Lords Sitting of 24 February 1868

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Private Bills appointed; on Opposed Private Bills appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Court of Appeal Chancery (Despatch of Business) Amendment (20); Tenure (Ireland) (23); Public Departments (Extra Receipts)* (25).
Second Reading—Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) Act Continuance (18).

NAVY—IRON BALLAST IN THE DOCKYARDS.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, their Lordships would probably remember that about a year ago much was said about a quantity of iron ballast that was used for paving the dockyards, and of the great waste this was to the public service. He understood that this iron ballast had since been offered for sale; and with a view to ascertain the value of the iron, it was his intention to move on Thursday next for a Return of the number of tons of iron sold, and of the amount of money received for them and paid into the Treasury.
COURT OF APPEAL, CHANCERY (DESPATCH OF BUSINESS) AMENDMENT BILL— [H.L.]

  PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, the Act which the Legislature passed last year, to enable the Lords Justices to sit separately to hear appeals against decisions of the Master of the Rolls and the Vice Chancellors in certain cases, had led to some difficulty. By the Act constituting the Court of Appeal, the Court was formed of the Lord Chancellor and the two Judges of Appeal. The Court has the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor, and an appeal lies to the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor and the two Judges may, of course, sit together, or the Lord Chancellor may sit with one Judge, or the two Judges may sit without the Chancellor. The jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor is reserved, so that he may hear appeals alone. The pressure of business was such that last year a Bill was passed in effect authorizing either of the two Judges to exercise the jurisdiction under the original Act, provided that no decree made on the hearing of a cause, or on further directions, shall be re-heard before the said Judges when sitting alone.

  1039
  The object of the proviso was to prevent a single Judge of Appeal from hearing an appeal from another single Judge of a Court below where the cause had been regularly heard. It did not occur to the framers of this Bill that between the two Acts before referred to another Act had been passed, which enabled suitors, instead of resorting to the old practice of what is termed bringing a cause to a regular hearing, to move for a decree or decretal order, and thus save both time and money; and, where the motion is granted, the cause is as regularly heard as if the old practice had been resorted to. An appeal was soon brought to a hearing from a decree upon motion, and it was the opinion of the Judges that it could be heard by a single Judge of Appeal sitting alone. This was manifestly contrary to the principle of the new Act, and to give effect to the intention of the Legislature he had prepared a short Bill extending the proviso to decrees and decretal orders upon motion in like manner, as if they had been made on the hearing of a cause or on further directions.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the practice arose from the words of the Act. It was quite true that the Lords Justices and himself, when a question arose on the matter, came to the conclusion that the Lords Justices might hear separately appeals against decisions made on motions for decree; but he had some doubt on the construction of the Act. It was very desirable to have those doubts removed, which would be done by the Bill of his noble and learned Friend, which, besides, had the great merit of being extremely short.
  A Bill to amend an Act to make further Provision for the Despatch of Business in the Court of Appeal in Chancery—Was presented by The Lord ST. LEONARDS; read 1a. (No. 20.)

TENURE (IRELAND) BILL— [H.L.]

  PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, rose to call the attention of the House to the question of land tenure in Ireland. He commenced by referring to the Select Committee of their Lordships' House, to which his Bill of last year upon this subject was referred. In the month of July, that Committee unanimously determined to issue an imperfect Report, and to recommend its own re-appointment this Session, in order that the inquiry might be resumed. The language of the Report was—
  1040
  "The subject-matter of the Bill is, however, of so much complexity and difficulty that they are of opinion that it is not possible for them, in the short period of the Session now remaining, to make such progress in it as to warrant them in recommending it at present for your Lordships' adoption. The Committee have therefore determined to report the evidence, together with the Bill in its necessarily incomplete state, and to recommend that the Committee be re-appointed at as early a period of next Session as practicable for the purpose of further considering it."
  He did not recollect that any objection was made by any Member of the Committee to that recommendation, which was moved by the noble Earl who represented the Government. He might say, however, that some Members of the Committee were of opinion that it would be well to draw particular attention to some of the statements made in the evidence, and to the conclusions to be deduced from them. A draft Report was prepared, and he should have been glad if it could have been laid before the House. One clause of the draft Report was as follows—
  "The Committee again direct your Lordships best attention to the entire evidence as now reported, and upon which they will not further enlarge. A correct knowledge of the present condition of the country is necessary in order to guide safely to future legislation. The assertions so often reiterated, to the effect that the tenant makes all the permanent improvements in Ireland, that the rents are extravagantly high, that a competition for land is encouraged by offering it to the highest bidder at the expiration of a tenancy, that evictions and changes of tenure are of frequent occurrence, that no general improvement is taking place, and that a bad feeling commonly exists between landlords and tenants, will probably receive correction from its perusal."
  It was to be regretted that this clause was not published along with the evidence. What, he asked, was the condition of Ireland now? There never was a time when it was less necessary to take extraordinary and novel action, with respect to the subject of land in Ireland, than existed at the present moment. The condition of neither landlords nor tenants presented any extraordinary difficulty, and it was only the condemnation of the existing law by Judges of the highest authority, and differences of opinion among them that created litigation and directed attention to its amendment. The evidence taken by the Select Committee of their Lordships which sat last year plainly showed the gross injustice, exaggeration, and absurdity of the statements made by agitators as to exorbitant rents exacted by landlords, and frequency of evictions in Ireland. It was not to

  1041
  be said that evictions never occurred; but it had been shown that they were by no means so common as had been represented. Among other things it was shown that upon four estates, the rental of which amounted to£54,000, the landlords had expended, exclusive of money borrowed under the Drainage Act, no less than£142,000. A great deal had been said about tenant-right, and he desired to say nothing against tenant-right as it existed in the North of Ireland; but the schemes of many of those who designated themselves advocates of tenant-right no more resembled the system of things which existed in the North of Ireland than did the laws as to landed property in the moon, if there were landed property, and laws regulating it, in that planet. The assertion was often made that if tenant-right existed in the South of Ireland there would be no evictions; but the Returns which were obtained by the Earl of Belmore, although the information they furnished was not perfectly accurate as to the number of evictions which really took place, showed at least that tenant-right had little or nothing to do with their frequency or infrequency. He would compare two counties in the North of Ireland—Antrim and Armagh—in which tenant-right prevailed, with two counties in the South—Cork and Clare. During the five years ending with 1865, the number of civil bill ejectments in the county of Antrim, with a population of 378,585, was 1,101; while in Cork, with a population of 544,818, they numbered only 1,483. In the county of Armagh, with a population of 190,086, the number of civil bill ejectments during the five years was 1,344; and in Clare, with a population of 166,395, it was only 781. The last volume of the judicial statistics exhibited facts which were equally remarkable. It was generally said that Ulster was a very prosperous province, and that Munster and Connaught were in a state of great misery and poverty. Now, he could not altogether admit the accuracy of such statements, for if their Lordships would look at the judicial statistics for 1866 they would find that there were in the province of Ulster 1,190 ejectments during the year, while in Munster there were only 771, and in Connaught only 619. Thus it would be seen that ejectments were more frequent in those parts of the country where tenant-right prevailed than in those where it did not. If any rule of political economy was admitted to be sounder than another, it
  1042
  was that the introduction of capital into a poor country would increase its prosperity, by increasing labour and giving means of living to the population, end it was one of the arguments put forward in favour of limited liability that it would enable companies to provide by association large capital which was necessary to make improvements in any business and in any country. What, however, would be the effect of the revolutionary propositions which had been made by Mr. Bright and Mr. Mill with respect to the mode of dealing with land in Ireland? Their propositions amounted to neither more nor less than to turn out all the men of capital in Ireland, in order to put in a class of peasant proprietors who had no capital. One proposal was that every tenant of a small holding should have a lease of sixty years as against his landlord, while the occupiers of large farms at high rents were to have a lease of sixty years imposed upon them. It was said that the carrying out of such a scheme would confer great benefits on the country. Such a proposition was ah-surd. Indeed, it was generally acknowledged, as could be proved by the evidence of men who knew the country well, that in many parts of Ireland the tenants were not much in favour of obtaining leases at all, and certainly would not consent to pay anything for them. But supposing for a moment the proposition for the purchase of the land of Ireland by the Government were entertained, what, he asked, would be the condition of the farmers? He believed the notion of those who wished to disturb the present system was that the holdings of the farmers of Ireland were all very small, varying from thirty acres to half an acre. He should like to hear the notion of the Government with respect to the manner in which the large farmers could be dealt with. Was the House aware that one family alone in Ireland paid from £30,000 to £40,000, and indeed he believed from £40,000 to £50,000 a year in the shape of rent for their holdings? Were the Government prepared to call upon tenants with such a holding to purchase it at the rate of twenty years' purchase? Why it would amount to £1,000,000. How could they expect one family to procure such a sum? The accounts they had as to the resources of the Irish tenantry were extremely contradictory. One day they were told that they were in a state of pauperism, and next day they were informed that they

  1043
  had £17,000,000 in the bank. It was well known that the effect of breaking up large holdings, and allowing the land to pass into the possession of small proprietors, was to increase the rents, whereas the large landed proprietors were content with smaller rents, and yet a proposition was gravely put forward to oust the great landlords in order to create a class who would infallibly raise rents upon tenants. He would now direct the attention of their Lordships to a very gratifying account of the improvements being made in Ireland. It was contained in a Report made by Mr. Adams, the American Minister, to his Government in September, 1865. That Report referred chiefly to a tour through the North of Ireland; but the remarks of Mr. Adams were also applicable in a modified form to the central and eastern portions of the country. He said—
  "I have not seen anywhere in England more indications of comfort, plenty, and general good condition than are to be found in that portion of the northern province through which I have passed. Neither did I observe in the populous towns more instances of poverty and destitution than are to be met with anywhere in corresponding places in the three kingdoms, with the exception, perhaps, of North Wales. The same observation may be made, but in a much more qualified degree, of the central and eastern region, including Dublin and its vicinity. Although the prosperity is not so much marked, and the poverty is more apparent, the aspect of the dwellings, the cultivation of the lands, and the substantial condition of the middle classes all combine to disprove the presence of suffering much beyond the average in most nations of the Old World."
  The wretchedness that Mr. Lawrence described, instead of being universal, appeared to be confined to one portion of the island. He thought that after such a statement as that, they might dispose at once of the revolutionary propositions which had been made to forcibly deprive the landlords of their existing right of ownership. Mr. Mill had suggested that there should be a Commission appointed to value all the landed property in Ireland; but the labours of such a Commission must necessarily be very protracted, as the number of holdings in that country was no less than 600,000, according to the estimates of the best statisticians. He understood Mr. Bright's proposition to be that the tenant, on being converted into a proprietor, should pay the present landlord the full value of the land. If this was so, he apprehended the tenant would have a very bad bargain; for according to Mr. Bright's plan, no one was to hold land but an occupier. But, suppose one of these oc-
  1044
  cupiers, having become a proprietor, made money and wanted to sell his land, if he was to be restricted to a market in which all the intending purchasers were occupiers, it was clear that he would be obliged to sell at a depreciated price that for which he himself had paid the full value. They were told that occupying proprietors were the best farmers in the world; but be would ask their Lordships whether that class of agriculturists were the farmers who had improved the breed of cattle, or who had introduced steam ploughs and steam thrashing machines, and made those other improvements in farming which had rendered the soil more productive with a less expenditure of manual labour? Mr. Mill had justified his proposition for the establishment of a peasant proprietary by the example of Belgium. If, however, they turned to that country they found that the principal portion of the agricultural work was performed by women, and there was no sign of the energetic improvement by the expenditure of capital in the application of steam or other machinery, such as was evinced in Ireland. Through whose instrumentality, he asked, was it that the steam plough, steam thrashing machines, and improved agricultural implements which were now to be seen in Ireland had been introduced? Could anybody deny that it was the doing of the landlords? In Belgium they might perhaps see in a whole village one single horse thrashing machine, while all the other agricultural implements were of the rudest character; yet the Belgian peasantry were held up as being superior to English and Irish farmers. He had avoided going into the question of the political condition of Ireland; but before sitting down he thought it right to say that Ireland never had been more free from agrarian disturbance than she had during the last year. The absence of crime in Ireland was really marvellous, not by comparison with the state of things in that country at any former period, but by comparison with the state of things among any other population of equal numbers in any other country on earth. He thought that the Minister whose duty it would be to ask their Lordships to continue the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act would tell them that only very few of the farming class had identified themselves with the Fenian movement. Undoubtedly it was alleged that some of the farmers had shown a cer-

  1045
  tain amount of sympathy with the Fenians; that they had taken no active part in apprehending offenders and endeavouring to put down the movement. But let their Lordships just consider the temptations of such sympathy to which the people in the rural districts were exposed. These were temptations which it was hard for those who were subjected to them to entirely resist. The small farmers were told by agitators, and read in the papers, that they were going to be put in possession as proprietors of the land which they now farmed and paid rent for. Some such conversation as this took place—"Did you hear the good news? You are going to be put into possession of the land. You need not trouble yourself much longer about the rent." "How is that?" "The philosophers in England have found out that the tenants ought to have the land, and the Government are going to give it to you. It is all owing to the Fenians." "How can that be? I read in the paper the other day that the heads of the Fenians in America were selling our land, and I was thinking to myself whether I'd like my Yankee landlord as well as my Irish one." "Oh, that's not it at all. The English Government are so frightened about the Fenians that they are going to give you the land and put an end to the rebellion." It was not unnatural that the tenant farmers to whom such news was communicated should say "More luck to the Fenians." To put an end to such delusions his Bill, or some measure like it, ought to be passed by Parliament. He believed there was no honest man, whether landlord or tenant, who did not feel that the tenant ought to be fully compensated for any improvements he made in the land, and should be protected in his holding so far as was consistent with a due regard for the rights of the landlord and with the proper cultivation of the Irish soil. There was no occasion for a revolution. This year rents had been easily collected and most cheerfully paid in Ireland; profits had been made by the farmers; and this year the landlords had had less trouble than, perhaps, at any former period. If Parliament only endeavoured to improve the system of letting by such means as he ventured to submit for their Lordships' consideration, he felt no doubt that Ireland would progress, and the tenants would become contented and happy. The noble Marquess concluded by moving the first reading of his Bill.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he had no desire to enter upon a discussion on the Irish land question. There was no question before the House, and no conclusion could be come to. He, however, thought this was a very good time to promote any measure to remove, as far as possible, any objection to the existing relations between landlord and tenant in that country. But he must call their Lordships' attention to the fact that the evidence taken on this subject disclosed a very different state of things from that which was generally supposed to exist. From that evidence it would appear that landlords and tenants were on the best terms. It also showed that the landlords laid out many thousands of pounds in building houses and making other improvements which tended to the advantage and comfort of the tenants. There was no doubt, however, of the existence of much agitation on the land question. There was a feeling of uneasiness which must prevent things from going right if there was no other obstacle to their doing so. But before the Bill of the noble Marquess came on for a second reading, it would be well to consider if provision had not already been made by Parliament for what this Bill sought to effect. So late as 1860 two Acts were passed, one in relation to the tenure of land in Ireland, and the other having more direct reference to the relations between landlord and tenant in that country. They had a common design, though their provisions were different. It appeared to him that nothing had occurred since 1860 with reference to the tenancy of land in Ireland to make further legislation necessary, unless it could be shown that the Acts now on the statute book did not reach every difficulty. The first of the Acts to which he referred provided for improvements by the landlord and for improvements by the tenant, and it contained provisions for the acquiring of leases. The Bill introduced by the noble Marquess did not provide for more, except as regards binding remaindermen by the grants of tenants for life, which will require great consideration. The other Act of 1860 was not only valuable for its own provisions, but as a digest, admirably made, of the existing law between landlord and tenant, and a schedule of every previous Act repealed or affected by that Act. The date and chapter were carefully given in every instance. But what did the present Bill propose? By a single provision, and without any express reference whatever, it

  1047
  proposed to unsettle the whole of the existing law. Before dealing with the question in such a spirit, the defects, if any, existing in these two Acts of 1860, which professed, and did, in fact, attempt, to make a regular and business-like settlement between landlord and tenant, ought to be pointed out. If, therefore, this Bill were referred—as he presumed it would be—to a Select Committee, he hoped the noble Marquess would be prepared to point out in what respects those Acts of 1860 had failed. It was proposed that all the lettings in Ireland should be by lease, or, at least, that the conditions of tenure should be reduced to writing. But there were tens of thousands of tenants in Ireland who would not take a lease, because they would not incur the necessary expense. A gentleman was examined before the Select Committee upon this very question, and stated that he had got in his office a high pile of leases and counterparts, all duly executed by both landlords and tenants, but he could get nobody to take them away because they would not pay the expense which had been incurred in stamping them. Their Lordships might, perhaps, gather from this story what was the reason why the Act of 1860 had failed. Yet the noble Marquess proposed to repeat the same enactment, and to enforce it by a singular penalty. Because there were tenants that would not take leases the noble Marquess proposed to punish their landlords, by depriving them of the simple remedy he proposed to create, and by making them have recourse to more expensive tribunals. The reason a tenant was unwilling to accept a lease was plain enough. "If I take a lease for twenty years," he reasoned, "the landlord will know as well as I do when the term expires, and will insist on a re-valuation; but if I am only a tenant from year to year, my family and I will remain on at the same rate, and he will think nothing whatever about it." One of the most extraordinary provisions contained in the Bill, however, was that with regard to the planting of trees, which were to become the property of the tenant if planted under certain conditions, one of these being that there should still be seven years unexpired of his lease, or one life in the lease remaining—a life which might at that very time be eighty or ninety years old. Let any noble Lord say how he would like to get up some morning and find a tenant planting oak trees all over his estate, which the tenant might either cut down or sell on the expira-
  1048
  tion of his tenancy. The noble Lord then referred to the mode in which leases and compensations are managed in England; it was worthy of consideration whether the plan might not work well in Ireland. He disclaimed any intention to force upon Ireland a plan merely because it operated well in England.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, as a Member of the Committee which considered his noble Friend's Bill last Session, said, he desired to say a few words, not only on the present Bill, which resembled that of last year, but also to speak on the subject generally. The noble and learned Lord who had last spoken had done good service in calling attention to the difficulty which would arise in endeavouring to create a complete code of law as regards land in Ireland. Without careful examination the new enactment would clash with existing laws, which should be repealed, if it were desired to repeal them, not by general words, but by express provisions. Those not learned in the law who were on last year's Committee had considerable difficulty—he himself found insuperable difficulty—in drawing repealing clauses. He did not know whether his noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had ever fully stated the provisions of his Bill; but he would doubtless forgive him if he gave his view of them. The Bill had four objects, setting aside subsidiary provisions. In the first place, it provided that all agreements for letting farm lands should, as far as possible, be in writing. His noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) would pardon him for saying that he had fallen into an error when discussing this part of the Bill, because he argued as if the Bill required the granting of leases, and by "leases" he evidently meant agreements for a term of years. The Bill, however, did not propose to force such agreements upon either landlord or tenant, but simply required that all land, whether let for a term of years, or only from year to year, or even for a shorter time than a year, should be let under an agreement reduced to writing, and that if no agreement in writing was come to within a certain period then the landlord should be able to take advantage of that special procedure created by the Bill, which might be described as its second set of provisions. These proposed that a Court should be established, simple in its procedure, to which all differences between landlord and tenant should be taken. The third object

  1049
  of the Bill was to enable landlords to grant leases, and to deal more freely with their estates than the law would now permit them, an object which all persons who had dealt with the question thought desirable. The fourth object of the Bill was to enable tenants to obtain compensation for improvements they might have made. Before going further he wished to notice what his noble Friend had said as to the relations subsisting between landlord and tenant in Ireland. As his noble Friend had spoken from actual experience, he should not think of setting up an opinion against his; but he asked whether it was not a fact that a great difference existed between the number of years' purchase obtainable for agricultural land in England and Scotland, and for similar properties in Ireland? Was not twenty years' purchase regarded as a very fair price for land in the South and West of Ireland; would not land similarly circumstanced in England sell for as much as thirty years' purchase, and if that were so could any one deny that the conditions under which persons hold land in Ireland caused it to be estimated less highly than in England and Scotland? This granted, did it not follow that the condition of agriculture in Ireland demanded the special attention of Parliament? Without objecting to the general tenour of his noble Friend's Bill, which was chiefly permissive, and not likely to lead to evil, he thought the clauses providing compensation to tenants for improvements were insufficient. His noble Friend proposed only that landlords and tenants should have power to enter into compensation agreements. Something more than this was necessary, and he (the Earl of Kimberley) believed it would be found advisable to enact some measure similar to that which was suggested by the late Government. He thought it would be found consistent with justice and expediency to establish that wherever no special agreement had been made between the landlord and tenant, prohibiting the tenant from making improvements, the general law of the country should by some means secure to the tenant compensation for any improvement he may have made. And when speaking of compensation for improvements, he desired to remind his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) that he was not referring to payment for manure or for root crops, for which in England the tenant was paid in a manner satisfactory to both parties, but to permanent improvements, such as buildings,
  1050
  roads, drainage, and the like, which in England were usually executed by the landlord. If in Ireland the landlord could not let his land if the permanent buildings on it were not in good repair, the case would be very different; but in the South and West of Ireland, permanent improvements were constantly executed, not by the landlord, but by the tenant. And it should be remembered that it was always intended to limit the claim for compensation to charges on account of permanent improvements only. There was, however, one point of great difficulty, and one in regard to which he freely admitted that the Bill of the late Government was defective. There must be some mode of registering the improvements, so as to prevent claims from being made for work which, in point of fact, had never been executed. Before sitting down he desired to say a word or two on other schemes which had been proposed to amend the defective relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland on a very large, and as some said, revolutionary scale. He did not scout a scheme because it had been styled "revolutionary;" the subject was so important that all schemes demanded careful examination. But any scheme for handing over the land to the existing tenants at the present rents, whether accompanied or not by measures of compensation to the landlord, seemed to him to be a scheme to which Parliament would not consent, and to which it was not desirable that Parliament should give its assent. He based his objection, not on any general abstract opposition to this scheme, but upon practical reasons. One proposal that had been put forward by a very eminent man was that the landlord should have the option of receiving an equivalent to the rent in Consols, if he were not disposed to continue to hold the land at such a fixed rate as it might be valued at by the State. But he would ask their Lordships whether they thought that if such a scheme were carried into effect it would really be calculated to improve the existing relations between the Irish people and the English Government? That was the test to which any such scheme must be brought. Admit, even, that the dissatisfaction which prevailed in many parts of Ireland was such that it required little short of what might be termed a revolutionary measure to allay it, the effect of this measure would be to hand over a considerable amount of land to the English Government, who would thus become the direct landlord, and would have

  1051
  to collect the rents from the peasantry, and to evict them if the rents were not paid. Was it not as certain as anything political could be that, so far from removing disaffection, such a scheme would have the effect of increasing it? The Irish landlords would naturally part with the worst portions of their estates, and the tendency of the measure would obviously be to strengthen the sympathies of the population with Fenianism; because the farmers who had become the direct tenants of the Government would, if they could succeed in getting rid of the Government, get rid of their landlord also. Other objections might be stated; but those which he had just urged seemed to be so fatal, that, with every respect for the author of the measure, he thought the sooner it was generally known that no party in Parliament or in the State was likely to entertain the proposition, the better would it be for the relations existing between the two countries. With regard to the scheme for giving compulsory leases of sixty years, it seemed to him also open to most serious objections, and to be one which Parliament was not likely to entertain. Land might be increased in value in other ways than by the improvements of tenants, such as by the establishment of new markets, the growth of towns, and the establishment of railway communication; and yet by this scheme the landlord would be deprived for sixty years of all advantage from such increase. He did not believe that any such indiscriminate and sweeping measures could have any good effect in Ireland or elsewhere. The nature of the disease was not such as could be cured by such measures; on the contrary, they would produce greater dissatisfaction than existed at the present moment. The circumstances of the land differed widely in different parts of Ireland, and the positions of the landlords and tenants were not the same; so that if all were dealt with by the same measure, although no doubt great advantage might accrue in some cases, great injustice would be done in others. It would be much more agreeable if they had to deal with a state of things in Ireland for which some remedy could be suggested that would have the effect of transforming that island at once into a thriving and prosperous country; but as he did not believe in any scheme of so Utopian a character, he thought they would do well to be contented with less ambitious endeavours. To any measure, however, which might be calculated to improve the rela-
  1052
  tions between landlord and tenant in Ireland, from whichever side it might come, he should be happy to give his most cordial assent. Meanwhile, he could not help remarking that he had hoped that Her Majesty's Government would have taken this opportunity of announcing the policy which they intended to pursue with regard to Ireland. When called upon, as they were to be, to sanction the continuance of coercive measures, they were, he thought, entitled to such an explanation. He trusted, at all events, that when that measure came forward for discussion the explanation would be afforded.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: No one has a better right to be heard on this subject than the noble Marquess who has introduced this Bill; but I can only now give him much the same answer that was given last year—namely, that Her Majesty's Government have no inclination, at this progress of the Bill, to oppose it. The noble Marquess has acted wisely, I think, in following the course he pursued last Session, and proposing to the House to continue the Committee, which no doubt elicited last year evidence upon the subject of a most important character. I believe the noble Lord proposes to read the Bill a second time some day this week, and whilst the Government offers no opposition to the Bill in its present stage, we reserve to ourselves entire liberty to support the Bill or oppose it, entirely or in part. I shall say no more on this subject at this moment, and with respect to what the noble Earl who has just sat down has said with regard to the policy of the Government with reference to Ireland, I may add, following the rules of the House in not having had any notice given of the important question, that I decline this evening to give any information upon the subject. Your Lordships will not, however, have long to wait for information on the subject; because to-morrow evening the Chief Secretary of Ireland will probably explain in "another place" the intentions of the Government with respect to Ireland.
  Motion agreed to.
  A Bill to provide a simple Law of Tenure in Ireland—Was presented by The Lord SOMERHIIL; read 1a. (No. 23.)

HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION (IRELAND) ACT CONTINUANCE BILL.
(The Lord Privy Seal.)

(NO. 18.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, I am now called on to perform a very painful duty—as painful a duty as any that can be imposed on an English Minister—namely, to ask your Lordships to continue the exceptional legislation which it has been found necessary to adopt in reference to Ireland, and once more to deprive the Irish people of that protection to their liberties which is afforded by the Habeas Corpus Act. Nothing short of the most pressing necessity would, as your Lordships can well understand, have induced the Government to take this step, nor would Parliament for a single instant have listened to such a proposal, if there had not been the strongest necessity for its adoption. When, in May last, the Earl of Derby proposed the suspension of the Act, we had all hoped that before this the necessity would have passed away, and the conspiracy have ceased to exist; but I regret to say that, although it has been scotched, it has not yet been killed. The threatening appearances of the conspiracy have, I regret to say, been transferred partly to this country, and the crimes committed in London and Manchester have made such an impression on the public mind, that it is incumbent upon us to prolong this exceptional state of things. At the same time, there are some prospects, I am glad to say, which induce us to hope that the period is approaching when the suspension of the Act will be no longer needful. In the first place, the number of persons in custody has certainty diminished within the last year and a half. When the late Government left Office, there were 330 persons in custody; but I do not for a moment mean to say that it was a greater number than was absolutely necessary; but the numbers now in custody are such as to lead us to believe that Fenianism is less violent now than it was then. Since January, 1867, there have been 265 arrested, but there are only ninety-five persons at present in custody. The Chief Secretary for Ireland gave a very interesting statistical statement in the other House of Parliament on the different classes and characters of the persons who have been concerned in this
1054
rebellion, and for the information of your Lordships I will repeat it. Of military men, no doubt, Americans—and I may say, in passing, that but for the American war there would have been no Fenian out-break, for I believe the reckless men who sprang up in that struggle were at the bottom of that conspiracy—ten had been arrested and brought to justice. Of professional men and clerks there have been twenty-five, of artizans ninety, and of farmers eleven—the last fact having an interesting bearing on the debate which has just taken place, for it shows the feeling of Irish farmers towards their landlords and the laws under which they lived. Then there had been sixty-six labourers, twenty-eight shopkeepers an assistants, and thirty-five persons of various occupations not particularized. We have discovered as clearly as possible that ninety-five leaders—men who were willing to head the conspiracy—intended to come from America, and that, of these, forty-three had been officers in the American civil war. Out of this number twenty were arrested, eighteen never arrived, and three escaped, or were not found. So that almost all of those who did arrive were arrested. It is satisfactory to know that there has been but little bloodshed, and the principal loss has fallen on a class of men we cannot too highly praise, and who did their duty in a manner deserving the gratitude of the country. There have been two policemen killed in Dublin and one in Manchester. It is not unnatural under such circumstances to seek for some gleam of hope. The conspiracy has now lasted four years; but there is a marked difference between this rebellion and those of 1798 and 1803; and I might say that no person of property or position in Ireland has been found or suspected to be concerned in this rebellion. In 1798 and 1803, however, there were persons of high rank, possessed of property, and respected by their neighbours and society in general; and the inference is that the remedial measures which have been passed for the Government of Ireland during the past sixty-five years have been such that the upper classes of Ireland are satisfied with the laws and their relation with this country; and we may logically draw the inference that as the lower classes are more educated they will take the same views as the upper classes have taken in Ireland during the last sixty-five years. I sincerely trust that although this Bill will naturally ope-

1055
rate for a year, Parliament may before that time be able to restore to Ireland the liberties which it wishes her to possess, wishing her to stand in every respect on the same footing as the rest of the United Kingdom.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
EARL RUSSELL: I regret that the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury is absent on this occasion from indisposition, and is thereby unable to be present to explain, in his own clear manner, why he thinks this measure is again required. I regret his absence also because I should have asked him more pointedly than I can the noble Earl who has just sat down what is the policy of the Government in regard to Ireland, which I think, on an occasion of this kind, should be fully explained. It is no trifle to ask for a third time that the liberties of the people of Ireland shall be suspended, and that the Lord Lieutenant may have, for more than a year, the power to arrest any person who may be suspected of disloyalty, and confine him during the whole of that time. Nor is it a thing which your Lordships can pass over as a matter of course. The only reasons on which I could object to the second reading of the Bill would be, in the first place, that it is not necessary; and, in the second place, that the powers hitherto given have been abused. I confess that I think neither objection can be fairly taken to the course at present pursued by the Government. I have always understood that the reasons for the suspension of the great Act of Habeas Corpus were that there were known to the Government plots and combinations, and disaffection and conspiracies; that although there was not sufficient evidence to arrest those persons, and bring them to trial and convict them of high treason, there was sufficient knowledge in possession of the Government to enable them to say that such conspiracies existed, and to ask Parliament for powers by which they might defeat those conspiracies before they ripened and broke into positive rebellion. In former days, I remember, with regard to this country, that the Minister of the Crown, more than once, brought down what was called a "green bag" full of details of treasonable plots then hatching in some parts of that country. No such "green bag" is necessary now, because the Fenians have never disguised that their intention and purpose was to
1056
break off the union between England and Ireland, to dethrone the Queen as Sovereign of Ireland, and to take possession of the country for themselves. Therefore, there is no question as to the nature of the conspiracy. With regard to the expediency of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act with a view to our security—I think we may be sure that if these plots were allowed to ripen and break out into a considerable insurrection, although there is no doubt that the Commander of the Forces in Ireland, Lord Strathnairn, would be speedily able to suppress the rebellion and defeat it, there would nevertheless be considerable bloodshed and destruction of property. I think, therefore, on the first ground, that the suspension of the Act is a necessity. With regard to what would be the second ground of objection—that the powers have been abused—I have no hesitation in saying that I think the Government of Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, and others connected with the Executive, have shown the greatest discretion and the utmost impartiality, and they have, so far as we know, never acted without sufficient grounds in depriving persons of their liberty on charges of treason. I have also great satisfaction in observing that while these powers have existed there has been no indisposition to put in force the usual laws of the land, and that there has been no want of co-operation on the part of those concerned in carrying on the ordinary process of justice. Whether we look to the Judges—to the Law Officers of the Crown, or to the conduct of juries, we have reason to be satisfied with the manner in which they have all discharged their several functions. I was happy to see, in reference to the abuse of the liberty of the press to such an extent, that the writers evidently intended not to comment on or criticize the measures of the Administration, but to attempt by their writings to excite the people to insurrection against law and authority; that when the prosecutions were instituted the juries have faithfully and bravely done their duty, and convicted those who have been proved to have been the guilty parties. I think that the juries in these cases are entitled to our applause and sympathy; and in those cases in which the Law Officers of the Crown had not been able to obtain a conviction there seemed to be sufficient ground to induce the juries to arrive at the conclusion that what had been done was not contrary to law; especially

1057
after processions had been allowed at Cork, and after it had been stated in this House that those processions were not contrary to law. The whole proceedings, I must say give me the greatest confidence, which I did not feel twenty years ago, that the administration of justice will be carried on not only with purity but with strictness and impartiality. But while there were all these sources of satisfaction, and while there were reasons why these powers should be given to the Government for the third time—whilst they may be rightly intrusted with them, I must confess that it is a melancholy aspect of affairs which imposes upon us the necessity of granting such powers. No doubt, as my noble Friend has said, this state of things is greatly owing to the civil war in America; but what is there in the state of Ireland that has made these persons disaffected to the Crown and to the laws of this country, and that has produced such a difference between those who have gone from Ireland, and all other emigrants in the United States? There have been emigrants from every part of Europe—from England, from Scotland, and from Germany; and to South America from Italy. With regard to all these, the natural supposition is that men unable to earn their livelihood comfortably in the country of their birth, and finding in the United States or in South America very high wages and very profitable employment, should be satisfied with their change of condition, and that they should remain in that country to enjoy the fruits of their enterprize and the produce of their industry. And such is the fact with regard to the English and Scotch, and with regard to the Germans and Italians. We never hear of any of those people coming back to England, Scotland, Germany or Italy, and complaining of the Government of their own country, and risking their liberties, and even their lives, in order to produce a change in that Government. What is there in Ireland which makes such a melancholy difference? I cannot but think there are evils in Ireland which call for the attention of the Government and of Parliament, and which, I think, the organ of the Government in this House ought not to have omitted from his statement. I should have been happy if I had heard the noble Earl say that while Her Majesty's Government thought these powers were necessary, still if there was anything in the present state of Ireland requiring amendment and reform they should be ready to give that amend-
1058
ment and reform. [The Earl of MALMESBURY: Hear, hear!] I have explained what are my views on the subject, and what measures ought to be adopted, and I can assure your Lordships that I shall not imitate a great orator in the last century, who, in delivering a speech in Parliament, was accused of only giving a new edition of his own pamphlet. If, however, I do not attempt to explain my own views, I am most anxious that the Government should explain theirs. I cannot but think that you have an opportunity which has almost never occurred before. There was an opportunity in 1801, and another in 1825, but they were both thrown away. I hope that the opportunity of 1868 will not be thrown away; because great as were the dangers in those times, there are at the present time, or may be, most serious perils impending over this country. The noble Earl and his Colleagues may think it perfectly easy to postpone all measures of redress, and to say that next year, or at some future time, we shall take those measures into consideration; but you do not know what will be your situation then. I think that I remember Sir Robert Peel, in proposing his measure for a grant to Maynooth, which, though not very important in itself, was one which conciliated and pleased in a great degree the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty—I remember his saying, when there had been some critical discussion with the Government of the United States, he was happy to send a message of peace to Ireland. I am happy to find there is now no serious cause of difference between the Government of Her Majesty and that of the United States; but no man can say, when the new President is elected, and when a new Congress and a President are playing against each other for power, that discussions may not arise with America which would render it imperative, but at the same time difficult, to satisfy the mind of Ireland. That is your business not only with regard to land, but with regard to the Church of Ireland. There is no parallel to that Church anywhere—in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America, there is nothing like the Established Church of Ireland. There is no institution in any country which produces amongst the people living in it such a feeling of humiliation and degradation—such a sentiment that they have a badge of conquest imposed upon them, as the Church of Ireland produces among the people of Ireland. I say, then, my Lords, that the Government

1059
which neglects this great question, or either postpones it, or says it has no measure with regard to it, greatly neglects its duty. It would be better, at all events, if their policy were such as was declared by the Solicitor General at Helston, that they were determined to make no change in the Church of Ireland, that they should avow such to be their intention. It would be better to declare that policy, and openly avow what they mean, than leave all the questions connected with the Church and land to be debated and discussed and the wildest schemes and the most extravagant and impracticable prospects of change. It would be much better to say that they are determined to do nothing, and to resist everything, than to allow discussion to go on in the vague hope that some day or other that Minister who made so great a change last year in regard to England might be disposed to make as great a change in regard to Ireland. Let us have a clear and decided policy stated with regard to the Irish subjects of Her Majesty. Do not allow them to be tossed about between fear and hope. Do not allow this disaffection to go on; and, if possible, give us hope that when this question is next considered Her Majesty's Government may be able to say that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act is no longer necessary.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, as no Member of the Government rose to address their Lordships, he wished to make a few remarks. He would not go into the question of this particular Bill; but he wished to say a few words on the subject just raised by the noble Earl. The noble Earl who had just resumed his seat, had been the great advocate of Liberal principles in this country ever since he had been in Parliament. Many of those principles he had been able to carry out, and his career had been most consistent and honourable in consequence of the success which had attended his efforts to carry out those principles. But he was perfectly astonished that such a man should during his long career have overlooked that which he now so clearly saw; that he should have resisted any change in reference to the Church of Ireland; and that he should have maintained the Protestant Church of Ireland as strongly as any man in the country. Now, however, the noble Earl suddenly finding himself in Opposition, seized, as the only point he could raise, this question of the Irish Church, in order
1060
to excite against the Government all the disaffection of the United Kingdom. He was astonished that the noble Earl who had so long held the helm of the State, should never before have raised his voice for the objects which he now declared to be essential for the well-being of Ireland—should never have used the power which he so long enjoyed as a Minister of the Crown to secure those objects; but that at this moment, above all others, he should issue a pamphlet for the purpose of turning men's minds towards the destruction of the Church of England in Ireland. That destruction, if accomplished, would assuredly raise more enemies to this country in Ireland, and would weaken the power of this country more than any single act which could be attempted. His firm conviction was that, whatever was done in Ireland, the Church of England must not be destroyed. It might be perfectly right and proper, and he thought it would be, to deal with the Roman Catholic Church, placing it in an independent position, and a position of equality with the Church of England; but he hoped that no Government would propose the destruction of the English Church in Ireland.
EARL GREYsaid, he could not allow this discussion to close without expressing his extreme surprise and regret that the Government had thought fit to pass over without any notice whatever the appeal made to them by his noble Friend (Earl Russell). Surely, the state of Ireland at this moment was most grave and serious? As his noble Friend most justly said, the fact that for three successive years Parliament had been called upon to pass a Bill which placed the liberty of every man at the disposal of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, which enabled the Lord Lieutenant, without any evidence that need be brought before a Court of Law, to inflict upon any suspected person the grievous punishment of imprisonment—such a state of things, though it was inevitable that the Government should ask for these powers, was one which surely called for something more than a mere passing allusion? As far as he had the means of judging, the Government of Ireland had used these extraordinary powers with great discretion, moderation, and propriety. He had no fault to find with them; but he could not forget that a bad system of Government became established in this manner. It was by granting extraordinary powers, which in the first instance were not abused, by al-

1061
lowing the existence of these powers to be gradually prolonged from year to year until that system of government became habitual, that the greatest danger arose to anything like Constitutional Government. It was, he said, a serious danger for England, as well as for Ireland, that Parliament should be compelled to continue a state of things in which all securities for liberty of the subject were necessarily suspended. In his opinion, Parliament was not justified in passing from year to year a measure of this kind unless it had resolved also to deal with the causes of such a state, of things and to correct existing evils. Parliament ought not to content itself with a mere measure of coercion; it was bound to take some means of remedying the mischief which made coercion necessary. It was the duty of Parliament not to object to this Bill; at the same time it was the duty of Parliament to insist upon the immediate adoption of some decisive measures for improving the general condition of Ireland. When he said that this was his strong conviction, he knew he should be met by the old assertion, "There is nothing we can do." He should be told that everything had been tried; that no measures were suggested which would have the slightest effect in remedying existing evils, or in reconciling the minds of the Irish people to the Imperial Government. He was quite prepared to admit that no sudden, immediate change in the state of Ireland was to be looked for. The evils from which the country suffered were of too long standing and were too inveterate to allow us to expect that we could at once remove them. Those who promised sudden and immediate improvement in the condition of Ireland were acting the part of political quacks; and, for his own part, he had no confidence whatever in what were called "heroic remedies." But he had great confidence in the efficacy of wise and just legislation. He believed that human nature was the same in Ireland as in other parts of the world, and that a proper system of government and wise and just legislation would not fail in due time to produce beneficial results in Ireland as elsewhere. We must have patience; but he had no doubt that if proper measures were adopted these results would follow by degrees. Unhappily, as far as he could see, we were not even beginning to make progress towards a better state of things. His noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) had told the
1062
House that the number of persons arrested under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act showed a diminution in the number of persons it was necessary to prison by the exercise of the extraordinary power given to the Government, as compared to two years ago; and he urged that this fact implied a less widely spread disaffection than there was. He feared this argument was not sound. The measures of repression which had been adopted might have discouraged offenders; but the minds of the great bulk of the Irish people seemed to be more than ever alienated from the Imperial Government. [Earl RUSSELL: Hear!] Funeral processions had been got up in honour of certain persons who had been found guilty of an atrocious crime, and this mark of honour was paid to them because their crime was supposed to have been prompted by hostility towards the British Government. Surely this was a most grave circumstance, as showing the feelings of the Irish people? Remembering what was the offence of the persons thus held up as martyrs, the fact that such crowds had collected in their honour at Dublin, Cork, and elsewhere appeared to him to be the most alarming symptom he had yet heard of to prove the estrangement of the people from the institutions under which they lived. He was persuaded that no legislation calculated to improve the general condition of Ireland, no such measures as that suggested by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde) at an earlier period of the evening, could have a proper effect so long as there remained in existence the one notorious and crying injustice of the Irish Church. While the Irish people continued to feel, as they must feel, that in this respect they were treated with indignity and injustice—while this feeling of injustice rankled in their minds, and this source of bitterness was left untouched, no good effect could be hoped from other remedial legislation. As his noble Friend behind him had said, in Ireland alone, of all countries in the world, the Church of a small minority of the people was richly endowed, while the religious teachers of the great majority were left without any provision whatever. While a Church Establishment which was regarded as a badge of conquest and of inferiority by a great majority of the population was maintained in its present state, and nothing was done to redress the inequality, he had no hope whatever that anything which Parliament could do would

1063
meet the Irish difficulty. Now, he confessed that though there was a great deal in the speech of his noble Friend who had last spoke (the Earl of Hardwicke) with which he did not agree, he was glad to hear from him that he thought the time was come when Catholics and Protestants must be put upon a footing of religious equality in Ireland. That was an admission which he had heard with the greatest pleasure, and if it were made not by any independent Peer, but by Her Majesty's Government and by Parliament—if the principle of religious equality were once fairly recognized, even though they might not be able all at once to decide upon a practical mode of carrying that principle into effect—a great step would have been taken towards removing the evil from which most of our troubles in Ireland had sprung. Only two years ago he had so fully stated his views with regard to the Irish Church, and more than thirty years ago he had stated them so fully in the other House of Parliament, that it was unnecessary to trouble their Lordships by re-stating them on the present occasion. It was sufficient for him to say that, however their arguments might satisfy themselves of the propriety of maintaining the present state of things, they might rest assured that those arguments would utterly fail in Ireland. Their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, without one exception, felt that the maintenance of the existing state of things was unjustifiable. They were supported in that opinion by the public expression of the views of some of the great ornaments of our own Church, and by a great number of statesmen of various parties during a long series of years. They were also supported in that opinion by the unanimous voice of the civilized world; and while that was the case it was impossible that they could be contented with the continuance of the present state of things. He had already said rather more than he had intended, but there was one further observation that he desired to make. He had heard it suggested that the consideration of the policy of the Government on that subject ought to be deferred until after the presentation of the Report of the Royal Commission appointed with reference to the property of the Irish Established Church upon an Address to the Crown agreed to by that House last year. He said that that was an utterly untenable argument. That Commission might, and he hoped it would be of very great use in
1064
discovering a mode of improving the management of that property, and of increasing the funds which might be available for the purposes, whatever they might be, to which they would be applied. But he would remind their Lordships that when last year it was proposed, in the Address which asked for the appointment of that Commission to insert words which pointed to the consideration of the question, whether the application of those funds might not be altered, those words were deliberately rejected by their Lordships. Why, the effect of that Vote was expressly to exclude from the inquiry of the Commissioners all consideration of the great question of what was the policy they should adopt with regard to endowing different forms of religion in Ireland. The Commissioners were as much debarred from inquiring into that point as the power of Parliament and the Crown could debar them. Therefore, their Report could throw no light on the great question of the policy which they were to pursue. That subject had been debated now for thirty-five or thirty-six years. Since the Appropriation Clause it had never been entirely at rest. There had, indeed, been intervals during which other matters had temporarily somewhat obscured it; but that question had always been more or less before the public. They had all formed their judgments upon it, and, as his noble Friend had justly observed, looking to the state of Europe and also to the state of America—looking to the possibility, at all events, of differences arising in that quarter—surely any man who could recommend the postponement of that great question for another year in the face of all those dangers must indeed be wanting in the most ordinary qualities of a statesman. Could, he asked, their Lordships afford to trifle any longer with that subject? Was it not one which, beyond any other that could be named, called for the immediate and earnest consideration of Parliament? It was one which, he said, they could not afford to delay; and he trusted that if Her Majesty's Government should refuse to bring it under their notice, when that Bill for investing the Executive with extraordinary powers should have passed into law, some Member of their Lordships' House would bring distinctly before them the question of whether or not they ought to allow that Bill to remain by itself on the Statute Book without attempting to take any step whatever which might relieve them from the painful necessity of going

1065
on from year to year in the same miserable course of endeavouring to repress discontent and disaffection by mere coercion, while they neglected to adopt any means for removing the causes from which that deplorable state of things proceeded.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he could assure their Lordships that it was not from any want of courtesy towards the House, or towards the noble Earl who spoke second on that occasion (Earl Russell), that no Member of the Government rose before the noble Earl who last addressed them. The Government had considered, as it was natural that they should consider, the whole condition of Ireland; but they could not but think that that was not the best time for making a statement of the conduct which they intended to pursue with regard to that country; and he was at a loss to know upon what occasion it had ever been thought that the Government were not the proper judges of the time when that announcement should be made. When his noble Friend in the other House of Parliament (the Earl of Mayo) moved the second reading of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill, he did not enter into a general discussion of the policy of the Government towards Ireland, but thought it better to confine himself to the subject immediately before the House. No objection was taken to the course of proceeding which his noble Friend then indicated his intention to adopt, when he stated to the House of Commons that on a very early day, upon the Motion of, he believed, the hon. Member for Cork, (Mr. Maguire) on the state of Ireland, which stood for to-morrow night, he would be prepared, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to declare distinctly the course which they meant to pursue with respect to that country. It was not necessary for him (the Duke of Richmond), he was happy to think, to add anything to the remarks made by his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Malmesbury) in moving the second reading of that Bill, because the noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) had distinctly stated that there were but two or three grounds on which any objection could be taken to such a measure as that; but that no one of those grounds existed on the present occasion. He would not be tempted by the noble Earl's suggestions in the latter part of his speech to break through the rule which the Government had laid down for itself—namely, that of waiting till to-morrow evening, when their policy
1066
was to be promulgated in the House of Commons. He would not be induced to enter upon those topics which the noble Earl had brought forward with a view to show that they ought to make a statement at once. The noble Earl had assumed that they were not even going to legislate for Ireland next year in regard to the land and the Church—that they intended to do nothing; and then he argued that the Government which so neglected its duty, and which attempted to do nothing, was not worthy of the confidence of the country. No doubt, if those statements had been correct, the noble Earl would have been right in his conclusion from them; but he (the Duke of Richmond) had yet to learn that such conduct could be imputed to the Government on that occasion. The land question had been before the House at an earlier part of the evening; and if he had thought a Motion for the second reading of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act was the proper time for discussing the subject of the tenure of land in Ireland or the subject of the Irish Church he would have been quite ready to do so. He thought it would be exceedingly inconvenient, on a Motion like the present one, when the noble Earl opposite could find no fault with the Government for bringing forward that measure, that the Government should enter into the discussion of the general subject of tenant-right and the Established Church in Ireland. At the risk, however, of being thought to promote a second edition of the noble Earl's (Lord Russell's) pamphlet, he would take the liberty, if the noble Earl would excuse him, of reading one or two extracts from that pamphlet, which, he believed, afforded very sufficient grounds, among others, for not entering upon the subject of the Irish Church at the present moment. The motto which the noble Earl had taken for his pamphlet was a very fair one—namely, "Let right be done." They would all agree in that, although there might be on that, as on many other occasions, some difficulty in finding out exactly what was "right." Therefore, they would not quite so well agree, perhaps, with the noble Earl as to what course should be adopted in order to "let right be done." The noble Earl, with that talent for discovering the weak points of his own case, or rather, anticipating what his own great experience suggested to him as objections which might be urged to his own dictum, said at page 67 of his pamphlet—

1067
"We may suppose the first objection to be on the part of Conservatives in both Houses of Parliament, who would say, 'There is already a Commission appointed on your own Motion. Wait till they have made their inquiries, and suggested in their Report the remedial measures which they consider appropriate to the case. This is surely a reasonable request.' I should admit the request to be reasonable if the whole case of the Churches existing in Ireland had been submitted for inquiry to Commissioners fit for the task, and they had been left at liberty to consider what was best for the welfare of the Irish people."
No doubt the noble Earl thought he qualified the objection by the last part of the paragraph; but in the course of a discussion and inquiry into the Irish Church there were several very grave and very large subjects which must arise. Those subjects were suggested to the noble Earl by the observations of a noble and learned Friend of his (Lord Cairns) in the last Session of Parliament, because at the end of that chapter the noble Earl said, "Questions would no doubt arise respecting the property in glebe lands." It may be observed in passing, that the noble Earl, taking a comprehensive view of the whole question of the Irish Church, in one short sentence said—
"A fair division of the rent-charge in lieu of tithes would give about six-eighths to the Roman Catholic, about one-eighth to the Protestant Episcopal, and less than an eighth to the Presbyterian Church."
Whether noble Lords and Members of the other House of Parliament who followed the noble Earl, but who were opposed to all religious establishments, would quite agree in that suggestion, he would not stop to inquire. The noble Earl continued—
"Questions would no doubt arise respecting the property in glebe lands. Lord Cairns contends that many of these glebe lands were forfeited to the State, and were granted to the Protestant Church by the Act of 1662. Mr. Hallam remarks that many of these lands had belonged to the Church, and had fallen into lay hands during the confusion of the civil war. These are questions for Commissions to investigate in the first instance, and for Parliament in the last resort to decide."
He concurred in this opinion, and did not think that this was the proper time to go into the question of tenant-right in Ireland. The course the Government proposed to take on this question would be stated very fully by the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland in the other House of Parliament to-morrow evening, and he must decline to anticipate that statement by entering into a discussion on the general question this evening.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, that for nearly half a century he had lived on his estate in Ireland, doing his duty as a magistrate and as a country gentleman; and he could affirm that it was the universal practice of the Roman Catholic clergy continually to stimulate the feelings of the people in their parishes, and of those who listened to them, against the British Government and against British institutions. There was no truce to this kind of thing, and it had gone on in one shape or another ever since 1641. There could be no doubt that the Roman Catholic religion was a political engine in Ireland, and that it had been made use of to alienate the affections of the people from this country. The English had given an open Bible to Ireland, and had ignored the Pope of Rome. There is an undying hatred for this borne by the Popish clergy towards England which nothing can extinguish. Was any man weak enough to suppose that if the Protestant Church was broken up, and its emoluments made away with, there would be peace? Not as long as there was a Protestant in Ireland would there be peace. He would take the part of the Roman Catholics if he thought they had anything to complain of; but they were the aggressors throughout. He knew the people of that country, and he knew that they never liked the appeals made to them; but no Roman Catholic durst raise his voice in Ireland to say that what the Priest said was not correct. If they chose to make an improved distribution of Church property in Ireland, it was for the Imperial Parliament to do so; but if they thought that by doing so they would conciliate the Roman Catholic clergy they were mistaken. So long as there was a Protestant institution in Ireland which they were bound to sustain, depend upon it so long they would fail to conciliate the Roman Catholic clergy.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I agree with the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) that Her Majesty's Government should refrain to-night from entering into any discussion or statement of their general views with regard to Ireland, as to what remedial measures would be desirable. I do not think it would be expedient to enter upon such a discussion to-night; but, at the same time, I think it not inexpedient that independent Members should express their opinion. I entirely agree with my noble and gallant Friend on the cross Benches (the Earl of

1069
Hardwicke). I desire to see the establishment of religious equality in Ireland. The very first vote I gave in the House of Commons, considerably more than half a century ago, was in favour of a Motion tending to Catholic emancipation. But, my Lords, that equality must be established, not by depressing the Protestants, but by raising the Roman Catholic population. It would be a great wrong and impolicy to set up the Roman Catholic Church by the spoliation of members of the Church of England. I consider that that would be altogether inconsistent with the integrity of Parliament, with the solemn declaration made at the time of the Union, and subsequently at the time the Act for Catholic Emancipation was passed. The maintenance of the rights of the Church of England is bound up with the honour of Parliament; but, at the same time, I think that the establishment of religious equality is a measure demanded by justice and by policy. I know not to what extent it may have been the desire on the part of Mr. Pitt and Lord Castlereagh to improve the condition of the Roman Catholic Church; but every one who knows anything of the character of either of those great statesmen must know that neither of them would do anything unjust to the Church of England; and they knew, as we all know, that to preserve Ireland we must avoid giving dissatisfaction to the Protestants of Ireland—that they are especially the civil garrison of Ireland, and by them we must stand or fall. I do not know that I need add anything at present; but I thought it my duty to express that which has always been my opinion, and which increases in strength every day. I think that Parliament should, without delay, take into consideration measures which should give contentment to every reasonable person professing the Roman Catholic religion, and take away from them everything which, in the present state of things, can be considered either offensive or ignominious.
THE BISHOP OF OSSORYsaid, he could not allow the opportunity to pass without expressing his surprise that on a Motion of this kind the noble Lord who had stated the grievances, or supposed grievances, of Ireland, and the cause or supposed causes of the disaffection which unfortunately prevailed there, had insisted upon only one grievance—that of the Established Church. If, however, you allowed the disaffected people in Ireland to state their own griev-
1070
ances, while they might not deny that the Irish Church was a grievance, they said plainly and distinctly that while they might be pleased by the abolition of it, nevertheless it would by no means satisfy them. Not only the Fenians, but persons who might be supposed to be equally disaffected, expressly said that although the abolition of the Established Church might gratify them, it was not a thing they aimed at.
Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Standing Order Committee on, appointed: The Lords following, together with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

Ld. President

V. Eversley

D. Somerset

L. Camoys

M. Winchester

L. Saye and Sele

M. Bath

L. Colville of Culross

M. Ailesbury

L. Ponsonby

E. Devon

L. Sondes

E. Airlie

L. Foley

E. Hardwicke

L. Dinevor

E. Carnarvon

L. Sheffield

E. Romney

L. Colchester

E. Chichester

L. Silchester

E. Fowis

L. De Tabley

E. Verulam

L. Wynford

E. Saint Germans

L. Portman

E. Morley

L. Stanley of Alderley

E. De Grey

L. Belper

E. Stradbroke

L. Ebury

E. Amherst

L. Churston

E. Kimberley

L. Egerton

V. Sydney

L. Penrhyn

PRIVATE BILLS.
All Petitions relating to Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present Session referred to the Standing Order Committee unless otherwise ordered.

OPPOSED PRIVATE BILLS.
The Lords following; viz.,

M. Bath

L. Ponsonby

L. Colville of Culross

L. Stanley of Alderley

were appointed, with the Chairman of Committees, a Committee to select and propose to the House the Names of the Five Lords to form a Select Committee for the Consideration of each Opposed Private Bill.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.