Lords Sitting of 25 April 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Army Alternative Punishment*(68).
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Stolen Goods (64).
Committee—Report—Metropolitan Commons Supplemental*(38); Army (Annual) (65).
Third Reading—General Police and Improvement (Scotland)*(48); Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Order*(51), and passed.

STOLEN GOODS BILL.—(No. 64.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it contained exactly the same provisions as the Bill which was sent to the Commons on the same subject last year; and he would move the re-appointment of, as far as possible, the same Committee next week, to which he would move that the Bill should be referred.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; and referred to a Select Committee.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.—(No. 65.)
(The Earl of Morley.)

COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Morley.)
VISCOUNT BURYsaid, it was remarkable that in a year which was distinguished more than any other for Army changes there had been no adequate opportunity afforded for discussing those changes in either House of Parliament. The exigencies of the public service in the other House of Parliament had obliged the Estimates to be taken at a very late hour, and only the most cursory opportunity had since been given for touching on the few important points that arose. It was only by putting Questions occasionally that any information could be obtained in regard to the Army, for there had been no regular debate. When the present Bill was read a second time in their Lordships' House, there was little opportunity for discussion, although there were a great number of points which ought to be considered in regard to recent legislation in the Army. He was not going to find fault with the changes that had been made, for as to a great many, a consensus of military opinion was very much in their favour; but he did complain of this—that since 1871 the Army had been in a perpetual state of change, and noble Lords had been constantly told that the Army was in "a transition state," and that "they must not expect too much." Only last night the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Morley) had repeated, what had often been said before—that the Army was in a transition state, and that the full value of the changes could not be yet appreciated. It was undeniable that the main object of our great Army expenditure was to be able to put an efficient Army in the field on a few days' notice; that was the long and the short of the whole question, and so long as they stopped short of that they had not got that for which they paid£15,500,000 a-year. Well, were they in that position now? The noble and gallant Earl who spoke last night (the Earl of Longford) went so far as to say that there was not a regiment in the Service in an efficient condition. He (Viscount Bury) would not go that length; but he must say they were not in a position which had been so long promised. They were not, in the case of a small war, able to put an Army Corps into the field. In the event of a large war, there were legislative provisions which they could put into operation to enable them to raise a Force; but in regard to a small war,

1373
they were very little better off than they were in 1877. They were still in a transition state, and would have, in case of necessity, to resort to the system which had been denounced by the late Adjutant General Sir Charles Ellice as the most pernicious system which had ever been invented by the ingenuity of man—namely, to call upon men to volunteer from one regiment to another, and thus to leave the already attenuated home regiments still further emasculated. The noble Earl opposite would, no doubt, say that a great deal had been done since Mr. Childers and he had been in Office, and he (Viscount Bury) was not going to deny it. He believed they had improved the condition of the Army; but he would go so far as to say, without fear of contradiction, that there was not one officer in 100—nay, not one officer in the whole Army—who thoroughly understood the position in which the Army stood at the present moment, so much confusion having been created by different Acts of Parliament, Royal Warrants, General Orders, and other Regulations. Those details were only known to those within the War Office, and he doubted if they were known to half-a-dozen even in that Department. They had now a new Army, for the old had entirely disappeared. The system, too, of Indian reliefs had been so altered that they had now a local Army in India, and the system of promotion had been altered so as to fit in with the short service. He did not wish to put a definite Resolution which would produce a debate; but he wished to explain to his noble Friend the difficulties under which those who took an interest in the Army laboured. The public also took an interest in the Army; but that interest would be increased if they could follow, in an intelligible manner, the changes which had been made during the last 10 years. He wished, therefore, to ask his noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) whether it would not be possible to issue a Memorandum, showing the various changes which had been made since Lord Card-well introduced the short service system, and showing the effect of all the Acts of Parliament bearing on the Army, all the recommendations of Committees and Commissions, and the suggestions which had been made in their Office in reference to the Army, in order to show, at a glance, the actual condition of the Army?
1374
No doubt, many Ministerial speeches had been made on the subject of Army reform; but they necessarily lacked the value of an official Paper such as he suggested.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he was sure their Lordships would not find fault with his noble Friend (Viscount Bury) for taking that opportunity of bringing those matters before the House. He quite agreed with his noble Friend as to the desirability of making the changes which had been, and which were being made in the Army intelligible alike to officers and to the public. As to the importance of being able on brief notice to place a small Army in the field, there could be no doubt about it, and the object of the War Office had been to place the battalions not at the strength they would be at in time of war, but at a higher strength, which would give a margin, allowing untrained or unfit men to be left at home, and yet having a full-strength battalion fit for foreign service. It had been the wish of the Government to bring about such a state of things as that; and if they had not as yet succeeded it would be admitted that the battalions had been much improved in strength, and that generally they were in a state of transition. They had been so since 1871, and it was inevitable that it should be so until the short service system, and the changes of organization which resulted from its adoption, had come thoroughly into effect. Steps which had recently been taken had been in the direction pointed out by the Predecessors of the present Government, and with a natural and necessary result of what had been initiated by Lord Cardwell, and lately developed by Lord Cranbrook and Colonel Stanley. At the present time the Government were endeavouring to carry out a most important change, which would give them a certain number of battalions ready to go abroad at short notice. Lord Cardwell's system, it was said, was based on the assumption that when one battalion was abroad another would be at home; but it also embraced the supposition that the battalions at the top of the Roster should be of a certain strength; but for various reasons—and he (the Earl of Morley) did not blame one Government more than another—the conditions on which the noble Lord had based his calculation, no doubt,

1375
had not been rigidly adhered to. The War Office saw the importance of keeping the battalions comprised in the First Army Corps always fit for service. But those battalions could not be brought up to their new establishments and rendered efficient by a stroke of the pen. To increase their strength it was necessary to pour recruits into them—that was the only course which could be pursued; and consequently at the present time, no doubt, the proportion of young soldiers in the high-strength battalions at home was greater than was desirable, and their condition could not be regarded as quite satisfactory. That difficulty had been aggravated by the fact that the changes of organization had necessitated alterations in the Roster, bringing weaker battalions suddenly higher up on the Roster. It could only be remedied by time. Soldiers serving in the First Army Corps would not be sent to the Reserve before completing seven years' service, and by degrees the battalions would harden into efficiency; and when the temporary circumstances referred to, which necessitated rapid recruiting, had passed away, he hoped and believed that the object which all parties wished to attain would be gained—namely, they would have a number of battalions sufficient to constitute a small Army for sudden emergencies, or for small Colonial wars, fit to take the field at very short notice. As to there having been no discussion on the condition of the Army, the noble Viscount rather exaggerated the state of the case. Almost all the great changes that had been carried out of late years had been ably discussed and ably criticized, and if they had not, it was not the fault of the Government who had carried them into effect. He thought that, from the discussions which had taken place with regard to recent reforms, they met with the approval of the public generally, and it was only fair that time should be given for the development of the changes which they had already effected. How far it would be possible to carry out the suggestion of his noble Friend, by drawing up a Memorandum showing all the changes that had been introduced since 1871, and collating them with the recommendations of the various Committees and Commissions which had sat upon the subject, he could not at present say;
1376
but he would take an opportunity of talking over the subject with him, and would see what could be done.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
EARL FORTESCUEpointed out that last Session he had given Notice of a Motion for a Return as to the impressment of means of transport for soldiers in Ireland, under certain ancient statutory powers empowering the Executive in Ireland to authorize the impressment of horses and animals of all kinds, together with vehicles and boats of all descriptions, for the service of Her Majesty, under an order of emergency, enabling any field officer to impress any of these at a reasonable price. To his surprise, last year he (Earl Fortescue) was requested to abstain from so moving by the noble Under Secretary of State for War (the Earl of Morley), by the direction of the Secretary of State (Mr. Childers), who considered it undesirable for the Public Service to introduce the Motion at that time. It seemed to him that the moral effect produced by the spectacle of a car owner being allowed successfully to refuse the use of cars to troops, without recourse being instantly had to the powers conferred by statute upon the Executive to enable the officers to impress them, could not fail to have the worst influence, by encouraging the spirit of defiance to the law, and bringing contempt upon the Executive in the minds of people of all classes. He read with shame and indignation accounts of soldiers and constabulary, weary and way-worn, marching along the road, while jeering Land Leaguers drove beside them in cars which had been refused to them. He wished to ask whether, during the past year, since he gave Notice of his Motion, the powers of the Government in that respect had been exercised at all? Turning to another subject, he would like to have some information about the localization scheme, as to how it was likely to work in Ireland. Owing to the influence it exercised in encouraging recruiting, it, no doubt, answered admirably in loyal districts—that was, he was glad to say, throughout all England, Wales, and Scotland; but it might not be as safely applied to the county of Tipperary in Ireland, He desired to cast no impu-

1377
tation whatever on the regiment in question, long recruited from different parts of Ireland, which, ever since the time of William III. had been conspicuous for its loyalty. He hoped, however, that the Government would not, for the sake of symmetry and uniformity, commit the rash act of exclusively recruiting for an Irish regiment in a district far from well affected to the English Crown and to the maintenance of law and order.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he fully concurred with what had been said by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Fortescue). When the new system of recruiting particular regiments from particular districts only was introduced, he had stated that in parts of Ireland it would result in forming a rebel army. He questioned, in the present disturbed state of Ireland, when they saw the people so disaffected as they were at present, whether it would not be a most unfortunate thing that recruiting should be carried on in districts in which there was no concealment of the disaffection that existed. He wished to call attention to another thing, and that was to the fact that soldiers were being sent about in Ireland in twos and threes to give protection to those who were in danger, and there was much fear of their being altogether demoralized. If it was said that only the old and steady men were taken for this service, and not raw recruits, it was quite clear that the steady men were just those who were required with their regiments to set the recruits a good example. Policemen were also sent with the soldiers; and he wished to know who would command a party consisting of two policemen and two soldiers? Such occurrences could not tend to increase the discipline of the Army or of the Police.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

HIGHWAY RATES.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, that, in putting the Question to Her Majesty's Government of which he had given Notice, he might, perhaps, be allowed to refer for one moment to a statement made by the Prime Minister in "another
  1378
  place," from which it might be gathered that the only advantage which ratepayers were likely to gain from the long-expected amendment of the Highway Acts would be the appropriation of a certain sum, amounting to about£247,000, to the purposes of highways, to be raised by increasing the tax upon private carriages. The boon would be not a very considerable one, especially as a large proportion of the increased tax would be paid by the owners of property who were already the overburdened class; while hired carriages, which, as had been admitted by the Prime Minister, used the roads, were exempted. In like manner, also, brewers' drays and other heavy vehicles engaged in trade would escape contribution in any shape towards the maintenance of highways. He might, therefore, be allowed to ask whether the proposed subvention was to be applied to all highways, or only to what were designated as main roads; whether highway districts were to be left in their present unsatisfactory state, many of which had been dissolved, or were in process of dissolution, in consequence of the prevailing dissatisfaction with regard to them; or whether the Act of 1878 was to remain in force without any Amendment? If Her Majesty's Government proposed to do no more than grant the subvention of a portion of the Carriage Tax, he believed it would be more satisfactory to the country if the Highway Act of 1878 were repealed, and the management of highways were to return to what it was before the passing of that Act, until the Government were able to deal more effectually with the question. He would conclude by asking the Question of which he had given Notice—namely, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure this Session on the subject of highways?
  EARL GRANVILLE, in reply, said, he would call attention to the fact that the noble Earl (Earl De La Warr) had put down his Question before the Financial Statement of Government had been made; and, therefore, before he could possibly have known what would be said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in "another place." He believed it would be necessary for a measure to be introduced in "another place" to give effect to the intentions of his right hon. Friend,

  1379
  and then the noble Earl would be enabled to see what those intentions were.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—WORKING OF THE ACT.

  PRESENTATION OF PETITION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD, according to Notice, presented a Petition from owners of land and others living in Ireland, containing the three following points:—

  "1. Your Petitioners humbly pray, that the principles adopted by the Land Commissioners in the assessment of fair rents may as soon as possible be made public.

  "2. Tour Petitioners respectfully submit that while the operation of the Land Act of 1881 is necessarily of an arbitrary character, the inconvenience arising from such inherent defect would be minimized by a declaration of the principles adopted in its administration.

  "3. That the speedy and ultimate result of such a declaration would be great acceleration in the application of the Act, lessening the number of appeals, multiplying the cases settled out of court,"

  and said, that the matter had, to a certain extent, been dealt with during the discussion of a kindred subject on the previous evening, for many of the observations made to their Lordships then would apply extremely well to that Petition. If the subject were not so serious, there was something almost partaking of the nature of a comedy in the notion that after an Act had occupied three months of discussion during last Session, and had been several months in operation, it should now be thought necessary to consider upon what principles it ought to be administered; but the present Petitioners, of whom he himself was one, found it absolutely necessary to ask for some information upon the subject, though he was afraid they would ask in vain. The Petitioners included landed proprietors who had cases before the Land Courts, and landed proprietors who were likely to find themselves in the position of those who had charges upon lands and were anxious about their security, and also outsiders, who were astonished at the new system of conveyancing and the novel proceedings sanctioned by the Land Act. They had closely examined the Act, but were utterly unable to discover upon what principle it was supposed to work. They had followed the decisions of the Land Court, and were equally unable to dis-
  1380
  cover a principle. The legal points were, indeed, principally almost entirely disposed of by the Superior Commissioners; but the instances were so rare in which the Superior Commissioners had interfered with the judicial rents fixed by the Assistant Commissioners, that practically, so far as regards the fixing of rent, the Assistant Commissioners were the ruling powers. The names of the Assistant Commissioners were not inserted in the Act; but he (the Earl of Longford) was satisfied that if their names had been before Parliament at the time the Act was under discussion, Parliament would have hesitated placing in such hands the extensive powers they now exercised. They might, perhaps, have been competent to deal with small properties, or cases of extravagant rents; but their jurisdiction extended over properties of large value. The reasons for some of their decisions were of an extraordinary kind. In one case the rent was reduced on account of the good character of the tenant. In a case in the county of Roscommon, the rent was reduced because the tenant was honest and industrious. It seemed rather a caricature on Irish life that when an instance was found of a tenant being honest and industrious his rent should be at once reduced. Probably, it was because they thought an honest and industrious man in that condition of Ireland so rare a thing that it justified them in giving him a slice of somebody else's estate. One Sub-Commissioner had, indeed, stated that he acted throughout on a consistent principle, but he kept the secret to himself; and he (the Earl of Longford) was not aware that any other Court made such a confession as that. He admitted that, as a general rule, the proceedings of the Land Court were conducted with patience and good order, though there were exceptions where the people had been warmed up by the approach of their liberators, and then the decisions of the Court were racy of the soil. If Parliament had acceded to the view that a general reduction of rent was desirable, they would have submitted to its decision; but the Government and Parliament did the reverse. They said the rents were not generally extravagant, and that, on the whole, no general reduction of rents would be effected by the Act. That, however, had not been found to be the case; for wher-

  1381
  ever the property in Ireland was situated, whether it was rich pasture or mountain moorland, it had all been brought into the Land Court, and the result was uniformly the same—a reduction of rent, notwithstanding the plainest proofs that it was already of the fairest possible character. Again, if the Government had said they thought it desirable to have a re-valuation of property, that would have been an intelligible principle, from which they could gather what the mind of Parliament was; but they had no guide whatever. The Petitioners did not come denouncing the Land Act; but they expressed the wish to facilitate the working of the Act by coming to arrangements out of Court, provided they could understand that such arrangements were necessary. Their Petition was that, as Parliament had imposed that Act of Parliament upon them, they should explain to them what the Act was, and on what principle it was to be administered. That was a request which no one could regard as unreasonable; and he trusted that, from some quarter or other, they would have some explanation given them that would prove satisfactory. He should have been very glad to have urged further arguments in their behalf; but he had been really forestalled by the discussion which had taken place on the subject last night.
  Petition for a speedy declaration of the principles adopted in the administration of the Act by the Land Commissioners in Ireland; of Owners of Land and others living in Ireland, or interested in its welfare; read.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, that, in his opinion, nothing could be more reasonable than for the land proprietors, or ex-land proprietors of Ireland, as they might be more properly called, to ask to be informed on what tenure they held the small shred of ownership, as regarded their property in land, that remained to them. He, for one, would like to know on what principle the Land Act was being administered? He had not the slightest notion, at the present moment, to whom the land belonged. It used to be called "real property;" but, in his opinion, it constituted at present about the most unreal investment that could be found. What was to be the new title for it? Lord Dufferin had
  1382
  written that in no other country but Ireland did such a state of things exist as that a landlord, who had let his land on reasonable conditions to-day, did not know to whom it would pass to-morrow. No one could doubt that the Act had proved a failure; and he did not know that it would be more consolatory, if it had succeeded, instead of having failed, since success might have led to further experiments in bribing the many with the property of the few, and then the present miserable state of Ireland would have been still more deplorable. Last year they had conceded the three F's, and now they had received in return for them, the three R's—roguery, robbery, and rapine. But the policy by which those three R's were secured to Ireland had not even the recommendation of success. If it was necessary that the Irish landlords should be robbed, it was only reasonable they should know the principle upon which they were to be so.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that the speech which they had just heard, with every word of which he entirely disagreed, and the panic of which he hoped would soon pass away from men's minds, though he could not undertake to say whether or not it would pass away from the mind of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Dunsany)—that speech was just nine months too late. It ought to have been delivered before the Land Act of 1881 passed their Lordships' House, and he would not discuss it at the present time. But he wished to say one word with respect to the Petition presented by the noble Earl (the Earl of Longford). It was, in fact, a Petition to Parliament for further legislation; it was a Petition which requested Parliament to amend and alter the Land Act of last year in a most important respect—namely, with regard to the definition of fair rent. The question whether any principles for the ascertainment of fair rent should be laid down by the Legislature was considered by both Houses of Parliament last year; and it was deliberately decided by Parliament that beyond the terms of the 8th section of the Act no attempt should be made to lay down any such principles. He might point out to the noble Earl that the Government had not given any recommendation to the Land Commission as to the adoption or renouncement of any principles. If the Land Commission

  1383
  were to be invited to declare the principles upon which they proceeded, they would probably point to the Act of Parliament, and would say that they were doing their best under the terms of the Act to ascertain in each case, in a way very closely analogous to a Court of Arbitration, what was a fair rent, either by inspection by the Sub-Commissioners, or by the employment of valuators, in addition to the evidence on both sides. They would also say, no doubt, that whenever any important case of law arose, that case was decided by the Courts of Appeal, and that all the inferior Land Courts were absolutely bound by such decision. If, however, they were invited to go beyond some such statement as that, and to declare what they considered to be the principle for ascertaining a fair rent, they would point out that Parliament itself had absolutely refused to lay down such a principle; and they would say that until Parliament had further legislated and amended the Act of 1881, they could hardly be expected to do what Parliament had not done.
  Petition ordered to lie upon the Table.

CRIMINAL LAW—THE CONDEMNED CONVICT LAMSON.

  QUESTION. MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in rising to ask the Government the Question of which he had given Notice with respect to the Lamson case, said, after a long and patient trial, George Henry Lamson was convicted of a most deliberate and cruel murder on a helpless, crippled boy; and the learned Judge who passed upon him the extreme sentence of the law expressed his full concurrence with the verdict and his deep abhorrence of the crime. The prisoner had the good fortune to be defended most fully and ably by some of the most eminent counsel at the Criminal Bar, and they, no doubt, after full consideration and consultation with the prisoner's friends, resolved not to raise the plea of insanity, probably thinking it hopeless; and the sole question left to the jury was whether Percy John was murdered by George Henry Lamson, the result being that the jury declared their firm conviction that he was. After the trial, as was now always the case on such occasions, an attempt was made by the friends of the condemned man to
  1384
  obtain from the Secretary of State for the Home Department a remission of the extreme penalty of the law on the ground of the prisoner's insanity; but that functionary, in the face of the recent trial and sentence by the learned Judge, most properly declined to interfere. Such was the state of affairs with regard to this matter, until some two or three days before the date fixed for the execution of the sentence, when the country was astounded by the intelligence that the Secretary of State, at the request of the President of the United States, conveyed through the noble Earl at the Foreign Office (Earl Granville), had determined to postpone the execution of the sentence for 10 days, in order to obtain some further evidence from America with regard to the prisoner's insanity. Although perfectly satisfied with the justice and propriety of the verdict, the Secretary of State had allowed a foreign Government to interfere in this absolutely English question with the due course of the Criminal Law. That had been done at the instance of a Government which prided itself upon its Monroe doctrine, and would refuse to permit the smallest interference on the part of any European Government, not only with its own internal affairs, but with anything affecting the two vast Continents of North and South America. He (the Earl of Milltown) was far from wishing to say anything offensive to the citizens—for the most part their kinsmen—of that great Transatlantic Republic, for which he felt the greatest respect and the most unbounded admiration. No other country more strenuously resented such interference than the United States; and he could not help thinking that if, during the trial of Guiteau, the Government of this or any other country had requested that a trial which had become, in his (the Earl of Milltown's) opinion, and in the opinion of many other persons as well, a positive scandal to civilization, should be conducted with some regard to decency, they would have been most properly met by the Government of the United States telling them to mind their own business. It was true that our Government never thought either of remonstrating or interfering in the slightest degree in that trial; and, therefore, such was the answer which he ventured to submit should have been given by the

  1385
  noble Earl opposite, though in the courteous language of diplomacy, to the President of the United States. But even supposing that this American evidence as to the insanity of Lamson was of the strongest possible description, it could, he submitted, in no way affect the issue tried at the Old Bailey. Whether he or his ancestors had or had not shown symptoms of insanity, America could not affect the question whether, at the time he committed the murder, he was responsible for his own acts. Reference was made by the Judge, in the trial of Maclean for the atrocious crime of shooting at the Queen, to the principles laid down in M'Naughten's trial, that it was the duty of the jury to say whether the person charged was insane at the time of the offence; and the test was whether he could then distinguish right from wrong; and he (the Earl of Milltown) thought it equally applied to this case. There was another dilemma. If the Secretary of State were to set aside the verdict of the jury and the opinion of the learned Judge, was he to send the murderer forth into the world, or was he to mitigate his sentence to penal servitude? As to confining him as a criminal lunatic, he did not believe that a man whom a jury had found guilty of murder, and who had not been acquitted on the ground of insanity, could be so confined. Besides that, the proceedings in this case were positively cruel, and the last respite reminded him of nothing so much as of a cat playing with a mouse. He hoped the Government would not yield to the arrogant and presumptuous interference of the United States, which was inconsistent with the dignity of this country, and would, if submitted to, create a dangerous precedent for them and their successors. He would, in conclusion, ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any existing precedent of a Foreign Government having interfered to arrest a judgment pronounced on a British subject by an English court of justice for a crime committed in England of which he had been found guilty by a regularly constituted jury; and, if not, whether the Secretary of State will inform the House what are the reasons which have induced Her Majesty's Government to accede to such an interference on the part of the Presi-
  1386
  dent of the United States in the case of the convict Lamson? and would also move for copies of all the correspondence that has taken place with the United States Government on the subject.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for copies of all the correspondence that has taken place with the United States Government on the subject of the postponement of the execution of the sentence passed upon the convict Lamson."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, he did not desire to enter into the details of the question before the House, but wished to call attention to a state of things which made a single individual—though that individual was a Secretary of State—the sole quarter whence remissions of sentence in cases of such magnitude proceeded. He would ask whether what had happened did not form the strongest possible argument in favour of a Court of Appeal, before which such cases should be judicially decided? He hoped the Government would be induced by the facts of the case either to institute some inquiry into the present system, or to introduce some measure for the establishment of an Appeal Court in such cases as that of Lamson.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I do not think I am called upon to answer the Question which has been put to me by the noble Viscount who spoke last (Viscount Midleton). It most certainly raises a very important issue; but, for myself, I would say that I have very great doubt whether it would be easy to find a practical and good substitute for the present arrangement. With regard to the Motion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown), I have no objection to it as it stands; but, under the circumstances, it possibly might be more regular that I should postpone any discussion of the question until the Papers are in your Lordships' hands. But, considering the courtesy the noble Earl has already shown me, I would ask your Lordships to be allowed to give a very short answer to the Question he has put to me. The first part of the Question is, whether there is any existing precedent of a Foreign Government having interfered to arrest a judgment pronounced on a British subject by an English court of justice for a crime committed in Eng-

  1387
  ]and of which he had been found guilty by a regularly constituted jury? The second is contingent upon my answer—namely, that, if there is no precedent, whether I will state the reasons for the course that has been followed? I remember the late Lord John Russell once telling me that which often happened in Parliament—that you gave the best possible reasons for a thing without producing any effect; but if you could say that a thing had been done in the time of Queen Elizabeth, the thing was settled. With regard to precedents, all I have to say is, that it is a thing of very constant occurrence that foreign Governments should interfere with regard to persons under the sentence of a Judicial Court; and if I may find a precedent of not only what a foreign Government has done, but of what we have done in foreign countries, I take as a type what happened, as I daresay the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) recollects, in 1877, when the German Ambassador made an appeal in behalf of two Germans, one of whom was sentenced to imprisonment for unlawfully wounding—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It was in Lord Derby's time that this occurred, not in mine.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The other was sentenced to penal servitude for forgery. The noble Lord who then presided at the Foreign Office did not show the slightest resentment at the interference, though Sir R. Assheton Cross decided, after a full investigation of the circumstances, that there were no grounds for the revision of the sentences. And I think that is really the thing that makes the whole difference. Were it assumed, in the slightest degree, that that was an interference, on the part either of the United States or of Germany, with the action of our Municipal Law, I think there are no words too strong to express our resentment at such interference. In this case before your Lordships, I feel there is no assumption of that sort. Formerly, in this country, after a criminal had been condemned to death the execution took place almost immediately. In later times a considerable period was allowed to elapse, for the express purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to consider any circumstances which might appear from their nature to be desirable to lay before the Sovereign with regard to the
  1388
  exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy. Now, this term of a fortnight is generally amply sufficient for circumstances confined to this country; but in cases where a person has been in Canada, or in India, or in one of our large Colonies, and there are circumstances connected with those places, a greater time has been given; and I own I think the Secretary of State for the Home Department would have taken a grave responsibility on himself if he had entirely refused to consider information which the American Secretary of State guaranteed to be of a bonâ fide and important character, and on which he had been advised by the highest legal authority of the country. In reference to what has fallen from the noble Earl, as to the cruelty of the proceedings, I think the argument has been pushed a little too far. If I were sentenced to be hanged to-morrow, and this alternative had been offered to me, I do not think I should have quarrelled with it on the score of humanity. I am glad to have had the opportunity of stating, in the most clear manner, that we should resent, as affecting the dignity of this country, any interference on the part of a foreign Government with the course of English law. But here we have merely the fact of information given and stated on high authority to be of an important character; and I should hardly like myself to refuse to foreign Governments the same power with reference to their subjects in this country which we have frequently claimed on behalf of our own subjects abroad.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that, in his opinion, his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Milltown) was justified in bringing this subject before the consideration of the House. The manner in which the Secretary of State for the Home Department had exercised his powers in respect to the Prerogative of Mercy was not a matter usually discussed in that House; but the Question of the noble Earl raised considerations affecting our national independence. At the same time, he did not think it was possible to form any judgment till the Papers were before their Lordships which the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) had promised. It was impossible to lay down a rule that we would not listen to the suggestions of any foreign Government in regard to criminal sentences, especially in the case

  1389
  of a man born, as Lamson was, on American soil. We could not do so without laying down a rule with respect to other Governments which we did not observe ourselves. There were many cases showing that this country was not sparing in its efforts in that direction, and sometimes we were a great plague to foreign Governments in our interferences on behalf of British subjects. On the other hand, it was perfectly conceivable that the American Government might have interfered in an improper manner, and might make claims which could not be entertained on the ground of their inadequacy. But, as he had already observed, it was impossible to form any judgment on that point till they had the Papers before them. Perhaps some prejudices had been raised upon that matter, and a greater sensitiveness generated by two circumstances. One was the mere synchronism with certain cases of American interference on behalf of other persons detained in another part of Her Majesty's Dominions, with respect to whom there would be much to say when the question came before their Lordships. But, besides, there was the objection to the punishment of death largely prevalent in some countries, and especially in America; and there was a fear that if such interference were to become a precedent, it might be used, not for purposes which ought to be present to the mind of a Secretary of State, but for the purpose of forwarding the particular notion that the punishment of death ought not to be inflicted. Of course, if there was any interference on the part of foreign Governments, such as that of suggesting to this country the kind of punishment by which we ought to visit particular offences, it would very properly be resented as unsuited to the dignity and independence of the country. As, however, the case appeared at present, and subject to any considerations that might arise out of the Papers to be presented, he did not see that there was any ground for censuring the action of the Home Secretary.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the subject of a Court of Criminal Appeal was a very important one; and it would, no doubt, receive from Parliament the consideration which its importance deserved, whenever it might be brought forward. But the noble Viscount (Viscount Midleton) was mis-
  1390
  taken in supposing that an improvement in such cases as this would necessarily be effected by the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal. It must be manifest that delay and suspense would be among the inevitable consequences—delay probably greater than had taken place in the present instance. It was also a mistake to suppose that by such a Court you would get rid of the Prerogative of Mercy in the Crown, and the duty of the responsible Minister to advise the Crown as to the exercise of that Prerogative. It was part of the duty of the Secretary of State to advise the Crown as to the exercise of that Prerogative upon grounds which no Court of Appeal, or, indeed, Court of Law whatever, could entertain—namely, upon the view which he might take of the moral importance of circumstances which were not, and could not be in any sense, legal evidence. On the other hand, to establish a Court to deal with matters which never could form the subject-matter of legal evidence would be contrary to all sound principles of legislation. If a Court of Criminal Appeal were established, it must proceed upon legal evidence, and upon that alone.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for copies of all the correspondence that has taken place with the United States Government on the subject of the postponement of the execution of the sentence passed upon the convict Lamson.

STATE OF IEELAND—THREATENING LETTERS.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY, in rising to ask the Question of which he had given Notice, said, he was quite well enough aware that it was not customary for a Member of their Lordships' House to take notice of an expression used in debate in the other House of Parliament; but he thought that when a sentiment which he might describe as of a novel and unprecedented character, such as that given effect to by the Prime Minister in the other House some short time since, was made, he should be pardoned if he brought it under the notice of their Lordships. It so happened that a few days after their Lordships' House had adjourned for the Easter Recess, he

  1391
  was in a somewhat remote part of Scotland, where he read the speech of the Prime Minister, and the thought struck him at once that the speech would be also read throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, and that it must necessarily have the most disastrous effect. It seemed to him there were two points specially deserving of attention in this paragraph of the Prime Minister's speech. The first was, whether it was consistent with propriety that anyone, however exalted his position, should venture to criticize the words of a learned Judge in the administration of the law; and the second was, whether the sentiment given effect to was one of itself of propriety? He felt much inclined to advert to such observations as justification of what the Prime Minister termed "land-hunger," or, again, the special line of demarcation between "social" and "political" revolution; but on this occasion he would limit himself to those parts of the speech incorporated in his Question. He certainly had hitherto been under the impression that it was the first duty of the First Minister of the Crown to uphold the dignity of the law. He was further under the impression that it was also the duty of the First Minister of the Crown to uphold the authority of the administrators of the law; and, further, he thought it was the duty of the Prime Minister, no less than of every other subject of the Realm, to accept—he might almost say with sanctity—every word which fell from the lips of a learned Judge on the Bench. It was on that account that he had ventured to put this Question to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, as the highest functionary in that learned Profession of which he was himself such a distinguished ornament. In allusion to his Question, he was not going to say that every murder or attempted murder in Ireland during the last 18 months had been preceded by a threatening letter. Indeed, his (the Earl of Galloway's) own brother-in-law, who bad the management of the Irish property of a noble Member of their Lordships' House, had several months ago received a threatening letter; but he was thankful to say that, at present, his life had not been taken, nor, as far as he was aware, had it been attempted. But their Lordships were aware that more
  1392
  than one murder had been actually perpetrated as well as attempted in Ireland, which bad been preceded by a threatening letter. Therefore, he thought it was a matter of the most serious importance for anyone in the position of the First Minister of the Crown to venture to give expression to such a sentiment as that to which he had now referred. He did not wish to say anything unnecessarily harsh as regarded Mr. Gladstone; but, at the same time, lie ventured to express it as his firm belief that if anyone else, in the whole civilized part of the globe, had ventured to utter such a sentiment he would have been stigmatized by the whole of the public Press as the very reverse of a human being. He would make no further comment than that it was high time to stop such reprehensible language. He must, however, be permitted to point out that the statement was directly contrary to the fact; for, by two recent Statutes—namely, 24&25 Vict. c. 97, s. 50, amended by 27&28 Vict. c. 47, s. 2—"Sending letters, threatening to burn or destroy houses, or kill, maim, or wound cattle," &c, was stated to be felony, punishable by penal servitude "not exceeding ten, and not less than five years." And, again, 24&25 Vict. c. 100, s. 16, amended by 27&28 Vict. c.47,s.2—"Sendingletters, threatening to murder, felony, punishable by penal servitude not exceeding ten, and not less than five years. "It was a curious thing that at the time these Statutes were passed—namely, in 1861 and 1864—the Prime Minister occupied the same position as be did now—that of Chancellor of the Exchequer—and, therefore, he might be quite accurately described as a co-author of the very Statutes which he had now denounced. He felt that he owed some apology to the noble and learned Lord for having framed the Question so as to suggest that he thought it possible his Lordship could have any sympathy whatever with this, which he (the Earl of Galloway) considered a most hideous sentiment uttered by the Prime Minister. It would hardly be necessary for the noble and learned Lord to disavow that; but he hoped his Lordship would be able to inform the House that Mr. Gladstone had already expressed the deepest contrition for the expression; and bad further explained that it was only one more

  1393
  of those innumerable instances of that helter-skelter, reckless as well as vilifying volubility, which so poisoned the air of Mid Lothian in the month of December, 1879, and again in the month of March, 1880, the natural—nay, the inevitable fruits of which, he regretted to think, they were now reaping in the present distracted and semi-barbarous state of Ireland. In conclusion, he begged, in the terms of his Notice, to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, Whether he is prepared to endorse the sentiment reported in the public journals to have been expressed by the Prime Minister on the eve of the Easter Recess in regard to the state of Ireland; viz., that "threatening letters"…"falling into the category of serious crimes" (and again)…"falling into the class of serious criminal offences"…"is an overstatement on the part of the judge"; who, in the person of Chief Justice Morris, had been quoted to have made a statement of such general import in a court of justice?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Earl (the Earl of Galloway) commenced his speech by admitting that it is not very usual in this House to enter upon questions as to what may have been said in the other House of Parliament by particular Members of that House; but I am afraid that, with the example of last night and of to-night before you, your Lordships will be of opinion that that practice is in danger of becoming more usual than it has heretofore been. I cannot think that it is a very convenient practice to put to a Minister in this House Questions as to what has been reported in the newspapers to have been said by another Minister in the other House; and if anything could make that practice more inconvenient, it would be to put a Question in the form proposed by the noble Earl upon the Paper, and then to follow it up by a discursive speech, in which reference is made to the Mid Lothian Campaign, and to the great facilities of oratory which is possessed by the Prime Minister, and a great many other matters, as to which no Notice had been given. The noble Earl said he would not allude to other parts of the same speech, because he had not given any Notice of asking a Question upon them; but, while disclaiming that intention, he had, in fact, done more than allude to
  1394
  them. With regard to the Question addressed to me by the noble Earl, I am not prepared to inform the House that the Prime Minister has expressed the deepest contrition for anything which he has said, neither am I prepared to endorse the statement of the noble Earl that the Prime Minister has ever given utterance, or intended to do so, to anything that can be described as most hideous, to use the words of the noble Earl. In truth, the noble Earl has, I think, misunderstood what the Prime Minister really said. Last night a misconstruction was put upon the words of the Prime Minister; but to-night his language has been still more seriously misinterpreted. I entirely agree that, by the two Acts of Parliament to which the noble Earl has referred, the offence of sending letters threatening to commit murder, arson, or other grave offences are not only made crimes, but are made crimes of a very serious character; and these crimes and offences, in the present disturbed state of Ireland, should be treated as being very serious, and liable to be visited, according to the difference in particular cases, with serious punishment. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that no exception can be taken to any words of the learned Judge, in which he may have spoken of threatening letters as falling into the category of serious crimes, and I do not believe that Mr. Gladstone ever intended to take any such exception. I will take the liberty of explaining what I believe he really intended by what he said on this subject. As a matter of fact, most unhappily, offences falling within this category have become very numerous of late, and they differ very much among themselves in point of gravity. Some—a small proportion—are doubtless connected with heinous offences, either actually perpetrated, or of which the perpetration is really meditated by the writers; but the great majority are not, in truth, of that character; and although the circumstances of Ireland make it necessary to legislate against all such offences as a class, yet when we are referring to them, not for the purpose of administering the Criminal Law, but with the object of classifying the statistics of Irish crime in discussions before Parliament, it becomes of importance to distinguish between them and outrages against life and property of a heinous character.

  1395
  Accordingly, when in this House and in the House of Commons, in order to arrive at a correct view of the comparative state of Ireland at different periods, the statistics of crime in that country are referred to, it has always been found necessary to separate this class of offences from the more heinous offences of actual outrage and violence against person and property, and not to bring them all into one class; because the value of those statistics for Parliamentary purposes would be greatly vitiated if the whole number of cases in which threatening letters had been sent were included, without any discrimination, under the head of heinous offences. Although the law properly treats the sending of threatening letters as a serious offence, it is not to be put upon a par with actual outrage, such as murder, attempt to murder, shooting into a dwelling-house, and destruction of property. Mr. Gladstone, when he used the words attributed to him, was speaking from that point of view; and it was in a comparative, and not in a positive sense, that he took exception to what had fallen from some other Members of the other House of Parliament, who had not made that distinction between the most serious criminal offences and the other class, numerically very much greater, but a large proportion of which was not of so important or serious a character. Mr. Gladstone did not take upon himself to criticize the language of the learned Judge, neither did he go out of his way for that purpose; but, as I understand the matter, a Member of the other House, in referring to the expressions of the learned Judge, interpreted them in a manner which Mr. Gladstone, rightly or wrongly, considered to be an overstatement. I do not believe that Mr. Gladstone had any intention whatever to show the slightest disrespect to the learned Judge or to criticize his statement. I do not believe that Mr. Gladstone had seen the whole context of the language used by the learned Judge; but he was commenting upon the speech of another Member of the House of Commons, who had pressed into his service the expressions which were used by the learned Judge. I am perfectly satisfied that Mr. Gladstone never intended to express any opinion which could encourage any person to suppose that he regarded this class of offences as anything less than
  1396
  serious, although, in estimating the present state of Ireland, he did not think that they should be brought into the same class, or regarded as being of the same character, as the most heinous crimes.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I sympathize with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack at the constant imposition upon him of the task of having to explain the meaning of the words of the Prime Minister. I feel the gravity of that task, and how gladly the noble and learned Lord would escape from it. Mr. Gladstone's language has this happy peculiarity that, while it is capable of inciting to acts of violence in Ireland and of arousing the most dangerous passions and feelings of the people of that country, it is also capable, under the subtle handling of the noble and learned Lord, of bearing a comparatively innocent construction. I must, however, take exception to the ruling of the noble and learned Lord when he says that we should take no notice of the language used in the other House. Since I have been in this House I have always understood that to deal with language used by Members of the other House was irregular, with this exception—if the Member of Parliament was a Minister of the Crown. If it were not so, we should be debarred from asking notice politically of many of the most important statements that are made, and from passing our judgment upon the action, and upon the grounds stated for that action, by the occupants of the most important Departments of the State. The noble and learned Lord, I think, strained his well-known power in attempting to establish that Mr. Gladstone had not spoken lightly of this particular class of offences. What Mr. Gladstone said was this—and I wish to repeat it in the presence of those who have heard the noble and learned Lord's statement. The Prime Minister said—
  "I think it is an over-statement on the part of the hon. and learned Member, or on the part of the Judge whose language and sentiments he has adopted, to describe threatening letters as falling into the class of serious criminal offences."
  Now, what are threatening letters in the present disturbed state of Ireland? They are the machinery by which all the present occult government of Ireland is maintained—they are the instruments

  1397
  by which all the decrees of the Land League, of the Fenians, and of the Riband conspirators of Ireland are enforced upon the reluctant farmers. What test will you adopt to estimate the seriousness of a criminal offence? Do you not ask whether it interferes with the liberty and safety of individuals, with their peace of mind, and brings about the prostration of their industries? It is the threatening letters which maintain a state of panic in the country, which prevent men from pursuing their ordinary avocations in peace and security, and which give terrible width and effect to the crimes which are perpetrated by order of these secret organizations. It is through these threatening letters that the criminals who control the action of persons and destroy the liberty of a large class in Ireland are able to act in the districts which are dominated by their criminal action. Considered in the light of their effects upon the tranquillity of the country and the liberty of individuals, these threats to murder are most serious criminal offences; and it will have no salutary effect in Ireland that those who commit them, and that those who are the subject of them, should know that they should be lightly spoken of by the Prime Minister, and defended from the Woolsack by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of England.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, there is not the slightest occasion for me to defend Mr. Gladstone; but I must congratulate the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) upon the opportunities he finds, and which he sometimes creates, of making personal attacks upon Mr. Gladstone, and of attributing the worst possible motives to ordinary expressions of opinion when uttered by my right hon. Friend. I will not go over the whole ground again, which has been so ably covered by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; but this remark I may be permitted to make, that it has been the constant habit, in giving accounts of the state of Ireland, carefully to separate threatening letters—which there is not the slightest doubt are mischievous and illegal—from the more serious crimes of murder and destruction of property. I have not one word more to add to what the noble and learned Lord said; but that is what he did say.

  ARMY ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for alternative punishments under the Army Discipline and Regulation Act, 1881—Was presented by The Lord DENMAN; read 1a. (No. 68.)
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.