into effect those measures of repression which were necessary to maintain the law of the land. The noble Marquess has, to my great surprise, repeated a statement which I have seen made by persons of less importance than himself, to the effect that since the Rebellion Ireland was never in such a state as she is now. I beg your Lordships to read a speech of the noble Lord's father behind me—when he was Lord Stanley, and another of Earl Grey—showing the state of that country during the agitation against tithes. His description of Ireland then was infinitely worse than anything can truly be said of it now. As to a comparison, it is almost impossible to compare the two. Moreover, I am happy to say that the condition now bears favourable comparison with what it was at this time last year. The noble Marquess says that he is differently informed, and that he believes that the condition of the country has not improved during the year. I can only look at the statistics which have been furnished to me, which show that, putting aside the item of threatening letters, in January of last year, when the outrages had fallen to a very small figure, concurrently with a cessation of evictions and of attempts to get them the number of outrages was about five more than it was this January. In 28 December, 1881, however, the outrages were 40 fewer than they were in December, 1880, when again they were infinitely less than they were in the December of the previous year. These figures show some improvement, at all events, although, perhaps, not such an improvement as we had looked and had hoped for. There can be no doubt, moreover, that there has been a great improvement in the administration of justice in Ireland, and that juries in the North and South of the country are doing their duty. Absolutely, at this moment, there is no open resistance to the force of the Government in Ireland. The noble Marquess, with that recklessness of assertion to which he sometimes gives way, says we have 60,000 troops in Ireland. There ought to be 60,000 if they wore wanted; but it happens there are only 30,000, with the addition of the police. We ought to welcome improvement when it comes, and avoid all exaggeration when the facts themselves are quite sufficient to excite the deepest anxiety. The noble Marquess went into a violent attack upon the Government for having obtained the passage of the Land Act by your Lordships under false pretences. It is true that certain Members of the Government stated their belief, gathered from a sort of general evidence given before the Duke of Marlborough's Commission, that the number of cases in Ireland in which rents are too high was small; but I did not understand the argument. He has talked of logic; but I do not see the logic of his argument. If the excessive rents of a few landlords were sufficient to justify the passing of the Act, how could that qualification he diminished by the fact that a larger number of excessive rents existed? The noble Marquess made a violent attack upon the Commissioners who are acting in administering the law. Now, I admit it is the duty of Members of either House of Parliament to take up any cases of gross miscarriage of justice; but they ought to be exceedingly sure of the facts and grounds upon which they proceed. The noble Marquess said that the Sub-Commissioners have been improperly appointed. My information is not to that effect. I am told by Mr. Forster that with regard to the legal members he acted on the best information he could get, and the grade of the lawyers 29 who undertook the duty is higher than could be expected. With regard to the practical men, my right hon. Friend also appointed the best he could get, and he took care to have personal interviews with everyone he appointed; the principles upon which he went being that they should be men of high character, that they should have a knowledge of the land, and that they should be known by persons competent to speak for them as men of sufficient courage to resist pressure on one side or the other. And it is to be observed that their conduct has been complained of not by the landlords only, but by the tenants of Ireland, which is very natural. Therefore, I think your Lordships in this House, representing, as you do, solely and exclusively one side of the question, should be very cautious in bringing charges against men who, we are bound to assume, to the best of their ability administer the law of the land. I do not think the noble Marquess should have brought such a charge as he did against Professor Baldwin, putting words into his mouth which have been distinctly and publicly repudiated by him. My Lords, there is one point on which we do not know what the construction will be—it is at this moment under appeal in the High Court of Appeal in Ireland. But there is another point of importance upon which I should like to say a word. On an average, rents have been reduced something like 25 per cent. I am perfectly certain that in parts of England landlords have been obliged to make a reduction to that extent. [A noble LORD: For 15 years.] Well, but Mr. Parnell and his friends, on the ground of American competition, object to having the rents fixed for so long a time. Your Lordships ought to remember that it is the worst cases of high rental that have crowded first into these Courts, showing that there is more hope of a good landlord coming to terms with his tenants. I own that in following tentatively the speech of the noble Marquess, I could not make out whether he was not occasionally complaining of the Government applying too much coercion.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI made no complaint of the employment of coercion. I referred to coercion to show the utter failure of the ''message of peace and conciliation."
§ EARL GRANVILLEThe noble Marquess says he did not complain of coercion. What, then, did he moan by his allusion to a Bill of Indemnity? The noble Marquess says that we did not begin soon enough. But in this country it is necessary to proceed according to legal rights. There is no doubt that the Land League at first did act illegally; but the illegality was that of advising the tenants, and could only be dealt with by the ordinary processes of law; but their position changed when they did that which clearly showed that they conspired not merely to advise the tenants not to pay rents, but to intimidate them from doing so. When we prosecuted the Leaders we failed, and it is quite clear that the same course of proceeding would have failed again. It was only when they changed their course that the Government were enabled to act. The Proclamation gave no new power. It only announced the intention of the Government—and they have not shrank from it—to resort to coercion. I do not know what are the increased measures of coercion which have been only faintly alluded to by the noble Marquess; but that we will exercise all the ordinary powers of the law and all the exceptional powers given them by Parliament as long as it is necessary to do so I can, on behalf of the Government, distinctly state. We continue to rely, however, on the beneficial effect which the Land Act will have—it has been, I think, only six months in operation, and it is impossible for the tenants as yet to be fully aware of its advantages. The noble Marquess found nothing satisfactory in Her Majesty's Speech. But there was one subject which I should have thought would have given him satisfaction, and that is the revival of trade in this country.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI expressed satisfaction with the mild weather.
§ EARL GRANVILLEThe noble Marquess seems to consider the mildness of the weather as entirely apart from the question of agriculture. I should have thought that the revival of trade would have been a subject of satisfaction to him, as it undoubtedly should be. Not only have the Returns of railway traffic and the official trade Returns increased, but there has been an increase in the production of iron and woollens, and 31 the revenue from stamps is increasing. I really should have thought that the noble Marquess would have seized with avidity that passage in order to give what he and Sir Stafford Northcote have said throughout the Recess on the subject of Free Trade, and that which is somewhat fancifully called Fair Trade. If Sir Stafford Northcote has not changed his opinions, I have not the slightest doubt as to what his opinions are; but I have the greatest possible doubts of what the noble Marquess may think upon the subject. Why, last year in this House he made a speech in which he appeared to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies and myself to unfurl the standard of Protection and Reciprocity, and subsequently repudiated all sympathy with reciprocity or retaliation. But he no sooner goes into the country in the autumn than he avows his sympathy with a system of imposing duties on what he called luxuries in order to bring other countries to reduce their Tariffs. This seems to me to be a very good instance of that principle of Reciprocity which in the House of Lords he had entirely repudiated. There is one part of the speech of the noble Marquess with which I am happy to agree—I am happy when I can agree with him in anything—and that is with regard to the French Treaty. Your Lordships may remember that last year the House of Commons on two occasions gave expression to the opinion that a Treaty should be concluded; but that it should, be at least as favourable to the commercial relations of the two countries as that which now exists. I have read with great interest two able letters of Lord Grey, and have always been much of his opinion as to the disadvantage of negotiating Treaties of Commerce. Where I disagree with him is in his assertion that the exception to the rule in 1860 was bad, and that there have been no favourable results from that Treaty. The result has been an immensely increased trade between the two countries, the creation of vested Free Trade interests in France, and an increased friendly feeling between the two countries. It is not true that it has been followed by largely increased protective duties, the fact being the reverse. Nearly all the European Tariffs are lower than they were in 32 1860. I do not so much value the renewal of the Treaty on economical as on political grounds. If the French raise their duties against us, no Freetrader can doubt that while it is bad for both, it is infinitely worse for France than for us, and gives us a positive and increasing advantage in the neutral markets of the world. But I shall be glad if the Treaty is renewed on acceptable terms by us. The system exists, stability and continuity are important to the trades of both countries; and I am afraid that if trade is curtailed it will be difficult to avoid some recriminations and unreasonable irritation on one side or the other. I may add that I agree with Mr. W. H. Smith in what he said the other day, that if people thought it to their advantage to increase their protective duties, we have no right to complain of their doing that which they think right for themselves. What would be unfriendly to us, who open our arms to their commerce, would be to place us in a worse situation than those who have less favourable Tariffs as regards France. Now, the noble Marquess attacked us on the subject of foreign affairs. He made a great attack upon this Government for having eliminated the sympathy of all Europe from Turkey, and for our having lost the influence with Turkey which we ought to possess. All I can say is that the influence of the late Government in Turkey, as described in official documents, was absolutely nil. The noble Marquess, it is recorded, failed in every way to get anything done by the help of that Concert of Europe which he says we have eliminated, but by the aid of which we have obtained a settlement of two most important things. The noble Marquess again said that he did not wish to raise any unnecessary discussion, and immediately with regard to Egypt he proceeded to raise a number of invidious points based upon rumours in London from Paris, Cairo, and other quarters. These rumours were sometimes of a contradictory kind, and I cannot help thinking that the noble Marquess has been led away by them. I have now to make some remarks on the observations of the noble Marquess with respect to Egypt. We have been accused of wantonly breaking the continuity of foreign affairs. The contrary is the 33 fact. We have observed it faithfully, except in some cases, such as Afghanistan and South Africa, where we conceived it absolutely essential to reverse what had been done. A change was made by the noble Marquess in the policy which had been adopted by his own Government and by previous ones in the affairs of Egypt. It was after the announcement of our occupation of Cyprus. The French were profoundly irritated at the announcement of that secret Convention, and one of the most eminent public men of France declared that if the Chambers had been sitting war would have ensued. In the communications which passed on African questions, it may reasonably be presumed that the noble Marquess was in some degree influenced by the natural desire to soothe that irritation. After the late Khedive had been deposed, for dismissing the English and French Ministers, the Anglo-French Controllers were, for the first time, appointed by both of the respective Governments. This was the system which we found in force in 1880. We did not think it necessary to examine too closely the merits of the arrangement. It had, undoubtedly, worked admirably for the finances and administration of Egypt. It is very much to the honour of the English and French Governments that, notwithstanding a change of Government here, and several changes in France, by the straightforward conduct of the Home Governments and the local representatives, the work has been so smoothly done. Last autumn, however, a military pronunciamiento took place, and with some success. There was much uneasiness, and at last, I was informed, on the authority of our representatives, that there was so much misconception and misconstruction of our future policy in Egypt, that it was necessary that an authentic explanation of it should be given. I therefore addressed a despatch to Sir Edward Malet on the 4th of November—a despatch which was published by Cherif Pasha. Some time later a change of Ministry occurred in France. In the meantime the discipline of the Army in Egypt did not appear to be improved. There were rumours of all sorts of intrigues. It was said that the Notables, to whom we wished well, were tending to a course inconsistent with international engage- 34 ments. The Khedive made no request for assistance, but was stated to see the future with apprehension, and reports were again set about of dissensions between England and France. It was in these circumstances that M. Gambetta, recently arrived to power, proposed to us to join in a Note to the Khedive. That Koto ran as follows:—
You have already been instructed on several occasions to inform the Khedive and his Government of the determination of England and France to afford them support against the difficulties of various kinds which might interfere with the course of public affairs in Egypt.The two Powers are entirely agreed on this subject, and recent circumstances, especially the meeting of the Chamber of Notables convoked by the Khedive, have given them the opportunity for a further exchange of views.I have accordingly to instruct you to declare to Tewfik Pasha, after concerting with M. Sienkiewicz, who has been instructed to make simultaneously with you an identic declaration, that the English and French Governments consider the maintenance of His Highness on the Throne, on the terms laid down by the Sultan's Firmans, and officially recognized by the two Governments, as alone able to guarantee for the present and future the good order and general prosperity in Egypt in which England and France are equally interested.The two Governments being closely associated in the resolve to guard by their united efforts against all cause of complication, internal or external, which might menace the order of things established in Egypt, do not doubt that the assurance publicly given of their formal intentions in this respect will tend to avert the dangers to which the Government of the Khedive might be exposed, and which would certainly find England and France united to oppose them. They are convinced that His Highness will draw from this assurance the confidence and strength which he requires to direct the destinies of Egypt and its people.This is the textual translation of the dual Note of which so much has been said. It may be good or it may be bad: it may convey to those who indulge in the very dangerous and misleading habit of reading between the lines all sorts of different ideas; but what I want to know is, how the facts justify the statements of the noble Marquess, or how they confirm the gloomy view of affairs which has been taken? There is no difference in substance between that Note and a despatch which I addressed in the mouth of November to Sir Edward Malet. That despatch contained other matteres; but as far as there was any enunciation of policy, it was to the following effect:—It states the desire of Her Majesty's Government for the prosperity of Egypt and its full enjoyment of that liberty 35 which it has obtained under successive Firmans of the Sultan. It speaks of the necessity of a reform of justice for Natives, and contains an assurance that England desires no partizan Ministry. The despatch further expresses the desire of Her Majesty's Government to maintain Egypt in the enjoyment of the administrative independence which has been secured by the Firmans, and, at the same time, their wish to preserve the tie which connects her with the Porte as a valuable safeguard against foreign intervention. The only circumstances, it continues, which would compel us to depart from the above policy would be the occurrence of a state of anarchy; but we looked to the Khedive, to Cherif Pasha, and to the Egyptian people to prevent such a catastrophe. It adds that, in our belief, the Government of France held the same view, and concurred with us in thinking that any self-aggrandizing designs on the part of either Government would prevent this useful co-operation. Now, that despatch had a singular success. The Khedive and the Ministers were much pleased with it, and it was stated to have had an excellent effect for a time in Egypt. The French Minister of Foreign Affairs approved it, and twice stated the general concurrence of France in its description of our joint policy. There was a chorus of approval in the English Press of all political opinions. The Turkish Ambassador has frequently expressed to me the satisfaction it gave at Constantinople; and it produced a good effect in Europe, of which the best proof is that I am informed that the basis of the answer which has recently been given by four of the Powers to the protest of the Porte was the policy indicated in that despatch; and that one of those Powers only consented to join in the answer on the understanding that that was the case. The form of the dual Note was different. It was addressed to the Khedive in pursuance of some precedents which were made by the noble Marquess opposite, and it was joint in its character. But though in different form and with different words, it was, with a slight modification, owing to altered circumstances, on perfectly similar lines with the despatch of the 4th of November. It cannot be said that there was any fresh departure. This being the case, and rumours of disunion be- 36 tween England and France being so prevalent, if we had refused the proposal of M. Gambetta to repeat jointly that which we had already said ourselves, would it not with justice have shaken the confidence of the French as to our intention of acting loyally with them? Stress has been laid upon the rebuff offered to England and France by the separate answers of the four other Powers to the Turkish protest. It does not appear to me that we have any reason to complain. When Germany, Austria, and Italy wished to interfere more minutely in the affairs of Egypt, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) declined to admit them. I presume he did so, not from a jealousy of the other Powers, but because of the immense practical inconvenience which would attend many Powers being mixed up with executive and administrative details. We have followed the same course. The other Powers have never denied the greater interest of the two countries in Egypt. It can hardly be said that they have voluntarily separated from us, when we have kept them in one sense aloof. On the other hand, when organic questions arose, they claimed a right to appear—a right which was fully conceded by the noble Marquess in 1879, and which cannot be considered to be in any way invalidated by the objection I have somewhere seen urged that the affairs of Egypt were, by pre-conceived arrangement and at the request of France, excluded from the deliberations of the Congress of Berlin. There are some who now say, speaking of the present movement in Egypt, that we ought to have nipped the flower in the bud, killed the calf before it became a bull, and so on. But I very much doubt whether the position of affairs would have been more satisfactory if Egypt had been occupied during the last four months, whether by English, by French, or by Turkish troops. We have been in active communication with M. Gambetta up to the day of his resignation. We have been in communication upon this matter almost from the very first day of the appointment of the present Government, and I have no reason to doubt of our continued and cordial cooperation with them. They have been in Office but a very short time, and have had, in reality, no time to consider officially this very difficult question. On 37 some points we know their concurrence; on others we have no reason to believe that we shall not he agreed. As regards Egypt itself, there does not seem at this moment any immediate danger of anarchy and disorder. The professed policy of the Assembly is the strict observance of the international engagements with France, with England, and with all the Powers. These assurances may very possibly not be trustworthy. On the other hand, the policy of England and France is the maintenance of the rights of the Sultan as Sovereign, of the position of the Khedive, and of the liberties of the Egyptian people under the Firmans of the Porte, the prudent development of their institutions, and the fulfilment of all international arrangements. I have shown that the same doctrine is held by the Powers and by Turkey. It appears to me that although the employment of force may ultimately be necessary, yet there is ground for believing that the same results may and ought to be obtained without its intervention, and to that result no effort will be wanting on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that when he read the account of what it was said they proposed to do in Egypt he did not know what to make of it. It was said now that they were going to maintain the status quo; but how were they going to maintain it? He understood they were preparing along with France to send a force to Egypt; and that was the conclusion deduced by the common sense of the whole country. He was startled especially when he remembered what had been said about the Jingo policy attributed to the Party on the other side of the House. Going to send troops to Egypt in connection with France! He thought that a very unwise step, and it was so contrary to the whole policy of the Government that ho could not believe it. He should be glad to hear any explanation the Government might have to give. With regard to Ireland, they had the self-congratulations of the Government. Now they had 40,000 troops in Ireland. Was that a subject for congratulation?
§ EARL GRANVILLEI did not say so.
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, they were also told that there were fewer murders there now than last year, and the Government therefrom concluded that the country was quieter. Well, if 38 the Land League could have its own way entirely it might be supposed there would be no murders at all. Still, there were accounts of farmers being put on their own fires and roasted. [A noble LORD: Not true.] Well, there were a great many things that were true, he supposed; and the state of things was one on which they could not congratulate themselves. He wanted to know what they were going to do? The case stood thus. He recalled to mind the policy of the Government with regard to Ireland for the last 50 years, and during the whole of that time they had been informed that Ireland was improving. It was still improving, and apparently had improved to such a point as to be all but in a state of rebellion. They saw the great towns of Dublin and Cork voting their freedom to Mr. Parnell and Mr. Dillon. Those voters were not tenant farmers. It was to his mind not a question of rent, but of open and determined rebellion, and the Government knew it. It was no use disguising that fact—it would be idle to discuss it. The Government knew that it was the question of rebellion that had to be dealt with, and what a powerful instrument they had put into the hands of agitators. They could say—"Look how we, after agitation and turbulence, took a large portion of the landlords' property, in the year 1870, and then we had more agitation and more disturbance, find in 1881 we took another large portion;" and then they would say to the farmers and tenants—"Let us continue the agitation, and we shall take the whole of the land." It seemed to him that they would be able to state this with some truth. He maintained that the Government were thus offering the most efficient kind of bribery. What more effective bribe was there in Ireland than the offer of another man's property. To what were they coming? This agitation would go on, and they had made every concession except that of legislative independence. Upon this they had some remarks of a very eminent Cabinet Minister—one of the Members for Birmingham—who had stated that they were to have no more coercion, and that if they could not govern Ireland in quietness they must let them govern themselves. That was something very encouraging. He wanted to know 39 whether the Government had made up their minds on that subject? Were they really in earnest? He did not know but that pressure might be placed upon them to bring this state of things about, and that before very long they might say—"Legislative interference may involve us in blood-guiltiness, and we cannot incur blood-guiltiness, so let them have legislative independence" He was not at all sure that this was not coming. Look at the position they were in with Irish voters in England; look at the difficulties Members of Parliament had to encounter in meeting their constituents. They had to say—"We will think of Home Rule; we will have a Committee upon it;" they took qualified views of it; they said—"We might have some test of it." They were tampering with the question right and left; and unless the country made up its mind that they would hold Ireland, they might depend upon this, that it would drift into legislative independence. And what would follow? If he believed legislative independence would be for the good of Ireland, if he thought it would be for the permanent prosperity of Ireland, much as he thought it undesirable, he would vote for it. But he had no hope that that would be the result. He was convinced that what would happen was this—they would have Ireland filled with filibustering Americans and of all kinds of military adventurers from Europe; they would have commercial quarrels first, with political quarrels afterwards, ending before long in a terrible civil war. That, he believed, was what would inevitably follow any attempt to give legislative independence to Ireland. For those reasons, he hoped the Government were firmly determined to give no countenance to any agitation or attempts to sever the Union which had so long existed between the two countries.
§ THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDMy Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Duke who has just spoken; but I believe we are nearer Home Rule in Ireland at the present moment than many people in this country are inclined to believe. I have listened with great attention to the gracious Speech from the Throne, and to the speeches made by the noble Lords who have moved and seconded the Address in your Lordships' House, in the hope that I might hear 40 something which would throw some light on the future proceedings of the Government with regard to the two great questions which are at present engrossing the attention of all classes in the United Kingdom; but I must own that the reference made to these subjects in Her Majesty's gracious Speech has caused me deep disappointment, because we are given hardly any information whatever as to the future proceedings of the Government in dealing with the frightful anarchy to which the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) has alluded as still existing in Ireland, or with the administration of an Act which was passed by your Lordships' House upon the distinct understanding that it should be administered with impartial justice to all parties, and, in the words of my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, "should cause the landlords of Ireland no money loss whatever." My Lords, it is not necessary for me to lay before you a statement of the disgraceful condition of Ireland at the present time. The newspaper reports published from day to day are sufficient to show that outrage and terrorism of every description still continue to be enacted with unabated vigour, and that the most feeble Executive which has ever attempted to govern Ireland, and which has up to a very recent date invariably made use of its enormous powers in such a way as to render them totally ineffective, is at present, through its previous weakness, entirely unable to contend with the Irish difficulty. These outrages will continue to be committed as long as a certain Member of the Cabinet tells the Irish people that the agitation out of which these outrages sprang was up to a certain time meritorious. The idea seems to be gaining ground that things are getting better in Ireland, and this is referred to in the Speech from the Throne; but I am afraid that idea is almost entirely erroneous, and that things are just as bad now as they were during any of the months previous. In some places there is, no doubt, an improvement; but in the larger number of places things are just as bad, if not worse, than they were before. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) has referred to the number of outrages committed in the five months ending in December, 1880. These amounted to 1,955; but in the same period in 1881 the number was 41 2,838; and the noble Earl has admitted that, although we have not yet had the Returns for January, the outrages were only five less than in the same month last year. He had compared the number of outrages in the last two months of the year with those in the same period of the previous year; but he had quite forgot that in 1880 the Coercion Act was not in force, and that the Government had not then, as they have now, a great many of the 711011 instrumental in committing these outrages in prison. The fact that the juries in Cork have been doing their duty better is not a proof of an improvement in the state of Ireland, but is owing to the fact that the juries in Cork are generally composed of a very different class to those juries who have before so signally failed in their duty. How can an uneducated people arrive at the fact whore an agitation ceases to be meritorious and becomes criminal when the Government themselves found the greatest difficulty in arriving at the same conclusion? I do not believe that oven now the Government would have pronounced the Land League illegal if it had not interfered with the working of the Land Act. But, my Lords, to pass from the question of the anarchy which reigns supreme in Ireland to the other question which must deeply affect your Lordships' House, as your Lordships are charged by the Attorney General with being responsible for the Land Bill—a measure which your Lordships looked upon with great suspicion, and only accepted after alterations had been made in the Bill which we were told were sufficient to prevent any further confiscation taking place than that which appeared on the face of it. We were all perfectly aware that the land of Ireland was to pass from its present owners, and to be held for the future jointly between the landlord and the tenant; and that, in fact, the rent remained to the landlord, and the land belonged to the tenant. We were also aware that the selling value of the properties would be enormously decreased; but your Lordships were led to believe that certain provisions in the Bill were quite sufficient guarantee that no further confiscation should take place, and that the incomes of those landlords who had not rack-rented their tenants should be secured; or, in the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord 42 Chancellor, that "the landlords' property would be enlarged and increased." I must own that I had hoped no further confiscation would take place, and I believe even now that if this Act were fairly and impartially administered upon the lines which have hitherto been recognized as the glorious, time-honoured principle of English justice further confiscation under it would be impossible. But, my Lords, how has this Act been administered, and what sort of gentlemen have been chosen by the Government to form the Courts to administer it? Who are the Sub-Commissioners? Are they drawn from a class without any bias one side or the other? Why, I doubt whether many of the Sub-Commissioners could be cited as not having, within a very recent period before they wore appointed, been looked upon as being strongly biassed in favour of the tenants' interests; and the votes of those Sub-Commissioners I have alluded to have been rendered useless by placing them individually upon a Sub-Commission where the majority would outvote them on every important point. We have not to go further than the Court of the Chief Commissioners to see that this is the case; for in their recent decision at Belfast two out of the three Commissioners—all strongly Liberal in opinion—outvoted the one in whom the landlords had confidence, and who read the Act in a manner which, I maintain, Parliament intended it to be read, and gave decisions which, if not reversed on appeal, must, of necessity, form a precedent for the general reduction of rents upon all properties, whether liberally managed or not, throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. The clause upon which they founded their decisions has been wrongly called Mr. Healy's clause—I say wrongly called, because if Mr. Healy's clause had been added to the Bill it would have been perfectly harmless, and could not have produced the frightful results that it is possible the present clause may bring about. As this clause is of such importance and fraught with such terrible ruin to the landlords of Ireland, I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I shortly give its history, although it has been so ably set forth in Mr. Kavanagh's letter which appeared in The Times of Monday. Mr. Healy's original clause proposed— 43
That the judicial rent for any further statutory term shall not exceed the judicial rent for the preceding statutory term in respect of any improvements made by the tenant.The Government did not accept that clause, but proposed another in place of it—No rent shall be made payable in any proceeding under the Act in respect of any improvement made by the tenant.When the Bill came up to your Lordships' House, they must have become aware of the danger which might arise under the wording of this clause; and the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Monck), who, I am quite sure, would not have placed an important Amendment upon the Paper without the consent of the Government, proposed an Amendment almost in Mr. Healy's words, which Amendment was accepted by the Government in your Lordships' House, but was rejected by the Government in "another place," and the words "paid or otherwise compensated" were added to the clause, which, it was stated by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Law, were quite sufficient to prevent any injustice taking place. And I believe now that, if the Act were properly and fairly administered, these words would be sufficient for that purpose. This, however, will soon be decided by the Court of Appeal. But a perfectly new theory is now started by the Commissioners—new in law and new in usage—that improvements made by a tenant or his predecessors in title, no matter how long he may have had the enjoyment of them, are to be deducted from the rent of the land, even in some cases where the improvements have been made since the original rent was fixed; as the Courts appear in all cases, whether the rent be high or low, to reduce the present rent by the interest on any improvement the tenant may have made; and it is quite possible to suppose that so-called improvements made may not have materially increased the letting value of the land; but, still, the interest on the expenditure for these improvements has been deducted from the rental. The Courts do not take into consideration how long it is since the present rent has been fixed, although both the Government and the Bess-borough Commission said that would be a fair guide. I hold in my hand a Return of rents which have been largely reduced, although they have 44 been punctually paid, since 1796, since 1802, since 1808, and since 1833; and I can produce many other Returns of the same description. I had the rent upon a farm of my own reduced from £54 to £44, although in 1837 the rent of identically the same farm was £65 9s. 2d., and although I had since laid out some money upon it. My lawyer writes to me to say that he cannot understand the decision, unless I am to be mulcted for the deterioration of land by the tenant or in respect of improvements upon which no rent has ever been charged. The Act of 1870 has been cited as a precedent for such procedure, because in that Act there was no limit for certain classes of improvements made by the tenant, and the onus of proof was cast upon the landlord. But this, in the Act of 1870, was not of very great importance, because it had merely to do with compensation for disturbance, and had nothing whatsoever to say to fixing the rental; but now, under the Act of 1881, enormous issues are raised upon it, and the rents of Ireland are cut down owing to a clause in a Bill passed for an entirely different purpose. This shows the danger that may arise from reading the two Acts together. It is often impossible for a landlord to produce proof of the improvements made by his ancestors, and, as every improvement not proved to be made by the landlord is taken as having been made by the tenant, his rental may be cut down for the very improvements made by his own ancestors. Can anything be more outrageous or more contrary to English justice? The Commissioners seem to ignore every safeguard placed in the Act for the protection of the landlord and to augment every provision made in favour of the tenant. They have disregarded taking into consideration the interest of the landlord, while they have construed the tenant's interest into meaning more than was ever intended. The words "otherwise compensated," which were thought to be of such great importance, they have passed over as if they had never been in the Act at all. At the time the Bill was passing through your Lordships' House certain Amendments were proposed upon this side of the House to clear up and make plain the meaning of different clauses in the Bill, because we had always grave doubts of the Court which would be 45 nominated to adjudicate upon the Act. But many of these Amendments were overruled by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who stated that they were entirely unnecessary. If the meaning of the Act had to be interpreted by the noble and learned Lord or by the Judges in either England or Ireland, I have no doubt the landlords of Ireland would have been perfectly safe; but what we wore afraid of was that the Courts constituted for the purpose of trying cases under this Act might not be so unbiassed as the noble and learned Lord would have been. It was impossible for us to argue on points of this sort with one so skilled as the noble and learned Lord; but I think the proceedings of the Courts have been quite sufficient to justify our fears and to prove that we were right in advocating those Amendments which had to be dropped and that the noble and learned Lord was wrong. I will cite one case to prove what I say; but there were several of the same description. My noble Friend (the Earl of Pembroke) moved an Amendment that—"Tenants who had run out their holdings should not be able to claim a reduction of rent on their own mismanagement;" but the noble and learned Lord said that was a ridiculous Amendment, because no Court of Justice could possibly give the tenant advantages from his own misconduct, as that would be unreasonable conduct on his part and would place him outside the advantages contained in the Act. But, my Lords, the Sub-Commissioners have decided that their duty is to fix a rent upon a farm in the state in which it is brought before the Court, whether the tenant may have run it out or not. And more than this, they have decided that, in addition to lowering the rents in consequence of the deterioration of the land, they may lower them still further if the tenant should be a bad farmer, should have a largo family, or should, from old age or other reasons, be incapable of getting the fair value out of the land. Is not this entirely at variance with the intentions of the Act, and does it not prove how necessary it was to introduce the Amendments I have referred to, which were declared unnecessary by the noble and learned Lord? The noble Earl who sits below the Gangway (the Earl of Derby), in a speech he delivered recently at 46 Liverpool, compared the Irish landlords to passengers upon a ship going to pieces on the rocks, and said that if men in that position were rescued by a lifeboat they must be prepared to lose some portion of their property. No doubt the landlords of Ireland are like shipwrecked passengers; but when the storm was at its height and the barque of the State—which carried as part of its cargo the rights of property in Ireland—was grinding upon the rocks of the Land League, utterly helpless to resist the fury of the waves, and having been brought there by the incapacity of its captain and its crew, the noble Earl seems to forget that the passengers agreed to resign a portion of their property and to take to the lifeboat—manned by the same captain and the same crew—being led to believe that the property which was left to them would then be perfectly secure. But, instead of finding the property that was left secured to them, they found that the storm still increased, and they were told they must give up another large slice of their properties to enable the captain to battle with the elements, or, in other words, to outbid the Land League; and still, even after this second confiscation has taken place, the storm continues with unabated fury. My Lords, the most extraordinary fact which has come to light yet with regard to this judicial tribunal is the publication of the pamphlet which was referred to in The Times of yesterday. I am fortunate enough to possess a copy of that pamphlet with the name of the Queen's printers upon it. I doubt whether the name of the Queen's printers was ever attached to such a document before. I am informed this pamphlet has been circulated among the tenants by the Registrars of the Courts of Sub-Commission, and I must suppose the Registrars would not circulate a pamphlet without orders from the Chief Commissioners. If your Lordships will allow me, I will read you a few paragraphs which will speak for themselves. They are with regard to a tenant becoming the proprietor of his holding. It says—If he doubts it, then ho doubts the doctrine which Davitt unfolded at Irishtown, and for the teaching of which that far-seeing man founded the Irish National Land League—the most widespread, the most powerful, and, in 47 its effects, we believe, the most enduring organization of our time; if he doubts it, then have Parnell and Dillon and Davitt laboured and suffered in vain." Again, "It is impossible to suppose that men to whom the arguments of the Land League leaders are familiar as household words should have failed to grasp the principle which the Land League was founded to teach—the principle, namely, that Irish tenants should strive and strive until they were put in a position to purchase out and out their holdings, so that they should he owners and free men, instead of being tenants and slaves. The desirability of the change will be cordially admitted by every Irish tenant—the desirability, not alone from the point of view of his own comfort and prosperity and freedom, but also because, in effecting the change, he will give proof of his own loyalty to the principles of the organization by which the means of bringing about the change have been won.My Lords, I would ask you, if it be true that this extraordinary document has been published by the Land Commissioners or any of their subordinates, how it is possible for the landlords of Ireland to have any confidence in a tribunal which publishes and circulates through its Courts a pamphlet eulogizing an organization which has been declared to be illegal by the Government? But, my Lords, I do not for one moment believe that the Government approve of the pamphlet or indorse the decision of the Courts, which have been from the first a parody upon English justice, in which all classes up to this time have had perfect confidence. As far as I can see, the landlords who have let their properties high have come the best off, because almost the same reduction has been made upon them as upon those who have let their properties low. The system is to reduce all rents, and, therefore, I maintain that the decisions given are entirely against what Parliament was led to expect and entirely against all fairness and justice. My Lords, I was in hopes that the Government would have given us to understand in the gracious Speech from the Throne that they were prepared to examine into the administration of the Land Act, and to see that for the future it should be fairly and impartially administered in accordance with the promises given in both Houses of Parliament before it was passed; or else that, having found that the Act was being administered in an entirely different manner from what the Government, by their own statements, expected, and that large loss of income, amounting in many cases to absolute 48 ruin and penury, was being inflicted upon the landlords of Ireland, they were prepared to give compensation in. some form for what was being taken away. I still hope that either one or other may be done; out, if the Government take no stops in the matter, I shall certainly, at no distant date, move for a Select Committee of your Lordships' House to inquire into the antecedents, status, and qualifications of the Sub-Commissioners, and the administration of an Act which, in my opinion, is not being administered according to the intention of Parliament, and which will, if there is no change, utterly beggar and destroy at least half the landlords of Ireland and materially diminish the incomes of all.
§ LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, it would not be necessary for him to detain their Lordships long; but he wished to say a few words in answer to the speech of the noble Marquess, and to that of the noble Duke behind him. The noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) had laid it down that the question concerning Ireland was one, not of rent, but of rebellion. That statement, he considered, was a very misleading one. It reminded him of the statement made in a celebrated document published before the last General Election by Lord Beaconsfield, in which he sounded a note of warning in strong terms, and yet passed by the real danger in Ireland, and spoke of the question as one of rebellion only. There could be no doubt that in the minds of some of the leaders of the agitation rebellion and the thought of separation from this country existed and was the motive of their conduct. If that was what the noble Duke meant be was prepared to agree with him; but if he meant that rebellion represented the condition of the tenant farmers, then he must differ from him in that opinion. The fact was that what was called the national cause had but little success in Ireland until the question of rent was taken up; and although this agrarian agitation was fed by all the revolutionary elements in Ireland and across the Atlantic, yet what they had to deal with in the minds of the Irish farmers as a body was the question of landlord and tenant. For the first time in the history of Ireland, the Government of this country had to deal with the refusal, on the part of the 49 Irish tenants, to perform their obligations as regards the payment of rents. That form of agitation was never before known in the history of Ireland, and it was necessary to bear in mind that the difficulty which the Government had to meet and to grapple with was that of a huge agrarian combination directed not only against the payment of rent, but against the very existence of land-lords as a class. The noble Duke had said that, by passing the Land Act of 1881, they had provided an instrument for those rebellious agitators. It was impossible to make a more misleading statement than that. His firm conviction was, and the conviction of Mr. Parnell and the other agitators was, that by passing the Act the Government had created a most powerful instrument against that agitation. The best proof as to the opinion of the Land League Leaders on this point was the course they took at the end of the Session. They dreaded so much the quieting effect of the Act that they at once set to work to encounter it by violence and agitation far beyond anything they had attempted before. They no doubt thought that, because it was a great remedial measure, it was necessary to meet it in that way; and if they had been allowed to pursue that course, their efforts would probably have been attended with success. The noble Duke seemed to think that the question of separation was one likely to find favour with the Treasury Benches in that House and in the House of Commons. He hardly thought it necessary to contradict that statement. The noble Duke could hardly think seriously that the Government were inclined to lend themselves to a project for a separation between the two countries. The noble Marquess who had preceded him had spoken very strongly against the administration of the Laud Act of 1881. One would suppose that he had had the fullest means of judging of that administration, whereas the operation of the Act had only just begun. He was convinced that all this alarm was hasty and unreasonable. He would then refer to the pamphlet of which they had heard something said. He had never heard of it until a few hours ago. On inquiry he found that the Land Commission had no knowledge as to the objectionable passages it contained. It seemed that the Secre- 50 tary of the Land League—[Laughter]—he meant the Secretary of the Land Commission—had been informed that the pamphlet contained a good exposition of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act; and as it was likely to give useful information to tenants, he, unfortunately, authorized the purchase and circulation of the pamphlet without having read it.
§ EARL CAIRNSsaid, that they were printed by the Queen's printer.
§ LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that, at any rate, it was assumed to be a useful publication, and, unfortunately, the contents were not examined; but the instant it became known to the Land Commissioners that the pamphlet contained very objectionable passages the circulation was stopped and the pamphlet suppressed. This course was taken by the Commissioners before any attention had been called to the subject in the newspapers. Of course, a gross blunder had been committed, and the Chief Secretary was now in communication with them as to whether any further steps should be taken in the matter. With regard to what the noble Marquess had said as to the Chief Secretary having given directions to the Sub-Commissioners, he could not but express his surprise at such a statement after the denial of the Chief Secretary, even in these days of Party warfare.
§ THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, all he did say was that the noble Earl the Leader of the House (Earl Granville) had mentioned the fact that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had taken each of those gentlemen into his private room in order to examine them as to their fitness.
§ LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he thought that explanation made the matter worse. He was certainly surprised that this bit of Dublin gossip should have been mentioned by Mr. Kavanagh on a public occasion, and that it should be renewed in that House passed his comprehension. The statement of his noble Friend (Earl Granville) was very plain, and had nothing in it to suggest the monstrous idea that these gentlemen had received instructions as to their judicial conduct. He (Lord Carlingford) had been charged with having been one of those who had deluded the House into passing the Land Act by representing that it would not lower rents in Ireland. The noble Mar- 51 quess, however, had merely picked one line out of his speech, and had founded his argument upon that line alone. What he had said, however, was that he believed that the measure would not lower rents except in cases where landlords had imposed an excessive rent. The effect of the Land Act in lowering rents generally in Ireland had not yet been ascertained. As yet the Land Court had only dealt with 1,300 eases out of a total of 600,000—a mere fraction, a handful of the whole; while the estates of the Peers, or of the other great Irish landowners, had been scarcely touched. The noble Marquess had talked as though these 1,300 cases, which had been dealt with by the Land Court, were fair samples of the mass of Irish holdings—test cases, as Mr. Parnell said. He did not believe that for a moment. On the contrary, he believed that they represented holdings which had been exorbitantly rented, and not average holdings, much less the good estates. They had no fair ground for supposing that the action of the Sub-Commissioners had been unduly harsh towards the landlords. In many cases which had been voluntarily settled out of Court the reduction of rents had been enormous, and even the agents of the estates admitted that many of the holdings had been far too highly rented. While admitting that Griffith's Valuation was too low as regarded property in Ireland generally, he believed that it fairly represented the value of the poorer tillage land. Various accusations had been brought against the Sub-Commissioners; but he supposed their Lordships would have an opportunity of discussing that subject another time. He must say, however, with regard to certain phrases attributed to Mr. Justice O'Hagan and Professor Baldwin, that they had been denied over and over again by both.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYDid Mr. Justice O'Hagan say nothing about a "live and let live" rent?
§ LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that Mr. Justice O'Hagan had merely used an ordinary Irish phrase—a "live and let live" rent—which was well understood by landlords and tenants in Ireland. Nobody who knew Mr. Justice O'Hagan would for a moment suppose that he intended to lay down anything unjust to either party. As for the unfortunate Professor Baldwin, he had never missed an opportunity of contra- 52 dicting the interpretation put upon his words; but, as was usual in the case of public speakers, the denial was not regarded.
§ THE EARL OF LEITRIMasked whether the noble Lord could inform the House in what papers the contradiction appeared?
§ LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he could not tell the number of The Freeman's Journal or Irish Times in which it had appeared; but the noble Earl could easily find it for himself—he had read the contradiction over and over again. He had lately read a speech by a distinguished Member of the Opposition (Mr. Gibson), a Gentleman who often said hard things of the Government and the Liberal Party; but also often said things with which he, as an Irishman, could sympathize. He would adopt the words of Mr. Gibson and say that in spite of the enormous difficulties with which they had to deal, he had the strongest hope for the future of Ireland, by the combined action—he would add for himself—of a great remedial measure, and of the strongest and most determined exercise of the powers of the law.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that the noble Lord and the noble Earl opposite had observed that the oases which had been decided in the Land Court did not in any way represent the generality of those which might arise in Ireland. They stated that they were exactly such cases as noble Lords in that House and right hon. Gentlemen in the other had said would actually arise. But the statistics proved that the cases which had been decided by the Sub-Commissioners were of every sort which could be decided under the Act. The Sub-Commissioners touched rents which had been fixed between 1840 and 1850, between 1850 and 1860, and between 1860 and 1870; and after which time the Prime Minister said all tenants were to be bound absolutely by the contracts they entered into. They touched the rents of estates purchased in the Encumbered Estates Court, and rents in which reductions had been made by the landlords. If the reduction was to go on in the same way two-thirds of the Irish landlords would be materially crippled and one-third of them entirely ruined. The case of Miss Knox had been referred to by Mr. Chamberlain in a provincial 53 speech. That was decidedly an instance in which the Sub-Commissioners were perfectly justified; but neighbouring landlords, whose case was altogether different, had their rents subjected to precisely the same reduction, and had been brought as low as Griffith's Valuation, while Miss Knox remained 20 or 25 per cent above it. Forty appeals had been decided. The Chief Commissioners had gone to Belfast, and they said that as they could not value the lands themselves like the Sub-Commissioners, they would appoint valuers, and they appointed three of high reputation. An argument arose whether the Reports of the valuers should be regarded as private or public documents; both landlords and tenants wished them to be public, and it was decided that they should, Mr. Vernon dissenting from the other two Commissioners. It then appeared that the new valuations varied in the most extraordinary way, one being actually higher than the old rent, and only one below it, the others showing the greatest possible variations, for in the depth of winter and in the midst of snow and rain it was impossible to value properly. In the result the Commissioners did not act upon the valuations at all, but gave a practical confirmation of the Sub-Commissioners' decisions. It was seldom that an Irish landlord had anything pleasant to say of the Government; but there was one passage in the Speech of which he approved. Last year the Irish people were behaving in a way which showed they were not fit for local self-government, and yet the Government intended to confer it on them. This year he was glad to see that the Government had taken a proper view of the state of things. He had it on extremely good authority that 2,000 copies of a certain pamphlet emanating from the office of the Land Commission had been sent into various parts of Ireland. Now, they had been told last Session that the effect of the Act would be not only to enhance the value of land, but increase the number of possible purchasers; whereas they had it on the semi-official authority of the pamphlet that a landlord, if he were wise, would find no purchaser except the existing tenant. He would only add that he heard with great satisfaction that the subject was to be more fully discussed on another occasion.
§ LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that the pamphlet to which allusion had been made, so far from being published with the knowledge of the Government, was utterly condemned by them. He could only characterize it as an unfortunate and reprehensible document.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that at all events the pamphlet had been issued and circulated; and he would like to know by whose authority it had been done?
§ LOUD CARLINGFORDsaid, the Land Commissioners were not aware of the existence of that document when it was issued, and not only were they ignorant of its contents, but the moment they discovered its existence it was suppressed.
§ EARL CAIRNSasked whether it was true that 2,000 copies of the pamphlet had been printed and had been circulated throughout the country by the Sub-Commissioners? He should like to know, too, what inquiries had been made as to the practice of the Stationery Office in Dublin; and he put it to the noble Lord to say what they would think of the Stationery Office in London if it were found to have circulated, in the name of a public authority—with a note at the end, intimating that all communications were to be addressed to the Secretary of that public authority—a pamphlet containing from beginning to end little but rank sedition? What inquiries had been made as to the printing of the document, and as to the relation between the office and the newspaper in which it had appeared? Lastly, he might ask whether the Secretary of the Land Commission knew that the document was circulated?
§ EARL SPENCERsaid, that, as he understood the matter, the Secretary of the Land Commission authorized, on the statement of one of the officials, the issue of this pamphlet without making himself acquainted with its contents. So much he admitted. The moment it was known what the contents of the pamphlet were the Commissioners immediately cancelled the order and commanded the withdrawal of the document from circulation.
§ EARL CAIRNSBut it was circulated to the extent of 2,000 copies.
§ EARL SPENCERsaid, he believed not. Very few copies were issued, and as soon as the character of the pamphlet 55 was known it was suppressed, and. the Commissioners expressed their strongest condemnation of it. With regard to the Stationery Office having issued it, an inquiry would be, and was being, made into the whole transaction. The Chief Secretary, he believed, only heard of the matter on Monday, and had received the explanation which he had just given to the House. Her Majesty's Government repudiated and condemned the transaction in the strongest possible terms, and they would take care that every possible inquiry was made into the cause of this very unfortunate proceeding.
§ LORD WAVENEYsaid, he must complain that no proper valuation had been systematically made by the Commissioners; it was by estimate rather than by valuation; and there was not sufficient motive power in the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners to get through the enormous amount of work which they had before them. Unless a larger number of Sub-Commissioners were appointed, and of a position of itself to carry weight in the country, it would be a great misfortune, and militate very much against the success of the Land Act. There should also be Commissions of Appeal for each Province, as each Province differed in its agricultural features. The Healy Clause had produced unexpected results which required immediate attention. It must not be imagined that, because there was a cessation of outrage and juries were beginning to discharge their duties, the Government could dispense with the power of reasonable repression as a means of security. They were regenerating a people, but in doing it they were disturbing the relations of society, and their first duty was to hold society together, so that changes did not eventuate in violence, until time had smoothed down asperities and the rest of Ireland was as tranquil as the Province of Ulster.
§ Address agreed to, nemine dissentiente, and ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.