§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURYMy Lords, the day before yesterday I gave notice that to-day I would call the attention of the Government to two Bills which were sent up from this House to the House of Commons on the 26th of May last. I mean the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill, and the Leasing Powers (Ireland) Bill. In order to make myself clearly understood it will be necessary to go back to what took place on this subject last year. Your Lordships will recollect that when my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) was at the head of the last Administration he caused three Bills to be framed on this subject, which were intended, if possible, 137 to quiet the agitation which had taken place in Ireland with regard to tenant-right; but before he could bring these Bills before Parliament in such a shape that they could be discussed, a change of Government took place. Subsequently, as your Lordships are aware, these Bills were referred to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, who altered them into various shapes. The first two Bills, namely, the Landlord and Tenant Bill and the Leasing Powers Bill, although changed from the form in which they were framed by the Earl of Derby's Attorney General for Ireland, still retained so much of the spirit which he intended should be infused into them that when they were again brought forward in their altered shape by the present Government, the Members of the late Government thought it right to continue to support them, and voted that your Lordships should go into Committee on them. With regard to the third Bill, the Tenants' Compensation Improvement Bill, which the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Newcastle) endeavoured to include with the others for our adoption, the alteration effected was so great that we refused to have anything to do with it. Mr. Napier, on reading it in its altered shape, said to me that he could not accept the paternity of it; and in this House I myself stated to the noble Duke, in the name of the late Cabinet, that I repudiated it. On that occasion the noble Duke seemed to be impressed with the opinion that it was of the utmost importance that for the purpose of appeasing agitation in Ireland this question should be settled, and the Bill pass your Lordships' House; but I cannot help thinking that since that time the noble Duke must have adopted the opinions which his Colleagues expressed at that period—namely, that as only eight or nine days of the Session remained, and there would not be time to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, it would be advisable to postpone legislation until the present Session. The noble Earl at the head of the Government said that such was the course he should take, and it was approved of by the Opposition, the understanding on both sides of the House being that the Bills were to rest during the recess, and that they should be reintroduced as soon as possible in the present Session, and first in your Lordships' House. In the present Session the Government lost no time in bringing forward three Bills, which were I believe the identical Bills of the previous Session. 138 These Bills were presented, as we understood them, as Government Bills, and I think it would be hardly worthy an English Government to say they were not Government Bills. They were endorsed with the name of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Newcastle), were referred to a Select Committee upstairs, and some of the most distinguished Members of your Lordships' House served upon it. But besides the Government Bills to which the name of the noble Duke was attached, there was an analogous Bill brought in by the Earl of Donoughmore, and another by the Marquess of Clanricarde. We considered these Bills in the Select Committee, and had the advantage of the presidence of the Lord Privy Seal (the Duke of Argyll), who represented the Government on that Committee. I never knew a Committee work harder, with more good humour, or with a more sincere desire to frame in their Report such an arrangement of legislation as should meet the approval of all parties. We were mainly assisted by the efforts of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll), and we looked on him as the agent and representative of the Government. We appealed to him, as we should have appealed in this House to any Member of the Government sitting on the opposite bench, and we received all his communications with the weight that attached to them as coming from a Cabinet Minister. Your Lordships agreed in the Report presented by the Committee to your Lordships, which was to the effect that the Landlord and Tenant Bill and the Leasing Powers Bill should be recommended to Parliament for legislation; whilst the Tenants' Compensation Bill was rejected by the Committee as not being an advisable measure to be passed. When the Lord Privy Seal moved that the Report of that Committee be received, he said that, "The Committee having approved of a Bill which dealt with the question of buildings, it was not thought desirable by the Committee to have a separate Bill on the subject of roads and fences." And it was understood in the Committee that the noble Duke, both as his own private opinion, and as representing the opinions of the Cabinet, did not think it necessary to press on the Committee or upon the House the passing of the Compensation Bill. It was clearly thought to be his opinion that the first two Bills should be passed, and the third be dismissed. Your Lordships then came to the third reading of these Bills on the 139 27th May, when the noble Duke the Secretary at War (the Duke of Newcastle) used expressions which showed that the Government adopted the Bills as their own. The noble Duke distinctly stated that the Government were prepared to accept the responsibility of the Bills in their present form as if they had been introduced by the Government. Such, my Lords, was the language used by two noble Dukes—language which I think does them credit for wisdom and proper feeling, showing as it does that they were conscious of the dignity which should attach to the Government in such a matter. The impression left on my mind by the communications of the Lord Privy Seal was, that the Government would do their utmost to carry these Bills through the other House of Parliament. It was also my impression that these Bills would receive the support of a great many Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House; that if any obstruction were made by a certain part of the Irish Members, who were sure to obstruct the Bills if possible, that obstruction would be met in a manly manner by the Government; and that measures which it had taken your Lordships two months to examine would be passed into a law. This delusion, my Lords, was suddenly dispelled the other day by a statement which has been made to the House of Commons, not by a Cabinet Minister, but by the Secretary for Ireland, the pith of which is that the Government had abandoned these important Bills. The language of Sir J. Young, in stating the reasons why the Government have so acted, was very different from that which has been held by the two noble Dukes. He said that—
If these were Government Bills, ho did not scruple for one moment to say that they would not have been proposed at that period of the Session for the consideration of the House. He was bound in candour to say that he did not think any Bill of this kind would be satisfactory without a Compensation Bill; but the Compensation Bill had been rejected, and therefore the measures which he had supported were not before the House, and how, then, could it be said that he was responsible for them? He believed the Bills were good, as far as they went; but the question was, were they to have legislation upon a part of the subject only, and would that course be satisfactory?On that ground, my Lords, Sir J. Young seems to have withdrawn the Bills on behalf of the Government. Your Lordships will observe, in the first place, that he repudiates them as Government Bills, al- 140 though the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Newcastle), in the strongest way, acknowledged them to be Government Bills, and accepted the responsibility of them; and when the right hon. Baronet spoke of the Tenants' Compensation Bill as indispensable, he was utterly at variance with the noble Duke, who did not at all deem it a sine quâ non. It must have struck your Lordships that when the noble Duke was asked how this had happened, he was ignorant that it had happened, or that it was likely to happen. My Lords, I do not accuse the noble Dukes of having dealt unfairly by your Lordships if they were ignorant of what was going to occur. But I have a right to say that the Government has acted as Governments seldom have acted, and as I hope no Government will ever act again. Their conduct displays an extraordinary degree of insubordination on the part of certain inferior Members of the Government, who give up Bills for which two Cabinet Ministers—the two noble Dukes opposite—made the Government responsible. What are we to suppose, my Lords, is the cause of such conduct? It does not appear that in the other House any Cabinet Minister endeavoured to explain it. The whole thing has been done by a subordinate Member of the Government, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who declares that he abandons the Bills because the Tenants' Compensation Bill is a sine quâ non. Sir John Young said, that if they had been Government Bills they would have been brought forward at an earlier period of the Session: but they had been brought forward by the Government as early as possible: the Committee sat upon them one week only after the Easter recess, the Tenant Right Bill passed on the 26th of May; now it is the 13th of July, and it was only on the 10th that the matter was mentioned in the House of Commons. What then did Sir J. Young mean by his statement as to want of time? What had been done during the six weeks which had elapsed between the 26th of May and the 10th of July. It appears plainly that the proceeding taken by Sir J. Young has nothing to do with any delay of the measures in this House, and that it was not sanctioned by any Cabinet Minister in this or the other House of Parliament. It is, therefore, with considerable astonishment that I ask the Government if the Bills are abandoned at a period when we have more time to consider them than we had on a former occasion, when the 141 Bills were first brought in in the other House, and after they have been thoroughly sifted by a Committee of your Lordships? I ask the Government whether it is true that these Bills are abandoned?—and, if so, why have they been abandoned? and then, thirdly, I ask, how is it that the Chief Secretary for Ireland has taken upon himself to state to the other House that these Bills were abandoned for the reasons which he mentioned, when the noble Dukes opposite—Cabinet Ministers—were not aware either of the fact of the abandonment, or of such statements having been made or being about to be made?
§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEcould not help thinking, although the noble Earl was exceedingly ingenious in discovering any ground for throwing censure on Her Majesty's Government, that on the present occasion he had signally failed in making out a case with reference to these Bills. Before he took any notice of what the noble Earl had said as to these Bills, he must refer to the first part of his statement as to what had occurred last year—and he referred to it with great unwillingness, because personal differences and disputes as to facts had taken place on that occasion, which, if the noble Earl had permitted, he should have wished to remain buried in oblivion. But the noble Earl having referred to those facts, he felt bound, in justice to himself, to say he had misrepresented what took place last year between him and a gentleman who did not occupy a seat in that House. The noble Earl said that these Bills were moved by him, and pressed by him last year in a manner which warranted him in drawing a distinction between the course he took, and the course taken by the noble Earl at the head of the Government, in that discussion. He would state shortly what took place. These Bills were brought in by Mr. Napier, as the organ of Lord Derby's Government, in the course of the short Session at the end of 1852, and were referred to a Select Committee of the other House, upon which Members of all parties sat and devoted much attention to the subject during the whole of that Session. When these Bills had passed through Committee, and were nearly on the point of coming up to this House, it was asked by Gentlemen connected with Ireland, who was likely to take the Bills up, as they were not Bills belonging to this Government, but to the preceding Government, which Members of this Go- 142 vernment had done their best to put in a shape to enable the Legislature to pass. Some conversation took place, and eventually, in consequence of his having devoted great attention to the subject when he was Secretary for Ireland in 1846, and having brought in two measures himself, he was asked whether, if no one else would take them up, he would. He replied that if it were wished, he was willing to do so; and shortly after Mr. Napier sent for him to come to the bar of their Lordships' House, and told him how glad he was that he had consented to take charge of the Bills; and he told him also, in most distinct terms, that although the Session was late, there would be no difficulty in passing them; that Lord Clanricarde and one or two other Peers connected with Ireland were opposed to their passing, but that the noble Earl at the head of the late Government, and the late Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, and one or two others who had not held office, but whom he named, would give their utmost support and assistance. What he stated last year, and he repeated now, was the assurance he received from Mr. Napier. And further, when the noble Earl opposite referred to a letter of Mr. Napier's—
§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURYdenied that he had referred to any letter.
§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEappealed to their Lordships whether the noble Earl had not distinctly referred to a letter of last year, in which Mr. Napier said the three Bills were so completely altered?
§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he had referred to what Mr. Napier said in the House of Commons.
§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLErepeated, that the noble Earl had distinctly referred to a letter from Mr. Napier; and, as he had done so, he also referred to a letter, if not of the same date, one which he received about the same time, and in which Mr. Napier did not make any such statement, but requested him to take charge of all these Bills, and led him to expect that the noble Earl opposite, and those who acted with him, would, if they did not agree to every clause, at least give every facility to passing them. He had been placed in a most unfair position, for when he brought forward the Bills under that assurance, he found that a most active whip was used to bring up noble Lords even from the Isle of Wight and other places by the Opposition, for the purpose of throwing out the Bills after the declara- 143 tion of their own officer to him that they would support the Government in passing them. When it was seen that the Bills would be disputed clause by clause, then, undoubtedly, the noble Earl at the head of the Government, not acting at variance with the course he had taken, but in entire accordance with his views, and after consulting various Members of the Government, agreed that the circumstances were so completely altered that it would be right to withdraw the Bills, and proposed that they should be introduced in the next Session. Those were the facts connected with the Bills of last year; and he would willingly have said not one word on that subject had the noble Earl not chosen to revive the discussion—a discussion which was extremely painful to him, though he was prepared there and elsewhere to maintain that he had not overstated one single fact of the part he took in these transactions. In fulfilment of the pledge which was given at the commencement of the Session, he brought in the three Bills in statu quo as they had been postponed the last year. The noble Earl said they were brought in and recognised as Government Bills. He wished to prevent misapprehension, not to raise any quibble, for he was ready to defend every act of the Government; and must therefore say the noble Earl had misrepresented what took place on that occasion. He stated broadly that the Bills were brought in in fulfilment of the pledge which had been given in the last Session, and that if they had been brought in as Government Bills there were certain alterations which he should have introduced; and he was quite confident a noble Earl, who brought in other Bills, blamed the Government for bringing them in precisely in the same shape as in the previous Session. The observation then was, that there was not sufficient responsibility on the part of the Government; and now they were told the whole responsibility devolved on the Government, because they recognised the Bills by introducing them. He was perfectly ready to adopt every word he used on the third reading, but he said the Bills were not introduced as Government Bills, and the Government was attacked because they were not introduced as Government Bills. What then occurred? The Bills were referred to a Committee upstairs, and his noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal took the Chair, and assented to a great extent, though not entirely, to certain al- 144 terations; and he (the Duke of Newcastle) then said, and he said now, that the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) having presided over that Committee, and having reframed these Bills, with the assistance of others, the Government adopted them on his authority and recommendation as measures which might advantageously be passed, as so far settlement of the questions involved in them. He stated on that occasion that in his opinion the Bills had not gone sufficiently far, but that the Bills were good Bills, and the Government would take the responsibility of sending them down to the other House. The noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury), acting, he supposed, on behalf of his party, and in the absence of the usual leader of Opposition in that House, now said they were taken up as Government Bills, and abandoned in the other House as Government Bills. What was the fact? So long as there was a prospect of these Bills being passed, and as long as there was some popularity attaching to them, they were not allowed to be considered Government Bills—Mr. Napier took them up as his Bills. Though literally not moved by Mr. Napier, he, being absent in Ireland, wrote to Sir John Young, requesting him to move the second reading in order to save time. Sir John Young having complied with this request, the Government, when it afterwards suited Mr. Napier's views, were said by him and his Friends to have adopted the Bills. On his arrival from Ireland, however, Mr. Napier, not having yet thought of resigning the Bills into the hands of the Government, would not allow the Government the responsibility or the credit, but gave notice that it was his intention—not the intention of the Government—to move the recommittal of the Bills, with a view to introduce certain Amendments. The Bills then were still his at that time, and he continued to claim them as his up to Tuesday last, but now all responsibility was to be thrown upon the Government. On Tuesday the Bills came on for discussion in Committee in the other House. The noble Earl said the circumstances were different from the circumstances under which the Bills came up to this House last year, and that they were sent down to the other House considerably earlier, and that they might have passed through the Commons in a short space of time, inasmuch as they had been thoroughly sifted by a Committee of this House. They certainly were sent down a few days earlier; but as to 145 their being sifted, the noble Earl did not seem to consider that the Bills when they came up from the other House last year had been sifted in a Committee of the other House; but as their Lordships would not allow that to be any authority for them, they could not expect the House of Commons to take the Committee of this House as a bit more binding upon them—the Commons were as little inclined as were their Lordships to pass measures sub silentio and without examination. Well, on Tuesday the Bills came before the Committee of the House of Commons, and Mr. Napier having had the opportunity of recommending all manner of alterations and withdrawals—in fact, he was almost a Member of their Lordships' Committee—notwithstanding these advantages gave notice of a few Amendments, and he held them in his hand—no less than eight closely printed pages of Amendments, amounting to something like 200, to say nothing of Amendments by other Members of the House. These innumerable Amendments were proposed on Bills which had been so thoroughly sifted by their Lordships' House, and so thoroughly recognised by Mr. Napier, who fathered them, that the Government was taunted with the difficulty stated by Sir John Young in passing them. The noble Earl said that at this point of time the Bills were withdrawn, and by the Government, which statement was incorrect. So anxious was the noble Earl to make his onslaught upon the Government, so anxious was he not to lose the advantage of his temporary leadership, that before he knew anything of the facts he gave notice of this question. But, surely, in two days he might have found out the facts a little better, and come down prepared to substantiate what he advanced. The Bills were not withdrawn. They were on the Votes of the House of Commons now; for all he knew, the discussion was then going on upon them. The Government could not withdraw Mr. Napier's Bills. Mr. Napier was so jealous of these Bills that, instead of Sir John Young calling the Bills Government Bills, all that took place vas this:—at the close of a long discussion, in the course of which Members from all parts of Ireland, and not of extreme opinions, had expressed their opinion that it was impossible to pass these Bills satisfactorily in their present shape at this late period of the Session, the Secretary for Ireland said, with the feeling evinced by the House, if the Bills had been Govern- 146 ment Bills, and in his charge, he should not be prepared to press them, and that he believed the interests of the measures themselves would be promoted by being postponed to another Session of Parliament. Whether rightly or wrongly, that was the opinion of Sir John Young. He did not know what was the feeling in Ireland upon the subject, his right hon. Friend had the means of judging; and, in his opinion, these Bills, good in themselves (for in the speech irregularly quoted by the noble Earl, though he did not complain, he said he thought they were good), would not be satisfactory in Ireland, unless the compensation principle were carried further. He knew the opinion of his right hon. Friend was, that they were good in themselves, but that it was almost impossible to carry them in the present Session, and that they could not be carried in that temper to do the same benefit to Ireland which they would probably effect if carried in the next Session. He believed in the present state of Ireland no pressing necessity rendered it essential that they should be passed this year. At the same time, he should greatly regret if the Bills should not be passed—if indeed they were not to pass. He believed the Bills were good; but he had not yet received information whether or not they were to be persevered with. Probably, by that time, Mr. Napier had made up his mind what course he meant to take with reference to these Bills. He regretted they had not passed, and undoubtedly, if the further question of compensation were to be raised at some future time, he knew enough of the circumstances of that country to be persuaded that any matter taken out of the category of constant agitation was so much gained for Ireland.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, the Bills which came to this House in July last were two Bills—the Landlord and Tenant Bill and the Leasing Powers Bill—which were proposed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Napier), and a third Bill proposed by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland—the Tenants' Improvement Compensation—identical in name with a Bill of Mr. Napier's, but differing from it in its provisions and its machinery. There was an extraordinary discrepancy between the language of the Government in this House then and the language in another place now. Then the noble Duke did everything to fix the responsibility of that third Bill on that side of the House, 147 and now Sir John Young said the Bill was his, and he was responsible for it; therefore it was clear it could have nothing to do with the Opposition. The noble Duke had entirely misunderstood the statement of Mr. Napier. Surely, it ought to have been in the noble Duke's recollection that, so far from there being any concert between Mr. Napier and the leader of the Opposition in this House, Mr. Napier told him he had not spoken on the subject to Lord Derby, but would do so, and no doubt Lord Derby would support the Bills. [The Duke of NEWCASTLE: I utterly deny it! I utterly deny it!] He was merely putting in contrast with the noble Duke's statement what he believed to be in the recollection of his right hon. Friend. Mr. Napier had always asserted, both in his place in the House of Commons and in private communications with him and with the noble Duke, that he never for a moment wished to give up that responsibility to any one. But, at the same time, his right hon. Friend thought, and he entirely agreed with him, that after these Bills came out of the Select Committee, over which the noble Duke the Lord Privy Seal presided, the Government had adopted and were responsible for them. The speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle), in moving the third reading, on the 26th of May, proved conclusively that the Government had adopted them as their measures. The first reading, the second reading, the recommittal, and the third reading of these Bills were all moved by the noble Duke, and if that were not proof that the Bills were considered to be Government Bills, he did not know what proof they could have. The Bills went down to the House of Commons, and the second reading was moved by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. [The Duke of NEWCASTLE: I stated so distinctly, at Mr. Napier's request.] He thought it was perfectly natural that Mr. Napier, taking great interest in these measures, should have written to the Secretary for Ireland and requested him to proceed with them. Did the noble Duke mean to say that the having written that letter took the Bills entirely out of the hands of the Government? Then he supposed he was to understand that the Government were perfectly willing to pass these Bills, provided the merit were given wholly to them, but would give them up if their originality was to be attributed to any one else?
§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLESo far 148 from that, the Secretary for Ireland acted as second to Mr. Napier, leaving him the full credit throughout.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREAnd leaving him that full credit, the Government would have nothing further to do with them. The noble Duke had laid great stress on the Amendments which his right hon. Friend intended to propose in Committee on these Bills. On that point he would state that Mr. Napier was requested by the Select Committee to revise these Bills, particularly one of them, which had undergone much discussion during the Easter recess, and have them reprinted. But owing to the printers taking holiday the printed Bill was not sent to Mr. Napier in Ireland, and it was impossible to get the Bill reprinted before the third reading. The noble Duke, he believed, considered it was a great object to send the Bills as soon as possible down to the other House, and therefore they had not that thorough revisal which, in Bills dealing with legal questions, was so necessary. Therefore it was that these Amendments were proposed; but, with one exception, they were merely verbal, to make the sense more clear. After the second reading of the Bills in the House of Commons, Mr. Napier, anxious that they should come before the House in a more perfect shape, asked leave to have the Bills recommitted, that these Amendments might be introduced. That favour was refused, and the consequence was, all these verbal Amendments appeared upon the paper. The noble Lord said the Bills were not withdrawn, and he had admitted, as a matter of form, they were not withdrawn; but why? They remained on the paper, to allow of his right hon. Friend explaining the improper position in which he was placed by the conduct of the Government, and defending his character from all imputations. Mr. Napier, as well as their Lordships, had been led to believe that these were Government Bills, and that his aid and assistance, from being thoroughly conversant with the questions, were desired by the Government. Mr. Napier had no complaint to make of the noble Duke the Lord Privy seal; on the contrary, he stated nothing could be more kind or more handsome than the conduct of the noble Duke throughout the whole course of these transactions; but he did complain of the conduct of the Government. The Compensation Bill, which the Secretary for Ireland thought indispen- 149 sable, was withdrawn by the Government in the Select Committee on the 11th of May, and subsequently Mr. Ferguson, who had been engaged in preparing these Bills, was brought over from Ireland and paid a large remuneration by the Government for his services. If it was not intended to proceed with these Bills, that was a gross waste of money. Mr. Napier's statement was, that up to four o'clock on Tuesday he believed the Government intended to use their utmost endeavours to pass these measures, and that they were glad of his assistance on a subject with which he was so familiar. He could not understand the statement of the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle), that Mr. Napier had taken the matter out of the hands of the Government. The only proof he alleged was the letter written to the Secretary for Ireland, requesting him to move the second reading. Surely it was but natural that Mr. Napier, absent on business, should wish to have the measures forwarded. The right hon. Gentleman must have been a madman to take the matter wholly out of the hands of the Government, for he must be well aware, with the few opportunities private Members had, at that period of the Session, to bring forward their own measures, it would be impossible to pass these Bills, unless the Government took them up, and used their influence and the time at their disposal for the purpose. As to what had been the cause of this conduct, he hoped he should not offend the noble Duke if he said a few words of the plain truth. At the last general election a certain number of Irish Members were returned, pledged to vote for Mr. Sharman Crawford's Tenant Right Bill, and to oppose any Government which would not make that a Cabinet measure. He need say no more about Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill than that it contained provisions as absurd as the theories of Prudhon and Cabet. When the present Government acceded to office they received support which was felt to be inconsistent with the pledge, and displeasing to many supporters of the question of tenant right. The position of the Government, then, was this—they were obliged to yield to their Irish supporters, and to keep open a sore which every patriot would wish to see closed for ever, because their friends felt that their political vocation in Ireland would be endangered if this question was settled. He went further, and said that it was lamentable they should have a Govern- 150 ment which was so weak that it was obliged to yield to the demands of that party, to give up for that purpose measures which it acknowledged to be useful and desirable, and to keep open an agitation which was, of all agitations, the most dangerous and most to be regretted in Ireland, and all because the Government had not either the inherent strength or the moral courage to make even one effort to pass those measures in the House of Commons.
§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEMy Lords, I cannot allow the statements which the noble Earl has just made to your Lordships, and which were cheered by at least one Member of the late Government, to pass without at once rising, not only to contradict what the noble Earl thought himself entitled to call the plain truth, but to state to your Lordships how the matter really stands as regards the late Government and the question of tenant right in Ireland. The present Government is not bound in any way whatever to those who advocate extreme views of tenant-right in Ireland, and the noble Earl ought to have known better than to make such a statement. If the noble Earl chooses to represent the present Government as bound in any way to those Gentlemen, I think he ought to be a little more cautious in the use of his expressions in this House; and the noble Marquess the late Lord Privy Seal (Marquess of Salisbury) ought also to be a little more cautious how he cheers statements addressed to your Lordships. How stand the circumstances connected with the late Government and the general election in Ireland? It is perfectly notorious that those who were sent to stand for the cities, the boroughs, and the counties in Ireland on behalf of the late Government were instructed by those who manage these things to hold very strong language upon the subject of tenant right, with the full understanding that there would be no inconvenience attached to the course which was subsequently to be taken with regard to that question. That is a matter of perfect notoriety. What did the late Government do after the election? The noble Earl talks of Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill, and of Prudhon and Cabet. What did the late Government do with that which was a counterpart of Sharman Crawford's Bill—I mean the Bill introduced by Mr. Serjeant Shee? When a critical division was about to take place, they made a bargain with the supporters of that Bill, and agreed to refer it to a Select Committee, 151 thereby recognising its principle. The noble Marquess may shake his head; but the fact is well known, and can be substantiated, that the late Government referred Mr. Serjeant Shee's Bill to a Select Committee, and thus encouraged the agitation in Ireland. [The Earl of RODEN: Hear, hear!] The noble Earl opposite, himself a supporter of the late Government, acknowledges and cheers that statement. I believe, my Lords, that the agitation of extreme views of tenant right was more promoted and encouraged by the course adopted by the late Government, both during the general election in Ireland and subsequently in the House of Commons, than by any step which any Government, either preceding or subsequent, has taken; while, for the present Government, I utterly deny what the noble Earl has been pleased to call the plain truth.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHMy Lords, I know nothing of this subject, except what I have heard to-night. I heard the commencement of this discussion with some regret, and that regret has been constantly increasing during the whole period that the discussion has lasted. My Lords, when the noble Earl who began the discussion asks two or three questions, I must crave the pardon of your Lordships to ask another. It is this—what benefit can the public derive from a discussion carried on in the temper in which this discussion has been carried on? My Lords, the noble Earl on this side of the House thinks that there is insubordination in the camp of the Government, and the noble Duke on the opposite side of the House thinks that there is some degree of insubordination in the camp of the Opposition. Now, I will not say that there is insubordination in either; but I must believe, from what I have heard to-night, that there is a want of that previous communication on both sides between the leaders and those who act with them—who are not the subordinates, but who co-operate with them—the presence of which would most materially conduce to the public service. With respect to these Bills, it is clear to me that there is a very great extent of misunderstanding, and that misunderstanding will only be increased by what has taken place to-night. I deeply regret it. It is evident from what has proceeded from both sides of the House, that substantially these measures are good measures, and measures required for the benefit of Ireland. I will not say 152 whose cause is made better by the discussion of this night, but I am quite sure that the cause of the Bills is made a great deal worse. All I venture to hope is this, that for the sake of the public interests these personal feelings and discussions will be put an end to, and that those Gentlemen who are interested in these Bills will communicate with each other in a friendly spirit, having regard solely to the public advantage, with the view of seeing, even now, whether these Bills may not pass.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he entirely concurred in the observations of the noble Earl. He bore his willing testimony to the good temper and good feeling shown by the Members of that Committee over which he had the honour to preside; and when he remembered the manner in which they discussed the details of these Bills, he felt that he had entered a very different atmosphere when he listened to the violent and most unworthy party attack made by the noble Earl opposite. The whole history of these Bills showed that they were disputing about words. In one sense they had been Government Bills, in another sense they had not been Government Bills. If by Government Bills were meant party measures passed through Parliament with all the strength of the Government, without reference to individual opinions, then undoubtedly they never had been Government Bills, either in their origin or in their subsequent progress through Parliament. The noble Earl opposite had himself related a fact which showed clearly that the Bills had not been Government Bills, properly so called. Instead of the Government or the Committee referring for advice and assistance to the present law officers of the Crown, they consulted almost exclusively the law officers of the late Government; and he was bound to say that, so far as he had had any communication with the late Attorney General for Ireland, he had no reason to believe that there had been anything influencing the mind of that Gentleman except a sincere desire to get the Bills passed. He must add, however, with regard to the conduct of noble Lords opposite, that their whole endeavour had been to avoid the smallest acknowledgment of the principle of tenant compensation in Ireland. Although he admitted that the Members of the Committee had shown a good spirit and good temper in dealing with the details of the Bills, chiefly, he believed, in consequence of the personal exertions of Mr. Napier, yet he 153 did feel it odd, when the Bills were brought down from the Committee, that those Members of the late Government who were responsible for their original introduction should have been the parties to resist to the utmost even the smallest acknowledgment of the principle of compensation. He believed that the vast majority of noble Lords opposite, whatever they might say now, rejoiced that there was a prospect of these Bills failing in the present Session. Nothing but the personal exhortation and entreaties of Mr. Napier, and the proceedings of the Committee, would have induced them to pass the Bills through that House, even in a very damaged state; and he did not think they seriously regretted that it would be impossible at this late period of the Session to pass the Bills through the other House of Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the noble Duke opposite had been pleased to inform their Lordships that the late Government encouraged the agitation of the tenant-right question in Ireland. If by that the noble Duke meant that the late Government permitted their law officers to prepare Bills for setting the question of tenant right at rest, and to submit those Bills to the country, then undoubtedly he was quite right, but not otherwise. The late Government certainly did, with the full consent of the Lord Lieutenant, permit Mr. Napier to prepare the Bills in question; but he was at a loss to conceive how that could possibly be construed into an encouragement of the tenant-right agitation. The noble Duke had denied that the Bills were presented to their Lordships in the present Session as Government Bills, and, as evidence of the accuracy of his statement upon that point, had laid great stress upon a conversation which he had with Mr. Napier; but he would defy the noble Duke to get over the fact that the Bills were introduced and moved by himself as the organ of the Government, even after he had been informed by Mr. Napier in writing that a noble Earl (the Earl of Donoughmore) would take charge of the Bills before their Lordships. Again, the noble Duke had said that the Bills were moved in the House of Commons by Mr. Napier, but the fact was not so, for both the first and second readings were moved by Sir John Young.
§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEI have twice distinctly stated that Mr. Napier wrote from Ireland requesting Sir John Young to move these Bills for him, and that Sir John Young did so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was glad that fact was admitted, for it proved that the Bills were considered to be Government measures. He was surprised, therefore, that it should have been stated in another place, that at this late period of the Session it would be impossible to proceed with these Bills. It was true that Mr. Napier had requested the permission of the Committee to correct several inaccuracies which had crept into the Bills; but, in the opinion of the noble Duke the Lord Privy Seal, who presided over the Committee, those Amendments were merely verbal, and might be made in the House of Commons without leading to much discussion, there not being a single principle involved in them. For his own part, he was not one of those who would abuse the Government for withdrawing Bills. They had done so very often during the present Session. He agreed with them that second thoughts were best, and for withdrawing these and other Bills he begged them to accept his most sincere thanks.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEhoped their Lordships would turn their most serious attention to the steps that were absolutely necessary to be taken before the close of the Session, if they wished to do their duty to the people of Ireland. It was to him a matter of comparative indifference what might be the relative claims of the Gentlemen concerned in the production of these Bills, or what had been the conduct of the late or the present Government; but as an Irish proprietor—as one interested in the well-being of that country—he took the liberty of calling their attention to the unfortunate position in which they now stood. He might be allowed to say, however, that although it was perfectly true that the Committee sought the advice and assistance of the Gentleman who had so long applied his great energy, his indefatigable industry, and his undoubted public spirit to the settlement of the difficult question of tenant right, yet he never heard it suggested for a single moment that they were thereby casting on Mr. Napier a personal responsibility for these Bills. This was so far from being the case, that he believed he did not misinform their Lordships when he stated that the Committee actually sent a message to the law officers of the present Government, requesting their advice and assistance likewise in dealing with this intricate subject. The Committee felt some reluctance and delicacy in calling upon Mr. Napier, whom they only knew as a private 155 Member of the House of Commons, to assist them in preparing measures for the House of Lords, and which had been introduced and moved by a Member of the Government; and most assuredly they never imagined that the time would ever come when by reason of the help most patriotically and freely given, the whole responsibility of these Bills would be thrown upon Mr. Napier. He was happy to say that the discussions in the Committee had been conducted in a fair and temperate spirit, though some provisions of it were carried, not because they were right, but because it was thought they would conciliate the Commons. This was a fatal error. When the Report was presented to their Lordships, and the time arrived for the third reading of the Bills, he certainly did feel that the Bills were not only under the charge of the Government, but that he was entitled to look to the Government as responsible for them. His mind was more fully satisfied upon that point, when, wishing to ascertain the responsibility of the Government for the Bills as they then stood, as against the risk of finding them returned in an altered shape from the House of Commons, he put a question on the subject, and the reply given by the noble Duke the Minister of War distinctly was, that he considered the Bills to be the Bills of the Government. But, leaving that branch of the subject, he entreated their Lordships to believe that this question was not one of indifference, or without danger, in Ireland. He admitted, for the sake of argument, that the responsibility of the Government had now ceased, so far as the present Bills were concerned; but they continued responsible for the tranquillity of Ireland, and for the maintenance of that tranquillity it was necessary that the Government should inform the people of Ireland, plainly and distinctly, what they really intended to propose. Suspense and uncertainty were as mischievous as they were unpardonable. These had been the sources of agitation and danger. It was a fatal mistake originally to have sent into Ireland a roving Commission to take evidence of all kinds, and to give the people of that country such a picture as that contained in the Devon Report, if they were not prepared, the moment the Report was laid before Parliament, either to introduce such remedial measures as they considered necessary, or else to confess frankly that they had no intention to bring forward any measure at all; but to leave the country for a series of years 156 expecting a measure from the Government, or threatened with a measure by the Government, allowing the whole of the agitation to be directed against the proprietors and the management of land in Ireland, was one of the most dangerous, fatal, and unjustifiable courses ever pursued by any Government. He agreed with the noble Duke the Minister of War that it was dangerous and culpable on the part of the late Government to deal with this question in the way they had done. When the Secretary of State (Mr. Walpole) consented to read a second time a Bill which the head of his Government (the Earl of Derby) was compelled to disavow, he was, in fact, giving to a bad, mischievous measure, the same weight of Parliamentary and Governmental authority which he granted to a Bill prepared by the law officers of the Government themselves; but all this was now past, and, instead of dwelling upon former errors, it was their duty to see what could be done, and that immediately and undisguisedly, towards the settlement of a question that had long disturbed and agitated Ireland. He believed that there never was, or perhaps never would be, a better opportunity for effecting that object than the present moment; and he thought that the Government would be highly to blame if they did not, before the close of the Session, lay upon the table the Bills which they intended to abide by. He therefore called on the Government to declare their real intentions by producing a definite measure. The Bill introduced and carried by the Ministers in one House had been repudiated by the Secretary for Ireland in the other. Let them tell us to what we are to trust—let them frame and produce their own measure—let there be no further question of mixed responsibility. He did did not call upon them to adopt this or that measure. By the rejection of the Bills which had passed this House they had at present a tabula rasa before them, and it was their duty to produce what might emphatically be called their own Bills. They could no longer plead the responsibility of the Earl of Derby or Mr. Napier—they were bound to show to the people of Ireland that which, in their judgment, was wise, moderate, and practical; if they would produce and carry such a measure, it would at once save that country from the dangers of agitation, and protect themselves from the risk and hazards of the next Session.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he wished to correct one mis-statement on a point of fact which had fallen from his noble Friend who had just sat down. He was sure that mis-statement was quite unintentional on his noble Friend's part. He understood his noble Friend to say that the only argument used in Committee with reference to the tenants' compensation clause was that it had been put in in order to satisfy the House of Commons, and not because it was right or just in itself. Now, he (the Duke of Argyll) had most distinctly contended that the clause which was drawn up on this subject for allowing compensation to the tenant was just and equitable in itself. He confessed that he had been greatly astonished to hear his noble Friend's exhortation to the Government that they ought to introduce a Bill exclusively confined to the question of tenants' compensation. [Lord MONTEAGLE: No.] If his noble Friend merely meant that the Government should bring in a Bill on the subject of leasing powers, or a Bill for the simple consolidation of the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland, without touching at all upon compensation to tenants, it was not at all improbable that such measures would be received with general assent on both sides of that House; but it was the subject of tenants' compensation that his noble Friend must have meant when he said that it was a dangerous subject of agitation in Ireland; and if it was now his advice to the Government that they should pass a Bill on that question, certainly that counsel was strangely at variance with the language that had been previously held by his noble Friend both in the Select Committee and in their Lordships' House, because his language had hitherto uniformly been that they ought to let that question alone—that they should not touch the subject of compensation to tenants; and, above all, that they ought not to give any retrospective compensation—that the agitation on the subject was dying away, and that they should not keep it alive by any legislation of this kind. Therefore he could not see that there was much consistency in his noble Friend's exhortation to the Government to introduce a Bill on that question. However, he (the Duke of Argyll) would express his own individual opinion to his noble Friend in reference to this subject. He held in the main that for the future the relation between landlord and tenant ought to rest upon contract, and upon contract only; and he believed 158 that the most mischievous parts of the Bill that was introduced by the late Government were not those that were retrospective, but those of a prospective character; and the paternity of the latter the noble Earl opposite would hardly deny belonged to the late Government. He (the Duke of Argyll) said that, whatever their legislation might be, it ought to be confined to the past, and should declare that in future the relations of landlord and tenant must rest on that which was the only sure and solid foundation—namely, contract, and contract alone. That was his individual opinion, for which nobody but himself was responsible; and he repeated that whilst it would be but right to adopt a measure giving compensation to the tenant under a state of things that was now rapidly passing away, and in which it was but fair and just that his exertions and his outlay should be considered, let their compensation be retrospective, and retrospective only, and for the future let it depend entirely upon contract.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEexplained that he had not meant to say that the noble Duke rested his advocacy of the compensation clause exclusively upon the strong feeling entertained in the House of Commons in its favour, and the consequent necessity of conciliating that branch of the Legislature; but certainly there could be no doubt that, but for the argument which had been urged with regard to the feeling of the other House, that clause would never have been carried by their Lordships. To this principle he had strongly objected, as an unworthy motive for legislation. As to the course which he had ventured to suggest that Her Majesty's Government should take, and which he considered to be the only wise and just one, it referred to the duty of delivering a deliberate and final opinion on the general question of the relation of landlord and tenant in Ireland. He was, indeed, far from asserting that the Government ought to bring in a measure for giving tenants compensation, but that they ought in a distinct and manly manner declare the principles by which they meant to abide. For this purpose they were bound to lay upon the table of the House such measures with reference to this important subject as they really intended as a Government to propose and adhere to, so that the people of Ireland might know what they had to expect from them on this question, and might be undeceived with respect to their 159 future intentions so far as those intentions might be inferred from the course taken by their Colleagues in the other House.
THE EARL OF RODENsaid, that he had listened with great regret to the debate which had just taken place on a measure materially affecting the interests of that part of the empire with which he was connected. No noble Lord who had yet spoken on the question had expressed sentiments with which he (the Earl of Roden) could entirely agree. He lamented as much as the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) the spirit that had been evinced on both sides of the House, and concurred with him in thinking that such a discussion could be of no possible advantage, but quite the reverse to the great interests at stake on this question. He was sorry to hear from the noble Duke opposite that Her Majesty's Government had not withdrawn these Bills, and he had been in hopes that he would have to discharge the pleasing task of thanking them for adopting such a course, and he knew that in so doing he should only have been expressing the opinion of the great majority of the landed proprietors of Ireland. He knew that they were opposed to these Bills, as being founded upon a principle that was unjust and on a principle of legislative interference with the management of property in Ireland that no Government would venture to introduce in reference to England. The landlords of Ireland felt that they were capable of managing their own property as well as the landlords in England, and they expected that the same law and justice would be dealt out to the one part of the empire which was enjoyed by the other. He agreed with his noble Friend opposite (Lord Monteagle) that it was very desirable that something should be said or done on the present occasion calculated to disabuse the minds of the people of Ireland of the idea that any such measure as some persons had led them to look for would ever be allowed to become the law of the land. He believed that a great change for the better had taken place within the last few years in the management of Irish property; and he entreated their Lordships to leave this subject alone, and not to take measures or bring in Bills by which matters could only be rendered worse and worse, and which, instead of allaying discontent and setting this question at rest, could only tend to exasperate public feeling, and to make it more unsettled than ever it was 160 before. These were the sincere opinions of one who was not unacquainted with the circumstances of Ireland. He had now spent a long life in that country, and knew well the feelings of its people—knew the objects which they had at heart, and was likewise aware of the improvements that had there taken place; and, therefore, in expressing thus strongly his opinion upon a question of such vital importance as the present, he felt that he could speak as one who had authority to do so. He would only entreat them then to forbear from legislating upon that of which legislation had hitherto proved the ruin. It was never known in Ireland, from one year to another, what the law upon this subject might be, the changes that were made being so constant and frequent; and he therefore trusted that their Lordships would now allow that country to enjoy a little of that repose and respite from legislative meddling which prevailed so happily in England.
§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY saidMy Lords, I think it incumbent on me to explain myself in reference to the accusation made against me, to the effect that this attack had something personal and was intended to be personal. My Lords, I utterly deny that accusation. If there was any expression of mine that could by possibility offend any noble Lord, I am ready to withdraw it, and also to express my sorrow for having used it. But I am so certain of my expressions, of the spirit of what I say, and of the feeling with which I have accused Her Majesty's Government, that I know no word or expression unbecoming a Member of your Lordships' House has escaped my lips, or could even be construed of a personal nature. I wish, my Lords, I could say as much for noble Lords on the opposite side. Of the noble Duke the Secretary for the War Department I will say nothing beyond this, that he does not at all times display that control over his temper and language which his position as a Member of Government would lead the governed to expect. However, I shall only say of the noble Duke, that, altogether, he made as good a defence as possible to my accusation. There is another noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) of whom I must complain for using expressions not at all customary in your Lordships' House, and which are not at all borne out by what I have stated. The noble Duke said my attack was "unworthy." My Lords, I consider that an offen- 161 sive expression. I am sure I meant nothing offensive. But the noble Duke should know such language is not ordinarily used in this House; and I cannot see how my attack can be construed into an "unworthy" one, when your Lordships will recollect how much I have been identified with this subject. What are these Bills? They originated with a Government of which I had the honour to be a Cabinet Minister. The following year a discussion—a very warm discussion—took place on the subject. Another year passes, and discussion is again taken on the subject, and I am appointed a Member of a Committee to which these Bills are referred. I attend regularly on that Committee for two successive months, and give the Bills every possible attention, therefore, that being the case, I say I should be a dolt indeed if, understanding those Bills and devoting so much time and attention to them, I had remained careless of their fate, and heard with indifference that they were abandoned by Her Majesty's Government. When comparing the policy and intentions of Her Majesty's Ministers with their acts at this moment, though I am certain of my language, I cannot say what my manner might have been in giving it utterance. But I know I used no expression "unworthy" the dignity of your Lordships' House, although the noble Duke opposite designated my attack as "unworthy." I hope the noble Duke will withdraw that phrase.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLwas sorry if he had said anything personally offensive to the noble Earl; and if the noble Earl thought he had done so, he would withdraw it. All that he had meant to say was, that the attack was a party one, and therefore, in that sense, an unworthy attack. He considered that this question was not a party question, and ought not to be so treated; neither did the noble Earl's own friends treat it as such in the Committee; although he certainly thought they were now doing that. They first said it was a Government measure, meaning thereby, a party measure (otherwise their argument was worthless), and then they made what he conceived to be a party attack on the Government.
§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURYI am quite satisfied with what the noble Duke has stated as applicable personally to myself; and I assure him I entertain no party feeling beyond that which must always exist in a House divided into two parties— 162 the duty of the Opposition being to scrutinise, on behalf of the country, the proceedings of those in authority; and the duty, or one of the duties, of the Government, being to sit still and receive Opposition attacks. In reference to the statement of the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle), to the effect that the late Administration had authorised or encouraged its supporters to use the cry of tenant right, I have only to say it is the first time I heard such a statement, and, what is more, I do not believe it. As far as my knowledge goes such is not the fact; and it scarcely could have been the case without my knowledge. But, my Lords, I am not anxious to occupy your time, and shall, therefore, conclude by saying that, upon the main point, I wish to know if these Bills are given up, or if they are to be persevered in. On that we have not had a distinct answer throughout the evening.
§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that if the noble Earl had given him a few minutes' notice of his question, perhaps he might have been able to give him a more distinct answer to it. He was not aware of what had that night taken place in the other House on this subject, and, perhaps, the noble Earl knew more of it than he did. But he already stated what was the literal fact, namely, that when the Bills were under consideration in the other House the day before yesterday (Tuesday), the Secretary for Ireland said that if he had the charge of the Bills—and it was generally thought that they required a very lengthened and laborious discussion in Committee—he should certainly be prepared to state that at that period of the Session they ought not to be persevered with this year. There the matter rested till that day, and the Bills remained on the books of the other House for six o'clock. He had not seen a Member of the House of Commons, and did not know what had since occurred; but this he could say, that the Government felt that several evenings must be employed in discussing the Estimates and in other important business; and, that, therefore, at this period of the Session, if there was an intention on the part of the fifty or sixty Members for Ireland in the other House who took an interest in this question to raise a discussion upon every clause, it would be impossible to proceed with these Bills during the present Session of Parliament.
House adjourned till To-morrow.