Lords Sitting of 1 June 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Lands Clauses (Umpire) * (71); Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order * (72); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) * (73); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) * (74).
Committee—Naval Discipline and Enlistment Acts Amendment (61–70).
Committee—Report—Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Orders * (60); Poor Law Conferences * (65).

NAVAL DISCIPLINE AND ENLISTMENT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 61.)
(The Earl of Northbrook.)
NAVAL DISCIPLINE AND ENLISTMENT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 61.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Abolition of corporal punishment and solitary confinement).
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, in moving, in page 1, lines 15 and 16, to leave out ("corporal punishment or,") and, in line 17, after ("repealed,") insert—
  ("Corporal punishment may be inflicted by sentence of a court-martial for the following offences:—(1.) Striking a superior officer; (2.) Mutiny; (3.) An unnatural offence; (4.) Theft,")
  said, all naval officers who had mixed with blue jackets as he had done must be actuated by kindly and almost affectionate sentiments towards them. Therefore, nothing but a strong sense of duty could lead any officer to wish for the retention of corporal punishment. His opinions on the subject were shared by, perhaps, a large majority of the officers who took command of Her Majesty's ships, and who were experienced in the Service. He held that the retention of corporal punishment in certain cases was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of the Service; and he felt sure that in a general war the Admiralty would have to resort to it in extreme cases. Flogging in the Army had been abolished by law; but the Admiralty had assumed the responsibility of causing the punishment to cease in the Navy without having a Parliamentary sanction for so doing. The Articles of War,

  1457
  which were under an Act of Parliament, had never been repealed, and were still in force in the Navy. The noble Earl opposite stated the other night that there had been a considerable increase of such offences as striking superior officers. That was an offence which, when he entered the Service, was regarded with a degree of horror that the expressions of the noble Earl the other night appeared not to support. Such offences were formerly considered to be the most serious that a seaman could commit. Men who committed them were liable to be sentenced to death, and in all cases flogging was immediately inflicted for such offences. He would not say anything with respect to the third class of offences, which every now and then appeared on board ship. But theft, he believed, had, since the abolition of flogging, considerably increased in the Navy. There was a good deal of property on board ship belonging to sailors who had no lock-ups, and no facilities for protecting their goods. He could not understand why a power which was exercised by magistrates on land should not be intrusted to officers on board ship. Still, he admitted that there would be great difficulty to reestablish corporal punishment after it had been done away both in the Navy and in the Army. If naval officers had been consulted, he did not think corporal punishment would have been entirely abolished. Sir William Martin had in a pamphlet urged the authorities not to take a step, by abolishing all corporal punishment, which would materially affect the efficiency of the Navy. What punishment could be substituted? In time of war, was there always to be a vessel in attendance to carry home prisoners to be tried and sentenced? When men were flogged they ceased to think anything about it after a few days, and suffered no degradation like that which was entailed by imprisonment and the society of criminals. He therefore protested against the proposal.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("corporal punishment or,") and in line 17, after ("repealed,") insert ("corporal punishment may be inflicted by sentence of a courtmartial for the following offences:—(1.) Striking a superior officer; (2.) Mutiny; (3.) An unnatural offence; (4.) Theft.")—(The Viscount Sidmouth.)
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he was willing to admit that in theory it was desirable to do away with corporal punishment; but they must look at the matter as practical men, and if flogging were abolished in the Navy he asked what punishment the Government would substitute for it, and what they proposed to do with the culprits? If, for instance, a sailor struck an officer in the Pacific, what would be done with the culprit? He should like to know how discipline would be maintained in the Navy? If discipline was not maintained it would be a serious thing for the Service. For his own part, he failed to see what effective punishment short of flogging could be inflicted for the worst class of offences.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he agreed with the noble Viscount (Viscount Sidmouth) that it would hardly be possible now to restore corporal punishment in the Navy. It was no longer a practical question to discuss whether it was wise a few years ago to do away with corporal punishment. It had been done, and now they must deal with the subject as practical men; and, so dealing with it, it would be quite impossible, in his (the Earl of North-brook's) opinion, after the expression of opinion in the country and in the other House of Parliament, to retain corporal punishment in the Navy. It should be remembered that their Lordships, almost without discussion, agreed to abolish this punishment in the Army; and, looking at that fact, and that it had, by Orders, been practically abolished in the Navy, this Amendment should not be accepted. There could be no doubt that some offences were of a most serious kind, and must be dealt with; but the best mode of dealing with them was to give increased power of inflicting punishment in other forms. He was sorry the noble Viscount had misunderstood some words which he had spoken the other night. He had said nothing to imply that striking a superior officer was a trifling offence. But it should be remembered that the term "superior officer" was used in a different sense on board ship from the usually-accepted meaning. It included petty officers. What he did wish to point out was that striking an officer was a different offence from mutiny, and was treated separately from mutiny

  1459
  in the Naval Discipline Act. If the present Board of Admiralty had erred in making recommendations to courts martial not to award corporal punishment, they had erred in very good company, because a similar course had been adopted by successive Boards of Admiralty. There had been very few cases of corporal punishment in the Navy—two or three at the most—during the last six or seven years. As to the remarks of the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset), he could only say that there had been no substitute so effective, in certain cases, as corporal punishment. There could, he feared, be no question that since the abolition of such punishment certain grave offences had seriously increased in the Navy. The punishment, however, had practically ceased to exist, and it was only right that the law should be assimilated to the practice. On the whole, this was a practical question; and whatever might be said upon the merits, nevertheless, having regard to the state of public opinion and the circumstances in which they were placed, he submitted that the Government had done rightly in bringing the clause before their Lordships in its present shape.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that he must enter his protest against the line of policy adopted by the First Lord of the Admiralty. The noble Lord himself believed that corporal punishment was the most effective method of maintaining discipline, and yet he was prepared to erase it altogether. The arguments on the other side would be all very well if it were proposed to make it compulsory to use corporal punishment; but it was recommended only as an alternative punishment. His noble Friend behind him proposed, not that they should adopt the practice generally, but that they should leave the power to be used at the discretion of the superior officer in certain grave cases of emergency. Than that proposal nothing could be fairer. The First Lord had said nothing, for example, with reference to the crime of theft, and not one word about unnatural offences. It was argued that corporal punishment ought to be done away with, on the ground that it was degrading to the subject upon whom it was executed; but when they came to such an offence as an unnatural offence, it was absurd to argue
  1460
  on the ground of degradation, the offence itself being the most degrading and bestial that could be conceived.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he would certainly vote for the Amendment of the noble Viscount; and he wished to add drunkenness as No. 5 to the list of offences for which corporal punishment might be inflicted. No adequate substitute had been found for it, and imprisonment could not safely be carried out on board ship or abroad. There had been in the Army the case of a man who was brought home in a ship to be imprisoned in England; he had been guilty of drunkenness and looting in Egypt. He, with other prisoners, had broken into the spirit receptacle on board, and had been so drunk that even the stomach-pump could not relieve him, and he died; but if that man could have been flogged in Egypt his life would have been saved.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that he quite admitted it was very alarming to ignorant laymen like the noble Earl who spoke last but one and himself, when they heard professional men like the noble and gallant Viscount (Viscount Sidmouth) and the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset), who had had so much experience, say that a step had been taken which would be fatal to the discipline of the Navy; but he owned he was a little hardened to this alarm. He remembered being told a fact by a most distinguished gentleman, whom their Lordships all remembered, the gallant Admiral who was so long Black Rod in this House, and it was one which a good deal exercised him at the time. Admiral Clifford told him that when he was first put in command of a vessel, every time the men were sent up aloft, the last man who came down was flogged. The gallant Admiral was so horrified at this, that he made a representation to the Admiralty, and the proceeding was put an end to. When the change came to be known his brother officers declared that the step would be utterly fatal to the smartness of the British Navy, and the gallant Admiral experienced no little unpopularity for a certain time. That was a fact which was impressive and suggestive. He owned, as an ignorant layman, he had confidence in the post captains of this country; and he believed they would be able to maintain the discipline of their ships without flogging,

  1461
  as much as the Trench, the Germans, the Italians, and the Russians were able to do under similar circumstances.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHwished to point out that the action of the late Administration had been only to diminish the number of lashes, still leaving the power to inflict corporal punishment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would appeal to the noble and gal-land Viscount to consider what he meant to do. There was no doubt what the House of Commons would do if they inserted this Amendment in the Bill. He was not now discussing the question as a political one, but simply as a matter concerning the proceedings of the House. It did not seem desirable that the House should adopt Amendments, on a question of this gravity, unless they were prepared to go through with them. Was the noble and gallant Viscount prepared to reject the Bill?—because that would be the inevitable result if he adhered to the Amendment. For himself, he was very much of the noble and gallant Viscount's opinion, and, he gathered, the opinion also of the First Lord of the Admiralty, as to the importance and the power of punishment by flogging; but, considering what they had seen with respect to the infliction of that punishment in the other branch of the Service, he could not say, looking at the matter merely as a political spectator, that there seemed the slightest chance, for the present, of retaining the punishment of flogging in the Navy. Whether that was a desirable result he did not know; but the blame must be laid on our political institutions, and on the present aspect of public opinion. The public might get wiser. They might have some sharp reminder of the fasts: they might some day be taught that this mealy-mouthed and sentimental legislation was not the way to conduct the great Services of a great Empire. He did not think, however, that it was of very much use for them to make alterations in Bills of this kind. They would merely be prolonging the period of irritation without obtaining any practical result, and thus delay the period when the public might come to a wiser mind.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, he should certainly not press the Amendment to a division after the opinion expressed by the noble Marquess, but would content himself with entering his
  1462
  protest against the clause. He, however, could not help thinking the noble Marquess was wrong in the present instance.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH,in supporting the Amendment, said, there was no officer in either Service, unbiassed by political opinion, who personally approved of the entire abolition of corporal punishment, if he had held a command for even a very short period. The noble Earl the Leader of the House might as well have alluded to the time when men were executed for sheep-stealing as the obsolete custom of men being liable to corporal punishment for being the last to come down after being "mast-headed."
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 7 (Amendment of s. 58 as to constitution of courts martial).
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHexpressed a fear that the clause would have a tendency to restrict the power and exercise of reprimand by junior officers, especially as each case of reprimand would have to be reported to the Admiralty.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that by the present law reprimand was administered by commanding officers only; but this clause of the Bill would give the power to officers of lower rank who might be in command. Instead of restricting the power, the clause extended it.
  LORD ALCESTERsaid, there would be no ground for the fear entertained by the noble Viscount. A record of such cases of reprimand would only appear in the log book of a ship.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  House resumed.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 70.)

IRELAND—ARTERIAL DRAINAGE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD MONTEAGLE, in rising to call attention to the present state of the law regulating arterial drainage in Ireland, and to ask, Whether Her Majesty's Go-

  1463
  vernment would consider the propriety of modifying the existing system to suit the altered circumstances of the country with regard to the ownership and occupation of land? said, that it was unnecessary to remind their Lordships that this was an important question, and that it had been rendered more important still by recent events. One had only to look at the map, and at the peculiar nature of the country, to recognize its importance; and to him it was one of the most practical questions that could engage the attention of Parliament in relation to Ireland. He had endeavoured, on more than one occasion, to urge on the House, when considering remedial measures for the evils of that country, that there were practical questions that might have wide permanent influence on the course of events in the future. They had often discussed the question of emigration; and he had ventured to express the opinion that emigration, though of the greatest possible importance and necessity, could not be regarded as anything approaching the nature of a panacea for the evils of Ireland, or as likely to produce any permanent results, unless it was accompanied and enforced by other measures. This question of arterial drainage appeared to him to be one of those practical measures which were required for the development of the country when all had been done that could be expected from emigration. He was anxious to point out that the question was not brought before the House as a landlord's grievance, nor was it at all a question of a Party character. That being the case, it was the more deserving of the attention of their Lordships. Although the question was a very wide one, he should confine himself chiefly to a consideration of the smaller districts that would be affected. The principle that seemed to govern the whole history of the question was that corporate action was necessary in the public interests. By the Act of 1842 the power of initiating drainage schemes was given to the Board of Works. During the famine years, in order to relieve the distress, extended powers were given, and a number of schemes were carried out hastily. Then complaints arose among proprietors that the works were not properly carried out, and that they had not got value for their money; and by an Act of 1853 remissions wore made of the sums
  1464
  that had been expended. In 1863 a new departure was made, and an Act was passed based upon the English Act of 1861, and giving the owners of property the power to form Drainage Boards, with the consent of two-thirds of those affected. In 1874 an alteration was made in the terms upon which money was lent. In 1878 the consents required were reduced to one-half the value, provided one-third of the owners did not dissent. All these changes showed that the subject had engaged a good deal of the attention of Parliament. The result of experience was to show that if individual initiative was to be depended upon in the future, it would no longer be that of the landlords. It might be possible to intrust the initiative to the tenants, in the same way that they could make improvements under the Land Act of 1881. Landlords were not likely to undertake drainage works in the future, or to co-operate with tenants in carrying them out. But occupiers would have a strong motive to do so, supposing they were likely to become owners of the soil. But, again, with a multiplicity of small owners, there might be difficulty in getting anything done, and then the only alternative would be to fall back upon some properly constituted local authority. He did not approve of the power being given to the Boards of Guardians, and he was not prepared with any suggestion; but the matter was sufficiently urgent to occupy the attention of the House, with the view of ascertaining whether the Government intended to consult other countries, in order to obtain information which would enable them to remedy the present deadlock.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that a few months ago he reminded their Lordships that a recent change in the law would subject landowners to a larger proportion of the cost of drainage works than it had been originally intended they should bear. He had lately attended a meeting of a Drainage Board in Westmeath, formed some years ago. Its works were estimated to cost £42,000, as approved by the Board of Works engineer; and on this basis proprietors concerned had consented to the scheme, but they had cost nearly £100,000; and the result was that the district had been saddled with a charge of £5,000 a-year for 35 years, exclusive of a further

  1465
  charge for maintenance, amounting to nearly £1,000 a-year more. The works were finished, and the awards made, in 1881, when the Land Act came into operation. It was then found impossible to place the proper proportion of the charge upon the tenants, and the landlords had to bear a much heavier burden than they had contemplated. He thought this was a matter which the Government might fairly take into consideration, somewhat on the system on which it was understood that the Government incline to reduce the interest on loans advanced to railways. The noble Lord had mentioned some possible mode of action by a local authority, or by a Government Board, with reference to drainage; but he feared that, under the present tendency of legislation, the noble Lord's hopes would scarcely be realized.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL)said, the question was certainly one of very considerable importance to the interests of Ireland; and he was glad to be able to inform his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) that the Irish Government, fully recognizing that importance, had had for some time past the draft of a Bill under their consideration for dealing with the subject of arterial drainage in Ireland. The Bill had now nearly reached its complete form; and his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had informed him that he expected very soon to introduce it in the other House of Parliament. Its object was to consolidate and amend the Land Improvements Acts; and its provisions would cover the whole subject of drainage in Ireland—both farm drainage and the general arterial drainage of the country. As to what had been accomplished in the way of arterial drainage, the noble Lord knew that nearly all the great works of arterial drainage had been accomplished; but he (Lord Carlingford) was informed that there still remained a large number of minor, yet very useful and important, works which might be brought about. The hope was that the provisions of the Bill of which he spoke would adapt the law upon the subject more or less to the changed condition of affairs in Ireland consequent upon recent legislation, which had led his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) to bring this matter before the House, and which also had inspired,
  1466
  as it so often did, his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Longford). It would not be proper for him to go into any details of the Bill, which was not yet introduced; but the intention was to make certain changes, which, it was hoped, would render the working of the system of arterial drainage in future practicable, under the changed condition of things in Ireland. For instance, there was the question to be considered as to whether the assent of the tenants could not be in some way brought in in deciding these questions, so that the scheme would be binding upon them. There was also the important question of finding a means of charging upon the tenant a fair proportion of the drainage charge, which had hitherto been added to his rent. There was, as the noble Earl had implied, a doubt—and he did not know that it was more than a doubt, because legal opinion was divided upon it—whether, under the provisions of the Land Act of 1881, in any cases where a fair rent had been fixed by the Court, or by way of agreement, and registered in Court, it would be possible to impose a portion of the drainage charge by way of addition to that rent. The matter admitted of doubt; and it was proposed in the Bill to be introduced to clear that matter up. As to obtaining information of the mode of dealing with this question in other countries, he was endeavouring to obtain such information through the Foreign Office; but with respect to the Irish Government and the legislation to be promoted by them on the subject, he hoped that their Lordships would, before the end of the Session, have an opportunity of considering the Bill he had briefly described.

PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—COMPENSATIONS.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD, in rising to move for the Minutes of Evidence taken in Court, before the investigators, under the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act, and the Report upon which his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has awarded compensation to persons injured and to the families of persons who have been murdered, said, the Motion which he was

  1467
  about to make was one which he hoped Her Majesty's Government would agree to, because he thought it was all-important that their Lordships and the country should be thoroughly enlightened as to the state to which Ireland had been reduced; with a view, as far as possible, of preventing in the future the terrible crimes which had horrified the whole civilized world from the time the Peace Preservation Act was allowed to drop until the Crimes Act had become law. They had had information furnished to them by the newspapers, they had had debates in their Lordships' House, and in "another place," bearing upon this subject; but much as they knew through these sources of the state of anarchy, bloodshed, and terrorism, which existed in Ireland, from the summer of 1880 until the autumn of 1882, much as they had learnt from the extraordinary revelations made in the late trials which had taken place in Dublin, the evidence taken before the investigators, and their Reports, would throw a light upon the question compared with which every other information they might have received would be thrown into the shade. He was not moving for proceedings of the private inquiries which took place in Dublin Castle, but for the evidence taken in open Court, when the reporters of the newspapers were present. If the Government were satisfied to grant the Papers he required, their Lordships would be able to see the real effect of the Land League conspiracy, subsidized as it had been from America—because, unless it had been supported in America, it could not have existed for any length of time. They would be able to see how that conspiracy was mainly responsible for almost every outrage that had taken place; because, in reading over the evidence which had appeared in the newspapers, he found that nine times out of 10 the crime for which compensation had been claimed could be traced directly to the action of the Land League. The Land League, as Mr. Forster described it, had left its track in letters of blood. Their Lordships would also be able to see—in one respect, at any rate—the operation of the Crimes Act, and how necessary that Act had become, especially as regards the clause for compensation for injury to the person. A fresh light would be thrown upon the effect of this agitation if those Returns were
  1468
  granted, because he should be very much surprised if their Lordships did not find that the landlords who had been murdered were a very small minority of those for whom compensation was now being claimed; and that by far the larger portion of the real sufferers had been the peasantry themselves. He would not now allude to Mr. Forster's Coercion Act, because the powers granted under that measure were perfectly inefficient to cope with the anarchy which prevailed; and although, as Mr. Forster had told them, he had at one time locked up every possible murderer in prison—yet, as he could only keep them there for a time, and the country drifted from bad to worse, it required no words of his to prove that that measure was not framed in a manner calculated to render it efficient in re-asserting the law. One of the great causes of its failure was the fact that there was no clause provided for levying a fine upon a locality for injury to the person. It seemed to him an extraordinary fact that, while in ordinary times there was a law in Ireland enabling a charge to be placed upon a district by the Grand Jury of a county where malicious destruction of property or injury to animals might occur, there was no provision whatsoever, except under such an Act as was now in force—an Act which was only passed for a time, and for an exceptional state of affairs—to levy a fine upon a district where human beings might be murdered or mutilated. He was sorry to say that the history of Ireland showed, beyond doubt, that waves of crime of this description passed over it at stated intervals; and that even when things were in a settled condition outrages of this description occasionally took place. But there was a very great difference in the number of that class of outrage which had taken place during the time a Coercion Act had been in force with a provision in it such as he had referred to, and times when there had been no power of levying a fine for outrages to the person in the hands of the Executive. He thought that if their Lordships were able to read the evidence which he was moving for they would see that it was an absolute necessity that whenever the present Crimes Act came to an end, and things resumed a more settled condition in Ireland, the clause relating to compensation for injury to

  1469
  the person should be embodied in a Bill, and become the permanent law of the land. He could not see any argument which could be brought forward by which it could be proved that we should be able by law to compensate for the destruction or mutilation of animals, and by making people in a district pay, preserve the lives of and prevent cruelty to brute beasts, when we did not at the same time attempt, by carrying the principle a little further, to protect the lives and limbs of, and prevent hideous and ghastly cruelties being perpetrated upon, our own fellow-subjects. There was no doubt that a fine levied upon a district was an immense deterrent to crime of this description. In Ireland, unlike any other country in the world, a great part of the population in times of agitation seemed to unite in defying the law and meting out terrible retribution to those who, by obeying the law, had incurred the odium of the district. Not only were the victims who had been marked out for mutilation or slaughter known for weeks beforehand, as was shown by the fact that people had been reported as murdered—place and time being mentioned—which reports had been afterwards proved to be untrue, but the facts of their having been made in two or three different places, at some distance apart, about the same moment was proof that arrangements had been made, which were well known to the whole district some time before, for a man to be murdered at a certain time and place, and that, owing to some lucky accident, the victim had escaped. But, although the population seemed so well informed beforehand of what was going to be done, when a crime actually took place those who were in the neighbourhood became blind and deaf and dumb, and rendered it almost impossible to trace out and bring the criminal to justice, unless there were powers, such as now existed under the Crimes Act, to enable the Executive to do so. There was only one way of enlisting a locality on the side of the law, and that was by making those who lived in it—many of whom were accessories, both before and after the fact—pay heavily for every crime that was committed. But, instead of the present form of levying the fine upon property, it would be fairer to make it a house tax; and thereby make all in the district pay equally, instead of, by
  1470
  placing it upon property, fining the loyal classes, who needed protection, much more heavily than those who deserved punishment. The advantage of this power of fining had been shown in other ways under the Crimes Act, as the Government had also, under Section 18, the power of charging the extra police upon a district; and he was sure that noble Lords opposite connected with the government of Ireland would admit the enormous advantage that had been derived from both those powers of fining, although the former power would be sufficient in ordinary times. No doubt, there were many other provisions of the Crimes Act which assisted materially in preventing such outrages; but no one would wish to permanently suspend the Constitution in Ireland—no one would wish that a law passed under a most exceptional condition of affairs, giving enormous and necessary powers to the Executive, should be entered on the Statute Book for all time; but the proposal to which he referred could perfectly be rendered permanent without infringing one single liberty which the Irish people had the right to enjoy. From the 4th of April, 1870, to the 1st of June, 1880, there were a series of Coercion Acts in force, in every one of which there were powers for levying fines for injury to the person; and though there were a certain number of those crimes committed in each of those 10 years, and though, in 1879, when the Land League was first inaugurated, this class of crime largely increased—yet, taking all those 10 years, from the 4th of April, 1870, to the 1st of June, 1880, and adding all the outrages together, there were not as many committed as during the short period from June, 1880, to September, 1882, when the Crimes Act, with a clause in it of this description, really came into force. In the 10 years and two months during which there was power to levy a fine upon the locality, there were 511 of those crimes; during the two years and three months, from June, 1880, to September, 1882, there were 554. At that date the Crimes Act came into force; and from September, 1882, to May, 1883, they numbered only 32. No doubt, it was true that during the two years when these crimes were most numerous there was an exceptional condition of affairs. He would not go into the question of how that exceptional condition was

  1471
  brought into existence; but if, during all that terrible time, the Government had possessed one of the powers they should always possess, that of placing a fine upon the locality, instead of allowing matters to drift and using no power at all, many of those outrages would never have been committed. It might be said that it was not fair to compare the number of crimes which had taken place since the passing of the Crimes Act with those which took place during the two years before, because there were other powers under the Crimes Act which had been as potent as that of levying a fine upon the locality in preventing injuries to the person. No doubt that was true; and, thanks to the able and energetic manner in which the present Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary had administered that Act, and to the firm and impartial conduct of the Judges, and the pluck and determination of the juries, who, carrying their lives in their hands, acted up to their oaths, undeterred by outrage or terrorism, there was now some hope that, at any rate on the surface, things were distinctly on the mend. But was it not deplorable that, after all that had been done in answer to agitation, after the thousands and thousands of pounds that had been robbed from the Irish landlords to pacify the Irish tenants, it should require a Crimes Act like the one in force to render things even quiet upon the surface, which, he believed, was all that they were at present? One would imagine, from a speech delivered the other day by the Lord President, that he believed that the Land Act was the greatest boon to the Irish landlords, as it preserved to them the small semblance of property they had left, and placed their lives, to a certain extent, out of peril. The Irish landlords did not thank the Government for that so-called boon. They considered that their properties should have been preserved to them without such a sacrifice, and that neither their lives nor what was left of their properties were one whit more secure by the passage of that measure, because it was not the Land Act which had done anything towards the re-establishment of law in Ireland. That Act, which would be a fertile source of agitation and outrage in the future, would have exaggerated the terrible state of affairs in Ireland, if things had
  1472
  not culminated in the murders in the Phoenix Park and the Crimes Act had not been introduced. Many persons were under the impression that it was the landlords or their agents' lives which were mostly attacked. It was nothing of the kind, and that was one of the reasons why he wished for these Returns. Only a small number, comparatively speaking, of landlords or agents were attacked compared with the number of farmers or labourers, who had nothing to do with the landlords at all, who were murdered or mutilated. He had found great difficulty in getting information bearing on this point; for though by the Government Returns there were 522 outrages against the person committed from June, 1880, up to the present date, compensation had only been demanded by 137, and as the status of these persons was not mentioned in the Returns, he could only name, and that possibly not accurately, the status of those 187 persons. But there was a letter which appeared in The Times some time back by Mr. Arnold Forster, who had every opportunity of arriving at a correct estimate of these outrages, which would throw some light upon the question. From January, 1880, to September, 1882, Mr. Arnold Forster said there were 10,058 agrarian offences reported; and of purely agrarian murders—not including the Dublin crimes—there were 57, 25 of which were farmers or sons of farmers, 10 labourers or herds, 11 persons of various occupations unconnected with the landlords, one a magistrate—and murdered as such—and only six bailiffs, agents, or process-servers, while out of the 57 four only wore landlords. Again, there were 145 cases of attempted murder, the majority being more or less dangerously wounded, out of which 62 were farmers, 19 labourers, and 22 bailiffs, agents, or process-servers, 10 only being landlords. And out of 322 cases of firing into dwellings, 33 only were against the landlord class or its dependents. Thus it was not the landlords, as was generally supposed, but the poorest and most defenceless class in Ireland, who suffered by far the most by the impotence of the Government, and the heartless, revolting cruelty of the Land League. He hoped the Government would consent to lay the evidence and Reports upon the Table. He could not understand that there

  1473
  should be any objection to the production of these Papers, because he held in his hand a copy of the directions given to the investigators, by which it would appear that, although there were no shorthand-writers present, yet the fullest Returns were required to be sent in to the Lord Lieutenant, and that the investigations went on in open Court. The noble Marquess concluded by making the Motion of which he had given Notice.
  Moved, "That there be laid before this House, Minutes of Evidence taken in Court, before the investigators, under the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act, and the reports upon which His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has awarded compensation to persons injured and to the families of persons who have been murdered."—(The Marquess of Waterford.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he hoped the noble Marquess would excuse him if he did not discuss the Land Act on the present occasion, or even deal with the Crimes Act, though, as to that Act, he very much agreed with much of what he had said, especially as to the part of it to which his Motion referred—namely, the system of levying compensation for crimes or outrages upon the district in which they occurred. He was entirely at one with his noble Friend as to the necessity of the provision. He also agreed with him that it would form a very fair subject for consideration, when the time came, whether that provision might not be made a permanent one in Ireland. However, that was not the question immediately before the House. The question was whether it was advisable in the public interests to lay before Parliament confidential Reports, accompanied by the notes of the evidence which had been furnished by the investigators under the provisions of the Crimes Act to the Lord Lieutenant, in order that he might administer that part of the law according to his discretion. The noble Lord expressed a strong hope that the Government would accede to this request; but he was bound to express a hope quite as strong that the noble Marquess and the House would not press for the production of those Reports. He would ask the House to remember the nature of these investigations, and the duty of the Lord Lieutenant in connection with them. That duty had been, and was, a very peculiar and very delicate one indeed. He was
  1474
  left absolutely by the Act, after being furnished with the Reports of the investigators, together with the notes of evidence taken by them, with the discretion of forming his judgment upon those materials, and deciding what compensation should be levied on the district. That, undoubtedly, was a matter of no little difficulty. It entailed a variety of considerations, which he had no doubt it was often not very easy to reconcile. The Lord Lieutenant had to consider the nature of the crime itself, the guilty knowledge of the inhabitants of the district, and their connivance in the escape of the criminal, the status of the applicant, the amount of injury inflicted upon the family of the murdered man, and so on. All these matters had to be weighed by the Lord Lieutenant, who then came to a decision as to the amount of compensation to be imposed. It was distinctly announced and thoroughly recognized, when the Bill was passing through Parliament, that that duty was to be performed in the only way in which it could be performed—namely, at the absolute discretion and on the sole responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant himself; and it never was contemplated for a moment that means would be taken, such as were now being taken by his noble Friend, to obtain Parliamentary Returns of this character, which might, and probably would, be used to challenge and question the decisions of the Lord Lieutenant. That would obviously be the effect of such Parliamentary Returns being made, and he could hardly conceive anything more mischievous to the public interests. The objections that he took to this proposal were those not only of the Government here, but also of the Government in Dublin. The Reports were really of a confidential nature. He was perfectly sure that if Parliament had any idea that these Reports and notes were to be published as Parliamentary documents, this part of the Act would not have taken the shape it did, and this responsible duty would not have been placed absolutely at the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant. What would the result be of making these Reports Parliamentary documents? It would lead to the challenge of the decisions by anyone in any way affected by them, and would furnish ample materials for mischief to anyone who was

  1475
  inclined to make mischief out of them. He thought there were very strong and evident grounds of public interest and advantage why so unusual a course should not be pursued.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he could quite understand that some of the evidence and confidential Reports should not be produced; but lie was not at all sure whether it would not be for the public advantage, and for the advantage of the Lord Lieutenant, that some daylight should be thrown upon the nature of these Reports. The very secrecy of the proceedings invested these transactions with a large amount of unpopularity. He begged to suggest to Her Majesty's Government that certain extracts from these Reports should be published, sufficient to justify the action of the Lord Lieutenant. He entirely concurred, from his experience in Ireland, with the remarks which had fallen from the noble Marquess. There was no question that in Ireland, if crime was to be repressed, the most successful manner in which that could be effected was by bringing home to the conviction of the people the fact that if they connived at crime they would have to pay for it. He believed this method of dealing with crime in Ireland was far more successful than any other that could be adopted. It was, indeed, with the utmost regret that at the time Her Majesty's Government came into Office he found they wore prepared, in such a very light and flippant manner, to abandon the provision of the Peace Preservation Act giving a power of levying compensation for injury to person and property upon disturbed districts; because the very knowledge of the existence of the machinery for levying this compensation had a most wholesome deterrent effect. He thought it would be possible for the Government to agree to a modification of the Return asked for, still giving the various particulars which would be useful to the House and the country. If they could, in addition, furnish extracts from the Reports upon which applications for an increased force of constables for disturbed districts were based, it would be an advantage. Some such Return would probably show that these crimes had been instigated by the emissaries of the Land League—those persons who, from the very outset, had been organizing and inciting to crime in
  1476
  Ireland—and also show that not the landlords only, but the poorest of the population, had been the greatest sufferers by those crimes.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he would be able to supply a Return which would probably go a long way to meet the suggestion of the noble Duke. This Return would give, for example, the name of the applicant, with a description of his condition in life, the nature of the crime, the injuries inflicted, the amount of compensation awarded, and the amount of charge on the district. This would supply the information specially desired by the noble Marquess and noble Duke as to the classes which had been the chief sufferers by the outrages in question. As to furnishing extracts from the Reports, however, he felt great doubt whether they could be supplied with advantage to the Public Service.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Will the noble Lord add to the Return the contents of the warrants now laid before the House, imposing the charge for additional constabulary, and the statement of the particulars in each case?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, there would be no objection whatever to including these warrants in the tabular statement.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked whether it would not be possible to give a statement showing the effect of the grants for compensation upon the rates in the districts?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he quite thought so; but he would consider the point, and see what could be done.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, he would withdraw his Motion, on the understanding that the Government would furnish the Return promised by the Lord President of the Council. He, however, reserved to himself the right to move for these Returns later in the Session.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE X.—BULGARIA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL STANHOPEbegged leave to inquire of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could ex-

  1477
  plain the conduct of the Bulgarian Government in reference to the non-fulfilment by them of the 10th Article of the Treaty of Berlin, with regard to the taking over of the Rustchuk and Varna Railway? The Government of Bulgaria had not complied with the provisions of the Treaty, to pay 3,500,000 francs a-year for the Railway they now owed to the shareholders, whose line they had taken over from Turkey, a sum over £670,000. Mr. Lascelles had been instructed to obtain a payment upon account; but even that the Government of Bulgaria had neglected to do. He thought that more pressure should be exercised by Her Majesty's Government in this matter. He was aware a similar Question had been asked on Monday last in the other House; but he thought the Answer given by the Government on that occasion unsatisfactory, as the 10th Article of the Treaty had remained a dead letter for a space of five years. He (Earl Stanhope) had no personal interest in the matter; but the facts came to his notice last October, when he happened to travel over the Varna Railway.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that the grievance suggested in the Question does not exist. I think the Answer given in the House of Commons was that Her Majesty's Government had been exercising pressure on this point. In the month of March of this year it was proposed that the Bulgarian Government should assent to the interpretation of the clause being referred to the signatory Powers to the Treaty of Berlin, and that the Representatives should decide upon that construction at Constantinople. In the meanwhile, they proposed that some instalment should be paid to the Railway. Now, I am afraid that that would be rather inconsistent with the contention of the noble Earl, for it would hardly be possible to recommend that that position should be taken up by the Ambassadors, and, at the same time, to urge that the whole question be settled at once. There is some excuse for delay in the fact of the changes of Ministry that have taken place; but I can assure the noble Earl that it is not a subject on which we have shown any negligence in pressing what I believe to be a just claim.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.