Lords Sitting of 25 February 1886

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Arbitration* (17); Justices' Jurisdiction* (18); Law of Evidence Amendment* (19); Union of Benefices* (20).
Second Reading—Freshwater Fisheries (Eels) (15).

NEW PEER.
Sir Henry Allsopp, Baronet, having been created Baron Hindlip of Hindlip in the county of Worcester and of Alsop-en-le-Dale in the county of Derby—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
FRESHWATER FISHERIES (EELS) BILL.
(The Lord Thurlow.)
FRESHWATER FISHERIES (EELS) BILL.

  (NO. 15.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading road.
  LORD THURLOW,in moving that the Bill be now road a second time, said, that its object was merely to remove doubts which had arisen in the Courts of Law as to the exact interpretation to be placed on the wording of the Freshwater Fisheries Bill. It had been held in the Courts of Law that
  this Bill included eels, though it was not the intention of the framers of that Act that they should be included. The provisions of that Act were inapplicable to this fish. It was a matter largely affecting the question of food supply, not only in London, but in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, and Liverpool, where largo quantities of eels were consumed. At present there was a very large importation of eels from Ireland, Scotland, and other places where the Act of 1878 was not intended to apply. Beyond that, difficulties had also arisen in other parts of England in ascertaining where the eels sent for sale had actually been caught, and these difficulties had been made the subject of legal proceedings. He was informed that in London alone there were hundreds of shops in the East End where a very large trade was done in this class of fish, and the livelihood of these persons would be jeopardized if the Act of 1878 remained in the uncertain state in which it at present stood.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

THE NEW PUBLIC OFFICES.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, it will take but a few minutes to explain and justify the Notice I have given, as the subject has been made familiar on various occasions to your Lordships. The immediate, or, at least, the urgent fact is, that the demolition of Spring Gardens has begun, and that on Monday a deputation is about to approach Her Majesty's Government from the Institute of Architects and point out the course which ought to be adopted. That deputation may, of course, convince the Government, as many persons are convinced already, that it is better for the Public Offices Site Act to continue in abeyance, as it did, to his lasting credit, the whole time that the noble Marquess who now leads the Opposition presided in the Councils of Her Majesty. The arguments against the Public Offices Site Act are too well-known to be enumerated. However, the most conclusive did not come into existence until the Act was carried, and

  1171
  therefore could not weigh with Parliament against it. It is the revelation of last August, under the late Government, that 10 years would be consumed in the work to be executed; that during all that time the Parade and Horse Guards would be disfigured; that during all that time a portion of Carlton House Terrace would be insupportable to residents, and useless in the market; that during all that time, in any year, the work might be arrested by the taste or the economy of Parliament, and thus remain a fragmentary monument both of extravagance and penury. If the House permits me, I will explain at once how the demolition of Spring Gardens, which your Lordships are intreated to arrest until the 1st of March, bears upon the case and tends to carry with it the remainder of the project. The whole defence of the Public Offices Site Act rested on what I have already mentioned—namely, the inadequate accommodation of the War Office. That accommodation ought at once to be extended. It can be at once extended by a plan I mentioned here, and have since urged on the late Government. There is in Spring Gardens an unofficial residence—it belonged to the late Sir William Gomm—of such dimensions that the Commander-in-Chief and Adjutant General with their respective Staffs might easily be placed in it. It is well situated between Pall Mall and the Horse Guards; it has abundant space for archives; it is available for the purposes of Government. The object of the Public Offices Site Act might thus be rapidly attained, not at the end, but at the beginning of a decade. But if the demolition now commenced goes forward, in a few days that residence may vanish altogether. Further steps will then be indispensable to give the War Office a refuge. It is true that even then it will have nothing to look forward to until 10 years have passed; and if that interval does not exhaust the life or patience of its inmates, the prospect of relief may be withdrawn in any of the Sessions—not always smooth, perhaps—which have to be encountered. My Lords, I do not charge the actual Government with any blind intention to precipitate the measure against a view so evidently reasonable. It never had a strenuous advocate within their circle beyond Mr. Shaw Lefevre, whose inability to find a seat in any part of the
  1172
  United Kingdom sufficiently expresses the opinion of the country with regard to it. What I am led to think the Government will dwell upon is the necessity, at any price, in any manner, of giving labour to the unemployed, whose wants endanger the Metropolis. But it should be remembered that a scheme of this kind would do little for the East of London, where the greatest scarcity prevails. Public Offices require skilled and special labour, which is not abundant in that region. To relieve distress within it much better schemes might be imagined. A tunnel between Rotherhithe and Shadwell has been often canvassed, and the embankment of the Thames on the Southern side has yet to be accomplished. In any case, it is not desirable to paralyze and to forestall the deputation, which must throw light on the course it is expedient to adopt. It may possibly be said that the materials are sold to a contractor, who is entitled to remove them. They ought not to have been sold to a contractor, when the whole project has so little in its favour, and when the electors—so far as we can judge—have so decidedly condemned it. But, even in that case, to deal with the contractor on the basis of an amicable settlement, might not be beyond the reach of Ministerial ability. The First Lord of the Treasury would not be unequal to the problem. It might exercise the virgin mind—virgin on finance—of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have but one more remark by which, if possible, to urge your Lordships into interference against the demolition of Spring Gardens before the architects are listened to. Although, technically, the Public Offices Site Bill went into the Statute Book, it really never had the sanction of your Lordships. No division happened. I am responsible myself, and have before now explained the circumstances. But, while by accident, there was not a decision, in every debate opinion, argument, authority, were growing on the side unfavourable to the measure. It would well become the House, so far as they are able, to rectify a judgement inadvertently pronounced, and which the actual House of Commons has not in any way subscribed to.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That in the opinion of this House no further steps either of demolition or construction ought

  1173
  to be taken under the Public Offices Site Act before Her Majesty's Government have heard the deputation from the Institute of Architects, arranged to take place on the 1st of March next."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he was not aware that the work of demolition had commenced until he saw this Motion. He had given Notice that he would move a Resolution on the 5th of March that nothing should be done until after a discussion on the subject. He should be compelled to alter his Resolution accordingly.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (The Earl of MORLEY)said, the noble Lord (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) had been a consistent, he might almost say a persistent, opponent of the new site for Public Offices, and the noble Lord had submitted a modest proposal in regard to it—that no steps either of demolition or construction ought to be taken before Monday nest. He need not tell the House that there was no great chance of anything being done in the way of construction before Monday next. But as to demolition, in consequence of measures already taken, an Act of Parliament passed and money voted by the House of Commons, the materials of the houses in Spring Gardens had actually been sold, and the contractors were already removing materials of houses which no longer belonged to the Government. Therefore, it was absolutely impossible to arrest the progress of the demolitions until Monday next. He thought the House would be satisfied with that explanation at present, The noble Lord opposite (Lord Lamington) had just told the House that he was about to raise a debate on the whole question in the course of next week. At that time he would be happy to give any information in his power, and the Government would then have heard what the Institute of Architects had to say on the subject. He did not think there was any probability of an alteration of the site which had been already fixed on.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL,in reply, said, that he would not divide the House unless he had an intimation that noble Lords upon the other side were ready to adopt the Motion, as his noble Friend (Lord Lamington) who sat among them had been prompt in its support. The noble Lord who spoke for
  1174
  Her Majesty's Government had urged nothing but the argument contract, to which he (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) had replied already. He would further remind the Government that to indemnify contractors they had by the Vote of last year £10,000 in their possession which might have no other use, as it was far from certain that a further Vote would be conceded to them. If, however, the Government persisted in demolishing Spring Gardens, he could only offer a respectful but emphatic protest against the course they had decided on.
  Motion (by leave of the House) with drawn.

METROPOLIS—SUNDAY MEETINGS IN THE SQUARES AND PARKS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTON,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they intend to declare illegal all public meetings and processions in the squares and the parks on Sundays, as they inter-fore with the comfort of all classes, and may lead to disturbance? said, with respect to the very disgraceful riots which arose out of the meeting in Trafalgar Square, he thought the police and Sir Edmund Henderson had been very hardly treated indeed. On other occasions of monster meetings in Trafalgar Square he believed that the mob went away by different streets, and no not or breaking of windows had before occurred in connection with those meetings. On this occasion they went away, as they had done so many times previously, by different thoroughfares, so that when the not occurred both the police and Mr. Childers were equally taken by surprise, as they did not anticipate any disturbance. He should like to know how it was possible for either the police or anyone else to follow crowds of people dispersing in different directions. The real cause of all that which subsequently followed on the Monday when the riots took place was in allowing such immense gatherings to take place. It was said that there were 20,000, 30,000, or even as many as 50,000 persons assembled at the late meeting. Was there any city in Europe in which a similar thing would be permitted? In the French capital did they think 100 men would be allowed to assemble in a public

  1175
  square? In Berlin or Vienna did they suppose that 40,000 or 50,000 would be permitted to assemble to endanger the safety of the Metropolis? The whole thing was a disgrace to any English Government—be did not care to which side of politics it belonged—that such proceedings should be tolerated. That the whole of Pall Mall, St. James's Street, and Piccadilly should be blocked by an assembly of peope like that was perfectly monstrous. Moreover, by what rule were lorries allowed into the parts of the Park were carriages were not permitted? And Mr. Hyndman and his followers were allowed to build up platforms and to make these abominable speeches. It was time to put an end to such a state of things. It was disgraceful that a man like Hyndman—be was said to be a gentleman, but nobody would believe it—should be allowed to do as he had done. Mr. Quelch, who moved the first resolution, said—"They must seize all land, machinery, and capital for the benefit of the community." Mr. Burns said—
  "The seeds of a bloody revolution were germinating. The Trafalgar Square meeting had affected Vienna and Paris, for when London moved the world moved."
  Mr. Hyndman said—
  "People like the Duke of Devonshire (Cries of 'Shoot him!')—well, if they did there would he another to-morrow. (Cries of 'Shoot him too!') The upper classes robbed the working men to debauch their daughters and sisters. They were the lazy, loafing, and criminal classes. They wanted a social revolution. They would bring it about peaceably if they could; it rested with the upper classes whether it should be peaceable or not. London was the centre where all the great vampires of the commercial world were gathered together."
  Another said—
  "The money now subscribed at the Mansion House had been stolen from the working classes."
  He asked whether on a Sunday afternoon such a scene should be permitted? That on Sunday evening the streets should be made impassable for respectable people, who were afraid to leave their houses, was intolerable. He did not know what the law might be upon this subject; but if it was not strong enough it ought to be strengthened. Large sums had been voted for the preservation of the public Parks, and it was really monstrous that they should allow them to be occupied in the way they had been, to the exclusion of people who de-
  1176
  sired to frequent them for enjoyment. He had limited his Motion to restricting the right of meetings on Sundays, because that was a day when all desired rest from their weekly toil. They had done themselves an immense amount of harm by the occurrence in question, by the credence which it seemed to have given to the idea that their various institutions were in a state of decay, and from the idea, also, which was prevalent, that the Government had neither the strength, the will, nor the authority to put down meetings of this kind. He felt that unless the matter was taken in hand the end would be a social and terrible revolution.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, he regretted that in the Report of the Committee over which Mr. Childers presided, and in the Memorandum which the right hon. Gentleman had since published with regard to his future intentions as to this great question, no reference was made to the special branch of the subject mentioned by the noble Lord (Lord Lamington) who had just sat down. He (Viscount Midleton) ventured to think that this part of the question went to the very root of the matter. It was a question whether such meetings, especially when they were held on a Sunday, were any longer safe or desirable in the Metropolis. The Military Authorities, he believed, had arrived at the conclusion that, considering the enormous increase of the population of the Metropolis, it was a question of very great doubt whether any more military displays should take place in the heart of London—not because of any danger which the military were likely to produce, but because of the danger that might arise from the large crowds collected together on such occasions. Surely, if that was the case, gatherings of the kind which recently took place had become completely out of date. He had hoped that, considering the many representations that had been made to the Home Office, Mr. Childers would have seen the gravity of the question, and would have taken some steps to inquire as to what means could be adopted to prevent the peril to which the Metropolis was constantly exposed by the recurrence of these demonstrations. The result of the inquiry had been the retirement of Sir Edmund Henderson; but what struck him was the extreme ingratitude of the Home Office

  1177
  in this matter. The penultimate Predecessor of the present Home Secretary cost £1,500 a-year for police protection. If a sum of that kind had been spent, ho thought the present Home Secretary (Mr. Childers) might have behaved a little more generously to those to whom his Predecessor owed his existence. His own opinion was that the public services of Sir Edmund Henderson in the preservation of law and order had been considerably more than had been rendered by five Mr. Childerses in the past. There was no reason whatever why this question should not at least be investigated. Sir Richard Mayne, he knew, felt a great difficulty in controlling large bodies of men when they had been brought together in a limited space; and it should be remembered that that officer had to deal with a population very little more than half of the population under the charge of the Chief Commissioner at the present time. Every year made the difficulty greater, because with an increase of population must come also an increase of the criminal classes; and they also found that a largo portion of the criminal community attended demonstrations for the purpose of carrying out the objects for which they existed—plunder and destruction. An inquiry such as he suggested would not cast the slightest slur upon the working classes, as no one for a moment would suppose that they had anything to do with the recent outrages. The time had come when they should make up their minds whether it was profitable or safe that these gatherings should be permitted to take place except under very stringent regulations as to control and as to the numbers attending them. If it should be found impossible to place restrictions either upon the numbers attending the meetings or upon the manner in which the meetings were held, then they must come to the conclusion that such demonstrations ought to be prohibited altogether. No one was more unwilling than he was to say or do anything to check the full expression of public opinion; but at the present time every class of Her Majesty's subjects had facilities for expressing their views in a legitimate manner upon any subject which did not exist in former times. He doubted whether there was a single district in London in which there was no building capable of being used for large
  1178
  public meetings. That being so, he did not understand why a small and comparatively insignificant class should be allowed to monopolize open places of public resort which were intended for the use of the inhabitants of the Metropolis generally. He held that a definite conclusion ought to be come to upon the question of open-air meetings, so that in future Governments might not be left without guidance.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the Government ought to accede to the views of the noble Lord (Lord Lamington), who had brought the subject forward on the ground that those views were prompted by a desire to effect the happiness of the greatest number, a rule which they were inclined to follow, sometimes even at the expense of principle. The number of those who took part in the late riots was very small, not more than 2,000. The Government had explained the numerous executions in Burmah by the necessity of suppressing dacoity and of protecting the innocent villagers, and were they not equally bound to protect shopkeepers in London and innocent villagers in Ireland from the violence of the ill-disposed?
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, that he was unable to agree with the noble Viscount in his remarks as to prohibiting public meetings. It was quite clear that from time to time the police organization required looking into, in order that they might have the proper proportion of officers and men, and that arrangements might be made to secure the efficiency of the force. This was a proper matter for consideration by a Committee of Inquiry; but the subject which was dealt with in this Resolution was more a matter for legislation, and it was impossible to deny that the same arguments which were used to prohibit Sunday meetings were equally applicable to meetings held on any other day. The Government of which he was a Member endeavoured to mitigate the inconvenience by limiting the space in Hyde Park on which those meetings could be held. It should be observed that less inconvenience was caused by meetings on Sundays than would arise on other days. If enormous processions were to march through the principal thoroughfares of the towns on week days, with the object of influencing the higher classes of society, all traffic would be impeded. He doubted whe-

  1179
  ther it would be possible to prohibit public meetings in Hyde Part. The processions were generally arranged with a due regard to order, and the leaders of such demonstrations, as a rule, informed the Commissioners of Police of the intended line of march, and asked that adequate measures might be taken to insure order. Steps of this kind had been taken by the people who called the meeting in Trafalgar Square on the 8th instant. Although he was of opinion that meetings in the Park and other large open spaces could not be prevented, he thought that attention might well be turned to the question whether demonstrations should be permitted in Trafalgar Square, were meetings were frequently held, to the great inconvenience of the public, with the special object of overawing the Houses of Parliament. If meetings were held, he agreed that steps should be taken to minimize the public danger and inconvenience as much as possible.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he held that the public had a right to be protected against such dangers as were incurred through the agglomeration of immense masses of people in the neighbourhood of places like Trafalgar Square, where shops were open, and people were employed in their ordinary daily avocations, and where there was a congestion of traffic. It was remarkable that the direction in which the flow of people set after meetings in Trafalgar Square was generally that of Whitehall. Colonel Pearson had stated before Mr. Childers's Committee that the flow of the crowd from such meetings was very largely down Whitehall, and that he had often been obliged to block Whitehall with police in order to prevent the crowd from surging down that thoroughfare. It should be remembered that the Public Offices and Houses of Parliament were in this direction, and ought not to be thus exposed. Anyone who happened to be in Hyde Park on Sunday last could see that respectable people were driven out of the Park, that at every 10 yards peaceable citizens were confronted by policemen, and that the place had all the appearance of being in state of seige. Was it decent that a state of things should exist which rendered it necessary that soldiers should be confined to barracks on the Sunday, and that every policeman not on duty should remain at home or at the headquarters of his district, in order to
  1180
  be ready to protect harmless people against others who chose to resort to the Park for purposes of no public utility? The Legislature had decided that nominations at elections should no longer take place in the open air in consequence of the disturbances that used to accompany the proceedings, and it would be well to consider whether the precedent might not be applied to the occasions to which the debate referred. Such great masses of people as assembled in these cases could not hear what the orator said, and there was always turmoil and noise which were opposed to reasonable discussion. In Trafalgar Square on the 8th instant, the respectable working men who met to ventilate their grievances were opposed by a mob of a totally different character, and a collision was expected. The danger that he feared was not revolution; but that one day in the Park or Square two masses of men of opposite views would come into conflict, and that a bloody massacre might ensue. What would be said if anywhere out of London such demonstrations were organized in one town and were extended to another town by processions passing from one to the other? Yet the people taking part in the demonstrations in Hyde Park did not belong to the neighbourhood of the Parks, but they came from distant parts of London, and their object was to strike terror into the people who lived or occupied property about the Parks. In consequence of the terror produced by what happened in London on the Monday night, on the Tuesday 10 miles of shops were shut up, and all business was brought to a standstill. It was impossible with the best police arrangements to prevent disturbances and panic unless you could so dispose of and use your police as to prevent rioters proceeding collectively in certain directions in which they would be disposed to commit injuries. It was quite possible to deal with this matter without interfering with the right of public meetings; nobody wished to do that. There were plenty of places where people could hold meetings if they desired to do so, and where addresses could be delivered with the prospect of the speaker being listened to and heard. There were such places that were not surrounded by dense populations, and where danger would not attend the holding of an out-door meeting. If we allowed persons from all

  1181
  parts of London to assemble in Trafalgar Square and in the Parks, and this was especially true in reference to Sunday, we should irritate the police to the last degree, and if a collision did occur it would be impossible that the police should not remember how they had been harassed by these gatherings. We should also alienate the soldiers, on whom, in the last resort, we must rely, by shutting them in their barracks and depriving them of necessary recreation, which was as essential to them as to any other part of the community.
  LORD THURLOWsaid, that the noble Lord who had asked the Question would appreciate the importance of it as much as anyone, and would especially appreciate the difficulty of entering upon many considerations that affected it at the present time. In these circumstances, he trusted their Lordships would excuse him if he replied as concisely as he could to the exact terms of the Question. He had, therefore, to state, on the part of the Home Office, that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government, at the present moment, to declare illegal all public meetings and all processions in the Squares and Parks on Sundays. It might not, however, be inappropriate if he reminded their Lordships that steps were about to be taken with a view, if possible, to improve the hitherto existing arrangements which governed these proceedings; but pending the contemplated inquiry, and the decision at which the Home Office might arrive, it would, perhaps, be wise on the part of the public, and even, perhaps, of Parliament, to refrain from further discussisn.
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, that, in consequence of the unsatisfactory reply which had been given on behalf of the Government, he should certainly, in due time, bring the question before their Lordships again, and take their opinion upon it.

IRELAND—THE NATIONAL LEAGUE—LOCAL COURTS.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, in the unavoidable absence of Lord Castletown, who had been obliged to leave for Ireland last night, he had to ask the Question which stood on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord. The Question was as follows:—
"To ask the Lord President of the Council, Whether he will, in addition to the information
1182
he has agreed to present respecting "Boycotting and other outrages," give such information as may be in the possession of the Government officials in Ireland, or can he obtained by them with reference to cases of trials of farmers and others by National League local courts, and the infliction of fines and sentences by those tribunals; and, also any cases of appeals from these courts to the Superior National League Court in Dublin for confirmation or revision?"
The noble Earl said, that the Question had reference to a state of things which prevailed at the, present moment in Ireland of the most alarming and dangerous character, and which it was necessary some steps should be taken to deal with, if any semblance of law and order was to obtain in that country. From the information at his disposal, and at the disposal of his noble Friend who was to have asked the Question, it appeared that National League Courts not only existed and flourished in Ireland, but that the decrees and decisions of these Courts were obeyed and enforced, while the decisions of Her Majesty's Courts were not enforced at all. He (the Earl of Limerick) would not trouble the House at any great length with any quotations to prove the existence of these Courts, nor was it necessary that he should do so. The Irish newspapers were full of instances of inquiries held by branches of the League; and it was not at all necessary for him to go into them at any length. He would only take one or two cases; and he would ask that the Government should, at least, actively inquire as to the extent to which these Courts existed and the nature of the operations, and put an effective stop to the further spread of acts of illegality. In one case he found that, on November 19th, 1885, a meeting was held in a Boman Catholic chapel, and the statement of the parish priest was heard against a man stated to be a land-grabber. The result was that a fine of £30 was imposed. In the town of Drumcollagher the action of a tailor in supplying a suit of clothes to a man who was at enmity with the League, was brought forward; but as the tailor had died no further action was taken. In another case he found reported in the papers—no names were given—that a man who had taken a farm was summoned to the League Court and ordered to pay £600 to the former tenant or surrender the farm. If such cases as these were true, it went to show that there

1183
were Courts in Ireland hearing cases and enforcing fines and penalties. How was this done? It was done by an extreme and monstrous system of "Boycotting," accompanied in many cases by dreadful consequences to the victim s of the system. This system was not confined to rich or poor in particular—more frequently, indeed, it was the poor who suffered from it. He asked the Question with great confidence in the noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer), for he could bear willing testimony to the fact that when he was Lord Lieutenant he took the strongest means to put down all these illegalities. It was with the greatest pleasure he (the Earl of Limerick) said that there was no Member of the House who would bear more willing evidence to the manner in which the noble Earl had discharged his duties as Viceroy with impartiality, firmness, and fairness. He (the Earl of Limerick) then quoted from the charge of a County Court Judge in Ireland, who said that he did not think that any honest man could say that the country was in a state of tranquillity, or that obedience to the law was observed. On the contrary, the law and government of the country were never held in greater contempt than at present. The Government was superseded by a much more powerful Government; and if that were so, it was impossible that he could compliment them, however much he would wish to do so, on the state of order which prevailed.
THE EARL OF EGMONTsaid, that one of the cases mentioned had occurred on his property. A tenant took a farm in 1881; he spent a good deal of money upon it, and improved it; and in 1885 the League ordered him to pay £600 to the former tenant, who had been evicted. He understood that the present holder had already paid £500.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER)said: I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the subject which the noble Earl has introduced. I readily admit the very grave condition of affairs to which allusion has been made, and which shows that a very unfortunate state of things has existed during the last seven months in Ireland. There is no doubt that the fact that these Land Courts are held, and that they exercise these functions if, as I believe, it is true that they do shows a very unfortuate state of things',
1184
and a state of things which must be remedied. I do not propose now to state—I have told your Lordships before that I am unable to state—the policy by which Her Majesty's Government have to meet the question of social order in Ireland, and the other matters which are committed to them. I cannot go into that. "With regard to the Notice on the Paper, I regret that it is not possible for the Government—though they are anxious to furnish as much information to the House and the public on this subject as they can—to give any Return of this character that would be satisfactory, or which it would conduce to the public interest to give. These Land Courts, as they are called, are held in private houses, and sometimes, I believe, as the noble Earl mentioned, they are held in Roman Catholic chapels; but, being held in private, we have no means of getting any information about them excepting reports which were brought to the Government in a confidential manner. Those reports could not be presented to Parliament. There are obvious and numerous reasons why they could not be made public. It is, therefore, quite out of the power of the Government to grant these Returns, although they would be exceedingly glad if they could to furnish any information on the subject. The other night, when the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook) asked for a Return, I stated that the Government would most willingly give it, and that Return is being prepared as quickly as possible. That Return relates to "Boycotting" and intimidation; but it does not touch these particular cases of the Land Courts, as to which, for the reasons I have indicated, it would be impossible for the Government to produce satisfactory information.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that though the noble Earl had stated that he could not, without detriment to the public interest, supply a technical Return as to these Courts asked for by his noble Friend (the Earl of Limerick), he (Lord Ashbourne) did think that it would have been possible for the noble Earl (Earl Spencer), without detriment to the public interest, to have said something more than he did in the observations he had made. What was the state of facts which was practically and almost in terms admitted now not only to have

1185
existed during the last seven months; but he would go further, and say during many more months of the noble Earl's own tenure of Office as Viceroy, and which existed now in greater intensity than at any former time—what was the state of facts admittedly in existence? That there were Courts held under the sanction of the National League, with a procedure of their own and an appellate system of their own, administered under the sanction of the League, administered with the sanctions of terror and intimidation the purpose of such Courts was to supersede, degrade, and bring into contempt the administration of the Queen's law. That was the state of facts now admitted by the responsible Minister of the Crown to be the existing state of affairs in Ireland, and to have been the state of affairs in Ireland for the last seven months. The late Government were quite aware of the great difficulty which the noble Earl had stated of obtaining evidence in regard to what took place at those meetings; and that might have been one of the very powerful considerations presented to Parliament by the late Government to induce it to supersede the ordinary law so as to enable them to grapple with the state of things, and with a procedure so insidious and so destructive to the administration of the authority of the law in Ireland. But what was the outcome of the statement of the noble Earl? The noble Earl admitted the great evil that existed. He would be taken to admit its deadly peril to the Queen's Sovereignty and to respect for the law; and he further practically avowed that in that position of affairs the Government were unable to do anything, even by way of a public announcement, to restore confidence in the law and the assertion of the law. It was easy to say that the Government were unable to make a full announcement of their policy, and that they were not to expect it from them for four or five weeks to come; but that was a question, not of policy, but of administering the existing law, so as to insure respect for the Queen's authority and something like decent respect for the Queen's law. At all events, ho thought they were entitled to some statement from those who represented the existing Government that they were not only alive to the gravity of the situation which they acknowledged existed, but
1186
that they would take such resolute steps as might be in their power to note what went on in Ireland, and to procure such evidence as might be in their power; and that when they had procured that evidence no exertion would be wanting to put down a state of facts which was as perilous as it was discreditable to the Empire. [Earl SPENCER assented.] A gesture could not be reported; but he thought he was doing nothing disrespectful to their Lordships when he translated the nods and gestures of the noble Earl (Earl Spencer) as meaning that they—the present Government—would anxiously watch the process and procedure by which these Courts now sought to bring the Queen's law into contempt, and that whenever they could procure evidence—and no efforts would be wanting on their part to procure evidence—that no exertions would be wanting to bring to punishment and trial those who in these Courts brought into disrepute the whole administration of the Government in Ireland. He ventured thus to put into plain English what he took to be the meaning of the applause and gesture of the noble Earl opposite; and if he (Lord Ashbourne) laboured under a misconception, it was due not only to himself, but to their Lordships' House, that he should be publicly corrected, so that there should be a perfect understanding as to every particular about so grave a matter.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Earl GRANVILLE): I have not the slightest hesitation in endorsing by words what the noble and learned Lord (Lord Ashbourne) gathers from the gesture of my noble Friend (Earl Spencer) who was some time ago Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The Government feel the responsibility resting upon them, and deem it necessary to watch in the most attentive manner all the events going on in Ireland; and they are devoting themselves to considering the very best mode of dealing, among other subjects, with disorder and disrespect for the law. But I must say that the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Ashbourne) is one of the last persons who should make an attack on the Government. He has said that "Boycotting" existed during the Viceroyalty of my noble Friend near me. Nobody denied that some "Boycotting" did

1187
exist at that time. But Lord Carnarvon told your Lordships, and the Leader of the other House under the late Government told that Assembly, that the country was almost in a state of normal quiet on the accession of the present Government to Office, and it is well known that it increased rapidly after the Prorogation of Parliament; and yet the late Government did not in any manner provide a remedy for dealing with it by exceptional legislation. There was nothing like the amount of "Boycotting" that afterwards existed when the late Government were in Office. [Lord ASHBOURNE dissented.] The noble and learned Lord shakes his head. I do not know exactly what that gesture means. Does he deny that "Boycotting" increased day by day?
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he was not dealing with "Boycotting," but with the particular subject referred to in the Question put by the noble Earl (the Earl of Limerick)—namely, as to the existence of the National League Courts. He was quite prepared to discuss the wider question.
EARL GRANVILLE: As far as I know, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Ashbourne) was talking of the same thing. It is part of the whole question; and, therefore, what I wish to remonstrate against is the noble and learned Lord taking every opportunity to twit the Government with being a little slow in dealing with that which the late Government entirely neglected.

ARBITRATION BILL [H.L.] (NO. 17.)
A Bill to consolidate the law relating to Arbitration:
JUSTICES' JURISDICTION' BILL [H.L.] (NO. 18.)
A Bill to extend the jurisdiction of justices in general and quarter sessions of the peace: And
LAW OF EVIDENOE AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.] (NO. 19.)
A Bill further to amend the law of evidence: Were presented by The Lord Bramwell; read 1a.

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the law relating to the union of benefices—Was presented by The Earl of Milltown; read 1a. (No. 20.)
House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.