Lords Sitting of 4 May 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister* (75); Militia Storehouses* (76); Places of Worship Sites Amendment* (77); Roads Provisional Order (Edinburgh)* (78); Municipal Corporations (Unreformed)* (79).
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Ballymena, &c.)* (57), and passed.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ENGLAND.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL SPENCER: As I see my noble Friend (Lord Norton) opposite, I wish to ask him a Question, of which I have given him private Notice. My noble Friend has given Notice of a very important Motion connected with Education, which he proposes to introduce to your Lordships to-morrow night. It is a subject of the deepest possible importance, not only as being connected with the New Code, which has been discussed in "another place" and in the country generally, but also as relating to the whole system of Government grants towards Elementary Education in this country. Consequently, whoever holds the responsible position which I do, as the Head of Her Majesty's Privy Council, ought to deal with the subject with great care and deliberation. My Lords, I had, consequently, looked forward to taking part in the discussion which must arise on the Motion of my noble Friend; but your Lordships will understand that circumstances have occurred during the last few days which have rendered it impossible for me to bestow that care, time, and attention to the subject which its importance deserves. I should regret to have to deal cursorily, and in a slight manner, with so important a subject; and, therefore, I must ask my noble Friend whether he will kindly postpone the Motion which he has on the Paper for a few days, so as to enable my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal (Lord Carlingford) to make himself acquainted with all the circumstances of the case? I should also like to take this opportunity of saying one or two words upon the general question, with-
  64
  out going into the merits of the case, which are not wholly personal to myself, but are due to certain others connected with the Education Department. This subject of the revision of the Code was really entered upon in the Session before last in your Lordships' House. It was in response, I believe, to a request made by my noble Friend that I undertook that the Education Department should look into the subject. I am, therefore, personally connected with the deliberations on this subject; and I need hardly say that during the last year and a-half my constant attention has been given to the best method of carrying out the important pledge which I gave to your Lordships. I feel the deepest interest in the Code, which will be more fully discussed in this House on some future occasion. As the Head of the Education Department, I am directly responsible for it; and I therefore regret the circumstances which will prevent my taking part in the debate. At the same time, I feel I owe to others some recognition of the great services which they have rendered to the cause of the education of the country, and of the manner in which they have dealt with the subject. Your Lordships are aware that, at the present time, the Government have the advantage of the services of a distinguished Gentleman (Mr. Mundella), who has had a long and continuous experience in education, as Vice President of the Committee of Council. He has given, I need hardly state, the greatest possible time and attention to the consideration of the subject. I am quite sure everybody will give to him what credit is due for the excellence of the New Code. There are others connected with the Education Department who have done eminent service in this matter. I allude to those who are in the Education Office, particularly to Sir Francis Sandford and several members of the Department. From their knowledge of the Old Code, which has really grown up under their supervision, they were able to bring an amount of knowledge and experience to bear upon the work without which our labours would have been entirely futile, and the Code would not have been brought to its present state. We have also had the assistance of some of the most distinguished Inspectors of the Department, and I wish to give to them and all those who have taken a

  65
  part in this work of no ordinary labour my best thanks for the valuable assistance which they have rendered us. I thought I might take this opportunity to render my own personal thanks to all those gentlemen for what they have done with regard to the Code.
  LORD NORTONsaid, he was extremely sorry a second time to be obliged to postpone his Motion, especially as the New Code had received scant attention in the other House of Parliament, owing to the overwhelming pressure of other matters, and none in that House, although the country took the greatest interest in the question, as he knew from the enormous number of communications he received from all parts of England. He had intended to make no attack upon the Lord President of the Council. It was rather to acknowledge a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord and his Colleague the Vice President for the great attention they had given to the question, and to call the attention of their Lordships to the general merits of the Education Code. It was impossible for him, in the present circumstances, to resist the appeal of the noble Lord; he could only hope that the arrangements of the Government would be such that the postponement would be as short as possible. In these circumstances, he would postpone the Motion of which he had given Notice.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he wished to know whether the postponement was to be till the noble Earl's return from Ireland? He should also like to know when that event was likely to take place?
  EARL SPENCERsaid, that one reason for asking for delay was that his noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal (Lord Carlingford) would undertake his duties during his absence, and would require some few days before he could deal with the matter. His noble Friend would be ready to accede to the proposal of his noble Friend opposite in a week or 10 days.

ARMY—THE COMMITTEE ON MUSKETRY INSTRUCTION—THE EVIDENCE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGErose to ask the Under Secretary for War, Whether any portions of the Evidence taken before the War Office Committee on Musketry
  66
  could be laid on the Table of the House? The noble Lord said, he could quite understand why the Report and Evidence in extenso should not be laid on the Table; but, he thought it desirable that portions of the Report should be made available to the public. Great interest was taken in the subject in military circles. It was particularly desirable in the case of the Cavalry. He wished to make one or two suggestions on the subject. The first was that the number of rounds fired by the soldiers should be increased. As to the Volunteers, a man became efficient if he merely fired 60 rounds; but, in his opinion, some higher test should be exacted, and more encouragement should be given to the Volunteers to induce them to shoot better. He hoped his noble Friend would see his way to making that increase. Secondly, that the Government should grant sums in aid of regimental rifle clubs. Those clubs were of great use, and in some regiments were largely assisted by the officers. He thought it desirable, too, that steps should be taken to improve musketry instruction in the Militia and the Militia Reserve, particularly the latter, which he regarded as a most valuable arm of the Service. Musketry practice underwent a revolution every year in consequence of the successive improvements in the manufacture of fire-arms, and it was of the most vital importance that precision and skill in firing practice should keep pace with those improvements.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he was not surprised at the anxiety of the noble Lord to obtain information on this important subject. There was no point of the noble Viscount's speech with which he was unable to express his concurrence. The Report of the Committee could not be presented in its entirety. The fact was that the Report was of a very confidential character, and so was the evidence. The Secretary of State for War was, however, now considering what parts, if any, of that Report and Evidence could be laid on the Table of the House, and his decision, no doubt, would be arrived at at no distant time. With regard to the various suggestions of his noble Friend, he could make one observation which he believed would be extremely satisfactory to him. It was proposed at once, if, indeed, it had not been done already, to issue a considerably

  67
  increased quantity of ammunition to the Army generally. For the future, the men would be supplied with 150 rounds per annum, and the amount served out to the recruits would be increased from 90 to 150 rounds, while that issued to the Militia would be very much increased. As regarded the question of musketry instruction for the Militia, he could not then go into the subject at length; but there could be no doubt that the time which was available for men of the Militia to go through that course was very short indeed. He quite agreed with what had fallen from the noble Lord with reference to the Volunteers. He thought it extremely desirable that more encouragement should be given to induce them to improve their shooting, and it was the intention of the Secretary of State to deal with that matter this year. The other questions to which the noble Lord referred affecting the musketry instruction of the Army were under the consideration of the Secretary of State, or of his Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief. That consideration had reached an advanced state, and he hoped before long regulations would be issued regarding them.

ARMY—ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, WOOLWICH—PROFESSOR BLOXAM.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD TRUROrose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether their attention has been called to a pamphlet written and circulated by the late Professor of Chemistry and Physics at the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich; whether the statements therein contained are undisputed; and if so, what steps, if any, are to be taken to protect professors from the treatment to which Professor Bloxam has been subjected by the military governor and the gentlemen cadets; and, further, to ask with, whom rests the selection of the officer for the appointment of governor, the names of the governors who have successively held that post since 1870, and the period during which they have respectively enjoyed it? The noble Lord said, he wished he could have put these Questions without remark. The subject to which he should refer was of a very painful character, but was one to which he was sure those among their Lordships who had read the pamphlet issued
  68
  by Professor Bloxam would be ready to give their attention and consideration. That pamphlet presented a state of things in the Royal Military Academy which was deeply to be deplored, and which must interfere materially with the advantages of that Academy, both to the Military Profession and the public generally. Professor Bloxam entered on his duties as Professor of Chemistry at the Academy in 1856, and continued to hold that appointment down to February 1882. When he first entered on his duties, there were at the Academy an Inspector of Studies, an Assistant Inspector, and a lieutenant, who were specially detailed to parade the gentlemen cadets, and maintain silence and attention during the lectures. In 1870 those three officials were removed and a Board substituted, before which the Professor was to attend and lay any complaint he had to make. The withdrawal of those three officers had been disastrous. On two occasions, and on two only, did Professor Bloxam attend the Board to make suggestions of improvement. Upon the second occasion he represented to the Board that the pupils ought not to be allowed to obtain permission from the Governor to absent themselves from the lectures, in order to indulge in games of football and cricket. The result of that complaint was satisfactory, both to the Professor and to the pupils. But, strange to say, from that day the Professor was never called before the Board again, although he had the gravest possible charges to make. One was that the tone of the cadets was so degrading as to be utterly abominable and unendurable. And another was that on one occasion no less than 12 gas-jets were turned on in the neighbourhood of the laboratory at the risk of the fumes passing into the laboratory. Had an explosion occurred the whole of the east wing of the building must have been blown to atoms. There could be no doubt that on the withdrawal of the three officials, insubordination began; and, although the Professor showed the utmost tact and temper, the state of things became completely intolerable. He therefore wrote to the Governor, stating that his health had been suffering from the great anxiety which he experienced in carrying on his lectures in the midst of so much insubordination among the pupils, whose behaviour distracted his attention. The

  69
  truth of that statement was soon proved, for, at the end of 1879, the Professor was taken ill, and, notwithstanding, he was called upon to continue his lectures to the end of the term. In the early part of 1880 he returned to his duty, by which time a new Governor had been appointed. On July 5, Professor Bloxam wrote to the Governor of the Academy that the teaching of a great number of subjects had been laid upon him beyond those which he had originally undertaken to teach, and that the salary of £600, which he was to receive, had not been paid. He also complained that the conduct of the majority of the boys who came to him for instruction was that of boys in an ordinary boarding school, with a very low standard of moral and religious instruction. To that letter the Professor received no reply whatever; but, having been compelled on one occasion to dismiss the class at a moment's notice in consequence of unseemly conduct on the part of the cadets, he received a message from the Governor through the secretary to the effect that he had adopted an extreme measure in dismissing the class. Having directed, with the view to preserve order, that the outer doors should be locked after the second bell had rung, the Professor received a memorandum from the Governor, commencing "Mr. Bloxam," without any of the usual terms of courtesy, and directing him not to lock the doors. The Professor having explained the reason that had induced him to order the doors to be locked, he received another abrupt communication, in which he, a Professor of 30 years' standing, was ordered to obey the directions of a Governor of 12 months' standing, such communication not even being enclosed in an envelope, and being partly written by a clerk. Professor Bloxam was next written to by the secretary, that an orderly officer would be sent to the class-room to attend the lecture, and that the door was not to be locked, as that it was an indignity to the class. Professor Bloxam replied that the class did not regard it as an indignity. Such was the gist of the correspondence which had taken place, as shown in the pamphlet from which he was quoting. The remainder of the pamphlet related to Professor Bloxam's retirement. The Professor received a civil communication from the Governor,
  70
  through the secretary, stating that he had made some proposal to the War Department, with the view of continuing for another year his instruction at the Academy, in order to complete the seven years; and he wrote a letter respectfully but distinctly declining that proposal, observing that for several years he had represented to the Governor of the Academy the necessity of certain alterations in the discipline of the classes, to enable him to continue to give instruction without undergoing so much suffering and degradation from the riot and obscene conduct of the students. The condition of the Royal Military Academy was not one which, the country had a right to expect, and could not be one which gave satisfaction to the military authorities. Was the position of the Governer of the Royal Military Academy that of a sinecure for superannuated merit? Was it a grateful retreat for pompous imbecility? Was it a resting-place in a land of promise for high ability and legitimate ambition? He said it was not one of those things, and he wanted to know what it was. Was the post of Governor one of strict supervision or not? Was it one under which such atrocities could be committed as that the lecture-room, the lobby, and the passages could be covered with obscene and filthy drawings of every description without their being removed? [Murmurs.] He was only quoting that pamphlet. Were there any duties attaching to the position of Governor, and was it conceivable that they were adequately fulfilled on behalf of the public? He believed that, however able the distinguished officers selected for that post might be, however high their scientific attainments, however well fitted for command in the field, for a period of 10 years they had not shown themselves qualified for the position of Governor of that Institution if the statements in that pamphlet were correct. What would be said of the Head Masters of our public schools if such a state of things existed in them? The schools would be ruined. He could not receive a pamphlet like that without feeling it his duty to call their Lordships' attention to it; and he concluded by asking the Under Secretary of State for War whether that Institution was to be continued in its present condition, or what steps the Government thought it advisable to adopt in future, with a view

  71
  either of remedying its defects or of entirely abolishing it?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the noble Lord at the beginning of his speech had told them with very great frankness that he would reverse the usual course in regard to putting Questions in that House, by giving information instead of asking for it. He thought, however, that, for the sake of Professor Bloxam, the noble Lord would have acted more wisely if he had exercised a little more discretion in respect to the information he afforded to the House. It would have been still more prudent if the noble Lord, after asking him whether certain statements were undisputed, had waited to hear the answer to his Question, instead of hastily accepting the injurious statements contained in a pamphlet, affecting most distinguished officers. He (the Earl of Morley) protested in the strongest way against the sweeping assertions made by the noble Lord upon the evidence of a pamphlet written by Professor Bloxam under feelings of strong personal irritation, and without hearing anything by way of counter-statement. He would answer the first Question of the noble Lord by saying that the selection of the Governor of the Royal Military Academy—and the appointment was one of great importance—was made upon the recommendation of his Royal Highness who occupied a seat upon the Cross Benches, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State in the same manner as all other appointments to military commands. He would also give the names of the gentlemen who had held that appointment since 1870. In that year Sir Lintorn Simmons was selected, an officer so distinguished that it was unnecesary for him to say anything further respecting him—he was one of the most distinguished and most practical officers who had ever held the post at Woolwich, and the changes of which the noble Lord complained were introduced by him in accordance with the recommendation of a Royal Commission. Sir Lintorn Simmons was followed by Sir John Adye, and Sir John Adye by General Browne, the present Commandant; and he asked their Lordships whether these distinguished officers were examples of "superannuated merit or pompous imbecility?" They were officers whose reputation was
  72
  known throughout England. Indeed, the case of Professor Bloxam had been put before their Lordships in such a way that it was hardly necessary for him to say much in reply, except as a matter of courtesy to his noble Friend. The gravamen of the noble Lord's first charge was that discipline had been seriously impaired in consequence of the changes made in 1870—changes for which no reason had ever been assigned. Now, if the noble Lord had read a few paragraphs of the Report of the Royal Commission of 1869 he would have seen that there was ample reason for them. Their object was to give to the Professor a better status. Before 1870 the condition of the Royal Military Academy was not at all satisfactory, and the Commission of 1869 issued a long Report on the subject. Among other changes, a Board of Visitors was established. It was also suggested that considerably wider powers should be given to the Professors, in order to enable them to maintain discipline themselves, instead of by the objectionable and degrading practice of having an officer or a corporal present for that purpose. Professor Bloxam, however, though doubtless an eminent chemist, did not appear to have been very happy in his management of young men, and one sentence in a letter he had written was a sufficient condemnation of his attitude, and ought to have restrained him from uttering charges which for the most part were groundless. The Professor wrote—
  "I must either at once discontinue my lectures or disobey the Governor, and I choose the latter course."
  Professor Bloxam, he thought, should first learn discipline himself before complaining of the want of it in others. His position with respect to the renewal of his appointment was exactly the same as that of any other Professor. He had applied in 1870 for a renewal of the Professorship and had obtained it, though he had not obtained an increase of salary for which he had applied. It was quite a mistake to suppose that a hearing—an indulgent hearing—was not granted to any Professor who desired to address the Board of Visitors, and unless he had much better evidence he should decline to give credit to any allegation to the contrary. He did not think it necessary to reply at length to the statement which had been made

  73
  about the correspondence; but he was informed that it was the custom to minimize the amount of correspondence as much as possible, and complaints and suggestions were received at a monthly conference of the Professors with the Commandant held for that purpose. The question also of the repairs was so slight that it was unnecessary to trouble the House with it. With regard, however, to the statement respecting the increase of salaries, the noble Lord was in error. The salary of the Governor and of the secretary and treasurer had not been increased, but was precisely the same as it always had been, except in the case of the treasurer, whose salary had been diminished. The increase alleged by Professor Bloxam resulted from the fact that whereas now the pay of the Governor and secretary was consolidated, formerly it consisted of special pay and half-pay, and, consequently, appeared in two different Votes of the Annual Estimates. Professor Bloxom could easily have ascertained this before making this allegation. He thought, therefore, that the charges against the Academy had not been made out The fact was the statements in the pamphlet were exaggerated. It was most unfair to the gentleman cadets and all who were connected with the Royal Military Academy that such charges should be brought against them as were brought by the noble Lord on the ex parte evidence of such a pamphlet as that from which the noble Lord quoted. At the same time, the Secretary of State did consider that he ought to call for a Report, and until that Report came he did not propose to enter more fully into the question.
  LORD TRUROsaid, that he disclaimed all idea of giving offence to the distinguished officers who had filled the post of Governor. His object was simply to show that there were grounds for an inquiry into the mode in which discipline was maintained in the Institution.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, he was bound to protest against the statement which had been made by the noble Lord on this subject. It was true that he had tried to explain away the charges which he had made against the distinguished officer who filled the important position of Military Governor of the Academy; but he had made charges not only
  74
  against the present Governor, but his predecessor, and his whole argument went to show that from 1870 the condition and discipline of the Academy had not been what they ought to be. It was his (the Duke of Cambridge's) duty to make the appointments to the post of Governor, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, and he defied the noble Lord to prove that he could have appointed two more efficient or distinguished officers to fill this post than he had. The arrangements now in force at the Academy were simply those which had been proposed by the Royal Commission for the altered state of circumstances. Cadets were entered at a more advanced age, and it was found that the arrangements for the discipline of youths were unsuited to men. Whatever Professor Bloxam's ability as a lecturer might be, from what he had heard he believed he had not the tact to properly manage a class, and this was corroborated by the fact that none of the other Professors had made complaints as to their classes. In these circumstances, he could not but think that the Professor was more to blame than the students. Where was Professor Bloxam's discipline? He went against the rules of the College, and locked up the door of his class-room, that in itself being enough to produce disorder. He thought the Professors should understand that to carry on a controversy or even a correspondence with the Governors was clearly a most objectionable course to take, and he thought it a great pity that Professor Bloxam had ever written at all. He did not hesitate to say that if he had been the Governor he should not have taken the slightest notice of the letters. The noble Lord had thrown out insinuations to the effect that the cadets were subject to very little discipline and received little or no instruction. Such insinuations were altogether unworthy and contrary to the fact, for he could himself say that, with a very few exceptions, the discipline had been extremely creditable, and the exceptions he referred to arose from their being short of officers. The officer who had made the last inspection said that the cadets were the best set of young men he had inspected. Many of their Lordships had gone through the Academy, and could bear witness to its general condition of efficiency. He considered that many

  75
  statements in the pamphlet were ridiculous and not worth answering; but he could not in justice to the distinguished officers who had filled the post of Governor refrain from justifying the appointment, and even in justice to himself, who had made it.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought that it was quite right to discourage bringing forward complaints of this character in their Lordships' House; and, in his opinion, the speech of the illustrious Duke and the noble Earl had totally disposed of the matter. He thought, too, the extracts which had been read by the noble Lord behind him were conclusive against the Professor. His only wonder was why, if the learned Professor who made these complaints was so dissatisfied with the changes that were made in the conduct of the business and the discipline of the Academy in 1870, he had continued in his position of Professor so long.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, it seemed to him that this tribunal, which was a proper one to appeal to on ascertained facts, was not a proper one to appeal to until the facts had been ascertained. There was a way in which this Professor would have been entitled and able always to bring his grievances before independent persons, for the members of the Board which was appointed to go year by year to Woolwich were always selected with the greatest care in order that their judgments might be independent. The reports of the distinguished gentlemen who had filled that office would show the minuteness of their inquiries, and how ready they were to attend to any circumstances which might be brought before them. He did not say that if the facts had been ascertained this subject was not a proper one for Parliamentary consideration, for the Military Academy at Woolwich had turned out some of the best officers in the Service, and it was of the utmost importance that that Institution should be well conducted. He believed it was well conducted, and certainly, in his time, every grievance was carefully investigated. He hoped that in future, when matters of this kind were brought forward, insinuations would not be made like those made tonight by the noble Lord against officers who were wholly undeserving of them.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—"FAIR RENTS."

  PETITION PRESENTED.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD, in rising to present a Petition from landowners and others in Ireland, praying that the principles adopted by the Land Commissioners in the assessment of "fair rents" might as soon as possible be made public, said, only a few days ago he presented a similar Petition from other landlords, and upon that occasion the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal (Lord Carlingford) made an official answer, but gave no satisfactory explanation on the subject, and gave the landlords no hope of any relief from the grievances under which they laboured. In consequence, another Petition had been prepared by other persons in Ireland, who considered they were hardly used, and the Petitioners had placed the Petition in his hands to present to their Lordships. He thoroughly endorsed the prayer of the Petition, and hoped that some explanation would be given by Her Majesty's Government on the present occasion. The Petitioners were fortified in their request by what was recommended in the 7th section of the Report of the Select Committee which their Lordships appointed to consider the working of the Land Act. They believed that they were asking for nothing that was unusual, and were only asking for what two noble and learned Lords and the other Members of the Committee considered would be of very great advantage in carrying out the Act—that the usual rule in judicial proceedings should be adhered to, so that the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners should be supported by reasons. The Government had not approved of the appointment of the Committee, and might not, therefore, be disposed to attach much importance to its recommendations; but he thought the prayer of the Petitioners was supported by the opinion of this independent tribunal, an authority that could not be entirely disregarded. Mr. Justice O'Hagan gave an account before the Committee of the manner in which the Commission was constituted; and his description of the occasion of the Assistant Commissioners going to the office of the Head Commission at Dublin to take out their instructions, although they never received any

  77
  instructions, was one of the most comical exhibitions that could be given of the inauguration of a great system that was to affect every corner of the country. It was almost as historical as the lapsus linguœ made by the Registrar at the first sitting, who announced that the Court of the "Land League" was open. The Petition did not relate to a question of a new Department, or a change in some of the Offices of the Government, or as to how many Offices were to be filled by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal; but it was a question which greatly affected the landlords of Ireland. Their property was slipping away, and all sense of law and order was slipping away too, whilst the Government were considering how they should watch the operation of the Land Act. The Petitioners wished to facilitate the operations of the Act, and they considered that they had a right to call for some explanation of the rules under which the Court dealt with very large properties, how its decisions were arrived at, and what elements of value taken into consideration by the Assistant Commissioners, who had so large a power placed in their hands.
  Petition for a speedy declaration of the principles adopted in the assessment of fair rents under the Act by the Land Commissioners in Ireland; of Owners of land and others living in Ireland, or interested in its welfare; read.
  After a pause,
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord opposite (Lord Carlingford) does not rise to reply to the noble Earl behind me. I presume the Lord Privy Seal still represents Ireland in this House. Are we to receive a reply from the Government, or are they going to take refuge behind the impenetrable barrier of silence? The Question which has been asked by my noble Friend appears to me to be of the greatest importance, not the less since the Report of the Select Committee, which my noble Friend has referred to, has been published. As my noble Friend has reminded your Lordships, this is not a question merely affecting one political Party—it is a question as to the common administration of justice in Ireland, of justice to a class which has been grievously tried, and which, undoubtedly, is numerically weak, but which ought not
  78
  on that account to be treated entirely with contempt by Parliament and by the Government. As long as no principles are indicated on which the incomes of landlords are to be cut down, it is impossible that the operations of this law can be facilitated either by submission to the Courts of First Instance or by agreement between parties out of Court. It is impossible for landlords and tenants to know whether it is for their interest to come to mutual agreements as long as there is no knowledge of the principles on which the Sub-Commissioners divide between the landlord and tenants that which hitherto has belonged to the landlord only. What we want to know is the principle on which these reductions are made. We want to know this, so that the landlord may be able to judge whether he shall submit at once or go before the Commissioners. Unless he has some grounds, some standard to which he can apply the decision of the Commissioners, some idea of the calculations which induced them to give the verdicts which they have given, so long will he be unable to decide whether it is for his interest to submit to reduction at once, or submit himself to a Court of First Instance. The result of this state of uncertainty is that the final settlement and pacification of the country, which we have always been told it was the hope of the Government this Land Act would effect, is indefinitely delayed, and disturbances in Ireland, with all the fatal injury to the country which disturbance involves, are indefinitely prolonged. Another consideration why we should have some definite principles placed before us is that the Commissioners are only appointed for one year; no one can say who is to be appointed next, and no one can so forecast the political horoscope as to know who will have the appointment of them when the year has run out. If their decisions were based upon principles which were argued and distinctly laid down, and which were tested by having been submitted to the Court of Appeal, those principles, so argued and decided, would, according to the ordinary practice of the English law, become part and parcel of the law, and would become a guide to subsequent Judges. We should possess a body of well settled laws. But if the present Commissioners are guided by any principles at all, they are locked within the secrets of their own

  79
  breasts, and no one knows what they are. It is perfectly possible that new Judges may be appointed and new Courts may arise, who may substitute a policy diametrically opposed to that pursued by the present Sub-Commissioners. It seems to me it is for the supreme interest of Ireland, and necessary to produce some spirit of agreement between classes which otherwise will be hopelessly divided, that the principles upon which the Land Courts act should be laid down and declared—that it is a supreme necessity that they should be declared—so that landlords and tenants may come to agreements between themselves. It is in the interest of the landlords, but it is more in the interests of future tenants, to know that what principle is now laid down will be adhered to. On these grounds it seems to me that it is of the last importance that this Petition, which has now been twice presented to your Lordships' House, should be received by Her Majesty's Government in some more satisfactory way than with contemptuous silence.
  LORD CARLINGFORD: My Lords, I utterly deny that Her Majesty's Government, or at least so far as I am concerned, have received this Petition with contemptuous silence. I had certainly not intended to trouble the House with any observations upon it, not from any want of respect for my noble Friend the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Longford), but simply because only a few days ago the noble Earl presented a Petition in the very same words as the Petition he has presented to-day, and he supported it with almost identically the same observations he has just made. I then said what it appeared to me to be necessary to say on the part of the Government, and I thought it was not necessary for me to repeat again the statement after as short an interval as two or three days. I then said that Her Majesty's Government had no power to accede to the demands of those Petitioners by preparing any instructions to be addressed by them to the Land Commissioners, asking them to lay down and publish what are called the principles on which they fix fair rents. As I said the other day, I can see no way in which that can be done, and I very much doubt whether the Land Commissioners would consent to perform such a duty, which is distinctly not laid upon them by the Act
  80
  under which they are constituted, and which, as I gather from all that was said in both Houses of Parliament during the passage of the Bill, Parliament refrained from imposing upon them. The process of ascertaining how those rents are fixed is not such a great mystery, it appears to me, and I think that if the noble Earl or anyone else who will follow the proceedings of the Courts of the Sub-Commissioners and the Court of the Land Commission itself, they will not find any difficulty whatever. At least, I myself have not done so. So far as I am able to judge, in ascertaining for themselves the course which they took for the purpose of fixing a fair rent, the Commissioners ascertain by the ordinary means—the only means in their power—what rent would necessarily be fairly given by an outsider for the farm. They ascertain that by the evidence of valuers, by the ordinary means by which the value of a holding can be ascertained—namely, the rent that an outsider might fairly be expected to give for such a farm, leaving a fair and ordinary profit to the tenant. The rent which an outsider would give would, of course, be such a rent as would leave a fair and reasonable profit to the tenant, and the Commissioners deduct the value of the improvements that ought to be made, that is to say, the amount of the yearly value that is added to the farm by reason of those improvements as defined by law and by the decision of the Courts. They also, no doubt, take into consideration the deterioration of the farm that is caused by default—that is to say, they do not necessarily fix the rent according to the existing value of the farm, and the condition it happens to be in at the time the decision is given, but they take into account most of the improvements made by the tenant on the one hand, and the deterioration which he causes on the other, and so they come to the figure of a fair rent, not that which would be given by an outsider, but that which the man in occupation ought to pay. In doing so they comply with the conditions laid down by the Act of last year. They consider the interests of the landlord and tenant respectively, and all the circumstances of the district which bear upon it. I have never yet heard it explained, either by my noble Friend the noble Earl, or anyone else, what principles for arriving at a fair rent can be published which would more

  81
  clearly explain the process taken by the Courts than that at which I have arrived, and which other noble Lords have arrived at, from observing the proceedings of the Land Commissioners. I know nothing as yet of what evidence has been given before your Lordships' Committee, which has been referred to by my noble Friend the noble Earl, and therefore I speak in ignorance of whether they throw any special light on the subject. I can only say that the Executive Government have no power of addressing instructions to the Land Commission on this subject.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, he thought the prayer of the Petition was a fair and reasonable one. He knew of his own knowledge many cases in which the landlords could not decide whether to arrange with their tenants out of Court for want of knowing the principles upon which the decisions of the Commissioners were founded. One of the reasons of the great difference between the rent which the landlord sought to get and the judicial rent—which was about 20 per cent—was due to the absence of competition for farms.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that the Lord Privy Seal had stated that it was impossible to expect the Commissioners to give their reasons as to the principles upon which they acted in fixing a rent, and that he then proceeded to tell their Lordships that nothing was easier than to ascertain the mode in which they arrived at their decisions. It seemed to him, however, that the noble Lord, in telling them how it was done, omitted a very important factor in his case, because he told them that the Commissioners took the ordinary course, and that they applied to valuers who were competent to give advice; and the other day the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal told them that the Commissioners personally visited the farms. That might or might not be an advantage; but as the Commissioners were not agriculturists, he did not see that it could do much good whether they went over the farms or not. Then the noble Lord said that, having fixed the rent that an outsider would pay for the farm, and which he would be able to give with a profit to himself, the rent was fixed after the improvements which had been made by the tenant were taken into consideration. It seemed to him that the landlords
  82
  had a right to demand what were those improvements which were taken into consideration. What he wished to know was what the Commissioners considered to be improvements, how many years back they were to go to ascertain the improvements made upon the farm, what description of improvements they were, and whether they were improvements at all? They could not estimate a fair rent unless they ascertained that the improvements that had been made were really bonâ fide improvements, and improvements which ought to be made on the farm. He said the landlords had a right to know what the Commissioners considered to be improvements which had been made on their farms, and for which they were to be mulcted.
  LORD CARLINGFORD: They are defined by the Act.
  THE DUCK OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that might be so; but how far did the Commissioners go back? Another matter of importance was that of deterioration, and he should like to know what were considered deteriorations by the Commissioners, and the manner in which they were taken into account. He confessed that if he unfortunately stood in the position of the Irish landlord, he should not like to have his rents fixed without knowing the principles which guided the Commissioners. He should doubt very much the justice of having his property handed over to two Commissioners, and should require and expect to have some more accurate information as to the manner in which the rents were fixed than had been given on the present occasion.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not quite understand what the noble Duke and the noble Marquess were aiming at. Did they wish to amend the Act in order to define what noble Lords on either side of the House found so difficult to define last year, or did they wish that the Executive Government should give instructions to the Commissioners? But that was a matter which the Government were not empowered to do by the Act, and which it was not the least incumbent upon the Commissioners to receive.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he thought it was incumbent on the Government to give their Lordships' House some more information than they had vouchsafed as to the method in which the Land Commissioners had arrived at the re-

  83
  ductions which they had made in rents. The system of administering the Land Act adopted by the Commissioners threw the greatest possible impediment in the way of amicable arrangements being entered into between landlords and tenants in Ireland. Landlords had suffered for the good which they had done in making improvements. Reductions had been made from nearly all existing rents, but the Commissioners had not put down what they were separately. They had lumped them altogether and given decisions which practically resulted in this, that no landlord or tenant could infer what his prospects would be if they brought another case into Court, and they could not proceed out of Court. This, it was true, was an important question for landlords, but not for them only. He thought that in common justice both landlords and tenants should be told for what length of time they took into consideration the improvements made by tenants, and all the other circumstances which had induced them to reduce existing rents. He was sorry to say the anticipation which he ventured to express when the Land Bill came first before their Lordship's House last year—namely, that this measure of confiscation would not be accepted as a measure of pacification in Ireland, had, unhappily, been fulfilled. He thought the Government should afford them more information than had been given by the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, it was impossible to discover the principles on which the Commissioners had proceeded. They were entirely in the dark. He had tried to settle with a number of his own tenants out of Court; but the only basis he could go upon was to take Griffith's valuation, with a certain percentage added—as much, he thought, as the Sub-Commissioners would sanction. Notwithstanding that his agent had taken a great deal of trouble, in the majority of instances the attempt to settle had failed. Of course, the Executive Government could not order any Court to do anything; but they might have expressed a strong opinion on the subject; and he very much regretted that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal (Lord Carlingford) was not able to give a more satisfactory answer to the Questions of the noble Lord.
  Petition ordered to lie on the Table.

IRELAND—IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT—THE NEW CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT.

  QUESTIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have to ask the noble Earl opposite, if he will answer such a Question without Notice, Whether any Successor has yet been appointed to Mr. Forster in the Office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?
  EARL GRANVILLE: The Question of the noble Marquess requires no Notice. It is a simple fact that Mr. Forster's Successor is Lord Frederick Cavendish.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will Lord Frederick Cavendish, according to the new custom, also retain the Office of Secretary to the Treasury?
  EARL GRANVILLE: No; he will not.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to alter and amend the law as to marriage with a deceased wife's sister—Was presented by The Lord RAMSAY; read la. (No. 75.)

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (UNREFORMED) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make provision respecting certain municipal corporations and other local authorities not subject to the Municipal Corporation Acts—Was presented by The Lord ROSEBERY; read 1a. (No. 79.)
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.