Lords Sitting of 27 February 1880

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Ponsonby, after the death of his brother.
GALLERY OF CASTS FROM THE ANTIQUE.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  EARL COWPER, in rising to move that the following Papers be laid upon the Table:—
  "A memorial presented to the Prime Minister in August 1877 by a Committee presided over by the Duke of Westminster on the subject of the formation of a Gallery of Casts from the Antique; also, a communication from the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to the Duke of Westminster on the same subject dated 16th July 1879,"
  said, their Lordships would agree with him in the opinion that everything calculated to encourage Art in this country deserved support. Two years ago, he had asked a Question on this subject, and the noble Earl at the head of the Government, in his answer, acknowledged the importance of the matter, and had given him an assurance that there would be no difficulty on the score of expense. He had also undertaken to bring the question to a satisfactory conclusion during the Recess. The Recess passed away and nothing was done; and it appeared by the communication ad-
  1542
  dressed to the Duke of Westminster by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury on the 16th of July, 1879, that the subject was now indefinitely postponed owing to the condition of the finances of the country. All that was asked of the State was a sum of £10,000, either in a lump or in instalments of £2,000 spread over five years. Considering that this course had been advocated by almost all the principal artists and sculptors of the day, by the heads of the National Gallery and the British Museum, and by most of the head masters of our great Public Schools, and by many others; considering, also, that our expenditure in other matters was counted by many millions, he did not think that so small a sum was worth being taken into consideration. He wanted their Lordships to look at what other countries were doing. Germany had suffered far more than we had from the depression of trade; and notwithstanding this, and the extent of her gigantic Armies, she was spending large sums in carrying on excavations in Olympi and Asia Minor. There was some talk of their being stopped; but he believed they would still be gone on with. Four years ago France had begun a collection of casts at the Louvre, which would soon be completed. Sorry as he was for the disappointment, he was almost more sorry for the reason assigned. A reckless expenditure on war and preparation for war, if it had been reckless, was not made more palatable by an overstrained economy as regarded the arts of peace.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, I am not at all surprised that the noble Earl opposite, distinguished as he is for his taste and his encouragement of the Fine Arts, should be disappointed in the matters to which he has referred. I am myself disappointed; but I do not think the question could be viewed exactly in the light in which the noble Earl has placed it. This subject must be considered in relation to other claims of a similar character, which have also been made upon the public purse. Now, I think originally when this question was brought forward your Lordships were assured that a collection of Casts from the Antique, as was contemplated, would not be of an expensive character, and would be highly beneficial; but when we had to deal with it, it assumed larger proportions. It so happened that there were

  1543
  several Institutions which had collections connected with the Art and Science of the country that were urging their claims—and claims which one would suppose to be almost irresistible—upon the attention of the Government, and we had to consider the plan which, on the whole, we thought might best suit and satisfy the various claims. It was thought then that it would be desirable that some arrangement should be made by which these Institutions and collections, all tending to the same object—namely, the elevation of the public taste of the country—should be grouped together in some part of the Metropolis, where they might mutually assist each other by their collections. That involved the necessity of a considerable expenditure. At that moment a considerable expenditure for an object that was not of absolute necessity was not looked upon with such dread by the Government as on some other occasions it might have been. The matter has never been neglected. We have been in communication with the authorities of South Kensington, and at one period we were considerably advanced in the direction that the noble Earl wishes—so far, indeed, that a place of deposit for the collection was under consideration. Well, then, time went on, and I need not inform your Lordships of the effect of time upon the finances of the country. The fact is that an æsthetical education is not as compatible as I could wish with financial depression. I sympathize with the feelings of the noble Earl. It is easy, however, to point to the example of other countries, to speak of the general expenditure on great public objects, and to compare that expenditure with the comparatively trifling sum that is required to fulfil the purpose he has in view. But it must not be lost sight of that when the Treasury, in the present state of the finances, comes to a certain decision as regards public expenditure, that resolution is not come to on account of this claim for £2,000 a-year, or £10,000 in all, for a Gallery of Casts. Such a conclusion is arrived at from a large consideration of a great many items which, individually, may not be of vast importance, but which, collectively, make a sum which must be considered when the finances of the country are not in a flourishing condition. I hope the finances of the country may recover—if not
  1544
  rapidly, that they will, at all events, recover; and I can assure the noble Earl that I will do my utmost to fulfil the wishes which I believe are generally entertained in this House, and by all persons in the country who appreciate the advantage of having a collection of models of the remains of ancient sculpture. I can say little more to the noble Earl. I will read, if he likes it, the answer to the Memorial of the noble Duke (the Duke of Westminster). It is of a very prosaic character I confess. It is dated July 16, 1879—
  "My Lord Duke,—The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have carefully considered the statement which your Grace laid before the Prime Minister with reference to the formation of a Gallery of Casts from the Antique. Their Lordships willingly admit that the institution of such a Gallery would he an advantage to the cause of Art, and are not indisposed to consider the question favourably when a fitting opportunity arrives. The matter, however, cannot be said to be one of pressing importance; and, in the present state of the finances of the country, my Lords feel it their duty to refrain from asking Parliament to impose any fresh charges on the public purse unless they are justified by urgent necessity. Under these circumstances, their Lordships regret that at present they cannot say more than that they will hear the subject in mind for future consideration.
  "I have the honour to be, &c.,
  "H. SELWIN-IBBETSON.
  "His Grace the Duke of Westminster, K.G."
  That is, I admit, not an answer, on the whole, very satisfactory. It is a painful position for the Government to be placed in to refuse some expenditure on an admirable object advocated by some of the most distinguished Members of your Lordships' House; but I am clearly of opinion that it was the duty of the Government to take that course. I earnestly hope that the time will arrive without much delay when we shall be able to carry that object into effect. Of course, we have no objection to granting the Papers.
  Motion agreed to.
  A memorial presented to the Prime Minister in August 1877 by a Committee presided over by the Duke of Westminster on the subject of the formation of a Gallery of Casts from the Antique:
  Also, a communication from the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to the Duke of Westminster on the same subject dated 16th July 1879:
  Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Earl Cowper.)

COAL MINES—LEYCETT COLLIERY EXPLOSION.—QUESTION.
EARL DE LA WARRasked, Whether there was any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Inspector of Mines with regard to the Leycett Colliery accident, and also the Report of the coroner's inquest? This he considered a matter of the gravest importance, as it was well known the colliery in question was a dangerous one, inasmuch as a similar accident had taken place there in September last. He thought it would be satisfactory if the Government favoured them with some information with respect to the September explosion.
EARL BEAUCHAMP, in reply, said, that the coroner's inquest in the second instance was adjourned from January to the 18th of this month, and then further adjourned for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the relatives of the victims to bring forward additional evidence. The Government, therefore, could not at the present time lay the Report of the inquest upon the Table. Mr. Wheelhouse had been instructed to watch the proceeding on the part of the Government, as he did at the inquiry concerning the accident which took place in September last. The Report of the first accident had been sent in to the Home Office, and if the noble Earl would move for it the Government would lay it on the Table of the House.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved for the Report of the September inquiry.
Motion agreed to.
Address for—
Report of William St. James Wheelhouse. Esq., Q.C., M.P., on the Leycett Colliery Accident of September 1879.—(The Earl De La Wan:)

STATE OF IRELAND.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN, in moving for—
  "A Return of the number of ejectments from agricultural holdings that have been served, the number in which decrees have been pronounced, and the number in which decrees have been executed in each county in Ireland every year from the 1st of January 1860 to the 1st of January 1880; the Return to distinguish between ejectments for non-payment of rent, or on notice to quit, or for breach of contract, or
  1546
  for any other cause: Also, Return of the number of oases of intimidation in Ireland to prevent the payment of rent or occupation of land which came under the notice of the police during the year 1879, and the number of prosecutions undertaken and convictions obtained in such cases,"
  said, that as the present condition of Ireland and the extraordinary distress that existed there and the general and ordinary circumstances of that country had lately attracted a great deal of attention in and out of Parliament, he made no apology for bringing the question before their Lordships' House. They had some conversation the other day about the destitution at present existing in Ireland. He should not allude particularly to that now; but there was one question he would like to ask, though it related to a Bill that passed the House yesterday—the Seeds (Ireland) Bill. He need scarcely say it had nothing to do with any matters of detail; but he had lately heard that there was a difficulty in obtaining good seed potatoes; that the supply of Scottish seed was exhausted. He trusted his information was wrong. Perhaps the Lord President might be able to say whether, as far as the Government were aware, they was any scarcity of seed? Obviously, there was no use passing a Seeds (Ireland) Bill, and offering money, if there was no seed to be bought. The distress would pass; but the causes that produced it would remain. Could anything be done to remove those causes? Certainly, the experience of the past was almost sufficient to make men despair. Sir Charles Trevelyan, writing in 1848, under circumstances similar in their nature, though much more serious, said—
  "Among all our discouragements there are not wanting many and sure grounds for hope of the future. The best sign of all is that the case of Ireland is at last understood. Irish affairs are no longer a craft, a mystery; the abyss has been fathomed, the Famine has acted with a force which nothing could resist, and has exposed to view the real state of the country, so that he who runs may read."
  He went on to explain that one of the chief evils of the country was the fact that the Irish were possessed of a strange delusion, and were prone to depend upon the Government, the State, instead of depending upon their own industrial exertions. He said that the terrible trial that Ireland underwent during the

  1547
  Famine years had awakened them from this dream and dispelled this allusion, and, quoting from a speech of the late Lord Mayo, he added—
  "The prosperity of Ireland is only to be found in her own strong arm. We are able to help ourselves. We will no longer be dependent on the precarious assistance received from other lands. In a short time we shall have among his more industry and exertion—less politics and more plough; less argument and more action; less debating and more doing."
  It was lamentable to reflect how that prophecy remained unfulfilled, and to see how completely deceived in his anticipations for the future Sir Charles Trevelyan was. The problem was difficult; but its difficulty ought rather to stimulate inquiry than produce apathy or indifference. We must not be impatient. The good time looked forward to would come in time. How soon it would come depended much upon whether the Government did or did not encourage the foolish propensities of the people. A new generation had fallen into the same errors as their fathers, and appeared to have gained small experience from the past. We saw now precisely the same want of self-reliance, the same desire to rely upon State aid, the same clamour for Government money and for the institution of Government relief works. It might be popular to accede to a clamour of this kind, but it was most injudicious; and it would result again, as it did before, in much evil to the country. In certain circumstances, it might be advisable for the State to foster an industry growing up under difficulties; but nothing could be more unwise than to endeavour to create a trade artificially. If the seed grew naturally it might be wise to tend it with care until it grew strong enough to subsist independently; but it was false economy to lay out large sums of money in planting the seed in soil to which it was not naturally adapted. The plan of forcing the development of the country was tried in 1847, and it failed lamentably. Large sums of money were laid out in making roads, in constructing piers, in endeavouring to produce fisheries. Excellent roads were made, leading to nothing, and they led to nothing at the present day. Harbours and piers were constructed and had fallen into decay. Fisheries were started which had dwindled almost to nothing, or had
  1548
  entirely disappeared. Experienced fish curers were imported from Scotland, money was provided to furnish boats and nets and fishing tackle, and even fishermen's clothing; but there were two things necessary for a prosperous fishery, which were not provided—namely, fish and markets. If there was an abundant supply of fish on the West Coast of Ireland, and if the weather was such that fishing boats could keep the sea and catch them, and if the produce of the sea could be brought to market at remunerative prices, it was perfectly certain that the fisheries would have developed themselves. Private enterprize must be safely relied upon to utilize all the natural resources of a country. As a matter of fact, the only thriving fisheries were those which had sprung up naturally and which enjoyed facilities of communication, such as Galway and Kinsale. There was a large sum of money in the hands of the Commissioners of Public Works, sufficiently ample to give encouragement to any legitimate effort. He did not believe that any country could be benefited by laying out public money in schemes into which the money of private individuals did not show a disposition to flow. He thought that in considering the condition of Ireland sufficient attention had not been paid to the question of the trade of the country. Mr. Bright a short time ago made a long and able speech at Birmingham upon the subject of Ireland; but though he spoke of and advised remedies for the Land Question, that right hon. Gentleman scarcely touched upon the trade question. Mr. Bright, in dealing with the Land Question in Ireland, spoke of the various confiscations that had taken place. He believed, as a matter of fact, that most of the land in Ireland had been purchased from time to time; but whether it be purchased or not there must be some limitation in time, and it was absurd, practically speaking, to talk of restoring land to people whose forefathers might possibly have owned it several centuries ago. The ownership of land had always been changing in Ireland; originally there was no such thing as individual ownership in the land. When English law prevailed English customs were introduced and private ownership instituted; and since that time, by conquests and rebellion, by civil war, by confisca-

  1549
  tion, arising from various causes, no doubt land had changed hands very frequently at more or less remote periods, and it would be quite impossible to restore it to the descendants of the original owners. Mr. Bright mentioned confiscations under James I., Cromwell, and William III. The recollection of these confiscations might rankle in the bosoms of the people, and cause ill-feeling. That could only be cured by common sense and time. It was idle to suppose that by suddenly transferring the ownership to the present occupiers they would be restoring property that was violently, and fraudulently, and wrongfully taken from their forefathers under those confiscations. If the principle of restitution was correct, why should it be confined to Ireland? How could they attempt to restore property that was confiscated in the above-mentioned reigns without also restoring to the Roman Catholic Church all the Church property which was confiscated in England? It would be impossible to find the representatives of the individuals who suffered by those confiscations; but the same body, the same corporation, that held land confiscated and granted to laymen, existed, and could be found without difficulty. If they went back 200 or 250 years, why not go back 300 or 350? Why not, for the matter of that, go back to the Norman Conquest? Where was the limitation of time to come in? Why did people, in speaking of Ireland, concentrate all their attention on the land? Mr. Bright talked a good deal of the evils and injustice resulting from the way in which the land of Ireland had been treated by England. Why did he not say something about the manner in which the trades and manufactures of Ireland had been treated? Trades had been confiscated in more recent times than he talked of, and immense mischief resulted therefrom. Various trades were, from time to time, originated in, and prospered in, Ireland. The woollen trade, prosperous in the reigns of Charles II. and James II., was effectually checked by an Act of William III., passed at the instigation of rival manufacturers in England. The cotton manufactories, 50 in number, at Belfast, at the beginning of the present century, were reduced through English imposts, until there were now only three. Five thousand industrious manufacturers were said to have been reduced to po-
  1550
  verty by the stoppage of the woollen trade. Thirty thousand people emigrated from Ireland in two years, in consequence of the stoppage of their trades in 1780. The people of the country, practically speaking, ignored the absolute right of ownership of the proprietors of the land. They had created an imaginary partial ownership for themselves, had looked upon themselves as the real proprietors, and had viewed the landlords as a sort of disagreeable institution imposed by Providence upon the country, which they had to put up with. They had looked upon rent, not as a sum of money paid to an owner for the use of that which was his, but as a sort of arbitrary tax imposed upon a conquered people by their conquerors. This imaginary state of things had always more or less existed in Ireland. The Land Act of 1870 had certain inconveniences—most productions of the human intellect had; but he believed it would tend to discourage this sentiment—this belief in imaginary rights—by acknowledging and making tangible those rights which really did exist. Landowners in Ireland were very much abused people; probably the best-abused people in the world. Mr. Parnell and others had poured forth the vials of their wrath upon their devoted heads. The difficulty in Ireland was that the landlords had not capital enough; and it was much to be hoped that measures might pass through Parliament enabling them to relieve themselves of encumbrances, and, by sacrificing portions of their estates, to develop more thoroughly the resources of what was left to them. He did not wish to set himself up as a champion of Irish landlords; but he must say that, in his opinion, no class of men had received so much unmerited abuse. He thought an Irish landlord occupied the most difficult position in which it was possible for any man to be placed. He believed, as a rule, they endeavoured to do their duty under the most trying circumstances. After all, Irishmen were but mortals, and no doubt they occasionally failed; but, on the whole, the Irish landlords fulfilled their duties as well as any men in the world could do. The only landlords who were spoken of with praise were those who avowedly were able to spend more upon their properties than they obtained from them, which was as much as to say that land in Ire-

  1551
  land ought to be looked upon as an expensive luxury. If a good landlord was a man who could spend more upon the land than he obtained from it the converse must hold true; and it was certain that a class of small proprietors, making their living out of the soil, would form the very worst class of landowners. There could be no doubt that the hardest masters had been those landowners who became possessed of comparatively small quantities of land—the very class, in fact, which would inevitably arise out of any system of peasant proprietorship. The sense of proprietorship was, no doubt, an excellent thing, and he was entirely in favour of a class of small proprietors, if they could be instituted naturally; but such a class could only exist in a country and under climatic conditions favourable to them. He did not believe that these conditions existed in Ireland to any great extent. They were called upon to look at the working of this system in various other countries—France, Belgium, and Switzerland. The excellence of the system was doubtful in Prance; but, at all events, Ireland could not be compared with any of the before-mentioned countries in point of climate and soil. Because peasant proprietors succeeded in Belgium or France afforded no proof whatever that they would succeed in Ireland. Ireland was not well adapted for spade husbandry. There were no markets for fruit or vegetables. Market gardening and the careful cultivation of small plots of land could not be remunerative without good markets. The climate was such that the country could only be successfully cultivated in comparatively large holdings, and a considerable portion of it was unsuitable for tillage of any kind, and could only be profitably worked for stock raising. He saw some time ago in The Times a letter comparing the prosperous state of things in the Channel Islands with the misery in Ireland, and claiming that, the natural circumstances of the countries being the same, the system of land tenure in Ireland must be to blame. Why, the cases were as different as light and darkness. In fact, the writer condemned his own case. He said that in Guernsey there was great competition for land among the skilful mechanics, and he spoke of land fetching £10 an acre rent, and mentioned the profusion
  1552
  of fruit and flowers for sale in the towns. Where was your class of skilful mechanics in Ireland; and where were the soil and climate and market that would enable any human being to make a profit out of land for which he paid £10 an acre by the cultivation of fruit and flowers? It was marvellous how people would go on attributing the evils of Ireland to every cause under the sun; to systems, and government, and everything except the natural causes which could not be changed. If they wanted any example of the working of a system of peasant proprietors it was to England they ought to turn. There was no country in the world with so many excellent markets as England. The soil of England was better, and the climate was better, than that of Ireland. England had had a class—a numerous class—of small owners; but they had almost entirely disappeared from purely natural causes, from want of capital and from the natural peculiarities of the country. Owing to altered circumstances—such as modern improvement in agriculture, and more especially owing to the competition of other countries—they were unable to make a living, they were outrun by tenants having large holdings, and from time to time they sold their little patrimonies and embarked their capital in more paying matters, and had disappeared as a class. But even if peasant proprietorship was advisable, no practical plan by which it could be instituted had been suggested. There were two plans which had been mooted, whereby the occupiers in Ireland might become owners; the one that an enormous sum of money should be granted by the Government, or raised by subscription, to enable them to purchase. Practically, this amounted to making the people a present of the fee-simple value of the land; and it was absurd. The other plan was that the Government should lend the occupiers money at advantageous terms, and enable them to purchase their holdings gradually. This was the plan advocated by Mr. Bright and Mr. Parnell; but though the same in principle they differed much in detail. Mr. Bright's plan was perfectly fair, but impracticable; Mr. Parnell's was partially practicable and obviously unfair. Mr. Bright's idea was that the owner's interest in the land should be purchased at the full value by the occupiers, the

  1553
  Government advancing a certain proportion of the money and becoming the landlord until the capital and interest were paid in a period of 35 years. That could not be done on a large scale. Even supposing that the yearly payments were not more than the present rent, it was obvious that men unable to pay their rent would fall into arrears with the Government, and the consequences would be most disastrous. Mr. Parnell saw this difficulty, and with much common sense declared openly that such a scheme was useless. The value of land in Ireland must be beaten down far below the proper value by means of agitation, by a strike of occupiers against owners, and by various means calculated to render the position of the Irish owners excessively disagreeable and difficult, and then let the State advance money to tenants to purchase their holdings at, say, one-half or two-thirds their real value. By this means the occupiers might very likely be able to get possession of their farms; but they could never, in any circumstances, retain possession of them. What had happened in Ireland indicated surely what would happen if the land were transferred to the occupiers of it. Many would be unable to fulfil their engagements, from extravagance in some cases, from having undertaken what was impossible to accomplish in other cases. Ireland was full of usurers; in every little town and village there were obliging persons ready to advance money at ruinous rates of interest. The people were too kind to each other. Farmers in good circumstances were frequently ruined by having become security for friends in difficulties. Discounting the future, borrowing money at high rates of interest, backing bills for friends who could never take them up, were proceedings not confined to Ireland or to the class of tenant farmers, and he did not believe they had ever conduced to prosperity. That would happen on a large scale if any great change in the ownership of the land were made. Occupiers, owners in embryo, would fall into arrears with the Government. They would borrow money to clear themselves; they would run hopelessly into debt; a bad season would come; they would be sold up by their creditors, and in a very few years land would commence to fall into the hands of the usurers and small shopkeepers,
  1554
  who would let it out. It was, however, quite impossible for the Government to undertake the functions of landlord; and what was now being done by the Church Commissioners would, he believed, conclusively prove that small peasant proprietorships would not answer in Ireland. If Mr. Bright and his friends were convinced to the contrary, why did they not form a corporation or a syndicate, to act between the occupiers and the Government? Let the Government supply them with money on the terms they proposed it should be supplied to tenants. They could offer sufficient security to the Government for money so advanced, and they could hand the money over to such tenants as desired to become owners, and who found an opportunity of doing so. The occupiers would reap all the benefits of Mr. Bright's plan, and the Government would be relieved from a responsibility which no Government should ever dream of undertaking. They had been told by many people that fixity of tenure—failing peasant proprietorship—would be a remedy for all the evils of Ireland. As a matter of fact, he believed the tenant farmers in Ireland had always, practically speaking, enjoyed fixity of tenure. At all events, it was quite certain that no landlord in Ireland could afford to evict capriciously since the Land Act of Mr. Gladstone; and it was worthy of notice that in speaking of the condition of Ireland, the fact that the occupiers were supposed to be, and were, protected by the provisions of that Act was entirely ignored. Of one thing he felt quite certain, and that was that Irish landlords did not get the best rent for their lands, and many tenants in Ireland could, he believed, get better rents when allowed to leave their farms. Much was said about the valuation of Sir Richard Griffiths. It did a great deal of harm, being much too little in some cases and too high in others. He (the Earl of Dunraven) was not in favour of very large holdings. They should be large enough to make farming pay, and to do that they should not be less than a certain size. There could be no doubt that a great deal of the distress existing in Ireland now was due to over-population. The population might be scanty; but it was too numerous. Unfortunately, it was very difficult to make the Irish understand the advantages of emigration. They seemed to have a great prejudice

  1555
  against it, a prejudice which had no doubt been intensified by the fact that the clergy of the country were paid by small dues collected from the population; and in these circumstances it was impossible to expect that the priests would encourage them to reduce the population. He did not say this to cast any discredit upon the Roman Catholic clergy of the country. If it were conceded that the spiritual wants of a population must be supplied, their clergy must be paid; and if they could only be paid in the manner before alluded to, it was essential that the population should be as large as possible, in order that their spiritual requirements should be satisfied. There was another great evil arising from the voluntary system as exercised in Ireland. It must frequently happen that priests depended upon the contributions of numerous poor people smitten with the plague of disaffection. If it was merely that a man depended for his daily bread upon the contributions of persons against whose opinions he might wish to strive, the case would be bad enough. But in such cases there was much more depending on it. Proper provision for the spiritual necessities of the people depended upon it. He marvelled much that more evil effects had not followed from the cause. He believed that the only way to remedy the permanent distress in Ireland consisted in emigration. He did not see why Government should not interfere in this respect. He was aware that schemes of Government emigration were discussed and decided against in the famine years; but circumstances had changed since then. Emigration to the United States or to the British Provinces was a formidable matter in 1847; it was attended with comparatively little material discomfort now. If it was contemplated to employ any money belonging to the State in assisting farmers towards acquiring land at home, it would be much more profitably employed in assisting them to become proprietors in Canada, or in some country where ordinary industry would be perfectly certain to meet with success. He did not set himself up as an authority on Irish affairs. Personally, it did not matter much to him if the land were to be restored to its original proprietors. He could claim to be an aboriginal, and thus would be able to set up a claim to certain lands of noble Lords on the
  1556
  other side of the House. If things were to remain as they were he must be bought out at a fair price. Although he might have some sentimental objects, he must bring his philosophy to his help, and console himself with what the late Lord Stowell once called the sweet simplicity of the Three per Cents. It was a lamentable fact that disloyalty existed in Ireland. The Irish were a people who attached themselves readily to individuals, but not to an abstract idea. Feudal feeling was still very strong within them, and the sentiment of loyalty was one which was easily evoked, provided there was some definite object presented to them calling for the exercise of it. If Ireland had been as much favoured as other parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, they would have heard less of Fenianism. Home Rule, in some form or other, had been put forward frequently as a remedy for the discontent of Ireland. Nobody seemed to know exactly what Home Rule was. If it meant throwing upon local governing bodies as much work as possible and relieving the House of Commons from a great mass of labour that might be undertaken elsewhere, he thought with the noble Earl near him (Earl Granville) that it was a desirable thing that a change in that direction should be made, and he could not comprehend why the reform of the Grand Jury system had not been undertaken. But if it meant the repeal of the Union and the institution of a form of government, similar, for instance, to that of Canada, he entirely objected to it. As to an inquiry into Home Rule, how could an inquiry be carried out? It was not a question which could be decided by the people of Ireland alone. There could not be aplébiscite to settle the question. It was a question for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Ireland could not for a moment be looked upon as a Colony or Dependency. But if an act was to take place breaking up the United Kingdom; if they were to commit suicide by a sort of happy despatch, and commence dismembering themselves; that appeared to him to be an act of so much importance that all the Dependencies and Colonies of every portion of the Empire would have a right to express their opinions about it. It was difficult for him, as an Irishman, and one who had the welfare of that portion of the United Kingdom

  1557
  at heart, to speak with patience of the iniquitous proceedings that had lately disgraced the country. In the slang of the Western States of America, an "orator" meant a man who readily resorted to physical force—a brawler. With them, in Ireland, a "patriot" would come to be considered a persecutor of his country. These "patriots" were ruining the country. Agitation disturbed men's minds and rendered them incapable of devoting their energies to their business. It destroyed credit. It turned away that which was much needed in Ireland—capital. It reduced the whole value of the country; it tended to break down the moral feelings of the people. Unfortunately for themselves, the Irish were easily led away by these "patriots." This was an evil which could not be avoided as long as liberty of speech was conceded and a free Press existed. There were a number of people in Ireland—a great many returned Americans among them, who emigrated to America because they were too lazy to work at home, and returned home because they were too indolent to labour in America—who were only too ready to join anything which offered them the remotest chance of gaining anything without the exercise of honest industry. Freedom of speech was an excellent thing; but in certain circumstances it produced evil results. It became a question of balancing the good and the evil resulting from it. He was entirely in favour of allowing every licence and liberty of speech and writing; but he maintained that when that liberty was allowed by the State it was the duty of the State to see that the Executive was strong enough to protect the orderly and those who were not affected by exciting utterances. He did not believe that the Executive was strong enough in Ireland. He maintained that the Government had not afforded sufficient protection to the well-disposed in Ireland. He would not trouble their Lordships by enumerating cases. Some cases had been mentioned in the newspapers; but he believed an immense amount of terrorism had been exercised, which had not been mentioned anywhere in public. He believed that in certain districts there were few tenant farmers, among those who were willing to pay their rent, who had not been intimidated, had not been threatened and ordered to withhold their rent, or a por-
  1558
  tion of it, under various pains and penalties; and he believed they had been deterred by threats from occupying farms from which tenants had been ejected. At any rate, the Returns he asked for would throw much light upon this subject. He would be only too glad to find himself mistaken. If he was right, then a state of things existed disgraceful to any civilized community. If speeches were allowed to be made in public inciting the people to the expression of the most dangerous sentiments, and encouraging them to violate their own legal obligations, and to compel others to join them in that determination, then he said that the Government ought to afford the most ample and complete protection to the well-disposed among the population who were not led away by bad advice, who were anxious to lead orderly lives, who were willing and desirous to fulfil their obligations, but who dared not do so. The Irish were much more influenced in this way than were the people in England, and that was quite natural. It was not the effect of any moral or physical cowardice of the race. For years and years they were compelled to look upon the law as a power to molest and not to protect them. They had imbibed the utmost distrust of it. They had for centuries been accustomed to live in dread of insurrection more or less pronounced; and they did not naturally turn to the law for protection, but tried to make their peace with the disorderly element. A measure of protection amply sufficient for England would not suffice for Ireland. They could not expect much co-operation on the part of the people. Some of the causes of Irish poverty and discontent were beyond the power of man to alter. Others would be cured, and could be cured only by time. One of the causes was over-population in certain districts. Government, he thought, could remedy that evil by encouraging emigration, if not by encouraging trades. Another cause was that the people fell so easily a prey to pestilential persons who poured sweet, but pernicious, poison into their ears. This evil would last, he supposed, until the people became wiser and learned to know their enemies from their friends. But, in the meantime, it was the duty, he conceived, of the Government to afford the most ample protection to all law-abiding people, and he doubted

  1559
  whether they had done so. The noble Earl concluded by moving for the Returns of which he had given Notice.
  Moved,That there he laid before this House, "Return of the number of ejectments from agricultural holdings that have been served, the number in which decrees have been pronounced, and the number in which decrees have been executed in each county in Ireland every year from the 1st of January 1860 to the 1st of January 1880; the Return to distinguish between ejectments for non-payment of rent, or on notice to quit, or for breach of contract, or for any other cause: Also, Return of the number of oases of intimidation in Ireland to prevent the payment of rent or occupation of land which came under the notice of the police daring the year 1879, and the number of prosecutions undertaken and convictions obtained in such cases."—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  LORD CAMPBELL: My Lords, although, by the Forms of the House, no Seconder is necessary, and although my noble Friend is competent, even alone, to defend a Motion like the present, with so much experience of Ireland as he has and so much power to discuss it, I wish to add a few words before the Government reply to him. Everyone connected with that part of the United Kingdom as a landowner, who has recently been in it, seems to be under a kind of obligation to convey, however briefly, to the House the impressions he has formed as to a state of things which deeply occupies the Legislature. The first I would venture to convey is, that, although distress exists, agitation is the leading difficulty to be encountered by the Government; and that unless the agitation had occurred the landlords would have been much better situated to remedy the evils which have fallen on the tenants. As regards the measures to be taken, I concur with my noble Friend, and was glad as he proceeded to remark that he was not inclined to-day—although sometimes he may have been—to defend the system of according nourishment to the able-bodied in distress, without exacting labour in return for it. No doubt, the opposite idea of connecting labour with relief may have had a mischievous result in 1846, because it had an ill-considered application. But with a view to utilize the population, whose hands are so much required on soil now wholly unreclaimed, with a view to prevent abuses inherent to unconditional relief, with a view to uphold the masses against a sense of a demoralizing pau-
  1560
  perism, the principle of exacting labour in return for what you give appears to be the true one. On one remarkable occasion, the late Lord Clanricarde, who used to be, perhaps, our first authority in Ireland, pointed out to this House with an emphatic iteration that whatever you do there sound principles should never be departed from. I accede entirely to what has fallen from my noble Friend as to the delusion of supposing that a large class of very small proprietors could add to the resources or the comfort of the people; and wish to share the obloquy which he may bring upon himself by running counter to a fashionable doctrine, of which the truth has been assumed, with hardly a pretence of reasoning upon it. To increase the number of moderate, of middle-sized, and, therefore, resident proprietors might be very useful. To multiply the freeholds of the very lowest order would only stamp and seal the ruin of the country. It would at once extend two fundamental evils—the subdivision of the land and the dependence on potatoes for subsistence. Does anyone imagine that if since the late famine rent had been in absolute abeyance—the equivalent of what is now suggested—the prosperity of Ireland would have been greater than it has been; that more oats would have been cultivated, more bogs reclaimed, more children taught, more cottages rebuilt with a view to decent habitation? My Lords, it is worth while, in a few words, to compress the real facts which justify particular complaint among the Irish population, as they might occur to anyone who, after too long an interval, re-visits it. One is that, from circumstances unavoidable as yet, no branch of Royalty is found there, while the institution of the Lord Lieutenancy has lost a part of the prestige which formerly belonged to it—a remark I make, however, without any reference at all to the present holder of the Office. The second is that the Irish are under the necessity—however struggling and impoverished.—of supporting their own clergy, while no such burden falls upon the largest class either in England or in Scotland. A third immediately arises from the second—namely, that the clergy of the masses, thoroughly dependent on them, are led to favour agitation they would willingly resist. During the autumn such a tendency was strongly

  1561
  brought before me. Another evil thoroughly attested is that the Jury Law, in consequence of changes recently adopted, is so defective as to secure impunity for outrage. It may be quite true that not one of these anomalies admits of remedy at present. It may be that neither the present nor any future Government is justified in hastily approaching them. But by keeping before our eyes a just conception of the drawbacks to moral and material improvement in that country, we are drawn away from acquiescence in illusory and aggravating remedies; illusory as regards the minds which entertain them, and aggravating to every disorder they profess to take away.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, he thought their Lordships were very much indebted to the noble Earl for the exhaustive manner in which he had brought this question forward. With regard to the trade of Ireland, it struck him that of late years it had not been adequately developed. Noble Lords would remember that there was a revival of trade and manufactures in 1847, and he hoped the year 1881 would be similarly distinguished. As far as the question of Home Rule was concerned, he could say from personal knowledge that in Ulster there was no element of disorganization more distasteful to the tenant-right farmers than the idea of Home Rule. He wished to point out that if the Railway Bill for making a line from Letterkenny to Donegal had not been rejected last year the necessary works would have afforded much employment in that part of the country.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: I find no fault with the noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven) for the interesting and able statement which he has made as to the present condition of Ireland. It is very useful that anyone so intimately acquainted with the subject as he is should take an opportunity of giving your Lordships and the public the benefit of his experience of that country and the views he entertains with regard to all the important matters on which he has touched. I feel sure I shall be forgiven by the noble Earl for saying that the terms of his Motion scarcely led me to believe that he would enter upon so large and wide a discussion as that which he has brought under our consideration. I am
  1562
  not at all prepared, nor am I desirous of following the noble Earl in his discussion of the views expressed elsewhere by Mr. Bright and Mr. Parnell, in opposition to the arguments of the noble Earl contradicting those views, because with his opinions I entirely concur. I cannot agree with the noble Lord who last spoke that a peasant proprietary is a fallacy; but I do agree with the noble Earl who introduced the discussion that a peasant proprietary in Ireland, as well as in England, would be a great mistake. I agree that large holdings have proved, and will prove, a benefit to Ireland. It has been said, in the course of this discussion, that there is a great danger in allowing large sums of money to go from this country to be expended, in Ireland. I can assure your Lordships, with the warning before us of what has taken place, that it is not our intention, nor do we believe it will be the effect of any of the measures adopted by the Government, to reproduce any such state of things as prevailed in former years. The noble Earl has spoken of various trades carried on between Ireland and England as having been put an end to by the action of this country; and, amongst others, he mentioned the cattle trade. Well, the cattle trade between the two countries is in a flourishing condition. It has been benefited very much by recent legislation, which for the first time has treated, for the purposes of that trade, those two portions of Her Majesty's Dominions as one and the same country. With regard to emigration, the noble Earl has given us the benefit of his views on that large and important subject. He is of opinion that in many parts of Ireland there is a much larger number of persons than the land there is fit to maintain; and he considers it would be for the benefit of those who remain, as well as for the benefit of those who go, that a certain proportion of the population should emigrate to other places where they would find better means for the employment of their skill and labour. I am not here to dispute the conclusions at which the noble Earl has arrived; but I must point out that emigration is one of the most difficult questions which can be suggested for consideration with regard to Ireland. Rightly or wrongly, there is, on the part of the Irish people, a marvellous indisposition to go from their own coun-

  1563
  try, even to one where they might be better off. Therefore, the subject of emigration with regard to Ireland, if touched at all, must be considered with great care by any Government. With reference to the Motion, I fear it would be almost impossible to give the Returns asked for in the first part of the noble Earl's proposal; but with regard to the last part, which deals with the criminal state of the country, I am told that that information will be embodied in a Return which has been moved for by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in the other House. It has not been laid on the Table; but it is already in the hands of the printer. I therefore suggest that the noble Earl should wait until that Return has been presented, when I shall be happy to communicate with him on the subject. I am sorry that, under these circumstances, it is not in the power of the Government to agree with the Motion of the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYregretted that the names of Mr. Bright and Mr. Parnell had been coupled together by the noble Duke.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONobserved that the names referred to had been introduced by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dun-raven); and he was, therefore, perfectly in Order in alluding to them.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he should separate the views held by the two Gentlemen. The views expressed by Mr. Parnell were such as no Member of their Lordships' House could approve in any way whatever. So far as Mr. Bright's views were concerned, he believed them to be a development of the policy of the late Government. Certain clauses were proposed to be inserted in the Land Act of that Government which were popularly known as "Bright's Clauses." They were, after full consideration, adopted by Parliament; and he did not think that it was at all an unreasonable or astonishing thing that Mr. Bright should think that possibly some amendment of the law might be effected whereby those clauses might be made to work with greater advantage than they had hitherto done. What had been urged was this—that the operations of the Church Commissioners in enabling tenants to buy portions of the estates sold had been
  1564
  successful, but that, owing to circumstances to which he would not then refer, the clauses in question had not been so successful; and what he understood Mr. Bright to advocate was that, having regard to the operation of the Church Commissioners, the clauses alluded to ought to be given by legislative provision a wider operation. With respect to the question of tenant proprietors it was one which could not be disposed of offhand. No question had more perplexed the economist—on no question was it more difficult to form an opinion. As far as the wild parts of Ireland were concerned, such parts as Connemara and parts of Mayo and Galway, as well as he was able to judge of the country and its circumstances, he could not think that a system of peasant proprietary would be satisfactorily worked. These were very poor parts of the country, suitable only for pasturage, and he feared that no amount of industry or intelligence would make such a system a prosperous one there. If, however, they went to other parts of Ireland more favoured by nature, he was not disposed peremptorily to declare that the system would not be advantageous. Of this he was sure—that it was a misfortune to Ireland that there should be so small a number of proprietors of land in proportion to the population. It was a misfortune to this country also; but the proportion of proprietors in Ireland was much smaller than in this country. The subject, therefore, ought not to be put out of sight; and it might be found that a well-considered scheme for giving larger opportunities, where estates were sold, for tenants to buy their lands and try whether they could not thus improve their condition, would produce greater content, and add to the prosperity of the country.
  LORD DUNSANYexpressed his regret that the entire Return moved for could not be granted. Its production would be an act of justice to the Irish landlords, showing, as it would, that they had not been guilty of the charges of eviction brought against them.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he should not press the Motion after what the noble Duke had said.
  Motion (by leave of the House)withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.