Lords Sitting of 27 May 1881

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Irish Jury Laws, appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Gas Provisional Orders* [97].
Second Reading—Married Women's Property (Scotland) (75); Local Government Provisional Orders (Berwick-upon-Tweed, &c.)* (85).

RAILWAYS—ADMINISTRATION OF FOREIGN RAILWAYS.—QUESTION.
LORD BRABOURNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If there had been a Report received from from Mr. Crow, British Consul at Berlin, with respect to railway rates and charges,

1429
and the administration of railways by the Government of Germany?
EARL GRANVILLEin reply, said, that there was such a Report. It had been presented to Parliament in March last, and would be found among the Consular Reports.

VALUATION OF RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRELAND)—GRIFFITH'S VALUATION.
OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
THE DUNE OF ST. ALBANSin rising to call attention to the law relating to the valuation of rateable property in Ireland known as Griffith's valuation, and to the unsatisfactory assessment of such property now in force, said, the subject of his Notice had been so threshed out during the past winter that it was unnecessary he should offer their Lordships any explanation beyond reminding them it was admitted that the prices, except in the instance of wheat, on which Sir Richard Griffith founded his valuation, were so below their present value as to make it a fallacious test of what the land which produces them was worth at the present time. It therefore followed that the principle held in Scotland, and partially in England, that the ratal should be dependent on the rental, could not be fairly universally applied in Ireland that rents should be governed by rates. There, however, was always the fact that Griffith's valuation existed, stamped with the authority of the Government in force for purposes of taxation, as their estimate of what the land was worth, and he said this was misleading. A Chancellor of the Exchequer might recognize the uses of such a scheme as Griffith's valuation; but it was another thing what Irish tenants would think of it when insidiously placed before them by agitators for their own purpose, nor was it easy to explain why a landowner could justly and legally demand a larger sum from the tenant than that on which he paid Income Tax. It was impossible to deny that Griffith's valuation played a great part in economic relations in land in Ireland. The landlord, the tenant, and the passer-by inquired the relation between the rent and the rates. He thought he was justified in making this appeal by the terms in which Mr. Baxter introduced the General Valuation (Ireland) Bill in 1873, at a time when the
1430
present Lord President of the Council (Earl Spencer) was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the now Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) was his Chief Secretary. On that occasion, Mr. Baxter, expressing, as he (the Duke of St. Albans) supposed, the opinion of those noble Lords, said that the valuation of the Southern and Western Provinces of Ireland was made when prices were exceptionally low, shortly after the Famine of 1847, and that the valuation of these Provinces was less than it ought to be. Mr. Baxter concluded his remarks by saying he believed the result, if his recommendations were carried out, would be as beneficial in Ireland as they had been in Scotland. On the second reading of the Bill, Mr. Kavanagh, who knew Ireland as well as any man did, speaking from the Conservative Benches, said the whole valuation of land in Ireland was far below what it ought to be, and that it ought to be placed on a fair basis. A Scotch Member (Mr. Duncan M'Laren), in the course of the debate, mentioned that Scotland was re-valued every 12 months, and he (the Duke of St. Albans) could not see why Ireland should not be so as well. He believed most of their Lordships who were experienced in land matters in Ireland would welcome such a valuation. The importance of the subject to those resident in Ireland would be his excuse for bringing it under their Lordships' attention. He believed if he had challenged a direct expression of opinion on this subject, many of their Lordships most conversant with Ireland would have supported him; but he had no desire to embarrass the Government in their present attempt to improve the condition of Ireland, and, therefore, without attempting to deal further with the general question, he would simply ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they would take any steps to have the law amended, so that in future the valuation of land in Ireland made by the Government Department for the purposes of Imperial and local taxation might not mislead public opinion as to the real value of such land?
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he agreed with much that the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of St. Albans) had said. He desired, however, before the Question was answered, to point out how undesirable, in the opinion of nearly

1431
everyone who had given evidence or written on the subject, it was to make valuations made for Imperial and other purposes the basis of rent. He had heard from a friend that in his part of the country, the land was at least 50 per cent under Griffith's valuation; while in his own part of the country Griffiths valuation was much nearer, and he therefore paid much higher rates than his friend. He did, not think it was necessary to have an entirely now valuation, as there were materials in hand for correcting them, and those materials should be made use of, the only thing required being a careful study of the data upon which Sir Richard Griffith worked, and a careful comparison of the old value of properties with the present price of farm produce, making the necessary alterations so as to arrive at a now valuation. He thought, however, that it was most desirable that they should have an issue of now Ordnance maps in reference to the boundaries of estates and other matters. There ought also to be abroad distinction between the valuation of land and the valuation of houses, because in many instances the landlords had to pay taxation upon the valuation of houses that belonged to the tenants. As changes were about to be made at the present time, he thought it only fair that a landlord should only be taxed on the valuation of his land, on something like the real value of the rental he received.
THE MARQUESS OF LANDSDOWNEsaid, that Griffith's valuation had been one of the thorns which had recently been constantly stuck into the sides of landlords, and, at the same time, one of those delusions that had been perpetually dragged before the attention of tenants, who were often only too willing to listen to the statements of agitators. While he sympathized with the noble Duke who had raised the question (the Duke of St. Albans), in his wish to see the question settled on a satisfactory basis, he was not sure that the suggestion made by him was likely to bring about the best possible solution of the question. He felt some doubt if the revaluation of land in Ireland would be of such value as the noble Duke seemed to think. The noble Duke was perfectly candid in stating that he did not wish the Commission so much to obtain a perfect basis for valuation, as to
1432
prevent the public mind being misled with regard to the rating value of land. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne), however, doubted whether an amended valuation would be either a useful, a practicable, or desirable measure at that moment; while as to its effect on either public opinion or taxation, he doubted whether it would be very important. As regarded local taxation, it would probably lead to the result that the taxpayer would, in most cases, pay about the same amount of rates as at present, but in a different way. He would pay a lower percentage upon a higher valuation. When they came to the question of the general valuation of land the noble Duke, in dwelling upon its fallacies, seemed to be trying to slay the slain. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) did not think anyone believed in it as an absolute or relative standard of rent, except, perhaps, those who conceived that by some Divine dispensation the land ought to be the property of those who tilled it. For some time past no one had been able to take up a paper in Ireland or England without finding an exhaustive demolition of Griffith's valuation. It had again been demolished in the able pamphlets issued by the Dublin Land Committee, and it had finally been put out of Court by the Reports of the two Commissions on the subject. He, therefore, doubted whether a new valuation would effect any good result. He ventured to think that the difficulties in the way of making such a valuation were so serious that at no time would it be very expedient to encounter them with a light heart; but, at the present moment, and under the present circumstances, it would be most inexpedient to do so. It must either be intended as a gauge of rent or it must not. If it was not intended as a gauge of rent, it would be valueless for the purposes of the noble Duke. If, on the other hand, it was to be the future measure of the letting value of land, then he asked their Lordships to consider the difficulties and obstacles which remained to be overcome. In the first place, they would have to consider the principle on which the valuation was to be based. Would they calculate the rent on what was called a scientific basis—that was to say, what the tenant would be able to pay to the owner after providing for his own maintenance and that of his family,

1433
and after, in addition to that, securing for himself a fair profit for his expenditure and industry? In that view, they would be met with this difficulty—that on the authority of two or three Members of Her Majesty's Government there were many holdings in Ireland so small that if the tenants held them rent free they would not have sufficient means to keep their families in a decent state of comfort. What, then, should be the rent of such holdings? Would it be a minus quality? Then there was a further difficulty—with reference to what standard of agriculture would the valuer fix the rent? Would the Public Department intrusted with the valuation have to estimate the rent with reference to the results which would be obtained from a proper treatment of the soil; because obviously it would be unjust to fix rents with reference to the sort of agriculture which prevailed in some parts of Ireland, where, to use the words of the Duke of Richmond's Commission, it was "miserably backward and feeble." Was the rent, then, to be computed on that basis, or on the basis of a more advanced and improved system of agriculture? But let them assume that these and other formidable difficulties had been overcome, there remained to be considered the question of time. They would have to deal with every one of these 600,000 tenancies at present existing in Ireland. His noble Friend (the Duke of St. Albans) had mentioned seven years as the time within which the valuation might be completed. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) felt doubt whether it could be concluded in that time, as it would be necessary to examine into such questions as that of the subsoil, the climate, the nearness of markets, and the thousand and one other questions which entered into the value of land. And, after all, when they had got their valuation, it would be inconclusive upon the most important point. It might give with perfect justice the letting value of a farm as it stood; but that would not determine the fair rent as between the actual owner and occupier, which could not be arrived at without ascertaining the tenant's interest in his holding, and whether he or the landlord had made the improvements. Before all these points could be effectually cleared up, it would be necessary to have upon every one of the 600,000 tenancies what was com-
1434
monly spoken of as "a land case." The noble Duke had referred to Mr. Baxter' s speech delivered in the year 1873. But in that year, so far as he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was aware, there was no proposition before Parliament to deprive the landlord and the tenant of the power of entering into contracts for the letting of land, and to compel them to place that duty in the hands of a Land Court. He would not be guilty of the irregularity of discussing a measure which was not before their Lordships' House; but, without any breach of Order, he thought he might say that it would require some courage to assert that some kind of measure affecting land tenure in Ireland would not be likely to pass within a reasonable period, and that one incident of that measure would not be the establishment of a Court which could be intrusted with the duty of fixing a fail rent. If so, would the new valuation be binding on the Court, or would it not? He had no doubt that a valuation such as that proposed by his noble Friend would not be regarded as binding on the Land Court when considering the circumstances of each individual case; and, if so, it followed that after all the trouble, expense, and delay they would have a valuation which would not be accepted by either the landlord or the tenant, and would not be binding upon the Court which might hereafter be called upon to decide questions of this kind. He therefore submitted that, although Griffith's valuation was not to be relied on or regarded as an absolute or even relative gauge of rent, it would be, in present circumstances, unwise on the part of Her Majesty's Government to undertake such a valuation as that which had been suggested.
LORD WAVENEYsaid, that, while there was much to complain of in Griffith's valuation, he did not think, for the reasons pointed out by the noble Marquess who had just sat down (the Marquess of Lansdowne), that a new valuation should be made at the present time. The Land Courts would have limited districts to deal with, and they would have the opportunity of arriving at a fair measure of rent in the case of different holdings. The principal difficulty would be owing to the number of holdings; hut that could be overcome by taking the valuation in acres, and so arrive at a conclusion. It appeared to

1435
him that the tenant's interest would be more accurately ascertained in the way he had suggested than in any other, because there would be a standard of the value of land in addition to the positive value. At the same time, he must say that, after many years' experience in Ireland, he thought it was possible to construct a valuation upon much more accurate principles; and the nearer they came to the Ulster Custom the more likely would they be to obtain a satisfactory result. The Ulster Custom was an immense advantage in determining the interest of the tenant, and it was wanting in the other three Provinces, in which all interests were massed together. Therefore he insisted strongly on some regulated and wells understood scale which should give the characteristic value of the land. It would be the most fatal termination of any Session of late years if the House of Commons returned to their constituents and their Lordships to their duties in the country without passing a Land Bill which should be acceptable to Ireland.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, there could be no doubt about the difficulty in getting a proper valuation, and he did not think that difficulty had been overrated by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne). Griffith's valuation took a very long time to make, and was only made after considerable preparation by experienced men; but, notwithstanding the preparation with which it was undertaken and the ability with which it was carried out, it was, on the whole, totally inadequate, and did not make sufficient allowance for contiguity to towns and markets or to the seaboard, where valuable manure for potatoes could be obtained for nothing. That made a considerable difference. He knew men who rented land close to where fairs were held, and they made their rent by letting their land for a few nights' grazing at fair time. He thought, pending a settlement of fair rent under the proposed Land Bill, Griffith's valuation would be good as a basis, for if a new valuation was to be made, the valuation would take a number of years to complete. If the Land League continued, it would choke the new Courts; and if they did that, owners might as well say good-bye to their Property at once, and Parliament might as
1436
well pass a measure giving their property to the tenants. He hoped something would be done soon, and that the Government would not leave rent a vague and indefinite thing, but would formulate it in some practical way, which would show that it was not their intention to transfer land absolutely to the tenants, as would be done if some presently acknowledged basis were accepted.
LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he agreed very much with what had been said by the noble Marquess behind him (the Marquess of Lansdowne), who appeared to have given reasons more than sufficient for the kind of answer which he had to give to the noble Duke (the Duke of St. Albans)—reasons why he was not able and did not think it expedient to pledge Her Majesty's Government to undertake the re-valuation of Ireland. But if the noble Marquess meant—though he (Lord Carlingford) did not suppose he did—that the present valuation was in all respects a satisfactory one, and ought to be permanently maintained in its present position, he (Lord Carlingford) was unable to go with him as far as that. He thought it was evident that the present valuation was a very imperfect one, and that there were reasons which, sooner or later, must induce the Government to see that it was revised and placed on a sounder footing. But that was not a task to be lightly undertaken, and he did not think the noble Duke would expect him to pledge the Government in the present state of Public Business, and of Irish Business in particular, to bring in a Bill for that purpose, especially in view of the fate which had met former Bills on this important subject. Two Bills for the purpose of revising the general valuation of Ireland and providing a new one had been brought in by two successive Governments, but had signally failed to make their way through the other House of Parliament; and he was not able to say that such a task should he undertaken now, although he fully admitted the imperfections of the system as it stood, and the grave reams that existed for improving it. There could be no doubt that in Ireland they ought to pay a little more Income Tax. And it was true that the inhabitants of the Middle and Southern Provinces of Ireland were paying less than their day share of taxation in comparison

1437
with Ulster. It was also true that tenants of arable land in Ireland were paying more than their due in comparison with those who held grass lands in that country. But the noble Duke who introduced this subject did not refer to any one of these grievances, his only grievance and only reason for insisting on a re-valuation being that Griffith's valuation misled public opinion as to the real value of land. No doubt that had been the case; and for that result landlords and Members of Parliament were, to a great degree, themselves responsible. But the danger of misleading the people of Ireland on that point no longer existed. There were not two opinions on the subject, even in Ireland. He (Lord Carlingford) understood that the Land League, and those tenants who were influenced by that body, by no means swore by Griffith's. There seemed, therefore, to be a practical unanimity of opinion that that valuation was out of the question as a guide for rents in Ireland. That opinion had been stated in the strongest way in the evidence before the Royal Commission on Agriculture, and also in the clearest way in the Report of the Irish Land Commission. It was therein stated—
"If anything has been clearly established it is this, that Griffith's valuation is not a trustworthy standard for the settlement of rents."
It was also said—
"If a new valuation is required for rating purposes, it should rather be made at a time when there was no general desire to convert it to rent purposes."
That was a very sensible reason for not introducing a new valuation in the days through which they were now passing. It also came out in the Royal Commission, and he thought it was a fact worthy of the notice of their Lordships, that while there were many rents in Ireland far above Griffith's valuation, which, nevertheless, were fair and reasonable rents, yet, with regard to the poorer tillage lands, it was quite high enough, and in case of revision would not admit of any addition whatever. That was an important statement made by Mr. Ball Greene, the Commissioner of Valuation, that in the case of the poorer tillage lands the rent at Griffith's valuation might be considered a fair rent, quite sufficiently high. He thought the noble Duke (the Duke of St. Albans) need not be under the slightest apprehension that
1438
the Court proposed to be constituted for the settlement of rent would be guided by Griffith's valuation. No such tribunal would judge by such a standard. Each case would, undoubtedly, be considered on its own merits, whatever they might be; and the noble Duke need not have any alarm that it would be guided by any such valuation as that now in force in Ireland. While, therefore, he fully admitted the imperfections of the Irish valuation, and the reasons that existed for improving it at the proper time, he could not undertake to pledge the Government to make that change now.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY (SCOT LAND) BILL.—(No. 75.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLORin moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had passed the House of Commons, having been introduced there by a Representative of one of the largest of the Scotch constituencies, and having received the assent of the majority of the other Scotch Representatives. Two Acts had been passed in Scotland on this subject—one in 1861, and the other in 1877. The Act of 1861 provided that, in the case of a wife being deserted by her husband, or in case of a separation by decree of a Court, she could obtain a protection order from the Court or Judge, which would have the effect of giving her control over her own property, and removing it from that of her husband; and there was a further clause in that Act which said that if after marriage the wife should acquire any property, the husband might be compelled to make proper provision out of it for her benefit. The Act of 1877 extended those provisions. By it the husband's right was entirely excluded in all cases of the earnings the wife might make by any separate employment, or literary, scientific, or artistic exertions; and the husband was exempted from liability for his wife's ante-nuptial contracts. That was all that had as yet been done in Scotland with a view to diminishing the powers of the husband over the property of the wife. In England a good deal more had

1439
been done, for in the year 1870 an Act was passed to enable wives, whether married before or after the passing of the Act, to secure to themselves against the husband all earnings in trade or business, literary, scientific, or artistic exertions, and all stock of more than £25 in the public funds or Joint Stock Companies; and with regard to women married after the passing of the Act, it secured to them all real estate which they might own, after the passing of the Act, up to the value of £200. The present Bill was introduced in order to carry out the same process of enlarging the wives' legal rights, and, of course, diminishing those of the husband. In Scotland the question which arose in the minds of the framers, with reference to the English Act, was, whether those provisions, large in their character and special in their particulars, might not be better dealt with in a wider or simpler form. The present Bill provided that, in regard to those women who might be married after the Act passed, all the personal and real estate which they had at the time of the marriage, or might afterwards acquire, unless there was a contract to the contrary, should remain and be the separate property of the wife. With regard to those who were already married, there were provisions the effect of which he would state. The 3rd clause of the Bill said the Act should not apply to those already married, with this exception—that property coming to them after the Bill passed would also be subject to the provisions of the Bill; a provision which, no doubt, was wider in its scope than the corresponding provisions of the English Act. The 4th clause provided that married persons might, it they thought fit, by mutual consent, and by a certain procedure, which should be registered, place themselves under the Act. He would not trouble their Lordships with the 5th clause further than to say that, in case of desertion, the Court might dispense with the husband's consent to any deed relating to her estate. The 6th clause was a provision which was introduced in some of our Colonies, especially Canada, and which, as regarded its principle, appeared to be neither unjust nor unreasonable—namely, that in regard to married persons domiciled in Scotland, in the case of the intestacy of the wife, the husband should take a similar interest in the wife's estate which the
1440
wife would take in the husband's. There was also a provision in the Bill that if the personal estate of the wife should be lent or intrusted to the husband who became bankrupt, it should be treated as assets of the husband's estate in bankruptcy, under reservation of the wife's claim to a dividend as a creditor for the value of such money or other estates. He proposed, in Committee, to amend this, by postponing the wife's claim to dividend until all the husband's creditors for money or money's worth had been paid. As to Clause 7, relating to the liability of the husband to the wife's estate for the maintenance of the family, he proposed to move the omission of that clause in Committee, and trust to the good sense and good feeling of the husband and wife. He had now said all that was necessary, and would ask their Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL CAIRNSsaid, that, although he had some objections to the details of the measure, he had nothing whatever to say against its principle.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on the first sitting day after the recess at Whitsuntide.

AFFAIRS OF TUNIS.
OBSERVATIONS.
EARL DE LA WARRin rising to call attention to the state of affairs in the Regency of Tunis; and to ask, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in reference to the French invasion of that country, the breach of International law, and the treaty or convention which the Bey by military force has been compelled to sign; also to move for Papers, said, he did not think their Lordships would dissent from at least one remark which he was about to make—that the time was come when the country ought to know what was to be the future policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the affairs of Tunis. Events had marched rapidly onwards, and what was lately foreseen in the future had now become history of the past. But, under the garb of diplomatic secrecy, information had been

1441
withheld, save what had been given by the public Press, till it was announced that one of the fairest and most fertile countries of Northern Africa was virtually placed under a French Protectorate. It was but a few weeks ago that rumours reached the country that French troops were being massed on the Frontier of Algeria and Tunis; and it was soon afterwards stated, on the authority of M. St. Hilaire, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, that the sole object of the movement was to punish and repress some lawless mountainous tribes who had been committing ravages on the Algerine Frontier, and that there was no idea on the part of France of conquest or annexation. But it soon became apparent that these tribes could nowhere be found. The troops then occupied the most important military positions in the country, with the view of encircling, as alleged, the supposed enemy. But, failing in this, after throwing some hundred shells into a fort which was afterwards discovered to be almost unarmed, the troops advanced to within a few miles of the City of Tunis. Ships of war, in the meantime, were engaged in operations on the coast; the French General, with an armed escort of 100 men or more, and with a large force encamped within two miles of the residence of the Bey, went to the palace and demanded an audience of the Sovereign. Guns were also placed in position commanding the palace. He was now stating what had been told him personally by an eye-witness, who was in the palace at the time. A Treaty was produced, of the contents of which their Lordships were now aware, which was at length signed by the Bey, under the pressure of military force. Thus ended the military drama. They now came to the diplomatic part, and here let him say it was far from his wish in any way to represent what was not strictly correct in what had taken place. He knew that excited feelings might sometimes lead to statements which might afterwards be viewed with regret. But, calmly speaking, and looking at the events which had taken place, he would ask the Government what value they placed on the assurances that had been given them by the French Government. Was it possible that this was not a premeditated plan of operation? Would an army of 20,000 men, and he believed he was
1442
understating the number, have been sent to stop the incursions of a few almost unarmed mountain tribes? And, if it was not premeditated, what change of circumstances caused the change of operations? Scarcely any hostile tribes appeared, save some harmless Bedouins or other Natives here and there tending their flocks and herds, whose tents, as alleged, were burnt and themselves sometimes shot. The Bey offered no hostility, but only protested, carefully avoiding all collision with the French troops, and treated them in a friendly manner up to the time when his independence was wrested from him. And that was done acting upon the assurance which had been repeatedly given that the operations of the French troops would be strictly confined to the punishment of the Kroumirs. But how was it that Her Majesty's Government were left uninformed of that? How was it that they assured their Lordships and the country that this expedition meant nothing beyond repressing some hostile tribes, while the French General must have had his orders to force submission upon the Bey, and carried with him the Treaty which was to be extorted from him? That was a matter upon which their Lordships ought to be informed. Did Her Majesty's Government believe that the avowed object of this expedition was the real one? He would for a moment refer to the Papers which had been laid before the House, in order to show that there was information in the hands of the Government which had not been communicated to their Lordships. It was impossible not to see that this question of French influence in Tunis was one of long standing, and that it had not its beginning in the recent outbreak of Frontier Tribes. As far back as the year 1878 M. Waddington, the then French Minister for Foreign Affairs, related a conversation which took place between himself and the noble Marquess below him (the Marquess of Salisbury), which it was impossible to read without seeing that it had been long a question of taking the first opportunity of spreading French influence. He found that the noble Marquess did not admit the construction put upon his words as given in the despatch of M. Waddington; and the improbability of the use of such words was much confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by what had been

1443
stated by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) in his despatch dated June 17, 1880, in which he said—
"In the view of Her Majesty's Government, Tunis was a portion of the Ottoman Empire, to dispose of which Great Britain had no moral or International right."
He would now return to that part of the subject more immediately before the House—the recent action of Her Majesty's Government. It was upon the 5th of April last that the French Government announced their intention of taking steps to subdue the lawless Frontier Tribes, that only being the avowed object. But almost immediately after that, on the 9th of April, Lord Lyons informed the noble Earl opposite that M. St. Hilaire's language implied that the expedition was undertaken solely with a view to chastise the lawless tribes, and that it was not intended that it should enter further into Tunisian territory than might be necessary for that purpose. The noble Lord further said—
"It may be that the present intentions of the French Government do not go much beyond this. I am not, however, blind to the probability that they may be led on much further, and even M. St. Hilaire hinted that the opportunity might he taken to bring the Bey of Tunis to his senses with regard to other matters affecting French interests."
Lord Lyons made use of other words indicating anxiety as to the possible consequences. This very important despatch of Lord Lyons was received at the very beginning of the expedition, and a further despatch, dated April 12, was in the same tone of apprehension, and quoted the words of M. Jules Ferry in the French Chambers, who "spoke of the entrance of French troops on Tunisian territory as a matter of course." To the same effect were the despatches of Mr. Reade, Her Majesty's Consul at Tunis. He wished to recall the attention of the noble Earl opposite to these despatches of Lord Lyons and Mr. Reade, as he could not understand how it was that the House had been informed on several occasions that the French Government had no idea of annexation or conquest, but that their operations would be confined to the punishment of the Frontier Tribes. On the 6th of May the noble Earl stated in the House—
"It does not appear unreasonable that the French should resent outrages within the Algerian frontier, and should take measures to
1444
prevent the recurrence of such outrages. The French Government have constantly given us assurances that they have no intention to annex territory, and yesterday they formally and distinctly authorized Lord Lyons to assure Her Majesty's Government that there was no idea of conquest or annexation with regard to Tunis." [3 Hansard, cclx. 1927.]
Now, at the very time that the noble Earl addressed these words to the House, he was in possession of the information that the French troops had occupied the fort of Bizerta and other military positions, and were advancing in the direction of the City of Tunis. At the same time, in a despatch to Lord Lyons, dated the 7th of May, the noble Earl said—
"They (Her Majesty's Government) cannot, however, conceal from themselves that proceedings of a military nature such have been instituted by the French—the occupation of Bizerta and the destruction of the fort of Tabarca—seem to be directed to some object beyond the mere chastisement of disorderly Arab tribes on the frontier, nor can they affect to misunderstand the intimations which have been given to your Excellency by M. Barthélemy St. Hilaire that, although the French Government did not seek to establish a protectorate, the new Treaty which would be imposed upon the Bey would be in the nature of one."
He could not reconcile those facts and statements with the words of the noble Earl on the 6th of May, that "the French Government had shown no intention of annexation." He came next to the point of Treaties and International rights. Her Majesty's Government had recently stated that Tunis was an integral portion of the Ottoman Empire, and in that view it naturally followed that no Treaty could be valid without the consent of the Sultan. He need hardly remind the House that the strongest proofs could be adduced in support of that. Among them was the fact that the Beys of Tunis had always received investiture from the Sultan, and that troops in lieu of tribute were furnished in time of war, and there were other stipulations of a similar kind. It was known that the French now refused, for manifest reasons, to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Sultan; but it would be easy to show that France in Treaties dating back to 1604 and onward to 1824 acknowledged it, and so recently as 1863, on the occasion of the Tunisian Loan contracted at Paris, M. Drouyn de Lhuys, Minister for Foreign Affairs, suggested the authorization of the Sublime Porte

1445
to legalize the transaction. But, however that might be, the noble Earl opposite could not regard the Treaty which had just been signed as a legal document, if Tunis was a part of the Ottoman Empire. By the Treaty of Paris in 1856, by the Treaty of London in 1871, and by the recent Treaty of Berlin, the integrity of the Ottoman Empire was guaranteed. He could not leave this part of the subject without alluding to what must be regarded as a great violation of International rights. The territory of a neighbouring and friendly Sovereign was invaded against repeated protests, without any declaration of war, military positions were taken up in various parts of the country, his flag was hauled down from a Tunisian fort and the French flag hoisted, troops advanced to the walls of the city, the general with an armed escort entered the palace, and, under military compulsion, a Treaty was signed. Whether Tunis owed allegiance to the Sultan or whether the Bey was independent, there had surely been a great violation of International rights. And now he came to this—In what way did it affect this country? It was impossible to look at the geographical position of Tunis without seeing that it was a matter of great importance. It could not for a moment be supposed that this country could regard with indifference a territory like Tunis falling into the hands of a great Power commanding, as it might do, the channel to the East along which the greater portion of the traffic of this country passed. There was a narrow channel of not more than 80 miles between the Italian and Tunisian shores. At no great distance from Tunis lay the harbour of Bizerta, with sufficient water—from five to seven fathoms—to float the largest iron-clad in any Navy with sufficient space, being about eight miles in length and in width about five miles, to manœuvre a fleet, and which, at a comparatively small outlay at the entrance, might be made one of the finest harbours in the Mediterranean. In case of war, how greatly would be increased the difficulty of our communications with the East, how greatly would it add to the difficulty of maintaining our position in the Mediterranean if a large French Fleet were at Bizerta, within 200 miles of Malta. There was another point of which he must briefly remind their Lord-
1446
ships, and it was one of some importance. Malta was mainly dependent upon Tunis for provisions, both meat and corn. In the event of war, if Tunis were in the possession of France, it would be difficult to know whence these supplies could be procured. And he could net omit to mention that the future commercial interests of this country might be greatly imperilled if the Regency of Tunis were under a French Protectorate. At present, Commercial Treaties with Tunis were favourable. If France was for the future to have the control of Treaties such as that of 1875, which expired in 1882, very different conditions might be imposed which might seriously affect the exports of our manufactures. He did not believe that this country would regard with jealousy any just and fair development of French interests in the Mediterranean; but the annexation of territory, or the establishing a Protectorate over a country without the consent of other Powers who had great interests at stake, could not do otherwise than lead to an estrangement which might be productive of grave and serious consequences. He must say, in conclusion, that in the Papers and Correspondence now before their Lordships, he could see no distinct intimation as to what would be the future policy of Her Majesty's Government. He trusted it would no longer be withheld, and he sincerely hoped it would be based upon the upholding of Treaties and the respecting of International rights—that unjust aggressions would not be tolerated, and that the honour and good faith of this country would be maintained.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that perhaps the less was said in Parliament about the recent proceedings in Tunis the more chance there would be of the French adhering to the professions of their Government and of their desisting from extreme exactions. It was the less necessary to speak of the disregard of the Law of Nations, since within the last few days a pamphlet had appeared, written by a Frenchman, appealing to Frenchmen to do right, and laying the blame on those who had tempted France to do wrong. He trusted that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would not look upon the Treaty recently published as in any way obligatory or final.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, your Lordships do not seem generally inclined to join in this discussion, which has been raised by the noble Earl opposite (Earl De La Warr) on a very important subject, in which, as we all know, he takes a very great interest. Many years ago, I asked a very experienced Foreign Secretary whether he did not feel it a difficulty in his position that it frequently happened that he could not state publicly the best reasons for things that he did or things that he did not do. His answer was, that that was a very great difficulty; but that there was compensation in the greatly superior knowledge which he had to the opposition which attacked him. But I am bound to say, with regard to the noble Earl opposite, that no one can accuse him of a want of information on this subject. I believe the noble Earl will not contradict me when I state that I believe he has been in almost daily correspondence with a gentleman of great energy, great ability, and high character, the counsel of Mr. Levy in the Enfida case, and who, I am informed, is in correspondence with three of the London papers, writes the Reuter telegrams, and is more or less ably represented in both Houses of Parliament. The noble Earl has also had the advantage of all the official documents which have passed between us and France on the subject of Tunis—documents which, as far as I am aware, notwithstanding the doubt which he has thrown upon them, entirely carry out all that at different times, and generally in answer to himself, I have stated to your Lordships. If there were any feeling shown on either side of the House to raise an important discussion on this question, and, still more, if there were any intention of bringing an attack or moving a Vote of Censure on Her Majesty's Government for what they have done, I should be only too happy to enter into the fullest discussion of this matter. But I must say that I very much agree with my noble Friend who has just sat down (Lord Stanley of Alderley), and I doubt exceedingly whether any great public object would be attained by Her Majesty's Government entering into weekly or bi-weekly driblets of discussion with one particular Peer on a matter of great importance involving questions of very great delicacy between
1448
two great and friendly Governments. Therefore, until I see a greater indication of the wish of the House generally to have a really important discussion on this subject I am sure the noble Earl will not think it a want of respect to him individually if I do not go fully into the case.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl who introduced this subject (Earl De La Warr) stated his case with great moderation, and evidently spoke under a sense of responsibility in touching upon this question. But although I quite understand the point of view from which he approaches the subject, and that much is to be said in favour of some of the considerations advanced by him, I am compelled to express an opinion strictly in harmony with that of the noble Earl who has just sat down (Earl Granville)—namely, that no great public benefit will be derived from expanding or continuing this discussion. Any person taking part in this discussion must feel that he is speaking under the weight of great responsibility, because all that is said here is addressed not only to your Lordships and to the English public, but to others, and it is a matter of notoriety that this is a question upon which the French Government and the French people feel very strongly. I do not think that my noble Friend behind me gave quite sufficient weight to the grounds which undoubtedly exist, and which have existed for some time, for causing the French Government to look upon Tunis with great interest and to desire to extend their influence in that country. It is not merely that it is a neighbouring country, but it is a neighbouring country inhabited by tribes of a very warlike and fanatical character, who are of the same race and of the same religion as those who are the subjects of the French Government in the neighbouring Colony of Algiers. I think that no one impartially considering such a state of things will wonder at or blame the French Government for desiring that their influence should be extended and strengthened in Tunis. Supposing an analogous case to arise in reference to one of our own Colonies, and that a race of men of a warlike and fanatical tendency of the same religion and race as those of our own subjects lived outside of

1449
our Frontier, we should be very jealous of any other influence beside our own being acquired over that population. The French Government, however, have gone a good deal further than insuring or extending their influence in Tunis; but, and especially after what has fallen from the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), I am not here to express any opinion upon what they have done. It is always a very doubtful point whether, in a case which does not invite the action of this country to take any more decided steps, remonstrance is in itself a prudent proceeding; and in this case I doubt whether there is any ground in the interest of this country alone for even any intervention or remonstrant action; but whether there is ground for any such action or not, we do not yet know precisely what the proceedings or the intentions of Her Majesty's Government on this subject have been and are. They have not up to this time remonstrated in any formal manner against the action of the French Government. It is, however, perfectly in their discretion to do so. The French Government have undoubtedly taken steps which it is open to us to regard—if we think fit to do so on grounds of policy or of antecedent history—as trenching upon the comity of one friendly nation towards another. But Her Majesty's Government have not thought fit to do so, and I am bound to say that I for one shall not, as far as my knowledge at present goes, challenge that decision. I shall not prolong this discussion. I believe that the French Government and the French nation are actuated by a very friendly sentiment towards this country, and I believe that that friendly connection between us is of the highest importance to this country and to the interest of the world. As far as Tunis is concerned, I see no interest which this country possesses which would justify or should induce us to strain or to place any undue weight upon the friendly relations that exist between the two countries. I do not deny that the French Treaty with the Bey, to which both the noble Lords have alluded, is one which Her Majesty's Government will find it necessary to bear in mind, and which will increase their vigilance for British interests in certain quarters. As far as Tunis is concerned, however, I do not hold that
1450
we have any interest there that should cause us to be disturbed or disquieted by what has passed. If it were possible to suppose that the action which the French Government have taken had any further or more distant object, I do not at all forget that there are in other parts of the Mediterranean British interests of the very gravest character, and any Government who thinks that those interests are in any way compromised by the action of the French Government would be justified in taking up an attitude of great vigilance. But the French Government have given the noble Earl opposite assurances which have been laid upon the Table of the House, and which the noble Earl has very wisely treated as amounting to International engagements. Those assurances, which we have no ground for believing to be other than sincere—and, indeed, it would be unseemly for us to doubt their sincerity—we are justified in accepting as being sufficient to remove any disquieting impressions; and, therefore, no case has arisen to make it incumbent on any independent Member of your Lordships' House to call attention to the subject.

IRISH JURY LAWS.
MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
The order made on Monday last for the appointment of a Select Committee discharged.
Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Irish Jury Laws."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
Motion agreed to.
And, on May 30, the Lords following were named of the Committee:

Ld. President.

L. Inchiquin.

Ld. Privy Seal.

L. Silchester.

D. Marlborough.

L. Monck.

M. Lansdowne.

L. Penzance.

E. Derby.

L. Emly.

V. Hutchinson.

L. Ardilaun.

L. Tyrone.

The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.