Lords Sitting of 1 August 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No. 3)* (272); Greenwich Hospital* (273); Public Works Loan Commissioners (School Boards Loans)* (274); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* (275); Kensington Station and North and South London Junction Railway Act, 1859 (Repayment of Moneys)* (276).
Second Reading—Pawnbrokers (262).
Committee—Report—Local Government Board (Ireland)* (246); Irish Church Act Amendment (No. 2)* (249); Statute Law Revision (Ireland)* (218); Countess of Mayo's Annuity* (258); Military Manœuvres* (259–277).
Report—Wild Birds Protection* (248).
Third Reading—Victoria Park* (227); Corrupt Practices at Municipal Elections* (265); Mines (Coal) Regulation* (255); Metalliferous Mines Regulation* (256); Basses Lights (Ceylon)* (241); Factories (Steam Whistles)* (252); Adulteration of Food, Drugs, &c.* (269), and passed.

NEW PEER.
The Right Honourable Francis Baron Napier in that part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called Scotland, Knight of the most ancient and most noble Order of the Thistle, having been created Baron Ettrick of the United Kingdom—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE VICTORIA TOWER—SMOKE NUISANCE PREVENTION ACT.—QUESTION.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he wished to ask a Question of the noble Earl the Under Secretary for the Home Department, in reference to a matter which he had made a subject of inquiry on a former occasion. Since that occasion a Question had been asked of the Home Secretary, in "another place;" but he confessed that he thought some more information was still required, notwithstanding what had been said on the matter in the House of Commons. The evil complained of was, that certain potteries on the other side of the water emitted smoke which contained muriatic acid. This acid was very destructive to the stone of the buildings contiguous to the potteries, and many medical authorities were of opinion that it was very prejudicial to health. He understood, in fact, from the scientific examination which had taken place, that there was
216
no doubt that the stone in Lambeth Palace had been seriously injured by the discharge of that muriatic acid. He, therefore, wished to know whether the Secretary of State had taken any steps to remove that nuisance? There were two Nuisance Acts. The first exempted from the operation of the Act such manufactories as those to which he had alluded, but the second distinctly and by name introduced these manufactories into the Act. It therefore seemed to follow that there would be no difficulty in the Secretary of State proceeding against those who were the cause of that destruction of property. But in the reports which he had seen a distinction was drawn between the smoke and the muriatic acid which the smoke contained. Now, the smoke contained the evil, and if the smoke was suppressed the evil would be suppressed also. It was therefore very unsatisfactory to be told that the parties who created the invisible agent might be proceeded against by action at law; but it was not the invisible agent that was so much complained of as the smoke which contained the muriatic acid, and that smoke might be stopped by the Secretary of State. He had presented a memorial on the subject, which was signed by several medical gentlemen, by an eminent solicitor, by several influential clergymen, and by a number of the inhabitants. No reply to that memorial had been received through him; but he understood the memorial itself had been referred to the Local Board of Health, by which it had been sent to the Vestry. He wished to ask the noble Earl, Whether any answer had been returned to the memorial, and whether any steps had been taken in this instance by the Home Office to put in force the Smoke Nuisance Act?
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, in reply, that an answer had been returned to the memorial. Two distinct Departments were concerned in the question raised by the most rev. Primate. Under the Smoke Nuisance Acts it was the province of the Home Secretary to proceed, and in this case he had given special directions that all the necessary measures should be taken for giving effect to those Acts. As regards the emission of muriatic acid gas from the potteries, however, which was the more serious part of the complaint, the most rev. Primate was no doubt aware that the powers in respect

217
to cases of this kind formerly possessed by the Home Secretary under the Local Government Act and the Sanitary Act, were last year transferred to the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board, accordingly, had communicated with the Lambeth Vestry, and had inquired what steps they intended to take in the matter. The Vestry stated that they had under consideration a report by their medical officer, as to the injury to health done by the emission of muriatic acid. No answer had, however, been received from them as to whether they contemplated taking any, and if so, what steps. Until the Vestry had come to a decision, nothing could be done, because the Local Government Board could not interfere unless and until the local authority failed to do their duty in respect to any nuisance injurious to health. As to injuries to property, it rested with individuals to have recourse to the ordinary Courts of Law.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSIONERS—CHARITY OF DAVID HUGHES AT BEAUMARIS; SCHOOL AT FELSTEAD; AND SCHOOL AT TIDESWELL.

  THE QUEEN'S ANSWERS TO THE ADDRESSES.
  THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Viscount SYDNEY)reported—That the Lords with White Staves had (according to Order) waited on Her Majesty with their Lordships' Addresses of Friday last, to which Her Majesty was pleased to return the following most Gracious Answer—in each case severally:—
  "MY LORDS,
  "I have received your Addresses, praying that I would withhold my Assent from the schemes of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the charity founded by will of David Hughes, dated 30th of December 1609, at Beaumaris, in the county of Anglesey; for the management of the School, and Almshouse Charity or Charities known as the Felstead Charities, founded by Richard Lord Rich, at Felstead, in the county of Essex; and for the management of the School founded by Robert Pursglove, at Tideswell, in the county of Derby, in the year 1561.
  "I shall withhold my assent from the schemes."

PAWNBROKERS BILL—(No. 262.)
(The Earl of Harrowby.)
PAWNBROKERS BILL—(No. 262.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the necessity of some re-construction of the whole law on the subject had been long felt, for it was admitted that parts of the existing Acts were practically a dead letter. Indeed, the evidence taken during the Inquiry instituted by the Select Committee of the House of Commons showed that it had ceased to be customary to comply with the existing Acts; and the present Bill was entirely founded on the recommendations of the Report of that Committee. He, therefore, anticipated no opposition to the Bill at that stage.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he had been requested by a committee of pawnbrokers to support this Bill. The proposed increase in the rate of interest would be partly compensated for by a lower charge being exacted for the tickets. The Bill, however, contained a Proviso enacting that a halfpenny should be paid where a farthing was due, and a penny in lieu of three farthings, as this appeared to be done with the intention of getting rid of farthings by a side wind, he should give Notice of an Amendment to omit the Proviso.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he could not help calling the attention of the noble Lord who had moved the second reading, and also that of the Government, to the practice of passing through these Bills at the very end of the Session, when there was no time to fully consider them. If a Bill came up to their Lordships prepared under the eyes of the Government, it would be different; but that Bill had been prepared by a private Member, and he did not believe there was any responsibility attaching to it. Not only that, but it repealed a number of existing statutes, for on looking into it he found that the Schedule began by reciting the statute of the reign of James I., which enabled persons who had their property stolen to recover it from the pawnbroker, and

  219
  then it went on to deal with an Act of George IV. Such a measure should have been examined by those of their Lordships who were learned in the law. He did not pretend to say what this Bill did or did not contain, but one thing which characterized this anomalous legislation was the manner in which it interfered with the right of free trade between the pawnbroker and those who went to him. He, however, had never heard of anybody standing up for the rights of the customers. It was said the pawnbrokers were in favour of the Bill, and no wonder, for it would enable them to charge 25 per cent interest in certain cases, the highest rate which they could now charge being 20 per cent. It would also enable them to charge a small sum for the ticket, an arrangement which in the case of small advances for short periods would increase the actual amount of interest from 25 to 50 per cent. These small loans of two and three shillings formed an enormous proportion of the whole. He confessed he disliked such a subject being handled by any other than a responsible Minister of the Crown, and he should, therefore, not object to let the matter sleep for two or three years, till the Government could take it up. Besides, it was certain that, sooner or later, we should have to carry out our free trade policy by extending it to transactions between pawnbrokers and their customers. He would move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he was quite aware that the arguments of the noble Marquess had considerable force, particularly as the Bill had only been printed that morning; but, so far from it being a measure that had not been considered by the House of Commons and Her Majesty's Government, the subject had been considered two years ago by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and the Bill itself had been sent to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and had been carefully examined by the Home Office. It had been agreed on by both sides, and only one hon. Member had opposed the progress of the Bill. He, therefore, hoped the noble Marquess would not oppose the second reading, as their Lordships would have an opportunity of considering all the provisions of the Bill next week.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he wished to explain that in all transactions above 10 s. between pawnbrokers and their customers there would be free trade. It was only in small sums under that amount the pawnbroker was to be forbidden to charge a higher rate of interest. In these cases, the principles of free trade had been interfered with by the existing law; but for higher sums the pawnbroker and his customer would be allowed to make their own bargain. The Bill had met with the approbation of city missionaries and other friends of the poor, and, under all the circumstances, he hoped it approximated sufficiently to free trade to satisfy the noble Marquess.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would not press his Amendment.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION—THE SCIENTIFIC CORPS—ROYAL ARTILLERY AND ROYAL ENGINEERS—THE PROMOTIONS.—ADDRESS FOR RETURNS.
LORD STRATHNAIRN, who had given Notice to move for Returns showing the effects of the promotions in the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers and the officers of the other Corps, said: My Lords, no one is more opposed than myself to Parliamentary interference in military affairs, but interference becomes a duty, when errors, inherent in a civil government of the Army, and uninfluenced by the opinions of its military head, compromise at times its best interests. Late Sessions afford striking examples of the unfavourable effects of the supreme military authority being vested in the hands of a Minister who, great as may be his eloquence and his ability, has during the whole of his life been unacquainted with a profession which, more than any other, requires experience at the helm. I shall have the honour to submit to your Lordships one example of this great anomaly, because it has strong analogy with the question of supersession, and is appropriate, showing that the inexperience of the head of the War Department led him to adopt a policy fatal to a great Army interest—the soldier's pension, which the experience of the Commander-in-Chief obliged him to oppose; and the

221
example is the more opportune, because the interference of the House of Lords saved the Army from a dilemma. Discussions, my Lords, in and out of Parliament, without end, and the best military opinions, have decided that the policy which gives the greatest expansion in a right direction to the soldier's powers of thought and reflection is the safest guarantee of his moral welfare and his discipline. And it follows, by simple logic, that this desideratum is obtained by pension, which is only given to good soldiers, and which causes a man to reflect for 21 years that good conduct ensures him a happy home and independence; while the contrary, misconduct, entails on him the unenvied existence, the isolation from belongings, and the dependence of the workhouse. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for War, under the influence of Prussian successes, has become an ardent admirer and advocate of the Prussian system of short service without pension; so much so, that he said in "another place" that it lay at the root of all Army reform; and he was the more enamoured of the system, because it had been calculated that the discontinuance of the pension, and the lump sum of money in hand in lieu of it, at the end of the short service, would enable the right hon. Gentleman to make great savings, which would pay off the heavy cost of retirements hitherto borne by the purchase system. But the knowledge of the illustrious Duke of British and foreign Armies had taught him that a system which was practicable and successful under the Prussian compulsory, involuntary, would be impracticable with its contrast, the English voluntary service. And the Commander-in-Chief also knew that the loss of pension would diminish good recruiting, strike a blow at the discipline and well-being of British troops, and that the lump sum of money given on discharge to soldiers of the peculiar material which composes the British Army—excellent when under proper influences, but not so reliable when freed from them—would close a career, deprived of a great incentive to good pension, with scenes of excesses, destitution, and dependence, discreditable to the service and to the country. His Royal Highness, therefore, far from associating himself with the unqualified enthusiastic praise of short service without pension, invariably
222
characterized it as a "tentative measure;" and afterwards recorded his opposition to it in a compact made in debate in your Lordships' House with Lord Northbrook, in July, 1870, in which he stated that he would vote for the second reading of the Short Service Act on the understanding that it was to run pari passû—co-exist—with the Long Service Act and pension. For the sake of the conciliation and good understanding which it is so desirable should exist between Parliament and Her Majesty's Government, I shall not follow further the course of this affair, and shall only say—what it is indispensable should be said, that afterwards an official Order, not emanating from the illustrious Duke, discontinued enlistment under the Long Service Act and pension. With my impression as to the ruinous consequences to the Army of the loss of pension, I made frequent appeals to the representatives of the War Department in your Lordships' House, supported efficaciously by noble Lords, but most especially so by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), and finally, as the Session was drawing to a close, solicited a conversation with Lord Northbrook in the Library, in which I made another effort for the restoration of the pension. To my great satisfaction, the noble Lord then informed me that a General Order would shortly be issued, restoring the Long Service Act with pension. I am glad to have this opportunity of recording my sense of the courtesy and frankness with which the noble Lord, whose ability we have so often admired in debate, conducted his relations with me in and out of this House. This brief history of the pension, my Lords, is an appropriate preface to, and throws a light on the question of supersession now before the House. Both questions evince misconception of military interests and feeling. The one of pension—the sure and best guarantee of the soldier's discipline, and a reward of his long and good service; the other an equal disregard of the rights of promotion and feelings of the officers. The attitude of the Commander-in-Chief has points of analogy in both cases. His Royal. Highness's objections were decided as to the discontinuance of the pension. In the case of supersession, His Royal Highness preferred retirement to the measure of the Government. And how, my Lords, could the Commander-in-Chief

223
approve a supersession which blighted the esprit de corps, which His Royal Highness has so often told your Lordships is the corner-stone of the Army's devotion and success?—a supersession which, at the moment I speak, has discouraged the esprit de corps of some 600 captains of the Guards, Line, and Royal Marines, all of tried qualifications; 27 of whom have passed the Staff College examination; many wounded or mentioned in despatches for good and gallant service before the enemy; half-a-dozen with Victoria Crosses, and numerous others with medals for campaigns—such as Captain O'Connor, V.C., of the 23rd Royal Welsh Fusiliers, who has 18 years' service, was severely wounded at the Alma when carrying the Queen's colour, which he planted on the redoubt after being wounded, and was thanked by General Sir George Brown and General—now Sir William—Codrington on the field. Captain O'Connor was also dangerously wounded at the Redan, he was present throughout the Indian Mutiny War, and wears the Victoria Cross, Crimean medal and two clasps, Sardinian and Turkish medals, the Medjidie and the Indian Mutiny War medal with two clasps. Captain Farquharson, V.C., of the 42nd Royal Highlanders, has 17 years' service and served in the Crimea with his regiment, also throughout the Indian Mutiny War; received the Victoria Cross at Lucknow for storming a bastion, and mounting two guns, which he spiked, and where he was severely wounded. He wears the Victoria Cross, Crimean medal with clasp, Turkish medal, and Indian Mutiny War medal with clasp. Captain Butler, V.C., of the 101st Royal Bengal Fusiliers, who has 18 years' service, served throughout the Indian Mutiny War; was present at the storm and capture of Delhi, where he was slightly wounded, and at the storm and capture of Lucknow; here he swam the Goomtee under a heavy fire, and inspected the entrenchments, for which he received the Victoria Cross; also, during the subsequent operations in Oude. He also served in the Indian North-Western Frontier War, and at Umbeyla. He wears the Victoria Cross, the Indian Mutiny War medal with two clasps, and the Indian War medal with two clasps. Captain Home, 25th Regiment, who has 21 years' service and passed the Staff College, was present as
224
adjutant of the 48th Regiment in the Crimea, where he was wounded at Sebastopol; wears the Crimean medal with clasp, the Turkish medal, and Medjidie. Captain Law, of the 103rd Regiment, who has served 26 years, served in the Punjab campaign, at the storming of Mooltan, where he was wounded; present at the Battle of Goojerat and pursuit of the Affghans to the Khyber, and in the Indian Mutiny War; wears Punjab medal, with two clasps, and Indian Mutiny War medal. Captain Kinsman, of the Royal Marines, who has served 27 years, and is Instructor of Gunnery, was present with the Baltic Expedition in 1854, and in the China Expedition in 1857–9; wears Baltic medal and China medal, with clasp. Captain Kelly, of the 60th Rifles, promoted from the ranks, who has served 18 years, was present with his regiment as adjutant when the 60th so greatly distinguished itself during the siege of Delhi, and throughout the operations in the Indian Mutiny War, and subsequently as brigade major to a movable column in Oude; wears Indian Mutiny War medal and clasp. I can say from personal knowledge that he is a most efficient and valuable officer, and well worthy of a higher rank. The more military the feeling of an officer, the greater his honourable ambition for distinction at any sacrifice of health and life; the better his qualifications and his field services, the more acutely does he feel the mortification of a vast promotion given over his head to juniors, who, ardently as they wished it, never had the opportunity of seeing active service. Supersession hurts the material interests as well as the feelings of officers. Their juniors obtain the increased pay and better employment consequent on higher rank. It frequently occurs that in consequence of the varied and fitful currents of promotion, a step, especially from captain to major, often enables an officer to attain the higher grade, and consequent better employment, years before those of the same standing. Striking instances of this occurred on my own general and personal Staff. One, a captain, by receiving a brevet majority for good service in the field, became a general officer with a very high staff appointment 10 years before his contemporaries. The other, also a captain, and having received a brevet majority for service in the field in 1865,

225
will now, in 1872, shortly become, in the ordinary course of promotion, a lieutenant-colonel; whereas, if he had not been promoted to a brevet majority, he would at this moment have been a captain in his regiment. Officers of one regiment do not object to the regular promotion of another regiment, however rapid and superseding incidental circumstances may make it, such as promotion for field service, casualties in action, deaths from bad climates. But they do view with regret and mistrust supersession en masse by the War Office, to which the Commander-in-Chief cannot give his adhesion because he prefers another scheme. When I say this, I most readily state that officers of the Ordnance Corps have in individual cases of exceptional promotion been superseded by officers very much their juniors. But to place the whole blame of this grievance on the Guards and Line is one of those cases of injustice and mystification which mask this question, and of which I shall lift the veil immediately. I shall not now enter into the complicated question to what extent this disadvantage has been compensated by the higher pay of Ordnance officers, no outlay for purchase or sacrifice of purchase-money hereafter, and finally by the retiring allowance of £600 a-year, given annually to a certain number of colonels, which is nearly double the full-pay retirement to the rest of the Army. To the Royal Engineers another advantageous career is opened—the Board of Works, which runs pari passû with their Engineer duties. This part, this aspect of the question of supersession—I mean the grievances suffered by the Ordnance Corps from supersession by the Guards and Line, and the omission to notice or to remedy other and principal causes of those grievances—brings prominently to light serious responsibilities incurred by Her Majesty's Government. It is perfectly well-known in the service that these causes are defects in the organization of the Ordnance Corps, one of which, good authorities think, one cause is the vast length of line, the concentration of the immense body of officers in one regiment, along which promotion must travel; and all are agreed that the other cause is the result of organic defect—stagnation—which has aggravated, if it has not altogether given rise to those grievances of which the War Office has,
226
very unjustly, placed the whole blame on the purchase system of the Guards and Line. While these grievances were proclaimed with a flourish of trumpets, and re-echoed by nearly the whole of the Press with military precision throughout the country, not a word was said as to the real, but unavowed, culprits, the organic defects; and so complete was the mystification, that a well-timed Motion of my noble and gallant Friend (Lord Abinger), which would have brought to light the organic defects, was met with that curt refusal which is so often given to just but unpalatable inquiry. The Press, however, is in no way whatever to blame for these one-sided impressions. They, like the public, were kept in the dark. The House of Commons' Select Committee of 1867, admirably composed of Members of all parties, after a sitting of two months, recommended a well-devised retirement as the best remedy for removal of stagnation and increase of efficiency of officers of the Ordnance Corps and Royal Marines. And the illustrious Duke, in the debate of the 18th of June, stated his preference of retirement to the scheme of the Government. It is as clear that retirement relieves stagnation as that the removal of a dam sets free the current of a stream, and I say this on the authority of every Royal Commission and every Artillery officer who has given evidence since 1825. But the Government, in disregard of the opinions of the Commander-in-Chief, adopted the course exactly opposed to these opinions, and, instead of holding out inducements to officers to retire, hold out the strongest inducements in the way of increased rank and pay to stand fast, of which the natural consequence, and one universally predicted, is that the remedial measure of the Government will increase the evil of stagnation. Therefore, as the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) stated in his speech that the present supersession was the remedy for stagnation, we have before us the agreeable prospect a few years hence of another supersession for another stagnation. I have always been in favour of the commander of a battery holding the rank of a field-officer; but the last of my thoughts was, that this promotion should be effected by a vast selection disfigured by a vast supersession, in dereliction of the Secretary of State's formal promise

227
on the abolition of purchase and privileges of promotion that for the future promotion in the Army was to be conducted on a principle of perfect equality. But is it not, my Lords, a mockery to call promotion an equality which places A, who has never seen service and was junior to and under the orders of B in one month, over B in the next month, who has been wounded, honourably mentioned, and decorated for devoted and distinguished service in the field? In the cloud which, under these circumstances, darkens the future of officers, it is a source of lively satisfaction to see the appearance of a silver lining in the generous sentiments recently expressed to me by three distinguished officers of the Ordnance Corps. The gist of what they said is that, as the new promotion of the Army is to be conducted on a principle of even-handed justice, they would wish that an equivalent to their promotion should be given to the other branches. I sincerely hope that opinions, which, I am well assured, prevail among such a high-spirited body as the Royal Engineers and Royal Artillery, may be shared by Her Majesty's Government. The financial sacrifice of giving brevet majorities to the superseded officers would be small; the assertion of the rights of equality of promotion and of the interests of officers would be invaluable. In reply to a question from the Royal Commission on Military Education, before whom I had been called to give evidence, I stated that the best guarantee of just selection of officers as a reward for merit would be honourable mention in despatches, or any reliable evidence of good conduct in the field or efficiency, and finally, the repeated recommendation at half-yearly inspections by the inspecting general, the commanding officer, and the General Commanding-in-Chief. I asked for all these Reports; but it was objected that one category was confidential, which I do not consider a valid objection, as the heading "confidential" only covers unfavourable, not favourable Reports. I now hear that exception is to be taken to the production of the other category. I shall, therefore, leave on the Government the responsibility of withholding Reports from your Lordships which would have proved how many superseded officers had come up to the standard which I had proposed for selection, and how unmerited
228
were the comparisons drawn by the noble Marquess between branches of the service. For, my Lords, without entering into the meshes of legal niceties, the plain and unmistakable meaning of the noble Marquess's language was a comparison between the officers of the Ordnance Corps and the Guards and Line, unfavourable to the latter; and he also produced statistics to show that the opinions of the Members of your Lordships' House, in and connected with the Army, who had voted for a Royal Commission of Inquiry, were influenced by bias. If the noble Marquess had thought of the emblems on the colours of British regiments, given for successes by an almost matchless leader, so military and so impartial that he never granted a badge but for a real victory, successes which decided the greatest events, perhaps, in the world's history, won by the three arms, hand-in-hand, in inseparable union, he would not have thrown down an apple of discord, nor have depreciated by comparisons and regrettable statistics services which live under the imperishable recollections of their union and success. Comparisons are not to be thought of; each arm, in its turn, has its scenes and hour of danger and distinction; and that Engineer and Artillery have their full share of both is well known to every military Member of your Lordships' House. To show how utterly impossible it is that myself or any noble Lord of military experience can be influenced by unfavourable bias to the Ordnance Corps, I can only say that I owe the coveted, the distinguished honour of a seat in your Lordships' House equally to my whole Force, and to none more am I indebted than to Artillery and Engineers. How great these obligations are will be shown by extracts from my despatches, which evidence the warmest expressions of my feeling for them and of my approval—
"Captain Neville, of the Royal Engineers, who volunteered to act as my aide-de-camp the night he arrived in my camp, was killed by a shell bursting on his head the next day, while reporting to me the delivery of an order at the action of Baroda, in which I had to engage to prevent the enemy from cutting me off from Saugor, which I was ordered to relieve. Lieutenants Dick and Micklejohn, of the Bombay Engineers, were killed at the top of the scaling ladders—not the bottom, my lords—up which they were leading the storming parties at Jhansi. Lieutenant Colonel Turnbull, Bombay Artillery, was killed by musketry tire from the roofs of the houses in the

229
streets of Jhansi, where he had gone to choose a position for his battery to batter the Palace and part of the town not taken. Lieutenant Prendergast, Madras Engineers, was dangerously wounded in the action of the Betwa, when the enemy wished to leave Jhansi. He obtained the Victoria Cross. Then there is honourable mention of the Eagle Troop, Royal Horse Artillery, for invariable gallant conduct, but particularly when a division of guns was ordered to enfilade the enemy's left. One gun of the division was knocked over by a round shot, and the other, by its excellent enfilading fire, so shook the enemy that the turning movement against me was prevented, and I was able to turn the whole line."
Again, my despatches contain—
"Special mention of the 21st Company, Royal Engineers, whom at Calpee I was obliged, on account of the reduced state of my Force, to use as a company in the first line, and of whom I said in my despatches that 'they fought as well in the field as they worked in the trenches, and were worthy of their distinguished corps.'"
Traits of feeling which mark the best of friendships—the friendship of the field, show how great was the esteem which existed between these officers and myself. Lieutenant Dick, as he mounted the scaling ladders, said—"I will now show Sir Hugh Rose my gratitude;" Colonel Turnbull, just before he died, expressed as his last wish a desire to "shake hands" with me; and Captain Neville, with a presentiment of his death, expressed a wish that "his sword should be delivered to his family." I carried this sword through all the difficulties of the campaign, till on my return march to Bombay it was stolen from under my head, when I was asleep, by the professional thieves so numerous in India. My Lords, I think these instances will show that I can have no unfavourable bias towards the Ordnance Corps. The Motion of which I have given Notice is, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Returns—
"Firstly, Of all lieutenants and captains of the Foot Guards, captains of Cavalry, Infantry, and Royal Marines (Light Infantry), and captains and second captains of Royal Marines (Artillery), who will be superseded by the promotion of captains of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers to the rank of major; showing the length of service, and in what rank, of the officers thus superseded:
Secondly, Of the names of all officers thus superseded who have been wounded, mentioned in despatches, reports, or letters to superior authority for good service in the field, who are in possession of a medal or medals, or other decoration, and for what service, or who have been reported on favourably, or recommended as adjutants, or in any appointment on the staff, or brought to notice for good conduct when giving aid to the
230
civil power, or on any other occasion, or for sending in useful plans of country or reconnaissance reports, or who have passed the staff college examination, or gone through the prescribed course of instruction at one of the schools of musketry, or have qualified in telegraphy, &c. &c."
I shall, however, not press the latter portion of the Motion, for I believe the Government are not disposed to grant this information, and I do not think it right to trouble your Lordships to divide. The noble and gallant Lord then moved the Address in accordance with his Notice.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he must decline to follow the noble and gallant Lord in those passages of his speech in which he dealt with the respective merits of long and short service. The subject was one on which the noble and gallant Lord spoke with great authority, but it was scarcely relevant to the Motion on the Paper. He must enter his protest, however, against the repeated introduction by the noble and gallant Lord of the name of His Royal Highness the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief as an advocate of the views which the noble and gallant Lord had expressed. The Motion had stood for some time on the Paper, and he could not help regretting that the noble and gallant Lord should not have brought it forward before the departure of His Royal Highness from this country; but those who listened to the judicial summing-up of the illustrious Duke, delivered from the cross benches, would agree that nothing could be less one-sided than his remarks on that occasion. As to the Motion, he was glad the noble and gallant Lord had withdrawn the latter part of it, which asked for voluminous Returns touching on confidential matters not usually included in Returns made to Parliament. With regard to the earlier part of the Motion, however, the Government would be glad to supply the information asked for, and no one was more entitled to demand that information than the noble and gallant Lord. Widely divergent statements had been made as to the amount and extent of the supersession, and he should be glad to supply the noble and gallant Lord with information which would show him that his estimate a little exceeded the mark; for in calculating the extent of the supersession, two factors must be borne in mind—the number of officers

231
superseded, and the number of officers by whom they were superseded. He proposed, therefore, to add to the Return another column supplying this information. He proposed, also, to add a Return showing the converse case—the extent to which the Ordnance Corps had been superseded by the Guards and the Line; because, with all deference to the experience of the noble and gallant Lord, he could not agree with him in thinking that in this case the grievance was entirely one-sided. The noble and gallant Lord had quoted several instances of supersession on his side, but plenty of instances might be quoted on the other side. For example, there was the case of a captain of over 27 years' service, who went through the whole of the Punjab Campaign and the Indian Mutiny, when he was wounded; yet who, until this change was made, still remained a captain. There were three other instances—an officer of 22 years' service, and two others of 20 years' service, who served, with distinction, throughout the Crimean Campaign, and still remained captains. He did not deny that there was supersession; but he believed that if all the circumstances were considered, it was not of a nature or an extent to create any real hardship to the officers concerned. As for the information which the noble and gallant Lord desired, it would be given by the Government with perfect confidence that it would not be detrimental to their case.
VISCOUNT MELVILLE, while he acknowledged that supersession was a necessity of the new system, contended that there was no reason why officers of the same standing and length of service should have been superseded in the manner of which his noble and gallant Friend complained. It would cost very little to have done all that justice required, and thus to have avoided creating that disagreeable feeling which the promotions of the officers of the Scientific Corps had engendered in the breasts of those who saw themselves superseded. The late Lord Herbert had established what was called a Reserve Fund, which came out of the pockets of the officers of the purchase corps; but, instead of that fund being appropriated to the benefit of those who had contributed to it, it went to provide retirement for the officers of the Artillery and Engineers. No Return with respect to the fund had
232
ever been made. Seeing that the country had derived so much benefit from the Reserve Fund, great dissatisfaction had been created in consequence of those officers not having obtained rank according to their length of service, and he thought that fund might be equitably used to provide justice in the cases complained of.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for,
Returns, firstly, of all lieutenants and captains of the Foot Guards, captains of Cavalry, Infantry; and Royal Marines (Light Infantry), and captains and second captains of Royal Marines (Artillery), who will be superseded by the promotion of captains of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers to the rank of major; showing the length of service, and in what rank, of the officers thus superseded; and showing also the number of officers of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers, junior to them, by whom they will be superseded: Also,
Return showing the number of officers of Cavalry, Guards, and Line holding Army Rank as major, lieutenant-colonel, and colonel respectively, who are of shorter total service than the senior captain of Royal Artillery or Royal Engineers of each year who will be made a major under the recent warrants.—(The Lord Strathnairn.)

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT (1870).

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIM: I feel some difficulty in undertaking the task which I have imposed on myself in bringing so vast a subject under the notice of the House, and asking your Lordships to consider not only the Report of the Committee, but also the working of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870. A discussion took place in this House on the 3rd of June, in which I took no part, and the result of that debate was that a Committee of your Lordships' House was appointed to inquire into the working of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1870. I have a copy of the Report of that Committee, which was ordered to be printed on the 18th of July. I understand that the Appendix is not yet printed, and I regret that I have not an opportunity of referring to the evidence before your Lordships' Committee. No doubt, there may have been some very valuable testimony collected with reference to this Act, as it appears that members of the Judicial Bench and Chairmen of the Quarter Sessions were examined; but whatever were the labours

  233
  of your Lordships' Committee, I believe that all will agree that the offspring is the very smallest that any mountain in its labour ever produced after so many weeks trial and sorrow. I observe that amongst other information they obtained Returns from the Clerks of the Peace, and if they prove to be worth the expense of printing, I shall be very much surprised. I cannot conceive that they will show anything more than a schedule of the cases brought to the Quarter Sessions, and an index to the cases of all kinds tried under the Act of 1870. The Committee state that they confined their inquiry solely to the working of the Act, not to its defects. I apprehend that they must have had some difficulty in avoiding the defects, if they properly examined into the working of such an imperfect machine. They must be a very peculiar body who could examine the working of an engine without observing the faults and imperfections in its construction, and finding it to be their duty to make them known, and report its improper construction, its want of connection between its several parts, and the destruction to property that it was calculated to create in the progress of its work. The Committee, however, admit that they found it impossible to close their eyes to the obscurities of the Act, and that their vigilance detected some few defects, some two or three of which they approach with the timidity of the youngest and gentlest of the softer sex. Their first objection is the primary Tribunal for hearing land cases, and they are of opinion that the Court of the Chairmen of Counties is unsatisfactory. They were no doubt right in entertaining that opinion; but the Committee came to the peculiar conclusion that although it is not satisfactory they do not think it expedient to make any change in the construction of the Tribunal. They subsequently, however, put a postscript to their Report, and recommended that the Chairman should be empowered to reserve a case on a point of law directly for the Court of Land Cases Reserved. This modest recommendation is some little change in the Tribunal of First Instance; but I cannot understand why the matter of fact should not be sent to the Court above as well as the matter of law; and as the matter of law may depend very much upon the matter of fact, it would appear a more
  234
  just course to allow the whole case to come to a new hearing in the superior Court, and I do not think that the owners of property in Ireland should be satisfied with less. Hitherto, the Chairman of Quarter Sessions was limited in his jurisdiction to sums not exceeding £40; any matter which involved a question of title, no matter how small, was entirely outside his jurisdiction, and he could not entertain it. The Act of 1870 places the Chairman in quite a new position—as new as that of the owner of an estate and his tenant. The Chairman is now entrusted to adjudicate on matters of title of the most peculiar and novel character, and required to define title the most difficult and subtle that can be well imagined. They are empowered at their will to confiscate the estate of the landlord, and to hand over to the tenant more than the value of the lands. Under these circumstances, it behoves your Lordships to examine into the nature of the Court of Quarter Sessions, and the character of that Tribunal. The Chairmen are appointed by the Government, at salaries varying from £700 to £1,100—thus there are 8 at £700 a-year; 10 at £900 a-year; 15 at £1,100 a-year; total 33, at £31,000. These 33 gentlemen preside over 151 Courts of Quarter Sessions in various parts of Ireland, and in some of these towns there is not accommodation for the litigants, who must in consequence travel considerable distances every day of the sessions. The Chairman is rarely assisted by any other than local attorneys, and consequently it frequently happens that he is obliged to postpone a case at trial, until he returns to Dublin to consult the authorities. It is to a Court of this character that the Legislature has entrusted the disposal of the land in Ireland, and to decide if it is to belong to the land-land or to the tenant. It becomes necessary, therefore, to inquire what the Act of 1870 has directed shall be done in respect to this primary Tribunal? The 22nd section directs—"That for the purposes of this part of this Act the Court shall mean—the Civil Bill Court, &c." The 23rd section gives the Chairman authority to administer an oath, &c.; the 24th section provides for an appeal; the 31st section empowers the Judges to make rules for the proceedings—1st, in the Civil Bill Courts; 2ndly, for proceedings in appeal; 3rdly, for proceedings

  235
  in land cases reserved; and 4thly, as to any other matter or thing, whether similar or not to those above-mentioned. These rules, when made, have all the force of an Act of Parliament. The Judges have made rules, and they have ruled—
  "That all applications and disputes under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1870, in the division of the county where the land, or some part thereof, is situated."
  This rule I think highly inconvenient not only to litigants, but also to the administration of justice, in consequence of the very great number of Courts of Quarter Sessions and the peculiar and varying arrangement of the districts; so that in many instances the Court is held in one town, and at another period in another town of the same district, and occasionally adjourned from one town to another. In considering this matter, I must observe—and I wish Her Majesty's Government to take notice—that the 62nd section of the Act has not been brought into operation. By that section, it was enacted—
  "For the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act, the Judges of the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland shall, in addition to the Civil Bill Courts now by law directed, hold such Courts, in such places, within their respective jurisdictions as may be prescribed by the Privy Council in Ireland."
  That provision has been altogether neglected, and the Judges have, by their rules, most imperfectly provided for this serious and flagrant omission by their 2nd rule; directing that—
  "At each ordinary Sessions, now held in each year, there shall be for each division of the county in one town in such division a separate part of such Sessions for the disposal of business under this Act to be termed the Land Session."
  This arrangement is most objectionable, and how far the Judges are justified in making this rule, in the absence of the action of the Privy Council, it is for your Lordships to consider. But I think that it would be highly desirable that the Privy Council should be put in motion, and that the Court for hearing and determining land cases under this Act should be held in the county town apart from all other business, or of an ordinary Civil Bill Court, and that every opportunity should be afforded for the attendance of the members of the Bar, to assist the Chairman and to protect the interests of the litigants. It is a matter for consideration, if ejectments on title
  236
  should not be heard at such Land Sessions, and if such an arrangement would not save expense. I now come to the second appeal objection taken into consideration by the Committee of your Lordships' House—namely, the appeal to the Judge of Assize, and in this I regard the Act as exceedingly defective, inasmuch as the 24th section gives to the county of Dublin an appeal to two Judges of the Superior Courts of Law. To the other counties of Ireland it gives the appeal to the Judges of Assize; then the Act further states that such appeal may be heard by one of said Judges; but in case any question of law shall arise upon such appeal, the Judge before whom such question arises may, if he thinks fit, require that the same shall be heard and determined by both the said Judges, and thereupon such question shall be heard and determined by both the said Judges, who shall, for such purpose, sit together. This section proceeds to provide for a further appeal to the Court of Land Cases Reserved thus—"the Judges to whom any such appeal may be made, may, where they deem it expedient, reserve any matter or question arising upon such appeal by way of case stated for consideration of the Court of Land Cases Reserved in Dublin." Thus, your Lordships will observe that, in matters of appeal from one Judge at Assize, the Judge may, "if he thinks fit," require that the same be heard before both Judges, and the two Judges "may, when they deem it expedient, reserve any matter or question arising upon such appeal by way of case stated for the consideration of the Court for Land Cases Reserved at Dublin." It is clearly intended by the Legislature that this should be a very effective Court of Appeal; that in all difficult cases the two Judges should sit together; and that if any peculiarity in the case should appear, that the Judges should "reserve such matter or question" for the consideration of the Court for Land Cases Reserved at Dublin. It appears from a Return that has been made to the House of Lords, upon an Order bearing date the 10th of May, 1872, that there have been two instances only in which the Judge of Assize has refused to allow of the case being sent to the Court of Land Cases Reserved—one, that of William Fleck, claimant; The Baron O'Neill, respondent. It appears, in that case, that the Chairman awarded

  237
  to the claimant £100, and that, on appeal, the Judge increased the award to £125 7s. 2d.; but on what grounds it is not shown, or why the appeal to the Court of Land Oases Reserved was refused. With respect to the second case we are better informed. It is that, now notorious case, of Hugh Friel, claimant; The Earl of Leitrim, respondent. As this case is now a matter of history, the law has taken its course, and the decree satisfied—the land surrendered, and the cabins on it levelled to the ground. I apprehend that I have just as good a right to refer to this case as any other matter of history, or as to any other case in which any other persons might have been concerned, or as if the case had occurred 50 or 100 years ago. At the same time, I wish it to be clearly understood that I wish to speak with the greatest respect of Mr. Justice Lawson; and, although I object to his views, his Judgment, and his acts, I shall argue the matter—or endeavour, to the best of my skill, to do so—without imputing any improper motive to the Judge; but, on the contrary, presuming that he would come to the same conclusions. Supposing the case were that of any noble Lord who now hears me—and it is because I think that Mr. Justice Lawson's acts are dangerous and subversive of the rights of property that I ask your Lordships' attention to his own explanation, given in a letter to a noble and learned Lord not now present (Lord Romilly), and published in The Times newspaper of the 4th of June. He first states that the award was £235. That is an error. It was £250, and is so stated in the Return to your Lordships' House. He states—
  "That the claimant proved that he paid £180 to his brother Patrick for the tenant-right of part of this farm, and that this payment was made with the sanction and approval of Mr. Wray, who was the agent over the estate at the time. This evidence was wholly uncontradicted."
  The claimant did not produce Mr. Wray to corroborate this statement, though Mr. Wray was summoned by him to the Land Sessions; and it was proved that neither the claimant or his brother Patrick were tenants at the time that this payment was stated to have taken place, neither could the claimant show how the money was paid. Mr. Justice Lawson proceeds to state—
  238
  "The claimant was served with notice to quit because he had given shelter to his brother after he was evicted."
  This statement is inaccurate. I stated in my evidence that several attempts had been made to murder my servants, and that it was in consideration of these outrages that I caused a notice to quit to be served on the claimant, and it was on account of my desire to protect my servants' lives from such murderous attacks—when the police and the laws of the country had failed—that I wished to remove this family, who have been now rewarded under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870. I was indignant at an act taken by me for the protection of my servants having been thus misrepresented, and I wish to point out that similar cases are likely to occur, and to take the liberty of challenging the mode of procedure in regard to the provisions of the Act of Parliament. Only a few days since the same Judge tried a criminal case in the same county. A Presbyterian clergyman wishing to sell his holding, the permission to do so was withheld, and thereupon came a man, who came from America, with a revolver, and avowed his intention to shoot somebody; but whom he wanted to shoot did not appear to be known. Two policemen who were on duty arrested a man who was intoxicated in the town of Milford. The man who came from America interfered, together with two of his brothers. He fired at the policemen, missing one, and mortally wounding the other in the back. An attempt to rescue the murderer from the police was made by his two brothers, and it was only by the interference of a gentleman, who had witnessed the latter part of the transaction, that he was secured. But there was no conviction for murder, for the man was merely found guilty of manslaughter, and the aiders and abettors of the crime only received 12 months' imprisonment. Of course, if that kind of government were to continue in Ireland, murder would increase to such an extent that people in the upper classes of society in that country would have to take to shooting those inclined to attack them, and perhaps nothing but the shooting of one or two persons in that way would put an end to this very Liberal system of Government. Mr. Justice Lawson states that a respectable surveyor swore that

  239
  the profit rent of the claimant's farm was worth £19 7s. 6d., and that the tenant-right would sell for £278; and it appears by Mr. Justice Lawson's letter to Lord Romilly, and used in debate in your Lordships' House, that it was on this fictitious value given in evidence that the learned Judge thought proper to take from me my estate, and compel me to pay to an objectionable tenant more than double its value for a holding on the top of a rocky mountain, unfit for tillage, incapable of any important improvement, consisting of 32 statute acres, let at the rate of 3s. 9d. per acre for the yearly rent of £6 to the claimant as a tenant from year to year so recently as the year 1860, when the claimant became a tenant for the first time on the estate without the payment of any fine or reward to any person whatsoever. It is desirable to bear in mind that this Judgment carries with it the two-fold evil, of an encouragement to the fabrication of a fictitious value, and a strong inducement to great exaggeration; and, secondly, a great discouragement to the owner of lands to let land at a moderate rent, as in the event of his giving it at a low valuation, or in any other way improving the value of the holding to the occupier, he must himself become a loser if he should wish at any future time to resume the possession of the lands thus underlet. Mr. Justice Lawson is good enough in his letter to the noble and learned Lord to express very small consideration for my evidence in this case; nevertheless, I produced the lease of the lands of the date of 1767, which did not expire until the year 1830, or thereabouts. The settlement of the estate dated 1800. It was proved that the lease expired during the lifetime of the tenant for life, and that I, his heir, succeeded to the estate in the year 1854; that the Mr. Wray who he refers to acted as my agent for only two years after my succession to the estate; and that I was not in possession of the estate at the time of the transaction which Mr. Justice Lawson refers to. The accounts of the estate were produced, and it was shown that the widow Grace Friel was the tenant of the holding up to 1860; that she being under a notice to quit surrendered the holding, and a new letting was made in 1860, the holding being divided; part was let to Grace Friel, part to John Friel, and part to Hugh Friel, the
  240
  claimant; that Grace and John were evicted before the passing of the Act of 1870, and that Hugh Friel never was a tenant until the year 1860. It was upon an observation from Mr. Justice Lawson that my counsel—who, though a junior, is a most able and learned lawyer and an honour to his profession—reminded the Judge that the claimant did get notice that no tenant-right was allowed on the estate by the eviction of his brother John, who got no compensation on eviction; and it was proved that for 16 years or thereabouts prior to the passing of the Act of 1870 no tenant-right had been allowed or claimed, and that it was not the custom prevalent on the estate at the time of the passing of the Act. Mr. Justice Lawson entertained such confidence in his own judgment in this difficult case that he did not think fit to require that it should be heard before both Judges of Assize as provided for under the 24th section; neither did he deem it expedient to reserve any matter or question for the consideration of the Court of Land Cases Reserved at Dublin; although it appeared that there were several points of law not as yet decided—for instance, 1st, Does a period of 16 years prior to the passing of the Act of 1870 constitute a sufficient period by which the usages prevalent on the estate according to the 1st section of the Act should be governed, or does it not? 2ndly, Does a change of tenancy created before the passing of the Act of 1870 destroy a right which an individual may have enjoyed prior to that change, on different lands, and under different circumstances, or does it not? 3rdly, If the acts or omissions of a tenant-for-life under settlements made prior to the passing of the Act of 1870, the estate having passed to the next heir prior to the year 1870, bind the heir as regards the usages prevalent in the province of Ulster, or otherwise? These important points of law Mr. Justice Lawson deemed it to be inexpedient to reserve for the consideration of the Court for Land Cases Reserved at Dublin, and he expected me to prove a negative to an assertion by the claimant that he had paid a sum of money to his brother, at a time when neither claimant or his brother were tenants on the estate, and before I was in possession of the estate, or able to exercise any control over it. Mr. Justice Lawson states that the Ulster custom of

  241
  tenant-right had always existed on the estate, and on all the estates in the district, notwithstanding that it was proved and admitted that it had not existed for 16 years or thereabouts prior to the year 1870; and although it was proved that the estate was held in Rundale up to the year 1848, when the lands were divided without any compensation being made to the tenants. I have found it necessary to state this case thus fully to your Lordships as a most important matter for your attention and consideration as regards other estates in Ulster, and in Ireland generally. If the property and the estates of the landlords of Ulster are to be confiscated in this way, the sooner they are informed of the fact the better. The Act has already made over to the tenant all the improvements on the holding, which the landlord is unable to prove were made by himself; and as the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions are given the power to legislate and dictate how far the estate shall belong to the tenant, and not to the lessor, the only safeguard that the landlord can have is that of appeal from the arbitrary decision of the Inferior Court to a higher. If that right of appeal is in any way interfered with either by the will of a Judge or by any other cause, it is very much to be feared that the property in an estate will be of little value to the person who was regarded as the owner up to the year 1870. The difficulty which exists in defining what was or was not the usages prevalent in Ulster at the time of the passing of the Act are so great, and the opinions so various, that nothing but further legislation can suffice to prevent the most disastrous consequences and endless litigation and ruin. The longer that the Government delay taking action in this matter in order to remove these doubts as to the intention of the Act, the greater will the difficulties become. I do not see how this difficulty can be properly settled by the Irish Bench, or why the Judges should be called upon to undertake a task which it is the duty of the Legislature to perform; and if the Legislature abdicates its authority in this instance, why should not their determination be made known, and some other form of Government provided other than that of constituting the same persons the makers and the administrators of the laws as regards the rights of property?
  242
  It may be prudent to appoint a Royal Commission to consider and report upon the extent to which the Ulster tenant-right should be admitted; what should be the maximum award that should be paid to a tenant on his quitting his holding by the act of his landlord; to what extent the usages should apply; whether the custom should apply to an estate, to a particular holding, to a town land, to a barony, or a county. These several areas have been a matter of dispute as to which constitute that which should be the subject of the Ulster custom. The 2nd section would rather tend to the view that it should be the particular holding. That alone should be the subject of contention in the Land Court by a claimant. As that section contemplates, the landlord either may acquire or purchase from the tenant the benefit of the Ulster usage, and that thenceforth such holding shall cease to be subject to such usage. But if the Legislature intended that a particular holding should be excluded from, and cease to be subject to, the usage in one case, the landlord having acquired the right by possession in that case, how can it be properly held that any district can be subject to the usage when there may be numerous instances within that district where the reverse is the fact, and which do not come before the Judge, and ought not to be taken into account when trying the claims of an individual tenant? I believe the object of the Act is to throw the land into large farms. Such a result will be objectionable in the highest degree; for a very considerable portion of the lands of Ireland, hitherto under cultivation by spade labour, are quite unfit to be thrown into large farms, or to be tilled by the plough. Nevertheless, it appears that the only mode by which the landlords can extricate themselves from the difficulties and dangers by which they are surrounded, by the various traps which have been set for them by this Act, is to let no land unless the holding can be formed so that the rateable value shall not be less than £50 a-year. That is a deplorable state for a country to be thrown into. The result must be that a great extent will be thrown out of cultivation, and the population will be considerably decreased. It was truly said that the tenant ought to have security for his outlay on his holding, and it is just that he should

  243
  enjoy that security; but that is quite another thing from giving him the estate, or taking away the property of the lessor, and confiscating his estate for the benefit of an objectionable tenant. There ought to be a distinct and equitable line drawn, and wrong should not be done to the lessor, or more than right given to the tenant. I hope that this matter, which involves the rights of property not only in Ireland, but in England also, will meet with careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government during the Recess, and that before Parliament meets again a measure will be prepared, explaining and amending the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870.
  LORD DUNSANYthought his noble Friend (the Earl of Leitrim) had made out a strong case for some examination. It was true that there had just been a Committee to inquire into the matter. A new crop of difficulties was arising according to the news received that morning. He saw a report of an appeal taken from the judgment of a Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and the Judge took a different view from the Court below, holding that the only case in which there could be maximum penalties inflicted was "capricious eviction." Now, he (Lord Dunsany) confessed that he could not understand the meaning of that term. It was one which had, he believed, been invented by Mr. Gladstone, and nobody was, of course, better able than that right hon. Gentleman to explain its meaning. Some precise definition was, however, he thought, required of a word on which so much was made to turn. It ought to be construed as meaning something for which no reasonable or just cause could be assigned. He would only add that the working of the Irish Land Act should be carefully watched, and that it should be as far as possible improved before its principles came to be applied, as he supposed they would be, to England.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas sure he would be excused for following up at any length the statements just addressed to their Lordships. He did not think that that was the place to try a case, or to give his own view of Mr. Justice Lawson's decision. They all knew him to be a learned and most excellent Judge. He (the Earl of Kimberley) was very glad that the noble Lord had called attention
  244
  to the Report of the Committee of their Lordships' House, as it was of such a nature as would dispel many doubts which were entertained on the subject. It had not found fault with the working of the Irish Land Act. On the contrary, it expressed a decided opinion that it was not desirable to make any change in the present Courts of First Instance. That decision was arrived at unanimously, and he (the Earl of Kimberley) thought that when their Lordships read the evidence, they would be of the same opinion too. On other points, however, there were serious differences of opinion amongst the Members of the Committee. The recommendation, for instance, that there should in all cases be an appeal from the Judge of Assize to the Court of Land Cases Reserved was only carried by a majority of 1. There was no other very material point in the Report, the Committee rightly deciding that, as only one case had yet come before the Court of Land Cases Reserved, it was premature to entertain any question as to that tribunal. As to certain doubts expressed in the Report with respect to the working of the Act, he (the Earl of Kimberley) was of opinion, with the minority of the Committee, that it was inexpedient to say anything on that subject. It was, at all events, premature to deal with these or any other points noticed by the Committee at present. He could only say that the Report would receive the best consideration of the Government during the Recess; but he was not then prepared to say whether they would next year introduce any measure for the amendment of the Irish Land Act.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMintimated that in the event of the Government taking no action next year, he should bring in a measure for the amendment of the Act himself.
  Moved, "That the House do now adjourn."
  After short debate, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly at a quarter past Eight o'clock, 'till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.