Lords Sitting of 9 February 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Shop Hours Regulation* (7).

LAND ACT (IRELAND) 1881—THE COMMISSIONERS—COUNTY COURT JUDGES—OATHS.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDbegged to ask the Lord Privy Seal a Question, of which he had given him private Notice. The Question was, Whether the Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners appointed to administer the Irish Land Act had taken any, and if so what, form of oath; and what form of oath was taken by the County Court Judges of Ireland?
LORD CARLINGFORD, in reply, said, the noble Marquess had given him ample Notice of the Question he had just put, and which he could have answered without any Notice at all. He had only to refer his noble Friend to the Act of last Session, under which the Irish Land Commissioners were constituted. That Act provided no form of Oath to be taken by the Land Commissioners as such. Mr. Justice O'Hagan, of course, had taken the Oath which was usually taken by Justices of the High Court of Justice. With respect to the County Court Judges, they had taken the usual form of Oath ad-

221
ministered to County Court Judges; but they had not taken any Oath in connection with the duties imposed upon them by the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881.

THE LAND COMMISSION AND IRELAND—THE PAMPHLET "HOW TO BECOME THE OWNER OF YOUR FARM."

  QUESTIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYdesired to put another Question, which, perhaps, the Lord Privy Seal would be able to answer without Notice. If, however, the noble Lord wished for Notice, he would put it on the Paper. The other night the noble Lord mentioned that a mysterious pamphlet had been put into circulation by Mr. Godley, Secretary to the Land Commission, on the recommendation and at the instance of a brother official. Was the noble Lord able to give the name of the brother official?
  LORD CARINGFORD: Yes; the official referred to was the Solicitor of the Land Commission, Mr. Fottrell. He thought his best answer to the Question of the noble Marquess would be to say that he was going to move for a Copy of the Correspondence between the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Land Commission, which would explain all the circumstances of this strange case.
  LORD DUNSANYwished to know Whether this Mr. Fottrell was the same gentleman who acted as Solicitor to the Land League; because, if that were so, it would be the most natural thing in the world that such a pamphlet should be circulated by him; but that such a document should be circulated by the Land Commission was strange. He would not say that it contained high treason, like much of the Land League literature, but sedition, and for that word he had Ministerial authority.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he was not able at present to answer the Question. He had no idea as to the fact, or supposed fact, stated by the noble Lord.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD THE EARL OF LONGFORD moved for a—
  "Copy of a Letter, dated 3rd February instant, from Denis Godley, Esquire, Secretary
  222
  to the Irish Land Commission, to the Earl of Longford, on the subject of a pamphlet entitled 'How to become the owner of your farm,' printed at the Queen's Printing Office, Dublin, for Her Majesty's Stationery Office."
  The noble Earl said, that last week those of their Lordships who were resident in Ireland became aware of this pamphlet, which was put in circulation under the authority of the Land Commission. A copy came into his possession, and, observing it was of a peculiar character, he wrote to the Secretary of the Land Commission and the Queen's Printer for information on the subject. The Queen's Printer cut him rather short, and referred him to Her Majesty's Stationery Office. The Secretary of the Land Commission wrote a letter which was the subject of the Notice he had given, and which he proposed, if their Lordships agreed, should be laid upon the Table as an illustration of the mode in which business was done in the Land Commission Office. The letter needed very few words of explanation, and as there was nothing in the letter which was at all of a confidential character, with the permission of their Lordships, he would read it to the House. It was dated "Irish Land Commission, 3rd February, 1882," and it ran—
  "My Lord,—I am directed by the Irish Land Commissioners to acknowledge the receipt of your communication dated the 2nd, and to state that the issue of the pamphlet in question was authorized by this office without the sanction or knowledge of the Commissioners, in the belief that there was nothing of a political character in it, but that it contained useful information relating to the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act. On the pamphlet being for the first time, on the 21st January, brought under the notice of the Commissioners, and for the first time, read by the Secretary, certain objectionable remarks were noticed in it. Directions were immediately given to withdraw the pamphlet as far as possible from circulation, and for the destruction of unsold copies.
  "I am, my Lord, your obedient servant,
  "DENIS GODLEY, Secretary."
  There was no charge against the Government there. It was evident that what had happened was purely Departmental. He might remind the House that the action of the Land Commission in Dublin had been very jealously watched by those interested in the matter, and that the affair derived much of its importance from that fact. It must be remembered that the Commissioners had been ap-

  223
  pointed not because they were impartial, but because they were partial, or, at any rate, because they were committed to the spirit as well as the letter of the Act. Still, he made no objection to their appointment, and was willing enough to submit to their decision any disputes in which he might be engaged; but he could not express the same confidence in their assistants the Sub-Commissioners. The pamphlet now brought to the notice of the House was not the first document issued by the Commission. Immediately on their appointment they gratuitously put in circulation a statement addressed to the tenant farmers—that was, to one of the parties on whose cases they were to adjudicate, showing the great advantages conferred on them by the Land Act. It must be borne in mind that that statement was not a code of procedure that was required in the fulfilment of the duties of the Land Commissioners; but was a statement which was gratuitously put in circulation. It seemed to him that if the Bankruptcy Court, when some Bankruptcy Law Amendment Act came into force, were to issue a handy book for debtors, it would have a very good precedent in the proceedings of the Land Commissioners. That pamphlet was followed by another, also addressed to tenant farmers, and reminding them to put in their notices in time to obtain the benefit of the Act from the earliest possible moment; the result had been to block the business in that division of the Court. There could, he thought, be no objection on the part of the Government to place before their Lordships and the public information with respect to the publication of this pamphlet. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal (Lord Carlingford) had an opportunity the other evening, when this subject was mentioned, of explaining; but the noble Lord seemed disposed to treat the matter as an office blunder, which need not be pursued further. He (the Earl of Longford) ventured to think differently. There were a large number of persons in Ireland who were particularly interested in the strict and exact performance of the office details connected with the Land Act. That scandal was clearly the work either of an incompetent official, or of an official who was under some reprehensible influence. In either case the further services of the
  224
  individual to blame might be dispensed with, at least, in the Office. He moved for a—
  "Copy of a Letter, dated 3rd February instant, from Denis Godley, Esquire, Secretary to the Irish Land Commission, to the Earl of Longford, on the subject of a pamphlet entitled 'How to become the owner of your farm,' printed at the Queen's Printing Office, Dublin, for Her Majesty's Stationery Office."
  VISCOUNT MONCKsaid, that before the Motion was agreed to he wished to make a few remarks. He did not in the slightest degree wonder at the tone of indignation in which his noble Friend opposite had spoken of this pamphlet; but his noble Friend adduced this as a proof of the manner in which the business was transacted in the Office of the Land Commission by Mr. Godley. Now, as that gentleman was Secretary to the Church Commissioners, of whom he was one, he might be allowed to say that Mr. Godley was a most efficient Secretary, and had always performed his duties to the satisfaction of the Commissioners. But the fact was Mr. Godley had been overpowered with business by the large mass of Correspondence which had been sent to the Office. He had had to work from early in the morning till late at night, and when another official came to him with the pamphlet and observed it contained valuable information which would be very useful, Mr. Godley said if that were so it would be well to get some copies printed for the public. That, he believed, was the true explanation of the whole transaction, as far as Mr. Godley was concerned, though, technically and strictly, Mr. Godley should not have sanctioned the circulation of a document without first acquainting himself with its contents. Having been for so long a time connected with Mr. Godley, he could not stand still without stating what he had done.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEwanted to know whether the Solicitor to the Commission was the same gentleman as acted on behalf of the Land League? It had been stated publicly, and it had not been denied. He thought the noble Viscount (Viscount Monck) had every right to be grateful to Mr. Godley, because that gentleman did a great part of the duty of the Church Commission for many years. He (Lord Oranmore and Browne) had found him a most disagreeable official. When he

  225
  had asked to see the noble Viscount, whom he had always found most courteous, or Judge Lawson, he had always been told that he must obtain a special appointment, for what time the Commissioners would meet nobody could tell. Mr. Godley always exacted the highest possible price from the landlords for the lands he had to sell; and he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) supposed he now wished to infuse the same disagreeable mode of dealing with the landlords in his new sphere of action on the Land Commission.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that he would make no objection to the production of the Paper asked for, though the Correspondence for which he was about to move would throw much more light on the matter. The noble Earl had entirely misunderstood his remarks on Tuesday if he thought that he intended to underrate the gravity of the affair. On the contrary, he agreed that the publication of the pamphlet was not only a gross error, but an outrage on the Land Commission and the Government. What he had said the other evening was that neither the Government nor the Commissioners had any knowledge of the transaction.
  Motion agreed to.

RUSSIA—PERSECUTION OF THE JEWS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has any recent information relating to the treatment of the Jews in Russia which he could give to the House? The noble Duke remarked that the whole country had regarded with horror the reports of the outrages committed on Russian Jews. It seemed almost that one of the worst phases of mediaeval times had been revived. He should like particularly to be informed whether the Secretary of State could say that the officers of the Russian Government had endeavoured to prevent those outrages, or, as was reported, had looked upon the perpetration of those barbarities by Christians upon Jews with indifference, and whether the Provincial Governors had not interfered to stop them? He did not ask the Foreign Secretary to interfere in the internal affairs of an independent Power by any remonstrance, which he believed would be prejudicial
  226
  to the merciful result which was desired; he therefore limited his Question to obtaining information on this painful subject.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in answer to the Question of the noble Duke, I must say that I feel a sense of responsibility which does not attach to those who are not in Office. I am perfectly aware of—and I am not surprised at—the public manifestations which have taken place in this country on the subject referred to. It is our custom to speak with freedom on all subjects. Count Montalembert said we were the only nation who laid ourselves on the surgeon's table and dissected ourselves before the whole world. If we thus speak of our own misfortunes and our own faults, it is not to be expected that silence will be observed with regard to things in any part of the globe that stir the feelings of the community. I have not had time to read all the speeches which have been delivered at the numerous meetings in this country; but I certainly did read and noted with respect to the remarkable meeting at the Mansion House that, while the speakers—eminent men—spoke with the greatest indignation of the persecutors and the greatest sympathy with the sufferers, yet all seemed to desire to avoid saying anything which could give just umbrage either to the Emperor of Russia or to the people of that country. My Lords, I venture to claim for my Colleagues and myself that we are not less sensitive to oppression or cruelty anywhere than any other persons in this country; and I think it may be conceded that we are not likely to be less so with regard to that industrious, that orderly, and that highly intellectual race who profess the Hebrew faith. For years we struggled to obtain for them equal political privileges with their Christian fellow-subjects. We succeeded practically, as far as the House of Commons was concerned, although the House of Lords has not yet decided to remove what appears to me to be a relic of illiberality and intolerance. But as to any intervention with an independent foreign Government in our official capacity, the reasons against it seem to me to be conclusive. This country has always resented, and I hope will continue to do so, the slightest interference on the part of foreign Governments in our internal affairs. During my first short

  227
  tenure of the Foreign Office, I took the very unusual and, I believe, discourteous step of returning two Notes to the Austrian Government without any answer, on the subject of harbouring rebels in this country, the Notes having been transmitted to Her Majesty's Government by Prince Schwarzenberg; and if we apply this rule to ourselves, it is perfectly impossible to apply another rule to other countries; and, even putting aside the question of right, I believe that nothing would be more inexpedient than to do so. We should either irritate the foreign Governments or weaken them with regard to their own subjects in dealing with the question. It has been strongly suggested, by some who acknowledge that diplomatic interference would be a mistake, that we should privately and confidentially use our influence on this point. Now, I imagine that no person placed in the position which I happen to occupy would not avail himself of any proper opportunity, when it was likely to have effect, to refer in an unofficial manner to any subject that affects the good of humanity or the friendly relations between the two countries, although the question might not be properly one for diplomatic interference. But I beg to point out that if such a Minister were either to boast he had done so, or publicly promise he would do so, it would at once entirely change the character of unofficial and private communications, which sometimes, though not always, may be of the greatest value. I am, therefore, not prepared to make such a declaration as has been suggested, and I believe that to do so would be hurtful to the object which I have as much at heart as the noble Duke. With regard to the information for which the noble Duke asks, it must be remembered that we have no right and no means of instituting anything like a searching or judicial inquiry into these matters; but our Consuls report to us, as it is their duty to do, the facts, so far as they come to their knowledge, with reference to this and any other occurrences of importance. My Lords, I think it is better for me not to give a long statement of my own opinion as to the result of these Exports. I feel that I have no right, and I certainly have no wish, to withhold any information which Her Majesty's Government have received; and I therefore have the honour
  228
  of laying on your Lordships' Table the Consular Correspondence connected with these outrages.
  THE MAEQUESS OF SALISBURY: In all we say on this subject there is but one object which everyone will have in view, and that is that no words uttered in this country shall have any tendency to increase the terrible sufferings which have aroused our sympathy, and which we all so deeply deplore; but rather that whatever is said or done here should tend to diminish them. Speaking strictly from that point of view, I am not surprised at the conciseness with which the noble Earl has replied to the Question or at the reticence which he has observed. I confess I could have wished he would have shown some other mode of reticence than that of diverting the discussion to the question of the Parliamentary Oath of this country; and I do not think it was necessary to advertise his own discourtesy to the Government of Austria.
  EARL GRANVILLE: May I interrupt the noble Marquess to apologize to the House for having made a mistake? I was not aware of it; but, to my great satisfaction, I learn that there is no law prohibiting Jews sitting here, so that we are no longer exposed to the reproach which I indirectly threw on the House.
  THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY: That was my suspicion at the time; but I did not like to interrupt the noble Earl; and, at all events, it rather heightens the irrelevancy of the allusion. I wish also he had abstained from advertising what he was pleased to call his own discourtesy to the Government of Austria, for that is a matter in respect of which the reputation of Her Majesty's Government does not require to be heightened. I quite concur with the noble Earl that official representations and even unofficial representations in matters of this kind are of very doubtful utility. I believe they are of doubtful utility in the case of Governments much less strong and independent than that of Russia. In fact, four or five years ago, when we were keenly pressed to make representations to another Government guilty of considerable cruelty, we had experience of the inefficacy of the kind of diplomatic action to which we were urged by those then in Opposition. The truth is, with respect to Russia we

  229
  have had experience in these matters before. Nearly 20 years ago, Lord Russell tried to interfere on behalf of the Poles, who were suffering under great oppression. On that occasion our interference was not diplomatically without justification, because a clause in the Treaty of Vienna undoubtedly gave us a locus standi for remonstrance. Yet it is well within the recollection of the House, whether we were justified or not justified, that our interference brought no mitigation of the sufferings of the unhappy inhabitants of Poland. If in the discussion of this subject or at any meeting those who represent in this country the political Party to which I belong have thought it, on the whole, better not to make a prominent appearance, it is because we have been actuated by much the same feelings as those which guide the noble Earl. We were afraid that the motive for our interference might be mistaken, and that this, which is a question of pure humanity, might be mixed up with others which are purely political questions; and we thought it better, on the whole, that the voice of the people of England should be heard in some less official form than, it can receive within the walls of this building. We felt that the more voluntary and the less official it is the more likely it is to have influence upon those who govern in Russia, and the more likely it is to have the effect which it is our great object to attain, which is that of alleviating the sufferings of those on whose behalf our sympathies are enlisted.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: The noble Earl is, I think, perfectly right in what he has said, and that it is judicious for him in his position not to say more. I was the mover of the first Resolution at the Mansion House meeting; and I said, as regarded any interference on the part of the Government, I doubted whether it was possible for us to do much more than exercise our moral influence. I recognized the difference between expression of opinion on the part of the people and representations by official persons. But with regard to facts which are notorious and which appeal to the common feelings of humanity, private individuals, even in this House, are not only justified in expressing their opinions, but are called upon to express them. While official
  230
  interference might not only be unwise, but might injure the cause we have at heart, great good may follow the few words spoken this night by both the noble Earl and the noble Marquess. The very silence of your Lordships is more condemnatory than the strongest language. The people will be glad to hear that their Leaders in this House unite with them in the expression of their sympathy. The Hebrew race will feel great satisfaction at what has taken place to-night. Although the noble Earl or the noble Marquess may not say it, I may say that it is the feeling of the whole world—you have it in what has reached us from America and from all parts of the United Kingdom—that the events which have occurred in Russia have brought lasting shame on the Christianity and the civilization of the 19th century.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I trust your Lordships will allow the irregularity of my speaking a second time, as I wish to make a personal explanation. The noble Marquess opposite seems to be convinced that I am burning with hatred of Austria; whereas, in point of fact, my feelings for Austria are of the most friendly and cordial character. With regard to the historical fact which I mentioned, I desire to point out that it is no recent occurrence, having taken place 30 years ago.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never had any suspicion that the noble Earl had any hostility to Austria.. What I said was that the Government of which he is a Member had a reputation in that respect which his words might tend to heighten.

  SHOP HOURS REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to regulate the hours of labour in shops and warehouses—Was presented by The Earl STANHOPE; read la (No. 7.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.