Lords Sitting of 1 May 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading— Pluralities Acts Amendment (42); Isle of Man (Harbours)* (50).
Committee—Court of Chancery of Lancaster* (43).
Report— Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Orders Confirmation* (33).
Third Reading—Mersey River (Gunpowder)* (46), and passed.

PLURALITIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 42.)
(The lord Bishop of Exeter.)
PLURALITIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 42.)

  SECOND BEADING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Heading read.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETER, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that this Bill was identically the same as that which was passed by this House last year, but which, on going down to the Lower House, was there crowded out by the press of Business, and did not reach the second reading. The Pluralities Acts defined the relations between the endowments which a beneficed clergyman might hold and the duties which he had to discharge as holding those endowments. The Acts, therefore, laid down under what circumstances a beneficed person might hold more benefices than one; what provision he was to make for the discharge of the
  1540
  duties of the benefice in which he was non-resident; and what was to be done if ho was accused of not discharging his duties. In various particulars, and especially in regard to the salaries assigned to curates, the Acts, which were very suitable to the time at which they were passed, were now found unsuitable; and the present Bill proposed to amend the Acts in these particulars. The Bill had been carefully prepared by a joint Committee of the two Houses of Convocation. The clergy, by their representatives, had therefore concurred in everything that the Bill contained.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Bishop of Exeter.)
  In reply to the Earl of CARNARVON,
  THE BISHOP OF EXETER, said, that where an incumbent was non-resident and the population was more than 2,000, the Bishop was to be empowered to require the incumbent to appoint two curates.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

LAND LAW (IRELAND)—SUB-COMMIS-SIONERS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDasked Whether Sub-Commissioner Colonel Bailey had been removed from a Sub-Commission in Donegal, and for what reason and by whose authority he was removed? In putting the Question, the noble Earl said, it had been observed that this Sub-Commissioner had recently been removed for some mysterious reason which was not known, from one district to another. So far as they could understand, this did not appear to be part of the ordinary arrangements of the Land Commission in adjusting circuits, and it suggested the general impression that some influence from without had been brought to bear upon them. For these reasons, he wished to ask the Question which stood in his name.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL), in reply, said, he was not aware that there was anything peculiar in the fact that Colonel Bailey had lately been appointed to the Sub-Commission in Mayo instead of the

  1541
  Sub-Commission in Donegal. He had been appointed under the authority of the Land Commission, who were the only persons having authority in the matter. In constituting the circuits recently, the Commissioners had, in the exercise of their discretion, made certain changes in the position of several Sub-Commissioners, and among these Colonel Bailey was sent to Mayo. Some days ago, a Question on this subject was addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in "another place," although he supposed from an altogether opposite point of the compass to that occupied by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Long ford). The Chief Secretary had given the answer that the Commissioners desired to be returned, and which he (Lord Carling ford) had now to repeat— namely, that they did not consider it to be their duty to publish their reasons for exercising their discretion in a matter of this kind, because, if they did, it would obviously lead to most inconvenient results. The Commissioners, in a letter written after Mr. Sexton's Question appeared on the Notice Paper of the House of Commons, said—
  "They noticed it stated that Colonel Bailey was removed from Donegal in consequence of his removal having been called for at a public meeting. The Commissioners have already given an unqualified denial to this allegation. They were not aware of any such public meeting having taken place at the time they appointed Colonel Bailey to Mayo Sub-Commission."
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, that this subject had attracted a great deal of attention in Ireland, and he thought it was deserving of a more particular answer than the Question of his noble Friend had received from the Government. When the Land Act of 1881 was passed it was not, he thought, present to the mind of Parliament what would be done. It was thought that the decisions of the various local Courts would be in conformity, and that no great harm would be done, as there would be power to appeal against them, and the cases would be reheard. Consequently some of those vague clauses which were to be found in the Act, that there might be Sub - Commissioners appointed, were passed; but he did not know whether Parliament fully understood what was meant. It was said that if anything was wrongly done by the Sub-Commissioners there could be an appeal to the
  1542
  Land Court. It appeared to him entirely without precedent in the history of judicial arrangements for Judges of Appeal —as the Land Commissioners were— the Judges upon whom the ultimate responsibility was to rest, to have the power to change about the subordinate or primary Judges to different parts of the country. In the first instance, they tied down Sub-Commissioners to one county, and then, without rhyme or reason given to the public, they sent them away to another place. There was an old saying in Ireland, which, he believed, began in Cromwell's time, "that if you want to punish a man you should send him to Connaught." This Sub-Commissioner, Colonel Bailey, had had inflicted upon him the old punishment of Cromwell's time. What had be been sent to Connaught for? He was an Assistant Commissioner in Donegal. The Lord President referred to a public meeting. Yes; there was a public meeting, and he had a report of the public meeting before him—a most interesting report, with strong speeches protesting against the insufficient reductions of rent made by this Sub-Commission or, and calling for his removal. The speakers called upon the Head Commissioners, by the powers which they possessed, to send him to Connaught, or any other place they thought fit, but to send him out of Donegal; and, in point of fact, the Sub-Commissioner was removed and sent out of Donegal. The Lord President had said the Government were asked a Question on the subject in "another place." That was quite true. The Government were asked by a Member of Parliament (Mr. Sexton) whether the reduction decreed by the present Sub-Commissioners of Donegal amounted in the average to 20⅔ per cent; and the statement made by the Lord President last night was that the reduction was from 14 to 15 per cent only. He did not know what Mr. Sexton would say to that. Were not the Government aware that in Donegal the reductions decreed by the Sub - Commissioners amounted on an average to 20⅔ per cent, nearly 2 per cent less than those given in March last by Mr. Gray and Colonel Bailey, the latter of whom had been removed from Donegal after a public meeting of tenants calling for his removal on account of the insufficiency of the reductions? This was the ques-

  1543
  tion put to the Government of the country. Were they aware that a meeting of those who wore litigants before the Judge complained of the decisions; that they called on the head of that Judicial Department to send the Judge away; that he was sent away; and that notwithstanding the judgments were going on just as before, or rather worse? That was the view now taken of the Land Act, and of the way in which it was being administered. What must be the state of things in the country when such feelings prevailed and such language could be openly used in the face of the Government and Parliament? Did they not suppose that the new Sub-Commissioner who came would be affected by the circumstance that his predecessor had been "sent away to Connaught" because he had not reduced the rents enough, and did they not think that the man who had been sent to Con-naught would take the hint and imagine that if he did not reduce the rents enough there he might have to go to—a worse place? The Lord President had given the answer which had been received from the Land Commissioners, but an answer more made by the card ho had never heard. Their reply was that when they removed Colonel Bailey they wore not aware of the meeting referred to. That might be possible; but were they not aware of the agitation that had been going on throughout the country, of which this meeting was only the culmination? Were they not aware that Members of Parliament were being appealed to—that there were private and public remonstrances against the insufficiency of the reductions in rent—did not the Land Commissioners know of all that? Were they not aware that this matter was even made a subject of denunciation in the pulpits of the county, and that a sermon had been actually preached from the text, "The rent is made worse?" If this was not the reason for the removal of Colonel Bailey, what other had they to give? If they had another reason let them give it, in order that it might re-assure the people and give them confidence. As long as they failed to do this, as long as they said they were not bound to give any reason, the conclusion to be formed was that drawn by Mr. Sexton —that they know of the agitation and removed Colonel Bailey because of it.

THE INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES EXHIBITION—THE PROPOSED FISH MARKET.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT BURYasked Her Majesty's Government, Under whose authority would be placed the fish market which it was proposed to establish in the International Fisheries Exhibition; and whether the stalls, costermongers' carts, and other usual adjuncts of a fish market would be so regulated as to minimize the inconvenience which must be caused by the establishment of such a market in a West End thoroughfare? He put this Question out of no feeling of dislike to the Fisheries Exhibition, which ho thought would be extremely interesting and valuable, but merely with a view of relieving, as far as possible, the inhabitants of South Kensington living in the neighbourhood of the Exhibition from the discomforts incidental to a fish market. Unless the market was placed under careful regulation, there could be no doubt that great inconvenience and annoyance would be caused to those residing in the immediate neighbourhood in which it was to be established. He had always understood that when such a market was established it came under a general Act of Parliament, and he should be glad if the Government would tell him under what authority this market had been established and how it was proposed to regulate it?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, in reply, said, the market had been established under the authority of the Executive Committee, and stringent regulations had been drawn up with regard to the arrangements. The stalls and retail shops would be under those regulations; there were no costermongers' carts in connection with the market; the fish was to be brought in before half-past 9 in the morning, and all refuse was to be removed before 7 o'clock in the evening.

PARLIAMENT—THE WHITSUN RECESS.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I think it will be convenient to your Lordships if I now state that on Thursday in next week I propose to move that the House then adjourn for the Whitsun Holidays, and that we meet again on that day fortnight.
House adjourned at Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.