Lords Sitting of 13 July 1893

SAT FIRST.
The Lord Brabourne, after the death of his father.
TOOK THE OATH.
Several Lords.
COUNTY CLARE SUMMER ASSIZES, 1893.

  MOTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government would lay on the Table the Report for which he asked last Tuesday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, I find there is no precedent for giving, in the form of a Return, the Charge of a Judge to a Grand Jury at Assizes in Ireland. It is true that in the time of the late Government the Charges of three Judges were given; but those were Charges to juries in specific cases. There has been in recent years no precedent for presenting the Charge delivered by a presiding Judge to the Grand Jury at the Assizes; but as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, in what he said on a recent occasion in the House of Commons, made use of the Charge of Mr. Justice Gibson, he has presented the Charge to the House of Commons; and if the noble Marquess will move for it, I shall be very glad to agree to the Charge being laid before your Lordships' House.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYmoved formally that a copy of the Report of Mr. Justice Gibson's Charge to the Grand Jury at the Assizes in County Clare during the past week, as taken by the official note-taker, be laid on the Table of the House, and thanked the noble Earl for the expedition he had shown in complying with the request—a copy of the Charge having been at once placed at his disposal by Earl Spencer.
  Moved, "That there be laid before the House the address of the Right Honourable Mr. Justice Gibson to the Grand Jury at the opening of the County Clare Summer Assizes, 1893; together with the transcript of notes of the Constabulary shorthand writer, quoted by the Chief Secretary for Ireland during a debate in the House of Commons on the 7th instant."—(The Earl Vane, M. Londonderry.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Paper respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of this day), and to be printed. (No. 199.)

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL [H.L.] (No. 188.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD LEIGH, in moving the Second Reading, said, though the Bill contained only two clauses, it was an important measure to amend the law relating to reformatory schools. Under the Act of 1866 (29 & 30 Vict., c. 117, s. 14) Magistrates were compelled to send children to prison before they could be admitted into reformatory schools. Most reformatory managers were of his own opinion—that prison was not a proper place for children to be sent, as they thereby lost their self-respect, and were materially affected in after-life. The intention of the Bill was to do exactly what had already been done by another measure relating to Scotland, passed this Session; except that, while the Scotch Act left it optional with Magistrates, the present Bill made it illegal to send children to prison. Leaving the power optional would entail unfair and unequal sentences, as Magistrates by no means agreed upon the question; and the result would be that in the same reformatory there would be children who had passed through prison associated with those who had not. Clause 1 raised the age at which children could be sent to reformatory schools from 10, under the old Act of 1886, to 12, increased the minimum period of detention from two years to three years, and provided that no offender should be kept in a reformatory after reaching the age of 19 years. At present offenders might be kept there until nearly 21.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Leigh.)
  LORD NORTONsaid, the Bill was proposed in substitution for one he lately introduced; but, on its not being accepted by the Government, it had not been pressed to a Division at a late hour, and was allowed to drop rather than interfere with other business, there not being a quorum in the House. His measure proposed that child offenders sentenced to imprisonment should, if possible, be sent to any fit place of imprisonment rather than to a common gaol, and that in suitable cases for boys whipping should be substituted for imprisonment. His Bill also sought the better enforcement of parents' contribution to the cost of their children's maintenance, so that they should not make a profit by throwing them on the public; and it provided for getting children earlier out of school to work. He was not satisfied with the present Bill; and he intended to move to amend Clause 1 by providing that the school should not be treated as an additional or alternative penal treatment, but as a separate provision of education; and to amend Clause 2 by the omission of the words forbidding any sentence of imprisonment, and substituting words providing that if sentenced to imprisonment a child should not be imprisoned in a common gaol if any other place were available. Wherever there was a decent home the child should be sent back to it after punishment, and educated at a National school. It was undesirable to continue the consciousness of criminality in children's minds through the whole of their period of education, and so to hinder their future employment, which, after all, was the main object of giving them an education, the neglect of which had led to their committing crime. If these offenders were not to be punished at all, cadit quœstio, and there was no necessity for reformatory schools; but if convicted of the commission of a second offence they ought to be punished, and then better educated. He would, therefore, propose cell-confinement, and for boys a whipping in preference to imprisonment, that having been the conclusion arrived at by a Royal Commission, and being also the opinion of all the Justices in England, to whom the point was referred. If he could get those two alterations made in the Bill in Committee he would have no objection to its passing.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, that one of the arguments used in support of the Bill was that Magistrates had no hesitation in sending children offenders to prison. His experience of reformatory schools differed from that. He happened to be President of a reformatory in the South of England, and knew that, in many cases, Magistrates, finding that they could not send children to a reformatory, rather than send them to prison allowed them to go scot-free, and so many a young rascal escaped altogether.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, this is a Bill of some importance, and I think it should not be passed without the House considering what it really affects. In the first place, it alters the law. It prevents children being sent to prison at all before being sent to a reformatory school; and it also provides that—
  "The Court may direct that the offender be taken to a police cell or lock-up, or to any other place, not being a prison, which the Court thinks fit. and the occupier of which is willing to receive him, and be detained therein for any time not exceeding seven days,"
  and so on. I am not at all certain that it is a desirable thing that there should be power to detain children in a lock-up or police cell in which some other person may be confined, and of which some person may be in occupation who is not responsible to the public, but who is willing to receive these children. The principle of this Bill is that there must be a second offence before the child can be dealt with. The principle on which my noble Friend proceeds is that you are not to put a taint upon the children by sending them to prison for a few days, but the taint upon the child is its criminality. These children are distinct from the children who are sent to industrial schools. Children who are sent to an industrial school have not been criminals beforehand, but have become involved through some fault of their parents or guardians. The children dealt with in the present Bill are criminals, and the suggestion that the whole taint of criminality lies in their being sent to prison is hardly correct. The difference is mainly one of name only, for reformatories are really prisons. In this country, in the prisons, there are separate means of taking care of juvenile offenders, and this taint is not contracted from the position in which they are

  1437
  placed. It seems to me there is much more harm in their being locked up in a police cell, or in some other place kept by some person who may be willing to receive such children, but over whom there is no control. Under the Scotch Act the Magistrates have power to send children to prison before sending them to a reformatory school. That practice has never, so far, been abolished, and I think the House should be very careful in abolishing a practice which has worked well. Children who have been imprisoned and have gone to a reformatory have obtained employment afterwards, just as much without taint as though they had never been convicted of criminality. The objection seems to me, I confess, merely sentimental, that prisons are worse than these places to which the noble Lord proposes the children should be sent. A reformatory itself is a prison.
  LORD NORTON: No.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: Well, a prison means a place one cannot get away from—a place where the law says a person is to stay, not according to his own will, but according to the will of the law. Children are in prison in a reformatory, a lock-up, or a police cell equally. I remember Mr. Justice Maule once saying, in a case where a witness had been giving evidence strongly against a prisoner, when the prisoner said, "Get away with you, you false man "; and the witness asked whether he was to be so treated. "The prisoner can't get away; you can, and you had better do it." That is the difference. This is contrary to the Report of the Commission, and is, I think, taking a merely sentimental objection where the criminality is the stain and not the prison.
  LORD VERNONsaid, he hoped their Lordships would excuse him for not having risen at once to say a few words. If he had done so they would have lost the speech which the noble Earl had just made on the subject. He was instructed, on behalf of the Government, to say that they fully approved the action of. the noble Lord in bringing forward this Bill, in so far as it assimilated the law of this country to that of Scotland; but the Government did not approve of that portion of the measure which related to the subject of making imprisonment illegal. They considered that it was far
  1438
  better that the law in England should remain as it was in Scotland under the recent Act, and that it should be left to the Justices to decide whether a child should go to prison or not. Children who were sent to gaol were not allowed to consort with old criminals or other prisoners, though, no doubt, there was the disadvantage that the child was apt to be stamped for the rest of his life as a gaol-bird. The Government did not, however, consider that a sufficient reason for changing the law, and they were willing to accept the Bill if the noble Lord would accept the Amendment which they would propose.
  LORD NORTONwished to say he had never protested against children being sent to some kind of prison other than a common gaol if any better place could be found to send them to. The other clay he saw a child, handcuffed to a grey-headed old sinner, being taken to the common gaol by a policeman. That was against his feeling in the matter, and his protest was against keeping up in penal schools the taint of criminality throughout the whole of the youthful offender's education.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: The noble Lord must remember that there is only one kind of prison; and if a person is sent to prison, whether it is the common gaol or any other kind of prison, it is one and the same thing. One of the great objections I have to this Bill is that you are going to imprison a child nobody knows where, in a place kept by nobody knows whom. If a child goes to the ordinary prisons he is under the strictest rules in a place where the Justices have power to go and see that everything is right; but, in the other case, I think you are running the risk of doing great harm to the child.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): I would remind your Lordships that this very provision to which the noble Viscount has alluded has been included in the Act with regard to reformatory schools in Scotland, which, I think, has passed through Parliament, and which certainly has passed this House. I think the safeguard is that the Magistrate must satisfy himself that the place to which the child is committed is a fit and proper place. We

  1439
  had considerable discussion in Standing Committee on this subject. I sympathise very much with those who think that children should not be sent to prison. I do not agree that there is no stigma arising from it, and still less do I think it right that children should be allowed to consort with old offenders; but that is absolutely impossible in well-conducted prisons. The object of these reformatory schools is to enable the children to lead honest lives in future. They are not for the purpose of punishment. I think, therefore, that some such form of Amendment as my noble Friend proposed should be accepted.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, with regard to Ireland, the Committee should pay attention to the point raised by Viscount Cross as to the places to which the children should be sent. In Ireland the only place to which they could be sent would be the lock-up or police station, and some provision should be made with regard to food, treatment, and other matters. Otherwise there would be considerable difficulty.
  LORD LEIGHsaid, it would be entirely in the discretion of the Court. In his own county he would most undoubtedly send a convicted child direct to the reformatory itself to be kept there. No difficulty would arise in the Midland Counties in finding suitable places, whatever might be the case in Ireland.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

NULLUM TEMPUS (IRELAND) ACT, 1876, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—(NO. 157.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill."—(The Lord Morris.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, since this measure was before the House my attention has been called to the fact that, having regard to the decision which has been pronounced in a case arising upon the Act which it is pro-
  1440
  posed to amend, as the law now stands expounded, this Bill would affect the Revenues of the Crown; and, therefore, it is not a Bill which can be introduced in the first instance in this House. I own that I do not see an answer to that objection; because if the decision is accepted as correct, which must be done for the purpose of dealing with this Bill, the Bill does propose to-prevent the collection of certain Revenues which have been held by a Court of Law to belong to the Crown. Therefore, on this ground, and not because I am unfavourable to the Bill, I must express my opinion that the objection is a good one.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only ask for information; but my impression is that the rule with regard to the House of Commons dealing with money matters applies to money raised by taxes, in any form; but that with regard to other moneys belonging to the Crown certainly that rule does not apply, and I was not aware it had been so applied.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think so. Certainly the amounts dealt with under this Act would not be large; but if any part of the Public Revenue is destroyed, it would be necessary to replace it, and that could only be done by taxation. That is the view which I believe is taken by the House of Commons and the Treasury.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should be sorry to allow to pass without observation this doctrine unless I was quite certain that the noble and learned Lord had satisfied himself it was really following the law; because, obviously, the reason of the privilege would not be satisfied by the consideration that this was a measure the indirect result of which would be to cause taxation. That might be said of almost any measure that comes before the House. These hereditary Revenues of the Crown in Ireland were entirely at the disposal of the Crown, and would not, until a recent period, affect taxation one way or the other. If they do affect taxation it must be owing to a bargain between the Crown and the public. It appears to me, at first sight, to be straining the privilege somewhat far to say that any effect which may result to the Revenue in consequence of such a bargain disables us from

  1441
  dealing with anything which comes within the provisions of that Act. If it has grown into a practice, I have nothing to say; but I should be sorry if this were the first instance in which it has been allowed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With regard to what the noble Marquess has said, I find that was the view taken in the other House; but, at the same time, I have not looked into the matter with any nicety; and as the noble Marquess has intimated a doubt upon the subject, I should like, before committing myself absolutely upon the matter, to look into it more definitely than I have at present. If the Motion is postponed now I will undertake to look into the matter.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Committee of the Whole House put off to Thursday next.

INFECTIOUS HOSPITALS BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD THRINGsaid, he had some verbal Amendments to propose which had been suggested by the Medical Societies. He would suggest that the Bill should be passed through the House "without Amendments, leaving them for Standing Committee.
  Bill reported, without Amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

PLACES OF WORSHIP SITES BILL. (No. 192.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  LORD BELPERsaid, he had one Amendment, to make clear a point which had arisen in Standing Committee as to preliminary costs in reference to the memorial and proceedings before the Local Government Board—whether they should be part of the costs of subsequent proceedings before the Committee. He had consulted the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees on the matter.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 10, page 3, line 18, after (" just") to insert ("such costs to include the costs of the memorial, and the subsequent proceedings thereon.")—(The Lord Belper.)
  Amendment agreed to.

BARBED WIRE FENCES BILL. (No. 131.)
Debate on Amendment moved after Third Reading resumed (according to Order).
LORD MONKSWELLproposed the Amendment which he moved a few days ago. It was suggested by Lord Watson in reference to Scotland, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack considered that what applied to Scotland should be applied to the rest of the United Kingdom in this matter. He had settled the wording of the clause with the Scotch Office.
Amendment moved,
In Clause 3, line 11, after (-'abate such nuisance") to add (" and on his failure to comply with such order within a reasonable time the Local Authority may do whatever may be necessary in execution of the order, and recover in a summary manner the expenses incurred in connection therewith.")—(The Lord Monks-well.)
Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONKSWELLmoved a further sub-section to Clause 3, in reference to Ireland. He had been at some pains to draft it with the Irish Office, and this was thought the best way out of the difficulty in view of the Irish Acts in reference to summary jurisdiction.
Moved to add to Clause 3 the further Sub-section—
("(3) In Ireland Sections one hundred and twelve, one hundred and fourteen, one hundred and fifteen, and two hundred and sixty-nine of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, shall apply, with the necessary modifications, where an order is made by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction under this section, in like manner as if that order were made an order under the said Section one hundred and twelve.")
Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONKSWELLmoved a new clause, which he could not say he thought very necessary; but, as the point had been raised by Lord Stanley of Alderley, the Amendment would do away with the objection he entertained to the measure. It had been carefully drafted, and was a

1443
provision for cases where a County Council itself was the Local Authority in default, if they had put up barbed wire fences in improper situations, and were not doing their duty.
Moved to insert the following New Clause to Clause 3:—
("Where the Local Authority are the occupiers of the land, proceedings under this Act may be taken by any ratepayer within the district of the Local Authority, and a notice to the Local Authority to abate the nuisance shall be deemed to be properly served if it is served upon the Clerk of the Local Authority, and any ratepayer taking proceedings may do all acts and things which a Local Authority is empowered to do.")—(The Lord Monkswell.)
New Clause agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 198.)

INSPECTORS OF LUNACY (IRELAND).

  QUESTION".
  LORD ASHBOURNEasked Her Majesty's Government whether the Inspectors of Lunacy in Ireland have as yet presented their Annual Report to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; and, if not, what is the reason for the delay?
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I am informed that the Inspectors of Lunacy will present their Annual Report to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in a short time. Some delay has been caused this year owing to the introduction of new statistical heads; but in future it is hoped that the report will be presented not later than April in each year.

CHANGE OF VENUE IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ASHBOURNEasked Her Majesty's Government whether the Irish Government moved to change the venue in any cases for trial at the present Assizes in Ireland; and, if so, in how many cases; and in what counties were the offences committed?
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, the Irish Government did not move to change the venue in any cases for trial at the current Assizes.

IRISH LAND LAWS.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD MUSKERRYrose to call attention to the present unsatisfactory
  1444
  position of the Irish Land Laws; and to move to resolve—
  "That it is necessary that the ownership of the land by the landlord, which has never been abrogated by legislation, should receive fuller recognition; and that, with this object, on the expiration of the judicial term of 15 years, the landlord shall have power, upon payment of such compensation for disturbance as may be deemed just by a competent tribunal, to resume possession of the holdings in respect of which judicial rents have been fixed, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in previous, enactments."
  He said, the Motion was not in favour of the Irish landlords merely, but asking a very scant measure of the justice which every one of Her Majesty's subjects was entitled to. In all their Acts the Government had been actuated by a desire to impoverish and ruin the Loyalist landowners of Ireland at the instance of agitators whose demand for Home Rule was for the object of abolishing British rule in Ireland. When out of England the Nationalists sometimes spoke the truth. Speaking in Boston in 1881 Mr. Healy remarked that the landlords were the props of British rule in Ireland, and therefore must be driven out of the country. Again, in 1882, at New Orleans, the hon. Member had said that if they wished to get rid of British rule they must abolish the landlords, who were the support of that rule. In 1885 Mr. W. O'Brien had said that the system of landlordism in Ireland must be exterminated root and branch in order to put an end to English rule in that country. Members of the present Government had made very fair statements on the subject of what should be done on the Irish Land Question; but, unfortunately, they had not acted up to them. Mr. John Morley himself in 1886 said that while the then late Government had passed an Act to prevent the landlords from confiscating the property of their tenants, it might become necessary to pass an Act to prevent the tenants from confiscating the property of their landlords. Mr. Gladstone, speaking 23 years ago, had protested against a particular proposal in reference to the fixing of rents on the ground that it would virtually be expropriating the landlords to whom compensation would have to be paid for the rights of which they would be deprived. But, so far, no compensation had been offered them. Why was it that the Irish landlords were being treated so

  1445
  unjustly? That they did not deserve such treatment had been vouched for by Mr. Gladstone himself, who had borne favourable testimony to their behaviour towards their tenants. If this so-called policy of conciliation were to be carried out restrictions must be placed upon men leaving or sub-letting their land, or occupying more than they could cultivate with their own hands, and the village usurers or gombeen men must be prohibited from lending money to Irish farmers, otherwise the land would be taken from the present landowners merely for the purpose of setting up a new race of landlords, whose action with regard to their tenants would be far more tyrannical than that of the old landlords, and the last state of the Irish tenant would be worse than his first. There were two sorts of tenants in Ireland—the sober and industrious, who made money and' put it by, and the idle, who did not. The man who had made money would acquire land from his idle neighbour and become his landlord. As to how he would treat his tenant, anyone who knew how the Irish farmer dealt with his labourer holding a small plot of ground from him could easily prophecy. Then, had this legislation arisen from the ill-treatment of the tenants by the landlords? According to Mr. Gladstone, it had not; for he said in 1881 it would not be due to misconduct on the part of the landlords of Ireland, who, on the contrary, having stood their trial, had been declared by the Bessborough Commission to be entitled to the greatest credit for not exacting all they were entitled to. The Acts of 1870, 1871, 1876, 1881, 1882, and 1887 were all utterly against the interests of the landlords, in favour of the tenants, and, as most of the Nationalists believed, against the interests of England. Speaking on the Second Reading of the last measure, the Marquess of Salisbury said that his defence for assenting to a measure that he did not approve of was the necessity of a continuity of policy. One thing this legislation had done most thoroughly was to frighten capital from the country. Another point was that under the present land system of Ireland a tenant usually entered upon a farm without adequate capital to carry it on, and, consequently, he was always in debt. People in England were, as a rule, in
  1446
  complete ignorance of the difference between an English and an Irish acre; and, therefore, that a rent which would appear exorbitant over here would be comparatively low in Ireland—a guinea an acre really representing in comparison 12s. 4d. The injustice that recent legislation had done to those who had purchased estates in the Irish Encumbered Estates Court was enormous, seeing that those persons had obtained an indefeasible Parliamentary title to their property of which they had now been deprived of the ownership. Under the present law, the idle and careless Irish tenant farmer was rewarded for his idleness and bad cultivation of the land, for at the expiration of the 15 years he would get a reduction of his rent owing to the depreciation in the value of the land due to his neglect. He should like to know whether, in proposing legislation for Ireland, the Government had ever consulted men who knew Ireland and who would give an unbiased opinion—the County Court Judges and the members of the Judicial Bench? One of the Law Officers in Ireland under Mr. Gladstone's Administration, who was afterwards Lord Chancellor of Ireland, had declined to vote for the transfer of the property in the soil from the landlord to the tenant, because he believed it would impede agriculture and tend to diminish all progress in Ireland. Lord Monkswell had said that the past legislation really meant fixity of tenure—that the landlord was to be deprived of his property. He would ask what was the use of giving the tenants large reductions in rent and breaking contracts in their favour if the effect of such a policy was, as he submitted it was, to lower prices and drive trade from the country? Mr. Gladstone appeared to have entertained sanguine views as to the beneficial effect of the legislation, for he said in 1881 that he, for one, should be bitterly disappointed with the operation of the Act if the property of the landlords in Ireland did not come to be worth more than 20 years' purchase on the basis of the judicial rent. He need not remind their Lordships how bitterly Mr. Gladstone must have been disappointed. It was, then, surely time for their Lordships to ask themselves whether they would go further on the same disastrous path, or whether they

  1447
  would adopt some such remedy as that which he had indicated in the Resolution he now begged to move.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That it is necessary that the ownership of the land in Ireland by the landlord, which has never been abrogated by legislation, should receive fuller recognition; and that, with this object, on the expiration of the judicial term of 15 years, the landlord shall have power, upon payment of such compensation for disturbance as may be deemed just by a competent tribunal, to resume possession of the holdings in respect of which judicial rents have been fixed, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in previous enactments."—(The Lord Muskerry.)
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, the noble Lord has introduced a subject of very vast proportions, for he has, in fact, opened up the whole question of laud legislation in Ireland. I venture to think that it is extremely inconvenient to raise questions of this sort upon abstract Resolutions, and that the right way to meet any difficulties in matters of this kind is to propose a measure dealing with the question. When such measures come before Parliament then it is possible to discuss the proposals with advantage. If the Resolution which the noble Lord proposes were carried it would traverse one of the main principles of the land legislation of recent years. One of the principles of the Act of 1881 was that fixity of tenure within certain limits should be given to Irish tenants. A statutory term was fixed—namely, 15 years—and when that first period was passed the landlord and tenant in the last year of that period might agree to apply to the Court to fix a new rent for the next period; and if no motion on either side were made to the Court then the old statutory rent continued for another 15 years. The noble Lord's Resolution would traverse that very important principle in the Act of 1881, which has been more or less directly confirmed by the subsequent land legislation with regard to Ireland. I will not enter into a general discussion of the subject; but I will remind your Lordships that in several important matters exceptions are made, and that under two clauses of the Act power is given to the landlord under certain circumstances to re-obtain possession of the land which has been let for the statutory term, compensation to the tenant being
  1448
  fixed by the Court. The noble Lord asked whether the Government had consulted any of the Judges in reference to these matters? I would remind the noble Lord that—as your Lordships are fully aware—the Government in 1881 consulted many Irishmen on this subject, and got the best information they could before attempting legislation. Lord Bessborough's Commission was appointed, and it was principally on the Report of that Commission, which inquired most minutely into the whole subject of the effect of the previous legislation of 1870, and which called before it an enormous number of witnesses, that the Bill of 1881 was founded. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) subsequently appointed another Commission, known as the Cowper Commission; and on the Report of that Commission, also, legislation took place. The noble Lord has referred to prophecies that were made with regard to the number of years' purchase that would be obtained for land in Ireland, and has said that those prophecies were to a great extent falsified. I should like to ask whether there have not been other causes which have reduced the value of land in Ireland besides those which the noble Lord has suggested, and which have also been experienced in this country where the value of land has fallen very largely? As I think it would be highly inconvenient to raise a general discussion on this important subject upon an abstract Resolution, I have only to add that Her Majesty's Government cannot accede to the noble Lord's Motion.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, his noble Friend (Lord Muskerry) had, in a very interesting speech, presented his views to the House on a very wide and most important series of topics. He could quite understand the feelings which the noble Lord entertained with reference to the land legislation in Ireland for the last 23 years. It had, no doubt, been very searching and drastic legislation; and with a great deal of it he himself did not agree, and had offered a most strenuous opposition to it. But it must be remembered that the legislation had been on the Statute Book for many years, and that rights had grown up and settlements had been made on the faith of it, and that, therefore, it would be a most enormous proposal that this legislation should be undone, reversed, and removed

  1449
  from the Statute Book. It was very likely that there were many who would be glad if substantial and large modifications were made in that legislation; but, as the noble Earl had pointed out, the only proposal before their Lordships was to pass an abstract Resolution. Being of opinion that it was hardly ever advisable to pass such a Resolution, if people were in a position to give effect to their convictions by introducing legislation, and making proposals to Parliament in the expectation of having them carried into law, when it was quite reasonable to present and enforce them with all the persistence possible, he thought it would be a wise course, under the circumstances, if the noble Lord were to be satisfied with having stated his views very clearly to the House, and were to withdraw his Resolution.
  LORD MUSKERRYsaid, that, acting on the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Ashbourne), he would ask permission to withdraw the Resolution.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 27th of June and the 4th instant discharged; and Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 176.)
Reported from the Select Committee with an Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow.
LONDON IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 13th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Friday, the 16th day of June next," be dispensed with; agreed to.
RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION BILL [H.L.]—(No. 64.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL. (No. 153.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 195.)
ELECTRIC POWERS (PROTECTIVE CLAUSES).
Report from the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee), made, and to be printed: Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out. (No. 196.)
EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON, No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) ACTS (1883 AND 1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

PEERS OF IRELAND.
List of the Peers of Ireland: Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Duke of Rutland.)
House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.