Lords Sitting of 22 February 1886

Several Lords—Took the Oath.
MINUTES.]—SELECT COMMITTEE—Standing Orders, The Lord Kintore, added.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Freshwater Fisheries (Eels)* (15).
Second Reading—Marriages Validity* (11).

METROPOLIS—THE RECENT RIOTS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKasked the noble Lord who represented the Home Department, Whether the Report of the Committee which had been conducting an inquiry in regard to the conduct of the police in the recent riots was likely to be presented that day, and whether it was in print?
  LORD THURLOW: I have to inform the noble Earl that the Home Secretary expects to be able to lay the Report of his Committee on the recent riots before the House of Commons this evening; but it will not be printed for a day or two. The Home Secretary, however, hopes that it will be in the hands of the Members of both Houses of Parliament not later than Wednesday morning next.

ALLOTMENTS.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW, in rising to move for—
  "Return (1.) of all agricultural holdings in England and Wales, both of arable and pasture land, occupied as allotments or field gardens, of one-eighth of an acre and not exceeding four acres; (2.) of all garden allotments exceeding one-eighth of an acre attached to cottages; (3.) of all charitable trusts in England and Wales the trustees of which are trustees within the meaning of the first and fourth clauses of the Allotments Extension Act, 1882,"
  said, that he had noticed that in a speech delivered at Hull during the heat of the
  844
  General Election by the President of the Local Government Board that right hon. Gentleman said that many of the great landlords of England had occupied themselves in driving the labourers off their estates. When he read that statement, he almost, like the Pharisee of old, thanked God that he was not as other men were, or even as those landlords; and he supposed that most of their Lordships must have shared that feeling. He had thereupon turned his attention to a search of those documents to which their Lordships looked for information on all subjects of a nature likely to be dealt with by Parliament, and he had hoped to find in the Agricultural Reports statistics showing what was the state of allotments in this country; but he was sorry to say that there were absolutely no Returns whatever dealing with that question for the last 13 years—since 1873. In 1870 a commencement was made in that direction, and in that year there were 102,342 holdings under five acres. There was no Return for 1871; but in 1872 the total number of holdings of from a quarter of an acre to one acre, and from one acre to five acres, was 160,570, of which 49,652 were held by labourers. In 1873 the information went further, giving a Return of the allotments detached from the houses and cottages of labourers; that was to say, all those which did not include the best form of allotments—namely, cottage gardens. They found that even then there were as many as 242,500 allotments in England. If they added to that the number of small holdings of five acres and under which might, when consisting of pasture land, be described as allotments, the grand total was no less than 353,000. In that year there were 765,000 agricultural labourers—that was to say, there was very nearly one allotment or small holding for every two labourers. Since the Commons Act of 1876 was passed, 22,430 acres had been inclosed, and a portion set out in allotments. Under Clause 28 of that Act managers were to report every three or five years; but the Commissioners said there was no power to enforce that being done. In 1873, in 24 counties there were 122,000 allotments, and they ranged on an average from one-eighth to a quarter of an acre, while, in 18 counties, 120,000 allotments averaged a quarter to half-

  845
  an-acre. It was, he thought, only right that they should ask the Government to give them information which was more recent than the year 1873. There was reason to suppose that the supply of allotments was every day coming nearer to the demand, because the agricultural population was anything but increasing in the rural districts. In the decade between 1871 and 1881 our agricultural population decreased by 15·9 per cent, having in the previous decade decreased 17·6 per cent, while the number of allotments was increasing. There was hardly any matter on which there existed less information and more exaggeration than the subject of the land of this country. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Derby) moved in that House for a Return of the owners of land, observing that it had been stated that the owners of land in England and Wales were only 30,000 in number. In order to ascertain whether that was the case, the noble Earl moved for a Return which, when produced, proved that instead of there being only 30,000 owners in this country, there were, after correction for the holdings of the same persons in several counties, no less than 967,000 owners, of whom 700,000 owned less than one acre. The inquiries of the Land and Glebe Owners' Association, for the voluntary extension of the allotments system, which were not exhaustive, showed that the owners of 2,300,000 acres had in force on their estates the system of allotments, and were prepared to extend it to all the labourers on their estates; besides that, the Association had the support of the owners of 25,000 acres of glebe land, and the system was also in operation on the estates of the owners of a further 500,000 acres. Thus, very widespread voluntary efforts were going on all over the country to provide labourers with allotments; and ho trusted that no steps would be taken by Parliament which would throw any obstacle or check in the way of that most salutary system. He was willing to give the President and the Secretary of the Local Government Board credit for having drawn public attention to the question, although their startling proposals in reference to it had savoured somewhat of public plunder. He hoped, however, that their Lordships would not deal with the subject until they were possessed of all the facts connected with the case. If
  846
  they were to legislate in a compulsory manner it was possible that many of those who would otherwise speedily obtain allotments by voluntary agency might have to wait one or two years before the local authority in a district would put the machinery of that compulsory system in operation. An Act was passed in 1882 to provide allotments, the main principle of which was that every charity which owned land the profits of which were distributed in doles should be required to let allotments. But the great majority of the trustees of charity land were unaware of the existence of that Act; and he did not see how they could be expected to put it into operation unless their attention was called to it. He knew of no means by which that could be done except by calling upon the Charity Commissioners for such Returns as he moved for, giving the names of all those charities which came under the provisions of the Allotments Act of 1882. It was desirable that landowners should not only grant allotments, but in these days, when attacks were made upon them, that they should show their determination to do so by a public declaration on the point. Having shown what necessity there was for these Returns, he trusted their Lordships would see that it would be most unjust to landowners to propose any legislation dealing with their property when the data and the facts concerning allotments all over England were in no sense in possession of the public.
  Moved, That there be laid before this House—
  "Return (1.) of all agricultural holdings in England and Wales, both of arable and pasture land, occupied as allotments or field gardens, of one-eighth of an acre and not exceeding four acres; (2.) of all garden allotments exceeding one-eighth of an acre attached to cottages; (3.) of all charitable trusts in England and Wales the trustees of which are trustees within the meaning of the first and fourth clauses of the Allotments Extension Act, 1882."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER)said, he did not propose to follow the noble Earl in the interesting remarks which he had made on the subject of allotments. He would confine himself to answering the Question which had been put to him. He should be very happy to obtain and

  847
  furnish the information which the noble Earl asked for; but he did not think that it would be possible to give it in a special Return at this moment. A special Return would entail a very large expense, and it would be impossible to compile it without impeding other work and throwing difficulties in the way of collecting the Agricultural Returns which were made every year. He would, however, engage that immediately after the Agricultural Returns for this year were made, supplementary Returns would be given, which would, ho believed, contain all the information which the noble Lord required. He would also add a great deal more. In the information which he would give would be included "all agricultural holdings in England and Wales occupied as allotments or field gardens" of one-eighth of an acre and over. They did not propose, as the noble Earl suggested, to make the distinction between arable and pasture land below one acre, which would be exceedingly-difficult to get; and he did not think it would be of very great importance, as he presumed in these small allotments there was, as a rule, very little pasture. Under the second head they proposed to give all garden allotments exceeding one-eighth of an acre attached to cottages, although there was some difficulty in defining what a cottage really was. They also proposed to give particulars as to rent, tenure, and distance from dwellings on certain allotments. At first it was thought that this would be a difficult question; but the Government saw their way now to give the information, and he thought that information would be of considerable value and importance. In regard to the third Question, he would ask the noble Earl to be kind enough to repeat it another day. He admitted the great value of obtaining this information from the Charity Commissioners, and he had been in communication with them on the subject. He did not foresee any very great difficulty in the matter; but there were certain objections which he should like to discuss with the Commissioners before he could finally begin the Return. For the Return to be useful, it was, of course, desirable to be authentic and reliable; and there was some doubt whether the Charity Commissioners could give a Return of this description.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: How soon may we expect the Return? In the middle of the Session, or towards the end of it?
  EARL SPENCER: It would be quite impossible to furnish it under three or four months. It will be begun immediately after the annual Agricultural Returns.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWbegged to thank the noble Earl for the answer which he had given. He had another suggestion to offer for the consideration of the noble Earl. It would be very valuable to know from each farmer how many labourers he had on his farm to whom he gave ground or potatoes; how many he had to whom he gave cow ground; and how many holdings there were between five and ten acres?
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, there was another point to which he should like to call attention—namely, co-operative farming. It was desirable to have a Return of the number of labourers who shared in co-operative farming.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he thought that this was a totally different subject, and he was not prepared to give Returns as to co-operative farming, however important they might be. With regard to the suggestion of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Onslow), he would consider the point brought under notice as to the cases where farmers gave land or potatoes, or otherwise to their labourers.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHasked, whether there could not be included the manner in which the holdings were held; whether or not sub-let, or not used for the purpose originally granted?
  EARL SPENCERsaid, all these particulars would add enormously to the expense of the Return, besides involving tremendous labour. If they were to adopt all these suggestions, it might be years before they could possibly get the Return out.
  EARL FORTESCUEasked, whether the noble Earl could not add to the Return the number of places where allotments had been provided, and where for many years they had been given up as unlettable as allotments?
  Motion (by leave of the House), withdrawn.

KINGDOM OF AVA.—RESOLUTION.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY), in rising to move—
"That Her Majesty having directed a military expedition of Her forces charged upon Indian revenues to be despatched against the King of Ava, this House consents that the revenues of India shall be applied to defray the expenses of the military operations which may be carried on beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions,"
said: My Lords, in moving the Resolution I will point out the clauses in the Act of Parliament which require that this Resolution should be moved. In the Government of India Act, 1858, there are two provisions on the subject of the employment of troops outside Indian territory. The 54th section provides that when any military operations are being carried on beyond Indian territory the fact shall be communicated to Parliament within three months if it be sitting, and within one month if Parliament be not sitting. The other, the 55th, has an immediate bearing on the Resolution which I have to propose. It provides that except for preventing or repelling actual invasion on our Indian Possessions, or for sudden and urgent necessity, the Revenues of India shall not, without the consent of both Houses of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operations carried on beyond the external frontier of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions. The interpretation of this section has given rise to considerable controversy, the points of which will be found fully stated in the Papers relating to the Abyssinian War of 1867, and more especially in those connected with the war in Afghanistan in 1878–9. Some high authorities have contended that this section requires that the sanction of Parliament should be obtained before the commencement of operations. On the other hand, there is the fact that in several cases this Resolution has been moved after the actual operations have commenced. I do not propose to go into the arguments on either side, because, at all events, I feel certain that Her Majesty's present Government cannot be charged with having neglected their duty. It is perfectly clear that I am proposing the Resolution on the first occasion that it was practicable for me to do so. And I have another reason for not discussing
850
the matter, which is that it is the intention of the Government to propose an inquiry into the operation of the India Act in accordance with the intention of the late Government as announced in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech. As these ambiguities have arisen, it is, I think, desirable that the point should be considered by the Joint Committee of both Houses which it is my intention to move for. Therefore I will not pursue the argument further. The House will not expect from me at this time any narrative of the circumstances which led to the war with Burmah, or of the steps which followed it. All this has been placed fully before Parliament in the Blue Book which has been laid on the Table. It will be enough for me to say that there has been no doubt in the mind of any man who is acquainted with the course of our relations with the late King of Burmah that they were so unsatisfactory that it was impossible they should be allowed to continue. That unsatisfactory state of affairs had lasted for some considerable time. The causes of complaint were various. Efforts which had been made by the Indian Government to bring about a better state of things bad failed; and it was merely a question of time when some step would become necessary to place our relations upon a more satisfactory footing. During the term of Office of Mr. Gladstone's former Government the question was never approached with any nearness, because the Government were occupied with difficulties relating to the North-West Frontier, and, except upon urgent necessity, it would have been clearly unwise to have entered upon any important operation on another frontier of India. The matter came to a head during the tenure of Office by our immediate Predecessors. The Viceroy of India and Her Majesty's late Government were of opinion that it was necessary that a strong step should be taken as regarded the conduct of the King of Burmah. I have been surprised to see that the defence of the late Government has sometimes been placed on this ground—that we were justified in undertaking a war for the purpose of extending British trade. I have no hesitation in saying that a war undertaken simply for that purpose would be an unjustifiable war; but I do not understand—although, no doubt, the advantage of increased trade

851
may result—that it was on that ground that the Viceroy acted. The ground on which he acted was the very unsatisfactory conduct of the King towards the Indian Government, and certain injuries which he had inflicted upon British subjects for which no redress could be obtained. Above all—and this is fully disclosed in the Papers—the King of Burmah had been endeavouring to establish such relations with Foreign Powers as could not fail to produce for us great embarrassment hereafter, and might have an injurious effect upon the peace and security of Her Majesty's Indian Dominions. It seems to me that, taking all the circumstances together, there certainly existed good causes for the war, and I can quite understand why the Viceroy should have advised that active steps should be taken against Burmah, and that Her Majesty's Government should have approved of them. These, however, are past affairs; and I mention them only in order that the House may not suppose that I wish to pass them over, or that I wish to pass any censure upon the late Government for the course they have taken. I now glance at the success of the operations themselves, because it would be very unjust to the Forces who were employed not to acknowledge the manner in which those operations were conducted. There has been already a gracious acknowledgment of the services of Her Majesty's Forces in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech; and on behalf of the Government, this being the first opportunity I have had of speaking on the subject, I have to state that much credit is due both to those who planned the Expedition, and to all the troops, naval and military, who were engaged in the operations. The extreme promptitude with which the operations were conducted prevented much effusion of blood that otherwise might have occurred; and this is a point that ought to be carefully borne in mind in estimating the services rendered. If the difficulties of the Expedition were not greater it is because they were anticipated by promptitude of action. On that point I wish to pay a tribute not only to the military, but also to the civil authorities, for the great activity they displayed in making the preparations. I think that the House will feel that our thanks are fully and completely due to all
852
those who were engaged in those operations, and who brought them to so successful an issue. Burmah having been thus rapidly conquered, the question, of course, arose as to the next step to be taken. The Papers presented show that a Proclamation was issued stating that Burmah had become a part of Her Majesty's Dominions; and in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech the following passage occurs:—
"I have decided that the most certain method of insuring peace and order in those regions is to be found in the permanent incorporation of the Kingdom of Ava with my Empire."
At that time Lord Dufferin had not been at Mandalay, and had not had the opportunity which he has since had of examining into the state of affairs on the spot. Since we have acceded to Office, Lord Dufferin has sent home a Report stating fully the views he had formed after examining for himself the state of affairs in Upper Burmah. He informs Her Majesty's Government that having himself felt disposed at first rather towards the formation of Upper Burmah into a Native State under British protection, yet, after a careful examination of all the circumstances on the spot, he was convinced that such a course was inexpedient and impracticable. Having received that opinion in unmistakable terms from the Viceroy, in whom, in common with Her Majesty's late Government, we placed the highest confidence—having regard to the fact that Her Majesty's late Government have already announced in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech that the Kingdom of Ava would be permanently incorporated in the British Empire, and looking also to the Proclamation which by their instructions had been issued in Burmah—taking all those things into consideration, we have decided without hesitation that the proper course to be pursued—and that course the Viceroy has been instructed to pursue—is to maintain Burmah under the direct administration of the British Grown. As regards the further arrangements to be made, the House will not be surprised when I say that at so early a period, the Viceroy having just, after a few days' sojourn in Mandalay, left that capital, we have not been able to mature the details of administration, and they are at this moment being carefully considered by us in communication with the Viceroy.

853
While we are entirely agreed in our decision, looking to all the circumstances of the case, I do not pretend to look with unmixed satisfaction upon an addition to our responsibilities in India; but I believe the necessity has been forced upon us. I doubt whether those who speak lightly of these accessions to our Empire duly weigh all that is involved. There may be advantages in our possession of Burmah; but, on the other hand, there are drawbacks. Forces will have to be employed there which might be usefully employed elsewhere. Of late years we have wisely made it our policy to avoid as much as possible the annexation of Native States, and not to give rise to the feeling that we were desirous of swallowing up those States. Do not, however, suppose that in making these remarks I am passing any censure upon those who have been engaged in the operations in Burmah, or that the Government are not desirous of making the best of the present position of affairs. The necessity is forced upon us, and the position is one in which the present and the late Government concur in accepting. My hope and belief is, that we shall so govern this addition to Her Majesty's Empire that it will conduce to the happiness and prosperity of the inhabitants of the country, and result in an increase of our trade with China, which may become ultimately very great. As I have mentioned China, it would not be inopportune to say—and I know in what I am about to state I shall have the concurrence of noble Lords opposite—that in considering the relations between Upper Burmah and China there is the utmost desire on the part of Her Majesty's Government to treat all matters that may arise in a most friendly spirit with regard to China. I believe also that China is most friendly disposed towards Her Majesty's Government; and where there exists a friendly disposition on both sides and strong common interests, I think we may anticipate that we shall bring any discussion which we may have with the Chinese Government with regard to the frontier to a satisfactory conclusion. We should be on the most cordial terms with China; and I think everyone will see that China, on her part, can have no jealousy of us in that quarter. It is for the interests of both Empires that they should act towards each other on the frontier in such a way
854
that a close and cordial friendship may be formed. Your Lordships may also I desire that I should give some information as to the present condition of Burmah. With regard to that I will I say, in the first place, that there has, no doubt, been a great deal of dacoity since our occupation of the country; but it must be remembered that dacoits have always been there. The Viceroy informs me that dacoity has been exceptionally rife owing to Theebaw's misgovernment, and that the proceedings of the dacoits have been very cruel and barbarous. These proceedings, however, have not, the Viceroy says, been directed against Her Majesty's Government, but against innocent villagers. It is the duty of the authority we have set up to protect the innocent villagers against these men, who have been guilty of murder and plundering of the very worst kind. My noble Friend the Viceroy assures me that in the execution of this duty there has been no unnecessary severity. He says that the general pacification of the country is proceeding as rapidly as can be reasonably expected. The country, however, is largo and overspread with jungle, and it would be unreasonable to expect the immediate establishment of peace. Then, with regard to what is called indiscriminate punishment on the part of the military officers, the Viceroy says in one of his most recent telegrams—
"It is certainly not true that prisoners are indiscriminately shot by troops. Executions at Mandalay by military during past six weeks have been cases of convicted offenders sentenced by civil officers. Elsewhere, when troops take marauders red-handed, leaders are occasionally shot; in each case all act upon advice of civil officers who accompany columns. It is difficult to discriminate between insurgents and dacoits; both classes plunder and kill innocent villagers, and compel peaceable people to join them. It must be understood that these bands have not come into existence since our arrival, but that dacoity has been long rife in the country."
This is the latest information I have from the Viceroy as to the present condition of affairs in Burmah. I have no reason to think that any additional force will be required beyond that now employed. On the contrary, I have heard from the Viceroy that there is even a possibility already of some reduction being made in the force. As to the probable cost of the operations, the Viceroy informs me that it will not ex-

855
change that would be £400,000; at the present rate it is about £300,000 sterling. The able Commissioner of Lower Burmah, Mr. Bernard, thinks it probable that the deficit for the first two, three, or four years will not exceed £20,000 or £30,000. It is very probable that after that period the Expenditure of the country will be balanced by the Revenue, and that eventually there will be a surplus. There is this to be said with regard to those estimates—that since Lower Burmah has been occupied by us its progress has been remarkable as to trade and all other elements of prosperity. No other portion of Her Majesty's Dominions has made greater progress than Lower Burmah. Whether or not Upper Burmah will make equally rapid progress, we may reasonably hope that the administration of the country which the Viceroy intends shall be conducted cheaply will result before long in the Revenue surpassing the Expenditure. The expenditure of the Expedition is calculated as not amounting to more than £300,000 up to 31st of March, which cannot be regarded as a large sum; and it can hardly be contended that this is not a case in which the Indian Revenues may fairly be charged with it. In conclusion, his Lordship moved the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
Moved to resolve—
"That Her Majesty having directed a military expedition of Her forces charged upon Indian revenues to be despatched against the King of Ava, this House consents that the revenues of India shall he applied to defray the expenses of the military operations which may be carried on beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
LORD HARRISsaid, it was gratifying to the Members of the late Government to find that their undertaking in Burmah met with the approval of Her Majesty's present Advisers. He thought that the noble Earl would perhaps now admit that the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne referring to this matter was not too long, or inserted by way of excuse for the operations in Burmah. He was glad to hear that the Commission which the late Government had thought of moving for with regard to India was to be appointed; and he trusted that one result would be that those who differed on the clauses of the Act of Parliament would come to some satisfactory conclu-
856
sion. He did not gather that it was necessary that the Resolution of the noble Earl should be brought forward within a month after the meeting of Parliament. But it had been out of the power of the present Government to bring it forward within the month. They were, however, to be credited with the desire to bring the Resolution forward as soon after the month as possible. It was not necessary for him to go into the reasons why the late Government thought it right that the country should be annexed; but he might say that the Expedition and annexation were not undertaken solely with the idea of extending our mercantile enterprize. They had responsibilities extending to the people of Lower Burmah. In judging of the matter, all the circumstances which led up to the Expedition must be taken into consideration. The various acts of interference with Her Majesty's subjects on the part of the Burmese Government; their indifference to the Treaties entered into in 1856, 1862, and 1867; their relations with other Powers as well as England—all these matters had to be considered. As the noble Earl had mentioned the civil officials at Madras, who were so active in forwarding the Expedition, he might add a word for the Madras troops, who had not had many opportunities of meeting an enemy in the field, but had on recent occasions shown themselves most conspicuous in actual warfare. He was glad that the course which Her Majesty's late Government thought it most advisable to pursue with regard to the annexation of Upper Burmah would be followed by Her Majesty's present Government. He was entirely unable to agree with the remarks which the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Ripon) made in a speech he delivered in the autumn, that from among the Royal Princes of Burmah could be found one capable of ascending the Throne. No doubt, the noble Marquess would have had ample choice, for King Theebaw's father left over 70 children; but he should not have had envied him the task of selection, for, from what he heard, he should doubt any one of them being fitted for so onerous a position. The noble Earl referred to the annexation of Native States. He entirely agreed with the remarks of the noble Earl on that point. Great stress had been laid on the fact that the Native Princes of India

857
might be under the impression that a policy of annexation would be pursued in India also. He could not understand the reasons for such an apprehension. It was not the policy of Her Majesty's Government nor of late Governments. Quite the contrary. Only the other day the fortress of Gwalior was restored to the Prince; not very long since the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Rajah of Mysore were restored to power; and the Maharajah Holkar had, on several occasions, received very considerable honours. On all those occasions the policy of Her Majesty's Government had been quite different from a policy of annexation of the Native States; and as long as the Native Princes governed their territories with justice and moderation so long might they be assured that they would be continued in the government. He believed that there was the greatest hope for the peace of the world in the proximity of China and Great Britain. The neighbourhood of two such trading nations argued well for the prospect of peace in that part of the world. When the late Government were in power frequent reports of acts of dacoity in Upper Burmah came to this country. He was afraid that dacoity was the normal state of things in Upper Burmah; and it was not wonderful that those who felt their occupation going should endeavour to strike one last blow for it. He was glad to hear from the noble Lord that there were great hopes of the country being brought into a peaceable condition without much delay; and he trusted that in a very short time the people might be able to settle down to their business, and that we should find, as in the Lower Province, that the Revenue, business, and trade of the country had increased at an enormous rate. He would not go into all the circumstances which led Her Majesty's late Government to think that annexation was the proper course, but would only say that they acted solely from a feeling of the responsibility attaching to them in governing British India, and recognized it to be their duty to the people of Lower Burmah as well as of India to insist that the Treaties to which Theebaw was a party should be recognized by him, that justice and honest treatment should be dealt out to those who were trading in that country, and that no exclusive influence should be allowed to any other nation.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: On the part of the Army I desire to say that I entirely agree with what has been said on both sides of the House as to the manner in which the military operations have been conducted. I entirely endorse the statement of the Secretary of State for India that the fact that this has been a very bloodless and a very short Expedition adds to the credit of those engaged in it.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he thought the military operations in Burmah were justified by all the circumstances of the case. He also thought, having read with attention the Blue Book which had been circulated among their Lordships, that the greatest moderation had been exercised by successive Administrations in dealing with the affairs of Burmah. It had been shown by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Cranbrook), by Lord Hartington, and by his noble Friend, now Secretary of State for India (the Earl of Kimberley), by his noble Friend below him (the Marquess of Ripon) and by the present Viceroy of India. The particular persons who might have to deal with questions of that kind as they arose formed an important element in the conclusion at which a Government might arrive. Two of the officers concerned, Sir Charles Aitchison and Mr. Bernard, were well known for their high character and great moderation of opinions. He quite agreed that in forming a judgment in this matter they must look to all the circumstances of the case, and also to circumstances extending over many years; for difficulties with Burmah arose before the year 1879. He would not like it to be supposed that the war had followed in consequence of any troubles connected with a British Company trading in Burmah, or of any matters of that kind. The causes which had produced this war were far more important, extending over many years, and involving circumstances of far greater moment than any trading difficulties. There was no doubt, whatever the cause of the war might be, that the operations had been admirably organized and successfully carried out; and he was glad to hear the noble Lord opposite (Lord Harris) pay a tribute to the conduct of the Madras Army, which came from him with peculiar grace in consequence of his hereditary connection with that Presidency. It was

859
a great advantage to that Army to have an opportunity of showing what they could do. As to the question of annexation, he looked upon it as one of the very highest importance; and he would certainly have preferred if it had been found possible to have avoided the annexation of Burmah. But he was, at the same time, fully aware of the great difficulties attending any other arrangement, and he was prepared to accept with confidence the deliberate opinion expressed by Lord Dufferin on the subject, that the only course that could be taken with a proper regard to the interests of Her Majesty's Dominions in India was to incorporate Burmah in Her Majesty's Empire. He must, however, express his regret that neither in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, nor in what had fallen from his noble Friend the Secretary of State, nor in the speech of the noble Lord opposite, had there been any mention whatever made of the most important announcement that was ever made by the English Government since the time of its first connection with India—he referred to the Proclamation of the year 1858, in which it was announced that Her Majesty did not desire any extension of Her Dominions in India. That was one of the most solemn steps ever taken by any Government; and he would have liked to see, at the same time that the necessity for annexation was announced, some words used at any rate to show that the great principle that except under imperative circumstances annexation should not be resorted to, would be adhered to. He did not, however, attribute the omission of any notice of that Proclamation to anything more than accident, and certainly not to any disposition on the other side of the House to depart from the great principle that it announced, for the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had shown by his conduct, in respect to the Mysore State and upon other occasions, that he accepted and adopted the policy announced in the Proclamation. With regard to the question of the interpretation of the 55th section of the Government of India Act, this was an occasion, if ever there was one, on which it was necessary to refer to it. It was well known that the object and intention of that section was to place a check on the Prerogative of the Crown with respect to the declaration of war in India.
860
That was the explanation which was given by the Earl of Derby and by Lord Beaconsfield (Mr. Disraeli) at the time. The latter, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, in the House of Commons, on July 6, 1858—
"The power of declaring peace and war might he left to the Sovereign under the Constitution of this country, and with a House of Commons that voted the Supplies and had a legitimate and constitutional mode of expressing its opinion. But if the power of declaring war and peace was left entirely in the hands of the Sovereign in India there were not the means of controlling its exercise that existed in this country, and a policy might be pursued extremely injurious to the national interests."—(3 Hansard, [151] 1014)
And he called it a "salutary and politic provision." The present Prime Minister was the originator of that section; and he had expressed the opinion more than once, with the greatest deliberation, that it was the distinct intention of the section that the consent of both Houses of Parliament should precede warlike operations in India, except in the case of invasion or of urgent necessity. In the present case there was no dispute that the war was necessary, neither was there any dispute, he (the Earl of Northbrook) presumed, that there was no great urgency in the case. But, supposing in the opinion of both Houses of Parliament this war were an unjust one. What possible remedy would there be? The war was over and the country had been annexed. He thought their Lordships would see that the provision in the Act which was deliberately intended by both Houses of Parliament to place a check on the exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown had unfortunately become a dead letter, and that matters remained precisely in the condition they were before the Government of India Act was passed. Whatever opinion they might hold on the subject, there could be no doubt that that was the practical result; and he confessed that he was somewhat astonished to hear his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India say that this matter was to be referred to a Committee of both Houses of Parliament. If ever there was a case which did not require elucidation by a Committee this was it. Undoubtedly the highest authorities differed with respect to the interpretation of the clause; but there could be no doubt that the result of this dif-

861
ference of opinion was that the intentions of Parliament had become illusory. He ventured to submit to Her Majesty's Government that it was hardly a case for inquiry. It was a case involving important considerations as to what limitations ought to be placed on the Prerogative of the Crown; and he thought it was too much to ask for a Committee consisting of both Houses of Parliament to help Her Majesty's Government to come to a conclusion as to what really ought to be done to remedy this state of things. The Prime Minister had admitted more than once that the law had been broken. This matter was one of grave importance, and he trusted that the Government would not make the announcement of their conclusion as final, but that they would give a deliberate conclusion on this matter, and announce it to their Lordships. Not only had this war been undertaken, but a territory, he believed as large as Prance, had been annexed to the British Empire without the cognizance by Parliament of the fact, and without any possibility that Parliament could interfere, if it had wished to do so, by an Address to the Crown, to retrace the steps which the Government had taken. This annexation was announced within a fortnight of the meeting of Parliament. The Proclamation was issued on the 31st of December, and Parliament met on the 12th of January. The final step was even taken before the late Government had time to receive a deliberate expression of opinion from the Viceroy of India. That expression of opinion had only been received since the late Government left Office; so they had, notwithstanding the attempt to place a check on the Prerogative of the Crown, made in 1858, a war for which there was really no urgency, which was entered into without the consent of Parliament; in addition to which a large territory was annexed without any possibility of the opinion of Parliament being expressed as to whether that annexation was right or wrong. He did not entertain the opinion that this matter could be left alone and handed over to a Committee of both Houses to inquire into. It was a question which the Government ought to take into their serious consideration, more especially after the strong expression of opinion on the part of the Prime Minister, and decide on their own responsibility what should
862
or should not be the real power of the Houses of Parliament with respect to matters affecting in so serious a degree the interests—it might be, indeed, the safety—of the Indian Empire, and the best interests of this country.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I do not propose to discuss the question raised by the noble Earl (the Earl of Northbrook) because Her Majesty's Government have adopted the course disputed by him. I wish, however, to say that the late Lord Derby in 1867 said, most distinctly, that it was never intended to control the Prerogative of the Sovereign, and the only thing intended was to put a check on the expenditure by Parliament. The present Prime Minister's statement was no doubt strong as to a particular case; but he admitted that, when there were special circumstances, it would be necessary to proceed without the consent of Parliament. I am one of those who think that one of the best courses connected with the proceedings in Burmah was that the blow followed the word, and that there was no time for getting up a contest which might have led to a large amount of bloodshed, disastrous to that country and injurious to this, and by acting promptly and decisively the affair was brought to an end. With respect to the Committee, it will not be charged with the interpretation of the clause, but whether the ambiguity of the clause is such as to need some legislation to put it right. I must warn my noble Friend that we must not interpret Statutes by those who may have brought them in, but by the Legal Authorities who have to construe them at the present day.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am greatly obliged to my noble Friend for giving me this opportunity of saying that Her Majesty's Government attach the highest importance to the observance of the principles laid down in the famous Proclamation of 1858. Nothing has done more to form and strengthen Her Majesty's rule in India than the steady adherence to those principles; and the Native Princes of India will understand that, in the present case, the exception only proves the rule, and that there is no intention on the part of the present Government, and certainly no probability of any intention on the part of any Government which holds power in this country, to depart from the principles of that Pro-

863
clamation. With regard to the second point, I have to point out that it is not a very unusual course to refer to a Committee the examination of the manner in which an Act of Parliament is worked, especially when two clauses of that Act have been declared to be ambiguous. It is not that the Committee will have to determine the meaning of the Act; but they have to consider whether, by the light of experience which we have obtained since the Act came into force, that portion of the Act, or any other portion of it, requires amendment. I think that such a course is more likely to lead to a satisfactory result than that this isolated subject should be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I cannot entirely admit, what the late First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook) seems to assume, that the clause of the Act of Parliament is not carried out in its original interpretation. I do not venture to offer any interpretation myself as to what that clause may mean; but I have a very distinct recollection of the occasion when it was inserted, and I do not think that the intention of Parliament has been in the least degree frustrated. What was the circumstance which induced Parliament to insert that clause? It was the Persian War of 1857, a war that was undertaken by the Indian Government, paid for by the Indian Government, and concluded by them without the circumstance coming under the review of Parliament in any way whatever. It was held that that was unconstitutional; that it gave the Queen a power in India which she did not possess in England; but I never understood then, and I do not believe it ever was the intention of making the consent of Parliament a condition precedent before the Government went to war. That is not the law of England, and it was not intended to make it the law in India. What was intended was that in the case of wars waged by the Indian Government, like those waged by England, the whole matter should necessarily come under the control and judgment of Parliament, so that the action of the Executive might be condemned or approved. In that sense, when you remember the precedent of the Persian War, I believe the clause has done its work, because each successive war undertaken from
864
the Indian Revenues has been submitted to Parliament and approved. There is another matter which was referred to in the course of this debate of so much importance that I venture to add a word with respect to it—that is the bearing of this Burmese War upon the Proclamation of 1858. Of course, I entirely concur with the noble Lords when they say that nothing can be further from the minds of statesmen on either side of the House than to impair in the slightest degree the sacredness of the obligations undertaken by the Government in that Proclamation; but I do not believe that this Burmese War has even apparently effected them. That Proclamation was addressed to the Native Princes, who were the Queen's allies and feudatories in India at that time; and the King of Burmah never admitted that he stood in any such relation to the Queen. That Proclamation was no more addressed to the King of Burmah than to the Emperor of Russia, or the Ameer of Samarcand. It was addressed to those Native Princes who stood in a relation of allegiance to the paramount Power; and, therefore, what has occurred in Burmah is not an infraction of the Proclamation. I should be very sorry indeed if the slightest doubt were to be entertained as to the sanctity of that Proclamation. I would avoid even saying that the exception has proved the rule. There has been no exception, and the Proclamation remains in all its integrity. The course of this debate has been thoroughly satisfactory to the Members of the late Government, for it has been well established that this war was not undertaken through any greed of annexation, or through any desire to extend British trade. It has been recognized that it was actually forced upon us. The noble Earl has blamed us a little by implication because we did not wait for Parliament to assemble before giving orders for the commencement of hostile operations.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that what he had referred to was the annexation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl will remember that annexation is not a matter dealt with in the slightest degree in the Act of Parliament. It only deals with military operations. With respect to those operations, I do not wish to penetrate deeply

865
into the question, which is a very delicate one. The subject came before me as Foreign Minister, and it was from the point of view of the Foreign Office that we determined that no delay should take place before action was taken. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India repudiated, and very justly, in his speech the idea that we had undertaken this war for the purpose of extending our trade, and showed that the question whether there should not be more interference in the affairs of Burmah has been under the attention of the India Office for a good many years. I myself remember asking Lord Lawrence in consultation 20 years ago; whether some measures could not be taken for bringing the Government of Burmah to a more reasonable frame of mind and stopping the misgovernment of the country; and I believe that it was nothing but a desire to avoid annexation, or any such breach of our ordinary practice, that induced the Government to tolerate the state of affairs in Burmah for so many years. It was only the necessity of their position which forced the Indian Government to break that reserve at last. I believe that no war has been more thoroughly justified; and in a year or two the change that has been made will result in advantage not only to the people in our Indian Empire, but also to the people whom we have now subjected to the beneficent rule of the Queen.
LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALAsaid, that no one who had read the Blue Book relating to our affair with Burmah, or was acquainted with the history of our earliest relations with that country, could attribute for a moment the motive of commercial advantage or the extension of trade as the incentive to war. No other nation in the world would have been so long-suffering and patient under the injuries and insults of the Burmese Government as the British nation. The Burmese had been from the beginning aggressive neighbours. They invaded Assam and Chittagong, and, but for our presence, would have conquered Lower Bengal. The action of the Burmese in endeavouring to form close relations with other European nations whose only means of approaching them would have been through our territory was likely to create serious complications with those nations. Taking into consideration the
866
value of the mineral resources of Burmah and the routes which it supplied through Bhamo for trade with China, he believed the country would amply repay the expenses of its administration. The Punjab, which when first annexed was considered likely to be an unprofitable acquisition, afforded an apposite example. Sir John Lawrence had very anxious doubts regarding the Revenue of that country, which was also liable to the same disturbances as those now prevalent in Burmah. Bands of dacoits committed acts of violence and bloodshed, and the frontiers were disturbed. Sir John Lawrence, by very severe executions, put down acts of violence, and the frontiers were gradually reduced to order, as, no doubt, would be the case in Burmah in a short time. It was extremely gratifying to all who were connected with and interested in India to hear the thorough approval expressed on both sides of the House of the manner in which the Viceroy of India and the forces employed had conducted the conquest and annexation of that country.
Motion agreed to.

MARRIAGES VALIDITY BILL.—(No. 11.)
(The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.)
MARRIAGES VALIDITY BILL.—(No. 11.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to remove the doubts which surrounded certain marriages contracted between English and Scotch parties. It often occurred that two people, one of whom was Scotch, desired to be married in an English parish church by banns. The banns of the party residing in England were published in the ordinary way. The Scotch party to the contract produced on the wedding day a certificate stating that the marriage had been proclaimed in an Established Church in Scotland, and that no objection had been raised. The clergyman in England, acting upon this certificate, and considering it as equivalent to a proclamation of banns, married the parties. It was clear to anyone who looked at the Statute 4 Geo. IV., c. 76, that the Scotch certificate did not satisfy the conditions of the Act, which required that the banns

  867
  should be published in the express words of the rubric preceding the service for the solemnization of matrimony in the Book of Common Prayer. The result of this state of things was that doubt had been thrown upon the validity of such marriages as he had described. He had from time to time warned the clergy in his diocese that it was dangerous to marry parties on the strength of the Scotch certificate, which, however, appeared such a plausible document that it was difficult for clergymen to realize the danger to which the contracting parties were exposed. The purpose of the Bill was to remove all doubts as to the validity of marriages performed in the way which he had described. The measure consisted practically of a clause found in a Bill passed in 1885 by their Lordships with the object of validating certain marriages. The Bill failed to pass in the other House.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.)
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that with very little encouragement he would be prepared to re-introduce the Bill to which the right rev. Prelate had referred. It was very desirable to put an end to the continual recurrence of special legislation to render valid marriages about which there were doubts. A very good case had been made out for the second reading of the Bill before the House. It was unfortunate that persons, for want of such legislation, should find themselves in a position of uncertainty about the validity of their marriage. The Bill which passed through this House last year was carefully guarded against any possibility of opening the door to loosely-contracted marriages; it was limited to solemn marriages in church, or other place of worship, or in a Registrar's office; and it was limited to informalities, not in the neglect of, but in the compliance with, those forms required by the existing Marriage Acts which exclude the notion of clandestine or hasty marriages. It was a disappointment to him that, on the change of Government, his Successor on the Woolsack did not accept the principle of the Bill, believing that it would open the door to dangerous laxity. He still believed it would be better to pass a general measure that would obviate the necessity of dealing with classes of
  868
  cases, and would remove doubts as to legal validity where the error was one of form, and not one of substance.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, that while he fully concurred in the principle of the Bill, he could not agree to the principle enunciated by the noble and learned Earl opposite (the Earl of Selborne) that a general Act should be passed to legalize à priori all marriages in which there had been a doubt. He was quite unable to conjecture the amount of confusion and uncertainty which would arise were any such Bill passed.
  Motion agreed, to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PARLIAMENT—VENTILATION OF THE COMMITTEE ROOMS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any steps have been taken during the Recess to improve the ventilation of the Committee Rooms?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (The Earl of MORLEY), in reply, said, that changes had been made with the view of obviating the objections to the bad ventilation of the Committee Rooms. Larger provision had been made for the ingress of fresh air and the egress of foul air, and he hoped the results would be satisfactory.

THE CONDITION OF IRELAND ("BOYCOTTING," &c.)

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK, in rising to ask the Lord President of the Council, Whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table such information as can be given without injury to the Public Service on the present condition of Ireland in respect to "Boycotting" and such outrages? said: My Lords, since I gave Notice of the Question things have happened which have made it even more important to ask it than it was before. The mode in which Questions as to the policy of the Government have been met in this House has relieved me from a difficulty; and I do not intend, after the failure of my noble Friends (Lord Salisbury and Lord Ashbourne), as respects the policy of the Government, to

  869
  endeavour to extort an answer. It seems to me that the Chief of the Government, the master of the pack, has adopted Sir Edmund Henderson's device of putting muzzles on all the pack in this House, probably from some fear that the rabies with which they are supposed to be infected might be prematurely manifested. The noble Earl (Earl Spencer), when he spoke at the beginning of the Session, addressed himself to the late Government as if they had been guilty of great laches, by which they had produced a state of things in Ireland which he ventured to say was "tenfold, and even a hundredfold," worse than that which existed when he was responsible for the government of Ireland. He said that we had interfered with the progress of law and order. I do not intend to go into a defence of the late Government. For the purpose of my Question I will assume that everything was as stated by the noble Earl, and that, in consequence of our policy, there was such an increase in the force of the National League, which no man can separate from "Boycotting," as to make it tenfold or a hundredfold worse than it was when he left Ireland. Well, my Lords, what follows from that? Why, that there is tenfold or a hundredfold more necessity for action on the part of the Government. I have taken the opportunity of refreshing my memory with a reference to the report of the noble Earl's speech; and I find that the noble Earl said it was absolutely necessary that some part of the Crimes Act should be re-enacted. The noble Earl, addressing himself to my noble and learned Friend (Lord Ashbourne), said—
  "I would ask the Lord Chancellor of Ireland whether he can now rely upon a jury in Ireland for convicting a man committed for agrarian crime, or crime connected with agrarian matters? I ask him, can ho now rely?"
  He afterwards said—
  "I greatly fear that the condition of Ireland, with regard to intimidation and 'Boycotting,' is more serious than it has ever been before …. I maintain that it has increased tenfold or a hundredfold since I had the responsibility of the Irish Government."
  I want to ask what is going to be done with this intimidation and "Boycotting?" Is it to be stopped, or is it to be left to simmer and get higher, perhaps to boiling point, before anything is done with respect to it? We
  870
  are told that we are not yet in possession of the policy of the Government even as to the maintenance of social order; but have they a policy? Mr. Chamberlain says—"We cannot give it, because we have not one." But the question of a general policy for Ireland is one thing, and the duty of the Executive is quite another thing. The want of a policy on the part of the Government of Ireland may be a serious matter. This is also a point which has been much altered by what has passed in "another place." Mr. Morley says that the question whether he or any other English Minister shall rule Ireland is approaching solution one way or the other. I should like to ask whether, if the rule of Englishmen is to cease in Ireland, Irishmen will be allowed to take part in the ruling of England? It seems to me that that question must arise. But this becomes a very serious matter, indeed, when you are dealing with the question of what an English Minister will do. First of all, he disparages English rule, and takes upon himself a duty which certainly is quite inconsistent with the duty of the Executive Government, because he says he is going to take the place of the Court of Appeal practically, and revise the decisions of the Courts; he will not execute the decrees of the Courts unless he is satisfied that they are just. I know Mr. Morley has qualified that. He says the question—
  "Whether or not the Forces of the Crown should he used in carrying out every eviction for which the shadow of a legal title or justification can be made out is a question which Executive Ministers must decide upon for themselves on their own responsibility upon each case as it arises."
  I know he said afterwards that he meant that the Military Forces—
  "Were not to execute decrees—that is, judicial decrees—which, on the ground of public policy as well as that of equity, may seem unadvisable or unnecessary."
  The Military Forces, however, in Ireland are those who are military armed, and they include the Constabulary. The Constabulary Force are by no means like the police of this country. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is a tolerable thing for a partizan Minister to judge as to what decrees he shall execute, or as to what period the ordinary Civil Authorities will fail to execute the

  871
  law? The first duty of a Government is to maintain law and order; and no one knows that better than the noble Earl opposite, who recently occupied the position of Lord Lieutenant. Let me do the noble Earl justice. I have never said a word about his tenure of Office except as to the courage and ability with which he carried out his duties, and as to the way he grappled with crime and outrage in Ireland. I now call upon him, in conformity with what he has said, to take the steps which he called upon us to take. The noble Earl has stated that the condition of the country was a hundredfold worse than when he had charge of the Government. "Boycotting" and the National League are inextricably involved with one another in Ireland. It is said that rents in some parts of Ireland are collected; but that is not where the National League exists. The two things are connected in a manner which shows the importance of dealing with one and the other. I do not want to say more at this hour of the evening; but I call upon the noble Earl to see that law and order are enforced without delay, and without waiting for the policy which some time or other is to come forth from Her Majesty's Government.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, I think I have some right to complain that the noble Viscount opposite has unnecessarily raised a question of considerable importance without having given any Notice to me or the House on the subject. No doubt the question is one of great importance; but I only came down here prepared to answer the Question placed upon the Paper by the noble Viscount. I am quite prepared to tell your Lordships what Returns the Government are ready to give with respect to intimidation and outrages and the like in Ireland; but I am not prepared to follow the noble Viscount in a matter which really involves the whole question of the policy of the Government in Ireland, and I am certainly not bound to do so on a casual Question. If I followed the noble Viscount it would carry me through the whole policy of the Government, and I am certainly not prepared to go into that to-night. The noble Viscount, after referring to what passed the other night in this House, said he was not going to try to draw out the Members of the Government with regard
  872
  to their policy. I cannot congratulate him on having carried out his expressed intention; for he did, I think, try very hard to put the case in such a way that I should disclose the policy of the Government with regard to this subject. The statement I made on the first evening of the Session in this House I have not now with me. I did not think that this matter was coming on to-night, and therefore I did not have the opportunity of referring, as the noble Viscount had, to what I said on that occasion; and if I make some mistakes I must throw the blame upon him for not having given me Notice. My recollection is. that I pressed the Government to give information as to the condition of Ireland at the time I was then speaking. I believe I then stated, though the report read by the noble Lord does not bear this out, that if we went by the accounts in the newspapers such and such a state of things had occurred. I therefore pressed the Government to give us reliable information. If the newspaper accounts were true I said the state of intimidation in Ireland was tenfold, perhaps one-hundredfold, worse than what it was when I had the honour and responsibility of government in that country. I believe what I pressed for then was for reliable information as to the state of social order in Ireland, and that was a perfectly legitimate matter upon which to question the Government. I do not at all, therefore, blame the noble Viscount for pressing me and the Government to give this information; and I am quite ready on the part of the Government, if this will satisfy him, to give a Return showing the number of cases of intimidation which have taken place under the ordinary law since the expiration of the Crimes Act last year—distinguishing between the cases disposed of at the Petty Sessions and Assizes and those made the subject of indictment, with the number of convictions. This is the utmost we can do with regard to intimidation. The question of "Boycotting" is rather a new one for official Returns. We are quite ready to give information in the possession of the Irish Government as to the number of persons who are "Boycotted." I believe we have Returns which were made up to the time when I was leaving Office. They were quite new Returns; therefore I am not sure

  873
  that we should rely upon them in so precise a manner as on those which are actual cases tried before the magistrates and the Law Courts. The Returns of the latter eases, of course, are perfectly reliable. But if the House thinks it desirable that we should give the Returns I refer to I shall be perfectly ready to lay them on the Table. They are submitted by the best officers in the country, and they refer to persons that were "Boycotted" on specified dates—on the 30th of June, 30th of September, and the 31st of December in last year. Then the noble Viscount, referring to the statement in "another place" of aright hon. Colleague of mine, said that the Chief Secretary for Ireland is going to take the place of the Courts of Law, and settle what are proper and what are improper decrees for the military and police to put in force. I do not understand that the Chief Secretary has said anything of the sort. What he did say was that when a request was made for the military to be called in he should carefully consider whether necessity for the use of the military arose or not. He did not say that with regard to the Royal Irish Constabulary, but simply made the statement with reference to the Military Forces. I will read the part of his speech which has reference to this matter. He says—
  "While we shall be very careful to exact respect for law, and very careful to see that every subject of the Queen has all those rights to which he is legally entitled, it will be our duty to look into the cases as they arise, and in no case where it can possibly be avoided shall we be inclined to resort to military force."
  Now, I do not know whether the noble Viscount will differ from that. Will he say that the military should be used in the defence of the civil power on all occasions? I must confess that during the years I had the honour of being Lord Lieutenant I always thought it a very grave thing indeed when it was necessary to send the military in support of the civil power. It was a most undesirable thing to do. Where it was expected that obstruction would take place, I always preferred to send as large a force of police as possible rather than of military, whether Infantry or Cavalry. That is what I understand my right hon. Friend to mean. He did not say that he would never use the Forces of the Queen.
  874
  What he did say was that he would look into every case to see whether there was any necessity for bringing these Forces into use. I confess that that seems to me a very different thing from that which the noble Viscount has stated. As far as reluctance to use these Forces is concerned, I entirely concur with the Chief Secretary.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, there is a remarkable contrast between the anxiety shown by noble Lords opposite at the beginning of the Session not to allow one or two days to intervene before a policy was announced and their demand now that we should abstain from any questions as to a policy even upon matters that affect life and property in Ireland until the magical 1st of April arrives. But if Her Majesty's Government will not announce to us any policy I wish that they would carry that system of silence and reticence out completely. The policy which might convey some comfort and consolation to the Loyal Party in Ireland is scrupulously kept back, while a policy suitable for the consumption of the National League is announced in the other House. A "no-rent manifesto" has been announced by Mr. Morley—at least, that is the way in which it will be interpreted by the tenants of Ireland. It is perfectly true that portions of the speech of Mr. Morley will bear the interpretations put upon them by the noble Earl; but there are other portions which will be abstracted and circulated and sent about to the encouragement of tenants who abstain from fulfilling their legal contracts by conveying to their minds that those legal contracts will not be enforced unless the Chief Secretary, a known sympathizer with Mr. Parnell, considers them to be desirable and equitable. These are the words of Mr. Morley—
  "Decrees which, on the ground of public policy as well as that of equity, may seem inadvisable or unnecessary."
  Now, there has been a strong effort on the part of the noble Earl to convert this statement of Mr. Morley into a much more innocent statement to the effect that he would be very reluctant, unless it was necessary, to use military force. But that is not what Mr. Morley said. Most of us, nay all of us, are very reluctant to employ military force where it is not necessary for the purpose of compelling fulfilment of contracts. But Mr. Morley

  875
  claims a totally different liberty, not to consider whether military force is necessary for the fulfilment of contracts, but to consider whether a contract in itself is one which is equitable, or which public policy requires should be fulfilled after the Court of Law had established the legality of the demands, and to withhold military force as unnecessary if the contract should not approve itself to Mr. Morley's judgment. That is going from a state of law to a state of absolute government, and is taking away the decision of contracts from the Courts of Law and giving it into the hands of a Parliamentary officer deeply prejudiced against one of the classes that take part in these contracts. I can very well fancy that Her Majesty's Government are very loth to accept such a doctrine, and deeply regret that it should have been announced by their Chief Secretary. But I must say that I think we require a more clear assurance that the policy which his words appear to sanction will not be in effect carried out. We require an assurance that the military will be employed, if it be necessary, in order to exact the fulfilment of contracts, whether these contracts are in equity or in policy pleasing to Mr. Morley or not. That is the dangerous part of the announcement that has been made. I confess that it seems to me that the Government are accepting a very deep responsibility when they refuse not for a few days, but for six weeks, to announce any policy at all with respect to the maintenance of law and the preservation of life and property in Ireland. At all events, if they do refuse such an enactment, let them repudiate in clear language the most unfortunate invitation which the authorized Representative of the Irish Government has addressed to the Irish tenants not to pay rents wherever those rents do not approve themselves to the policy of Mr. Morley.

  FRESH WATER FISHERIES (EELS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to declare the meaning of section eleven of the Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1878, so far as regards Eels—Was presented by The Lord Thurlow; read 1a. (No. 15.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.