Lords Sitting of 20 May 1879

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Tenant Right (Ireland) (35), negatived.
Committee—Report—Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, Amendment* (78); Omnibus Regulation* (41–87).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Ashton-under-Lyne, &c.)* (79), and passed.

INDIA—DISTURBANCES IN BOMBAY.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I wish to put a Question to the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India, of which I have given him private Notice, on a subject of great importance, mention of which has again been made in the newspapers this morning. For some days past, very strange reports have appeared in the newspapers of grave disturbances which have taken place in the Presidency of Bombay, in the Deccan, and of incendiary fires near Poonah; and, in the papers of yesterday, there was a more detailed account. It was reported that the magistrate's court, and other public buildings, had been fired, that large bands of armed Dacoits were marauding the country, and great loss of property has ensued. Lastly—which is a very remarkable circumstance—a manifesto is said to have been put out by some of these bands, in which there are not only statements made as to the great distress of the country, the severe pressure of taxes on the people, but a reward of 1,000 rupees is placed on the head of the Governor, Sir Richard Temple, unless he complies

  795
  with their demands. The state of things is no doubt serious. It is impossible to say quite what it means, and what causes have produced it—whether these are merely armed bands, or bands acting in concert and sympathy with the population; but I believe that it is almost unprecedented in Indian history in our day that such a manifesto should be issued threatening the life of the Governor of one of the British Provinces. I shall be glad to hear from my noble Friend, Whether or not these statements are correct, and whether he can throw any light upon the subject?
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: There can be no doubt that great distress prevails in the Deccan; and I have, in private letters, received accounts of that distress. It is also true that within some weeks past, to a certain extent, the Dacoits have committed numerous robberies and other outrages; but I have no knowledge of the particular transactions reported in the newspapers within the last few days—though I think them not unlikely, inasmuch as it has been reported that bands of Dacoits have been traversing the Provinces and committing outrages to a certain extent. Seeing such detailed accounts in the newspapers, I telegraphed this morning to the Governor of Bombay asking for information; but I have not as yet received a reply. The latest accounts which I received by last mail conveyed the intelligence that although bands of Dacoits had been traversing the country, the Deccan was quieter, and that things seemed to be settling down.

TENANT RIGHT (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Earl of Belmore.)
TENANT RIGHT (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NO. 35.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he desired to explain what the Bill proposed to do, and endeavour to remove some misapprehensions which existed with regard to it, and then he would explain some two or three Amendments which he desired to introduce into it in Committee, if the Bill should reach that stage. The noble Viscount sitting near him (Viscount Lifford) had given Notice of his intention to move the rejection of the Bill. That, he thought,
  796
  was much to be regretted; but as he believed this step was founded on certain misapprehensions, he would now endeavour to remove them. The Bill, if amended in accordance with his views, would be practically the same as that introduced by Mr. Mulholland, the Member for Downpatrick, in the other House some time ago, but which did not reach this House. The Bill, so amended, would not work any alteration in the present state of the law affecting land in Ireland. It would simply be a declaratory Bill, intended to clear up a point which caused a considerable amount of useless and vexatious litigation in Ireland. At the time when the Land Act of 1870 was passed, the Government considered that in legalizing the usages of the Province of Ulster, they were not only legalizing tenant right in the case of tenants from year to year, but also in the case of tenants holding by lease. But after the Land Act became law, it was questioned whether this was so, and more than one decision was given in opposition to the views of the Government. He himself believed that those views were correct—an opinion in which he was fortified by the expressions of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, and of the noble and learned Lord the then Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord O'Hagan); and since the Bill had been laid on the Table of the House, one of the Judges of Assizes in Ireland had given judgment in a case in the same direction as that to which the Bill pointed. The Amendments which he wished to introduce into the Bill were of two kinds. There were certain words in the Bill which, if they were allowed to remain unqualified, would extend the operation of the measure beyond the Province of Ulster. The words to which he referred were not within the scope of the Preamble of the Bill, which expressly pointed out that the Bill was intended to apply in the case of the usages of Ulster. He proposed, therefore, that all such words in the 2nd section of the Bill as would extend the operation of the measure beyond the Province of Ulster, as well as the words "or other usages analogous thereto," to be found further on, should be struck out of the Bill. He had no desire to legislate in the dark for the other Provinces, and it would only lead to confusion to introduce this custom

  797
  in places where it did not previously exist. His next Amendment was of a different character. The 2nd clause of the Bill ran at present as follows:—
  "In the case of any claim under the 1st section of the principal Act in respect of a holding which, if it had been held from year to year, would have been subject to the usages known as the Ulster tenant-right, the persons entitled to sustain such claim shall be entitled to do so, notwithstanding that the said holding-may be held under a lease that shall have expired."
  To these words he proposed to add the following:—
  "Unless the landlord shall give satisfactory proof that it has not been the custom on the holding, or on the estate of which such holding forms a part, to allow the benefit of the said custom or usages at the expiration of such lease or leases."
  A judgment by Lord Mansfield had more than once been quoted, in which that eminent Judge had laid down "that custom should override covenant." This principle, though it might be correct law, should not, he maintained, be allowed to stand in the way of the measure before their Lordships. To those familiar only with the customs of England and Scotland, it was difficult to understand the operation of the Land Act; but their Lordships would understand that, in the case of Irish tenant right, they were not dealing with one interest only, but with two—namely, the interest of the landlord, and that of the tenant, which was legalized by the Act of 1870. Under the Act, as he understood it, the landlord had a right, at the close of the lease, to re-consider the value of the holding, and to re-let it at the full market price; and the tenant, on the other hand, having the right to compensation if he were disturbed, or to remain at a fair rent. His noble Friend (Viscount Lifford), last year, had referred to the case of Lord Leitrim; but it was well known that that noble Lord had a good deal of litigation with his tenants, and, no doubt, had sometimes to pay a large amount in compensation. The amount of compensation, whether it was small or large, did not affect the principle of the case at all. He did not think that if his noble Friend succeeded in his opposition to the Bill he would improve the position of the landlords of Ireland. His noble Friend had had a very long experience as an active landlord in the North of Ireland;
  798
  and he asked him whether he thought that many years would elapse before, in some manner or other, this matter would be settled, and whether a postponed settlement was likely to be in the interests of the landlord? He was himself aware that on many estates in the North of Ireland the principle which the Bill would establish prevailed. He would only mention those of Lord Downshire, one of the largest in Ireland; of the Duke of Abercorn, whose liberality to his tenants was well known; and of Lord Londonderry, who had hoped to be present to support the Bill. He earnestly asked their Lordships to give a second reading to the Bill, and not, by rejecting it, to inflict a heavy blow and a sore discouragement on those who were willing to be their landlords' friends, if they would only let them.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Belmore.)
  VISCOUNT LIFFORD, in moving that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, said: I have heard it reported that it was said in "another place" by a Conservative of a Tenant Bight Bill introduced by another Conservative—"This Bill is not to be considered harmless on account of its insignificance." If my noble Friend will not be offended, I will say the same of the Bill before your Lordships. If you will look back to the history of Ireland, you will see that it is, with few exceptions, a course of sacrifice of great principles for temporary and often paltry ends. This Bill is not an exception. It proposes to sacrifice a great principle of English law, laid down by Lord Mansfield, that a custom shall not override a covenant for some advantage, which no one has asked for, about which few people care, and which, as seems to me, is not altogether patent on the surface of the Bill. The first case, to the circumstances of which the Bill before your Lordships would apply, was a curious case—"M'Noon v. Beauclerc"—in the County of Down. There a very old lease of land close to the landlord's residence expired. The landlord wished to take the land, or some of it, into his own hands; and the County Court Judge awarded £1,400 against the landlord as tenant right, or something about £20 an acre. This dropped through, as I understand, from some informality.

  799
  Then came a case of "Austin v. Scott," in the County of Derry, which was decided by Chief Justice Monahan in accordance with the principle of this Bill, but was appealed, and the appeal was not heard in consequence of the death of one of the parties. Then came a case—Lord Ranfurly and Murphy—in Tyrone, and that was decided by the County Court Judge in accordance with this Bill; but that decision was reversed on appeal. It is, therefore, unfair to state in the Preamble of this Bill that doubts have arisen, because in no instance has a case been determined in accordance with this Bill, and one has been determined against it. Notwithstanding, it may perhaps be said, as it has been said, that what your Lordships are asked to do now was done by the Act of 1870. If so, which of your Lordships was aware that you were then abrogating without protest, without notice, a fundamental principle of English law? Judge Barry, then Attorney General, said, in supporting the Bill of 1870—
  "No human being ever felt disposed to deny that if persons entered into a contract it was their duty to abide by it. Nobody ever questioned the doctrine that if a man took land for a certain number of years under a lease, he was bound to quit at the end of the term without notice."
  Sir Roundell Palmer, now Lord Sol-borne, said—
  "The retrospective part" [of the 3rd clause] "applicable to present tenancies, left all leases for fixed terms exactly as they stood by law, so that there would be no claim against the landlord upon the termination of any existing lease."—[3 Hansard, cc. 1536.]
  These are the statements on which your Lordships passed the Act of 1870; and if your Lordships were to pass this Bill, you would make a greater inroad on the principle of English law and English equity than this Act ever did. And now I hope you will bear with me while I refer to the Land Act itself, with a view to showing the danger, the injury to Ireland, of further extension of it. In the first place, I am ready, in the barren, but somewhat populous district in which I live, loyally to make the best of it. There is much that is valuable in it, especially the "Bright Clauses." A Land Act was necessary; and I have, long before Mr. Gladstone took it up, urged in your Lordships' Committees that the tenant on eviction should be compensated for everything he or his predecessors had expended on the land, the presumption
  800
  to be in favour of the tenant, failing proof to the contrary. But the Land Act, while it did not give so much to the tenant as that would have given, looking to the whole of Ireland, went far beyond it in the invasion of the rights of property, and that on no fixed principle whatever; so that to a people brought up as the Irish people were, half-a-century ago, to believe that the land was theirs and not the owner's, it was like giving blood to a tiger, though the Irish people have, for the most part, endured the trial with a marvellous patience. Still, here are some of their demands which, if this Bill be passed, will, of course, apply to the termination of a lease—
  "The Act of 1870 has been tried now for three years, and its very framers must admit that it has utterly failed to accomplish the end for which it was passed—namely, the protection of the homes and properties of the Irish farmers. Therefore, it takes its place among the other abortive attempts that have been made for the last 16 years to solve the Irish difficulty. Nothing will or can meet the ease but fixity and valued rents, with right to sell."
  At a meeting held in Mary borough in 1873—there were 10,000 people present—the following resolution was passed:—
  "That we insist on perpetuity of tenure, valuation of rents, and free sale, as the only just settlement of the Land Question."
  Let the landlord do what he likes with his own demesne; but one of the speakers denied that the land in the occupation of the tenant was his. The speaker asked—
  "Is not the whole country in a state of dismay, irritation, and alarm, because of a Land Act, which is as huge a piece of treachery as was ever permitted to see the light? The electors asked for an Act which would secure them in their tenures, which would give them a right to property erected by their industry, and which would enable them to either hold, bequeath, or sell that property at pleasure, and what is the nature of the Land Act which these Representatives have had the assurance to dictate to them, and as to which Bumbledom has vomited so much? Why, it is an act of treachery, which has hardly a single redeeming clause annexed to it."
  I have read enough to show your Lordships that the violation of the laws of property has produced its natural effect, and that the scent of spoliation has encouraged demands of which the framers of the Land Act never dreamed. And now my noble Friend steps in with his little drop of blood, infinitesimally small and worthless in the opinion of the Irish tenant, but, in principle, a greater

  801
  breach of the laws of property than anything in the Land Act, and lays it in the track to what? Here are the words of a man who, in his outspoken, fearless utterances, was a truer friend to the Irish tenant than any of those who cajoled him or deceived him—the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. He said—
  "Well, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to go further, and to say that this custom should be extended to districts and estates upon which it does not now prevail. To that I reply, unhesitatingly, that if we begin de novo I cannot conceive any worse system upon which land can be held than that which is known as the Ulster custom. What is that custom? Why, as I said the other day, it is simply a device for locking up the capital, which otherwise ought to be spent upon the soil. The hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. MacCarthy) spoke upon the question of political economy in connection with the matter. In a former debate, I ventured to tender the advice that the political economist had better hold his peace in a discussion of this question from the point of view of the tenant-right advocates; because, from the point of view of political economy, what can be worse than withdrawing capital which ought to be employed in the cultivation 'of the soil, and not merely locking it up—that would be bad enough—but removing it altogether from the land? A man comes into a farm under the Ulster custom. He pays down all the money he has, all he can collect from his family and friends, and all he can borrow from usurers and others, and what becomes of the money? When he leaves the farm the money is, perhaps, taken to the Colonies, or it is invested in business, miles away from the land upon which it ought to be spent; and I cannot conceive anybody arguing, from the politico-economical point of view, in favour of the adoption of this Ulster tenant custom where it does not prevail. So much for the first part of the Bill; and when I am asked why the Government do not address themselves to its principles, I say that the principle of this Bill is pure, undiluted, unmitigated Communism."
  This is Ulster tenant right as regards the tenants, and if it occurred at the end of a lease such would be the tenants' position. As to the landlord, it is by no means so unfavourable, for he gets all his arrears of rent out of the unfortunate incoming tenant's money; and the tenant having invested so much is adstrictus glebæ, and cannot throw up his farm, as I hear so many tenants are doing now in England. But is that a wholesome state of things as regards the economy of Ireland as a nation r There is only one point more to which I would call your Lordships' attention, and that is the increased power which the latter part of the Bill puts into the hands of the County Court Judges. These gentlemen are, I
  802
  am sure, all honest; some are able; a few learned. But when most of them were appointed, their office was not nearly so important as it became under the Land Act. In deciding land claims, they follow different modes. One gentleman takes, as the Act intends, the custom of the estate; another takes the custom of the district generally; and a third decided in three ways, for in one case he gave £20 an acre against the landlord; in another he said (page 29, Evidence before Lords' Committee) that he would give what a farm would sell for in open market; and in a more recent case he laid down the law that a small proprietor should be treated differently from a large one. The landlord must agree to whatever rents the County Court Judge chooses to fix, or pay sometimes the fee-simple value of his land applotted on such vague principles. I look on this Bill as a spoliation of the landowner, whose ancestor granted lands with covenants for quiet surrender, and probably at a low rent, in consideration of certain works to be done by the tenant instead of a high rent, as bad for the incoming tenant, but most mischievous to Ireland, as increasing the hope of further revolutionary changes, and setting at defiance the plainest laws of political economy.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Viscount Lifford.)
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he had charge of a similar Bill last Session, when the noble Viscount took alarm at some provisions which wore not in the Bill, as he had done just now, and stated his objections so forcibly that the Bill was thrown out. The Bill did not contain any of the revolutionary measures of which the noble Viscount seemed so apprehensive; it referred only to a special class of cases, and it could not be extended to others. It was not brought forward by a farmers' club or a tenants' league, to obtain by surprise and clamour that to which they were not entitled; but it was promoted by large proprietors in the North of Ireland, who examined the Bill with prepossessions against it, and, after scrutiny, came to the conclusion that the claim of the tenants was just, and that it would be just and wise to apply it. If it were said that a tenant who

  803
  had a claim might go into the County Court to establish it, he replied that one object of the Bill was to prevent unnecessary litigation, and to arrive at the same conclusion by a simpler process.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, their Lordships knew well the hatred entertained by the noble Viscount, who had moved the rejection of the Bill, for the Ulster custom and the Land Act, and, if they had forgotten it, they would have been reminded of it now. The noble Viscount's experience of the Ulster custom had not been of the most favourable kind; he had probably seen it in its most objectionable forms, with not much improvement upon farms, and with an extravagant rate of payment for the same. He did not know whether the noble Viscount would go so far as the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had lately said that the Ulster custom was by far the worst tenure he knew of on the face of the globe. That might be an opinion excusable in a gentleman who was only accustomed to the tenure of land in England and Scotland; but it was marvellous how such an opinion could be hold by anyone acquainted with the various Provinces of Ireland. The question was one of results; it must be decided by the facts. Let anyone compare the condition of the tenants at will under the Ulster custom, with all its drawbacks and extravagances, with the condition of the tenants at will—the ordinary small poor tenants at will—throughout the rest of Ireland, and he would say—"Solvitur ambulando; the case is settled by the facts." The Land Act said that certain usages should be enforced by law; and this Bill said that one of those usages, when it was proved, should not be defeated by any doubts and difficulties entertained by the County Court Judge. It had been proved in numerous cases that the past existence of a lease did not, according to the Ulster understanding, which formed a moral and equitable bargain between the landlord and the tenant, debar the tenant from claiming tenant-right under the Ulster custom; and the only object of the Bill was that the tenant should be at liberty, if he could, to prove that such a usage attached to his farm. Some of the County Court Judges had held this view, which, in the case of an appeal by the Irish Society, had been confirmed by a Judge of Assize; but that was only a
  804
  single judgment of the Assize Court, and the question had never been raised before the Land Court in Dublin. The intention of the Bill was not to add anything to the provisions of the Land Act, and not to increase the powers of the County Court Judges, but simply to remove certain doubts which ought never to have existed. So far as he was concerned, he could say that the intention of the Land Act was that the usage now sought to be legalized should be legalized. For these reasons he supported the second reading of the Bill, as he did that of a similar Bill last year.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTstrongly objected to this perpetual tinkering of the Land Act, and thought their Lordships would set a very bad precedent if they consented to read this Bill a second time. The Irish landlord had been a very well-abused person; but, after the Land Act, he had supposed that he was to be left in comparative peace for some time to come. Under the present Act the tenant got compensation for all he did, whether he did it with the consent of the landlord or not. He thought that was going far enough, unless their Lordships contemplated taking away proprietary rights from the landlords altogether. The constant agitation for further change in the Land Law would create a very bad feeling if they consented to re-open the question, which, at the present time, was used very much for electioneering purposes. There was really no necessity at all for this Bill. He himself granted tenant-right at the close of a lease upon his estates in Ulster, and he knew that other landlords, upon whose estates the usage prevailed, did the same. The Bill was quite unnecessary, and he hoped it would not be read a second time.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, when, during the last Session, a Bill similar to the present came before their Lordships, he took the liberty of stating that, although the matter was one for which the Government was in no manner responsible, he should offer then, as he would offer now, some reasons why it appeared to him that their Lordships would act wisely in giving a second reading to the Bill. He must say that he thought the decision on this Bill should not be arrived at from any general view of liking or disliking the Irish Land Act of 1870. He spoke for him-

  805
  self on that subject. He was not an admirer of that measure. He took an opportunity in their Lordships' House to propose, and he thought he carried, several modifications of that measure; but he always held the opinion that, since it became law, it was the interest of all their Lordships to take care that no unnecessary friction or irritation was permitted in the working of that measure. For that reason, in 1871, when a decision was given in one of the Irish Courts—or an opinion was thrown out by one of the Judges in that country—which most seriously imperilled the interests of the tenants where sales had taken place of the property of their landlords in the Landed Estates Court, He introduced a short measure, which their Lordships accepted, to remove that doubt, and declare that the judicial opinion so given was without foundation. It appeared to him that there had now arisen exactly one of those cases in which, with a little care, their Lordships might prevent a difficulty and doubt, which might cause great irritation in various parts of Ireland if that doubt were permitted to remain unsolved. He was, therefore, glad to hear the noble Earl who moved the second reading (the Earl of Belmore) promise to offer an Amendment, which would confine the operation of the Bill to Ulster—because no question had arisen in any other part of Ireland. The Bill related merely to the custom of Ulster, and it would create confusion and doubt to extend it further. What was the question with regard to Ulster? The Act of 1870 did nothing more than this—it enacted a very simple, short sentence—which I took the liberty at the time of saying was by no means so full and clear as it ought to be—but there it was, and they must deal with as they had it. All the Act of 1870 said was—
  "The usages prevalent in the Province of Ulster which are known as, and in this Act intended to be included under the denomination of, the Ulster tenant right customs, are hereby declared to be legal, and shall, in the case of any holding in the Province of Ulster proved to be subject thereto, be enforced by this Act."
  Not a word was said about what the customs of Ulster were—no explanation was given—they were not told whether the custom of tenant right applied to leases or tenancies from year to year—the whole question was left to be solved
  806
  afterwards by the Judge of the Civil Bill Court. Now, was that a satisfactory state of things? He thought it was not at the time—he thought it was not now. The difficulty they were now bound to consider arose from the want of clearness in the Act upon that subject. He had no doubt many of their Lordships were surprised at Ulster tenant right in any shape or form, and, no doubt, many more were surprised that Ulster tenant right custom applied where there had been a lease; but there was not the slightest doubt that in many parts of Ulster the system was always held to apply even where there was a lease. If their Lordships would look at the Devon Commission evidence, a number of cases would be found there sufficient to satisfy the Commissioners that Ulster tenant right was, in many parts, applied where there were leases; and to-night, he thought, instances were mentioned—names being given in the North of Ireland—that Ulster tenant right custom was allowed to prevail where there was a lease. Now, it was not enough to say that was very wrong, and contrary to what our ideas were. But the Act of 1870 had told them that whatever was de facto the custom of Ulster was legal; and, therefore, the only question that remained was, what de facto was the custom in the particular Province? How was that to be solved? He wished to point out this to those interested in property in Ulster—they were at present in this danger and difficulty, that wherever there was property upon which tenant right had existed in the case of tenancies from year to year, there the inference to be drawn was, that in the case of leases, also, they must take it to exist. The Judge was made judge of the fact by the Act of Parliament; and, therefore, though they might not like the conclusion, they must accept it. On the other hand, the danger of the tenant was this—the Judge might decide that it was contrary to the eternal fitness of things that there should be tenant right custom in the case of a lease—and there was danger to the tenant in that respect. This was really a casus omissus in the Act of 1870, which ought to be supplied by judicious and wise legislation. He should object to the Bill as it stood; but, with the Amendment of his noble Friend, he thought they would do well to read the Bill a

  807
  second time. He understood that his noble Friend would follow the words of the Bill up to a certain point, and then add a Proviso that the customs should not apply if the landlord were able to show that upon any holding, or any property of which it was part, it had not been the custom to allow tenant right at the expiration of a lease. It appeared to him, therefore, that with that modification of the Bill, and the difficulty being cleared up that had now arisen, their Lordships would act wisely by reading the Bill a second time.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLthought their Lordships were entitled to complain of being called on to vote for a Bill which was totally different from the Bill now before them. The noble and learned Lord had made an admirable—he would not say a plausible—defence, but a really sound defence for such a Bill as he described, if only the state of facts alleged really existed. The noble and learned Lord, however, did not so much offer a defence of the Bill, as draw attention to the manner in which it affected the Land Act of 1870. Now, he (the Duke of Argyll) was one of the authors of that Act, and he entirely disagreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Belmore) as to the general principles he had laid down as regarded that Act. he maintained that its principle was this—as had been clearly explained by the noble Earl behind him (Earl For-tescue)—that where customs, properly so called—where usages generally existed, so that they might be presumed to enter into the understandings of persons making contracts, those customs and usages really formed part of the contract, and should be recognized by Parliament. Therefore, when a custom was proved to be the usage of an estate, they were imported into the contract where a lease was entered into, and became part of the contract. These customs were recognized by Parliament, and it was upon the principle of legalizing existing customs that the Irish Land Act was founded. He must complain of the charge which the noble and learned Lord made of ambiguity in the Land Act. In that Act customs and usages were recognized; but customs and usages were not confined to Ireland—they existed in England and Scotland as well, though in these countries they were more limited. In various parts of
  808
  Scotland there were usages perfectly well understood, which were never included in the contract; but which, if disputed in a Court of Law, would be invariably considered part of the contract. Therefore, he contended that the late Government were perfectly right when they sanctioned usages in general terms, and left it to the Courts of Law to say what were usages. The effect of the 2nd clause of this Bill was not to enable the Courts of Law to ascertain a usage, but to import, by Act of Parliament, a new usage. The noble Earl (the Earl of Longford), who was in charge of the Bill last year, recommended this measure on the ground that it had not emanated from farmers' clubs, but was brought in by great proprietors. But did the noble Earl know what was in the mind of the convey-ancer? He must say it was hardly fair for the noble and learned Lord representing the Government to recommend the House to vote for the principle of the Bill because the Bill would be subsequently altered in Committee. For his own part, he objected to the principle of the Bill, because it directed the Irish Judges to presume that there was a usage where properly there was none. If the object of the Bill was that the existence of a lease should not preclude the tenant from making a claim, why should the Bill have been brought in? If their Lordships read the provisions of the Irish Land Act, they would see distinctly that every holder of a tenement in Ulster would be entitled to make his claim according to usage, and there was no clause whatever which limited him in making it. The noble and learned Lord who was at the head of the Law in England had brought an accusation against the Irish Judges that they did not interpret the law aright, but were guided by what they considered the eternal fitness of things.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORexplained, that what he said was that there was a difference of opinion on the subject, and that doubts had been thrown on the meaning of the Act. Where an estate had been sold in the Landed Estates Court, and notice had not been taken of the rights which the tenant might have under the Act, those rights might be sacrificed. It was to remove these doubts that he introduced a Bill himself in 1871.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he did not think the Irish Judges would be guided by the eternal fitness of things, but by their duty in ascertaining the facts. He had heard of one or two cases in which it had been found that tenants under lease were entitled to make this claim. He could not conscientiously give his vote in favour of the second reading of the Bill, under the vague expectation there would be made in Committee certain Amendments of which the House at present knew nothing.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, that as the Bill was not confined to Ulster, or the Ulster landlords, those of their Lordships who resided in other parts of the country were, he thought, entitled to express an opinion upon it. He opposed the second reading, on the ground that the Bill was wholly unnecessary, and also that it was inconsistent with the rights of property. If the Bill were to pass, it would lead to claims of tenant-right in every case whore leases existed. Even if the Amendments suggested by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack were made, the presumption would be altered, and instead of the tenant having to prove that the custom did exist, the landlord would have to prove that it did not. If the Ulster custom, or anything approaching it, were extended to the other parts of Ireland, the value of estates, and of all reversionary interests in estates, would be diminished to a considerable extent. It exceeded his comprehension how landlords could come forward to advocate such a measure. Lord Justice Christian, in a judgment delivered in the Court of Appeal on the construction of the 28th section of the Land Act, said that hundreds of thousands of pounds belonging to the landlords of Ulster had been confiscated. Their Lordships were now asked to pass a Bill to extend the confiscation still further.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that every noble Lord who had expressed an intention of supporting the Bill on the second reading had emphatically condemned it in the form in which it now stood. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had condemned it, and so had the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) who was one of the authors of the Land Act of 1870. It was admitted on all hands that if the Bill
  810
  were to pass, the one clause which contained the whole substance of it would require to be materially altered. In these circumstances, was it not rather unreasonable that their Lordships should be called on to sanction a Bill which it was not intended should be passed in its present form? If the Bill were withdrawn, and a new one, properly drawn, introduced, they would know what they were doing; whereas, it was very unfair to ask their Lordships to go to a division, and vote "Aye" or "No," when they could not know what it really was they were voting upon. They might, in the result, discover that they were voting for or against principles entirely out of harmony with their real feelings on the question. What he would recommend was that the Bill should now be withdrawn, and be brought up again when the Amendments to be proposed by the noble and learned Lord should have been incorporated with it.
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, that he was prepared now to vote for the Bill; but there was so strong an expression of opinion against it, in its present shape, that he thought an improvement in it would be desirable. A very small modification in the measure, such as that suggested by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, would meet the views, at all events, of his noble Friends on that (the Opposition) side of the House. As he understood the noble Earl who moved the second reading of the Bill, its provisions were not to extend beyond the Province of Ulster. The main object of the Bill being to facilitate the determination of the custom of tenant-right, where that custom existed, it appeared to him that the Bill would have more chance of success if that object was made perfectly clear. As he understood it, it was a clear and substantial question that the Bill had to settle; and the question, which was an important one, was not whether Ulster was to be governed in one way or another, but whether the Ulster tenant-right was to be legally recognized under given conditions. That which affected the Ulster tenant-right was important, for the right, as it existed, was the root of the prosperity of Ulster. Under these circumstances, he thought it highly desirable that the relations between landlord and tenant in Ulster should be permanently and definitely settled.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, lie doubted whether the Amendments referred to by the noble and learned Lord would be adequate to meet the case. He joined with the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) in asking not to be called on to vote either one way or the other whilst something most material and important was wanting; since he could not, in that case, tell whether he was voting for a principle to which he objected, or against a principle to which he would readily agree. He entirely agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Carlingford), and the noble and learned Lord (Lord O'Hagan), that it was quite clear that if there was a custom, the custom should be recognized; and, further, while it appeared from what had fallen from the noble Lord, who understood better than he could do what the feeling in Ireland was, that there was no difference of opinion in the country itself as to the desirability of existing doubts or ambiguities being settled. The Bill before the House, as he read it, said that the Judge should not go into the question of fact whether or not there was a custom applicable to this particular case; and he doubted whether the Amendment supported by the Lord Chancellor would be adequate to meet the objection. He understood the noble and learned Lord to say that it was proposed that the claim should retain its general character, but that a Proviso should be added, enabling every landlord to prove—if be thought fit—that there was no such custom applicable to the property. But that, by throwing the onus probandi upon the landlord, would be inflicting a hard and grievous burden upon him; and, further, the presumption in all cases would be raised against him that such custom did exist. He was convinced, under all circumstances, that their Lordships would agree with him that it was fit and proper that they should not be called on to vote at once. The right course would be to withdraw the Bill and have a new and proper one introduced, and then he hoped, it would be agreed to.
  THE EARL OF ANNESLEY, as a resident in County Down, the very centre of the Ulster tenant-right custom, was strongly opposed to the Bill. He invited their Lordships to consider what would be the state of affairs in England, if a large Lincolnshire farmer, for example, holds 1,000 acres, had to go to his landlord
  812
  and pay him £25,000, which was at the rate of £25 an acre, before he took possession of the land. That, however, was only an ordinary case in Ireland, and he could tell their Lordships of some extraordinary instances. The noble Lord, after citing some remarkable cases, said he would appeal to their Lordships whether they wished the same state of things to extend over the whole of Ireland? Since this Bill had been put down for second reading, he had received from an agent for considerable estates in Ireland a letter on the subject. In this communication the writer stated that the Bill introduced a totally new principle, which, in some instances, would be most injurious to the interests of the land. The writer of the letter expressed the conviction that if the Bill became law it would lead to expensive litigation in certain cases where improvements had to be paid for at the expiration of a lease. He hoped that if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill insisted on taking a division, his proposal would be rejected by a larger majority than that which threw it out last year. The Bill contained a new and vicious principle; and he felt certain that nothing was more likely to injure the prosperity of Ireland than measures calculated to interfere with the security of property in Irish land.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he rose, not for the purpose of prolonging the debate, for he had no personal knowledge of the working of the Land Act in Ireland, but for the purpose of appealing to the noble Earl at the head of the Government whether he would not join in the request made to the noble Earl who moved the second reading to withdraw the Bill? From what had fallen in the debate that night, and also in that of last year, he thought that a grievance existed which ought to be redressed. He made this appeal to the noble Earl at the head of the Government in antagonism to the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill, for he felt convinced that if he pressed the second reading to a division, he would find himself, notwithstanding the powerful support of Her Majesty's Government, in a minority, and, therefore, this grievance would remain entirely unredressed. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Prime Minister would join in urging the noble Earl to withdraw the Bill, and to introduce it in a different shape,

  813
  so as to meet the views which had been expressed in the course of the debate.
  On Question, that ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a on this day six months.

STATE OF THE COUNTRY—DEPRESSION OF TRADE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDrose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to a meeting of manufacturers at Huddersfield on the 2nd of the present month? The meeting to which he referred was called by the President of the Local Chamber of Commerce, and was attended by a number of gentlemen engaged in the manufacture of woollen goods. The first resolution passed affirmed that the present serious depression in the woollen industry in this country was largely caused by foreign competition. From the statements made by the several speakers at this meeting, and from the statistics of a valuable paper read by Mr. Brassey (extracts from which the noble Duke quoted), it was clear that the very greatest depression existed in the woollen trade, and that this depression was not decreasing, but increasing. They took exception to the statement of the noble Earl at the head of the Government on the 20th of April, that the volume of our foreign trade had not diminished; and seeing that foreign workmen worked 72 hours a-week they passed a second resolution, to present to Her Majesty's Government a Memorial praying for a Bill which should enable workers in factories to work 60 hours a-week, as could be done before the Act of 1874. It was clear, therefore, that the manufacturers present at the meeting desired that the hours of labour should be increased. He had sent a message to the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), to inform him that he intended to bring the resolutions agreed to by the meeting before the notice of their Lordships; but he regretted to say that the noble Earl was unable to be present. The noble Earl had signalized himself by his devotion to the factory workers of this country, who were indebted to his ability, energy, and perseverance for the salutary legis-
  814
  lation which regulated their hours of labour. Were, then, their Lordships going to agree to the prayer of the Memorial to which he had referred and to repeal the Factory Acts, so that the people, by working some 72 hours a-week instead of 56, might aid in reducing the intensity of the present depression? He thought their Lordships would dismiss the suggestion at once. As usual, there were three courses open to their Lordships. The first he had already mentioned. The second was one which might be debated, and which he was afraid had been somewhat popular. It was to hold our arms, open our mouths, and wait for something to fall into them; to trust, in short, to Providence, and hope that something of a satisfactory nature would happen. That would be a very easy course to pursue; but it was not one which their Lordships would assent to. He would again refer for a moment to the proposal to increase the hours of labour. A very important pamphlet had been written on the subject by a Mr. Lister, who pointed out that we were being ruined by having to compete with foreign nations, by whom 72 hours of labour were allowed in the week. Later on, Mr. Lister said—
  "The Conservatives passed the Factory Act and the Liberals Free Trade; and these are antagonistic to each other; and I say that we cannot have restricted labour and unrestricted competition. The question, therefore, narrows itself to this issue—are we to make our factory operatives slaves, in order that we may compete with our rivals, or are we to protect both the labourer and the produce of his labour?"
  Now that gentleman attended the meeting at Huddersfield, and, presumably, was a consenting party to the resolution in favour of extending the hours of labour from 56 to 60 hours. What had caused the change in his opinion? Perhaps he had read the words recently uttered by his noble Friend—namely, that reciprocity was a phantom, and he might have thought that, as he could get no relief in that direction, there was nothing for it but to lengthen the hours of labour. He (the Duke of Rutland) quite admitted that reciprocity was now a phantom; but he asked whether, if they put on duties on foreign imports, reciprocity would not, instead of being a phantom, become a living power? No fewer than 168 articles had been taken off the tariff, and only 22 remained on.

  815
  Why should they not say to foreign Powers—"Take off your duties, and we will treat you in the same way?" If they did, reciprocity would become a force; now it was as an enormous gun, without either powder or shot, but properly loaded it would become as formidable as one of the Armstrong guns. They had been, on a late occasion, reminded of the number of Treaties they had with foreign nations containing the "most favoured nation" clause, and it was said that they were bound to treat all those nations in the same way. That might be so; but he saw that last night there was a short debate on this subject in "another place," and that Mr. Bourke stated that the French Treaty had lapsed in December, and that other Treaties were about to lapse. Might he not suggest that those Treaties might not be renewed at all, or else renewed leaving out the "most favoured nation" clause, or in any other way in which life could be given to reciprocity? He now came to the third course which they might adopt, and which he believed was most likely to be conducive to the interests of the country; and that was to put a moderate duty on foreign imports. In favour of such a course he could cite Chatham, and Pitt, and Huskisson, and Thiers, and Bismarck, and Derby, and George Bentinck, and, might he not add, the name of Disraeli? These were some of the greatest statesmen who had ever lived, and they had all advocated a system of import duty. There was not a country under the sun, with the exception of this, which had not adopted the system. Would it not, if adopted here, relieve those who were suffering from the depression of trade, by means of indirect taxation? They now raised, on an average, £120,000,000 a-year by taxation and rates, and of that sum £20,000,000 only was raised by indirect taxation. Was that a fair proportion as between the two systems? No one, he thought, could say that it was. For all these reasons he hoped they would make some compensation to the hard-pressed manufacture of which he had spoken, by putting some duty on foreign imports, and protecting, not one industry or two, but all the industries of this great country. The ultra-Free Traders seemed to think that all the world was mad except themselves; but he hoped he had shown that the time had come
  816
  when we ought to take some step for ameliorating the condition of our commerce and industry, even if we were to follow the example of those poor unenlightened French, or Germans, or Canadians.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to my noble Friend's expression of his views, which reminded me almost of the days of my youth, when I heard doctrines of the same kind enforced by himself with the same energy and determination. But I do not think my noble Friend has treated me very fairly in respect of the manner and the occasion which he has selected for bringing these matters before the House. In the first place, the Question, of which my noble Friend had given Notice, was whether my attention had been called to a meeting of manufacturers at Huddersfield on the 2nd of May? I keep my eye on public meetings as much, probably, as any Member of your Lordships' House, but, unfortunately, that meeting escaped my observation; and my noble Friend, by an inadvertence which I am sure was quite unintentional on his part, did not in his Notice give me any clue to the subject which had occasioned that meeting, and which he thought of sufficient interest to justify him in bringing it under the notice of your Lordships. But from the statement which my noble Friend has now made, I gather that the meeting was held in a manufacturing town of repute, in consequence of the general depression and distress, in reference to which I made some remarks a short time ago. I did not collect from my noble Friend anything which really seemed to meet the observations I then made. By way of refuting my remarks, he quoted the opinion of a gentleman (Mr. Brassey), who, although I do not know him, I have no doubt is a competent witness to the fact, that not merely the value of our woollen exports, but the amount—the volume of them—has considerably diminished. But, as a matter of fact, I never gave an opinion upon the state of the particular trade to which my noble Friend has called our attention this evening. I spoke generally, when I said that while the value of our exports had fallen off their volume remained unchanged. That statement was made upon official

  817
  authority, and upon facts the accuracy of which no one can impugn, and it is perfectly consistent with the fact—if fact it be—that the amount of our woollen exports has diminished. The total amount of our exports may have been maintained, while our woollen exports may have diminished. I come now to the subject of recriprocity—and I must say it is gratifying- to find that the arguments which were elicited in the course of the previous debate on this subject have convinced my noble Friend that reciprocity cannot be, in present circumstances at least, a satisfactory remedy for the state of things to which he has called attention. I showed, on that previous occasion, that reciprocity was really impossible with us. First of all, because we had almost destroyed our tariff. I stated that when we had still 168 articles left on our tariff the idea of reciprocity was not entertained; and that at the present moment the number of those articles was only 22, which it would be difficult for us to touch, since Revenue mainly depended upon them. But I also called the attention of my noble Friend to another difficulty which we should encounter in attempting to introduce the principle of reciprocity—namely, the number of Commercial Treaties we had entered upon, that number being, if I recollect aright, 38, every one of which contained the "favoured nation clause"—so that in obtaining a concession from any particular Power in return for one conceded by us, the remaining 37 nations would have the right to claim from us the same concession. I showed my noble Friend that, in these circumstances, the introduction of reciprocity must be a process of considerable time. I ought then to have added—what is an important consideration—that 20 of those Treaties are extended to our Colonies. The whole, therefore, of their vast foreign commerce would be disturbed, and possibly destroyed, if we suddenly interfered with those Treaties. Some of them are for a long term of years—10 years—others have conditions to be observed in terminating them which it would not be easy to fulfil. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that it might take a quarter of a century to rid ourselves of all this machinery of Commercial Treaties founded upon the principle of the "favoured nation clause." It is not, therefore, surprising,
  818
  after all, that my noble Friend should be convinced that reciprocity, in the present state of affairs, is not the easy remedy which, unfortunately, so many people throughout the county consider it to be for the manufacturing and commercial distress now prevalent. My noble Friend did not come forward with the fresh remedy for the evil which appears to have been adopted by this meeting at Huddorsfield. The meeting at Huddersfield seemed to regard the Factory Laws as the great cause of this evil. Well, my Lords, I am not prepared myself to change my opinion upon the wisdom, the beneficence, and the national advantage of that great system of legislation, commonly called the Factory Acts, without evidence more convincing than any yet produced that the distress in our manufactures is to be ascribed to that diminution of working hours which many believe adds to the efficacy of labour. Considering the unanimity of opinion with which your Lordships adopted that system of legislation, I do not suppose your Lordships would readily agree to a change. I do not think my noble Friend himself would do so. Well, then, if my noble Friend agrees that reciprocity is a phantom, and if he agrees that it is not in any legislative increase of the hours of labour that a remedy should be found for the manufacturing and commercial distress now existing, what is really the remedy which the noble Duke wishes us to adopt? It is neither more nor less than the imposing upon all foreign articles what my noble Friend calls "a moderate duty," but which I shall call a duty, without the epithet, because I have observed that opinions as to what constitutes moderation differ greatly. I have no idea myself as to what are the "moderate duties" which my noble Friend would impose. Well, my Lords, this brings us face to face with one of the gravest questions that can demand our attention; and is it to be expected—is it fair to expect—that we should enter upon a discussion of it simply because my noble Friend has placed a Notice on the Paper that he will call attention to a meeting of manufacturers in Huddersfield on the 2nd of May—a meeting, the object of which is not even stated? If the noble Duke thinks the time has come for a vast change in the commercial system of the

  819
  country, let him give Notice that he will call attention to the subject—let us have an attendance adequate to the occasion—whatever may be our opinions, let us have an opportunity of enforcing them by all that documentary evidence which the experience of many years has afforded us; and let us have a discussion worthy of the subject which by the country generally may be received with content and confidence. I must decline, on an occasion like the present, to enter on such a discussion. It is not unsatisfactory that by those guerrilla remarks we have had on two or three occasions the position occupied by my noble Friend and a numerous party in the country is now clear. It is not a movement in favour of reciprocity—which, in the present state of affairs, is acknowledged to be a phantom. It is not a movement for increasing the hours of labour—which my noble Friend says he will not sanction. It is a movement to produce a tariff which shall encounter the hostile tariffs of other countries by equal duties and equal regulations. That is what is clearly before the country now. The details of this change in our commercial system should be put before the country completely and clearly. Let us know what is to be the nature of this new tariff. It is not satisfactory to hear that it is to consist of what are called "moderate" duties—because one man will consider 20 per cent a moderate duty, and another man will consider 5 per cent moderate. Let us know clearly whether those who are proposing these changes are prepared to extend these duties to agriculture and its products. The noble Duke has reminded me of a remark I made in a former debate, and which I do not shrink from now. Of all the distress which now prevails among different interests, agricultural distress, which is so severe, is, perhaps, the only instance in which that severity can be traced or attributed to the change in our commercial system which was made when the principle of Protection was relinquished by the country. Is my noble Friend prepared to give to the agricultural interest that protection which he thinks is necessary? In the discussions which the present distress has led to, I have heard of schemes for relieving the pressure on British industry by what are called import duties; but we have always been told that land will be an exception
  820
  to that protection, and that no article of agricultural produce is to be subject to these import duties. I can only protest against the injustice, if you are to have a protective system, that, under the plea that it is impossible to tax the food of the people, the landed interest and all its produce is to be subjected to unequal treatment. I hope your Lordships will not be induced to enter into a long and desultory discussion, when we have not before us any proposition embodying the conviction which my noble Friend so earnestly entertains. If he will bring before us the question whether we will give up the commercial system which was established 35 years ago, I am sure the House will give to so important a subject, brought forward by a Member of the House whom all so much respect, that due consideration which it would deserve.

INDIA—TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH INDIA.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLrose to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copies of any minutes or memoranda by the Secretary of State for India, or by Members of Council, in 1873, on the subject of telegraphic communications with the Government of India."
  The noble Duke said, he would not have brought the matter forward at so late an hour, but that by the time their Lordships met again he should probably be on the high seas. His object in moving for these Papers was this—the Viceroy had repealed the cotton duties; the repeal would involve an estimated loss of £200,000 a-year to the revenues of India; and the Viceroy had done this by overruling, which he had the legal power to do, his Council in India. As their Lordships were aware, the sanction of the Government at home to that course of action had been given, but not in the form of a despatch which had been passed by the Council of the Secretary of State for India. He did not wish to enter on the policy of the repeal of the duties; but it was evident that the step had been taken in a manner and at a time which had roused feelings of great asperity towards this country in India. A Member of the Council in India had recorded his die-

  821
  sent in language that was all the more remarkable, seeing that in other respects he was a warm supporter of the policy of the Government. He said—
  "I am convinced I do not overstate the case when I express ray firm belief that there are not at the present time a dozen officials in India who do not regret the policy which has been adopted in this matter as a policy adopted, not in the interests of India, nor even in the interests of England, but in the supposed interest of a political Party, the Leaders of which admit that it is necessary at any cost to retain the support of the cotton manufacturers of Lancashire."
  This was a grave accusation, which he quoted, not for the purpose of suggesting that this had been the motive of the Viceroy, but to show that the subject was one on which it was important not to have acted without the fullest opportunity given to the constituted authorities to record their opinions in the proscribed manner. The Viceroy and the Secretary of State might override their Councils; but the Act of 1857 provided that every order or communication proposed to be sent to India, or made in the United Kingdom, should be submitted to a meeting of the Council or placed in the Council Room for seven days before it was sent out or issued. True, the Secretary of State might act through his Secret Committee; but there was no pretence for saying that a reform of the tariff was a matter to go through the Secret Committee. The Secretary of State had intimated to the Viceroy that his decision would be upheld; but that had been done without any communication with the Council, so that the Members had not had even an opportunity of recording their opinions on the policy of the act. This course of procedure had been defended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in "another place." He had no complaint to make as to the accuracy of the statement in its words given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Verbally, it was accurate; but the impression it conveyed out-of-doors was quite inaccurate. The noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India would admit that, so far as he was concerned, he was not responsible for the use made in this case of the particular forms referred to. He wished to state how the matter arose. He had occasion to send some telegrams to the Viceroy, and Sir Erskine Ferry questioned his right to send any telegrama without passing through the Council. He raised the general question
  822
  of principle—Could the Secretary of State send telegraphic messages to the Viceroy without passing them through the Council? He (the Duke of Argyll) would say at once that it never could be supposed that private letters were excluded under the clause in the Act of Parliament; and it was notorious that every Secretary of State communicated freely with the Viceroy and the Government of India through private letters. This led to considerable discussion in the Office. Memoranda were written by Sir Erskine Perry and Sir Henry Maine, and the result was, it was agreed that the Secretary of State might send telegrams to the Viceroy provided they were marked with the word "personal;" but it might be seen at once how easy it would be to abuse the power of sending communications to India without consulting the Council at home. He should be sorry to discuss this question fully till he saw the Memoranda. He would only say that if this arrangement with regard to telegrams in the place of private letters was to be used, not only for the purpose of overruling, but evading altogether, the opinion of the Council on such a matter as the reduction of the Indian duties, they might as well do away with the Council altogether. Nothing would be left of their power or authority, or even of their influence—especially in a matter very nearly affecting the feelings and interests of the people of India. Therefore, it was a serious question whether the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India had or had not used this power to avoid a debate by his Council upon a matter which touched both the interests and feelings of the people of India.
  Moved, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copies of any minutes or memoranda by the Secretary of State for India, or by Members of Council, in 1873, on the subject of telegraphic communications with the Government of India.—(The Duke of Argyll?)
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that the noble Duke, in discussing this subject, had taken upon himself to guess much and surmise much—and very inaccurately. He had informed the noble Duke that he might have seen the papers relating to telegrams, if he thought proper, before he addressed the House to-night. With respect to anything that he had done which was impugned, he was there perfectly

  823
  prepared to defend it. He had not used the telegraph for the purpose of interfering with the rights of the Council, either here or in India. The Viceroy had a perfect right by law, in carrying out his views, to overrule his Council; and it was not necessary for him to make any application to the Secretary of State for India in Council on the subject—he had the power in his own hands. But when the Viceroy asked the Secretary of State, as a Member of the Government, whether, if he took a certain course of action, the Government would be prepared to support him, he (Viscount Cranbrook) was perfectly entitled to reply in the way which he did; but the Members of the Council would have the same opportunities as they had before of expressing their opinions with respect to the Indian Budget, when the despatch relating to that subject was prepared to be sent out in the usual course. Every Member of the Council might minute his views to the fullest extent; and the noble Duke had himself quoted some of the very strong language which had been used by some Members of the Council of the Governor General in recording their opinions. The system of dissent he approved of to the fullest extent, if it was exercised in a fair and decent manner; but some of their opinions had become pamphlets and rhetorical expositions, instead of that kind of argumentative protest which was suited to the subjects dealt with. It seemed to him a strange novelty that the Members of the Council should undertake to impute motives alike to their Chief and to the Government in England. He entered his protest against the style of language that had been adopted on this subject. The real question was, whether the Secretary of State should be in confidential communication with the Viceroy? That was an essential part of his position; it had been the practice hitherto. The position of the Secretary of State would simply be intolerable if he were not to have any confidential intercourse with the Viceroy. These Councils were not appointed by him—they were put there as a check; but with respect to matters for which he was answerable to Parliament, the Secretary of State was perfectly entitled to communicate confidentially, either by letter or telegram, with
  824
  the Viceroy. He (Viscount Cranbrook) admitted the distinction between the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State in Council, and that telegrams from the Secretary of State in Council should be shown to the Council. With regard to the Papers moved for by the noble Duke, they should certainly be produced; and if any question was raised with respect to his conduct, he would be quite prepared to vindicate it. He had done nothing but what had been clone by his Predecessors.
  LORD LAWRENCEsaid, that what the Indian Council naturally desired was to have an opportunity of submitting to the Secretary of State arguments against any particular policy which it might be intended to pursue, and of putting their opinions upon record. A Member of Council would hardly care to place on record his opinion on a matter which had been already decided upon. It would, indeed, be useless for him to do so, except for the sake of the private satisfaction of letting Parliament hereafter know what was his individual opinion. It seemed to him that the Council had had no opportunity of using their influence with regard to the policy which had been pursued in respect to the cotton duties; for the fact appeared that the Secretary of State had allowed them no opportunity of considering the question. What moral influence could the Council have, if the Secretary of State did not consult it in important matters? It was no exaggeration to say that it would be better to do away with the Council than to treat that body as it had been treated lately. They had thus become of little use, though they were men of great experience in India, and well fitted for the position they occupied in this country. During his experience he never knew the Council to be treated in anything like the way it had been during the last two or three years.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that having been himself at the India Office, he could confirm the statement of his noble Friend. He believed he was correct in stating that, although his noble Friend (Viscount Halifax) wrote numerous private letters to the Governor General and to other authorities in India, he never took any step of importance, nor sent out any important order, without having the fullest consultation with the Members

  825
  of the Indian Council. In one of the rare cases in which his noble Friend differed from his Council—namely, in reference to the re-organization of the Indian Army—he went out of his way, so to speak, in order to secure for its Members the fullest discussion of that important question. On that occasion he overruled the Members of his Council; but he used always to give them the most ample opportunity of expressing their opinions. He did not know how much that practice had been deviated from in recent times; but, certainly, a deviation from it must reduce the Indian Council to a nullity.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Nino o'clock, to Friday next, half-past Ten o'clock.