Lords Sitting of 13 May 1869

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl of Hillsborough after the death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Recorders' Deputies * (105); New Parishes and Church Building Acts Amendment * (106).
Report—Government of India Act Amendment (94–104).
Third Reading—Civil Service Pensions * (53), and passed.
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (£17,100,000) [32 Vict. c. 8]; Salmon Fisheries (Ireland) [32 Vict. c. 9]; Colonial Prisoners Removal [32 Vict. c. 10]; Merchant Shipping (Colonial), 1869, [32 Vict. c. 11]; Naval Stores [32 Vict. c. 12]; Militia [82 Vict. c. 13].

PRIVATE BILLS.
Standing Order No. 179. sect. 1. suspended (according to Order); and the time for depositing Petitions praying to be heard against Private Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House, extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess at Whitsuntide.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Duke of Argyll.)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 94.) REPORT.
  Amendment reported (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHcommented on the impolicy of disturbing arrangements in important affairs only a few years after those arrangements had been made. Now, he was not aware that any circumstances had arisen which should induce the Government to bring forward this measure, making great and important alterations in the Government of India. That Government had been established after great deliberation first in the House of Commons and afterwards in their Lordships' House. It was only eleven years since that great measure had passed, and he had not heard of anything that had happened since that time from which it could be inferred that the system then established had in any way obstructed or seriously delayed the course of Public-Business; on the contrary, he had always understood that the Council of India was regarded as an admirable vehicle for the conduct of public affairs. He could see no reason therefore for this important change. The great object of the Act of 1858 was to render the members of the Council independent by giving them a tenure of their office for life. The framers of the present Bill seemed to have a fear of the undue longevity of the members of the Council, and therefore proposed to alter the life tenure by making the members elective for ten years, with power of re-election tinder peculiar circumstances for five years more. Now, there was no doubt a great advantage in having an infusion of fresh blood into the Council of India, as well as in other institutions; but he did not believe that would be gained by giving a tenure of office for ten years, for in this case an appointment for ten years must be much the same as an appointment for life. Therefore, the change was not, as far as he could see, accompanied by any corresponding benefit. He did not understand the grounds on which the noble Duke proposed to make these great alterations in the Government of India. Alterations made in important matters in rapid succession must tend to impair the confidence of
  690
  the public in the legislative wisdom of Parliament. It seemed to him as if they were treating the great interests of the country as children treated a house of cards. No sooner was a system got into working order and was promoting the public good than a Minister came forward to suggest great and extensive alterations. It seemed as if a Constitution was intended for nothing else but to be mended. He believed this was highly prejudicial to the public interests. It destroyed confidence in public men; and therefore he must say "Not-content" to the measure.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the professed object of the Bill was to provide a quicker succession of Indian councillors, and he concurred in the desirability—India being in a condition of such rapid change—of having councillors possessed of recent knowledge of the country. He proposed, however, that instead of effecting that object by the means proposed in the Bill—that the Council should be partly elected and partly nominated—all the members should be nominated directly by the Crown, and would move an Amendment having that effect. This suggestion he offered on the second reading, but the noble Duke did not appear to understand him, his reply being that though he could work with a smaller Council he saw no need to reduce its number. Now, he (the Marquess of Salisbury) did not himself think the number too large, bearing in mind that much of the routine work must be done by them; but it would be more consistent with the practice in other Departments of the State that all these officers should be appointed by the Crown. This was the opinion of Lord Palmerston and of Lord Derby at the time the system was first proposed; and the opinion which was ultimately adopted, that a portion of the Council should be elected, was adopted only for the sake of getting rid of what was, at the time, a great political difficulty. It was considered highly desirable that a change so important in the constitution of the Council of India should not have to encounter the opposition of the Directors of the East India Company, and to get rid of their opposition the present plan, which was their suggestion, was adopted. But the reason for this state of things had long passed away, and he would not act upon the

  691
  opinion originally entertained by all the statesmen of the day if he would not take the advice of the late Viceroy of India (Lord Lawrence), who sat behind him, and provide in this Bill that the Crown, through the Secretary of State, should nominate all the members of the Council.
  Amendment moved to omit "elected or."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he agreed with the noble Karl (the Earl of Ellenborough) that it was undesirable, unless there were strong reasons for it, to make extensive changes in settlements of important questions effected at a comparatively recent period. On this ground alone he would object to the Amendment of the noble Marquess. He attached some value, moreover, to the provision that part of the Council should be elective rather than nominated by the Crown, for he thought the elective principle materially contributed to the importance of the office, and the estimation in which retired Indians held it. While not desiring to increase the emoluments of the office, the Government were anxious not to detract from the consideration in which it was held; for distinguished men were often induced to accept it on that account rather than out of regard to mere pecuniary considerations. He was actuated by this further argument—that the elections by the Council had hitherto worked extremely well, as was shown by the names of the gentlemen who had been elected by the Council during the last ten years. Passing by those members who were elected by the old Court of Directors, who, though distinguished men, were, of course, elected on other grounds, he found that the first gentleman elected was Sir Henry Durand, undoubtedly one of the most able servants of the Indian Government; the second was General Baker, an officer who had rendered the greatest service, as he was sure his noble Friend behind him (Viscount Halifax) would give evidence, in all the difficult questions arising out of the amalgamation of the two armies; the third, Sir Robert Montgomery, one of the most distinguished servants of the East India Company, who furnished most valuable information to the Secretary of State with regard to matters connected with the Punjaub and the North-West Pro-
  692
  vinces; and the fourth, Sir Frederick Halliday, who was Lieutenant Governor of Bengal during the Mutiny, and gave important assistance to the Viceroy. When there were four elections successively of men of such eminence, he thought they might safely say that the system of election by the Council must be working well. A suggestion had been made by his noble Friend (Lord Lyveden) that persons appointed councillors should have returned from India within five instead of, as at present, within ten years. Now, suggestions of this kind at first sight appeared plausible: but under such a rule Sir Frederick Halliday himself would have been shut out from election, he having been nine years home—so that the Council would lost one of its most valuable Members. The Government had fully considered the question, and, acting very much on the principle laid down by his noble Friend, that no adequate reason could be shown for changing the system, they had decided not to accept the Amendment.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, that the Bill had undergone no discussion in Committee, in consequence of the impatience of the House to proceed to an exciting personal and party question; and though there was, consequently, the more necessity for considering it fully at the present stage, he feared that another impending personal question would exercise the same untoward influence. He hoped, how ever, that the noble Marquess would press his Amendment, for both Lord Palmerston and Lord Derby originally proposed to place all the appointments in the hands of the Crown, and the present arrangement was only adopted in order to propitiate the East India Company to the passage of the Bill. It was no answer to say that very good men had hitherto been elected by the Council; that was not necessarily the result of self-election which led to an indecent canvass in the Council itself. Men equally good, if not better, had been appointed by the Crown, and there was no reason why the Crown should not nominate in this as in other cases. He was still of opinion that gentlemen appointed should not have left India longer than live years, for things were changing so rapidly in that country that recent experience and information were highly essential. In his opinion, the limitation

  693
  of the term of office to ten years would be a decided improvement, for it would secure an infusion of fresh blood.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, he regretted that the Bill had passed through Committee in so perfunctory a manner, owing to the anxiety of their Lordships to proceed to a personal or party discussion, and hoped it would now be discussed with due attention and care. He did not wish to exaggerate the question, whether the members of the Council should be elected or appointed by the Crown, into undue importance; for hitherto the best men had been put into the Council, however appointed; but he deprecated any measure which would diminish the independence and self-respect of that body, for a strong Council might be of great service to a Secretary of State in giving him the support requisite to resist the pressure of parties in this country—a pressure not always applied in a way conducive to the benefit of the people of India. He had no fears of the Council becoming too subservient, but he was jealous for their independence; for during his own experience as Secretary of State, he remembered several questions on which English interests or feelings were, to a certain extent, opposed to Indian interests. With regard, for instance, to the question of contracts in which the ryots of Bengal were so deeply interested, and by which their welfare might be so vi-tally affected, a feeling existed in this country which, had it been acted upon, might have led to the most serious consequences. A strong independent Council was of great value on that occasion. He agreed in the desirability of obtaining, from time to time, an infusion of new blood, for things in India were changing so rapidly that persons who had long left the country were, as a rule, of less ser-vice than those conversant with the existing state of things. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) was mistaken in supposing that a ten years' term of office was equivalent to appointment for life;, for only one gentleman of those placed on the Council in 1858 had since been removed by death. The shortening of the period of absence from India would unduly fetter the choice of the Secretary of State or of the Council—and it must be remembered that there was no obligation to select gentlemen who had beer absent nearly ten years.
  694
  and, in fact, most of the councillors had returned home within a much shorter time. If the qualification were limited to five years' absence a most desirable man might be excluded on account of no vacancy occurring within that period. He himself first introduced the principle of nomination by the Act of 1853, for he had found that the election which was then in the hands of the holders of East Indian stock, being carried on by personal canvass of the shareholders, the best men were by no means invariably chosen. That might be a proper mode of selection, however, when the East India Company was a commercial body, but when it had become a political, rather than a commercial, body, it appeared to him indispensable to secure in some other way that the best men from India should be appointed. The members of the Council had as strong an interest as the Secretary of State in adding to their body the best men, and they had not elected any person whom he should not himself, had he been Secretary of State, have been quite ready to appoint. Indeed, he was bound to do justice, both to the Council and to the successive Secretaries of State who had preceded and succeeded him, and who deserved the highest credit for their selection of the fittest and most able men.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he agreed with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) that the election by the Council being part of a compromise with the East India Company, no reason now existed for its continuance. He thought that the Bill conflicted with a great principle which should always be borne in mind—the principle that every person in the service of the State in India should look to the Crown alone for the reward of his services.
  LORD LAWRENCEbelieved it would be better for the Council themselves, and bettor for India that all the members of the Council should all be nominated by the Crown, rather than that a portion of the Council should be elected by the members themselves. It was obvious to his mind that, whatever might be the sense of responsibility of a Council of fifteen members, that of the Secretary of State must be still greater; the Secretary of State was mainly responsible to Parliament and the country for the working of the government of India,

  695
  and, therefore, so far as information went, he would always consult the different members of the Council as to the best man he could select: while the fact of the nomination being in his hands would give the best security for the best man being nominated. He thought also that there was an evil inherent in a Council elected by the members of the Council; that gentlemen who aspired to a seat at their Board would canvass the members for their support. It was not desirable to place councillors in a false position and encourage that tendency. The nominations by the Council and by the Secretary of State, he would admit, had hitherto been equally good; but, in the long run there would be a greater security for obtaining able men if the latter had the entire selection. As to the qualification, he thought the field of selection would be unwisely limited if confined to men who had not returned from India more than five years. It was true matters in India were in a transition state, but that transition was by no means, so great as was generally supposed. Certain changes were coming over India; but the feelings, sympathies, and aspirations of the people were very much what they were formerly. Were they themselves consulted, he believed they would prefer the selection as councillors of men of long standing in the service, rather than of younger men.
  LORD CAIRNSadmitted that there was great force in the argument that we ought not needlessly to interfere with a Constitution which had been settled by Parliament only ten years ago; but the existence of this Bill was a proof that in many cases the Constitution was to be interfered with, and therefore went far itself to answer the noble Earl's objection. Then, surely, when dealing with the tenure of office it was advisable to consider whether any other improvement could be introduced. No doubt the choice of councillors by the Council had so far been everything that was desirable; but he agreed with the noble Lord the late Viceroy of India that a priori the best system was that which made the Minister of the Crown answerable for the appointment of members of the Council. He thought he might venture to urge upon Her Majesty's Government that they should take that view, if upon no other ground, for the reason that it would only be revert-
  696
  ing to the view taken by the Government of Lord Palmerston and the Government of Lord Derby in 1858. The introduction of the element of election by the Council themselves was a matter forced upon the Ministry in consequence of the strong feeling which the East India Company had upon the subject. The Secretary of State being answerable for the good government of India should also be responsible for the nomination, and he hoped that after the expression of opinion by the House the Government would accept the Amendment.
  EARL GREYsaid, that but for the Council the Secretary of State would practically be without any check; for Parliament was too much occupied with other matters, and was too ignorant of the real state of India and its varied wants, to be able to interfere with advantage. Indeed, when it had interfered it had rather done harm than good. As for his Colleagues in the Cabinet, the general business of the Government was so exceedingly heavy that there was little hope of their considering a great Indian question with a real knowledge of the points to be decided. Moreover, under our form of government the Secretary of State for India must inevitably sometimes be a person of comparatively small experience and knowledge of Indian affairs—so that it was obviously a hazardous experiment to in trust him with almost unlimited powers in disposing of great questions. For these reasons nothing ought to be done to impair the independence of the Council, or the impression which existed both here and in India of its independence. He was persuaded that the power of electing a certain proportion of their own body had an important effect, and as the present system admittedly worked well, it was unadvisable to change it. While admiting the desirability of obtaining members possessed of recent information, he objected to fettering the discretion of the Council and the Secretary of State by fixing the limit of five years' absence from India; and he hoped the Government would consider the suggestion made on a former evening by the noble Lord (Lord Lawrence) by adopting a more liberal system of retiring pensions. It was good policy to induce the best men to join the Council, and also to provide against their remaining in the Council too long, when unfitted mentally or

  697
  bodily for the efficient discharge of their duties.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he still thought the balance of argument was in favour of maintaining the present arrangement. If the House insisted on giving this additional patronage to the Government, they would, of course, still go on with the Bill, but it was right that the sense of the House should be taken upon it.
  On Question? their Lordships divided: —Contents 89; Not-Contents 53: Majority 36.

  CONTENTS.

  Cambridge, D.

  Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

  Dublin, Archp.

  Templetown, V.

  Richmond, D.

  Chester, Bp.

  Somerset, D.

  Derry and Raphoe, Bp.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Oxford, Bp.

  Bristol, M.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Salisbury, M. [Teller.]

  Tuam, &c, Bp.

  Westmeath, M.

  Bolton, L.

  Abergavenny, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Albemarle, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Cairns, L.

  Annesley, E.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Bandon, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Bathurst, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Carnarvon, E. [Teller.]

  Churston, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Derby, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Devon, E.

  Colonsay, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Colville of Culross, L.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Denman, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Do Ros, L.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Digby, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Dunsany, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Heytesbury, L.

  Home, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Kesteven, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Portarlington, E.

  Monson, L.

  Romney, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Stradbroke, E.

  Tankerville, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Wilton, E.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  De Vesci, V.

  Hardinge, V.

  Templemore, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Tredegar, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Wharncliffe, L.

  698

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Sydney, V.

  Abercromby, L.

  Cleveland, D.

  Belper, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Saint Albans, D.

  Dacre, L.

  Ailesbury, M. [Teller.]

  De Mauley, L.

  Camden, M.

  Ebury, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Harris, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Houghton, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Effingham, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Lurgan, L.

  Granville, E.

  MontEagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Grey, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Northbrook, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Panmure, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Leicester. E.

  Minto, E.

  Penzance, L.

  Morley, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Powis, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Russell, E.

  Portman, L.

  Bolingbroke and St. John, V

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Eversley, V.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Halifax, V.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Taunton, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was unwilling to stand in the way of the important discussion on the Notice Paper, but he wished to obtain their Lordships' opinion with reference to a point which was discussed on a previous evening, but upon which no vote was taken. The present powers of the Secretary of State in regard to expenditure were, as that debate had shown, extremely doubtful. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) maintained that the limitation of the power of the Secretary of State to spend money did not really limit the executive and administrative power of the Secretary of State, and in that view he was supported by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; while the contrary view which he (the Marquess of Salisbury) adopted was supported by his noble and learned Friends (Lord Cairns and Lord Chelmsford). The power was thus, at all events, a matter of considerable doubt, and any Secretary of State for India who acted upon the opinion expressed by the noble Duke might have the opinions of his noble and learned Friends flung in his

  699
  teeth; he would be thought to have transgressed his power, and might be further exposed to the unpleasant consequences attaching to a Minister who spent the public money without any Parliamentary power or authority to do so. He desired that this ambiguity should be removed; and, as he thought there ought to be some distinct definition of the law on this subject, he would propose a clause to the effect that the Secretary of State should be authorized to make no grant out of the revenues of India; that he should be authorized to make no increase of pension, or to pledge the revenues of India for any future year; and, most important of all, that he should not be able to engage the revenues of India, through his Colleagues, without the consent of the majority of his Council. Beyond these points, however, he proposed that the Secretary of State should be responsible to Parliament alone. At the same time he did not think that there was any essential difference between the noble Duke and himself.
  Moved to insert the following clause—
  "Whereas doubts have arisen as to the powers of the Secretary of State over the expenditure of the revenues of India, and whereas it is expedient that such doubts should be removed; be it enacted as follows:—Section 41 of the said recited Act for the better government of India is hereby repealed. The expenditure of the revenues of India, both in India and elsewhere, shall be subject to the control of the Secretary of State in Council, but no grant of such revenues, or any part thereof, no increase in the pay or pension of any person in the service of Her Majesty, and no contract or engagement charging or involving the appropriation of such revenues for a period of more than a year from the date of such contract or engagement, or involving any payments to any other Department of Her Majesty's Government, shall be made without the concurrence of the majority of votes at a meeting of the Council."—(The Marquess of Salisbury).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLregretted that he could not accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess, which, if it removed any existing difficulty or doubt, would only substitute others in its place. The present law was that no grant or appropriation of the revenues of India could be made without the consent of the Council. That prohibition prevented the Secretary of State from giving direct orders for the handling of money, but did not prevent him from ordering a service in India for which money was to be paid. He believed he was betraying
  700
  no confidence in adverting to the origin of the doubt in this matter. A great many members of commercial bodies in this country urged upon the noble Marquess—as they had since urged upon himself—the expediency of ordering a survey of the country between Eastern India and China for the purpose of making a telegraph and a railway. It might be expedient, as the noble Marquess thought, to have a knowledge of the intervening country. But the Government of India took a very different view, and his noble Friend (Lord Lawrence) represented that the contemplated project might entail political complications, and expressed a strong opinion against an expenditure which would impose a considerable burden upon the tax-payers of India. The Council in this country backed the representations of the Government of India, and resisted the survey. He believed that the noble Marquess, notwithstanding, had his own way, and that the Council eventually did not resist his will, but assented to an order for the survey of the country. Considerable expense was incurred; and his noble Friend (Lord Lawrence) afterwards renewed his remonstrances as to the danger of bringing the Government of India into contact with the border tribes. When those remonstrances reached this country, Sir Stafford Northcote was Secretary of State, and the survey was given up. The matter had been under discussion since he (the Duke of Argyll) had been at the India Office, but on no considerations would he over-rule the Government of India in such a matter. The noble Marquess said, that, under the present law, the Secretary of State could not order such an expenditure on his own authority, and he desired so to alter the law as to confer that authority upon him. But the definition of the financial power of the Secretary and Council by the proposed clause was open to great objection. It left the Secretary of State absolutely free to engage for any amount of service, and to pay for it out of the revenues of India. It would not prevent him from engaging a whole army of engineers, and paying the expense without consulting with his Council. It would prohibit him from increasing the pay of any existing office, but it did not prohibit him from creating any number of now offices. He could not add £5 to

  701
  the salary of any existing office, but he could create any new office with a salary of £5,000 a year. The words of the Amendment—"no contract or engagement charging or involving," would give rise to infinite ambiguity. Did they mean a contingent or necessary "involving?" The whole paragraph was full of ambiguity and difficulty, and on its very front and face it gave a power to the Secretary of State which Parliament never intended he should possess. The words—''involving payment for more than a year," he believed had been introduced to meet an objection he had himself stated the other night to the noble Marquess. He pointed out to the noble Marquess that, as his Amendment stood, the Secretary of State might charge on the Indian revenues the whole of the British Navy serving not only in the Indian but in the Chinese seas; or, by an arrangement with the War Office, he might double the rate of pay of the Queen's troops in India. The words were therefore added—"or involving any payments to any other Department of Her Majesty's Government." lint if there was no agreement with the "Department," the Secretary of State would not be prevented by the words from making the payment. He (the Duke of Argyll) was at present negotiating with the Admiralty about the expense of the naval service in the Persian Gulf, and they were likely to come to an agreement on the subject; but, under this clause, without coming to any agreement with the Admiralty, he might order the payment of £100,000 or £200,000 or £300,000 for those ships. The actual balance in hand in bank of the Indian revenues ranged from £8,000,000 to £12,000,000 sterling, and it would be possible, under the Amendment of the noble Marquess, for the Secretary of State to pay the whole cost of the Abyssinian War without the consent of a majority of his Council. That was an absurdity which Parliament never could assent to. This Amendment would give rise to doubts and difficulties infinitely greater than those which could arise under the simple and straightforward wording of the present law, which was perfectly consistent with our Constitution. He seriously appealed to the House to consider the position of the Secretary of State for India with reference to money matters. He ventured
  702
  to say the power of the Secretary of State ought not to be materially increased Already it was the greatest power possessed by any Minister, because it was practically unchecked and uncontrolled, except by his Council—he might squander millions before the people of India were aware of the fact; and it was most important that he should be obliged to consult his Council before he dealt directly with matters involving large expenditure. He hoped their Lordships would not adopt the Amendment of the noble Marquess. He did not think that the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns), if sitting in a judicial capacity, would adhere to the interpretation he gave the other day.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the noble Duke had made himself a sort of posthumous Hansard to the Indian Council, by referring to matters which had been discussed by the Council two years ago, which were not on the records, and to which there were no means of referring. The noble Duke referred to the question of the survey of Eastern India frontiers for the purpose of insinuating some degree of censure upon him the Marquess of (Salisbury).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he had not at all intended to imply any censure on the noble Marquess. If he differed from the Government of India on a very important question he had quite a right to do so.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that, in reference to telegraphs or railways, he had not sent any despatch directing that any step should be taken that would compromise the peace of India in any way, and he assuredly had never manifested any liking towards a telegraph across the Burmese territory. He thought it an inconvenient practice in any Minister of the Crown to refer to matters affecting the conduct of his predecessor to the record of which he could not appeal. With regard to the interpretation which the noble Duke had put on his Amendment he would only make one remark—that the noble Duke had entirely changed his opinions on the subject. On the first reading of the Bill the noble Duke gave them a very interesting disquisition on this subject, and used these words—
  "It follows from this argument—which I believe to be well founded both upon the historical facts of the case and the words of the Act—that the

  703
  Secretary of State is supreme in all matters what- ever, except simply such matters as were included under the principle of the financial veto of Mr. Pitt—that is, direct grants or appropriations of money to persons either hero or in India which might be made for purposes of political jobbery. That I believe to be the state of the law; and if it be, I need hardly say that it makes the Secretary of State practically supreme in all matters, whether they do or do not cost money."—[3 Hansard, cxcv. 1074.]
  Was that language consistent with the speech which the noble Duke had made to-night? He had not put this Amendment on the Paper to alter the law. If the noble Duke desired that the Council of India should stand in the same position as the House of Commons, he had no wish to make any alteration. His only desire was to give effect to the principles the noble Duke had himself expressed and to clear up any doubt with respect to the power of the Secretary on this point. If he had succeeded in converting the noble Duke he was satisfied, and would withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that the noble Duke had now asserted a doctrine wholly different from what he had formerly expressed. Originally the noble Duke claimed for the Secretary for India a power to spend the whole revenue of India by ordering services in India for which the Governor General should be desired to pay, and then preventing any veto on the accounts when they came home. However, the proposition now advanced by the noble Duke was a totally different one, for he said that it was impossible to suppose that by the law as it stood the Secretary for India could have such extensive power to spend money. The noble Duke had certainly learnt, something by the discussion, and he hoped his knowledge would be followed by some useful result.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn: Bill to be read 3a on Friday the 4th of June next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 104.)

POLICE SYSTEMS OF SCOTLAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MINTOrose to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee of last Session on the Police Systems of Scotland, and to ask the Government certain Questions in connection with that subject. It was a general impression that these systems were ca-
  704
  pable of considerable improvement. The Select Committee, which he moved for last year, embodied in their Report certain recommendations to which he would shortly refer. In consequence of the existence of public prosecutors in Scotland, the police of that country had to perform certain duties which did not devolve on the police in England, and which took up a great deal of time, and required considerable training for their due discharge. But it was a curious fact that no system of superannuation for the police should exist in Scotland; and the first recommendation of the Select Committee, which he trusted the Government would take into consideration, was that a plan of superannuation should be established in respect to the Scotch constabulary. The next recommendation of the Select Committee had reference to the amalgamation of different constabulary forces. A number of small boroughs maintained independent bodies of police of their own; and in some towns two or three separate police forces were kept up. The Committee recommended that some of these bodies should be amalgamated with the county police, and that in eases where there were several distinct bodies of police in towns they should be joined together. The Committee were of opinion that the payment by fees, for certain duties, should be abolished. The Committee pointed out that the duties of the Procurator Fiscals and the chief constables sometimes conflicted; and recommended that their respective duties should be better defined. Upon another point the Select Committee thought it better that the Police Committee should have a veto upon the appointment of additional constables, instead of leaving it to the chief constable. Again, the chief constable was now liable to dismissal by the Police Committee, and the Select Committee recommended that this dismissal should not be made except with the sanction of the Secretary of State. On these points he should be glad to hear the views of the Government.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that as regarded the subject of the superannuation and retiring pensions, there could be no doubt that, in order to render the police efficient, some fund of this kind should be provided; but Dr. Parr's statement, as to certain superannuation funds in this country, was enough to

  705
  show how much care was necessary in dealing with this question. It was under the consideration of the Government, and would receive attention and favourable consideration. With regard to the consolidation of the borough police with the county force, it certainly appeared that in several cases the existing system did not work satisfactorily. Be-fore the Select Committee there was evidence of the inconvenience arising from the maintenance by small boroughs of police of their own: but the subject was one of great delicacy, for local bodies felt a jealousy of any invasion of their rights, and interference was ill-received in such a case. By Section 61, in the Act of 1857, a permissive power was given to the boroughs to amalgamate their police with the county force. Over twenty boroughs had availed themselves of that; power; but thirty-two boroughs, sixteen of which contained a population of under 5,000, still retained their own police. The next point was the relations of the chief constable with the Procurator Fiscal. The complaint was that the Procurator Fiscal, in the discharge of his duties, had the power of giving orders to the individual members of the force, independently of the chief constable under whose order and disposition the force was. That, no doubt, might occasionally cause some confusion—particularly when the Procurator Fiscal omitted to give notice to the chief constable. This appeared however to be very rarely the ease. But, it seemed to him (the Earl of Morley) that if the department of the public prosecutor was to work satisfactorily in Scotland, it was necessary that the constables should be, to a certain extent, under the orders of the Procurator Fiscal, who, with the sheriffs, were the persons who really worked the criminal law in Scotland. Cases might occur where, in conducting an inquiry on the spot, it was impossible to communicate with the chief constable, and great delay would occur if the Procurator Fiscal were obliged to send to the chief constable before he could direct the constables to assist in collecting evidence. At the same time, the duties of the Procurator Fiscal should be performed with the least possible interference with and derangement of the police force, and notice should be given to the chief constable wherever that was possible. The present system worked
  706
  harmoniously in almost every part of Scotland; and, that being so, it was not the intention of the Government to make changes which would weaken the power of the Procurator Fiscal, and might impede the ends of justice. His noble Friend had also adverted to the question of police appointments. That question was under the consideration of the Government, and he trusted the noble Earl would be satisfied with that assurance, and with the explanation which he was enabled to give him on the other points which he had brought under the notice of the House.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that the efficiency of the police force of Scotland was considerably impaired by the circumstance that the prospect of a superannuation allowance was not held out to them. The result was that the men looked upon the service as a temporary refuge until they could find something better to do. A well-considered system of superannuation would tend greatly to keep experienced officers in the force. He was glad, therefore, to hear that the subject was under the consideration of the Government. There were, he might add, in the counties numberless small boroughs which had little police forces of their own; and he would suggest that all boroughs having a less population than 2,000 should be compelled to amalgamate their police with the counties. If that were done, a better system of police would, he felt confident, be secured. With respect to another point, which he admitted to be one of some delicacy, he might state that he thought there was a growing desire on the part of the sheriffs and the Procurator Fiscal to acquire a greater control over the police in the counties than they ought to have. The view which he took of that question was that, while the force should be subject to the orders of the sheriff in those instances in which there was occasion to employ them in the detection of crime, they should be placed generally under the control of the Police Commissioners—for he did not suppose that the sheriffs and Procurators desired to interfere with the disposal of the force to a greater ex- tent than they found necessary for the due performance of their own duties. That was a point which he hoped the Government would take into consideration.

  WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
  Moved, "That the House do now adjourn to Monday the 31st Instant."— (Earl Granville.)

  STATE OF IRELAND.—QUESTION.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I rise, pursuant to notice, to inquire of my noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies what course the Government mean to pursue in regard to two very important subjects—namely, the increase of crime and outrage in Ireland and also in regard to the laws relating to the Tenure of Land in that country? I have deferred doing so to the last moment in order that they might have full time to take into consideration the accounts which they might have received from Ireland, and the present aspect of two most serious questions connected with that country. The first of those questions has reference to the state of crime and outrage prevailing in Ireland—the other relates to the position of landlord and tenant. In dealing with the first question I must say that I do not blame the Government for the crimes and outrages which have been committed in a few counties in Ireland. I have generally observed that, when an active political agitation has been set on foot in Ireland and has been suppressed, it has been followed by that other means by which the Irish farmers and peasantry belonging to the Ribbon conspiracy endeavour to attain their object—namely, the atrocious crimes of murder and assassination. We know that, owing to the efforts of my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal (the Earl of Kimberley), when Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Abercorn) who succeeded him, the Fenian conspiracy was entirely defeated, and men congratulated themselves that the efforts of the Government had been successful. Then the perpetration of crimes—of these private murders—has followed in the usual course on the failure of the political conspiracy. This is no ground of blame to Her Majesty's Government, but it is a state of things which appears to mo to demand their serious attention. Crimes of this nature have, as your Lordships' are aware, a great tendency to spread. When atrocious criminals who commit them have been arrested and punished a lull usually follows in the particular district in which they are
  708
  perpetrated. But when, on the other hand, the crime remains undetected, when the authors of these crimes have remained concealed, there is usually a great increase of crime, until the matter is forced on the notice of the Government of the day. There was such an increase of crime in Ireland in 1847—and especially of agrarian crime—and Sir George Grey, who was at the time Secretary for the Home Department, introduced a Bill for the purpose of suppressing it. We had some hesitation at that time in introducing such a Bill, because the year before the House of Commons had rejected Sir Robert Peel's Bill for ft similar purpose. That Bill was very similar to the Peace Preservation Act now in force; but it contained clauses, copied from the Whiteboy Act, enabling the Government to punish persons in districts which had been proclaimed for sending threatening letters, and for other offences tending to foster insurrection. The third reading of that Bill was supported by a great majority in the other House of Parliament, Mr. Bright being among its advocates. Some time after Sir George Grey stated that the Act had been completely successful, and in 1855–6 it was renewed, but with the omission of the clauses to which I have just referred. I cannot doubt that Her Majesty's Government and the local Government of Ireland are doing everything in their power to discover the perpetrators of the crimes which are now being committed in that country. Those crimes have increased in number, and have extended to other counties besides Westmeath and Tipperary, and the murderers have not been discovered. Now, Her Majesty's Government, might have followed the example of other Governments and introduced measures which would have been effective for securing peace; for, as Sir George Grey most truly said in 1847, all Her Majesty's subjects have a right to the protection of life. My noble Friend will no doubt endeavour to give a satisfactory answer on this subject. He will probably say—what is certainly true—that means are being taken to discover the criminals and bring them to trial, and that if this cannot be done Her Majesty's Government will consider what other measures may be necessary. I will now pass to the other and more anxious subject to which I propose to call the attention of the House and of the Government—namely,

  709
  the laws relating to the tenure of land in Ireland. It seems to me, my Lords, that at the beginning of the Session Her Majesty's Government might have taken into consideration the propriety of adopting one of two courses with reference to this subject. They might have come to the conclusion that this Session ought to have been devoted to the purpose of considering the laws and the questions more especially relating to Ireland, with a view to the settlement of the most important of those questions; and no one can doubt that among those questions the two most important relate, the one to the Church of Ireland, and the other to the tenure of land in that country. I think myself that they might have postponed the consideration of Endowed Schools, of other questions re-la-ting to Education in Great Britain, and of the subject of Bankruptcy, in order to give the entire Session to the fair consideration by Parliament of the great-questions remaining to be decided in regard to Ireland. On the other hand, the Government might have declared that, while they would take into consideration any measure which would secure compensation to the tenants in Ireland, and which would maintain at the same time the rights of properly, it was not their intention to introduce a measure on the subject of the tenure of land during the present Session. I say that cither of these courses might have been pursued with perfect propriety on the part of the Government. For my own part, I confess I should have preferred the former: but it was for the Government to decide which they would adopt. Unfortunately, however, there was a third course open to them—namely, to permit every kind of hope to be held out to the tenantry of Ireland, which could tend to shako that security of property, which Sir George Grey and Sir Robert Peel said in 1847 ought to be maintained, and yet, not to submit any measure for the consideration of Parliament. I think that an unhappy course; but it is the one which the Government has chosen. When I say this I must be understood as referring to the late deliberations and debates in the other House of Parliament. I am of opinion, my Lords, that in these days no technical rule should interfere with our discussions if we think proper to discuss statements which have been made in the
  710
  other House. In former days, as is well known, the House of Commons were very jealous of the publication of any reports of their debates and proceedings. Indeed, I myself am old enough to remember a person being brought to the bar of that House, by the Sergeant-at-Arms, because he was found taking notes in the Gallery. But now-a-days, we know that there is a full and wise publicity with regard to these things. Everybody knows next morning what has been transacted in either House of Parliament—the reports of our proceedings are spread all over the country, and are known to every person who takes any interest in the political affairs of the kingdom. Therefore it is a more mockery to say that what is known in every hovel in Ireland and every cottage in England should not form the subject of debate either in this or the other House of Parliament. For my own part. I am not anxious to refer on the present occasion to any declarations which may have been made in the House of Commons, but I do wish to refer to plans which have been propounded in speeches which have been carefully revised and published in a collected form as the speeches of the present President of the Board of Trade, and which are now well-known throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) went over to Dublin some time ago, and both there and elsewhere propounded and explained plans of his own for the settlement of the Irish land question. He named a certain number of persons as being absentee proprietors. The list was not wholly correct, though substantially accurate. The right hon. Gentleman professed to have a great regard for the rights of property; and I must say he desired that those persons should have full compensation for the property which they hold, and that their land should be sold again among the farmers and occupiers. At the date to which I have already referred—namely, in 1847—Sir George Grey said that the tenant-occupiers ought to receive fair compensation; and Sir Robert Peel followed up that declaration by expressing his opinion, that where an occupier built a house and was deprived of his holding he ought to have full compensation for the expense, time, and labour which he might have bestowed on the building of that house. These two statesmen, though belonging

  711
  to opposite parties, were quite agreed upon that principle. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies alluded the other day to a statement made by Lord Stanley in the House of Commons, and declared that he was quite ready to accept the principle of full compensation to the tenant-occupier. But, my Lords, this plan of Mr. Bright has for its object the displacement of a great number of proprietors of land in Ireland, and the substitution of small occupiers in their stead. That, my Lords, is a change so vast that it is hardly to be contemplated without a great deal of examination; and yet it has been proposed without examination, without any decision on the part of the Government, without, as far as I know, any deliberation by them on the subject. It has been stated from the Treasury Bench in the House of Commons that such is the object which one Member of the Cabinet has in view. With a people like the Irish that is exceedingly dangerous. My noble Friend has just spoken in regard to a Report made by a Committee some time ago with regard to various subjects, and among them one which has been brought under consideration in this and the other House of Parliament—namely, the Law of Hypothec in Scotland. We know this subject excites a good deal of attention in Scotland; but we know also that there would be no great anxiety or agitation if a remedy for the existing evils were not proposed in this Session, or the next, or even in the Session after. We know, on the other hand, that the people of Ireland are naturally excitable, and will look, not to the way in which the object is to be accomplished, but only to the proclamation that the property now held by the proprietors, whether they be absentees or residents, is to be transferred to the poorer occupiers. With or without compensation, these occupiers will endeavour by agitation and excitement to attain that object. That is not a kind of agitation which the Government ought to encourage. The declarations made in former days by Sir George Grey, as Secretary of State, and by Sir Robert Peel, as head of the Opposition, pointed to an object which, no doubt, required very great attention and deliberation as to details, but which was practicable and attainable. But one had to turn over a little
  712
  in one's mind the object which the President of the Board of Trade was aiming at in order to form some conception as to what would happen if the Cabinet adopted his views. Generally speaking, the smaller occupiers are not in possession of much capital, and would hardly be able to lay out much money in the acquisition of land. The President of the Board of Trade proposed that 20 per cent above the probable value of the land should be paid to the holders of estates, and when I read the plan of some time ago I think it was stated that some £5,000,000 were to be placed in the hands of Commissioners, and lent to the small occupiers in order that they might buy out their landlords and place themselves in possession of the land. We are told that the President of the Board of Trade spoke only for himself. I have no doubt that that is perfectly true. But I wish that others had also spoken for themselves. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, for instance, can speak for himself most effectively, as we have lately seen. I wish he had spoken for himself on that occasion, and had given his opinion in regard to that advance of £5,000,000 from the public Exchequer, to enable the small occupiers of Ireland to buy up the land. Because, although the rights of property are to be respected—as I have no doubt the President of the Board of Trade really intends to respect them, for I have the most perfect faith in his honesty—what we have to consider is, how this plan is to be carried into effect. And we have to look—your Lordships are bound to look—not only to its bearing on the objects to which I have referred—namely, the preservation of peace and security in Ireland, but also to its bearing on the improvement of Ireland. We all know—we are all happy to subscribe to—the statements made last year by Lord Mayo, and also made since then, I think, by my noble Friend, who at the time was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, that there has been within the last thirty-five or forty years a gradual progress occurring in that country—a progress, interrupted, indeed, by violence and crime—a progess not continuous, but still a progress—due partly to measures which have been passed by Parliament, and due partly to the general course of social improvement in Ireland itself, which is most gratifying to those

  713
  who desire the future welfare of that country, and who wish to see her become a strong part of the United Kingdom. In a work written by the late Mr. Senior, who gives a very instructive account of conversations which he had with various proprietors in Ireland, the writer mentions one gentleman who said that he had a small property in that country, which had at one time sixty-seven tenants upon it. The potato famine came; many of the tenants were unable to pay their rent; he gladly excused them, and gave them some money besides to enable them to emigrate. Many of them willingly emigrated: and, instead of sixty-seven tenants, the number was now reduced to twenty-two, who, on an average, held twenty acres of land each. Now, I think, that was a beneficial operation. It was advantageous for those who emigrated, who were no longer in a land where they could not obtain food for their maintenance; and it was also for the good of those tenants who remained on the estate, and who could cultivate their twenty acres profitably and successfully. Let us suppose that some of these farmers of twenty acres each, tempted by the prospect—one of the most tempting prospects that can be offered to any man, whether in this country or in Ireland, or anywhere eke—namely, that of being a freeholder of a certain piece of land—suppose that some of these farmers with twenty acres obtained the command of that land, that they became owners in the place of the gentleman who is now receiving the rent, and who undergoes the trouble and the danger—which are neither slight nor few— attendant on the possession of property in Ireland—suppose, I say, that they have their twenty acres each, paying their rent and purchase-money to the Government, I ask, what has been a very common custom in Ireland? It has been a very common custom for these small fanners, instead of saying—"I have twenty acres: it is the lowest that I can cultivate at a profit," to say—"I have four sons; I will divide my farm among them. They shall each cultivate five acres." Now, imagine that the tenant has become possessed of the land. He has still to pay annually the sum which the President of the Board of Trade thinks that he ought to pay in order to become ultimately the owner of the land. Well, whom is he to pay it to? To the
  714
  Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will have advanced the money, and he must go to those four men, having five acres a-piece, and ask from them, not only the ordinary rent which the man with twenty acres originally paid, but the rent increased by 10 per cent, or whatever it may be, to enable him to get the fee simple of the land. Will Ireland be improved by such a process? Do you tell me that would be a progress towards civilization and the improvement of Ireland? I unfortunately recollect, and recollect too painfully, the scenes which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) must remember better than I do, which occurred in 1832 and 1833, when the Government took upon themselves the duty of collecting the tithes throughout Ireland, and when the sum collected with the aid of a large force of dragoons, infantry, and police fell infinitely below the cost of its collection. And if such was the difficulty of collecting the tithes by the Government, tell me what would be the consequence, what would be the aspect of Ireland, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer collecting sums from all these petty people, in order to do what was just in respect to the rights of property, and at the same time to enable these small occupiers to become possessors of the soil? I conclude, then, from all we know of this plan, that the plan is entirely visionary, It would be a pleasant thing, my Lords, if we could, with regard to our political affairs, create such scenes as we see upon the stage, when that which one moment was a dark wood with a robber's cave is turned the next minute into the most smiling landscape with happy peasants peacefully pursuing their avocations. But although, my Lords, that is a very agreeable effect to witness at the theatre it is not one which we can produce in this House by the utmost efforts of legislative wisdom. We know that the improvement of Ireland is only to be worked out painfully and laboriously—yet, I trust, successfully. And I feel persuaded that unless the Government discountenance every such visionary plan, unless they determine to act forcibly and firmly, unless they show a bold front—as they have done in that small matter of the Mayor of Cork—unless in regard to the greater matter to which I have referred they resolve to grasp the nettle

  715
  firmly we shall not have that peace and. security in Ireland which we all desire to see. My Lords, I have therefore felt it a duty incumbent upon me to ask my noble Friend what is the course which the Government mean to pursue; because I do feel that—against their wishes, against their persuasions, meaning to do nothing but what is fair and honourable—if they allow this agitation to spring up in Ireland, and supposing Parliament to be prorogued with the whole land question of Ireland left open. Parliament may meet next February with things taken out of their hands; and it will end in the Government saying—"We own that what is proposed is against our views; but you see what the popular feeling, what the current opinion is in Ireland; we did not wish it to come to this conclusion, but we are forced to yield to it, and we can only ask you to concur in it." I hope the government will take a firmer course in this matter. I am quite sure that those who have been concerned in the government of Ireland, whether as Members of the Cabinet in England or as Lord Lieutenants and Governors of Ireland, will feel that there is some force in the observations I have made, and that the great anxiety which exists in reference to this subject should, if possible, be relieved.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, any statement proceeding from my noble Friend, either on a question of administration or of government, must come with great weight and authority; but I own I do a little regret that my noble Friend has been prevented from attending the debates in this House, which I think have been renewed three or four times, on this particular question; because I think, as we have always declared on this Bench, that the frequent recurrence of these discussions, without any practical result, has not a good or soothing effect. And. more than that—whereas many of your Lordships thought-it necessary that this subject should be fully ventilated and discussed—I know myself that there are individual Peers on—if I may use the phrase—the three sides of the House who think that object has now been fully attained. The noble Earl has asked me exactly the question which has been put to me at least three times before. He has asked what Her Majesty's Government mean to do in regard to land tenure in Ireland.
  716
  That question has been put, and it has also not been put. A noble Lord on my side of the House, and a noble Lord on the other side, both gave notice of such a Question, and both withdrew it, because they felt that it was disadvantageous for the purposes of justice that the Government should go into detail in regard to any measure of a repressive character. It is perfectly impossible for me to state more on this subject than I have done—that Her Majesty's Government, where-ever they think it judicious to do so, are with the greatest earnestness enforcing all those powers which the very Act of Parliament to which the noble Earl has referred, confers upon them. I will only say one word more, and I am not sure that it is wise in me to say so much. The noble Earl says that Her Majesty's Government ought to legislate. We may possibly introduce—although I give no pledge on the subject—sonic provisions to give greater speed to and facility to the Lord Lieutenant acting under the powers of the Peace Preservation Act. That I hope will be the case. But when the noble Earl talks of the omission or insertion of clauses from the Whiteboy Act, I wish to point out to him that the difficulty is not that there is no power to punish, but the great difficulty—which is no new one, for it has existed for many years past—is to get evidence to convict those whom you ought to punish, and until you get that evidence it is idle to talk about strong legislation. The noble Earl then suddenly diverged to another point—I think it must have been a new excitement and a new pleasure to my noble Friend to be so warmly cheered through the whole of his speech from a quarter from which he is not accustomed to receive such marks of approbation—the noble Earl went on to ask the intention of the Government with regard to the tenure of land in Ireland. Now, my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was charged the other night with confining his newspaper reading to the metropolitan journals. But I think my noble Friend can hardly have read our debates—which have never been better reported than during the present Session—if he is not aware that I have already answered this Question two or three times, and that I have given the only answer which it is possible for me to give on behalf of the Government. The noble Earl says that

  717
  we ought to have taken one of two courses. He says that we ought either to introduce a land measure, or to say at once boldly that we do not mean to do so. Now, it is not once, but night after night that we have had discussions on this question. We have been asked by the noble Lord on the cross-Benches, and we stated that it was practically impossible to legislate this Session, and that opinion was backed by other noble Lords on the opposite side of the House. Now, my Lords, I say that, whether they are right or wrong, when a Government state that, in their opinion, it is impracticable to legislate this Session, and when they are backed up by several leading Members of the Opposition, it practically puts an end to the question. This is no new doctrine. I have always understood that a Government are bound to announce the principal measures which they mean to introduce; but I have never yet heard that they are expected to volunteer a catalogue of the measures they do not mean to introduce, But however that may be, as soon as the question was put whether we intended to legislate on the subject this Session we gave one unvarying answer—that we had no intention of so doing. The noble Earl then went into the question as to whether it was wright or wrong to have constant discussions in one House of what is passing in the other. I admit the distinction which was drawn a few nights ago by a noble and learned Lord whom I do not now see in his place (Lord Cairns), that the statements of a Minister of the Crown on a matter of great importance in one House may be taken up in the other, and a question put upon it whether that statement is to be understood as representing the intentions of the Government. But when the noble Earl proposes to abandon the Rides and Orders of this House, and that we should be perpetually discussing what passes in she Commons while they are discussing what passes here, I must say that I totally differ from him, and am not convinced by the illustration he has given. He has made a long and laboured attack upon one particular Gentleman who made a speech to which ha objected. The noble Earl has been misinformed. Mr. Bright's plan was never submitted to the Cabinet—it was propounded by him three years ago; and on a previous occasion I distinctly stated in a very candid way—
  718
  and not sparing Mr. Bright—that his was not a plan that had been adopted by Her Majesty's Government. I differ from the noble Earl as to the object of that plan, for it is not in the slightest degree a substitute for any measure having reference to the Relations between landlord and tenant. It was at the most something of a side plan. It may be good or bad, but, whatever faults it may have, it makes absolutely no invasion upon the rights of property even when interpreted in the strictest possible manner. The noble Earl attempted to make fun of the Chancellor of the Exchequer advancing money 10 tenants in order to enable them to buy the fee-simple of their land. But every word of this applies to the plan brought forward by noble Lords opposite, by which they proposed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should advance the money of the British tax-payer to enable the tenants to make improvements even when not authorized by the landlords. If the one is absurd, so is the other. I feel myself utterly unable, and I am not authorized by the Government, to give any opinion on the part of the Government upon the plan of Mr. Bright. We have from the first said that we will not take any single plan into consideration until the whole matter is before us. The noble Earl wishes me to go further than the declaration I made the other day. I only say that I was struck by the fair manner in which a noble Earl (Earl Grey) on the cross-Benches affirmed on a former occasion that our declaration of the principle on which we proposed to legislate was as explicit as it was possible for a mere declaration to be. But that noble Earl added that the only satisfactory declaration would be the measure itself, for there is hardly a clause in such a measure which may not vary the character of the Bill. I think, therefore, with great respect to the noble Earl, and without disrespect to any other portion of the House, that I must content myself with adhering to the declaration I made the other day, because I do not see how it is possible to make any other.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I shall detain your Lordships for the shortest possible time on a subject of so much importance. I have abstained from taking any part in these discussions; but. I must say I think that the noble Earl who has introduced this question was fully justified in calling your Lordships' attention to

  719
  it before the adjournment of the House for the Whitsuntide Recess. And although my noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies says that this question has already been brought forward three or four times, the justification of renewing it is that on neither of these occasions have your Lordships received any satisfactory answer to a very plain question. Speaking of myself, I may say that I have for the last five-and-forty years had the management, and for a large portion of that time the possession, of a property—not a large property, but, at the same time, not an inconsiderable property—in the heart of one of the most disturbed districts in Ireland. It adjoins the Limerick Junction, which, as your Lordships are aware, was on the last occasion of disturbance the seat of the principal portion of the insurrection. During the whole of that time I am happy to say that I have never had a serious dispute with my tenants; and when an occasion of the gravest character has arisen I have always succeeded in vindicating the law, and this to the satisfaction of the tenants themselves. During these forty-five years—I will not say that I have laid out the fee-simple of the property upon the land, but I have laid out a very considerable sum year by year. For several years I received no return from this property, and I am not in the receipt of a larger amount of rent now than I was forty-five years ago. But my satisfaction arises from the knowledge that the bulk of my tenantry are now in a very different condition from what they then were, and up to this time I have every reason to believe that they are perfectly satisfied and contented with their position. But I am bound to say that the language which is now heard all round that properly—language founded upon the expressions made use of by an important. Member of the Government—such as that after next year, after 1870, no more rent is to be paid—I say that such language and the encouragement it has received tend to shake the minds of the most attached tenantry and to violate and destroy the security of property. I agree with my noble Friend (Earl Granville) that it is desirable, as far as possible, to avoid recriminations and controversies as to what has passed in "another place": but we must admit that when declarations are made by a
  720
  responsible Minister of the Crown it is right to ask the Ministers of the Crown in this House, whether they concur with their Colleague, and whether he is authorized to speak on behalf of the Government?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I did not object to that.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am not an advocate of the Mayor of Cork. I should have been quite prepared to join the Government in any exceptional—I would almost add in an unconstitutional—measure for the removal of a man whose language and acts rendered him unfit for his office. But the language and acts of the Mayor of Cork derived considerable sanction from the acts and language of some Members of Her Majesty's Government. ["Oh, oh!"] The noble Earl is shocked, and so am I. I am not for a moment palliating or vindicating the language of the Mayor of Cork; but Her Majesty's Government a very short time ago thought fit promiscuously to release a great number of people who, with great difficulty and serious danger to the constabulary and honest inhabitants of Ireland, had been found guilty of the most atrocious crimes. The Mayor of Cork attended a meeting to celebrate—what?—the release of the principal of these Fenian prisoners, who had been guilty of most atrocious conduct, and to rejoice in that act of Her Majesty's Government as a just, charitable, and merciful act, which threw back on the country some of the most dangerous characters. I say I do not palliate the language of the Mayor of Cork; but far be it from me to say that the Government were free from blame in taking that step which was the subject of congratulation by the Mayor. The Mayor of Cork—the late Mayor of Cork I should say, for I am happy to hear that a new Mayor has been appointed of a different character—the late Mayor of Cork comlained that his language—most improper and pernicious language, deserving the strongest condemnation—had been misinterpreted; that he never intended encourage or promote assassination; that, on the contrary, he deprecated it. He was misinterpreted—I do not believe he did. Well, I think Mr. Bright may have been misinterpreted too. I do not believe he intended to stimulate to acts of violence against the landlords of Ire-

  721
  land. I do not believe that the Government intend to encourage a partition of the land of Ireland, or to exterminate the landlords; but when a Member of the Government holds such language as he has used, declaring that Ireland Trill I have no peace till the land of Ireland is transferred from the Protestant and absentee landlords to the occupiers of the soil, that language is dangerously liable to misinterpretation; I fully believe it was misinterpreted, just as the language of the late Mayor of Cork was misinterpreted. Well, then it is said that people in high position should be very careful of what they say. So you said with regard to the Mayor of Cork. He was a man in authority, and it was the more requisite that he should be cautious in his language and conduct. But the same thing holds true of Mr. Bright. He is an independent Member of the Government—and noble Lords will excuse me if I say it is popularly understood that Mr. Bright and Mr. Gladstone are the Government—and I say that he, a Minister of the Crown, a man in high station, should be very careful not to hold language, capable of being misinterpreted by a population so excitable and impulsive as the Irish. I will not refer at length to Mr. Bright's project—I believe it is entirely disavowed by the Government; but it was put forward by him since he became a Member of the Government; and I have no hesitation in saying that, if it were adopted, it would throw the whole of Ireland into convulsion. I ought to know something of the tenantry of the South of Ireland; I know how easily they are misled—I know their good qualities—I know also their feelings on the land question—and I know how easily they may be misled by a project for recovering what they consider their rights. The peasant of Ireland imagines that he is about to be restored to lands which he believes are his by right, inherited from his ancestors, and from which he is unjustly kept out by the landlords. And when a Minister of the Crown recommends a scheme the object of which is to put them in possession of what they consider their rights, in opposition to the rights of the landlords of Ireland, the peasantry go far beyond his language in the meaning they put upon it. Mr. Bright proposes, not to exterminate the landlords of Irelands, but to purchase from them
  722
  their rights at their full value. First of all, it is difficult to know what the full value of land in Ireland is or will be after the measures supported by Government are carried into effect. For my own part. I would prefer retaining my land, and occupying it—if I am allowed to do so—by my own tenants to parting with it to the Government; but if it be the project of the Government, as it is announced, to purchase the rights of the landlords, and to undertake the subdivision of their property in farms of such size as they think desirable, I can only tell them, before they take that course of proceeding, they had better largely increase the military and constabulary of Ireland: for every one who knows anything of Ireland knows that in the South and West of Ireland it is with the greatest difficulty that the most painstaking landlords can induce their tenants ever to alter the course of a ditch—a bank, with a ditch on either side—broad enough to drive a car along it, and running in every direction but a straight line—it is with the greatest difficulty the tenantry can be persuaded to adopt a give-and-take line, giving them more than their own. because they think it a violation of their rights of occupation. Let the Government purchase my rights—I dare say I shall have a good bargain if I sell, which I am not disposed to do. I would recommend the Government to be very careful how they buy up property under these circumstances, for where so many small interests exist—it may be the occupation of only half-an-acre—there is great danger, in such a scheme, of universal disturbance, convulsion, and bloodshed. I do not charge the Government—God forbid I should—with the intention of introducing any of these evils; but I want solemnly to warn them of the danger of allowing one of their Colleagues to make use of language that may have that effect. It is quite impossible that they can allow such language, unreproved and unrejected by them, without the greatest danger. They may say it is not used with their consent; but what we ought to require from them, for the sake of the peace and security of Ireland, is such a declation of their princples as may amount to a total disavowal of such revolutionary suggestions; and that whatever relief they may be able to give to the tenant—

  723
  which I certainly do not object to—shall be consistent with justice, and that, at all events, they will maintain and uphold the rights of property and of the landlords in Ireland. But they must bear in mind that at the present moment the great difficulty the landlords have to contend with is that they have not the power possessed in England of improving their estates by any new distribution of their property. I have had my property for forty-five years, but I do not say that I have done what I should have wished for its improvement. How could that be accomplished, when I find my farms broken into by three, four, or five different occupiers of three, four, or five acres each, in respect of which I do not mean to say I have not the right by law to consolidate the holdings if I please, but a compulsion is put on me to prevent it? However a landlord may be disposed to improve his property, the great difficulty is the removal of those who are a nuisance upon it. A great deal is said of granting leases. Some of my tenants have leases already, and when the holding is over ten acres I should not object to grant a lease for twenty-one years: but my belief is that in the South of Ireland tenants would rather not have leases, because, if you grant a twenty-one years' lease, the tenant would undoubtedly hold it for that term; but, at the end of that time, he does not wish to recognize that the landlord has a right to let the land to anyone else. That being so, I say there is the greatest possible danger in any language held on the part of a Minister of the Crown which encourages the people to believe that you are about to take some great measure for the re-distribution of land in Ireland, which shall give back to the occupier what he thinks his right to the soil of which the landlord has deprived him, and which shall remove the Protestant and absentee landlord from the property. My noble Friend has referred to the catastrophe at Ballycohey. My own estate adjoins Ballycohey where the late murder was committed. When that property was in the market, I was applied to, although a Protestant, to purchase that property. I declined. Mr. Scully purchased it. and we know what was the result. My Lords, I did not intend to trouble you with any observations on this occasion, but I could not avoid adding my testimony to the dangerous effect
  724
  which is being produced by the language and conduct, and not only by the language and conduct, but by the reticence of the Government; and my belief that their continued reticence must necessarily, to a great extent, increase the insecurity to life and property which unfortunately now exists in Ireland.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I should not have troubled your Lordships with any observations on the present occasion, did I not feel it my duty to protest solemnly against the language we have just heard from the noble Earl. The noble Earl said, and he said with great truth, that men in authority should be careful as to their words. Now, though the noble Earl no longer occupies a responsible position as a Minister of the Grown, yet from the high position which he has so long occupied, from his great knowledge of Irish affairs, and from the authority with which he speaks in this House, I think I shall not be going too far when I say that the noble Earl also should speak with some caution when he addresses your Lordships. But I put it to the House, and I put it to the noble Earl himself, whether it is fair, in the first place, in a side way, to compare my Colleague, Mr. Bright, with the Mayor of Cork—whether it is just to say that the language which Mr. Bright held in the House of Commons a few nights ago is comparable to the language which the Mayor of Cork held on the occasion which gave rise to the proceedings against him? My Lords, I utterly deny that the slightest comparison can be introduced. What did my right hon. Friend say? He said he had a plan, and that that plan would lead to certain improvement in Ireland.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I beg pardon. I referred to former expressions of Mr. Bright, in which he said that if Ireland were 1,000 miles to the West the people would take the thing into their own hands, and the result would be the extermination of the landlords. I do not say that that language was intended to imply violent measures against the landlords, but that it was language upon which it was possible that a people like the Irish might place that interpretation.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I beg the noble Earl to remember that he drew a distinction; and a very just one, between men not holding offices under

  725
  the Crown and men holding such offices; and he said that if Mr. Bright had used the language to which he referred as a private individual it would not have mattered. The language to which he now says he meant to allude was used by Mr. Bright in a private letter addressed to a private individual, and which was published without his consent, and much to his regret. I put it to the House, therefore, whether it is at all just to bring against the President of the Board of Trade, us a responsible Minister of the Crown, language which, at all events, he used as a private individual. I again say, my Lords, that the language of the Mayor of Cork, which was language apparently approving of assassination—though the Mayor subsequently explained away that meaning—is not language which can be compared to any used by my right hon. Friend; and I venture to appeal to every Member of this House, to whatever party he may belong, whether he believes that such an attack as has been just made upon Mr. Bright is a fair one, or is one which will have the sympathies of any man inside or out of this House, on cool reflection: and whether Mr. Bright, who has conferred great benefits on the country, and who exercises great influence, has ever done anything laying himself open to such imputations? The noble Earl then proceeded to say that Her Majesty's Government had encouraged the Mayor of Cork by releasing certain Fenian prisoners. Well, I do not make the same protest against that argument. If the noble Earl likes to say that Her Majesty's Government were mistaken in advising Her Majesty to release certain Fenian prisoners, no one can object to his doing so. But, in the first place, the noble Earl is so eager to make this attack upon us, that he really—if he will allow me to say so—greatly over-stated the case. He spoke of an immense number of Fenian prisoners who had been let. loose. The immense number was forty-nine. Then, he said they were the worst offenders who were liberated; but I venture to tell him, as a matter of fact, that the worst Fenians are still in custody, and that those who were liberated were not the worst. Now, I ask whether, if it is thought expedient by the Government to advise the Crown, upon grounds which at all events seem to them suffi-
  726
  cient, to release a certain number of Fenian prisoners, that is to be made a ground for the accusations brought against us by the noble Earl—namely, that we directly encouraged the Mayor to use language which on the face of it is approving of assassination?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I did not speak of the language the Mayor of Cork used but of the fact of the Mayor of Cork presiding at a meeting upon the occasion of the release of the Fenian prisoners.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I certainly understood the noble Earl to refer to the language which the Mayor had used. To all that falls from the noble Earl with respect to Ireland I listen with the greatest attention, because on that subject he not only speaks with authority, but with great knowledge and experience, and I attach great value to his words. A great deal of what he said as to the present condition of affairs in that part of the country where he has property—property that is. I believe, extremely well managed—only showed the extreme difficulty and danger that attends the dealing with this question of the tenure of land, and also shows how in speaking of this subject even the noble Earl himself may use language—no doubt unintentionally—which may tend as much, perhaps, as any language used by Mr. Bright himself to encourage the peasantry in entertaining extravagant expectations. He said, that the position of the tenant-farmers there, from causes that he need not mention, rendered it almost impossible to remove them from their farms. Now, there is no doubt that this may be more or less a fact; but coming from the noble Earl as a description of the state of affairs there, it certainly may lead many people to think that although the Government may not advocate such measures as fixity of tenure, yet that practically fixity of tenure prevails at present in the South of Ireland, and is likely to prevail there. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I believe that nothing would be more unwise than for me to add anything to what was said by my noble Friend (Earl Granville). We adhere to our intention not to legislate on this subject this year, and I maintain that our declaration that such was our intention was an explicit one, and ought to have been sufficient to have

  727
  prevented the Question put by my noble Friend (Earl Russell) this evening.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: My Lords, I need scarcely attempt any apology for speaking upon this question, which the noble Earl (Earl Russell) brought forward so ably, and which has been answered in a manner so little satisfactory by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville). I can confirm the statement of the noble Earl, that the present position of things in Ireland is calculated to excite alarm for the security of life and property. But I regret to say that the records in the public papers by no means come up to the full amount of alarm and intimidation prevailing in that district which, consists of the counties of Tipperary, Limerick, and also of the great part of King's County and Meath. I may say that alarm is almost universal in the whole of the South and West of Ireland, and that there are the gravest apprehensions that the present disturbances may extend yet further. I feel no wish to draw any undue comparison between the present and the late Governments, for I feel that this is a case too serious for party rivalry; but I feel also that the present condition of Ireland offers a lamentable and deplorable contrast to that prevailing at this time last year. What, then, my Lords, are the causes of this sudden outbreak- of alarm in Ireland, after a period of many years so singularly free from crime of this sort that it was the subject of general congratulation, both in ordinary society and by the judicial authorities at the different county Assizes, I do not at all agree with the supposition of ray noble Friend (Earl Russell) that it is a consequence of the Fenian movement, for I believe that those engaged in the Fenian movement are not by any means of the same description as those who are engaged in these agrarian outrages. The number of persons engaged in agriculture who joined the Fenian movement was very small. I think, however, that we need not go far for the causes—causes which I will presently allude to in connection with the speeches and professions made by prominent Members of the Government at the late election—after I have briefly traced the period of the rise and progress of the outrages. It was stated by the noble Duke, who spoke the other night that the attack upon Mr. Scully was the
  728
  commencement of the outrages; and it has been stated elsewhere by the present Secretary for Ireland that the present Government on coining into Office found that those outrages had been going on for a long time, and were then in full force. My Lords, I give both those assertions the most complete denial; and I will prove to your Lordships, first, that the attack on Mr. Scully had no reasonable connection with the outrages that occurred live months later; and, secondly, that at the time that the late Government left Office, and the present Government succeeded them, there had not been heard a whisper of such agrarian outrages as we now hear so much about. And, first, as to the attack upon Mr. Scully—which occurred, not as the Chief Secretary for Ireland stated, in September, but on the 14th of August. Murderous as the attack was, and the subject of the severest reprobation and punishment that the law could inflict, it was a nature totally different to ordinary Irish agrarian crimes. It was an armed defence against an armed attack in open day, and it had none of those characteristics—the stealth and secrecy—which are met with in ordinary agrarian murders. No case in the least degree resembling it has occurred since; and, in fact, no case resembling it ever occurred before, except in those instances to which my noble Friend referred in former years, when it was thought necessary to levy tithes by the assistance of an armed force. I say that this attempt to fix the outrage upon Mr. Scully as the commencement of a series of outrages of a totally different nature, which began five months after and have continued without intermission to the present moment, is a perversion of the facts and a complete misapprehension of the nature of these disturbances. To the assertion of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that his Government found these outrages in full force, I give the most complete denial. During the two and a-half years that the late Government held Office, with the exception of the outrage on Mr. Scully, there was only one case of agrarian outrage resulting in death—that of Mr. Featherstonhaugh; and not one whisper had been heard, when the present Government came into Office, of those agrarian outrages of which we hear so much now. The first case that occurred took place after the

  729
  accession of the present Government, after the election and the result of it had been known, after most rash and ill-advised speeches from certain prominent Members of the Government, which speeches produced a fatal effect upon the excitable nature of the Irish people. The death of Mr. Baker, which occurred on the 31st of December, was followed by other murders and outrages in appalling succession. I think that I have shown your Lordships that there is no foundation for the statement of the Secretary for Ireland, that the present Government found these outrages in full force, but that, on the contrary, with the exception of the outrage in Mr. Scully's ease, five months before, there had not been the slightest attempt 1o commit such crimes. A noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), who is not in his place tonight, stated the other evening that the disturbances now existing were owing to the lax way in which the late Government had carried out the law in the case of Mr. Scully. Perhaps those noble Lords on the opposite side who complained of our laxness will be so good as to enlighten the House as to the firm and prompt manner in which they have suppressed similar agrarian outrages. I am sure that the House will be much indebted to any noble Lord on the other side who will explain the peculiar mode in which, with such complete and signal success, the present Government have suppressed agrarian outrages in Ireland, have enforced the law and punished offenders, and have succeeded in imparting a general confidence in the perfect security of life and property in Ireland. The further we examine the case the more distinct becomes the evidence that these outrages have arisen entirely since the accession to Office of the present Ministry, and that their origin is owing solely to the dangerous feeling which the rash and ill-advised speeches of prominent Members of the Government have aroused in a section of the Irish people. We do not blame the mere fact of the present Government not having brought in a Land Bill, but we consider, and the country considers, that they are open to the gravest censure in that when they knew that they could not by any possibility bring in a Land Bill, and when they had no intention whatever of doing so, they, notwithstanding, did not scruple, for party and ad captandum pur-
  730
  poses to hold out promises of such a radical change in the tenure of land as have excited the wildest expectations in Ireland. Nor is that all; for invectives—I might almost call them denunciations—were littered by prominent Members of the Government, expressed in the most solemn language and with all the eloquence they are masters of, in reference to what they termed the longstanding grievance of the Irish people, and to the baneful effects of Protestant ascendancy and Protestant landlords upon the country. I think the expression was that "Protestant ascendancy was the Up as tree that must be rooted up." Can you wonder that words like those should have taken hold of that portion of the Irish people, for whose benefit they were especially intended? Expressions so rash and inconsiderate as these can only be accounted for on two grounds: either a complete and entire ignorance of the feeling of the Irish people—of which, by-the-way, the present Government professes to be the only true exponent; or by a determination, regardless of all consequences, to secure votes at the hustings by professions which they knew could not be performed, and by indications of a policy full of hazard to the social state of Ireland. I leave the noble Lords on the opposite side to elect which of those was the motive for the line adopted by prominent Members of their party. Whatever it was, however, they have incurred a most grave and serious responsibility for a state of society in Ireland of which I fear that we have seen neither the last nor the worst. I believe, I repeat, that these outrages have arisen solely and immediately from those rash and inconsiderate speeches by the President of the Board of Trade, by the Prime Minister, by the Home Secretary, and other prominent Members of the Government—speeches which, I admit, have been partly misapprehended, but yet speeches that ought never to have been made—speeches such as we have never been accustomed to hear, and I hope we never shall be accustomed to hear from expectant Ministers of the Crown. It is all very well to say that this or that word was not used, or that this or that sentence was misunderstood—the sense remains the same, and no effort whatever was made to contradict it when it was made the means of securing votes and victo-

  731
  ries at the hustings. Those very professions which are now sought to be evaded are those which were paraded with exultation by the Liberal journals in this country, and were copied and enlarged upon by every so-called national paper in Ireland, no attempt whatever being made at the time by any Member of the Government at either explanation or contradiction. I have no doubt that many Members of the Government now regret the consequences of their own acts. The conduct of the Government towards Ireland resembles nothing so much as that of a physician who, in total ignorance of the constitution and complaint of his patient, has prescribed severe and sweeping remedies, and is astonished to find not only the original disease aggravated, but fresh diseases, of which there were no previous symptoms, showing themselves. These, my Lords, have been The results of the policy of which it was said that it was to bring; peace and civilization, equality and security, to Ireland. I have no wish, however, to approach this question in a party spirit or with other than the most earnest desire to see the return to a better state of society; and I would urge the Government to adopt the only course which is now left them for the suppression of these outrages and the restoration of public, confidence. That course must be two-fold; first, that which is self-evident and has already been alluded to by my noble Friend, the exercise to the uttermost of all the powers that belong, or that can be given to, the Executive for the suppression and punishment of these outrages; and secondly, and conjointly with it, such a full, sincere, and prompt repudiation by the Government, of the sense that has been attached by a large portion of the people of Ireland to the words so rashly spoken on the hustings, as will convince even the most credulous that, the Government of this country is determined at all hazards to maintain the integrity of property and of law, as well as the security of life. By such a course you may alienate some of your present supporters in Ireland—you may lose some of those party votes for which you have paid so high a price—but you will be following the only course which is now left you for bringing about a renewal of tranquillity and order, and of security for life and properly in Ireland.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, that the stolid obstinacy of Her Majesty's Government in the course they were adopting with regard to Ireland was already having its evil influence upon that country. The recent outrages had greatly lessened the value of property. He held in his hand a record of the attempted sale of some property in the county of Westmeath, in the Incumbered Estates Court, which showed that at a public auction only £700 was bid for an estate of 370 acres, which was valued before the agrarian outrages commenced at £8,000. The Government relied upon the Peace Preservation Act as a means of repressing these outrages; but the result had proved that they were leaning on a broken reed; while the immediate effect of the outrages had been—in the county of Westmeath—to reduce the value of property, and to make owners glad to dispose of it at almost any price. The Government were constantly repeating that no evidence could be procured for the purpose of securing the conviction of those by whom these terrible crimes were committed; but all who knew anything of Ireland knew that unless there was a strong Government capable of protecting witnesses, persons who gave evidence would stand in the utmost peril from the Ribbonmen, in danger of having their animals mutilated, and of being themselves and their families brutally beaten and outraged. They might rely upon it that no evidence would be forthcoming until the hand of the law made itself felt for the punishment of those who broke it, and the protection of those who assisted in bringing offenders to justice. But the present Government could not—did not—do anything for the protection of his unfortunate country, because they were tied down to "the Brass Band," because they were bent upon securing, at any cost, the success of their Church Bill.
  EARL COWPERsaid, that the state of Ireland undoubtedly was—as he feared it was likely to be for some time to come—well worthy of their consideration; but if they looked at the outrages which had lately been committed, he failed to discover any grounds for the panic that appeared to prevail in some quarters. Many of the murders that had been lately perpetrated in that country were not, as far as he could see, attributable to agrarian causes. In the case of Mr.

  733
  Baker, his murder was committed by a man of notoriously Lad character, who was always quarrelling with somebody, and who was just the man, in any county, to perpetrate such a crime. Mr. Anketell, the Mullingar station-master, was shot by one of the servants of the company, but on a personal grievance that had, and could have, no possible connection with the land. Captain Tarleton was a very small proprietor, and he fell by the hands of one of his labourers, who pretended to no rights of ownership; and the murder of Mr. Bradshaw had been attributed by some to personal jealousy. None of these crimes showed any symptom of being the result of an organized system of agrarian outrage. He did not deny that much was said and done in Ireland that was deeply to be deplored; but those who knew her history well knew that at certain times crimes of this description became abnormally prevalent; to a certain extent they might perhaps be owing to the suppression of the Fenian movement. A few years ago, when the desperate men of that party wore looking forward to a revolution or a general rising, they held their hand: but when a happier prospect dawned upon Ireland, when all honest and sensible persons began to admit that her connection with England must, indeed, continue, but that it need not be inimical to her happiness and prosperity, then those ill-disposed and desperate wretches gave a vent to their vicious passions, and took to the dastardly trade of secret assassination. That, in his opinion, accounted to a great extent for the present unsettled state of things in Ireland.
  THE EARL OF BANDONsaid, that the condition of Ireland must indeed be considered unsatisfactory, when in a city like Cork they discovered such deep laid traces of disloyalty and sedition. Anyone walking through the streets of Cork would behold what was outwardly the most prosperous city in Ireland; but below the surface there was a deep laid conspiracy, and he had been informed that three-fourths of the inhabitants were supposed to be disaffected to the British Government. He was glad the Government had at last taken action with regard to the atrocious language of the Mayor of Cork, but regretted that they had not taken proceedings against that functionary at an earlier date. He thought one of the main causes of the
  734
  present disturbances in Ireland was the liberation of the Fenian prisoners. He regretted that Her Majesty's Government refused to give an outline of their views with respect to the land question. A plain declaration—which would go into no details—would calm the excitement that now pervaded Ireland on the subject, and would inform them whether it was really intended to disturb the foundations of property in that country. He agreed with the noble Lord who said that their Lordships wore entitled to hear a declaration on that point before coming to any discussion upon the Irish Church Bill. They were told at present, that as nine-tenths of the soil in Ireland was owned by Protestant landlords, they ought to be able easily to support their Protestant Church; but what was the argument worth, if next year the land was—under some pretext, and in some form or other—to be transferred to the Roman Catholic tenants? The state of Ireland paralyzed and stopped all the progress of the country; and it prevented capital flowing into the country. Being closely connected with Ireland, and almost constantly resident in that country, he had ventured to call the attention of Parliament to its condition.
  Motion agreed to.

  NEW FAMISHES AND CHURCH BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Bill to amend the New Parishes Acts and Church Building Acts—Was presented by The Lord Archbishop of YORK; road 1a. (No. 106.)
  House adjourned accordingly at a quarter past nine o'clock, to Monday the 31st Instant, Eleven o'clock.