Lords Sitting of 10 May 1883

MINUTES.
Third Report with Evidence—Land Law (Ireland)*.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Cathedral Statutes* (58); Municipal Corporations (Unreformed)* (59); Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Orders* (60); Naval Discipline and Enlistment Acts Amendment* (61).
Second Reading—Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act (1882) Amendment (Audience of Solicitors)* (34); Medical Act (1858) Amendment (52).
Committee—Report—Glebe Loans (Ireland) Acts Amendment* (35).
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Limerick Waterworks)* (3); Pluralities Acts Amendment* (42), and passed.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92. and 93. be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess.
MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 52.)
(The Lord O'Hagan.)
MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 52.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD O'HAGAN, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the Bill had been introduced with the object of enabling the Royal University of Dublin to be represented on the Medical Council of Dublin, in the same way that the Queen's University of Dublin was formerly represented on it.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read2a."—(The Lord O'Hagan.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)expressed his approval of the Bill, which had been rendered necessary by an oversight in the existing Statute.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 24 th instant.

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COMMISSIONERS)—MESSRS. NOLAN AND SMITH.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL CAIRNS, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Why Messieurs Nolan and Smith, sub-commissioners under the Irish Land Act for the County Antrim district, have been removed from that district? said, the Question was a very short one in itself; but it required some explanation on his part. Their Lordships would remember that a few days ago a conversation had occurred in that House relative to the removal of a Sub-Commissioner for the County of Donegal. The circumstances under which that removal took place were these. Considerable agitation had been got up in the county with regard to the decisions of Sub-Commissioner Bailey on the subject of judicial rents, the tenants being of opinion that he did not reduce the rents sufficiently. There was no accusation whatever against him of any other kind; but simply that, while reducing the rents according to his own judgment, he did not reduce them so low as the tenants desired. The agitation in the county culminated in a public meet-

  357
  ing, at which very strong expressions were used, and very strong resolutions were passed, calling upon the Government and the Chief Commissioners to remove Mr. Bailey from his office. The result was that Mr. Bailey was removed from Donegal to Connaught, and his successor for the former place was appointed. It was, however, very soon manifested that the appetite grew by what it fed upon; because, when Mr. Bailey's successor began to discharge his duties, a Question was put in the other House by Mr. Sexton to the Prime Minister inquiring whether he was aware that the new rents fixed by Mr. Bailey's successor only averaged 20 1–3 per cent below the old rents, or nearly 2 per cent above those fixed by Mr. Bailey; and whether the latter had not been removed in consequence of a public meeting calling for his removal in consequence of his fixing the judicial rents too high? The fact was that the new Sub-Commissioner had not taken the hint, as it was expected he would have done, and a fresh agitation had been got up against him. His noble Friend (the Earl of Longford) had asked, the other night, for some explanation of the matter; and, in reply to his Question, the Lord President referred him to the answer which had been given in the other House to Mr. Sexton's Question, which was to the effect that the Chief Commissioners declined to give their reason for removing a Sub-Commissioner from one place to another, but that they went so far as to say that they did not remove the Sub-Commissioner in consequence of what had passed at the public meeting. There was, however, nothing in this statement of the Chief Commissioners that they were not aware of the general agitation which had been got up in the county against the Sub-Commissioner, and that they had removed him in consequence. The matter, however, went further than that, because he must altogether dispute the view which the Chief Commissioners took of their position—namely, that they were entitled to refuse to give any reason for removing a Sub-Commissioner. No one in Parliament would ask, and the Commissioners would be fully entitled to refuse to give their reasons for a judicial decision; but Parliament had a right to know the reasons for a particular administrative act done by an administrative body,
  358
  which, for this purpose, the Commissioners were. It was not, therefore, for them to say, sic volo sic jubeo—"We will give no reasons for our appointment." The question that was asked was not a frivolous one. Here was an agitation in the country, and a public meeting held, demanding the withdrawal of the Sub-Commissioner. Thereupon the Sub-Commissioner was withdrawn. Was that a question on which the Commissioners were justified in saying they would give no reason? But what had happened since then? He now returned to the County Antrim, where the two Sub-Commissioners—Messrs. Nolan and Smith—were engaged in fixing the judicial rents. After they had gone some Circuits, given a number of decisions, and fixed a number of judicial rents, it seemed that the landlords felt very much the extent of the reductions made; while, on the other hand, the tenants thought that the reductions made were not sufficient. That was the complaint—they did not reduce enough. They also held a public meeting; and again he found that the complaint there was that of insufficient reductions. Here was a decision in which it was complained that the reduction was insufficient. The Poor Law valuation was £6, the old rent was £12 15 s., and the judicial rent was fixed by the Sub-Commissioners at £4 10 s. He should have thought that even the most sanguine tenant would have been contented with that result—£12 15 s. reduced to £4 10 s. Another case was that in which the reduction was not so large, the rent only being reduced £11 6s. in £80. Yet the complaint of the tenants was that the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners were not sufficiently pronounced in their favour. At this meeting they thought of adopting a form of resolution by which to justify their dissatisfaction, and one or two resolutions were proposed; but one of the speakers said that would not do. The best way, this speaker suggested, would be to adjourn the meeting, and to accompany that with an intimation that they were adjourning the meeting in order to see what effect the meeting would produce. Accordingly, this was the ultimate resolution arrived at—
  "That this meeting stand adjourned till this day three weeks, when the administration of the Land Act by the Chief Commissioners will be considered;"

  359
  —he would ask their Lordships to note that it was not the administration by the Sub-Commissioners, but the administration by the Chief Commissioners, that would be considered—
  "and, in the meantime, tenants are requested to consider the advisability of abandoning all intention of entering the Land Courts, or those who have entered are asked to notice the advisability of withdrawing the same."
  Was not that a threat to the Chief Commissioners? It was tantamount to saying that they wanted a change in the Judges, that they made their complaints known to the Chief Commissioners, and gave them three weeks in which to decide what they should do. Another meeting was held a few days afterwards in a neighbouring part of the country, at which those present again spoke of the same decisions by the same Sub-Commissioners; and this was the resolution they passed—
  "We hereby condemn the members of the Antrim Sub-Commission"—Messrs. Nolan and Smith—"who, during the last sitting at Ballymena, visited the farms of several of our neighbours and friends, for their impertinent and high-handed conduct, and for the very unsatisfactory way in which they examined into the improvements executed by those tenants; and we protest against the reductions given in the several cases as quite inadequate, and hereby advise them to appeal; and that we hereby call upon the Government for the immediate dismissal of these Sub-Commissioners."
  Those were the steps taken by the meeting, and the two Sub-Commissioners were removed. Mr. Nolan, he understood, was removed to that penal settlement for over scrupulous Sub-Commissioners—namely, Connaught; and Mr. Smith, he was told, was removed nobody knew where, and a great deal of apprehension was felt lest he should have gone to some worse place. Perhaps his noble Friend the Lord President, when he spoke, would tell them where Mr. Smith had gone to, and throw some light on the subject. Since then another Sub-Commissioner had appeared upon the scene, and taken his place. Perhaps he ought to add, in order that their Lordships might have the whole of the case before them, that at the meeting in question allusion was likewise made to Mr. Greer, the Chairman of the Sub-Commissioners. It was said of that gentleman that there was not a man amongst them who was more inclined to do justice to the tenants than Mr. Greer. That appeared to be the chief deside-
  360
  ratum—to do what was called justice to the tenants. Mr. Greer was not, as their Lordships might expect, removed under those circumstances. What was the consequence of all this? The new Commissioners went into that district, and, unless they were very much more foolish than he took them to be, they went there with what was equal and equivalent to an instruction from the Chief Commissioners that they should avoid the errors of their predecessors. That was, their predecessors did not reduce the rents enough, and it was that which they were to avoid. What was the effect of this on the Sub-Commissioners who were sent away? In their new sphere of action they were to take care that they did not again incur in the same way the displeasure of their superiors. What, too, was the effect on the public at large—the tenants and farmers in all parts of the country? Let them consider what this meant. Here was a tribunal in Dublin, which was, at one and the same time, the Court of Appeal and the executive power which could remove the Judges. It did not hear the cases on appeal; it did not exercise any judicial determination as to whether the reductions were sufficient or insufficient; but, on the allegation of any party that the reduction was insufficient, it removed the Judges. What was the result of these proceedings? They had Sub-Commissioners who exercised their functions for a year, or two or three years, as the case might be, in a particular county, and who in that time decided a great number of cases—possibly thousands. Then a complaint was made that they had not made sufficient reductions, and they were removed. What was the result of that—he did not mean as regards the future, but the past? They immediately setup a batch of tenants—namely, those whose cases had been decided during those years—with a particular and specific grievance of their own. They said this—"Whatever else may be done in the future, we are the victims of these proceedings you have condemned. It is our misfortune that we have had our cases decided by those wicked men who have been sent elsewhere, and we have our rents fixed for a judicial or a statutory term which you have not sufficiently reduced." That was the feeling throughout the country, and, therefore, he was most anxious to submit this matter to

  361
  the consideration of their Lordships. He hoped they would have something more explicit in the shape of an answer from the Chief Commissioners. They, he must contend, ought, in a matter of this kind, to have an answer from the Chief Commissioners; and, further, he would say, they could not properly and constitutionally continue to refuse, in the manner they hitherto had done, to answer the question.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that while the noble and learned Earl was developing his intense suspicions of the four gentlemen who filled the posts of principal Land Commissioners in Ireland—gentlemen who, he (Lord carlingford) thought, were utterly undeserving of such suspicions, but, on the contrary, entirely deserving of the confidence of the Government and of their Lordships' House—he was struck by the fact that the noble and learned Earl had not been able to give them the smallest proof of the effects which he alluded to as being intended by the removal of certain Assistant Commissioners. The noble and learned Earl was compelled to state, at the very beginning of his remarks, that the change made in the composition of the Land Commission in Donegal by the removal of one Assistant Commissioner from one county to another—not a measure of censure or punishment, but a simple transfer from Donegal to Mayo, both counties, as desirable places of residence, being, he should think, very much upon an equality—the noble and learned Earl was obliged to tell them that the reductions of rent had been as great after the change had been made as before. That did not help the case of the noble and learned Earl. As to the Commissioners of whom the noble and learned Earl had been speaking, and what he supposed to have been the cause of the change made in the composition of certain Sub-Commissions, he was bound to say he never before heard of the meetings or speeches to which the noble and learned Earl had referred. He knew nothing of them, and he was absolutely convinced, from his information, that they had nothing whatever to do with those changes. However, he was glad the Question had been put, because it gave him an opportunity of making some explanation of the matter, which he ad-
  362
  mitted was one of some difficulty. As to the fate of the two gentlemen who had acted in Antrim, he believed that one went to Mayo, and the other, whom the noble and learned Earl appeared to think was wandering through space, had gone to County Armagh, which was not a very dreadful fate. It was quite true that there was something anomalous in these administrative functions being combined with the judicial functions of the Land Commission; but that state of things appeared to be inevitable. He did not know anyone who could so well judge as the Commissioners of the propriety and expediency of the composition of any of these Sub-Commissions, or of the public advantage or disadvantage of appointing a particular gentleman to a particular position, and of quartering him in a particular county. He was not aware that the executive authority, or anyone but the Land Commission itself, could judge of such a question as that. He was willing to admit that, this being an administrative and not a judicial matter, it would seem, on the face of it, that any inquiry as to the exercise of administrative powers should be freely answered in Parliament; but, at the same time, he asked any fair-minded man to consider whether there were not very serious difficulties, purely in the public interest and for the sake of the due administration of the Land Act, in the way of such Questions being freely answered. The Commissioners had strongly and unanimously arrived at the opinion that it would be scarcely possible to deal with these personal questions of appointments or changes, if they were required, in every or any case that suited the purpose either of the noble and learned Earl opposite from the landlords' point of view, or of Mr. Sexton or any other extreme Representative of the tenants in the other House, to state the grounds of their action. They say that, if they were bound to give to the public, by way of answers to Questions in either House of Parliament, their reasons for such administrative acts, they would find it scarcely possible to carry on their duties. Ha did not deny that there were many cases in which there would be no difficulty. There had been cases of changes made in the Sub-Commissions in which the reasons had been obvious, on the face

  363
  of them; and he ventured to say that those reasons, when they had been known, had been quite as much in favour of the landlords' side of the question as in favour of the tenants'. But there were also reasons, as any noble Lord would see who had ever considered the matter, that must be of so special and personal a kind as to make it scarcely possible to publish them to the world. Questions of the most personal kind must arise in those matters—questions of the harmony among Colleagues sitting on the same Commission; questions of the comparative capacity and ability for the fulfilment of duties, which had to be considered when the Land Commission desired to constitute in every part of Ireland Land Courts, which should be tolerably even in those respects; questions, again, whether the Commissioners possessed a fair knowledge of the part of the country where they had to act; and, on the other hand, whether they had unduly close connection with the district in which they were acting. All those matters were of a kind which might often be utterly unsuited for publication to the world; and if a distinction were to be drawn between a case in which an answer could be properly given, and a case in which it could not; if questions of this kind were to be answered to-day and similar questions to be refused answers tomorrow, the effect would be most undesirable, and probably unjust to the gentleman who was the subject of the inquiry. He thought he ought to say that the Irish Government, and the Lord Lieutenant especially, had looked closely into this matter, which, being one of administration, he was able to look into, and had been furnished by the Land Commission with the fullest and frankest explanations of every change that had been made in the constitution of the Sub-Commissions from first to last. If those changes were to be examined by anyone who know the country, and who knew the gentlemen concerned, he (Lord Carlingford) was ready to contend that the most suspicious eye, looking at the appointments all round, would find no cause for thinking that the Land Commissioners had been actuated by any undue bias whatever in the arrangements that had been made. Questions much of the same kind had been raised from
  364
  the opposite point of view in "another place;" and he dared say that it would be thought necessary to meet them in the same way that he had met the Question of the noble and learned Earl. He submitted to the House that there ought to be no suspicion of the motives and intentions of such men as wore appointed to compose the Land Commission in Dublin. [Cheers.]He hoped that was not an ironical cheer, because he knew no four gentlemen whose character more entirely entitled thorn to the confidence of that House and of the public. On that ground, and in the belief that any other course would prevent them from performing their duty in employing the Assistant Commissioners in the best way for the public interests, he was not able to answer the Question asked by the noble and learned Earl. He would only add that if the respectful refusal of the Land Commissioners, under those circumstances, to give reasons in any particular case why they had exercised their discretion, should impair the confidence of the House in their judgment, motives, and character, he could not conceive a greater misfortune, or one which would do greater injustice to those distinguished gentlemen.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council has concluded a speech, which, I think, evidences the consciousness of a weak case, by a device which counsel who have a weak case often have recourse to—namely, to call witnesses to character. But I think the noble Lord, on reflection, will feel that there is something very mysterious in the progress of these proceedings connected with the Land Act in Ireland. There seems to be an extension of the doctrine of coincidences which is very startling to us, and almost encourages us to believe that there is something in the theory of those metaphysicians who contend that you cannot argue any causation from the effect of one event having followed upon another. Last year we had something of the kind, but not so strong. There was an incident known as the Kilmainham incident, and I think that Mr. Parnell and others on that occasion intimated to the Government that, if they were let out of prison, they would support the measures of the Government; and it curiously did happen that

  365
  immediately after that they were let out of prison; but there was absolutely no connection whatever in point of causation between the first event and that which followed. Now, we have a very much more remarkable instance of the remarkable extension of the doctrine of coincidences. The noble Lord tells us that these Sub-Commissioners were removed for circumstances affecting their individual capacities and characters. But what happened was that, in these several cases, meetings of the farmers were called, loudly denouncing the decisions of these Sub-Commissioners, because they were too favourable to the landlords, and that in each case, after, and closely after, the denunciation of those meetings, the curious coincidence happened that the condition of character and capacity arose in reference to each of the Sub-Commissioners, and made it necessary to remove them to another place. We can only say that coincidences flourish in Ireland in a manner known to no other country. It is a circumstance which I may mention in passing, and to which we shall probably have occasion to recur when the Evidence which has been printed for the Committee on the Land Law, and which has been laid on the Table of the House, is in the hands of your Lordships. There is a rich harvest of undesigned coincidences in that Evidence. But I think the noble Lord is unreasonable in complaining that the action of the Commissioners in this matter is looked upon with some suspicion. Whatever their excellence may be, at all events they are all Liberals, and three out of four are very strong partizans. Therefore, I think it is too much to assume that necessarily and certainly, in all cases, their minds must be free from partizan bias, when circumstances exist that justify very strong suspicion in an opposite direction. It must be remembered that the whole of the jurisdiction of these Sub-Commissioners is exposed to this particular suspicion, not that it is exercised corruptly, not that it is exercised in a manner inconsistent with the honesty of those who administer it, but that it is exercised, not as a judicial system administering justice between man and man, but as a political measure designed to accomplish certain purposes at the expense of whoever may suffer from them. And this procedure of the Sub-Commissioners is marked by
  366
  three notes of suspicion attaching specially to these judicial proceedings. In the first place, many of these Sub-Commissioners were appointed from among not only the strong partizans of the Government—that would be a small matter—but they were men who had taken—and avowedly taken—a very strong line upon the precise matter that was the subject of litigation. They had avowed a very strong partiality for one of the litigants in the case; and while that avowal of partiality was fresh from their lips, and its publication was fresh in the knowledge of the public, they were appointed to a position which was nominally judicial. Again, we attach great importance in this country to the irremovability of Judges. We consider it to be one of the most precious guarantees for that independence and impartiality which we all recognize as the essential elements of justice. These men, or the greater number of them, in whose hands is the fortune of all the landlords of Ireland, are appointed from year to year, and they know perfectly well what it is that the Government require; they know perfectly well what the policy of the Government is; they know that the policy is so openly, so undisguisedly avowed, that the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons he could not appoint Commissioners from the ranks of his opponents, because they did not agree with him on the policy of the Land Bill. Knowing this, they know that their official existence—their very bread—depends on the will of the Government; and, with that knowledge before them, how could one expect them to administer stern and impartial justice? My Lords, if men's judgments were not obscured by the passions aroused by this Irish Question, I am sure that with regard to no other matter in the world would they permit such a mockery of judicial impartiality. There is a third note to my mind not less significant. These Judges—almost alone, if not quite alone, among all the Judges of the country—absolutely refuse to give any reasons for the decisions to which they come; they have refused so resolutely, kept their secrets so well, that—up to this time, at all events—not only have they never avowed what their reasons are, but no one has ever been able to form a guess as to the system upon which their decisions are arrived at.

  367
  Again and again have we asked witnesses what is the system on which the Chief Commissioners give, what are the grounds which actuate them in, the reduction of rents; and the witnesses have said—"It is impossible for us to give an answer; none of us have any idea." A different answer—an answer opening a new chapter in that science of coincidences which we have studied this evening—may be seen in the Evidence to which I have referred; but it is not an answer which will add to the confidence felt in the Chief or the Sub-Commissioners. These grounds of suspicion appear to me to make it very desirable that the Government should candidly answer, when they are asked upon what ground this great administrative discretion has been exercised. If it is a great administrative discretion to take away from a particular district men who are administering the Act—it may be men with one political colour—and to substitute others who regard their duty, perhaps, in a different light, without imputing improper motives either to the Judges who are removed, or the Judges who succeed them, I say it is about the gravest discretion which any administrative authority can assume—namely, to bias and to affect the course of legislation by the character of the decisions given, to shift the Judges here and there, and to manipulate the composition of the tribunals which pronounce the judgments. What is the result? You wish to promote calm in Ireland—you wish to promote confidence—but, I ask, have you promoted either in the minds of the landlords? They are thoroughly convinced that these tribunals cannot be relied on, and that it is not owing to any system of equity or justice that they have been despoiled of their property. They have been despoiled of their property in pursuance of mere political decisions, not as the result of the decisions of an arbitrator judging between man and man. But what will the tenants say? If they imagine that these reductions were the outcome of equitable decisions, founded upon some system of right, they might acquiesce in them, and say—"These judgments, having been once delivered, cannot be disturbed, and we must accept the system which they have laid down." But if you persuade them—as this manipulation is certain to persuade them—that you exercise an influence over the
  368
  judgments that are delivered, that they are really the outcome of the policy of the Government, and that, therefore, they will yield to all those influences which guide and affect the policy of the Government, they will say to themselves—"These processes of agitation which have produced this law; these processes which are in our hands, are able to affect the administration of the law; these processes which can drive Sub-Commissioners who are hostile to us from one field of action to another, if applied further and more freely, may give to us a still larger share of that property and of that land which we desire to obtain."
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to recall the attention of the House to the question. The noble Marquess had made a bitter attack on the Sub-Commissioners wholly beside the Motion. He did not understand the noble and learned Earl opposite to make any charge against the Sub-Commissioners; but he could not help regarding this Question as a covert attack upon the Commissioners themselves. He wished to explain, however, that the Sub-Commissioners were not appointed by, nor were they removable by, the Commissioners—both the appointment and the removal must be acts of the Executive Government. The Commissioners, however, exercised a very large judicial supervision. The Sub-Commissioners, both legal and agricultural, were divided into Circuits of four each; and the Commissioners had to select the towns which they visited, the times when they visited them, and the cases that go before them. When a Circuit was over it was broken up, and new Sub-Commissioners might be appointed, or changes take place, at the discretion of the Commissioners. It would be exceedingly inconvenient and injurious to the Public Service were the grounds for the exercise of this discretion to be stated, as they would have to be in every case. He could not help interpreting the remarks of the noble and learned Earl as a charge against the Commissioners themselves. It was a charge of corruption against them. That being so, he thought the matter should not have been brought forward by way of a Question, but that the noble and learned Earl was bound to bring it forward in a distinct and pointed shape as a Vote of Censure on the Commissioners. He knew those

  369
  Commissioners very well, and he must say that they were gentlemen of the highest honour and integrity, and of the greatest ability, who would not stoop to do any act which savoured in any way of dishonourable conduct. He would advise the Commissioners not to answer any questions put to them on such a subject; they had a delicate judicial supervision to perform in the distribution of the Sub-Commissioners and the allocation of business, and ought not to be interfered with. As far as he could learn, one of the two Commissioners was changed to another district as he had no adequate knowledge of the custom of tenant right; and the other had merely been moved, on the breaking up of his Circuit, to the next county.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council had stated that the conduct of the Commissioners ought to be above suspicion. He quite agreed with that; but could it be said to be the case when they made alterations such as those referred to in the Question of the noble and learned Earl? He did not think it could be said, after the way in which the Land Act was administered, that its administrators were above suspicion. It had been stated publicly by the Sub-Commissioners that they were acting in the interest of the tenant, and, by so doing, necessarily neglecting to give fair justice to the landlord.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that when the noble Marquess made such a statement as that which had just proceeded from him, they were entitled to call upon him to give them chapter and verse—the names, the dates, and the facts.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, the noble and learned Earl asked him for facts. He had seen it stated in the newspapers among the reports of their judicial proceedings—and it had not been contradicted—"We will do what we can in the interest of the tenants." That statement had gone all over Ireland, and it ought to have been contradicted in the newspapers if it was not a fact.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORNsaid, that after the speeches which had fallen from the previous speakers on that side of the House, he would not have ventured to address the House, but for the fact that he had some knowledge of the Northern counties of Ireland. Of the four Northern
  370
  counties three returned Liberal Members, and in the fourth there was an anticipation of the same result at the next Election. The consequence was that great pressure was put by some Northern Members on the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners; and if those decisions were not made in accordance with the exorbitant reductions expected by the tenants, public meetings were got up, and in these the Northern Liberal Members took an active part, either personally or by letter. As a result, the offending Commissioners had been removed and sent to Connaught and other places. Anyone who read the Liberal papers of the North of Ireland, and had seen the violent attacks made in them on the Sub-Commissioners, and the exultation with which they announced that those attacks had been responded to by the removal of the Commissioners complained of, could have no doubt that undue influence had been exercised. The Lord Chancellor had called upon his noble Friend to prove his assertion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had asked the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Waterford) to explain a most serious charge, which should be justified if he believed it to be true.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORNsaid, an illustration of the system which was adopted was to be found in the speeches made by Mr. Porter, now the highest legal exponent of the law in Ireland, during his canvass at Londonderry about 18 months ago. Mr. Porter, after referring to the advantages the Land Act had given to the tenants, mentioned cases in which 50 per cent had been taken off rents, and suggested that under Healy's Clause the tenant might hope to have one-half of his rent struck off. He went on to ask his hearers whether they would rather have a Representative who would do all he could to carry out the principles of the Land Act, or a man who would interfere with its development and would repeal it to-morrow if he could or dared? He (the Duke of Abercorn) thought this showed the partizan character which applied to this Act, and, with a knowledge of the political machinery into which the Land Act had been turned, he really could not be surprised at the removal of the Sub-Commissioners. The Lord President might shut his eyes to a disagreeable truth; but he could not controvert the fact which was patent to all—namely, that the Land Act had been

  371
  converted into a political means of bribing the tenants at the expense of the landlords in anticipation of future Elections.
  EARL GRANVILLE: It is not my intention to give advice to noble Lords opposite on this question. But I cannot help thinking that it would have been much better had those noble Lords left a question of this sort in the skilful hands of the noble and learned Earl who introduced it, instead of delivering several speeches which did not support his case. I do not know whether it was judicious for the noble and learned Earl to have made the charge he did, a charge which was admirably answered by the noble Lord behind me (Lord Carlingford), and by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitzgerald). I do not know either whether it was judicious for the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) to seize this opportunity, when the noble and learned Earl was complaining of an agitation calculated to influence the decision of the Land Commission and the Sub-Commissioners, for making a general attack on those two bodies. As to the statements made by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Waterford) and the noble Duke (the Duke of Abercorn), containing the most serious charges against the administration of this law in Ireland, I must observe that they were made without the slightest support of any fact, excepting the quotation from the speech in which the Attorney General for Ireland expressed his desire to carry out the Land Act in its full meaning.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEwished to draw attention to the fact that Mr. Justice O'Hagan was said to be the person who drew up a famous address from the Roman Catholic Bishops on the Land Question, which certainly advocated views very confiscatory of the property of the landlords. If that statement were uncontradicted, Mr. Justice O'Hagan was hardly the person likely to inspire confidence in landlords as Chief Commissioner.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS—NON-ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMPULSORY CLAUSES—ACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he rose to call attention to a para-
  372
  graph in the "Times" of the 3rd instant, relative to orders, stated to have been given by Her Majesty's Government to the police not to enforce the Contagious Diseases Acts at Chatham and other places; and to inquire whether such was the case; and, if so, on what grounds Her Majesty's Government had discontinued to carry out an Act of Parliament? The paragraph to which he referred stated that the intelligence that the Acts were not to be enforced had been received with dismay at Portsmouth, Plymouth, Chatham, and other stations. It appeared, in consequence of the recent Resolution of the House of Commons, that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to enforce the Acts in the same way as hitherto. The Government had also made the statement that they could not do so, because of the probability that the House of Commons, having passed a certain Resolution, would not, in all probability, agree to the Vote in Supply necessary for carrying out the Acts. For his own part, he thought it almost impossible that the other House of Parliament would not agree to grant the Supplies necessary for carrying out an Act of Parliament which was in existence. If, however, such a policy were to be adopted, what would be the result? It would, in fact, amount to this—that the House of Commons would be setting aside an Act of Parliament, and the whole Constitution of the country would come to an end. A policy of that kind would be most dangerous, and he, for one, would enter his protest against it.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that the statement referred to by the noble Lord was substantially correct. As their Lordships were probably aware, the House of Commons, by a majority, had arrived at a conclusion against the compulsory examination of women under the Contagious Diseases Acts. Under these circumstances, the Government had considered which course it would be best to take. They found that the action necessary under the Acts was in the main permissive, and not obligatory. Therefore they thought that, under the circumstances, it was desirable no longer to employ the Metropolitan Police for the purpose of carrying out the compulsory clauses of the Acts, in regard to examination. Indeed, the carrying out of the Acts at all depended upon the

  373
  monies provided by Parliament. The Vote for the year had not yet been introduced; and his noble Friend must see that, as a practical question, it was impossible to expect the other House of Parliament to vote any sums for the purpose of carrying out compulsory examination, seeing that they had deliberately come to the conclusion—not by a snatch vote, as had been said, but by a majority of 72—against the operation of that portion of the Act. It had accordingly been decided to withdraw the Metropolitan Police from the duty of carrying out that portion of the Act, and at a later period of the Session to introduce a Bill modifying the Acts, retaining only those portions which referred to voluntary submission, and leaving out the compulsory examination. He believed that the action the Government had decided on taking was almost the only practicable course under the circumstances.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that the noble Earl laboured under some difficulty in answering the Question that had been put to him. He had told them that the Government intended to bring in a Bill to change the law; but, looking at the state of Public Business, it seemed improbable that any such Act of Parliament could be passed this Session. If that were so, the Government were practically surrendering the powers of the Executive into the hands of a body of gentlemen who were, no doubt, actuated by the most Christian-like feelings in wishing to alter an Act of Parliament, which, he ventured to say, was one of the most beneficial and charitable measures that ever had been passed. When these Acts were first introduced into Parliament, it was the most anxious desire of the then Executive Government that they should be passed in order to prevent the contamination of a large body of the people by men in the Naval and Military Services of the country. Those Acts had been most beneficial to the community at large, and he thought it most unwise, and, indeed, most illegal, for the Government, in obedience to a snatch vote in the other House of Parliament, to abrogate the most useful part of those Statutes. The question was one of a painful character, and one that had invariably been slurred over by Parliament when it happened to be brought under discussion. The illustrious Duke (the
  374
  Duke of Cambridge) knew perfectly well how the Act of 1866 had worked. Wherever it had been in force, the advantage had been most marked. He ought to tell the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty that he (the Earl of Hardwicke) had always thoroughly endorsed the operation of the Acts. His noble Friend the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington), when the question was brought forward by Mr. Stansfeld, had also endorsed the operation of the Acts. But what had been the course of Ministers since? Although the Prime Minister admitted that the question was one of great difficulty, and one over which Ministers themselves were divided, yet he had chosen a course of policy which, to his mind, ought to be resisted by their Lordships. He had letters in his pocket from a gentleman in the Naval Service, who was at present residing at Portsmouth. These letters had been given to him by Sir H. Drummond Wolff; and they had been slightly alluded to in the speech of that Gentleman made in the House of Commons 10 days ago. To him these letters seemed so intrinsically important that he would take the liberty of reading from them one or two extracts. The first letter—dated 5th March, said—
  "I think it is right you should know what a strong feeling exists in this place amongst men of all shades of political opinion in favour of retaining the Contagious Diseases Acts in their integrity. The abolition of compulsory examination will virtually annul the Acts, and will certainly deprive them of their efficiency. A strong remonstrance from the leading inhabitants has been prepared, and it is in course of signature."
  The writer added—
  "The moral tone of this place is immensely improved since the Acts have been in operation. I allude to the moral tone, because those philanthropic gentlemen who have addressed Parliament argue that it is against the principles of morality, and the instincts of a Christian nation, that such Acts should exist. We anticipate the most disastrous results if the Acts are abolished, or so modified as to do away with compulsory examination."
  Then the writer alluded to the number of unfortunate women who had been rescued by means of the Acts. That, he might say, represented the general feeling throughout the country—not only at Portsmouth, but at the whole of the towns brought under the operation of these Acts. He had, at the same time,

  375
  to express grave doubts whether the Government was legally justified in the course it was pursuing. Their Lordships had nothing to do with the necessary payments for carrying out the Acts. If the question had been brought up when the Estimates were brought forward it would have been properly discussed. That would have been a proper opportunity for Members to take part in the debate, and the question would not have been disposed of in the manner of which they had cognizance. In conclusion, he would express a strong hope that Her Majesty's Government would, in the discharge of a great public duty, give earnest consideration to the question whether they should not further inquire into this matter before they attempted to repeal these Acts.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I do not desire to prolong the discussion upon this painful, though most important subject. I must, however, say that these Acts have done far more good than people out-of-doors suppose, and that the physical and moral benefits which they have conferred upon the community at large, as well as upon the Navy and the Army, are enormous. It is perfectly true, as has been stated, that public opinion, in all places where these Acts have been applied, is uniformly in favour of their continuance. That being the case, it appears to me to be an extraordinary thing that it should be proposed to sweep away these Acts at once without more full discussion of the subject. I frankly admit that the question is a most difficult one; but I pray your Lordships not to allow these most beneficial measures to be swept away, simply because there has been a discussion in the other House which has led to a vote which, it now appears, will do away with the compulsory powers of the Statutes, and thereby effect a change in them which will greatly modify their useful effect. I am aware that this is a very disagreeable subject to speak upon; but I must repeat that more good has resulted from these Acts than is generally supposed, and I trust, therefore, that they will not be repealed without the fullest further consideration. I can assure your Lordships that I do not advocate the continuance of these Acts merely on the ground that they are most beneficial to the Service with which I
  376
  am connected, but because I conscientiously believe that they are of immense advantage to the community at large, and more especially to the unfortunate creatures who come under their operation, numbers of whom have been rescued from their unhappy life solely through the medium of these Statutes. I should wish it to be thoroughly understood that the moral effect of the Acts has been very great.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not rise to say one word on the question of the policy of the Acts, or of the alteration in regard to them in consequence of the vote in the House of Commons. But, as the noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke) had suggested that there was illegality in the course which the Government had taken since that vote was given, he would say a word in explanation. Undoubtedly, it was not in the power of the Government, without an Act of Parliament, to suspend the operation of any Act of Parliament enforced at the time being, and the Government had not taken upon themselves to do so. The only matters of obligation cast upon the Government by the Act of Parliament was that the Admiralty or the War Office should appoint medical officers for certain purposes, to act in certain hospitals; but he could not discover in the Acts any direct obligation laid on Government, either expressly or by necessary implication, to take active steps with the view of putting in force those powers of the Acts which had reference to the compulsory examination of certain persons taking place. The power of compulsory examination depended upon an order of a Justice of the Peace, which order might be made when information on oath was laid before him by a Superintendent of Police and supported by certain proofs. The Government had not, and could not, take upon themselves to prevent any Justice of the Peace from acting in the manner authorized by the Acts upon information laid by a Superintendent of Police; and there was nothing in the Acts which imposed upon the Government the duty of using any powers which they possessed to set in motion the police authorities for that purpose. Undoubtedly, so long as there was no vote passed by the House of Commons adverse to the operation of this part of the Acts, it was perfectly right that

  377
  the Government should take measures, by the special employment of police, to see that the Acts were put in operation when they thought that public advantage would result from it; but when the House of Commons passed a vote expressing an opinion, by a large majority, that there should not be compulsory examination, the Government were, at all events, not transgressing any part of the enactments, nor were they neglecting any obligation directly laid on them by the Acts, if they abstained from taking active means contrary to the Resolution of the House of Commons.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was a little surprised at the doctrine laid down by the Lord Chancellor. It seemed to him to lead rather further than he contemplated. He understood that the action of the Government would prevent the police from laying those informations which were necessary to carry these Acts into operation. If that was the case, it was obvious that by the vote of the House of Commons it was practicable to suspend the operation of the whole Criminal Law of the land, so far as it depended upon the action of the police setting the provisions in motion. He could hardly imagine that the noble and learned Earl would lay down so large a doctrine as that, and he hoped to listen to some qualification of it from him.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not lay down any such doctrine as that attributed to him. The Government had not power to prevent the police in those parts of the country from taking such measures as they might think fit to bring charges before the magistrates. What the Government had power to do, and certainly what they did, was to abstain from taking active measures on their own part to cause the police to make those charges.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, he thought the noble and learned Earl did not understand what the Government had done, because the result of their action was the withdrawal of the Metropolitan Police, who were the people appointed to investigate what was going on. That was the whole gist of the matter. The withdrawal of the money had nothing to do with the action of the magistrates, or with the unfortunate persons who were brought before them, but with the detective force.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE LAW ADVISER.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK (on behalf of the Earl of MILLTOWN)asked Her Majesty's Government, Why they have decided to refuse justices of the peace in Ireland the assistance of the advice of the law officers which has hitherto been always accorded them in cases of doubt or difficulty; whether they propose any substitute for the custom which has hitherto subsisted; or whether the magistrates, very few of whom have had a legal education, and none of whom have the assistance of a legal clerk, are to be left entirely to their own devices?
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): The question really was whether the officer known by the name of the Law Adviser, with the special function of advising magistrates all over Ireland, should be maintained or not. That question had been decided in the negative, after it had had the most careful consideration of the Lord Lieutenant, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and the Law Officers; they came to the conclusion that the system need not longer be continued. The principle was objectionable, and it was no more desirable, if it could be avoided, that there should be a connection between the magistrates and a Legal Adviser in Dublin Castle than it was desirable in England. Among other considerations which had weighed with the Lord Lieutenant was the fact that the number of cases in which advice had been sought of late years had largely decreased; and, on the other hand, the Petty Sessions' clerks had, upon the whole, considerably improved. Though this change would put an end to the office which had existed, yet the Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that if any serious inconvenience should follow for a time by the change, the Government would be prepared to meet it, and to give such assistance as they might think absolutely necessary to the magistrates; and this could be done, of course, without continuing the office of Law Adviser.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he doubted the wisdom of the abolition of the office of Law Adviser. He did not think the noble Lord knew what the clerks of Petty Sessions in many cases were. The cases submitted to the magistrates were frequently very difficult to

379
decide; and the Acts of Parliament in force were so numerous that the magistrates often required the assistance of a Legal Adviser in their construction.
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he hoped the result of the change would be that a higher class of men would be appointed to the office of Petty Session clerks.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that, as far as he was aware, the system which he now learned had been abolished had worked well, and he thought that this was not the time to make the changes proposed. There was no analogy between the two countries in reference to this matter, because in this country the magistrates had the advice and assistance of experienced solicitors as clerks, whereas in Ireland the clerks of Petty Sessions were not solicitors. The office of Law Adviser had originally been established by Mr. Drummond, when Under Secretary, in order to promote a uniform and homogeneous administration of the law at Petty Sessions. It was then proposed to be filled by a junior barrister at a very moderate salary. The office had grown to much larger dimensions, and he thought it ought to be brought back to its original position. It was an excrescence and an anomaly, and could not be defended as a permanent institution; but he had no doubt that, in the present period of crisis and difficulty, it was unwise to make the change. If it was a Treasury movement for economy, and if the Law Officers were to be substituted for the Advisers, he had no doubt that in place of a diminution there would be an increase of expenditure.
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that the number of references to the Castle had decreased, probably owing to the increased number of Resident Magistrates. Gentlemen, however, were now being appointed as ordinary magistrates in all parts of Ireland, of a lower social status, and of less education, than that of the class to which formerly the magistracy was generally confined; and these would be, perhaps, even more in a difficulty sometimes than were the country gentleman Justices. He hoped that the magistrates in Ireland would be able to send to Dublin Castle for advice in cases in which they thought it necessary, notwithstanding the proposed changes.

CATHEDRAL STATUTES BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to provide for the making or altering of Cathedral Statutes—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of CARLISLE; read 1a. (No. 58.)

NAVAL DISCIPLINE AND ENLISTMENT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Naval Discipline Act, 1866, and the Naval Enlistment Act, 1866—Was presented by The Earl of NORTHBROOK; read 1a. (No. 61.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday the 24th instant, a quarter past Four o'clock.