Lords Sitting of 4 June 1886

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Jurors' Detention* (142): Public Health Acts (Improvement Expenses)* (143); International and Colonial Copyright* (144).
Second Reading—Patriotic Fund (131); Tramways Order in Council (Ireland) (132); Patents Amendment (133); Sea Fishing Boats (Scotland) * (140).
Committee—Contagious Diseases (Animals) (122–149).
Select Committee—Report—Church Patronage [No. 145]; Electric Lighting Act (1882) Amendment (No. 1); Electric Lighting Act (1882) Amendment (No, 2) [No. 147].
Report—Church Patronage* (63–146); Electric Lighting Act (1882) Amendment (No. 3)* (48–148); Labourers (Ireland) Acts Amendment*(120); Arbitration* (138).
Third Reading—Oxford University (Justices) * (119), and passed.
Royal Assent—Customs and Inland Revenue [49 Vict. c. 18]; Metropolitan Police (Stations) [49 Vict. c. 22]; Drowned Persons (Discovery and Interment) [49 Vict. c. 20]; Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act (1855) Amendment [49 Vict. c. 21]; National Debt [49 Vict. c. 19]; Companies Acts Amendment [49 Vict. c. 23]; Arms (Ireland) [49 Vict. c. 24].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Committee—Elementary Education Confirmation (Birmingham) * (96); Elementary Education Confirmation (London) * (97).
Royal Assent—Metropolitan Commons [49 Vict. c. xiv]; Commons Regulation (Stoke) [49 Vict. c. xv]; Commons Regulation and Inclosure (Totternhoe) [49 Vict. c. xvi]; Local Government (No. 1) [49 Vict. c. xvii]; Local Government (No. 2) [49 Vict. c. xviii]; Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 1) [49 Vict. c. xix]; Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 2) [49 Vict. c. xx]; Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 3) [49 Vict. c. xxi]; Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 4) [49 Vict. c. xxii]; Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 5) [49 Vict. c. xxiii]; Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 6) [49 Vict. c. xxiv].

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY— TWENTY YEARS OF COERCION.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask the indulgence of your Lordships for a few words of personal explanation. Eminent persons "elsewhere" have been in the habit of turning aside from their own proper antagonists and discussing my observations. I have no objection to that practice. I only desire that they should quote correctly. I should not in general trouble your Lordships with corrections of any misquotations except where the position of the individual or the special nature of the challenge rather exposes me to the choice between doing so and of allowing it to be believed that the quotations were correct. The first person to whose quotation I demur is the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. John Morley). I observe that last night, if he is properly reported, he used these words—
  "Do my hon. Friends below the Gangway think that any modus vivendi can be found between us and Gentlemen opposite who are in favour of 20 years of coercion? [Opposition cries

  987
  of 'Withdraw!'] I will withdraw that imputation," Mr. Morley replied, "as soon as I hear one single right hon. Gentleman on that Bench disavow what Lord Salisbury said in Her Majesty's Theatre."
  Now, my Lords, that statement of my observations is not correct. I never used these words either in Her Majesty's Theatre or in St. James's Hall. I never said that I was in favour of 20 years of coercion, and I never spoke in that sense, which is more important. The object of my observations was to show that the application of the word "coercion" to the measures recommended by us was wholly unsuitable and improper; and coercion, according to the ordinary use of the term, means legislation in restraint of liberty and directed against political disaffection. I have never, either in Her Majesty's Theatre or in St. James's Hall, recommended legislation in restraint of liberty or legislation against political disaffection. What we have desired to recommend is legislation in protection of liberty—legislation to defend the innocent population against the unlawful acts of criminal men and criminal associations. This has never been called coercion up to this time. If it is coercion, I agree with the noble Duke, whom I do not see present (the Duke of Argyll) that it ought to be recommended, not only for 20 years, but for ever, and not only in Ireland, but in every civilized country. The other correction which I humbly wish to make is directed to the observations of a gentleman who is not a subject of Her Majesty. I observe that Mr. Blaine, who, I believe, is canvassing for the exalted post of President of the Republic of the United States, did me the honour to denounce me in somewhat vigorous and un-Parliamentary terms. If it in any way assists the candidature which Mr. Blaine has in view, I trust that he will continue his denunciations of me; but I hope he will do so without misquoting entirely the observations I have made. I venture to correct him because, stated in the prominent manner in which his observations have been, I am afraid that if I did not do so it might be thought there was a shred of foundation for the language he has imputed to me. What it appears, by telegraph, he wrote yesterday is as follows:—
  "I was referring to Lord Salisbury's declaration that the Irish might remain as they are now or emigrate."
  988
  I never made any declaration of that kind, or any declaration which could be by any ingenuity or malignity tortured into that statement. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to remind you of what I did say. I said that I thought I could not recommend the expenditure of £150,000,000, because I thought that it would be too heavy a burden for the people of this country; but that if the money was to be spent it could be better spent in emigrating an additional portion of the Irish people than in buying out the landlords. I did that, as my words will show, in no sense of telling them to go if they did not like the institutions under which they lived. I did that on grounds of pure humanity. My words were these—
  "I would point out to the Government that if they could only emigrate another 1,000,000 of the Irish people they might do it for a great deal less than £150,000,000 sterling. They could set them up in a distant Colony under conditions in which they would be certain to prosper. They could give them in place of present misery and agitation a bright future of industry and prosperity; and if they should spend this money in conveying a large portion of the inhabitants of the congested districts to Manitoba, the result would be magical on the social condition of the Irish people. Wages would immediately rise; rents, if they were too high, would fall."
  I may be wrong in my estimate of the value of emigration; but it used to be universally admitted as true that to assist men to leave a country where wages were low and employment was scarce and to go to a rich and a new country was a beneficent act. I adhere to that belief; but whether I am right or wrong, there is not the slightest ground for saying that in such a suggestion there was anything in the least degree approaching to insult to any portion of the Irish people.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, it is natural and proper that the noble Marquess should desire to give a contradiction to what he considers to be a misunderstanding or a misquotation of one of his speeches. Of course, we are placed at a considerable disadvantage. [A laugh.] The noble Lord laughs.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: As the noble Earl very frequently does. [Cries of "Order!"]
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am perfectly in Order. The noble Lord laughs before he hears what I have to

  989
  say. What I was about to state was that, of course, I have not the advantage of having with me a copy of the speech of the noble Marquess. If, therefore, in any remarks I am about to make I should fall into error, the noble Marquess will, perhaps, correct me, as I only speak from recollection. The noble Marquess takes exception to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. John Morley) in "another place" last night. With regard to that speech of my right hon. Friend, from a report of which the noble Marquess quotes from The Times, and which report, I presume, is substantially correct, the noble Marquess complains that my right hon. Friend ascribed to him the recommendation of 20 years of coercion. In the first place, I wish to observe that a vast deal more is made to turn upon a verbal difference than can be really sustained. My own view may be expressed in this way—just as a rose by any other name may smell as sweet, so the converse may be perfectly true. What I wish to point out to the noble Marquess is, that in the speech he made at St. James's Hall he said that after 20 years of such measures as he recommended there might come a time when you might repeal or get rid of coercive measures. If I remember rightly, those were the words used. Is it, therefore, very unreasonable that, connecting one part of the speech with another, it should be generally assumed that 20 years of resolute government—the very words used by the noble Marquess—meant 20 years of, I will not say coercion, but the kind of repressive measures to which we have been accustomed for so many years? There is no question about that. We have had a system of repressive measures towards Ireland, and the arguments that the noble Marquess is recommending a continuance of that system. For my own part, I think the inference drawn from the speech of the noble Marquess was very natural, not only because of what I believe were the words used in the latter part of the speech, but also as coupled with an announcement made by the Government of which he was the Head at the commencement of the Session. What was the policy which was recommended at the beginning of the Session, after the journey and examination by the right hon. Gentleman Mr. W. H. Smith, but the introduction
  990
  of some repressive measures? When my right hon. Friend argued, as I understand he did in the other House, that the alternative to our policy is a policy of repression, such as we have pursued for many years past, and that this was the policy recommended by the noble Marquess, I must say that, notwithstanding the explanation now made by the noble Marquess, that I think my right hon. Friend was entirely justified.

  SITTINGS AND ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.—QUESTION.
  In reply to Lord BALFOUR,
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)said, that the state of Business in the House of Commons was such that it would be inconvenient for the Government to adjourn that day for the Whitsuntide Holidays. He did not think it would be possible to do so on Monday. Tuesday, he thought, would be a more probable day on which to propose an adjournment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, their Lordships had a very convenient form of adjourning during pleasure; and if they adopted that form, and if anything untoward should happen on Monday or Tuesday, and the Government should have anything important to communicate to the House, they could meet at any hour to hear it.

COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

  RESOLUTION.
  Standing Order No. XXXIV. considered (according to Order).
  LORD HOBHOUSE, in rising to move—
  "That Standing Order No. XXXIV. be considered in order to its being dispensed with,"
  said, the reason why he asked their Lordships to suspend the Order was that it provided that when a Bill came up from the House of Commons it should be struck off the Minutes if Notice of second reading were not given within 12 days. The object of the Bill which he desired to submit for second reading was to accelerate the enfranchisement of copyholds. The greater part of the Bill consisted of Amendments, suggested by the Copyhold Commissioners, to the

  991
  present procedure; and it would be for their Lordships to consider whether they would send it to a Select Committee. It was generally admitted that this was a desirable object, although they might differ as to the steps that ought to be taken in order to obtain it. When the Bill came up from the House of Commons he was asked to take charge of it, and, finding that there was a great quantity of detail in it, he was desirous of corresponding with several stewards of manors, who had a good deal to say upon the subject. About a week ago he came down to the House for the purpose of giving Notice of the second reading, and found that the Order which he now asked their Lordships to suspend, and the existence of which he was unaware of, had killed the Bill. He, therefore, asked their Lordships, under these circumstances, to enable him to give Notice of the second reading by suspending the Order in question. If their Lordships suspended the Order he proposed to notify the second reading for the earliest possible day after Whitsuntide; but, should it not be suspended, the Bill would have to take the more circuitous and troublesome course of being introduced again. He understood that the noble Duke the Chairman of Committees (the Duke of Buckingham) had stated that there was a precedent for remedying an oversight such as that which had occurred in the case of this Bill.
  Moved, "That the said Order be dispensed with in respect of the said Bill."—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he desired to point out that the Standing Order provided that a Bill which remained on the Table of the House without Notice of second reading being given within the time stated should not be proceeded with in the same Session. The object of the Order was to prevent a surprise being sprung upon the House; and, considering the importance of this Bill, and the uncertainty as to whether it would be brought on or not, he called the attention of the officers of the House a few days ago to the fact that Notice of second reading had not been given within the required time. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Hobhouse), he submitted, had taken a very inconvenient course. The Motion should have been made by a responsible Minister of the Crown,
  992
  and not by a private Member, and full Notice of at least a week ought to have been given of it.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)said, he hoped that their Lordships would take into consideration the fact that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Hobhouse) was not aware of the existence of the Standing Order, and that they would allow the Bill to proceed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that a few days ago he was not able to induce the House to suspend a Standing Order to provide work for 7,000 people; and yet they were now asked to suspend a Standing Order to provide work for a single Peer. He did not say that the Standing Order should not be suspended; what he said was that if it were to be suspended some reason should be given for doing so, and the noble and learned Lord (Lord Hobhouse) had not given a sufficient reason for suspending it. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) should like to hear better reasons for this proposal than that the noble Lord did not know the Standing Order. He did not express an opinion on the Bill beyond saying that it was a very complicated measure. It had passed the House of Commons through the pertinacity of particular Members, and as it affected great interests it could hardly be adopted by their Lordships without being thoroughly inquired into by a competent Committee and to hear evidence. They were now on the eve of the Whitsuntide Holidays, the Bill could not be read until about the end of June, and even supposing that everything went on normally, and that the Session lived the length of life of other Sessions, he did not think there was much chance for the Bill. But this Session was not in good condition, and there were signs of an attack of illness, which might or might not prove fatal, so that he did not see what advantage might or might not be got by suspending the Standing Order and reading the Bill a second time. He was afraid that this was only another instance of the strange desire to read Bills a second time and then drop them. He wanted the Bill thoroughly inquired into by a Select Committee, and if the Committee could devise a mode of reducing these heterogeneous tenures into a more simple system he should be very glad. He could not say that any cause had been given for suspending the

  993
  Standing Order, and he should vote against it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he thought the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) was proposing that the House should mete out a very hard measure to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill (Lord Hobhouse), and to the great number of persons who were interested in the question. The Bill had been fully discussed in that House, and had passed through the House of Commons with great care, and been dealt with by a Select Committee. The subject was one in which a large number of persons were deeply interested; and if the noble Marquess inquired into the state of opinion in Lancashire, he would find that the Bill excited the greatest interest there. Would anyone suffer from this Bill being allowed to proceed? It would have a most unfortunate appearance if the noble Marquess prevented the suspension of the Standing Order when the noble and learned Lord (Lord Hobhouse), a Member of the minority of that House, had explained the reason why this unfortunate mistake had occurred. The other day the noble Marquess was for suspending a Standing Order to get a Private Bill passed, and he was opposed to doing so now on a question which was of great importance to a numerous class. There was a precedent for what their Lordships were asked to do. On a former occasion, when a Bill was in a similar position, a noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) took the matter up, and the Motion to suspend the Standing Order was agreed to. Both the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp) and the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) were opposed to the Bill, and had voted against a similar measure.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the noble and learned Lord give the ground for his statement?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess voted against the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not vote against the principle of the Bill, but I voted against it only on account of the time. I never expressed any opinion with regard to the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought the noble Marquess stated——
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never opened my lips.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not know that the noble Marquess only voted against the Bill on account of time if he never opened his lips.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he would remind the noble and learned Lord that the last occasion that Bill was before the House, and to which he had referred, was 13 years ago. He must enter his protest against the assertion of the noble and learned Lord that it was because the Motion for the suspension of the Standing Order was moved from the Ministerial side of the House it was opposed on that side.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he never intended to make such an assertion. What he meant was that it would appear that an indulgence which had been accorded to a noble Lord on the Opposition side would not be allowed to a noble Lord on the Ministerial side.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, of course he accepted the disclaimer; but if the noble and learned Lord wished to make a precedent out of what had been done, he might remind him what had occurred, not 13 years ago, but only three or four days ago. A Motion was made to suspend the Standing Orders by the noble Earl (Earl Cadogan), and it was supported by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), but was refused. Therefore, the noble and learned Lord was not justified in his statement.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 39; Not-Contents 63: Majority 24.
  Resolved in the negative.

NAVY—UNARMOUR-ENDED SHIPS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, in rising to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether all the unarmour-ended ships of the Admiral, or of any other class such as the Agamemnon, Ajax, Edinburgh, and Colossus, are designed as has been stated by the Chief Constructor of the Navy to be sunk 15 or 18 inches by the admission of several hundred tons of water before going into action as a means of maintaining the requisite trim; whether such orders have been issued as to make it perfectly clear to officers in command that this method is to be adopted by them when an immediate

  995
  battle is expected; and whether the Admiralty intend to issue instructions, or have already issued any, for experiments to be tried with the object of ascertaining the effect of such a system? said, he asked the Question with the object of ascertaining if it were the serious intention of the designer of these vessels that this plan should be adopted. He understood that the Chief Constructor had stated that there would practically be no reduction in speed by the adoption of this plan. It was very important to ascertain that, because all the vessels he had named were totally incapable of being steered at a greater speed than 10 knots, and if any reduction in that amount of speed were made their powers in action would be altogether crippled. He thought the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon), and everyone who occupied his post, should be careful that officers should have, before the critical moment of action arrived, every possible means of satisfying themselves as to the conditions under which they were expected to fight.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Marquess of RIPON)said, the noble Viscount was, he thought, mistaken in the first part of his Question, the statement referred to having been made by the late Chief Constructor, and not by the present. It was by no means intended that, under all circumstances, water should be admitted into these vessels before going into action. If the vessels were properly laden with all their usual stores, there would be no occasion for admitting water. This plan was only intended to be adopted when a vessel happened to be light and the trim required to be corrected. There was no Regulation laid down nor any Order issued, nor was it the intention of the Admiralty to issue any Order that upon all occasions water was to be admitted to any extent at all, and certainly not to the large extent mentioned in the noble Viscount's Question. It was quite likely that in action one of the compartments of a vessel might be pierced by a shot, and in such an event it might be desirable to admit water into another compartment in order to set the trim right. It was clear that the matter was one which ought to be left entirely to the discretion of the gallant officers commanding the vessels, who had at their disposal full information in regard to every
  996
  part of their vessels and everything connected with them. The noble Viscount was, of course, aware that water ballast was very extensively used in the Merchant Navy. An experiment in connection with this matter had been made some time ago with the Howe, and the result was that the ship was immersed 13 inches deeper, with the loss of only half-a-knot per hour in speed. Therefore, there was reason to believe that generally there would be very little loss in speed. He quite admitted the highly scientific character of these vessels and the great responsibility which the nature of their construction had thrown upon naval officers, who, he believed, were fully competent to discharge the important trusts committed to them. As to 43-ton guns, he desired to supplement what he had stated the other evening. They had now 10 of these guns. Six of them were to be replaced by six land service guns of a better type, and the Admiralty had taken steps to order six new guns. They were to be of the best description, and would be supplied as speedily as possible, although he was afraid they would not be able to have them for some 12 or 14 months.

PATRIOTIC FUND BILL.—(No. 131.)
(The Lord Sandhurst.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord SANDHURST), in rising to move the second reading of the Bill, said, that previous to the introduction of the Bill of 1881 some changes in the status of the Patriotic Fund Commission were in contemplation, and these changes included a statement in the Preamble of the Bill—that the Patriotic Fund Commissioners should apply to the Charity Commissioners for a scheme for the management of their girls' school. The proposed alterations not being carried out, the powers of the Patriotic Fund Commission being somewhat extended, the necessity for the action of the Charity Commissioners in regard to the girls' school ended. By the proposed arrangement it was intended to relieve the Patriotic Fund Commissioners from the obligation to apply to the Charity Commissioners, as it was considered that administrative convenience

997
would ensue, and that the administration would be carried out with greater economy, which would, therefore, not require any reduction in the numbers of the girls. There was a clause giving power to receive subscriptions in aid of the funds of the Commission.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Sandhurst.)
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he quite approved of the object of the measure.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

TRAMWAYS ORDER IN COUNCIL (IRELAND) BILL.—(No 132.)
(The Lord FitzGerald.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD FITZGERALD, in rising to move the second reading of the Bill, pointed out at some length the proceedings connected with the Order in Council; and said the Bill was one of great importance, as it referred to a proposed tramway in a rural district adjoining the city of Cork.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord FitzGerald.)
THE EARL OF BELMORE, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he did this on public grounds. He objected that the Bill had not been introduced before June 1, following the date of the Order in Council. The matter was before the Select Committee of which he was Chairman last year, and the Bill had been already rejected by their Lordships. He was glad to say that he was not interested in any way in the measure. He had no interest in the county of Cork. The substantial objection to the Bill was that it would impose a burden on a district that would not be benefited by the tramway.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Earl of Belmore.)
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that the Bill was regarded as a very important one, and was viewed with the keenest interest in the county of Cork; and he
998
hoped the noble Earl (the Earl of Belmore) would not press his Motion to a division. He was sure their Lordships would regret that anything should interfere, especially of a technical character, with the carrying out of what was a legitimate and important public work. He should like to point out that it was only in consequence of a misunderstanding of the law that the Bill had come under the jurisdiction of the Committee over which his noble Friend presided; and, therefore, he thought that by passing the Bill their Lordships would not be acting in a disrespectful manner towards the noble Earl or the Committee over which he presided if they did not follow the decision at which the Committee arrived. He did not think, although the question was most doubtful, that the date, June 1, was necessarily in all contingencies to be regarded as a mandatory and governing date in this matter. The date, he was disposed to think, might be looked upon as binding only where it required the promoters to be in a condition to show that they had done everything they could do before June 1.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER)said, he thought it right to point out the position of the Irish Government in this matter. They looked merely to the merits of the case, and found that the Bill was one of very great interest in the locality. He entirely concurred in all that had been urged by the noble and learned Lord (Lord FitzGerald) and the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Ashbourne). If their Lordships, following the advice of the noble and learned Lords, should read the Bill a second time, the Government would not offer any opposition, but, on the contrary, would be glad of the advantages to be conferred on the county of Cork.
THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, that the feelings of the people of the locality and the whole circumstances of the case might have so changed since last year as to render the passing of the Bill inadvisable.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, that the Bill was of some importance, and he always regarded it as a matter of regret that unless there was something in the Statute Book which prohibited the passing of these measures that the House should

999
refuse to act upon them. After the passing of the Order by the Privy Council a Bill was to be introduced as soon as possible. It was evident, however, that if the Order in Council were passed only a short time before the 1st of June, say the 31st or the 30th of May, it would be impossible to introduce the Bill. It was the intention of the Legislature that the question should be considered by Parliament, and either accepted or rejected; but it was never considered by reason of Parliament having come to a conclusion. The matter was not free from very great doubt and difficulty; but there was such a concurrence of opinion in favour of the proposal, that he thought their Lordships would do wisely in not rejecting the Motion of his noble and learned Friend (Lord FitzGerald).
On Question that ("now") stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on the first sitting day after the recess at Whitesuntide

PATENTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)

(NO. 133.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THe LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL), in rising to move the second reading of the Bill, said, its object was to remove some doubts with regard to copies of drawings and specifications. The Bill declared that that which served all needful purposes should be sufficient.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read2a"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the "Whole House on Tuesday next.

ALLOTMENTS AND COTTAGE GARDENS. —OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW, in rising to call attention to the method adopted by Her Majesty's Government for obtaining a Return of allotments and cottage gardens, said, that since he had moved in their Lordships' House for this Return complaints had reached him from all quarters that the Return forms were being filled in and sent in to the Government in a very incomplete, inaccurate,
1000
and unsatisfactory state. He thought a good deal of that was owing to the fact that the parish overseers were expected to collect those Returns without any additional remuneration, and it could hardly be supposed that they would take any great pains with the work under those circumstances. He thought it was very important that the Return should be accurate in all respects. At the last General Election it was frequently asserted that the landlords objected to allotments, whereas it had since been shown that that was by no means the case. It was no longer necessary to inquire whether landowners were ready to grant allotments; but it was of the greatest importance to know exactly the number of cottage gardens and allotments in the hands of labourers in the country, because from that it could be judged whether the demand for them had been satisfied. The overseers of parishes had good reason to complain of the niggardly manner in which their services were recognized. He wished to warn Parliament and the public against placing too much reliance upon the Returns now being collected.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER)said, he could assure the noble Earl (the Earl of Onslow) that Her Majesty's Government were most anxious that this Return should be as accurate as possible. At the time when the noble Earl made his Motion there was some question as to when the Return should be ready. At first it was promised in September; but it was finally arranged that it should be ready in June. For that purpose it was found necessary to obtain the assistance of the overseers in the different parishes, since the officers of the Inland Revenue and Agricultural Departments in England and Wales were so much engaged that they could not undertake any extra work. If the later time—September—had been adhered to, the Inland Revenue officers might have been able to do the work. In Scotland the work had been done by the Inland Revenue officers—14,500 forms of Return had been sent out, and 11,800 had been returned. The Inland Revenue officers carefully went over all these Returns, and where they found it necessary they asked the overseers for further information, and their inquiries were always most heartily, promptly, and intelligently

1001
answered. As to the complaint that the overseers had received no remuneration for their work, he would only-point out to the noble Earl that, considering the number of parishes in Great Britain—some 16,000—paymenteven at £1 per head would require so large a sum of money that the Government would not be justified in asking for it. The overseers had in almost all cases been ready and willing to do the work, and in many cases they had stated that they would be glad to furnish any further information they could obtain. There had not been more than 100 applications for payment. He could assure their Lordships that great pains had been taken to obtain accurate information, and that the English Revenue officers and the Agricultural Department were only too anxious to furnish an accurate Return. With that object in view they would be glad to receive from any of their Lordships any complaints or remonstrances they might think fit to make as to the character of the information obtained, when inquiry should be made into the circumstances. He sincerely hoped that the Return would be found to be satisfactory.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he fully believed that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Onslow) and the Government had been very anxious to obtain an accurate Return; and yet, after hearing the statement of the noble Earl, he could not help fearing that that had not been done. The difficulty lay in the fact that the overseers to whom the noble Earl had appealed did not of themselves possess the knowledge necessary for making the Return. These allotments, if under a quarter of an acre, did not appear upon the books, and the result was that an overseer officially knew nothing about them. If an overseer wanted to know what the number of allotments on a particular property was he might ascertain it from the agent of the property; but if he could not he must take a walk round the parish and see for himself. It was not only a matter of counting allotments; that would be a comparatively easy thing, for they generally lay in one or two fields. But when there was included in the Return the number of cottage gardens it required a considerable knowledge of the parish to find them out. His impression was that overseers, unless they should
1002
obtain assistance from the land agents in their parishes, would find it very difficult to prepare complete Returns. If the overseers and agents were not brought into communication, Returns such as were contemplated in the Notice of the noble Earl must almost necessarily be defective. A Return when made ought to be placed on the church or chapel door, where attention would be attracted to it. Then, if it should contain anything which was defective, the local knowledge of the people would at once supply the deficiency. A defective Return would be worse than useless, because it would create a false impression. They all remembered the panic that was caused by the Census officers when they returned the owners of land in this country as 30,000 instead of nearly 1,000,000.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he believed that a great many cottages to which allotments were attached, and which ought, therefore, to be included in the Returns promised by the Government, would not appear in the official lists. If the overseer should trust for his information to the ratebook, he would fail to learn of the existence of many such cottages. In order that the overseer might be sure of acquiring the desired information a house-to-house visitation would be necessary.
EARL SPENCERsaid, that in the county with which he was most intimately connected the overseers had held meetings with a view to determine how the Returns could be best compiled.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.—(No. 122.)
(The Lord President.)

COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order).
Clauses 1 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 9 (Transfer to Local Government Board of powers of Privy Council under Section 34, as to regulation of dairies, &c.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER)THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER) moved an Amendment framed with a view to prevent any possible conflict between the authorities who would be concerned in the management of dairies and cowsheds.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR LORD BALFOUR moved an Amendment placing under the control of the Secretary for Scotland the administration of the Act, instead of under the control of the Board of Supervision as the Bill proposed.
Amendment moved,
In page 5, lines 11 and 12, to leave out ("Board of Supervision for relief of the Poor in Scotland,") and insert ("Secretary for Scotland.")—(The Lord Balfour.)
EARL SPENCERsaid, he would bring up an Amendment providing that the orders of the Board of Supervision should only be of effect after being confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland.
LORD BALFOURsaid, he objected to the manner in which it was proposed to apply the provisions of the Bill to Scotland. The Local Authorities were to be the Parochial Boards, instead of, as at present, the County Authorities. He considered that the Parochial Board was a wholly unfit authority to intrust with this duty. In the meantime, the regulations were uniform; but under the new administration there would be great difficulty, owing to the increase in the number of authorities, in securing uniformity of regulations, while the administration would be more expensive.
THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALEsaid, the Parochial Board was eminently fitted to discharge the duty it was proposed to intrust to it.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he was in favour of the proposal in the Bill.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he could assure the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour) that any representations on the subject would receive full consideration before the next stage of the Bill.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 149.)

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE IRISH MILITIA—SNIDER RIFLES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF GRANARDasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether, having regard to the reports, made at the conclusion of the last training, on
  1004
  the state of the Snider rifles at present used by the Irish Militia, as to the impossibility of accurate shooting owing to the grooving of the barrels being worn out, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to issue the Martini-Henry rifle to that force? The rifles at present in use were issued in 1869 and 1870. They were not then new, and from wear had become deteriorated, the grooving in many cases being obliterated; they were therefore not only useless, but dangerous, and many complaints were made about them during the training of 1885. It seemed to him unfair to the men, as well as a waste of time, to put them through the course of ball practice with an inefficient weapon. He trusted, therefore, especially as the English and Scotch Militia and the Volunteers were already supplied with Martini-Henrys, that the noble Lord would be able to give an assurance that the Martini-Henry would be issued, or, at all events, the defective weapons replaced by effective ones.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, he was able to confirm the statement contained in the Question of the noble Earl (the Earl of Granard). The Irish Militia regiment which he had the honour to command finished their training a few days ago. The instructor of musketry in the regiment reported that the rifles with which the men were armed were not only incapable of correct firing, but they were positively dangerous, because, the grooving of the barrels being worn out in most cases, the projectiles, in consequence, struck the targets at an angle. The result was that in many cases the projectile was deflected, and came back with very great force. Two officers and several men were struck during the recent firing, so that the practice was attended with considerable risk. The accoutrements, too, of the men were so rotten that it was impossible for the men to keep them on their backs, as when they strapped them on their backs the straps broke.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord SANDHURST), in reply, said, it was the intention of the Secretary of State to order a distribution of Martini-Henry rifles to the Irish Militia so soon as the new arm was ready for issue to the Infantry of the Line. At the same time, those Sniders then in the possession of the Irish Militia which

  1005
  were reported as unfit would be exchanged, and notice of that was given on receipt of the report of unfitness from the Commander-in-Chief. He might say that the Superintendent of the Royal Small Arms Factory had received orders to make a general inspection of the arms and to effect repairs. They were overhauled after last training, and would be after that training. The Irish Militia would be dealt with next, Martini-Henry carbines for Artillery, and Martini-Henry rifles for Infantry, as soon as our store admitted of it.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— MUTILATION OF CATTLE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKasked the Lord President of the Council, Whether it is the fact that five milch cows, the property of Patrick Kerin, a farmer, had been mutilated at Dromonin, their ears and tails cut off, and the legs of two broken, punctured wounds, from which the blood flowed, being also visible on their hides; whether the causes assigned are either that Kerin had paid his rent or that he had put his cattle on boycotted land: and, further, if the above facts are true, whether any persons have been made amenable, or what steps are being taken to bring the persons implicated to justice? These outrages upon animals disgraced Ireland. The noble Earl (Earl Spencer) had quoted statistics showing an improved condition, as he contended, in Ireland; but it was impossible from statistics to gather whether the condition of the country had improved or not. An explanation of the fact that the figures did not show an increase in crime might be found in the fact that very few people were now found with courage sufficient to resist the mandates of the National League. People were compelled to do their bidding, right or wrong. Notwithstanding this, outrages upon cattle were of almost daily occurrence; and he saw that, only last night, a caretaker was shot by Moonlighters. Only those who lived in the country could have any idea of the state of things which existed there. Noble Lords would agree with him that the matter required the earliest and serious attention of the Government.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER)said, he
  1006
  would confine himself merely to the Question on the Paper of Business, as he was not cognizant of the latest reported outrage, excepting from what he had read in the newspapers. The outrage mentioned in the Question was not of that barbarous character indicated. The animals were not milch cows, but calves; the legs were not broken, neither were their ears or tails cut off, nor their hides punctured. No injury was inflicted on any part of their bodies, and in four out of the six cases only the hair was removed. The police were making diligent inquiries in order to trace the perpetrators, and had some clue; but it would not be in the interests of justice that he should give any details at present. As far as he was able to judge, the outrage was not attributable to any such cause as that mentioned by the noble Earl.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.