Lords Sitting of 24 February 1882

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, appointed and nominated; Standing Orders Committee, appointed and nominated; Committee of Selection, appointed and nominated; Land Law (Ireland), nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Railways (Continuous Brakes) (21).
Third Reading—Augmentation of Benefices Act Amendment * (12), and passed.

THE LAND COMMISSION—MR. FOTTRELL.

  EXPLANATION.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I think it due to your Lordships' House that I should make an explanation as to a statement which I made during the debate of Friday last. I said—
  "Would the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Waterford) think the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) a judge of those matters? Would he think the late Lord Chancellor a good judge? Perhaps the noble Marquess is not aware that both these distinguished Gentlemen recommended Mr. Fottrell."
  The noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns), in terms perfectly courteous to myself, denied my statement as to Mr. Gibson, and added that he had had no opportunity of referring to Dr. Ball, who was in Ireland. My Lords, I was under the impression that both those learned Gentlemen had written to recommend Mr. Fottrell. With regard to Mr. Gibson, I find that what occurred was this. An influential Member of the other House, in recommending Mr. Fottrell for the appointment of Solicitor to the Land Commission, informed the Chief Secretary that Mr. Gibson had spoken favourably of Mr. Fottrell's personal qualities, without reference, how-
  1494
  ever, to the position he was seeking; but I was mistaken in supposing that Mr. Gibson had written any letter on the subject. With reference to my statement as to the opinion of the Lord Chancellor for Ireland under the late Government, I will read to your Lordships the following letter from Dr. Ball to Mr. Fottrell, winch was submitted to the Government with his other testimonials:—
  "George Hotel, Buxton, August 6, 1881.
  "Dear Mr. Fottrell,—I have much pleasure in giving my testimony of your ability and knowledge of your profession and fitness to fulfil the duties of Solicitor for the Land Commission or other public Board.
  "Yours faithfully,
  "J. T. BALL.
  "Mr. George Fottrell, jun."
  I apologize for not making this explanation before, but I have postponed it for two reasons—first, the absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who only returned to London yesterday; and, secondly, because I wished to give the noble and learned Earl opposite an opportunity of being present.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I regret my noble and learned Friend is absent to-night; but I have seen a letter from Dr. Ball, in which he states that his recommendation was purely of a professional nature. He had not at all touched upon the question of the political proclivities, or political connections of Mr. Fottrell, which, as their Lordships were aware, had been the point under discussion in the House.
  EARL GRANVILLE: With regard to that remark of the noble Marquess, the words used by Dr. Ball are—
  "I have much pleasure in giving my testimony of your ability and knowledge of your profession and fitness to fulfil the duties of Solicitor for the Land Commission."
  Surely that was a strong recommendation. If Dr. Ball had thought Mr. Fottrell unfit on other than professional grounds, he would have stated it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I said was that Dr. Ball confined his letter to a professional recommendation, and I pointed out that the letter did not trench on political matters.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then the conclusion is to be drawn that Dr. Ball was ignorant of the existence of the political proclivities—of any political proclivities—of Mr. Fottrell.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But the Government surely knew?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It appears, according to the statement of the noble Marquess, that Dr. Ball gave this recommendation, he being ignorant of any political proclivities on the part of Mr. Fottrell. Others, of course, were as ignorant as Dr. Ball. I should have thought the noble Marquess would not give the Government credit for knowledge, on that point, superior to that possessed by Dr. Ball, who gave this testimonial.

RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES) BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in presenting a Bill to provide for the use of continuous brakes on passenger trains on railways, said, he wished very briefly to point out what were the chief provisions contained in it. Since the year 1877 the Board of Trade had issued, periodically, a Circular to Railway Companies specifying the conditions which, in their opinion, were essential to a good continuous brake. Following upon this, in the year 1878 an Act was passed requiring Railway Companies to make half-yearly Returns to the Board of Trade respecting the use of continuous brakes, and the number of passenger trains fitted with them. By this Return it was found that a small proportion of Railway Companies made use of brakes which complied with all the conditions specified by the Board of Trade. He asked their Lordships' attention to this point, because there were Companies who made use of continuous brakes which were doubtless, in many respects, very efficient, but which did not entirely satisfy the requirements of the Board of Trade. It was, therefore, proposed by this Bill, which consisted only of five clauses, to make it obligatory upon all Railway Companies, after the 1st of February, 1885, to use a continuous brake upon passenger trains in accordance with the conditions of the Board of Trade, of which the chief were that it should be instantaneous in action, and capable of being applied by the engine driver and guard; that it should be self-acting in case of accident, and that it should be such as could be easily applied to every portion of the train. Clause 3
  1496
  provided that the Board of Trade might make exceptions in certain cases. Clause 4 provided that the Railway Commissioners should have jurisdiction to enforce the Act. These were the chief provisions of the Bill. He wished to make it quite understood that it was not intended by this Bill to enforce the adoption of any particular brake, but that Railway Companies should use whatever form of brake was most suitable, provided it complied with the conditions specified by the Board of Trade. He presented the Bill for their Lordships' consideration, feeling sure that it could not be regarded, in any way, as a Party measure. Its object was to increase the public safety in railway travelling, while the interests of Railway Companies were duly kept in view.
  Bill to provide for the use of continuous brakes on passenger trains on railways—Presented (The Earl DE LA WARR); read 1a. (No. 21.)
  LORD SUDELEYhoped the noble Lord would put oil the second reading of the measure until the end of March. The subject was one of great importance, and the Board of Trade were considering the matter fully; but it would be inconvenient if the second reading of the Bill were taken at an early day.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, he should study the convenience of Her Majesty's Government.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION.

  MOTION.
  LORD VENTRY, in rising to move—
  "That the Return of the judicial rents fixed by sub-commissions and civil bill courts, as notified by the Irish Land Commission up to and including: the 28th January 1882, be supplemented by a column giving the present gross letting value of each holding as ascertained by the Sub-Commissioners; and that it bean instruction that in all future Returns the above information be given,"
  said, it appeared to him obvious that some such calculation as he had asked for should be made in each case by the Sub-Commissioners, for they must arrive at the gross value of each holding before they could arrive at the judicial rent, which was the net value in each case as regarded the landlord. The judicial rent was simply the value of the holding after the deductions which the Sub-Com-

  1497
  missioners thought themselves bound to give in each case on the part of the tenant. He could only say that if they did not arrive at the gross value in each case they certainly ought to, or their valuation would not be worth much. It would be easy to give reasons why this Return ought to be of very particular value to the landlords and tenants in defiling with the Act. It was the wish of Her Majesty's Government that these eases should, to a great extent, be settled out of Court; and if they were sincere in that wish they ought not to refuse some such statistics as he had asked for. It was evident that unless a great many of these cases were settled out of Court they would never see the end of them. To show the complications which might arise he would merely give, on the authority of a friend of his in the county of Kerry, three cases. In each the original rent was £36 4s. 6d, but the judicial rents fixed were £27 10 s. more, £30 in another, and £25 in the third; so that there was a difference between the highest and lowest rent of £5. It would he very satisfactory to the landlord to know on what principle these rents were fixed. He was a gentleman who was most likely to deal in perfect fairness with his tenants, and not only to him, but the tenants also, it would he useful to know how the rents were arrived at.
  Moved, That the Return of the judicial rents fixed by sub-commissions and civil bill courts, as notified by the Irish Land Commission up to and including the 28th January 1882, be supplemented by a column giving the present gross letting value of each holding as ascertained by the (Sub-Commissioners; and that it be an instruction that in all future Returns the above information be given.—(The Lord Ventry.)
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, it would be impossible to "arrive at" a fair rent, unless it were known how much of the land was deteriorated by the laches of the tenant. He would, therefore, suggest that there should be added to the Return after the column giving the gross value two other columns, one showing what was allowed for the improvement of the tenant, the other what was awarded to the landlord for deterioration. The latter was necessary, because anyone who knew anything about tenants' holdings in Ireland must be aware that they were kept in the lowest possible state of cultivation.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, that a great deal more information was wanted than was asked for by the noble Lord. They wanted to know what was the basis on which the Sub-Commissioners founded their decisions, the amount credited to the tenant for improvements, and various other items which went to form the judgment on which the judicial rent was declared. This was one of the most important matters which could be brought before Parliament. For how were landlords to deal out of Court with their tenants, as the Government asked them to do if they did not know on what basis the Sub-Commissioners had arrived at their decision? No case in which he was concerned had been brought before the Court, though some cases of his were pending; and, therefore, he had not been as yet affected by the judgment of the Court. In the county of Clare there were farms on which the soil was of a varying nature. There were rich alluvial soils bordering upon the Shannon, there were uplands, and soil of another description; and it would be easy for the Sub-Commissioners to say that they valued the alluvial soil at so much and the other kinds at so much also. Upon this declaration the landlord would be able to appeal to the Commissioners, and, if necessary, to carry the case further. But now there were no means whatever of getting the Sub-Commissioners to declare upon what basis they fixed the rent, and there was nothing to guide the landlord. Another important point was this—that whenever there was a change of tenancy the question of the amount credited to the tenant for improvements must crop up, and how was the landlord to deal with it? He could not tell how much was allowed by the Sub-Commissioners for improvements. And then, at the end of the 15 years, who was to say by whom the improvements had been made? But if the nature of the improvements was clearly stated by the Court it would be easy to say that they had been allowed for before. Every landlord in Ireland that he had heard speak on the subject was most anxious that a fair rent should be fixed, and only a fair rent. The great want was that there were no sworn valuators, for however competent the Sub-Commissioners might be, it was utterly impossible for them to go into all the various points, because of

  1499
  the short time at their disposal. But if they had sworn valuators who would give their testimony on oath and would be cross-examined, all these necessary points would be brought out. The best thing would be to do away with the lay Sub-Commissioners, and have only legal Sub-Commissioners, with sworn valuators. He was in the unfortunate position of having 1,000 tenants, and every one of their cases might have to be tried. From his own experience, lie could assure their Lordships that it would be almost impossible for the Sub-Commissioners to tell the value of all sorts of land in all sorts of weather. The county of Clare, to which he had the honour to belong, was in as bad a state as it could possibly be just now, not owing to the action of the landlords—if anything, they wore said to be backward in enforcing their rights—but owing to the "no rent" agitation; and yet the Sub-Commissioners were disposing of the property of innocent persons right and left without assigning any reason for such wholesale confiscation.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would grant the Return moved for, as the same difficulty existed now as under the Act of 1870. There were so many Sub-Commissioners and Civil Bill Courts that it was extremely difficult to harmonize the different decisions arrived at. It might be said that when some of the judgments had been carried before the Commissioners and the final Court of Appeal the law would be systematized; but they should have to wait a considerable time before that was done, and meanwhile all would be in confusion. They wanted to know what were the actual principles upon which deductions wore made. They knew, upon the authority of the Commission over which the noble Earl (the Earl of Bessborough) presided, that Griffith's valuation furnished no true rule as to the value of land, circumstances differing so widely in different districts, and even in the same districts. Unless they knew on what basis the Sub-Commissioners took the gross value, and also the net value, it was impossible to understand the principles upon which the deductions were made. In some cases the Sub-Commissioners had stated in open Court their estimate of the gross rental and the amount of the deductions made in order to ascertain the fair letting value; but
  1500
  such cases were the exception, and not the rule, and what was desired was to ascertain the uniform principle of deduction on which the Commissioners acted.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that he and the Irish Government were most anxious to supply the House with any information that could be given on this subject, provided such a Return could be obtained in an accurate form, provided it did not impose on the Land Courts an unreasonable amount of labour, drawing them from their proper duties, and provided, also, the information was really useful and valuable. It was doubtful, however, whether the desired Return really could furnish any very valuable information; and it was hardly to be expected that, as the noble Lord (Lord Inchiquin) had suggested, the Return should do that which the Act of Parliament had refrained from doing, and should state in every case all the elements of the decision of the Commissioners. He could not say that day whether the more limited kind of Return asked for by his noble Friend (Lord Ventry) could be given, or, indeed, whether the records of the Courts admitted of that being done in a proper and accurate shape; but he would make inquiries, and would give a move complete answer if the noble Lord would be good enough to postpone his Motion for a few days.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, he did not think it a sufficient reason for refusing information of that kind that it would give additional labour to the Land Commissioners. It was a question of whether they would give additional labour to the Land Commissioners or would do more injustice to the landlords. With regard to the object of the Return, he thought it would be one element in establishing something of a theory on the subject, rather than leaving it altogether to the Sub-Commissioners to substitute their fancies for some reasonable ground in their valuations; and he must say, in the matter of improvements, it would be very desirable to go further than was proposed. He hoped there would be no difficulty in showing, first of all, something of the nature of the improvements—that was to say whether it was for building, for roads, drains, or anything else. He considered it was the more necessary to

  1501
  supply those details as he was himself very sceptical on the subject of tenants' improvements. If he was asked to say what a tenant's improvement was, he should say it was something that every reasonable farmer would improve out of existence as soon as he saw it. He never saw one but he abolished it as soon as possible. Generally speaking, the Irish tenant on his farm was without one sixpence of capital or anything else; and he denied that he could improve it even if he desired to do so. That was a general rule, although, of course, there were exceptional cases; but the alleged improvements in most cases were no improvement at all.
  LORD VENTRYsaid, that, acting upon the suggestion of the noble Lord (Lord Carlingford), he would postpone his Motion until Tuesday next.
  Further debate adjourned to Tuesday next.

LAND LAW (IRELAND).

  NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Moved, That the Lords following be named of the Committee:—

  D. Norfolk.

  E. Clarendon.

  D. Somerset.

  E. Cairns.

  D. Marlborough.

  V. Hutchinson.

  M. Salisbury.

  L. Tyrone.

  M. Abercorn.

  L. Carysfort.

  E. Pembroke and Montgomery.

  L. Kenry.

  L. Penzance.

  E. Stanhope.

  L. Brabourne.

  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am aware that a Motion of this kind is usually regarded as consequential upon a previous decision of your Lordships' House, and, therefore, not a proper occasion for debate. In this instance, however, the Motion is made under circumstances so exceptional that I shall, I hope, be excused for making one or two observations with regard to it.
  When, on Friday last, my noble Friend made his statement to the House, I listened to him with the utmost sympathy; he seemed to me to be entirely successful in establishing his contention, that the operation of the Land Act, up to the present time, had been such as to afford good reason for misgivings, if not for complaint. My noble Friend, however, went further, and asked your Lordships to assent to two other propositions—the proposition that the subject called for immediate investigation, and the pro-
  1502
  position that it was fit for investigation by a Committee of this House. In these two propositions I did not feel able to concur. During the progress of the discussion it was urged, and I thought with much plausibility, by Her Majesty's Ministers that, although our experience of the Act might suggest certain opinions, that experience was not sufficient to afford materials for passing upon it a conclusive judgment, and that, until a larger number of cases had been disposed of by the Courts, a general inquiry would be premature. It was further urged that the institution of such an inquiry would interrupt and impede the administration of an Act of Parliament, to the passing of which, whatever its faults, this House was a party last year.
  These arguments, no doubt, had force with many of your Lordships; for myself, I own that, if I was influenced by them, I was influenced still more by another objection—that which was directed against the policy of intrusting such an inquiry to a Committee of this House. It seemed to me open to question whether a matter of this kind, closely connected as it is with the interests—the pecuniary interests—of the landowning class, could be conveniently investigated by a body consisting exclusively, or almost exclusively, of persons belonging to that class. We were again in this dilemma with regard to the constitution of the Committee. It was necessary that the Irish landlords should be represented upon it. If those landlords were scantily represented, it might be said that their case would be inadequately represented. If, on the contrary, they were numerously represented, we should have a Committee virtually engaged in the trial of these Land cases, and yet numbering amongst its Members persons almost certainly themselves parties to similar cases in one part of the country or another. These considerations, my Lords, weighed so strongly with me that, although I agreed on many points with my noble Friend, I could not bring myself to vote with him.
  That, my Lords, was how matters stood on Friday night; but since then many things have happened. We have had, since that time, two very important announcements from Members of the Government. We have had, in the first

  1503
  place, the announcement of the Prime Minister, that a Parliamentary investigation would be "injurious to the interests of good government in Ireland;" and this for "grave reasons having relation to the first necessities of society in Ireland." Besides this we have had an announcement from the noble Earl the Loader of this House. He has told us that the objections felt by himself and his Colleagues to this inquiry are so serious that they will not, be justified in taking part in the constitution or proceedings of the Committee.
  I want your Lordships to consider where these two announcements have left us. Take first the announcement of the Prime Minister; what are we to understand when he speaks of "grave reasons having relation to the first necessities of society in Ireland?" The words are serious words, and would, I am sure, not have been lightly spoken by the Minister who used them. If they have any moaning, they mean this—that, at a moment when the condition of affairs in Ireland is already critical, the appointment of a Committee will render it more critical still; and that by persevering with the Motion we shall occasion, not only embarrassment to Her Majesty's Government, but actual danger to society in that country. I own that if this announcement stood by itself I should hesitate to disregard it, or to be a party to any action which might lessen, in the slightest degree, the responsibility which is thrown on Her Majesty's Government for maintaining order and upholding the law in Ireland.
  That announcement, however, does not stand alone. We must consider it fide by side with the announcement of the noble Karl, who tells us that he and his Friends will take no part in the proceedings of the Committee. What will be the effect of this resolve? Surely, if there were objections at first to referring these matters to a Committee of the House of Lords, those objections are multiplied ten-fold now. The inquiry will be intrusted not only to a Committee consisting of Members of the landlord class, not only to a Committee including persons themselves interested in the very issues which will be tried before it, but it will be so composed as to represent, if not exclusively, at all events in a preponderating degree, political opinions of a particular shade. The trial
  1504
  will be one in which judge, jury, and counsel will all be on the same side, while the accused will not be represented by those to whom we should naturally look for their defence. When we look at the list of names which my noble Friend has moved, what do we find? I trust I shall say not a word that might seem disrespectful of any Member of the Committee; but it is our duty to look the facts in the face. There are 15 names on the list. Of those who bear them nine sit on the Benches opposite, and are consistent supporters of the noble Marquess; a tenth sits on the Cross-Benches; of the remaining five, two are large owners of land in Ireland. I do not wish to overstate the case; but it is my strong impression that, in the whole 15, there is not—with, perhaps, one doubtful exception—a single Peer who is not an opponent, more or less avowed, of the Irish policy of Her Majesty's Government. Do not let it be supposed that I am casting this in the teeth of the noble Lords who have selected the names. They are not to blame. The Committee is not what they have made it, but what circumstances have made it, for which they wore not responsible.
  I ask your Lordships what good can come of an inquiry conducted under these circumstances—what will be the outcome of it? I have no doubt that the Members of the Committee will approach their work in a judicial spirit, and will divest their minds of any prejudices if they have them. But will their Report be accepted as an unprejudiced and conclusive Report? Remember that the Report itself will not be operative. Will it be binding on the Government? Ministers have virtually warned us that it will not. Will it be accepted as conclusive by the people of this country? I think not. How will it be regarded in Ireland? I fear it will still further embitter the already too bitter feelings which prevail in that country.
  Does it not, then, come to this—that we are asked to institute an inquiry, which must necessarily be imperfect and inconclusive, in the teeth of a solemn warning from Ministers that, in their belief, that inquiry involves a risk to the public safety in Ireland? And if this be so, may we not fairly appeal to my noble Friend, and ask him whether it is worth his while to persevere with his

  1505
  Motion, at all events in its present shape? For myself, I do not hesitate to say that if, as an Irish landlord, I am offered the choice between an immediate inquiry conducted under these conditions, and an inquiry postponed even for a very considerable length of time, but full and conclusive, I prefer the latter. Nor do I see why my noble Friend need be much dissatisfied with the position in which he will find himself should his project be abandoned for the present. He is entitled to the credit of having laid before this House and before the public an able and exhaustive statement of the landlords' case; many of his arguments were, I think, not by any means disposed of by noble Lords below me. He may, if he likes to put it that way, claim for himself that his statement for the prosecution was so convincing that the counsel for the defence threw up his brief. But that is not all. Let my noble Friend remember that by abandoning the inquiry now he is in no degree jeopardizing his chance of obtaining an inquiry—a much fuller and more conclusive inquiry—hereafter. Upon this point I am not sure that the position taken up by Her Majesty's Government has not been a little misapprehended. I do not understand Ministers to state that they are absolutely opposed to any inquiry into the operation of the Act, but merely that they object to an inquiry at this particular time. The noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack said—
  "Nobody denies that after the proceedings of the Court have reached that stage in which you are really in a situation to judge of them and to ascertain their result, there might be inquiry."
  I hope we may interpret those words as implying that when the proper time comes, the Government will not only not oppose, but will cheerfully give us the inquiry which we ask for. It is to such an investigation that I look forward. What its precise shape should be I will not now pause to consider; but it must be complete, and not, as this inquiry-must from the force of circumstances be, of a one-sided character. I am afraid that my noble Friend's Motion, if he persists in it, will render more remote than ever the prospects of an inquiry in all respects satisfactory and conclusive. I am afraid it will at once imperil the cause which he has at heart,
  1506
  and entangle this House in a manner inconsistent with its truest interests.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I may say at once, in reply to the appeal of my noble Friend opposite, that, while I am sorry to be at variance with him on this occasion, I feel it impossible to take the course which he has asked me to take now. In the course of his remarks, the noble Marquess explained his views of the position taken, as he believed, by Her Majesty's Government. He considered that Her Majesty's Government were not in any way opposed to some such inquiry as that now proposed into the operation of the Land Act; but I am bound to state that the impression created on my mind, in the course of the debate on Friday evening, is entirely the contrary. My impression is that my noble Friend, who agreed with me in some of the points I stated, offered, as a compromise to the House, that at some future day there should be an inquiry; but that compromise was distinctly refused by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council. My noble Friend seems to think that very great danger will arise from the inquiry I propose to institute. He quotes, in support of this, the declaration of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) some few nights ago, and a certain Notice given by the Prime Minister. I am, for one, entirely ignorant of any danger that can possibly arise from this inquiry. The only possible danger hinted openly is that by this inquiry the operation of the Land Court may be entirely stopped. That, I venture to say, is an impossibility. Should the necessity arise to call upon the Commissioners or Sub-Commissioners to give evidence, perhaps for one day at a time a Commissioner in Dublin, and perhaps for two or three days one or two Sub-Commissioners in the country, may have to leave their operations; but I maintain that, if there is any danger of any sort or kind, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to enable us to avoid these dangers by giving us the advantage of their guidance and advice in the labours of the Committee. The noble Marquess objected to the formation of the Committee itself. He says it is entirely composed of members of one class. We shall be only too glad if any noble Lord who

  1507
  supports Her Majesty's Government's view of their Irish policy will sit on the Committee. If there is one thing more than any other which induces mo to reject the suggestion of the noble Lord it is the Notice of the Prime Minister which appeared in the other House of Parliament, and which is a direct censure on your Lordships' proceedings of last Friday. I, for one, therefore, will not take the responsibility of withdrawing from your Lordships the opportunity of giving an opinion upon the Motion which I have before the House now. It is out of the question, under the circumstances, that I can do otherwise than persevere, and I must leave the matter in your Lordships' hands.
  THE EARL of DERBY: My Lords, after the speech from the noble Earl who has just sat down I am afraid it is hoping against hope to suppose that any modification of the decision to which this House came the other night is likely to take place. But, my Lords, I am bound to join my appeal to that of my noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne), and, if I can do no more, at least to protest against perseverance in a course which I believe will produce no benefit, which is a mistake, and which may possibly prove to be in its results a public misfortune. I do not deny the right of this House to inquire into any matter which you may desire to investigate, and I am sorry there should have been any attempt from any quarter outside this House to interfere with or to pass a judgment upon the exercise of its power. I fully admit that, considering how special and how peculiar a tribunal the Land Court is, and considering the very exceptional powers with which it has been invested, I think it is perfectly natural that we should take every opportunity we can of watching and supervising the proceedings of that Court. But there are many rights which it is not expedient to enforce at all; many which it is not expedient to enforce at some particular time; and in regard to this subject the question of time and opportunity is most important. Now, I ask your Lordships to consider what are the circumstances of the present moment? You have a state of things in Ireland which, it is admitted on all sides, is not far removed from a state of revolution and of civil war. The Government are struggling to the utmost of their power
  1508
  against that disorderly state of things. They possess very large and exceptional powers; they are using those powers freely; but no one can say that the exercise of those powers has as yet been successful. In these circumstances, they, the responsible Executive of the country, tell you that if you persist in ordering this inquiry at the present moment, they will not be answerable for the results that may follow. We are the representatives of property and of social order, and is it our duty or our interest to weaken instead of strengthening the hands of the Executive at a moment like this? My noble Friend the noble Earl (the Earl of Donoughmore) said he did not see what danger there could be from the continuance of this inquiry. The noble Earl said it was quite a mistake to suppose that we should suspend the operations of the Land Court, because we do not wish to bring all the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners over here to give evidence at once, but only one or two at a time. It may be that you will not delay the operations of the Land Court, but will you not discredit them? The Land Court is pitted against the Land League, and if you bring the Court into contempt, will not that have the result of encouraging the peasantry to resort to illegal measures? Even as to the question of delay, I do not see how it is possible that the Commissioners can go on trying the cases intrusted to them in Dublin or the Provinces while we are sitting here to try them in their absence. Then, again, look at the composition of the Committee. Will anyone deny that it is altogether of a one-sided character? I do not make that a matter of reproach. We know that many noble Lords have declined to serve on the Committee, and that is the cause of its present composition; but, whatever the explanation may be, the result is the same. There is another question. Whenever the Committee sits is it desirable, on the grounds and the general considerations which govern our action in such matters, that men who are themselves directly and personally interested in the decisions of the Land Court, as every Irish proprietor must be, should be Members of this Tribunal before which the Land Court is to be tried? I do not care to ask how it comes about, but this Committee is not really repre-

  1509
  sentative of the opinions of this House. It represents only a part of this House, and, that being the case, we know beforehand what the general tenour of its decisions is sure to be, and we know also that its decisions will not possess that confidence which we should like them to possess for the public outside. What I think your Lordships ought to remember is that an imperfect and onesided inquiry taking place now will be the greatest obstacle to a more complete and effective inquiry hereafter. You cannot appoint one Committee this year and another next year. That is impossible.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: There were two Land Commissions at the same time last year.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I do not exactly see the relevancy of the noble Lord's remark. They were not Commissions to try Commissioners. Nobody is asking your Lordships to rescind any Resolution to which you have come. You have determined that there should be an inquiry into the working of the Land Court by a Committee of this House. But you have not said when. I know the ordinary rule is that as soon as a Committee is voted by this House, the House proceeds to nominate its Members; but that is a course which, though customary and convenient, is not necessary, and if your Lordships thought fit to suspend for the present the nomination and sitting of this Committee, I do not think you will require any rule to be altered. I have only one more remark to make. The noble Earl (the Earl of Donoughmore) said that, whatever he might have thought of the proposal of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) before, he could not entertain it now in consequence of the circumstances which have occurred "elsewhere;" and we all know perfectly well what those circumstances are. It is not my business nor my wish to defend the proposal which we understand will be made to pass a judgment outside this House upon the course which has been taken in it. I do not give an opinion on that point. But what I say is that it is foolish—if I may use the expression—it is almost childish to say that though, upon other grounds, we do not think the proceeding on which we are embarking is wise, nevertheless we will persevere in taking that unwise course because we have been dared and defied to do so.
  1510
  That is asserting not our strength but our weakness, not our independence but our dependence; for it, makes the course of proceedings we adopt depend upon the action of persons outside over whom we have no control. I hold as strong an opinion as the noble Earl himself in regard to the right of investigating the proceedings of the Land Court. I do not contend that they cannot be fully and fairly investigated by this House; but I think that the sitting of the Committee now would be premature and inopportune. I think the Committee, as now formed, represents not the whole House, but the majority only; and as this inquiry is set afoot in opposition to the strongly-expressed warning of the Government of the day, I confess I do not foresee any happy results. It appears to me to be a case in which there is plenty of room on both sides for conciliation and compromise, and I hope your Lordships will not take a step which you will probably regret, which many of you do regret now, but which, when once taken, you will not be able to retract.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down was contemptuous of any suggestion that we should take notice of the aggressive Motion of Censure which had been given Notice of by the Prime Minister in the other House in determining upon our own course. I cannot conceal from myself that the Notice materially modifies the situation. But whatever judgment you may form of it, and however much you may wish to act independently of it, you must remember that the powers and functions of the great authorities in the State have been determined from time to time in our history by aggression on one side and by concession on the other; that, according to the peculiar spirit of our institutions, that process is always going on; and that if you set a precedent which can hereafter be interpreted to mean that the House of Commons has any right to review or censure our proceedings, it is a precedent which will affect the future power and action of this House. I cannot but think that something of the energy which the noble Earl who has just sat down threw into his speech was due to the fact of that very Notice of the Prime Minister's having appeared. For, if that was not the case,

  1511
  how came it that the noble Earl did not speak or vote on Friday night last? If there were all these terrible dangers to which he is so sensitive now, how was it that we saw no evidence of his opinions in his action when we came to this decision? Whatever else the noble Earl may be, he is not now speaking as the representative of the opinions of Her Majesty's Government. He thinks that the question is not whether or not the Committee ought to be appointed, but when its sittings should be held. A similar suggestion was made last Friday by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Landsdowne). The noble Marquess suggested that the inquiry might be delayed; he suggested that it might be held by a Royal Commission. Whatever effect such proposals might have had on this side of the House, no kind of welcome was given to them by the Government. The Lord President of the Council (Earl Spencer), in something more than a peremptory tone, said that the Government would listen to no compromise in the matter. It is, therefore, not the opinion of the Government, so far as we know it, that the question is not whether, but when this inquiry shall be held. Then, again, the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) spoke in the strongest language of the results of holding this inquiry. I confess the terms he used seemed to me singularly extravagant for one of his calm and circumspect nature. I am unable to understand how, if an Act has in it the materials for effecting the pacification of Ireland, that pacification can in any way be arrested by the fact that a Committee of your Lordships' House desires to inquire how the execution of it is going on. At all events, the Government during the debate last week never used any language of this kind. They simply took the view that the inquiry was inexpedient, and we that it was expedient. But we heard nothing about "the very existence of society in Ireland being imperilled" of which we have heard from the Prime Minister in "another place." I cannot help thinking that the objects of this inquiry have been somewhat misstated and misunderstood. It has been said that we are going to try the Commissioners and to re-hear the cases that have been decided. I do not know on what foundation these strange assumptions are based. Certainly nothing of the sort
  1512
  was stated by my noble Friend behind me when he introduced the Motion. We have not the facilities for doing so. We have heard that the way in which the Commissioners arrived at some of their decisions was by the somewhat summary process of poking a walking-stick into a field in order to ascertain the value of a farm. But we cannot even apply the walking-stick test. It would be perfectly impossible, even if we wished to do it, that we should bring over witnesses from Ireland in sufficient numbers to enable us to re-hear, as it is called, the cases decided. Then it is said that we desire to repeal the Land Act or parts of it. I have heard nothing from my noble Friend behind me to give the slightest justification for that statement. My Lords, if I may speak only of my own opinion, the idea seems to me simply ridiculous. I regret much that was done in the passing of the Act, now that we see in how revolutionary a manner it has been worked. But it is the peculiar character of revolutionary measures that, while you may by subsidiary and supplementary provisions do much to mitigate the evil that they cause, you never can retrace your steps. Whatever is to be done in the future must be much more in the way of redress of the landlords' grievances than of diminishing any advantage which the tenants have acquired. Therefore, the notion that this Motion is levelled at any repeal of the Land Act seems to me singularly absurd. But just remember what this Act was. It was not an ordinary Act of Parliament with detailed provisions, expressing the will of Parliament which is to be carried out by the Courts of Law. It was an Act placing enormous, almost despotic, power in the hands of persons nominated by Her Majesty's Government. Is it strange, therefore, that we should wish to know how these powers of the Government are to be exercised? What is the object of these two Houses of Parliament if it is not to criticize and watch the manner in which the Executive Government exercises the powers intrusted to it? That is our first Constitutional function; and to toll us that we should wait until what is done in the exercise of these powers is past all remedy; that we should wait until the evil, whatever evil there may be, has been accumulated, is to destroy any utility in those powers of review

  1513
  which have been vested in the Houses of Parliament, and which it is their first Constitutional duty to exercise. My Lords, I need not mention matters which were dwelt upon in our last debate. There is the question of the appointment of the Sub-Commissions. It has been said that partisanship of the grossest kind has been shown by the Government in choosing the men who are to exercise these tremendous powers. I do not say whether that statement is true or false. I did not hear it denied. That is a matter which the Committee will do well to inquire into. But I cannot understand how the "very existence of society," or "the peace of Ireland," or "the working of the Land Act," can be imperilled by the Committee in inquiring whether Her Majesty's Government have or have not, in the exercise of the important powers intrusted to them, been guilty of this partizanship or not. Then it has been said that instructions have been given to the Sub-Commissioners. It may not have been by the Government, but there is certainly a strange uniformity in action on the part of the Sub-Commissioners which lends colour to that suspicion. Is it undesirable, can it be injurious to the "very existence of society," can it "hinder the working of the Land Act," if we ascertain whether those instructions have been delivered or not? What were the instructions? Upon what lines did they proceed; or have the Sub-Commissioners themselves resolved to exercise their enormous powers in a particular way? There is another matter. This Act differs from other Acts inasmuch as it was passed entirely under a misapprehension, innocently fostered by some Members of the Government. Under that misapprehension they allowed Parliament to pass it, believing that it would not produce the effects which it ultimately in fact produced. If the Government had come to Parliament and said candidly, "This is a measure for transferring 25 or 30 per cent of the landlords' property to the tenants," I do not say whether Parliament would have accepted it or not, whether they would have thought it a right or a wrong mode of proceeding; but it would have taken two questions into consideration—namely, whether it was right to transfer property from one class to another without some sort of compensation for the loss incurred; and
  1514
  whether if you take the property of a nominal owner, who by incumbrances to which he is subject, really owns only a quarter of his estate, it is just by that action of Parliament that he should be absolutely ruined, and that the whole burden should full upon him. My Lords, the great question of compensation, the great question of the re-distribution of the burdens on land were hardly touched upon, and were never properly discussed last Session during the passing of the Act. They were not properly discussed because Parliament thoroughly believed from information given to them that this Act would not have the effect of a general reduction of rent. We know that Mr. Forster, sitting by the side of the Prime Minister, chose to be silent, though he did not believe that information. There is still another point upon which it seems to me very vital that an inquiry should be held, and held at the earliest possible opportunity, and which certainly does not seem to me to compromise the "existence of society in Ireland." I mean the working of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act. During the passage of the Act we made attempts to extend their operation and increase their efficiency. We were not very successful in doing so, though we did so to some extent. But now we see that, owing to the enormous prospects which are offered to the tenants by the action of the Land Courts, the very idea of buying his property never enters into the tenant's head, and we have a concurrence of testimony to the effect that these Purchase Clauses have fallen into desuetude and inutility. Mr. Fottrell, who was compelled to resign his position, said that he published his pamphlet because he felt that unless he did so the purchasing clauses would be useless and inoperative; and in taking leave of his office he gives a solemn warning that this is likely to be their fate. Now, I believe it is hardly possible to exaggerate the importance of this portion of the Act, the danger of delay in carrying it into execution, and the great necessity of pressing upon the Government by every means in our power that they should not allow the action of the Statute in that respect to fall into neglect. I think the Prime Minister reproached us "elsewhere" with having been opposed to this policy. Nothing can be more incorrect. We have on all occasions urged it upon the Government. When

  1515
  the Land Act of 1870 was before Parliament we pressed it early upon their notice. My belief is that it is only by so wide an extension of the purchasing powers of the Act as will really succeed in converting a considerable proportion of the tenantry into freeholders that the permanent pacification of Ireland will be effected. I am aware that such a policy could not be carried out without a very considerable application of public funds. I do not say it would be a loss to the public funds, because I do not think it would. I believe no material loss would be incurred; but undoubtedly the public funds must be largely used to carry such a policy into execution. It is a policy to which the Act has given a sanction, though a hesitating and faltering sanction, and the provisions of the measure are in danger of being neglected. It is, however, only in the application of that policy that the peace of Ireland can be looked for. Now, are we unreasonable in pressing for an inquiry which may have the effect of pointing out to the people of England what the importance of this question is, and how dangerous to the peace and interests of the Empire any further delay in giving effect to this policy must be? It appears to me that in all these respects there is a wide range for the inquiry of the Committee, without any danger that it will threaten the existence of society or effect any public evil; and I hold that nothing fell from the Members of the Government in the late debate to lead us to believe that it will have such disastrous results as those. But there may be dangers in the inquiry. I do not myself see them, and it is a mystery to me how they can exist. But they may exist. It often happens that in an inquiry before a Committee there is a mixture of subjects, some of which it is profitable that the Committee should investigate, some of which it is desirable that it should avoid. But a discreet Committee, properly guided by the Government of the day, will never fail so to limit its inquiry that no public evil can be anticipated from it. Certainly Committees of the House of Lords are not likely to be extravagant or dangerous bodies. If the Government are of opinion that there are elements of danger in this inquiry which it is important that we should avoid, their proper course is to come upon the Committee and to point out to it what are the matters that should
  1516
  be avoided. I venture to say that no one can look at the names of the Committee, which consists of Peers well known to your Lordships, many of whom have occupied positions of responsibility, without feeling certain that any such, representations on the part of the Government would meet with careful and respectful consideration. But, my Lords, if you nominate the Committee, and if the Government will take that or any other means of letting their views, however confidentially, be known to the Committee, I feel convinced that if this inquiry is held it will produce useful results, and none of the dangers anticipated by the Government. If, however, you now, directly or indirectly, abandon the inquiry which you have ordered, you will be giving a sanction to two dangerous principles. One of them is that it is our duty to act or to abstain from acting according to the bidding of the House of Commons. The other is that because a large number of the Members of this House are interested in a particular kind of property, we are debarred from every inquiry in which that kind of property is concerned. That was the substance, the whole summary, of the speech of the noble Marquis opposite. I venture to ask when was this doctrine ever heard of before? We have frequently had questions affecting landed property before this House. Not in one Parliament only, nor in one generation, but again and again have we had anxious and hotly-contested questions concerning landed property before us, and we have had Committees on Irish Land Questions on which Irish landowners and landlords have sat. Does the other House of Parliament observe any such rule? That House consists mainly of people having independent fortunes. Does it, therefore, consider itself debarred from considering questions in which the interests of rich and poor may be thought to be opposed? It contains many employers of labour; yet it does not consider itself debarred from considering such questions as that of compensation for injuries to workmen. If this doctrine is accepted you must go much further. If we are not to inquire into questions such as that now before us we ought not to be allowed to vote upon them, and Bills must be passed over our heads without our con-sent being required. I am sorry to hear such a doctrine. It is an utter denial of

  1517
  the position of your Lordships as a Legislative Body; and for that, if for no other reason, I cannot assent to it. Fully willing and desirous as I am that the Committee in its deliberations should be guided by an anxious consideration of all that the Government has to say with respect to the interests of society and public policy in Ireland, I cannot consent to a proposal that the nomination of this Committee should be either abandoned or deferred.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the greater part of my Parliamentary life, and the whole of my official career, has been connected with this Assembly, and I venture to say that there is no one in this House who feels more strongly about the position and dignity of this House than I have every reason to do. C could not help asking myself, as I listened to the speeches of the noble Marquess behind me, of the noble Earl below me, and of the noble Marquess before me, which of those three speeches was most calculated to strengthen the dignity and the position of this House, and to act in a conservative way in connection with its future. My Lords, the noble Marquess intends to pursue the course which he has marked out for himself, and, to a great extent, he bases his determination upon a Vote of Censure which, is to be passed in the House of Commons if the Resolution is agreed to. But I deny that there is any proposal "elsewhere" to pass a Vote of Censure upon this House. [Cries of"Oh!"] There have, however, been Votes of Censure passed by one House upon the other. In fact, precedents abound. Lord Chatham, for instance, proposed a Vote of Censure upon the House of Commons for its conduct with regard to Mr. Wilkes. In 1832 the House of Commons marked by vote their censure of this House for rejecting the Reform Bill. In 1839 there were two conflicts between the Houses. One was with regard to the Education Vote, to which we have since owed so much. A Resolution condemning it was agreed to and passed in this House. The noble Marquess opposite complains that the Government have not joined in the composition of this Committee, and he told us the other day, not that he did not remember any precedents, but that there were no precedents for this course which I have taken in declining, on my own behalf and on that of my
  1518
  Friends, to join in the Committee. But does the noble Marquess forget the action of the late Lord Beaconsfield, who, being dissatisfied with the proportions of a Committee in the House of Commons, threatened that the Conservatives would altogether abstain from attending that Committee?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Did they abstain?
  EARL GRANVILLE: No, because they succeeded in their object; but what I say is that if Mr. Disraeli—as he was then—was able to use that threat with effect on the mere question of the proportions of a Committee, then if we think this proposed Committee will have disastrous effects, we are entitled to do the same. Going beyond this, I may refer to the Committee moved for in regard to the condition of Ireland in 1839, when Lord Lansdowne, the grandfather of his worthy grandson behind me, whom nobody will think neglected the dignity of this House, absolutely refused, along with Lord Norman by, to join in that Committee, of which they so much disapproved. My Lords, the Resolution which is to be submitted in the other House is not intended, as far as the Government are concerned, as a Vote of Censure upon the House of Lords. It is only intended to support the authority of those who are administering the law which was passed by your Lordships last year, and to prevent that particular measure to which we—if the noble Marquess does not—attach the greatest importance, for the pacification of Ireland—to prevent that measure being broken down by what we think a most unwise proceeding on the part of your Lordships' House. There is one topic to which the noble Marquess did not refer, but which has been referred to—namely, with regard to what I will not say is the one-sided character of the Committee. Now, my Lords, we know each other, we have confidence in one another, and believe, however strong our peculiar interests and feelings may be, that we should not willingly take a course contrary to what is right in our judgment. But it is most important for the credit of this House that the feeling outside should be exactly in unison with ourselves. We take pains on this subject every day. The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale) has moved for a Com-

  1519
  mittee of Selection. They select the Peers who are to adjudicate in a semiofficial character on the private legislation of the House. What do they do? They are most scrupulous in making the nominations. If the noble Earl asked me whether I would serve on one of those Committees, if I had £1,000 of shares in one of those Railway Companies—though I hope my noble Friend has known me long enough to know that that circumstance would not influence me in my judgment—yet I am perfectly aware he would not accept it as an excuse, but as a reason for excluding me from this Committee for fear of the suspicion of the slightest favouritism out-of-doors. How much more important is a case like this? Your Lordships had an eloquent speech, so natural and so pathetic, from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Waterford) the other night, telling us what he conceived to be the position of a landlord in Ireland. He described how his property had been affected, how his interests, his amusements were gone, and he spoke of having no hope whatever. My Lords, I trust that this is a very exaggerated view of what is the real position of Irish landlords. We all feel the deepest sympathy with Irish landlords, and the position in which they are now placed is not due to the Land Act, but to other circumstances of a much wider and deeper character. Well, is it possible that men in the position of the Irish landlords should not be thought out-of-doors somewhat interested and biassed by that state of things? Take the noble Marquess opposite on the Front Bench (the Marquess of Salisbury). He is not an Irish landlord. On the first evening of the debate he took upon himself to contradict upon information he had received the fact announced by Her Majesty's Government and put in the Queen's mouth that, however serious the state of things, there was an improvement. In the House of Commons, I suppose, there are not two more respected Members than the late Attorney General and Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson and Mr. Plunket). Was their language that of despair? Was it that of utter want of hope in the future? On the contrary, they admitted there was an improvement; and, although they dwelt upon the difficulties of the situation, they took a most statesmanlike and patriotic
  1520
  view of the future of their country. The noble Lord has done what, during the seven hours' debate on Friday, was not done at all. He gave us a some what vague sketch—but at all events it was a sketch—of what would be done in the Committee. Now the noble Lord, in moving the names, went very much further than the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) on Friday night. That noble and learned Lord said that he trusted it would not be necessary to summon the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners. I think it was a most intelligible view for a man of an eminent position and high legal attainments to take, who thought over the question of bringing over Judges from the adminstration of the law in Ireland in order to give evidence here. I very much doubt whether——
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, my noble and learned Friend is not here; but I feel bound to say my noble and learned Friend did not go so far, or anything like so far, because I remember when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was speaking he seemed to interpret my noble and learned Friend's words in this way, and he turned to me and said, "I never said anything like that."
  EARL GRANVILLE: I certainly understood the noble and learned Lord in that way; but if the noble Marquess states that the noble and learned Lord did not say it, then I withdraw the remark. The noble Earl (the Earl of Donoughmore) says, "I am not going to bring them all over at once." He is good enough to say he will bring them by ones and twos, as occasion requires. Can you conceive anything more detrimental as regards the adminstration of the law than that these men should be brought here and badgered—I will not say badgered—but cross-examined by those who—and it will not be denied—are most hostile to the law being carried into operation? When you have got the Sub-Commissioners, will they feel justified in answering your questions as to the grounds on which they gave particular decisions? I think it would be a most indiscreet thing for them to do. The noble Marquess laid great stress upon the uncompromising character of the speeches of the Members of the Government. Now, I must say that I did not hear one single hint of compromise from any noble Lord on the other side.

  1521
  It is quite true that on this side suggestions were made. It is said that my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council declared he should consent to no compromise. What he did say was this. The noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven; suggested a compromise. There were, indeed, two compromises suggested. One was that the Committee should be put off for one or two months; and the other that there should be a Commission. Well, my Lords, I believe that a Commission of three men to examine at this early stage of the proceedings, although not so objectionable as an inquiry by a Committee, would unsettle the public feeling in Ireland. But, my Lords, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in the clearest way, stated that the Government did not object to inquiry. We have not the slightest intention to dictate to the House of Lords or the House of Commons that any law should not be at the proper time and opportunity examined and inquired into. There are some subjects mentioned by the noble Marquess which, I think, might be very good subjects for inquiry. We certainly do not yield to the noble Marquess in a desire to facilitate sales in Ireland. But it is just a little early, four months after the Act is passed, when there are still doubts and misunderstandings as to its exact scope and provisions, because sales have not yet taken place, at once to call for inquiry. Looking at the great facilities given under the Act for the purpose of free sale, it is perfectly impossible a priori already to decide that nothing can be done in that way. We reserve our entire liberty of time and opportunity; but I do not hesitate to say that the noble Marquess is mistaken in saying that we are opposed to all inquiry by either House of Parliament into the working and operation of the Act, and that there may not be a time when we shall be glad to associate with noble Lords in inquiring into particular points in which the Act might be improved and utilized. My Lords, we do not desire to shield ourselves. The noble Marquess talked about telling the Committee what they were to inquire into, so as to avoid all possible danger. I cannot give that sort of advice. We do not want to defend ourselves from the most rigid inquiry; but what we are determined to do to our very best is to protect the adminstration of the Land
  1522
  Act in the way in which it is now being adminstered. As to ourselves, accusations have been made—doubts have been expressed in this House that judgment has not been sufficiently shown in the appointments of Commissioners. My Lords, if you choose to inquire into anything that really belongs to the Government, and not to the administration of the Act by the Commissioners, we are quite willing to yield assent to the inquiry; but what we do think—and I think there is no one Member of Her Majesty's Government who does not entirely feel what has been quoted from Mr. Gladstone today—is that it would tend to disorganize the adminstration of the Land Act, on which we do place great reliance in the future; and that it may lead to the most serious difficulties; and I think we have a right to say, as the Executive Government at this moment, that it will lead to the most dangerous political results if there is this sort of inquiry into the administration of the law by those who are opposed to it, and who are in some degree both prosecutors and judges in the case.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: The noble Earl has stated that there will be an inquiry at the proper time. I should like the noble Earl to state when will be the proper time.
  Motion agreed to: The Committee to meet on Tuesday next at one o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.

  OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS AND OFFICE OF THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.
  Select Committee appointed: The Lords following were named of the Committee:

  Ld. Chancellor.

  E. Bradford.

  Ld. President.

  E. Granville.

  Ld. Privy Seal.

  E. Kimberley.

  D. Richmond.

  E. Redesdale.

  D. Saint Albans.

  E. Lathom.

  M. Lansdowne.

  V. Hawarden.

  M. Salisbury.

  V. Hardinge.

  M. Bath.

  V. Eversley.

  M. Hertford.

  Ld. Chamberlain.

  Ld. Steward.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  E. Devon.

  L. Monson.

  E. Doncaster.

  L. Colchester.

  E. Tankerville.

  L. Aveland.

  E. Carnarvon.

  STANDING OEDERS COMMITTEE.
  Appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee

  D. Somerset.

  V. Hardinge.

  M. Winchester.

  V. Eversley.

  M. Lansdowne.

  V. Halifax.

  M. Bath.

  L. Saye and Sele.

  M. Hertford.

  L. Balfour of Burley.

  Ld. Steward.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  E. Devon.

  L. Boyle.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. Monson.

  E. Cadogan.

  L. Digby.

  E. Belmore.

  L. Carrington.

  E. Chichester.

  L. Colchester.

  E. Powis.

  L. Silchester.

  E. Verulam.

  L. De Tabley.

  E. Morley.

  L. Sudeley.

  E. Stradbroke.

  L. Belper.

  E. Amherst.

  L. Ebury.

  E. Camperdown.

  L. Egerton.

  E. Lathom.

  L. Hartismere.

  V. Ha warden.

  L. Penrhyn.

  V. Hutchinson.

  L. Wolverton.

PRIVATE BILLS.
All Petitions relating to Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present Session referred to the Standing Orders Committee unless otherwise ordered.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
The Lords following; viz.,

M. Lansdowne.

L. Colville of Culross.

E. Lathom.

L. Boyle,

were appointed, with the Chairman of Committees, a Committee to select and propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.