Lords Sitting of 15 July 1870

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Juries* (213); Absconding Debtors* (214).
Second Reading—Liverpool Admiralty District Registrar* (170); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (183); Passengers Act Amendment* (176).
Committee—Report—Customs and Inland Revenue* (146); Siam and Straits Settlements Jurisdiction* (197); Charitable Funds Investment* (181); Rents and Periodical Payments* (180).
Third Reading — (£9,000,000) Consolidated Fund*, and passed.

FRANCE AND PRUSSIA—DECLARATION OF WAR BY FRANCE—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Although under an Order of your Lord-
318
ships' House I have no right to put to my noble Friend opposite the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, without giving Notice, any Question with regard to the complications now existing between France and Prussia, yet I think your Lordships will allow me to do so at a moment of such very great anxiety as the present. All the public journals of this evening contain an announcement which must fill your Lordships' minds with anxiety and with the deepest regret. It is no less than this—that France has declared war against Prussia. I shall not say another word, except to ask my noble Friend whether he has any official information of the fact, and whether it is true, or is only a rumour?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in answer to the Question put to me by my noble Friend, I have to state that Her Majesty's Government have received no official communication of the statement referred to by him as having been made in the French Chambers this afternoon; but I have no reason to doubt the truth of the commercial telegrams and Reuter's despatch which have been received, and it is with the deepest concern and grief that I give credence to the intelligence that war has been declared by France against Prussia. My Lords, I can only add—and I think your Lordships will not wish me to add more—that all the information which will enable you to form a judgment on the conduct of Her Majesty's Government shall be laid on the Table as soon as we can possibly deal with the no inconsiderable mass of Papers relating to the subject.

ADMIRALTY—NAVAL RETIREMENT.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET, in moving for Copies of Correspondence between Flag Officers and the Admiralty relating to the last scheme of retirement, said, their Lordships were, no doubt, aware that considerable discontent existed among flag officers with reference to the scheme of retirement which had recently been adopted by the Admiralty; but he had thought it right to wait until the immediate differences at the Admiralty were for the time settled before inviting their Lordships' attention to the subject. He made every allowance

  319
  for the difficulty in devising any satisfactory scheme of naval retirement, for no officer liked to be put on the shelf, even with an increase of pay; but there were several points in connection with the present scheme to which he was anxious to call attention. The Order in Council of 1866, which—he being then First Lord of the Admiralty—was passed with the approval of many Members of the present Government, provided that any naval officer who had served on the Board of Admiralty should have his time at that Board counted as active service. This regulation was advantageous for the public service, considering the disinclination of many distinguished officers to join the Board, of which he had had personal experience, when it was necessary to fill two vacancies caused within ten days by death, and it was in consequence of this unwillingness that the Order held out to the profession this inducement to give the Admiralty their assistance. It being necessary in these days to have a civilian First Lord, professional assistance, whether in the form of a Board, a Council, or Assistant Secretaries—no matter what it might be called—was indispensable, and it was desirable to obtain men of standing and experience in whom the Navy had confidence for this purpose. The late Order in Council, however, set aside this regulation; and the effect would be that any naval officer joining the Board of Admiralty must either make up his mind to be shelved from active service, or must be constantly endeavouring to return to such service. The reason given for this change, that after 10 years' absence from sea an officer was not fit to command a fleet, he denied. Sir Alexander Milne had been 10 years ashore when he recommended him as a man of great sagacity and ability for the command of the North American and West Indian station at a time when American affairs were in a very delicate position; and Lord Lyons was also appointed to command a fleet after 10 years absence from sea. Under the present Order no such appointments could have been made; and it was surely unstatesmanlike and unwise to fetter the discretion of the Government, and thus to disqualify one who might be the best man in favour of a younger officer for service which, perhaps, required greater experience. He
  320
  complained, moreover, of the way in which the Order was passed. The scheme of 1866 was laid on the Table of the House of Commons, and, after about a fortnight, was discussed and sanctioned; but the present Order came by surprise on Parliament and the Navy; and when it was criticized in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister—so report said—rose and said it could not be meddled with, as this would compromise the Prerogative. It was not to be wondered at that when more recently the Prime Minister again came forward with his high transcendental notions of Prerogative, the House of Commons decided against him, and left him in a minority. The practical effect of the Order would be to make naval officers indisposed to join the Admiralty, for fear of losing the chance of rising in their profession. He admitted that the Order of 1866 might have been wisely modified to the extent of providing that five years at the Admiralty should count as service at sea, but no longer period. The officer at the head of a dockyard was to have his time count, and à fortiori, a Lord of the Admiralty, whose functions were more important, should be allowed a like advantage. Among those affected by the Order were Sir Michael Seymour and Sir John Hay, the latter of whom had given his time and abilities to the Admiralty, and whom he himself, when First Lord, frequently employed, although politically opposed to him. The Order, again, debarred from the distinctions of Admiral of the Fleet and Vice Admiral and Pear Admiral of the United Kingdom officers not on the active list. These purely honorary positions, with no pay attached to them, surely ought to be given to men who had rendered the greatest services, whether at present on the active list or not. It was conceded that officers in command of a ship before 1815 should be allowed to remain on the active list; but one would have imagined that these officers must have reached an acre when active service was not to be expected. It was unwise and unfair to hurt the feelings of distinguished officers by excluding them from these honorary distinctions. One or two points in the scheme would certainly have to be modified, for no Government could permanently cripple itself in the selection of officers. The number of lieutenants was

  321
  to be cut down to 600; but in the last Russian War we had more than 600 in active employment; while in 1860 we had 693, in 1861, 712, and in 1862, 650 in active employment. We were now cutting down our lieutenants to the lowest possible amount. No doubt, in case of emergency, assistance might be called in from the Naval Reserve; but he thought we were cutting down the number of officers to such an extent as was hardly compatible with the efficiency of the service. He would leave the matter to the consideration of the Government, hoping they would take an early opportunity of modifying at least that part of the Order which had hurt the feelings of many distinguished officers.
  Moved, "That there be laid before the House Copies of any Correspondence between Flag Officers and the Admiralty relative to the last scheme of retirement."—(The Duke of Somerset.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, there was no objection, on the part of the Admiralty, to the production of the Correspondence moved for. He should, however, ask their Lordships' indulgence whilst he offered a few words in explanation with reference to the Order which had been called in question by the noble Duke. He need hardly remind their Lordships that any great change in the great establishments of the State necessarily affected some interests and called forth a number of dissentients, nor did he deny that a considerable number of letters had been received by the Admiralty complaining of the practical result of the Order in individual cases. He admitted that the Admiralty should be prepared to show that a great change such as this in the Navy was necessary in the interests of the public service, and, at the same time, that it had been effected with as little injustice or injury to the officers affected by it as possible. Now, the facts were simply those—On the 1st January last, of 780 lieutenants, 261 were unemployed; of 401 commanders, 246 were unemployed; of 292 captains, 201 were unemployed; and of 95 flag officers, 81 were unemployed. Their Lordships would therefore see that the Order was not made before it was required. Ever since 1815 our Navy lists had been overcrowded, and it had been found necessary, by a series of shifts and contrivances, to stave
  322
  off the evil of that system. When, in 1860, the principle of retirement by age was first proposed and vigorously carried out by the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) himself, it was not extended to flag officers; the principle of non-service, namely — that after a certain time officers should be retired from the active list—being applied to commanders and lieutenants, but not to the higher ranks of officers. In 1864 there was a less important change, consisting in a not very large reduction in the number of officers on the active list. The Order of 1866 for the first time ruled that an admiral might be retired; but it made an exception which had been repealed by the late Order. He would now pass to the Order in Council particularly referred to by the noble Duke. The first principle which commended that Order to the approval of their Lordships was that no officer should suffer pecuniary loss by its operation. Any officer who did not wish to accept the pecuniary terms under the new Order could remain under the old Order, and would still have all the same chances of promotion and higher pay which were open to him under the previous Order. The next principle which formed the basis of the new Order was that of sea service. The great object of the Board of Admiralty was to make such arrangements by reducing the active list as would keep a sufficient staff of officers continually at sea, or find them employment whenever they applied for it. Under this Order, moreover, those officers who had borne the burden and heat of the day were in the evening of their lives sure of receiving a much higher sum as retired pay than those who had not served so long a period of their lives on active duty. In respect to what might be called non-service, the Order provided that when a lieutenant or commander had been five years from sea, a captain seven years from sea, or when 10 years had elapsed since an admiral had hauled down his flag, he must join the retired list. The number of admirals on the active list was reduced from 85 to 50. Admirals who served at the Admiralty would count their time there for 10 years exactly in the same way as any other officer; but the time would not count as sea service for the purpose of preventing a flag officer from being placed on the retired list. The most important

  323
  regulation was that an officer unemployed for 10 years should haul down his flag. Now, considering the continual reconstruction of the fleet; considering also that iron-clads were becoming more and more the fashion, and employment getting less; that, should war break out, the fighting would be done in a very few weeks, instead of an admiral being expected to sail over the sea for several months before anything decisive occurred, was it unwise that an admiral or captain unemployed for 10 years should not be allowed to have a command? Fifty admirals were a complement ample, but not too large; and it was intended that they should be young and active, and thoroughly fit to command a fleet, while so small amount of service as had of late years been required of flag officers would not continue to be the case. The principle of sea service was supported by high authorities, including Sir John Pakington, who, when the Order of 1866 was published, commenting on the exceptional treatment of Admiralty service, asked why the rule of making an officer either serve or retire should not be uniformly applied. He (the Earl of Camperdown) saw no reason why the Order should prevent flag officers from coming to the Admiralty. It would rather encourage them to join it for five or six years, since there would be a probability of their then obtaining a command. It was desirable, too, that officers should pass more frequently between the Admiralty and the fleet, so as to keep up a communication between them. Could there be a better way of securing Lords of the Admiralty who possessed the confidence of the Navy than the selection of an officer who had lately been at sea, and after a few years would return to active employment? As to vested rights, it was argued that the position of the officers who, under the Order of 1866, accepted service at the Admiralty ought not to be interfered with; but no Order could be passed which did not more or less interfere with existing interests. Up to 1866 the position of an admiral was unassailable—and they might have urged, as in fact they did, that after previous Orders they ought to remain on the active list. Complaints were made then as now, and the flag officers then retired were retired on half their actual pay; whereas the present Order treated them more liberally.
  324
  Sir Frederick Grey and Admiral Eden were members of the Board which framed the Order of 1866, which did not treat individual interests as vested ones, and there was no reason why the principle laid down in that Order should not now be further extended. He had a strong personal respect for each and every one of the officers referred to, and he hoped the explanation he was prepared to give of the principles which actuated the Board of Admiralty would enable their Lordships to judge whether those principles were right or wrong. He believed that, on the whole, the Order commanded the distinct approval of the Navy. As to the number of lieutenants, there was no fair analogy between the circumstances of the Crimean War and the present time. What sized vessels would be employed 10 years hence was uncertain; but nothing like the same number of lieutenants could be employed as at the time of that war. On the noble Duke's own showing not above 100 beyond the present complement would in any event be required. If, however, it were found that 600 lieutenants were too small for the efficiency of the Navy in a time of great emergency it would be easy to increase the number; and this was better than keeping in enforced idleness a number of young officers, to whom we looked for our future captains, commanders, and admirals. The Rear Admiral and Vice Admiral of the United Kingdom clearly ought to be officers on the active list, and they were so treated, and the creation of additional good-service pensions tenable by officers in retirement would prevent any injury to officers now or hereafter on the retired list. If after the Correspondence had been laid on the Table any noble Lord called attention to the matter, it would be his duty to explain the principles on which the Admiralty had acted, and it would be for their Lordships to judge how far they were right.
  EARL GREY: I do not differ from my noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown) as to its having been necessary to make a considerable change in the regulations for promotion and retirement in the Navy; on the contrary, I believe that it would have been expedient to make even a larger change than has been attempted by the Board of Admiralty, and, instead of merely patching up the exist-

  325
  ing system of appointing and promoting naval officers, to look more deeply into its inherent defects, with the view of effecting a much more complete reform, and adapting the rides of the service to the wants of the present time. Nor do I join in those complaints which my noble Friend expects to be made as to the bearing of the new regulations on the pecuniary interests of officers—they have other grounds of complaint—but I am prepared to admit that, so far as their pecuniary interests are concerned, the arrangement, on the whole, is not an unfair one. But I chiefly find fault with the measure not on account of the way in which it affects individuals, but because it seems to me injudicious as regards the public, and because the manner in which it was adopted is objectionable. Knowing, as I do, that the House is naturally anxious to proceed to other and important business, omitting all reference to other parts of the recent Order in Council, I will only offer to your Lordships some remarks on the effect of the rules now laid down with regard to the advancement and retirement of flag officers. In the advancement of officers to flag rank, there are two objects in view—first, to create a class of officers eligible for high employment, and, secondly, to confer on officers the reward they have fairly earned by their past services. I think the error into which the Admiralty has fallen has been that of not bearing in mind that in framing the regulations of the service these two objects require to be separately considered. Some years ago I would remind your Lordships that the same difficulties which have led to the promulgation of the recent Order in Council with reference to the naval service, were still more strongly felt in the Army, and that at the beginning of the Crimean War a Commission, of which I had the honour of being a Member, was appointed to consider what changes ought to be made in the rules as to promotion in the Army for the purpose of enlarging the field of selection for officers for important commands. That Commission, which included both several distinguished military officers and gentlemen who had filled high offices in the civil administration of the Army, unanimously came to the conclusion, that unless the two objects I have mentioned—that namely, of providing a sufficiently large class of
  326
  Officers eligible for commands to afford a proper field for selection, and that of rewarding past services—were separately considered it would be impossible to do justice both to the public on the one hand, and to the officers of the Army on the other. The Commission, therefore, advised in their Report, that in order to extend the field for the selection of officers for command, all colonels who had fulfilled certain conditions of service should be eligible for employment as general officers, without reference to seniority; and that, at the same time, the rules which then existed, and by which officers rose regularly by seniority to the rank of generals, should continue substantially unaltered. This unanimous recommendation of the Commission was adopted by the Government, and the effect was, that while the just expectations of officers of reward for their past services were not interfered with, an ample field was opened for the selection of officers for actual commands from those who were still in the vigour of their age. The system thus adopted in the Army on the advice of the Commission has, in my opinion, on the whole worked well, though, in consequence of some faults of detail in the scheme itself, and of still greater faults in the manner in which it was applied by the authorities to whom the discretion of acting upon it was entrusted, the stream of promotion in the Army is still less rapid than would be desirable. But in the Navy not only in the present, but in previous Orders in Council, a different principle has been adopted. Flag officers have been divided into those on the active and on the retired list; those on the active list being considered alone eligible not only for employment, but also for rising to the highest honorary posts in the profession. Officers are also placed on the one or the other of these lists, not according to their actual fitness for employment, nor yet strictly according to their claims to reward for their past services, but according to arbitrary rules, in which these two considerations are confounded together. Being on the active list does not in the least show that an officer is really fit for employment; it only shows that he has fulfilled certain conditions of service, and that he has served within a certain time. The new rules would allow an admiral to remain on the active list though he had become bedridden, and, on the other

  327
  hand, they would have prevented Lord Lyons from being employed in the Crimean War, in which he served with so much advantage to the country, because more than 10 years had elapsed since he was afloat. Surely an arrangement cannot be regarded as satisfactory which would have excluded from employment a man so eminently fit for it as Lord Lyons, and yet provides no security for preventing the list of those eligible for employment from being crowded with officers no longer fit for it. It is not less objectionable in its operation in determining what officers are to succeed to the highest honorary posts in the profession. The new Order in Council says that no officers shall rise to the posts of Admiral of the Fleet or Tice Admiral of the United Kingdom unless they are on the active list. But, I suppose because it was felt that this would inflict an injustice which would be quite intolerable on some officers, a proviso is added that officers who were in the actual command of ships before 1815 should remain on the active list. Those officers cannot now be loss than 80 years old. Is there airy common sense, then, in retaining them on the active list? If being Admiral of the Fleet or Vice Admiral of the United Kingdom implied that the officers holding those posts were to go to sea, it would be simply absurd to provide for allowing them to be held by men of so advanced an age; but if—as is the fact—these are merely honorary appointments, look at the injustice which will be inflicted by confining them to officers on the active list, under the rules now laid down. Sir Michael Seymour, whose services have been so long and so distinguished, including employment in two Chinese wars, will be excluded because he happens to have passed the age at which he must be placed on the retired list before a vacancy arises, and another officer with, perhaps, less than half his claims may be appointed to it, merely because he has not then attained that age. Being on the active list ought either to be taken as indicating the officers eligible for employment—and, in that case, being retained upon it, should depend not upon the past services of an officer, but on his actual fitness, periodically tested—or else it ought to be regarded as a reward for past services, and in that case officers ought not to be
  328
  excluded from it, and thus prevented from rising to the highest honorary posts in their profession on account of not having been employed for a certain time. My noble Friend the noble Duke has justly pointed out that the operation of the rules, as they stand, will be most injurious to the public service with reference to the Board of Admiralty. He has told your Lordships that already there is a disposition on the part of able and experienced officers whose services are needed at the Board to prefer serving afloat. Nothing then can be more unwise than to give to such officers a new motive for reluctance to serve at the Admiralty by refusing to allow their services at the Board to reckon as a qualification for the highest rewards of the profession. And I would point out to your Lordships that this is directly contrary to the policy pursued in the Army. I find that by the latest warrant regulating promotion in the Army, employment in various offices of which the duties are purely civil is allowed to reckon as well as more strictly military service in qualifying colonels to rise to be general officers. Thus, the Inspector of Clothing and the members of the Council of Military Education are allowed to reckon the time they have given to these duties as qualifying them for promotion, and most properly—you want to induce able men to accept the employment and therefore make it carry with it a due reward. The duties of naval officers on the Board of Admiralty are far more important and arduous than those of the officers I have mentioned, and ought not to be differently regarded. I cannot conclude without adding a few words on the manner in which this measure has been adopted. My noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown) has told us that notwithstanding the objections that have been taken to this Order in Council it has been accepted with satisfaction by the great majority of naval officers. I do not know where my noble Friend has got this information, certainly all that I have been able to obtain has been of a very opposite character. I am told that the oldest officers in the service have said that there never was a time within their recollection in which there prevailed among their brother officers so general a feeling of dissatisfaction and of insecurity. This arose even less from

  329
  the faults in the Order itself—great as they were — than from the manner in which it was adopted. My noble Friend the noble Duke has pointed out to you that before the Order in Council of 1866 was passed, the scheme of retirement to which it was to give effect was laid before the House of Commons, and, after full opportunity had been given of considering it in all its details, a vote in approval of it was obtained, and that it was not until this had been done, and till all who felt themselves aggrieved by it had thus been enabled to urge their objections to it, that it was formally submitted to Her Majesty in Council and passed. The Order of the present year, on the contrary, was actually passed before any authentic statement of its provisions was given to the public, so that no opportunity whatever was given of discussing them while this might still have been of use. My noble Friend has pointed out that this mode of proceeding is open to great objections; but there is one most important circumstance connected with it which he has not mentioned, and which renders it still more deserving of censure. Your Lordships are aware what is the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. You know that it is composed of a First Lord, who for many years has always been a civilian, and of Junior Lords, two or three of whom are naval officers. Technically, all the members of the Board have equal power, and every determination it comes to must be sanctioned by a majority of those present. It has, however, always been understood that the First Lord being a Cabinet Minister, and representing the Government, has a right to expect that the junior members of the Board, though entitled freely to express their opinion on every question that may arise, should, as a general rule, defer to his judgment. But while the supreme authority, and the responsibility which this authority carries with it, rests with the First Lord, the professional members of the Board are justly regarded as having a certain responsibility for its measures. It is their duty to take care that no measures injuriously affecting their brother officers or the general interests of the profession shall be hastily adopted, and while, in all ordinary cases after having stated their own opinions, they properly defer to that of their Chief, on questions of the highest
  330
  importance, they ought rather to resign, than become parties to decisions to which they entertain strong and insurmountable objections. It would not be difficult to mention cases in which this view of the position of the Junior Lords of the Admiralty has been acted upon—a remarkable one occurs to my mind of a distinguished admiral who left the Board, because he could not carry an increase in the crews assigned to the several classes of ships of war which he believed to be indispensable. In this respect the position of the Junior Lords of the Admiralty does not differ from that of the subordinate members of all other Departments of the Government. An Under Secretary of State, for instance, does not hesitate in all ordinary cases to carry into effect the orders of his superior, though they may not be in accordance with his own opinion; but it is his duty to resign when the Government adopts any measure of very high importance in which he feels he cannot honestly concur. This was once my own case when I felt myself compelled to resign the Office of Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, though my own father was at the head of the Government, because it decided not to adopt so large a measure as I believed to be necessary for the abolition of colonial slavery. In all the Departments of the State a necessary and a proper check is thus imposed on the Ministers at their head, without interfering with their legitimate authority; but with regard to this Order in Council on naval promotions and retirement this check has been virtually set aside, unless the statements made in the other House of Parliament and in the newspapers are erroneous. It appears from these statements that the new scheme of retirement was never brought before the Board of Admiralty at all; that it was not till after it had been formally sanctioned by Her Majesty that one, at least, of the naval Lords was aware of its provisions, and that a strong disapproval of some of these provisions has since been expressed by more than one of them. The passing of an Order in Council so deeply affecting the interests of the Navy in a manner which has deprived the Naval Lords of the Admiralty of their legitimate opportunity of bringing forward their objections to it, has necessarily created in the minds of their brother

  331
  officers who look to them for protection from measures unfairly affecting them, a strong feeling of dissatisfaction and of insecurity for the future.
  Motion agreed to.

IRISH LAND BILL.

  COMMONS' AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED.
  Commons' Amendments to Lords' Amendments and Commons' Reasons for disagreeing to some of the Amendments made by the Lords, considered (according to Order).
  The said Amendments and Reasons read by the Clerk.
  EARL GRANVILLEhoped that he might be allowed to say a few words as to what had passed in the Commons. He thought the course taken by the other House had, in a great measure, justified that taken by their Lordships; because, since a large number of the Amendments made by their Lordships had been agreed to by the Commons, the natural inference was, that their Lordships had made improvements in the Bill. What the Commons objected to agree to were chiefly clauses that had excited great difference of opinion in their Lordships' House — matters, perhaps, of no very great importance, but which savoured too much of giving a slight advantage to the landlord at the expense of the tenant. The first Motion which he had to make was, that their Lordships should not insist upon an Amendment made at the instance of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) in the scale of compensation, by which £4 was inserted in lieu of £10, and £20 in lieu of £30. Such Amendment, if insisted on, would have the effect of refusing compensation to a large class of tenants in Ireland.
  Moved, Not to insist on the Amendments in page 2, lines 31, 32, 33 and 35, to which the Commons have disagreed.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that although he should have preferred the scale as altered by their Lordships, he did not think it of sufficient importance to ask their Lordships to insist upon the alteration which they had made. The scale of compensation was more a matter of detail than of principle, and there
  332
  must be much difference of opinion as to what particular figure should entitle a tenant to compensation. He thought this might be a convenient opportunity for stating what course he should take with reference to the Amendments generally. With regard to the alteration that had been made by their Lordships by substituting 21 years for 31 years as the length of lease that should bar the claim to compensation, that, again, he considered not so much a matter of principle as of opinion; and though he still thought that 21 years was quite sufficient time to enable a tenant to recoup himself, yet he did not think that the matter was of sufficient importance to ask their Lordships to insist upon their Amendment. That, however, was the limit of the concessions that he was able to make. He found that an Amendment had been introduced in the House of Commons, after the Bill had left that House, limiting the right of the landlord to deduct from the compensation paid any arrears of rent not exceeding three years. To this he decidedly objected. He thought it perfectly fair that where a landlord was called upon to make compensation to the tenant, all sums of money that were properly due to him from the tenant should be taken into consideration; but the Amendment made by the House of Commons would prevent this. The landlord might have to pay the tenant compensation amounting to four years' rent, and yet he could not recoup himself to the extent of more than three years' rent, although more were due. Now, this was quite unjust, and therefore he would advise their Lordships not to assent to it. The next point regarded con-acre; as to that there had been an agreement between both sides of the House as to the words to be adopted; and nothing could be more straightforward than the conduct of the Government upon this point. They said that they would not alter the words unless there was a strong opinion to the contrary expressed in the other House. The House of Commons took what he considered a most extraordinary course, and entirely altered what had been previously agreed on, and in so doing had, he thought, made nonsense of the matter. At the same time, he would assent to some of the alterations which had been made in reference to con-acre. As to permissive registration of improvements, he must

  333
  ask their Lordships to restore the clause to the terms in which it had been agreed to by their Lordships. The only other Amendment of importance which he should ask their Lordships to disagree with was, that by which it was provided that non-payment of rout should not be deemed a disturbance if the Court should decide, on special grounds, that it ought not to be so considered. He must ask their Lordships to insist on the present Amendment.
  On Question, Whether to insist? Resolved in the Negative.
  Commons' Amendment to insert in page 3, line 13, after ("rent") the words ("not exceeding three years' rent") disagreed to.
  Commons' Amendment, relating to the provision respecting conacre amended, and agreed to.
  Then it was moved not to insist on the Amendment in page 4, line 1, to which the Commons have disagreed—namely, to leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("thirty-one").
  On Question, Whether to insist? Resolved in the Negative.
  Commons' Amendments in clause relating to presumption of improvements agreed to.
  Clause "A," (Permissive registration of improvements).
  EARL GRANVILLErecommended that their Lordships agree to the Commons' Amendments in the clause. As the clause now stood, any landlord and tenant who might be desirous of preserving evidence of any improvements made by themselves or either of them, or by their or either of their predecessors in title, before or after the passing of this Bill, might jointly at any time file a schedule in the Landed Estates Court, specifying such improvements and claiming the same accordingly, and such schedule so filed should be evidence that such improvements were made as therein described. He thought the latter part of the clause could have no effect but to promote litigation.
  LORD CAIRNShoped that whatever shape the clause might take, it would not become law in its present form. The case supposed by the clause was one in which the landlord and tenant were agreed as to who made the
  334
  improvements—and one might have supposed that that was all that was necessary; yet it provided that they should jointly proceed to Dublin and incur the expenses of employing professional advisers to prepare a schedule. The matter did not end there, because the schedule was to be filed in the Landed Estates Court. The clause stated that the document so filed should be evidence of the contract. It would not be evidence; but it would be the contract itself. He regretted that there was not known to the law of England and Ireland what was known to the law of Scotland—namely, a "declarator"—by means of which questions of fact were so settled that there could be no dispute about them at a future time. This clause, as altered by the House of Commons, would not do that. It provided for registration only in cases where the landlord and tenant jointly wished for it, and agreed in the contract which was to be registered. The landlord who made improvements could not by himself register them, so that the question of fact would be settled for all time. How many lawsuits they would prevent in future by having some record made of improvements while there was some person alive to speak to the facts! The danger was in allowing things to drift along in uncertainty till a future time without having some record now which would avert future litigation.
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, he did not like the clause at all. He thought the original position taken by the Government in that House was the true one—namely, to resist that clause altogether. When it was first introduced it was prospective only, and in that form he should have had no objection to it. But it had been made retrospective, and in that form he had the strongest objection to it. There were thousands of tenancies in Ireland where improvements were at this moment going on; and if all at once, when that Bill came into operation, it was made a matter not of choice, but of necessity for every landlord and every tenant to register immediately and challenge his tenant or his landlord, as the case might be, in respect to the right to improvements, they would precipitate the result which it had been predicted would flow from that measure—but predicted, he trusted, erroneously—that it would be the fruitful parent of litigation; whereas it was most desirable that the measure

  335
  should commence its operation in Ireland and circumstances of mutual kindliness and good-will between landlord and tenant.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, they ought to discourage litigation not only at present, but in the immediate future. He knew the case of a landlord in the South of Ireland who had spent £50,000 in improving his property, and he had no evidence of the improvements except the memory of the people among whom they were made. Those persons were dying out, and in a few years the landlord might have no evidence whatever to prove that he had made the improvements, and he might be called upon to pay his tenant for having made them. But if that clause were passed, as their Lordships had agreed to it, he could go into Court and register his improvements at once. If their Lordships did not adhere to that clause they would practically compel the landlord, where there had been large improvements effected, to evict his tenants in order to have the question of the authorship of those improvements immediately tried.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) had been over severe as to the legal knowledge of the Commons as displayed in this clause. It should be remembered the other House was not wholly without professional assistance on either side when it considered that matter; and while he agreed with the Lord Chancellor for Ireland that it would have been better not to have the clause at all, still, if they were to have it, he saw the use of having it in the form in Which the other House had sent it up to their Lordships. The Amendments of the Commons were very good indeed, because they invited no litigation, but allowed both parties to register together. If there was any advantage in the thing at all it was in letting the parties, when they were perfectly agreed, go into Court, and record that about which there was no dispute.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDasked why, if they were quite agreed, the parties should go into Court at all? The supposition was that the landlord and the tenant together drew up a paper respecting the improvements made partly by the one and partly by the other; and that paper would be kept in the landlord's office; and, being agreed to by
  336
  both parties, they would not want to go into Court. The clause, as passed by their Lordships, would be useful in providing for a register of improvements, which would be evidence at any future time; but as the clause came up from the other House it was perfectly useless, and ought not, therefore, to form part of the Bill. He would move to disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in Clause A.
  On Question? agreed to.
  EARL GRANVILLE, in page 8, line 8, recommended their Lordships not to insist on the Amendment for leaving out from "landlord" to "and" in Clause 8, relative to disturbance. His object was to try to restore that provision in the measure to the form in which it originally came tip to their Lordships. Being all agreed that the tenant should be compensated for his past improvements, he hoped their Lordships would not insist on their Amendment, the effect of which would be that where the rent of a tenant had been so exorbitantly raised that he could not reasonably pay it, he would be debarred from those claims for past improvements which, in ordinary cases, he would be entitled to receive.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that if they restored the clause to the form in which it had come up from the Commons, it would lead to very bad results. One man would complain that the season was bad, and, therefore, he could not pay his rent. Another would plead that his cattle had died; another that his pecuniary circumstances had been reduced to a very low ebb, in consequence of illness among his family. These points would be raised all over Ireland, and would be taken before those 33 assistant barristers, who might all form different opinions as to what were or were not special grounds. They were told that this Bill was to bring peace to Ireland; but he could not conceive anything more likely to produce the contrary effect than what was now proposed. The clause as their Lordships had amended it on a former occasion was very much better. In a variety of instances, great injustice might ensue from retaining the words.
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, if the chairmen of quarter sessions were not capable of determining what "special grounds" of this kind were, they were

  337
  scarcely capable of determining other very large points upon which they had an entire discretion. The question was, whether there was not something in the circumstances of Ireland to justify this proposal? It was intended to refer to two classes of cases merely — one in which the tenantry under some exceptional landlords had been kept in a state of coercion, owing to a system of long arrears, extending sometimes to 10 and 15 years; the other in which the rents, altogether exorbitant, had been imposed tinder circumstances of oppression. It had, therefore, been thought well to give the Court the power of softening the oppression under which these tenants laboured not in cases of penalty for non-performance of any particular contract, but of absolute forfeiture. Some such provision was the more necessary since their Lordships had introduced the Amendment with regard to subletting, subdivision, bankruptcy, and insolvency.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, his objection to the proposal of the Government was that it was at variance with the whole principle of the Bill from beginning to end. That principle was, that the right to compensation on the part of the tenant should be correlative with the performance of his contract, and that the tenant who had broken the contract and had been removed on that account should not be allowed to say that he had been capriciously disturbed. They had already provided that, as a general rule, eviction for non-payment of rent should not be a disturbance; but the House of Commons had introduced the qualification, unless the Court decided that it ought on special grounds to be so deemed. That was as much as to say that anyone of the 33 assistant barristers might, upon special grounds laid down by himself, decide that eviction for non-payment of rent was a disturbance. The assistant barrister might say—"Parliament has left it to me to determine what are special grounds. Well, this is a bad year, and I will decide that to be special grounds." But then it might be said there was the Court of Appeal. Suppose the case came before that Court, the Judge of Appeal might say—"Parliament has not given me any directions to guide me as to what are special grounds;" and thus one Judge might decide one way and another another. The noble
  338
  and learned Lord (Lord O'Hagan) had said there were only two classes of cases which would form special grounds. Well, he had himself said from the beginning if those were the only cases, would Her Majesty's Government put them on the face of the clause? He offered that challenge to the Government. Would they put on the face of the clause that eviction for non-payment of rent should not be deemed a disturbance unless upon the ground that the Court thought the rent manifestly exorbitant? He did not say he should vote for the clause if they did; but perhaps their Lordships might be induced to do so. Anything more contrary to principle than the proposal of the Government he could not imagine. It amounted to this—that a tenant was to be allowed to drive away all competitors by promising to pay a particular rent, and then when he came to be evicted for non-payment he was not to be obliged to give up the holding unless the landlord paid him a certain number of years' compensation. Another objection was the uncertainty this proposal would create. The only sound principle was to let the landlord and tenant know before they came into Court what they had to expect. If it were to be a matter of doubt whether the Court would or would not hold that there was a disturbance in any particular case, a landlord who came to an issue with his tenant would not know on what principle the compensation was to be assessed, and the consequence might be that a small landlord would be ruined. He trusted their Lordships would adhere to their Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYconsidered that it would be an enormous breach of faith if this country interfered with those who had purchased property under the Encumbered Estates Act. They had bought in the cheapest market, and they were selling in the dearest by getting the highest possible rents for the farms they had at their disposal. If their Lordships now thought the landlords had too much for their investment, and proposed to take off 10 or 20 per cent, they would be doing that for which they blamed Spain or Mexico, and people would not be induced to buy such property in future.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not understand why a man who purchased a quarter of a century ago was to be in a

  339
  better position than one who had been in possession of an estate for 300 years, and had up to this time a legal right to all improvements, whether made by himself or his tenants. Words of strong indignation were inconsistent with what had been said on both sides of the House about the justice of giving compensation for improvements.
  LORD CAIRNSadmitted that moral justice required that when a tenant had made improvements he ought not to be deprived of them; but there was no moral justice in enabling a tenant to break his contract.
  Question put, Whether to insist on the said Amendment? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Then it was moved to insist on the Proviso to Clause 8, to which the Commons have disagreed—namely,
  "That in case of the determination of a tenancy by ejectment for non-payment of rent, the Court may treat such ejectment as disturbance if the arrears did not wholly accrue within the three previous years, and if any earlier arrear remained due from the tenant at the time of commencing the ejectment."
  Question put, Whether to insist on the said Proviso? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Committee appointed to prepare reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to some of the said amendments: The Committee to meet forthwith: Report from the Committee of the reasons; read, and agreed to; and a message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill, with amendments and reasons.

  TRANSFER OF GAMBIA TO THE FRENCH.—QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF MANCHESTERrose to put a Question to the Secretary of State for the Colonies respecting the proposal to transfer the Settlement of the Gambia to the French. The transaction to which his Question referred was a subject of serious importance, as it appeared to him to involve the undue exercise of the Prerogative of the Grown. He understood that it was intended to hand over a part of the British dominions to the Emperor of the French on this day month. He hoped this was not the case, for if the sad events which the noble Earl (Earl Granville) had said we must anticipate were about to occur, it seemed to him that we could not, without a breach of neutrality, hand over a seaport of great capacity, and advantageously situ-
  340
  ated for a coaling station, to a nation which was at war with one of our allies. The Gambia Settlement was no burden to us, and in the event of war it would be of very great importance. It had a river without a bar, was completely landlocked, and might be used as a coaling station. If the French thought it desirable to obtain it, it must be equally desirable for us to keep it. In addition to that, he thought we ought not to transfer the inhabitants of the territory to another Power without their consent. Again, in his opinion, the Government ought not to diminish the British territories without the sanction of Parliament; and he thought that our distant possessions ought also to be consulted on the question of transferring so important a coaling station as the Gambia. The inhabitants of the country were decidedly opposed to the contemplated transfer— indeed, he was informed that 600 of the coloured inhabitants had of their own motion, without instigation on the part of any Englishman, signed a Petition which had been sent to the Colonial Office, protesting against being handed over to Franco. The charge for the payment of English officials in the settlement was £10,000 a year, and a sum of £2,000 was paid for pensions. Its revenue more than covered its expenses, and it was estimated that there would be a surplus revenue this year of £7,000; and he believed the Colony already had some money invested in New Zealand Bonds, by direction of the Government. The inhabitants were strongly in favour of the territory being maintained as a British settlement, instead of being handed over to France; for it was of great importance as regards their trade that they should not be under the authority of the French, who had driven away English trade from every part of that coast which they occupied. It might, perhaps, be urged that our trade on the West Coast of Africa was not on the increase; but it certainly was not decreasing at this particular part of the coast. The Gambia was the best river on the Western Coast of Africa, and might be of very great use to us in the case of a naval war if we retained it in our hands, and he hoped the Government would not on any account give up so important a position to France or to any other country. He was the more anxious on this head because he feared the projected

  341
  transfer might be the first step towards abandoning our Colonies. In conclusion, he asked the noble Earl to give the House some account of what had been done.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I can readily answer the noble Duke as to the alleged undue exercise of the Royal Prerogative, because at the beginning of the negotiations with the French we distinctly stated to them that nothing could be completed without the consent of Parliament. As I was chiefly concerned in the matter, my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) has requested me to say that when the matter comes before Parliament for discussion you will find it excessively difficult to show what advantage is gained by this country by retaining possession of this settlement. No doubt, many years ago, when there was a profitable slave trade going on, we might have had an interest in it of a particular sort; and at a later period, when we were exerting ourselves to suppress the slave trade, we also had an interest in keeping the settlement; but as there is not a slave trade at present, and it is extremely improbable that it will ever again revive—and even if it should the French would be as anxious to repress it as we are—that reason entirely vanishes. The noble Duke says, however, that the place will be very advantageous in the event of war. I am sorry to say that this point was entirety left out of consideration by me while I was conducting the negotiations, for I cannot conceive what use Gambia could be in time of war, unless our seamen were seized with an unusual whim to run away and hide themselves from the rest of the world. With regard to the trade of the settlement also, I think the noble Duke has been most strangely misinformed. The trade has steadily fallen off, and the revenue with it. Last year there was a deficiency, and I cannot believe in the great surplus which the noble Duke has promised us this year. The trade of the French has been increasing steadily, while ours has been as steadily diminishing. The trade is of a kind, which better suits the French than ourselves—chiefly consisting in palm oil and ivory—and there seems no reason why they should not prosecute it under their own management. The number of ships and their tonnage belonging to the Colony is ridiculously small for a great
  342
  maritime country such as this. There are not more than 30 or 40 European subjects at the settlement, and there is no use in sending out official servants of the Crown to so deleterious a climate, and where they are exposed to all kinds of demoralization. The climate is such that the mortality produced by it among our representatives there has been greater than similar unfortunate occurrences in any other Colony; and while I was at the Colonial Office there was more trouble in settling the quarrels between different officials there than in transacting all the business of the Colony. Under these circumstances, I think the burden of proving that retaining the Colony will contribute in any degree to our prestige or trade rests with those who wish to keep it. It is very remarkable that our exports, which have been as high as £75,000, were last year only £25,000; while the exports from the African settlement, where there is no European Government at all, amount to £600,000. The noble Duke spoke of the wishes of the inhabitants, and remarked that they were all natives who had petitioned and showed a high class of education for such people. It is very remarkable, however, that they appear to have almost all written the same handwriting, and I am told that the getting up of the Petition was intrusted to a very respectable man who keeps a grog shop. I cannot, therefore, regard the Petition as entirely conclusive evidence upon any point. While the Colony would be of great advantage to the French in connection with their flourishing Colony of Senegal, I think it is no exaggeration to say that Gambia is to our country an absolute burden without any redeeming characteristics.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHhoped the Government would lay upon the Table of the House such Papers relating to the trade and revenue of the settlement and to the terms of the proposed cession as would give their Lordships full information upon the subject when they came to discuss it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, such Papers would be laid upon the Table.
  House adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.