Lords Sitting of 11 February 1881

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Highway Acts, appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—"Universities (Scotland) (Voting)*(32).
Second Reading—Consolidated Fund*.

AFGHANISTAN—RETENTION OF CANDAHAR.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD WAVENEY,in rising to move an Address for further Papers relating to the retention or abandonment of Candahar which have been communicated for the information of the Home or Indian Government by civil or military officers, said, the question of the retention of Candahar was of a most important character. He maintained that, since attention was first called to the intended abandonment of that city, public interest in the matter had grown till it pervaded every class, his own opinion being that the proposed step would be equivalent to the abandonment of Gibraltar. Indeed, it was regarded by many men who were compe-

  617
  tent to form an opinion upon it as one of vital consequence to our position in India. He felt assured that there were many documents in the Government archives which would afford valuable information in relation to it, which could properly be laid before Parliament as tending to the elucidation of so important a subject, which they could not wish to keep back from the country, and which they would have an easy way of presenting if his Motion were carried. Among the documents of the kind to which he referred was the Memorandum of Lord Napier of Magdala, which singularly illustrated the difference between official and general public knowledge on the subject. The document was a most remarkable one, supporting the opinion of many persons already formed upon the subject; and they should have the documents upon which some of the assertions in that document were based. There had been so much hypothesis and uncertainty upon the question that it was most desirable that they should have all the authentic information on the subject which it was in the power of the Government to furnish. The Memorandum he referred to stated that if Candahar were abandoned by us it would be said by the Afghans that Ayoub Khan had driven us out, and Lord Napier added that that would be partly true. There might also be included, for instance, an important letter which recently appeared in The Standard and in The Morning Post. The writer was no ambitious soldier, desirous of war for professional advancement, but one who was well known in this country, as well as in India, for his historical accuracy, his judgment, and discretion—he meant Colonel Malleson. That distinguished officer had had an experience of India of upwards of 30 years; and he declared that the contemplated surrender of Candahar was viewed with absolute horror by the Native officers of the Indian Army, who complained that that which had been won with so much difficulty and bloodshed should be so lightly abandoned. He (Lord Waveney) had a list of the names of gentlemen who had expressed their opinions on the Candahar question, and must certainly complain that but few of those opinions were officially before the House. They were: Lord Napier of Magdala, Lord Strathnairn, Sir Henry Rawlinson, Sir William Merewether
  618
  (late), Sir George Malcolm, Sir Frederick Roberts, Sir Donald Stewart, Sir Michael Biddulph, Sir Edmund Hamley, Sir George Lawrence, Sir Edwin John-sou, Sir Frederick Haines, Sir Henry Green, Sir Arnold Kemball, Sir Richard Temple, Sir Fitzjames Stephen, Sir Bartle Frere, Major General Parke, Colonel Donald Macnabb, and Colonel Malleson. It was very desirable that the statements of these authorities should be before the House; and he, therefore, hoped there would be no objection to the production of the Papers for which he moved, and which he set out in a list which he begged to hand to the noble Viscount the Under Secretary of State for India.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for farther Papers relating to the retention or abandonment of Candahar which have been communicated for the information of the Home or Indian Government by civil or military officers.—(The Lord Waveney.)
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: My Lords, I think that neither my noble Friend (Lord Waveney) nor your Lordships will expect me to go at any length into, or indeed to notice, the main question whether Candahar should be permanently occupied or not. But I will reply, in a very few sentences, to his appeal as to whether any further Correspondence upon that very interesting and important question will be introduced to your Lordships' notice. A similar Question was addressed to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) last week in "another place," when my noble Friend said that, while he thought there was no obligation on the part of the Government to produce private official Memoranda of such Correspondence bearing on this subject, still, he would consider whether it would not be possible to supply the two Houses of Parliament with further information bearing upon the point. My noble Friend, since that time, has had the subject further under his consideration; and I believe I am justified in saying that he has looked over very valuable and interesting Memoranda and Correspondence—although not perhaps of an official character—bearing upon this subject, and that he is now considering what portion of that Correspondence and of those Memoranda

  619
  might properly be submitted to Parliament. Owing, however, to the confidential character of some of the Papers, it has been necessary for my noble Friend to consult the distinguished persons from whom they have emanated, with a view to obtaining their consent to such communications being laid before Parliament; and until my noble Friend has received their consent, he will not, of course, do so. Such, I believe, is the Secretary of State's intention; and, although I cannot answer as to the particular persons whose opinions will be presented, I think I may assure my noble Friend (Lord Waveney) that the Secretary of State will be in a position to present them before the debate of which Notice has been given by the noble Earl the late Viceroy of India (the Earl of Lytton) for the 24th.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, that, after the assurance of his noble Friend, he would not, of course, proceed with the Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

MALTA—PETITIONS OF THE MALTESE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND OF THE PEOPLE OF MALTA.

  QUESTION.
  EARL DE LA WARRasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If there is any objection to laying upon the Table of the House any further Correspondence or Papers relative to the affairs of Malta, especially with reference to certain representations and Petitions which had been addressed by the Maltese people to the Imperial Government?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY,in reply, said, that in point of fact there was no Correspondence such as that referred to by the noble Earl (Earl de la Warr) in addition to that which was laid on the Table in September last, with the exception of a letter written by a member of the Council, which merely repeated statements to be found in the Papers already produced. That being the case, he (the Earl of Kimberley) did not suppose the noble Earl would move for the production of that one Paper.

HIGHWAY ACTS.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  EARL DE LA WARR,in rising to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Highway Acts, and also to consider whether it might be desirable to consolidate and amend the same, said, that on an early day he would submit the names of the Committee. He intended that the Committee should be composed of the same Peers as served on that of last year.
  Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Highway Acts, and also to consider whether it may be desirable to consolidate and amend the same.—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  On Question? agreed to.

THE ROYAL COMMISSION OX AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS, AND LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT, 1870—THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON LAND—THE EVIDENCE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEasked, When the Evidence taken before Her Majesty's Commissioners on Agriculture, and also before Her Majesty's Commissioners appointed to inquire into the working of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, will be circulated? in doing so, the noble Lord said, that as soon as the Coercion Bill, which was now before the House of Commons, was passed into law, a Land Bill was likely to be introduced, for that was the course pursued in 1870. First, they had a temporary Coercion Bill, and then a permanent Confiscation Bill. If the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the working of the Land Act of 1870, and which were presided over by the noble Earl (the Earl of Bessborough), were to be carried out, most decidedly the Land Bill to be brought forward would be most exceptional and curious, and would be founded on principles which had never yet been sanctioned by any Parliament. Their Lordships, however, had not seen any of the evidence taken by the Commissioners, and as these Bodies had been appointed not only for the purpose of informing the Government, but for the purpose of

  621
  giving information to Parliament and the public generally, no Bill could possibly be well considered as fair and just to all parties, if it was introduced to Parliament and the public before they had had time to consider and digest the evidence and form an opinion as to how far it supported the different Reports of the Commissioners. As to the Duke of Richmond's Commission, statements were made as to tenants' improvements in Ireland in the Reports which would be misleading, unless the evidence could be gone through. Tenants' improvements were quite exceptional, and were almost unknown in the part of Ireland from which he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) came; and he should like to know upon what evidence the Commissioners founded their statements. From his experience as an Irish landlord, he was sorry to say that, in his district, much injury was done to the land by tenants, to say nothing of there being an absence of improvements. Instead of being the universal rule, as was alleged, they were quite exceptional, and, in fact, almost unknown. It would be interesting to him to see the evidence and to examine it, not only on that point, but also as to good and bad cultivation, for the cultivation of the land in some parts of Ireland was of the very worst kind, and in some small holdings there was not more than one-third of the produce there ought to be, because of the want of capital to cultivate the land. In his (Lord Oranmore and Browne's) part of the country, for instance, there were only two or three farms that could be said to be properly cultivated. The knowledge he had also led him to believe that, unless in exceptional cases, there was no such thing as competitive rents. As to the Land Commission, that was a very hurried affair—it only sitting for 60 days—the subject of inquiry being the working of the Land Act of 1870 and other supplementary Acts; but, not content with informing themselves upon those subjects, it seemed, according to some of the arguments made use of in the Reports, they had considered the question of the cultivation of land in Ireland for the past 700 or 800 years. Why they should have gone so far back he could not understand. For all practical purposes they might just as well have been instructed to inquire into the cultivation of the Garden of Eden. He
  622
  himself bought a property in Ireland in 1854, when there was great competition, and he paid a price which was so high that the Land Judge asked him if there was a gold mine on it. And now he was to be told that it was not his property at all, but the property of his tenants. The recommendations of the Commission were exceedingly curious, admitting as a basis for legislation the traditions, and sentiments, and wishes of the people. If this country were to be governed according to traditions, and sentiments, and wishes, then all common sense was gone, and there would be no limit to measures brought about by the competition of different parties in the country in their anxiety for momentary popularity. If they were to govern Ireland on such principles as that, he did not know what would become of the country, or of that class which received too little consideration in this matter— namely, the poor landlords. It was contended that the tenant ought to be joint owner of the land, subject to some rent that was to be fixed by some extraordinary tribunal, which was to be quite impartial. The position of the landlord was still more complicated. One thing was certain, he was to get no rent for two years. All freedom of contract, all existing contracts, as well as three or four Acts of Parliament that had been passed since 1847, were to be treated as if they had never existed. He asked their Lordships to give some thought to the case of the Irish landlords at the present time. He would not speak of the danger to their lives and movable property; but many of them were now in a state of absolute want, having been without income for two years. He knew many friends who ought to be comfortable; but who had suffered great privation owing to this cause, and who were now on the verge of want. That class of Her Majesty's subjects deserved as much consideration and justice as any other class, and yet he had never heard one word of sympathy for the poorer members of the class to which he belonged. They were not a small class, for the landlords with the mortgagees and others interested in the rents amounted to 150,000. It seemed to him that there was something ungenerous in the British public to think only of the tenants, who were alleged to be so poor, but who were better off now than those who used to be their richer neighbours.

  623
  If the present or the Conservative Government had only put the existing law into force, as it was enforced in England, it would have checked at once the state of things which now existed. Take the case of the miners' meeting in Lancashire the other day. A certain number of the men threatened the others if they did not come out on strike. The meeting was put down; but had that sort of thing been allowed to go on, what would have been the condition of the manufacturing districts in England in three months? Let the House consider the matter of Irish land fairly, with the evidence before it. Let Her Majesty's Government do, not what would gain them popularity, but what was honest. Let them not, as public men, put aside that honesty which would guide them in private. Let them pass a Bill for England, or, if it was necessary, for the three countries, and put in any clauses that were necessary to make it apply to exceptional holdings in Ireland. Such a system of legislation and fair dealing would do more to unite the countries, and to create peace, than this game of battledore and shuttlecock which they had been playing in Ireland ever since she had been connected with this country. It seemed likely that they would have the Land Bill in the other House by the 24th of February, and it was of the utmost importance that they should have time to digest the mass of evidence and understand it before being called on to decide on the measure. If the Bill were brought forward in a hurry and pushed on merely that the Government might gain popularity they would do a lasting injury to Ireland. Unless he was misinformed, a great part of the evidence of the first Commission had been in the possession of the Home Secretary for a considerable period; and he could not understand why, ere this, it had not been presented to the House.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE: My Lords, you can scarcely expect me to follow the noble Lord (Lord Oranmore and Browne) in all the details of the argument with which he has supported the Question he has put to the Government. The noble Lord has also spoken at some length upon the effects of the Land Act of 1870—a subject upon which I shall not now enter, seeing that no Notice has been given. The noble Lord also spoke of the Land Bill which is about to be brought forward by the Go-
  624
  vernment. Not being prophetically inspired, I am unable to follow him there. He further told us a great deal of the part of Ireland with which he is best acquainted; and in support of his statements he has told many interesting facts, which I have no doubt are entirely correct, but am unable to discuss, because of my unacquaintance with that part of the country. But from Ireland he proceeded to the Garden of Eden; and there, my Lords, I am able to follow him. It is true, I am like everyone else, unacquainted with the nature of the agriculture there pursued; but I may claim to know as much about the system of tenure which existed in that part of the world as the noble Lord; and I may say that I think his reference to the Garden of Eden was rather unfortunate, for, so far as I know, the Garden of Eden affords the earliest instance on record of an arbitrary eviction. I will answer the noble Lord's Question very shortly. The evidence of the Agricultural Commission, so the printers inform us, will be published in a week (with the exception of the index, which is in course of preparation); and the evidence of the Irish Land Commission will be road}' about the same time.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.