Lords Sitting of 31 July 1891

BERKELEY PEERAGE.
Committee for Privileges met: Claim of the Right Honourable Francis William Fitzhardinge Baron Fitzhardinge considered: Then it was resolved, That it is the opinion of the Committee that no reason has been shown for departing from the resolution of this Committee of the 28th of June 1811, and the Order of the House thereon of the 2nd of July 1811: The Report thereof to be made to the House: Then claim of Randal Mowbray Thomas Berkeley considered: Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Committee that the said Randal Mowbray Thomas Berkeley has made out his claim to the titles, honours, and dignities of Earl of Berkeley and Viscount Dursley: The Report thereof to be made to the House.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Trimlestown Peerage (Claim to Vote for Representative Peers for Ireland)—Committee for Privileges met: Counsel heard to open the case of the Claimant: Witnesses examined; the Attorney General and the Attorney General for Ireland appearing on behalf of the Crown; and Committee adjourned sine die.
House resumed.
Trimlestown Peerage (Claim to Vote for Representative Peers for Ireland)—Ordered, That the Claimant do pay all the expenses attending the taking and printing the evidence, and also the cost of the examination of the evidence by an examiner appointed by the Crown Agent.

JUDICATURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 151.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an amendment.
RANGES BILL.—(No. 238.)
  LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 228.)
  Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next—(The Lord Chancellor.) (No. 288.)
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.) (No. 289.)
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES AMD CHARGES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendment reported (according to order.)
  EARL WEMYSS: My Lords, there is an Amendment which stands in my name. I have been asked to move it. It was to have been moved by another Member of your Lordships' House. I am not conversant intimately with the subject, but what I am told is that as the Bill now stands it will materially affect a very great and important industry of South Wales. The steel manufacture in South Wales is very extensive. I believe there are about 1,000,000 tons of steel rails produced in South Wales in the course of a year, and I am told that the effect of this Bill as it stands will be to raise considerably the charges for the carriage in that district of steel goods. I am informed that it will nearly double them. If this Amendment were passed it would have the effect simply, as I am told, of leaving the charges as they are now, plus leaving this industry subject to terminal charges. This is the statement made to me; and I believe it was generally the object of the Joint Committee to lower rather than raise charges. Your Lordships-having yesterday given a vote in favour of the railways against lowering charges where they ought not to be excessively lowered, it seems only fair that in this case this alteration should be made, and that this great industry should not be subject to the rise in charges which I am told will be the effect of the Bill.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, with regard to the last point which the noble Lord mentioned, that a

  891
  rise in charges will be the effect of the Bill, that is an entire misconception. We are not dealing in this Bill with actual rates, we are dealing with the maximum powers of the company, and it does not follow that because any change is made in the maximum powers, therefore the actual rates will be raised. But, my Lords, I do not think it can be made out that the effect of this Order upon the rates of the railway in question will be as the noble Lord seems to think, nothing but the raising of the rates. I have grave doubts of that; in fact I have a belief, amounting almost to certainty, that for the traffic which he mentions, taken as a whole, the powers will be actually lowered rather than raised by the effect of this Order. The Act to which I think the Amendment is intended to refer is what is known as the South Wales Act, 1855. I do not think there is any such Act as the Great Western Act, 1855; at least, I have not been able to trace it. But assuming that I am correct that the noble Lord who has given your Lordships the result of his information in this matter intends to refer to the South Wales Act, I will deal with it as if that were the case. My Lords, this is the same Act which was the subject of discussion yesterday, upon the Amendment of my noble Friend Lord Aberdare, who is not now in his place. The powers for coal and common articles of that kind, and for wrought iron, which is mentioned in the Act, are 2d. a ton a mile, that is inclusive of wagons. The effect of this Order is that for coal the powers in future will be 1½d. per ton per mile exclusive of wagons, with, as I explained yesterday, terminals of 3d., which cannot effect anything in the nature of raising such powers for more than six miles, that is only six half-pennies, and does not include any traffic which goes from siding to siding, which will be the case with a great deal of the heavy traffic. So far for the articles in Class A, but with regard to the steel trade it requires a little more explanation. The first point I should be inclined to take is this: it is rather a technical one. Steel is not an article mentioned in the Act: it is usually as a matter of actual practice classed with iron, and in our amended classifications we have put articles whether made of iron or steel in
  892
  the same class. As I know I am correct in saying that steel is not mentioned in the Act, it will be an unnamed article, and therefore the highest power which in the case of this Act is, I think, 4d., would be the charge which, strictly speaking, the company would at the present time, be entitled to exact, if they could get it, which probably they cannot. Now, going back to the term used in the Act, "wrought iron," the effect of our Order is that some articles of wrought iron are in Class B and some in Class C. For those articles which are in Class B there is absolutely not only no raising of power, but there is a diminution for those of the articles which have been divided. Under, I venture to say, the more scientific classification which we are bringing into force, some of them will be in Class C, and for them there will be a slight raising of maximum power; but I am entitled to make this point, that, according to the proposal of the Board of Trade, all wrought iron articles, if declared to be undamageable, were in Class B. The Joint Committee, for reasons which seemed good to them, and after a very full discussion, and practically with the consent of both sides, altered the decision on this point, and the Order, as now laid on the Table of the House, is absolutely and in all respects in conformity with the decision of the Joint Committee on this matter; it comes up unaltered from the other House of Parliament, and I venture to think, under those circumstances, that it would be most unwise and injudicious for this House to make the alteration which the noble Lord asks for.
  EARL WEMYSS: Might I ask the noble Lord one question? He said that under Class C there will be a power of raising the maximum above that paid on the articles previously. Will steel come under Class C now, and did it not do so before?
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Steel is not classified. Some articles of steel are in B, some in C, and some are in Class 1. The initial figure for Class C is 1·80d., so that, as far as the conveyance rate is concerned, even for Class C there is no raising of power. As far as the conveyance rate is concerned, any raising of power to which I alluded is the effect of terminal which is given for Class C, and that, after a certain number

  893
  of miles are run, will be, of course, entirely worked off. Though the initial figures which we have given for Class C was nearly l¼d. less than the existing power for conveyance, it is l·80d. by the scale of graduation which was put in the Bill for conveyance, it will be rapidly reduced; and though I was obliged candidly to say there would, by the conjoint operation of the classification and rate clauses, be some raising of powers, it is certainly very slight in Class C, and certainly not comparable as regards any maximum raising made in the powers of the company by the effect of the other provisions in the Order.
  EARL WEMYSS: I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment being, by leave, withdrawn, I would like, according to the notice that I have given, to ask the House to suspend the Standing Order, No. 39, for the day, in order that this Bill may be read a third time. It cannot, I think, prejudice anybody, and it will be a matter of extreme convenience to everybody concerned, to the Board of Trade, and I believe to the other House of Parliament, if all these Bills can be considered together in any subsequent stage they may have to go through.
  Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to order) and dispensed with; Bill read 3a, and passed.

LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  *THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I wish to say one word with reference to what passed in your Lordships' House last night. Of course I am not going to ask your Lordships to revise the decision at which you then arrived, though the majority was a very small one; but I wish to say one or two words with regard to the merits of the question itself. I do not propose to make any Motion on the subject. I can quite understand that it was extremely difficult for the
  894
  House to comprehend the somewhat mysterious jargon of classes and letters and classifications and one thing and another with which my noble Friend Lord Belper and myself, who were on the Joint Committee, and my noble Friend opposite, are familiar, owing to our experience. The result was to leave upon my mind a sense that the decision which was arrived at was not in conformity with what is quite just to the London and North-Western Railway Company. I am not an upholder of the London and North-Western Railway Company or of any other railway; and I believe that in the deliberations of that Committee and in the votes which were given, as an individual I voted a great deal more on the side of the traders than I did in favour of the propositions put forward by the Railway Companies. At the same time, I think your Lordships intended that the Members who were appointed to sit upon that Committee should do the most pure and simple justice, as far as lay in their power, between the railways and the trading interests. A great many of our decisions passed without any remark; but this particular one, which happened to be in favour of the London and North-Western Railway Company, has, I am sorry to say, been reversed. I am not going to attempt to convey to your Lordships any detailed information on the subject; I am afraid that I failed last night, and I do not think I should succeed any better now; but having given, as your Lordships did, and as the Committee did, higher rates for the carriage of coal, special rates on these small Welsh railways, I do respectfully say that I think the House acted somewhat under a misapprehension in refusing rates of the same nature to those same railways with regard to the more manufactured article, slate. That is all I have to say except this: that at the last moment I asked if your Lordships could extend the charges of the London and North-Western within a farthing of what appeared on the special scale. I know that your Lordships were not willing to take that course, and I only hope and trust that the matter will be revised and reconsidered hereafter. I can only say that if that course were decided upon I should be most happy to be a member of a Select Committee to examine into the

  895
  merits of that one particular case, and to elicit the opinions and examine the persons upon whose opinions those changes have been made in the Bill. I feel certain that if the other members of your Lordships' Committee had been present they would all have agreed with me upon this point, as Lord Belper did last night. I only hope that this matter may subsequently meet with some reconsideration from Her Majesty's Government.
  Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order) and dispensed with; Bill read 3a, and passed.

REDEMPTION OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 280.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, this is a Bill which carries out the provisions of one of the clauses, Clause 29, I think it was, of the Land Department Bill, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland last year, but was not passed. It has been before the country for about a year and a half. The clause, as it appeared in the Land Department Bill, has been modified in the case of this Bill, but merely in the sense of making the machinery of the Land Purchase Acts and the Fair Rent Acts applicable in every minor particular to the provisions of the present Bill. I may remind your Lordships that the Land Act of 1881, which conferred privileges upon tenants in Ireland, limited those privileges to leaseholders up to 60 years and under; and the Land Act of 1887 again modified that by carrying out the same policy, but including in its provisions all tenants who held leases up to 99 years. Now, with reference to those leaseholders who hold for longer terms than 99 years, who may be generically termed perpetuity leaseholders, I think it may be stated to be generally recognised that there is no worse form of tenure than land held in perpetuity at a rack rent by a tenant. Neither in England nor in any other country are such a tenure known; in Ireland it was only, I believe, in the year 1887 that it was enacted by an Act which was then passed through Parlia-
  896
  ment that copyholders should be compulsorily enfranchised. Therefore, the main principle upon which this Bill is founded will, I think, meet generally with approbation, and will generally be found to coincide with the principles which have guided Parliament during the last few years. I may also say that in Ireland at the present time the Purchase Acts apply to these perpetuity leaseholders, whereas the Land Acts do not so apply. This Bill provides that tenants for over 99 years, holding at what the Land Commission may consider a fair agricultural value, may apply to redeem their rents subject to the consent of the lessor or the grantor by payment of a capital sum to be agreed upon, or in case of difference as to this capital sum, the matter is to be referred to the Land Commission; but in case the lessor or grantor does not consent, or delays unreasonably the procedure for redemption, it is provided in this Bill that though the redemption be not made, the lessee or grantee shall be deemed a present tenant which, as your Lordships know, under the Acts of 1881 and 1887 means a tenant who has the power of coming into Court and applying to have a fair rent fixed. To that extent he will be brought under the Act of 1887. Thus, there will be two alternatives: the perpetuity leaseholder will have the power, if his landlord consents, of redeeming his rent, and in the event of his landlord not consenting, he will be able to come in under the Act of 1887, and be made a present tenant and have a fair rent fixed. Thus, my Lords, I think entire uniformity will be secured, and a grievance will be reduced, not, indeed, a very large one, because, although I have no figures before me, I have reason to believe there are not more than about 2,000 tenancies of this character throughout Ireland, but inasmuch, as I said before, as the principle of a tenant holding in perpetuity at a rack-rent is one which has not met with favour during the past few years, I venture to hope your Lordships will read this Bill a second time, thus doing away, as far as we can, with the last of the grievances of the leaseholders in Ireland. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl Cadogan.)
  *THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: My noble Friend, in placing this Bill before your Lordships, has certainly not indulged in much description; in fact, he has placed it before the House in a light which, when you read it, I think you will hardly believe applies to it. This Bill is really a much larger measure than my noble Friend's remarks would have led your Lordships to believe. I speak under correction, but I understood the noble Lord to say that this Bill applies to leaseholders who hold under unexpired leases of under 99 years.
  EARL CADOGAN: Of over 99 years.
  *THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: Your Lordships may put a "0" to that—it applies to men who have unexpired leases of 990 years, and it applies also to men who hold fee-farm grants. I must say I think this is certainly not a Conservative measure, although it is introduced to-night by my noble Friend. It is entirely a one-sided measure. It allows the tenant to force his landlord to sell to him at a price to be fixed by the Land Commission if the landlord and tenant do not agree; thereby, for the first time, introducing the pernicious system of compulsion. It forces the landlord to sell to the tenant, but if the tenant is in a position which would give the landlord any benefit by taking the same measures with regard to him that he can take with regard to the landlord, he is unable to do so. It is a one-sided Bill entirely: the tenant has the power of forcing the landlord either to sell the land to him at a price to be fixed by the Land Commission—
  EARL CADOGAN: I am sorry to interrupt my noble Friend, who always understands these matters so clearly; but I hope, really, he will read Clause 1 with a little more care than he seems to have given to it. There is no power whatever in the tenant to force his landlord to sell at a price fixed by the Land Commission. It is provided it is true, that in ease the landlord and tenant disagree as to price the Land Commission may fix the price, but the Land Commission has no power whatever to force the landlord to sell.
  *THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: If the noble Lord had only waited a moment he would have heard what I was about to say. What I said was
  898
  that the tenant can force his landlord to sell at a price to be fixed by the Land Commission, or if he does not do so, it allows the tenant to go into Court and to have what is called a "fair rent" fixed—but perhaps it is better to call it a judicial rent. That seems to me one-sided. I do not know whether my noble Friend thinks it is a fair thing that although the tenant can take the landlord into Court, the landlord should not be able to take the tenant into Court. There are many other kinds of leases in Ireland besides these leases let at full agricultural rents; there are many leases under which tenants hold at great advantages, and if the tenants are able to take the landlords into Court, why should not the landlords be able to take the tenants into Court? I cannot see the fairness of this sort of legislation; I think it is entirely unfair. My noble Friend rather led your Lordships to believe that the Act of 1881 was on these lines. At the time that Act of 1881 was passed I protested against it; but lot me tell my noble Friend it was not upon these lines at all, as no leases were broken by it. Under the Act of 1881, at the end of a lease of 60 years landlords and tenants could both go into Court; but here, under this Bill and under my noble Friend's previous Act of 1887, he only allows one party to go into Court. In respect of that my noble Friend quoted the Act of 1881; but I think he should not have done so, because both this Bill and the Act of 1887 are drawn on entirely different lines to the Act of 1881. There is no doubt that this Bill is a most serious measure, though, as my noble Friend states, it does not affect a very large number of leaseholders in Ireland, because the great bulk of leaseholders (of whom there are many) do not hold at full agricultural rents, and it only affects those who hold at full agricultural rents. But it is letting in a system of compulsion. Again, it is breaking up and tearing to pieces in Ireland all contracts. The noble Lord said that this particular class of leases were only known in Ireland. If yon take the present land system in Ireland, I do not believe such a system is known in any other country in the world. But I will not detain

  899
  your Lordships by dwelling upon this point. I would, however, point out to the noble Lord a particular clause in the Bill, the effect of which may not have been considered. He will see that by Sub-section 2 of Clause 2 the moment this sale has been carried out, the moment the landlord has agreed to sell to the tenant, and that the Land Commission has fixed the price, the rent-charges or other liabilities—that is to say, the charges on the holding—are to be transferred to the redemption money and taken off the land. Well, that may seem very fair, but let me point out to the noble Lord the effect of it. A landlord may in Ireland be paying 5 per cent. upon his mortgages; he agrees to sell under this measure; he can hardly refuse, because he is asked to sell with a pistol to his head. If he does not sell he has to go before the Land Commission. If he sells, all these charges are to be transferred to the land, and while he may be paying on his mortgages 5 per cent. interest, he will only receive, pending the time of fixing the price and proving the title, 2¾ per cent. Therefore, the landlord must naturally be so much out of pocket for all that time. I think that is a very great mistake, and that it would have been much better if this clause had been drawn on the lines of the Bill which was lately passed through your Lordships' House, and if the unfortunate landlord had, at any rate, been allowed to receive 4 per cent. from the tenant until such time as the title had been proved; but here you have a man who is obliged to sell, and he may possibly have to pay out of his own pocket possibly 3 per cent. more than he is receiving from the Government. I think that is a great hardship, and I hope my noble Friend will re-consider that matter. Then I would like to point out one other thing before I cease speaking to your Lordships, and it is with regard to the position of these leaseholders whom the noble Lord has referred to. Under the Act of 1887 those men were allowed to apply to the Court to have a fair or judicial rent fixed during two years. The Act of 1887 passed in August of that year, and they were given two years to apply to the Court: that is, they were given until August,
  900
  1889. Then my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave them a further year, until August, 1890. He placed these leaseholders under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and gave them another year, which carried them on to August, 1891. On what possible principle are these leaseholders to be carried on from year to year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act? If there was anything in the Act of 1887 which limited their powers of appeal for two years, then surely it should not be continually ripped up and still carried on. This is the system in Ireland which I object to entirely—this continual unrest. You never know where you are. If these leaseholders thought they had a hardship to contend with, they could have gone into Court at any time within the last four years. Why should they be placed in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act again? I would also point out to my noble Friend what I think would be a great improvement; that is, to bring them into this Bill—that is to say, to give them the same powers as he is prepared to give to these perpetuity leaseholders. If they like to sell to their landlords, let them do so; and if they do not like to sell to their landlords, let them have a fair rent fixed; but why they should be placed in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill every year I cannot understand, and I would suggest to my noble Friend whether he could possibly see his way to introducing some clause of that description in Committee, bringing in these leaseholders and admitting them to the advantages conferred by this Bill. Let us know, at any rate, how we stand with regard to them, and not be carrying them on from year to year, as they are being carried on at present. It is a very simple matter to do-so. If you are dealing with these long leaseholders upon this principle as you do in this Bill, why should you not place the other leaseholders in the same position whom you let in under the Act of 1887? I do hope my noble Friend will consider it, and before the Committee draw up some Amendment to deal with it, or I could do so myself.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I have no wish to oppose this Bill—far from it; but I cannot help wondering when I read it what sort of reception

  901
  this Bill would have had if I had had charge of it sitting on the other side of the House. I expect I should have heard some pretty strong language from noble Lords with regard to breaches of contract and a great many other things. We have made great advances since 1881; and, of course, it is very encouraging and satisfactory to us on this side to find that the Act of 1881, which I have so often heard described on Conservative platforms in language of the most unmeasured kind, is now made the basis of all legislation in Ireland. I do not profess to understand thoroughly ail the Irish tenures, but no doubt this must be a very peculiar tenure indeed, because, as noble Lords who have read the Bill will have observed, its operation is limited to that particular class of leases which, although perpetual, or let for long terms, are let for an agricultural rent. That, of course, makes a great distinction from the case in England where a small head-rent is paid, but where the circumstances are extremely different. Though I know nothing of the condition of these leaseholders or the special circumstances, I should certainly suspect that such a tenure is found to be an extremely un desirable one. My own feeling in the matter is this: I am rather doubtful whether it would not have been much better and fairer to have limited this Bill, as it is, in fact, a compulsory Bill, as I shall presently show, to compelling the tenant to buy of the landlord, or enabling the landlord to require the tenant to buy, either party requiring the other. That would have brought the matter to a complete conclusion, and would, at all events, have made an end altogether of the relations between the landlord and tenant. The tenant would then have become the freeholder. I should have thought that such an arrangement might have been made under the Land Purchase Act we have recently passed; that is to say, some assistance might have been given those tenants on certain conditions which would have enabled them to have bought out the landlords. I would also observe that the analogy which the noble Lord who moved the Second Beading of the Bill finds between the Copyhold Acts in England and this Act is really not a true one, because in the case of the Copy hold Acts either party may compel
  902
  the other: the lord of the manor or the copyholder may compel the enfranchisement of the copyhold. Neither are these copyholds in England really in the same position, for this reason: In the case of a copyhold the lord's rights are, generally speaking, a very small part of the value of the holding, and the copyholder is, to all intents and purposes, the owner of far the larger interest in it. The rights of the lord are limited, in fact, to the receipt of a very small quit rent and of a tine which has become, in most cases, exceedingly small, because the fine was either fixed irrevocably at a very small amount many hundred years ago, or is now restricted by the operation of proceedings in the Law Courts to two years' fine. That is not the case here, for the landlord is in possession of the full agricultural rent of the land; and except, therefore, as regards his power of resumption of the land at the end of the lease, he is really in possession of the full value of the land in the same manner as the landlord who has let it in the usual manner. But I was going to observe that this Bill is in one sense compulsory. It is quite true that the 1st clause is, so far, not compulsory—that it does not say the parties are to agree together; but if they do not, they come under the proviso at the end of the 1st clause, and that proviso is a very drastic one indeed, because it simply converts this leasehold into an ordinary present tenancy under the Act of 1881. That is an entire, complete alteration of the position of the landlord and tenant. This certainly seems to me, upon the whole, to be the strongest measure ever proposed with regard to Irish land, and in that sense it may be said to complete what has been done previously. I may say that, looking to the very extraordinary nature of these perpetual leasehold tenures, and to the undoubted evils which must result from their continuance, it seems to me justifiable on the part of Parliament to compel a sale on fair terms. I doubt very much whether it was necessary or desirable to compel the landlord to adopt the alternative of agreeing with the tenant; and if the tenant does not agree with him, then that the tenant shall have the power of compelling him to sell under the Act of 1881. I greatly doubt whether that is a fair or reasonable

  903
  arrangement, but, as I have said, I should be quite out of court, after the part I have always taken and the policy I have advocated with noble Lords on this side of the House, if I objected in any way to the principle of this Bill. I would only again remark that Her Majesty's Government have been educated very far, and this Bill is a proof of how far their education has gone in this direction, because in the earlier Act we did not deal with leases; the Act of 1887 did, and so does this, and it is curious that it should have fallen to Her Majesty's Government to carry the principle further than we originally intended.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I should not have interfered on this occasion but that I should not like to appear to pass in silence a measure of this kind introduced by a Conservative Government. The noble Earl opposite really rather applauds the Conservative Party for bringing forward and carrying through Parliament measures which he and his noble Friends had not the power of carrying themselves, and I think he alluded to the Bill of 1887. With regard to the Bill of 1887, which was introduced into and carried through this House by my noble Friend below me, I would remind your Lordships how that Bill was carried through. I will say that that Bill was not only distasteful to the Irish landlords, but to the Conservative Party in general, for it was breaking into the freedom of contract; and I, for one, deeply regretted that such a breaking into the freedom of contract and such a cancellation of leases which Mr. Gladstone promised in 1881 should not be touched for 15 years, should have been carried out by a Conservative Government and by the Conservative Party in 1887. But I would ask your Lordships to consider, why was it necessary that such a measure should be brought forward? For the simple reason that the Unionists knew they must bring forward remedial measures, measures which we considered it essential for the government of Ireland should be carried through Parliament. By passing that Bill we were enabled to secure those powers by which we have restored—as, I venture to say, we have restored—law and order in Ireland. With regard to the Bill which has been
  904
  introduced to-day by my noble Friend, I confess I do not think it will do any harm; but, at the same time, I regret to see that there is again a breaking into freedom of contract in a measure brought forward by the Unionist Party. I speak subject to correction; but, if my memory serves me rightly, in 1887 the noble Earl made statements with regard to the inclusion of leaseholders in a manner diametrically opposed to the representations made on the introduction of the Bill on the present occasion. I should be the last person to wish to damage the Bill brought forward tonight, for I fully recognise that the Bill is a proof of the wish of the noble Lord and the Government to render the Purchase Bill a complete measure. I believe it will in no way damage any tenants, be they yearly tenants or leaseholders, who ought to be able to participate in the benefits of a Bill intended to benefit all classes connected with the agricultural interest in Ireland.
  EARL CADOGAN: My noble Friend behind me has stated that when the Bill of 1887, which I had the honour to introduce in this House, was under discussion, I made statements with regard to leaseholders which were diametrically opposed to those I have now made. My noble Friend will not, I am sure, have forgotten that the whole object of the Bill of 1887 was to include leaseholders in the privileges which were conferred by the Act of 1881. It is perfectly true that in the Act of 1887 we did not include leaseholders beyond 99 years; but that I used arguments against the inclusion of leaseholders in the discussion on the Bill in 1887 I most emphatically deny. The noble Earl opposite appears to take a somewhat doubtful view with regard to this Bill, because while on the one hand he objects, to a certain extent, to the compulsory purchase which he contended was provided for under this Bill—
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: No; I beg the noble Earl's pardon; I said I thought it would have been much better if it had been a compulsory purchase and not a purchase which is connected with the proviso.
  EARL CADOGAN: I was going to say that while the noble Earl did not object entirely to this Bill, he suggested that compulsory power should have been

  905
  inserted in the Bill which lately passed through Parliament.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I apologise for again interrupting the noble Lord. What I said was simply that I thought it might have been better if the first part of Clause 1 had been made compulsory, and if there had not been the indirect provision that the tenant should become the present tenant of the landlord if he did not agree. I made no reference to the Land Purchase Bill at all.
  EARL CADOGAN: The noble Earl has complimented us upon the state of our education. Well, I can only say that we are not quite educated up to that point, because we deny that there is any direct compulsion in this Bill. We admit that at the end of the clause there is a certain indirect compulsion, because if the landlord and tenant do not agree, the alternative is given to the tenant to come in and become a "present tenant" under the Act of 1881. If I am asked to ratify the progress with which the noble Earl has been good enough to credit us in land legislation in Ireland in the direction of breaking of contracts—a progress which I confess I do not entirely understand myself—I would say, as has been said before, that we are driven to these measures entirely owing to the action taken by the noble Earl and his friends in passing the Act of 1881. I know the noble Earl denies that; but perhaps he will not, at all events, deny this: that the result of the Act of 1881 was to leave a large body of tenants in Ireland who have a substantial grievance because the privileges which were conferred upon tenants under the Act of 1881 were denied to leaseholders in Ireland. Then, I say, the passing of the Act of 1881 obliged us, and would have obliged any Government after a few years, to take into consideration the case of those tenants who, being leaseholders, were excluded from the benefit of that Act; and it was the necessity of remedying the apparent inequalities in the position of tenants in Ireland by which tenants who were not leaseholders were accorded privileges which were denied to tenants who were leaseholders—it was entirely the result of the Act of 1881 that induced Her Majesty's Government to pass the Act of 1887, and to still
  906
  further reduce those anomalies by the Bill which I now ask your Lordships to read a second time.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.—(No. 283.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day ten months. I have all along seen the irregularity with which this County Council has proceeded, and I had an Amendment on this Bill which would have prevented the County Council absorbing all the powers of Magistrates, Boards of Guardians, and the public. The ground on which I go is this, that all our reforms were granted on the principle that rating was to be the foundation of voting. That was the case in 1821 at the time of the Disfranchisement Bill. Sir James Scarlett, Lord Milltown, and my father all voted against Lord John Russell's principle of rents being made the basis of the franchise. My Lords, I have always been consistent, and I beg to move the postponement of this Bill.
  Amendment moved, to leave out the word ("now"), and add at the end of Motion ("this day ten months.")—(The Lord Denman.)
  *EARL FORTESCUE: I feel that I owe an apology to your Lordships for having oven for one moment yesterday intruded any observations on the House with regard the London County Council, but I ventured to do so on a Private Bill brought forward by a body which represents a population larger than that of some of the smaller Kingdoms of Europe and of many States in other parts of the world. The proceedings of that body, as I said yesterday, have confirmed the impression felt by many, and expressed by myself during the discussion of the Bill which established the London County Council. I mean the impression that the inclusion at all of the Metropolis, which had been carefully

  907
  excluded from the operation of the General Public Health Act some 15 years before, within the scope of the general Local Government Act, still more its inclusion with hardly any provision specially bearing upon the very special circumstances of Loudon was very imprudent. We all know how this happened. The disclosure of a little jobbery, and the suspicion of more, on the part of a few members of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which had latterly lost any public confidence it ever may have enjoyed, caused a general demand for the immediate supercession of that body by some other authority. The Government hastened to comply with that popular demand, and, a general Local Government Act having been already announced, the Government, as it seemed to me, very inconsiderately proposed, and Parliament as inconsiderately adopted, the inclusion in it of the Metropolis with over 4,000,000 of population, concentrated round the Palace of the Sovereign and the Houses of Parliament, around the offices of the Ministry and the supreme tribunals of the vast British Empire. The inclusion of such a city with hardly any provision in the Act different from those which applied to all the Municipalities of the Kingdom, from such places as Manchester and Liverpool down to South Molton and Torrington, two ancient Corporations within 20 miles of my house in North Devon, comprising less than 4,000 inhabitants each, less than l–100th part of the population of the Metropolis—I say the inclusion of the capital of the British Empire within the provisions of that Bill showed that the Government and Parliament ignored the lessons of experience in different ages, and about different capitals in the world. They forgot that Rome and Constantinople, each successively the capital of a great Empire, though smaller than ours, had special arrangements for their Government as capitals, differing from those concerning the other towns of the Empire. They forgot, also, the way in which more modern capitals have been dealt with quite recently in comparison—they forgot, for instance, what had been done at Paris and Washington. Warned by the experience of the overwhelming influence exercised by Paris over the rest of
  908
  France during the great French Revolution of the last century, and, later, during the Three Days which drove the elder dynasty of the Bourbons from the Throne; Louis Philippe and his Ministers, very shortly after his accession, elaborated and carried out a most carefully-balanced plan for the government and local management of Paris. As to the chief feature of that plan I will not say more than that it consisted in spreading or dividing the management of works and the government of persons; placing the one under the Préfet de la Seine and his Council and the other under the Préfet de Police with his Council, so that neither could for a moment claim to be, or could be considered, Chief Magistrate of Paris. Notwithstanding that, Louis Philippe lost his Throne and fled in disguise to England; but the system survived his fall, which was more attributable to his own obstinacy in the first instance, and vacillation afterwards, I believe, than to any defects in the system. But the case of Washington is still more remarkable—the capital of the Great Republic of the United States. The wise and far-seeing authors of the Constitution of the united States, while part of what is now the City of Washington and the district surrounding it which were specially dealt with were still almost wild, the site having once been selected, arranged and carried that that city and the district around it should be under the special control of the Congress and of the Central Government of the United States, instead of being governed, as the other States are, to a great extent independently of the Central Government. Her Majesty's Government and Parliament ignored all the lessons to be derived from that past experience, ancient as well as modern; and they established, as I have said, a system differing very little, indeed, from that established in most of the market towns in England. I agree with that able and thoughtful statesman, Mr. Balfour—I forget his exact words—in saying that it was "just as well the inhabitants of London did not co-operate too energetically or act too vigorously in the use of their municipal rights and duties." But we cannot say how soon this state of coma may be succeeded by a sort of municipal or even political phrensy. The first Chairmen of the London County

  909
  Council, Lord Rosebery (whose absence from this House, and still more the sad cause of it, we all regret), and Sir John Lubbock, a distinguished Member of the other House, have presided over the London County Council with dignity and efficiency. But we do not know how soon some popularity-seeking demagogue may succeed to that office, or what pressure he and the County Council, as I say, representing a population already greater than that of various Kingdoms, may put upon the Imperial Legislature and Administration, carrying on their deliberations and their official work in the very midst of them. Up to this time we have seen a good deal of apathy on the part of the inhabitants of London in respect of their local government; but that apathy has not been shared by the London County Council. On the contrary, as I predicted, though fulfilling very inadequately their duties, which were quite enough to occupy all their time, they have indulged in discussion on matters utterly beyond the scope of the duties entrusted to them by the Legislature. And they have already done this, although so recently constituted. More than that, as I predicted in the same speech, when they found that some of the improvements they contemplated would cost a great deal of money, they have brought forward confiscatory proposals. Happily, they were not allowed to carry them through this House. But we do not know how goon further confiscatory proposals may be brought forward by this body, in my opinion so imprudently established for the Local Government of the whole of the vast population of this Metropolis. I can only repeat the earnest hope which I expressed yesterday, that at the next election of County Councillors, and at all succeeding ones, we may find the inhabitants of London electing a body—there are a number of admirable men at present County Councillors—but a body composed of better, wiser, and juster Councillors, and a body more economical; for the very envelope in which this Bill is presented to us shows how fearfully under their management the rates have increased, though the rateable value of London has during the last 20 years pretty nearly doubled. And, besides this, I earnestly hope they will elect Councillors with more tact and of a
  910
  more conciliatory disposition, so that instead of driving to resignation men employed under them, who are of European reputation and of undeniable efficiency, we may find them electing" Councillors, who will elicit hearty cooperation and zealous work in the management of the business of this great Municipality.
  On Question, whether ("now") shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

JUDICATURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 151.)
Commons Amendment considered (on Motion), and agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered on Monday next in order to its being dispensed with for the remainder of the Session.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.