Lords Sitting of 16 February 1893

REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND.
Lord TRIMLESTOWN—Report from the Lord Chancellor; that in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, the claim of Charles Aloysius Barnewall, of No. 6, Mount Street Crescent, Dublin, Esquire, to vote as Baron Trimlestown at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland, is of such a nature that it ought to he referred to a Committee for Privileges; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

SAT FIRST.
Lord STRATHEDEN, after the death of his brother.
LAND QUESTION IN WALES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENasked the Lord President of the Council to lay upon the Table of the House, or otherwise to inform the House, as to the evidence upon which Her Majesty's Government decided to recommend the issue of a Royal Commission to examine into the Land Question in Wales. He said upon so important a subject as an inquiry into the Land Question in the Principality, or in any part of the United Kingdom, Parliament ought to have full information. At present Parliament, especially as far as their Lordships' House was concerned, was in a state of utter darkness as to the scope, meaning, origin, and nature of this inquiry, and as to the necessity or justification for it. Usually a Royal Commission was appointed after a case for inquiry had been shown to exist. The Commission on Labour was, of course, an exception, hut, as a general rule, they followed upon Motion made and cause shown in Parliament. This case, however, had no analogy to that Commission, for which no reasonable person would deny there was ample ground. On the contrary; he made bold
  1542
  to say that here no reasonable man in the country would maintain that sufficient ground for inquiry existed. A few days ago he had ventured to ask in that House what was the Land Question in Wales, and in what way it differed from the Land Question in England, whatever that was; but he had received no answer. He was entirely unable to see any difference between the two cases, for the systems of land tenure and of estates management were identical in England and in the Principality. No doubt peculiarities and small differences in detail and local colour existed in both cases; some parts of Wales much more closely resembling portions of England than other parts of Wales in their local customs, and vice versâ as regarded England. There was nothing in respect of local custom, tenure, or estates management in Wales, as a whole, that could possibly distinguish it from England. Whatever reason could be alleged for such an inquiry in Wales beyond mere political motives, their Lordships might be assured, could be put forward as forming an equally strong ground for inquiry into the Land Question in England and in Scotland, for the cases were almost identical. What did Her Majesty's Government expect to gain by seeking to create a difference which did not exist in fact? The Government were already occupied in the operation—one of a sufficiently difficult character—of dismemberment of the United Kingdom, and it would have been wiser if they had waited until they had brought it to a successful termination before sharpening their knives to attempt another of a similar kind. He had searched everywhere, high and low, for some justification for this inquiry, but had failed. Going to the fountain-head for enlightenment, he found that the Prime Minister, on the 30th January last, said—
  "It is the intention of the Government, proceeding partly upon Debates in this House (the House of Commons) during last Session, and in no small part from what has taken place during the Recess, to issue a Royal Commission for the purpose of examining into the Land Question in Wales."
  The Debate alluded to was upon the Second Reading of the Land Tenure in Wales Bill, which proposed the absurd system commonly known as the three F's, and a variety of things of that kind;

  1543
  but in that Debate not one syllable could be discovered to afford a solid, reasonable ground for this inquiry. The most he had been able to find was an allegation that some Welsh tenant farmers were evicted from their farms because they refused to pay tithes which they had contracted to pay. Whether noble Lords opposite thought people were justified in breaking their voluntary contracts or not, those cases would not occur again, and, therefore, that ground might be put on one side. Well, then, it was claimed that there were religious and racial differences between landlords and tenants, but that was hardly worth considering, because such matters had nothing whatever to do with the management of property, and he would not insult their Lordships by commenting upon such a proposition. Every particle of evidence to be culled from the Debate, even approaching common sense, had been amply discounted beforehand in the Report of the Royal Commission presided over by the. Duke of Richmond; but he would not pursue that matter, because it would really be insulting the intelligence of noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite to suppose for a moment that they could have found cause for an inquiry of this kind in that Debate. Then what was it that had occurred in Wales itself to justify an inquiry? Nothing at all except that the equilibrium of the Principality might have been a little disturbed by certain ill-advised speeches of the Prime Minister last September, in which he said—
  "I learn with great astonishment, partly from him"
  (Mr. Ellis, who moved the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons),
  "and partly from an investigation of public and authentic Returns, some things which have caused me both surprise and pain."
  What had caused the Prime Minister's surprise and pain was that he
  "Had gathered from reliable sources that rents had not been sufficiently reduced in Wales. There had been only about 7 per cent. of reductions there, whereas they were about 24 per cent. in England."
  The absolute unreliability of the figures from which Mr. Gladstone derived his opinion had been shown over and over again. From the same source—namely, the Income Tax Returns, it appeared that rents had not been reduced at all in
  1544
  Ireland during the last 12 years. That plainly reduced any opinion derived from such a source to an absurdity. Not for a moment did he attribute to the Prime Minister that he had made misstatements knowingly. The simple fact was that the fate which commonly happened to mortal man had befallen Mr. Gladstone—he was the victim of misplaced confidence in unreliable statistics. He was flushed with recent victory, and speaking at a kind of picnic on the crags of Snowdon he made statements which, if he had more seriously considered the facts, he would not have made. But an opinion expressed by the Prime Minister under such circumstances and the deliberate conclusion of Her Majesty's Government after six months of Office were very different things, and it was inconceivable that the Government should have resolved to issue a Royal Commission on this subject upon supposed facts derived from figures which they perfectly well knew to be absolutely unreliable. Even if they were true, he would point out the iniquity of the theory involved, because this was a claim simply that it was the right or duty of the Executive Government to interfere between man and man in the ordinary exercise of their business and relative rights as citizens. They were going to institute a Commission of Inquiry because, in their opinion, A had not reduced his rents sufficiently in comparison with B. Such a theory as that could not possibly be confined to agricultural rents. If interference there was justifiable, it must be equally right and necessary to inquire whether A paid as good wages as B, or whether one retail shopkeeper charged more for his goods than another. In fact, it was a theory which, if carried out, would strike at the very foundations of our social scheme and fabric, and would cause a revolution in England. Had anything else occurred in Wales which was not apparent; was anything wrong with the present condition of Wales? It might be imagined that that would be very satisfactory to noble Lords opposite. Wales had returned 31 Members pledged to Home Rule at the last General Election, and only three supporters of the Union; but though the latter was a very small number, the Unionist vote was more than half that cast for Home Rule. While the vote

  1545
  was as two to one, the representation was as nine to one, and noble Lords opposite might have been content to leave them that small proportion to represent the great body of Unionist opinion in Wales. But was not Wales becoming a little uncertain—a little wobbly in her allegiance to the Party opposite? Certain rumours and grumblings to that effect had been heard. On Saturday last the North Wales Liberation Federation had passed a resolution requesting the Welsh Members to withdraw from their adherence to the Home Rule Bill unless Her Majesty's Government gave them greater and more immediate satisfaction in other respects. In fact, the Government's Supporters in Wales had suddenly discovered what they might have found out long ago, that in voting for Home Rule they were destroying their only chance of getting what they really wanted—Disestablish'neut. In consideration for their support of Home Rule schemes they were to be given disestablishment and disestablishment of the Church; but it had now dawned upon them that if home Rule was carried, performance of the other pledges would be impossible, and they would not get the reward which was to be their share of the bargain. Unless the Irish Members were retained at Westminster they had suddenly discovered that there was not the remotest chance in the world that the English Church in Wales could be disendowed and disestablished. Therefore, it was scarcely astonishing that Wales was becoming a little restive, and probably Her Majesty's Government had found it desirable to add to their former bids to keep their Party together in the Principality, and to dangle another and still more succulent carrot in the way of proposed legislation before the patient and devoted animal that had followed them so long. Still, he would be sorry to think that this Royal Commission had its origin in purely political motives, and would prefer to believe that it was only another of those strange coincidences which had so persistently dogged the footsteps of noble Lords opposite; but in the absence of any kind of suggested foundation for it, the conviction was irresistible that it arose from the necessity on the part of the Government, in their political difficulties, of doing something more to conciliate
  1546
  Welsh opinion. That was the real cause and origin of this inquiry. The matter had been treated somewhat lightly in that House. Lord Monkswell had the other night, expressed surprise that he should make any objection to this Commission, and said, with a curiously high opinion of Royal Commissions, that it might do a great deal of good, and could not possibly do any harm. He did not quite share that opinion of the almost miraculous wisdom of Royal Commissions, and they had had some curious experiences of late in that direction. He wished noble Lords opposite would themselves realise how much, since they had taken to evil ways and bad company, their political morality had deteriorated. A very curious Viceregal Commission had been appointed in Ireland, and they had seen a few days ago a most arbitrary and despotic attempt on the part of the Executive to interfere with the exercise by an important Body of its statutory rights, a matter which was brought to the attention of the House by the late Prime Minister. It was said that Irish landlords had been placed upon their trial and had been on the whole, acquitted; but the verdict of "not guilty" was practically tantamount to sentence of death upon a great number of them, or, at any rate, a sentence or ruin. A Royal Commission in Ireland had reported that rents there were not excessive, but they knew the kind of legislation which had followed that Report. He did not, therefore, look with great and deep complacency upon Royal Commissions under all and any circumstances; and in a case like this, unless the inquiry was to pave the way for legislation to remedy an ascertained grievance, it was likely to do an infinity of harm. It must open up all the relations between landlord and tenant, and between tenant and labourer, and would create all kinds of hopes which never could be fulfilled. It was impossible to enter into a question intimately connected with the management of private affairs and the relations between class and class without doing a great deal of harm, though of course if it were absolutely necessary to remedy some ascertained grievance it was capable of doing good. He asked for this information, first, in justice to landowners in Wales. They were in a position analogous to that of persons committed for trial, and they had

  1547
  a right to know the kind of evidence against them which had been laid before Her Majesty's Government and must have preceded the determination to ask for this Royal Commission. He deprecated the inquiry, because he did not wish to see the present good relations between landlord and tenant in Wales disturbed at the hands of that Party which was so fond of trying to set classes by the ears and to create class difficulties, animosities, and hatreds. It must also have a bad effect not only on the large landowners in Wales, but also upon the small landlords and freeholders, of whom, he was glad to say, there were many. How inconsistent were the noble Lords opposite! They pretended there was nothing they would like better than to increase the number of freeholders, and that they viewed with regret the diminution of the yeoman class, and yet they knew perfectly well that by instituting such an inquiry as this they were doing their best to deter men from investing their capital in small landed properties, and to harass and distress struggling freeholders who had quite enough to do in the present terribly depressed state of affairs. Lord Monkswell wondered at his objection to this inquiry as a landowner in Wales. Personally, he would, on the contrary, be glad that an opportunity should be given of showing the absurdity of endeavouring to create and foster an agitation oil this subject in Wales. However, he hoped he could take a larger view than that of the matter; and, looking beyond, he must deprecate this inquiry because of the immense injury it must do in disturbing the present friendly and happy relations between landlord and tenant, and man and man, and especially because of the evil it must create in embarrassing and harassing the large class of small freeholders in the Principality, and of die injury it must do to agriculture generally. They had before them the example of Ireland, and they knew very well that the landowners who had suffered most from Irish land legislation were those who had spent most money upon their properties and had treated their tenants most generously. With agriculture almost gasping in the throes of death, was it not unwise to do anything, however small, that could shake in the least belief in the security of property, and that would prevent men continuing
  1548
  to invest their money in the maintenance and improvement of their landed estates? The inquiry would have a bad reaction upon the entire trade and industry of the country, and he objected to it as a symptom of the unhealthy delight that noble Lords opposite and their Party took in harassing and worrying trade industry and individuals in the prosecution of their legitimate business. They might go into this inquiry with a light heart, but they would probably come out of it with a somewhat heavy one; for it would not be the first time in their history that they had disgusted **mid wearied the people of this country by the way they had harried trade and industry, and had unwarrantably disturbed and interfered with individuals in the prosecution of their private business and legitimate affairs. Unless this proposition for an inquiry by Royal Commission into the land Question in Wales could be justified by strong evidence of its necessity, it was a most wicked interference with private liberty and rights. He maintained that it was nothing less than a mere wanton attack upon property, and it would have a bad effect upon agriculture not only in Wales, but throughout the Kingdom, and that it must have a had reaction upon every trade and industry in the country by which the wage-earning population lived.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, the noble Earl has traversed an enormous amount of ground, and I certainly shall not attempt to follow him. I think he ought to have given notice to call attention to the condition of Wales generally, and to the condition of the morals of Her Majesty's Government, their actions, and other things. I am much obliged for the lecture which the noble Lord has read us. I do not quite accept his description of us. He said our morality was deteriorating—I am sorry for it—that it was getting worse and worse—
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: Politically speaking.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Of course, I assume that; and as an instance of it he says our special business is to create animosities and class hatreds. That, of course, is a flower of speech, but I suppose the noble Earl devoutly believes it; and there I leave his state-

  1549
  ment, not in the least disturbed at it. With regard to the question which I have to answer, I am rather puzzled by the noble Earl's demand, because I gathered from his speech that he holds the Opinion that before a Royal Commission is issued there ought to be a preliminary inquiry. He said no doubt Her Majesty's Government had made an inquiry upon which they based this inquiry. I never heard before of any Government making an inquiry first, and then issuing a Commission for another inquiry. That notion is entirely new to me. But the noble Earl said something besides in which I agree, and there, I think, he is much nearer the mark. He said that where a case was made out in Parliament it was the practice sometimes to issue a Royal Commission. Well, we think a case was made out in Parliament. The noble Earl does not think so; and he goes as far as to say, having referred to the Debate last year in another place neon a Bill brought forward by Mr. Ellis, that he will not insult our intelligence by supposing that anything which can be derived from that Debate could have led us to the conclusion that a Royal Commission ought to be issued. Naturally, as I suppose is the case with most individuals, I rate my own intelligence very high, but I must freely confess that I have not arrived at the point of rating my intelligence higher than that of the Prime Minister; and, at all events, it appears that to his unpractised intelligence the matter presented itself in a different way. He said, in the course of that Debate, he thought
  "A case had been made out for a thorough, searching, impartial, aunt dispassionate inquiry."
  The noble Earl said no rational being could have come to such a conclusion. I again differ from him. I do not dispute my noble Friend's right to exercise his reason upon that any more than upon what he is pleased to consider our deteriorated morality in politics; but I think it is rather a remarkable statement for him to make that no person of intelligence could arrive at such a conclusion, when he finds that a person occupying such a very important position as that of Head of the Government did, in fact, arrive at that conclusion last year. Then my noble Friend referred to the political condition of Wales, and he told
  1550
  us rightly that the 34 Representatives of Wales, including Monmouthshire, were, except three, supporters of the present Government. I think those Welsh Representatives would all agree that this inquiry is desirable. Now, I want to know by what better means can a Government arrive at a conclusion, whether or not an inquiry is necessary in any part of the Kingdom, than by the opinion of the Members? I know, of course, that the noble Earl, who is connected with Ireland, thinks that the opinion of four-fifths of the Representatives of the people of that country can be safely disregarded, and counts for nothing; but we take another view, and think that when Members of Parliament representing a constituency unmistakeably show an opinion—because we may be perfectly certain that a Member of Parliament is likely to say that which he thinks is the opinion of his constituency—when we find a large body of men representing public opinion in that country consider there are grievances connected with the tenure of land and with the system of land management in Wales, it seems to me that a primâ facie case—nothing more—is made out for an inquiry, and I observe that in the Debate referred to Colonel Cornwallis West expressed an opinion that in the interest of the Welsh landlords he was ready to say that such an inquiry would be desirable. I can quite understand why he said so, and I think the noble Earl himself might be of the same opinion. What he says is this—
  "If these grievances are imaginary, the sooner they are examined into and proved to be so the better."
  But if, on the other hand, there are substantial grievances, it seems to me they ought to be remedied. Before you make up your mind that there is any case for redress or for legislation, you should have an inquiry and a full statement by impartial inquirers of the facts of the case. I have read the speech made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) last year in die other House, and I observe that he carefully guarded himself, and most properly so, against being supposed to have come to the conclusion that legislation was necessary for the purpose of dealing with the particular matters brought forward by the Mover of die Bill. All he said was that there was a primâ facie case made out for

  1551
  inquiry, and that there ought to be an inquiry. It seems to me the clear and plain duty of Government in such a case is to institute an inquiry; and I cannot, in answer to my noble Friend's question, refer him to anything except the Minutes, which, I believe, such as they are, cannot be controverted by anyone.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that, as he expected, the Lord President had been unable to give any other answer to the question put to him than a reference to Mr. Gladstotte's speech made on the slopes of Snowdon. Mr. Gladstone said he thought a primaâ facie case had been made out; but he knew nothing about the matter except front the figures supplied to him. In fact, he only based his argument on the Income Tax figures, but he had no right to give those figures without analysing them in some degree. He said the reductions in rent in Wales were only 7 per cent., while in England they were 24 per cent., but that was very far from being the truth. For instance, though in Essex no doubt the fall in the value of agricultural land had amounted to 54 per cent., there were five counties in England where the reductions were less than in Wales, Cornwall, and Cheshire, standing lowest at under 3 per cent. in the former, and above 3 per cent. in the latter case. It would, therefore, have been better if Mr. Gladstone had investigated a little the figures put into his hands by agitators before stating them. In this case the Prime Minister had first manufactured a grievance, and then he proposed to inquire into it. There was no agitation in Wales until he started it, and he had only done so after finding he could not satisfy the Welsh Members by the proposal to disestablish the Church in Wales. He had pledged himself too strongly in recent speeches by admitting that the Church in Wales was doing, good work, and for very shame he could not go back upon himself within so short a time. The Lord President had quoted Mr. Cornwallis West as a Welsh landowner who wished for an inquiry, but Mr. Cornwallis West had wished for it under totally different circumstances. He wished for some inquiry when the late Government was in Office in order to stop the lies which were being spread about by the Welsh agitators. But a change had
  1552
  come since the present Government had been in Office, and the country had entirely lost confidence in it's impartiality since Mr. Morley had committed himself as he had done in Ireland. In reference to Land Commissions of Inquiry, at a meeting of Highland proprietors held on the 21st December last, they complained that the Commission for inquiry into the condition of the Scotch deer forests was a packed Commission, and that out of six Commissioners four were pledged to the opinion that the deer forests could profitably be cultivated by crofters. As the noble Earl (Lord Dunraven) had said, Wales was better off than many parts of England. Taking the wages of agricultural labourers, Where board and lodging was found them by the farmers, they received 10s. a week, which might he considered as pocket-money; whereas, in Wiltshire and some other counties, about 10s. a week was all that the agricultural labourers got on which to maintain themselves, their wives, and children; and against that, in Wales—at least in Anglesey—the average wages of labourers who maintained themselves was from 16s. to 17s. a week. In reference to what the noble Earl said as to the inconsistency of the Government in pretending to promote small holdings and increase the number of small freeholders, while they were proposing this harassing inquiry, only last week the Mayor of Bangor announced at a meeting that he had been selling land, of which somebody had told him he would only sell five farms for £68,170. That did not look as if the tenant farmers were in a bad way. If Her Majesty's Government really cared at all for the well-being of the country, they would institute a Royal Commission to ascertain why there was so much uncultivated land in Lincolnshire and other Eastern Counties.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALIISBURY: My Lords, I cannot exonerate the noble Lord (the Lord President) from that deterioration of his morality, to which allusion was made earlier in the Debate. I thought his whole speech showed it in a very marked degree. He gave us to understand that to him argument mattered very little; that if there were a large majority of Members thinking one thing, any arguments to the contrary would seem to him of little value or effect. He

  1553
  said the whole or a majority of the Welsh Members thought there ought to be an inquiry, and therefore they ought to have an inquiry.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I said it was a very strong argument in favour of an inquiry.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, if you are agreed with them as to the principles upon which that inquiry should be held. If it were merely inquisitive in its character, such as the inquiry into the hospitals proposed by a noble Lord some time since, I should have nothing to say against it. But when taken in connection with the speeches of the Prime Minister, this would mean an inquiry whether the landlords of Wales have reduced their rents as ranch as the right hon. Gentleman thinks desirable, and it implies that if they have not reduced their rents as much as he thinks they should, that it is a legitimate use of the powers of Parliament to interfere to break up private contracts, and to insist upon something like the three F's to remedy the evil. Now, first, I am very much afraid of these heretical opinions of the noble Lord, and I will tell him why. It is that all Mr. Gladstone, to whom he has appealed, knows of rural affairs comes from two noble Lords opposite me; and that if they are wrong, the Cabinet will undoubtedly fall into the ditch; and if it is the opinion of the noble Earl that such a measure as the three F's can properly be introduced into Wales, or that it could be shown to be proper by the fact of rents not having been sufficiently reduced, I fear that very evil days are before us. Before the noble Lord infects the Cabinet with that opinion he must bear in mind that the case of Wales and that of England are absolutely on all fours. Anything done in Wales must be done in England. No doubt in Ireland there was a very peculiar case, owing to that strong Ulster custom which it was impossible to disregard. I remember hearing the Duke of Argyll, who was certainly not heretical on this subject, state in this House that, though the Ulster custom was confined to the Province of Ulster, yet the spirit which it indicated was spread all over Ireland, and
  1554
  that throughout Ireland you found tenures which were in an inchoate condition of the Ulster custom. I do not say I agree with him, but I think it is a strong argument, which does separate very strongly the case of Ireland from that of England and Wales. But when we hear now, for the first time, that the Welsh landlords are to he remitted to this revolutionary tribunal, with the probability of their being condemned on the ground that the reductions in their rents are not sufficient, then I think the noble Earl should bear in mind what the problem is which he is dealing with, and count the cost before he undertakes so great an enterprise. I was a little alarmed the other night when I heard the noble Earl maintain that the Irish landlords had suffered no wrong because their rents had not been reduced more than they were in England. It appears to have been his impression that if you retain for a landlord such rent as you think he is entitled to you may deprive him absolutely of the mastery and ownership of his land without doing him any wrong whatever. No doubt a great grievance of the Irish landlords, as most of them think, is that their rents have been reduced much below the level to which they would have fallen by operation of the market; but their greatest grievance is that they have been deprived of the mastership and ownership of their land, and that they are brought down to the position of mortgagees with shifting mortgages reducible by agitation. That is the feeling of the Irish landlords; and if the noble Earl disputes that they have suffered, I would ask him to try the matter in his own mind by this simple test. Forty years ago Parliament called upon the small capitalists of this country to buy Irish land which the Government offered in large quantities. They dwelt, in public advertisements, upon the advantages it would bring to the purchasers and the rents that might be expected from it. Suppose, by an operation of second sight, you could have looked into the future, and have told those purchasers under the Encumbered Estates Act, what the tenure of land was likely to become under Mr. Glad-stone's manipulation, do you suppose that a single one of those purchasers would have been insane enough to risk his money in such an investment? There-

  1555
  fore, I hope that the noble Earl and other noble Lords, when they come to the performance of their momentous duty of advising the Cabinet upon rural matters of which it knows nothing, will not for a moment believe that Welsh and English landlords will accept this doctrine, and submit to part with the mastery of their land. Of course, they may be beaten; no one can prophecy beforehand how a battle will go; but if any such measure is proposed, I can assure him that it will be no small resistance which he will meet—no small resistance to the passing of the measure, and no small resistance to the operation of that measure if it should pass. The landlords of this country, I am sure, will do their utmost to prevent any such legislation, and I would impress upon the noble Lord that it is not to the land-lords' interests only, nor mainly their interests, which are at stake. They would suffer very much; but during the conflict attending any such threatened legislation—for it is a contest that must last for many years—they would do all in their power to save themselves, and the noble Lord knows that one of the most obvious means of saving themselves would be by getting as much land as possible into their own hands. Has he quite considered the social conflict into which he seems, on limited grounds, disposed to enter? I am bringing these considerations before his mind, not because I wish to anticipate the results of such an inquiry, or any facts which it may elicit, but because I demur ab initio to the claim that Parliament has a right to interfere, if it does interfere, in the contracts between landlord and tenant, or has a right to say how much rent the tenant shall offer or the landlord receive. These are matters with which Parliament has no right to interfere; and if it threatens to interfere with them, it will strike a fatal blow at confidence, and will disorganise not only the industry of agriculture, but all the industries which depend for their existence upon the maintenance of private rights and the stability of law.
  House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.