Lords Sitting of 1 May 1893

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
EVICTED TENANTS COMMISSION (IRELAND).

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  *THE MARQUESS of LONDONDERRYsaid, their Lordships would allow that he was making no incorrect statement when he said that they had had very considerable experience of the reluctance invariably displayed by noble Lords opposite since 1886 with regard to the discussion of subjects connected with Ireland. But he ventured to say the conduct of Her Majesty's Government on Friday last entirely eclipsed any former reticence that they had displayed in discussing Irish affairs. A Motion bearing on the Evicted Tenants Commission was raised on Friday last—a Motion of such importance that, although the state of Business in the House of Commons was very heavy, a day was devoted to the discussion of the Report. The Motion in their Lordships' House was moved and supported by two noble Lords opposite, in speeches of singular ability, in which they criticised and discussed the most important items in connection with that Commission in speeches which occupied an hour and a half—and those speeches were not one moment too long—and what was the action of the Representative of the Government on that occasion? The noble Lord (Lord Acton)—and he spoke of him with a feeling of great respect—dealt with those arguments and criticisms in the briefest possible manner, and he never attempted to answer them. If he did he would have found the task a most difficult one. The noble Lord read an answer in words put down on a sheet of paper, in a very few lines, in all probability written in the Irish Office. It would have done just as well if he had had the answer on Monday, when notice was given, as on Friday last when the Debate took place. If the matter had not been so serious, if it had not been so important, the action of the noble
  1558
  Lord would have been comical and ludicrous. He ventured to say that never in the annals of political history had a Member of a responsible Government been put up to defend the Report of a Commission of so extraordinary, so monstrous, a character. Anybody who had any acquaintance with Ireland could have but one opinion with regard to that Commission—namely, that although ostensibly called a Commission to re-instate tenants, it was in reality a Commission dictated and commanded by the authors and promoters of the Plan of Campaign to re-instate them in the good opinion of their unfortunate dupes who, beguiled by their promises and overcome by coercion—for there was coercion in the Plan of Campaign as he would shortly show their Lordships—now found themselves homeless and penniless, and, in the eye of the law, less than fraudulent bankrupts. On these grounds the issuing of that Commission was nothing short of a public scandal. In the first place, the mere fact of issuing the Commission was giving effect to the Plan of Campaign, for he was certain that none of their Lordships would contradict him when he said that if the Plan of Campaign had never been set on foot the Commission never would have been issued. Secondly, the issue of that Commission proved that if only criminality was persisted in, its object would be enforced by those whose duty it was not to promote, but to punish crimes. In the third place, the issue of that Commission was most pernicious and demoralising to honest tenants, who in many cases had had great difficulty, but who had endeavoured to meet, and had succeeded in meeting, their just obligations. It was demoralising to see a Commission appointed simply to reward men who were not only dishonest, but were guilty of criminality. In the fourth place—and this was the strongest objection of all—to remove a Judge from his legitimate functions in London to give effect to what was practically a criminal conspiracy was very much like making that Judge an instrument in the aiding and abetting of crime. In the view he had taken of the matter and in calling this a criminal conspiracy, he was supported by far stronger authority than his own. The Irish Judges had not hesitated to describe the Plan of Campaign as illegal, and the Pope of Rome

  1559
  had declared it to be immoral. He would ask noble Lords opposite to answer one of two questions. Did they or did they not agree with the opinions of the Judges of the land and of the Pope of Rome? If they did not agree with those opinions it was their bounden duty to say why they disagreed. If they did agree with those opinions, why had they not denounced—why did they not denounce—the Plan of Campaign? If their Lordships could read the hearts of noble Lords opposite they would know the reason why. They would know that if noble Lords opposite denounced the Plan of Campaign they would not long be sitting on those Benches. Noble Lords opposite knew full well that they were kept in power by the authors and promoters of the Plan of Campaign, who were nothing less than the patrons of the present Government. The Prime Minister had gone somewhat further than noble Lords opposite; he had put forward extenuating circumstances in favour of this criminal conspiracy. Mr. Gladstone did not hesitate to say in 1886 or 1887, at Hampstead, that the origin of the Plan of Campaign was due to the rejection of Mr. Parnell's Bill in the House of Commons. Mr. Gladstone said that to please his Irish followers, but a more inaccurate statement was never made. Mr. Gladstone should have known that if Mr. Parnell's Bill had been passed, on the four largest estates upon which the Plan of Campaign was put in force—the Massereene, the Luggacurren, the Coolgreany, and the Vandeleur estates—not one-third of the tenants on those estates would have benefited by the provisions of the Bill, and the remainder would have had to pay into Court under that Bill more than the landlords demanded. The real origin of the Plan of Campaign must have been known to Mr. Gladstone and to noble Lords opposite, because they had been told it by their own followers. Mr. Redmond in 1886 stated that it was originated simply for the purpose of making the government of Ireland under the ordinary law impossible. The noble Earl who introduced the subject (Lord Camperdown) quoted authorities to show that it was started as a great political engine to fight coercion, but he did not quote the words of its real author and originator (Mr. Harrington), who stated that the Plan of Campaign had been started as a political
  1560
  engine, and not as an agrarian one. It was really to whitewash the authors of the Plan of Campaign that the Commission was granted and held, and he reiterated that to originate a Commission for such a purpose was nothing more or less than a public scandal. He had no desire to enter into the constitution of the Commission, and would simply remark that he doubted whether any public Commission was ever before issued and held on which one of the parties interested was not represented. As to the action of the Judge who presided over this Commission, he thought it was a significant fact that Mr. Justice Mathew read his opening remarks from a paper before him. Was that of itself a usual proceeding? Why were those remarks written beforehand, and read? It proved at once that Mr. Justice Mathew had made up his mind long before he came into Court that he would prejudge and condemn Lord Clanricarde. He appealed to the learned Lord on the Woolsack to say whether there was any precedent for such a course of action, and whether he could defend that action. It had been the habit of the members of the National League and of the Plan of Campaign to disparage Lord Clanricarde as a harsh and rack-renting landlord. Though he had no personal acquaintance with Lord Clanricarde, he had some knowledge, derived during the time he had the honour to represent Her Majesty in Ire-land, in reference to the management of his property, and he desired to take that opportunity of directly contradicting the disparaging statements referred to. Lord Clanricarde's property was singularly low let—lower let than that of any other landlord in the West of Ireland; and this assertion was corroborated by the fact that although a Fair Rent Court was established to enable the tenants to get their rents reduced, very few of them went into that Court, and those who did obtained trifling reductions. But whether Lord Clanricarde was a harsh landlord or not, he had a right to demand justice and fair treatment at the hands of the Commission, especially when that Commission was presided over by one of Her Majesty's Judges, and neither justice nor fair treatment did Lord Clanricarde get on that occasion. The evidence, on the contrary, was entirely one-sided, and was given mainly in the

  1561
  interests, as he had said, of the authors and originators of the Plan of Campaign. This was the case with the evidence of Mr. Roche, who was not a. tenant of Lord Clanricarde's, but a professional agitator. Mr. Carson, as the representative of Lord Clanricarde, asked to be allowed to cross-examine this witness, and was told by the Commissioners that he might do so after luncheon. But when the Court resumed and Mr. Carson rose to cross-examine, he was at once prevented from doing so. What had happened during that luncheon time? At any rate, cross-examination was refused, and thus the whole of the evidence, which, it should be remembered, was not given on oath, was rendered useless and unfair, for it would not be difficult to show that in many instances another complexion would have been put on the evidence if cross-examination had been allowed. A week afterwards, on 14th November, 1892, Sir James Mathew alleged that cross-examination was utterly inapplicable to such an inquiry, and had never been permitted in cases which afforded a precedent for that inquiry, and that counsel knew they had no right to it. That remark of Sir James Mathew was supported by Mr. John Morley on the 8th December at Newcastle, who said that the action of the President in this respect
  "Was in accordance with every precedent to be found, and that counsel upon such Vice Regal Commissions were only allowed to intervene, if at all, as friends of the Court, and not to attack or protect witnesses."
  He would challenge the Government to show a single instance in which cross-examination had ever been refused in the case of any Vice Commission in Ireland. As an illustration of the value of some of the evidence, he would remind their Lordships that two of the witnesses brought before Sir James Mathew were two of the men known as the Salford boycotters, who were convicted at Manchester, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment for following and boycotting at Salford a man who had been forced to conic across from Ireland to sell his cattle. If cross-examination had been allowed, it would have been shown that they were convicted and sentenced to six mouths' imprisonment for boycotting. If Sir James Mathew had been particularly anxious to get a representative of Lord Clanricarde's evicted tenantry
  1562
  to give evidence before him, there was a prominent man, a Mr. Lynam, who could have given him that evidence. But probably the evidence would not have been acceptable to Sir James Mathew or to Mr. John Morley, or to Messrs. O'Brien and Dillon, for this man had publicly stated
  "That he was not afraid to stand in the city and accuse Mr. J. Dillon and Mr. W. O'Brien of being guilty of the greatest treason that men were ever guilty of to the body of evicted tenants on the Clanricarde estate."
  He went further, and said that
  "No body of men had been treated so badly as those men had been by Messrs. Dillon and O'Brien; that they were traitors to the men they led into action and then deserted, and traitors to the country as well."
  He then went on to denounce Mr. Dillon for having betrayed him, and finished by saying that
  "John Dillon was the biggest traitor that stood on the soil of Ireland that day. He led them into danger, and then ran away."
  That was a witness whom Sir James Mathew might have called had he chosen, but he preferred the evidence of professional agitators who had never been tenants of Lord Clanricarde. Mr. Lynam spoke in those terms of Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien because he was one of those unfortunate dupes who were either persuaded or intimidated to join the Plan of Campaign. Speeches of a persuasive and beguiling character, with which he would not trouble their Lordships, to induce these poor men to embark on the Plan of Campaign had been made by many people besides Members of the Irish Party, among others, by no less a person a few years ago than Mr. Shaw-Lefevre. But, desiring to be as brief as possible, he would go on to a more important-matter, showing that coercion was actually used to force these tenants to join the Plan. In a speech delivered in 1887 Mr. Dillon, who had then heard that a number of the tenants were disgusted with the Plan of Campaign and were anxious to pay their debts honestly and to remain in their homes, said—
  "I am alluding now to the combination among the tenants known as the Plan of Campaign. Let me say that if there be a man in Ireland—I do not believe there is—base enough to back down, to turn his back in the tight, now that coercion is passed, I pledge myself in the face of this meeting that I will denounce him from public platforms by name, and I pledge myself to the Government that, let that man be

  1563
  whom he may, his life will not be a happy one either in Ireland or beyond the seas, and I say this with the intention of carrying out what I say and without the slightest fear of the interpretation which will be put upon my words by the Tory newspapers."
  That was a specimen of the coercion by which unfortunate tenants were forced into the Plan of Campaign. The noble Earl opposite (Lord Spencer) know well what it meant to a man in Ireland to be told that his life "would not be a happy one." The man would be stringently boycotted, his stock would be wounded, perhaps destroyed, and he would be fortunate indeed if his house was not attacked at night and himself beaten, possibly shot, before his wife and family. Yet, although they knew all this, noble Lords opposite had never denounced this vile conspiracy called the "Plan of Campaign," or the intimidation that had been exercised by Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien. That was disgraceful conduct on their part, and the Prime Minister's attempt to prove extenuating circumstances in favour of the promoters of the Plan for such horrors and outrages was specially disgraceful. People in England, when they heard that there were many unoccupied evicted farms in Ireland, might be apt to think that that was due to the action of the unfortunate Irish landlords; but it was not. It was due solely to the action of Mr. Dillon and the promoters of the Plan. Speaking at Galway, when the Commission was actually sitting in Dublin, Mr. Dillon said that the authors of the Plan of Campaign had organised a system of keeping the evicted farms unoccupied, and that that was the greatest weapon that was ever placed in the hands of the Irish people, and he hoped that "Long might the day be distant when the Irish people would forget that lesson." That explained at once why farms were unlet. Of the 10 recommendations of the Commissioners, three were objected to by Mr. Morley himself, and one—the most important of them all—was altogether passed over by Mr. M'Hugh, who called attention to the subject in the House of Commons from the Nationalist point of view. This was the seventh recommendation, which proposed that Boards of Guardians should have the power of raising money for the purpose of stocking evicted farms. Mr. M'Hugh passed that over because, like a sensible man, he knew
  1564
  full well that such a plan would be repudiated by every solvent farmer in the neighbourhood of an evicted farm, for they would never tolerate anything like increased taxation. Yet unjust, immoral as was that recommendation, the remaining nine depended upon it, for they could not be effective unless it was acted upon. What would it avail to put a broken-down farmer into an evicted farm without a single head of cattle, and without a shilling in his pocket? Within six months the man would be ruined, and would have to be evicted again. Mr. Dillon, in his evidence before the Commission, stated that £234,000, money due to the landlords for rent, had been paid over to him by the tenants, but he absolutely declined to account for £14,000–1–13th—of that sum. This was in keeping with the well-known financial capabilities of the heads of the Nationalist Party—capabilities displayed in the mismanagement of The Freeman's Journal and in the complete failure of New Tipperary, where they spent a large sum in building without first getting a title to the land. The late Mr. Parnell evidently gauged their financial capabilities aright, when he said with regard to the Paris Fund—
  "I am not going to have it squandered and wasted by a parcel of idiots, who spent from £15,000 to £20,000 upon building operations in the town of Tipperary, and after they had spent it discovered that they had no title to the land on which the houses had been built."
  Yet those were the men to whom the Government and noble Lords opposite proposed to hand over the wealth, the industry, the prosperity, and the resources of Ireland. Well might Mr. Gladstone say that the Liberal Party had never descended so low as in their attempt to carry Home Rule! A truer remark the Prime Minister never made! The Liberal Party had, indeed, descended low. They had sunk to a depth of degradation never before attained by that or by any other Party, for they had been returned, and were at the present moment, only supported and maintained in power by a body of men who had promoted a criminal conspiracy, to reward whom Her Majesty's Government were now proposing nothing less than the repeal of the Union. By all who studied the Report of the Commission only one conclusion could be arrived at—namely, that Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien

  1565
  commanded Mr. Morley to issue this Commission, and that they directed him in regard to its constitution and action. In no other way could Sir James Mathew's conduct be explained. He had the greatest, admiration for the patience, the ability, the toleration, and the impartiality of Her Majesty's Judges, but he ventured to say that the action of Sir James Mathew in his management of this Commission had struck a blow at the confidence reposed in them from which it would take Her Majesty's Judges a very long time to recover.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, the noble Marquess has complained of the attitude of the Government last week when this Debate was initiated, and I myself have been charged on previous occasions with being reluctant to discuss Irish questions in this House. On this occasion the noble Marquess will not be able to bring such a charge against me. Unfortunately, I was prevented by absence from England from being present when this Debate began. To-day I think it right that I should rise at once and offer some remarks upon this subject; but as I was not present on the first day of this discussion, I do not propose to deal in detail with all the arguments which were then brought forward, or all the statements that were then made. I wish to state shortly what are, and what were, the views of Her Majesty's Government when this Commission was issued. I wish to do this without any strong language and without any heat of Debate. I will say why I consider this subject of vast importance to Ireland, and I wish to say what I have to say with calmness and with deliberation, and to endeavour to enlist your Lordships on the side of Her Majesty's Government in regard to this matter. It has been argued from the other side that this proposal was made by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of a political Party with whom, I fully admit, Her Majesty's Government are now in sympathy with regard to Home Rule. It has been argued as if this question was entirely one in the interest of Irish tenants. I altogether deny that. I consider this question of great importance to all interests in Ireland. I consider it of great importance to the maintenance and establishment of social order; and last, but
  1566
  not least, I consider it of great importance to the landlords themselves. I am not going to make any attack on the land-lords of Ireland. I have never done so. So far as I know, the landlords of Ireland have often done many generous things for their tenants, and, although in some cases they have been to blame and have, some of them—to some extent, at all events—brought about the existing unfortunate condition of things between landlords and tenants in Ireland, I do not wish for a moment to attack them, but rather to offer some suggestions on their behalf. This question of the Commission has been mixed up by all those who have spoken against it with various Organisations in Ireland—with the Land League, with the National League, and with the Plan of Campaign. I do not blame noble Lords opposite for doing that, but I repudiate altogether the statement of the noble Marquess that this Commission was instituted to whitewash the Plan of Campaign. The noble Marquess said it was a scandal that the Government should attempt to do so. I altogether repudiate any such intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government in appointing this Commission. It has been my lot often to come into contact with these different Organisations, to oppose them, and frequently, since I left Ireland, to condemn their action and what they have brought about. The noble Marquess has declared that none of us have denounced the Plan of Campaign or the actions of those Organisations in Ireland. I altogether deny that that has been the case. My Colleagues and I have frequently urged strong reasons against the Plan of Campaign, and have objected to the principles on which it acted. I have on more than one occasion, in speeches which have been quoted in another place, denounced the unfortunate language often used by members of the National League in Ireland. I am quite ready to admit that the unfortunate circumstances in which some of the tenants in Ireland have been placed have been brought about by the action of some of these Organisations, which have not found favour either with my Colleagues or with me. Now, my Lords, having said that, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the actual state of affairs in lreland. We have to deal with existing facts, and I think we shall only

  1567
  do harm by raising all those points of controversy that are so often raised when any Irish question is before the House. We gain nothing by doing so. We only irritate and excite public feeling; and if we wish to put an end to a serious difficulty, we must deal calmly and dispassionately with the actual state of facts which we find before us. What are the facts? We find that in many districts, unfortunately, there have been bitter controversies between landlords and tenants, which have ended very often in widespread evictions. I know that in some of those cases matters have been settled, and those very men, those tenants whom the noble Marquess has depicted and denounced in such strong terms, have been put back.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I did not denounce the tenants. I called them poor dupes only, and denounced their leaders.
  EARL SPENCER: I accept what the noble Marquess says. He certainly has denounced our endeavour to deal with these difficulties between these men and their landlords. We considered that those difficulties ought to be dealt with by us; and it has been our endeavour and the endeavour of Parliament to help these men and their landlords. We find that the tenants in various parts of Ireland had been evicted. Unfortunately, I have myself had some experience of this when in Ireland; and I find a very good description, as it seems to me, of the condition of these tenants in the Report now before us. In paragraph 16 it is said—
  "The evicted tenants, in many cases, have been living in huts in the vicinity of the estates provided by some of the Associations formed for their defence, or have gone to reside in the neighbouring towns or villages. They have been, and are now, maintained by weekly grants from funds raised by public subscriptions. The present condition of the evicted farms on many of the estates is deplorable. The land has gone to waste. Fields once cultivated and fairly productive are now covered with furze and weeds. Tracts reclaimed by the industry of the tenants from bog or mountain are returning to their original condition. The former tenants, with little or no occupation, hang about their old farms, and never have relinquished the hope of re-instatement. It is not surprising that, in view of this condition of things, the authorities have considered the presence of an additional police force on many of the estates advisable."
  I do not think anybody in this House will deny that that is a truthful picture
  1568
  of the state of things in many parts of Ireland at the present time. Such a condition of things is to be deplored, not only on account of economic waste, but on account of the serious effect it has on social order. When I was last in Ireland the exceedingly disturbed state of many districts came under my notice, arising out of the quarrels between landlords and tenants. In numerous cases disturbances followed evictions; but if the differences were arranged in any district, immediately that district became peaceable and orderly. Time after time have I seen that occur. Well, my Lords, I consider that a very grave and serious condition of affairs. It is not a state of things that passes away rapidly. It may be said that if time is given, the districts where there have been evictions will settle down, and that the proper relations between landlords and tenants will be resumed; but my experience is that a very long time is required. When I was in Ireland in 1882 some estates were in a condition of unsettlement and disquietude. One I particularly recollect—the Maroo estate of Lord Cloncurry. That estate was in a state of great disquietude in 1882, and the difficulties on that estate have not been settled up to the present time. This Commission was issued to deal with cases like that, which arose long before the Plan of Campaign was heard of. That, I think, is a conclusive argument against what the noble Marquess said as to whitewashing the Plan of Campaign. It is of the utmost importance, whatever Government is in power, to settle these difficulties if possible. Every case in which such difficulties exist, from whatever cause they arise, is a fruitful source of disorder in Ireland. The late Government introduced a clause into their Act of 1891 which certainly had for its object the arrangement of disputes between landlords and tenants. I do not deny for a moment that the arrangements aimed at were voluntary; but that shows how important this matter was in the eyes of the late Government. That Clause 13 was not without privileges conferred upon these tenants. The original Act dealt only with tenants in possession, but that clause gave special power to tenants not in possession to obtain the benefits given by the Act to other tenants. Therefore, I maintain that the late Government

  1569
  went actually out of their way to try and make some arrangement. I do not for a moment say that the arrangements were like those proposed by this Commission; far from it. But it shows that the late Government desired, if possible, to bring about some mode of accommodation in those districts; and that, I maintain, was the sole reason why the present Government proceeded in the matter. They wanted to gather together facts to be laid before Parliament as has been done time after time, and as was done by Lord Bessborough's Commission in 1881 and by Lord Cowper's Commission, both of which preceded legislation. Therefore I maintain, in proposing this Commission, the Government have only followed precedent in getting the facts in order, by legislation if possible, to meet a very grave state of affairs. I should like to explain, shortly, the exact position of the Government. The Government have been challenged on this matter, and have stated that they do not at the present moment intend to introduce a measure founded on the recommendations of the Commission. What they have said most distinctly (as was acknowledged by the noble and learned Lord the other night, and it has been distinctly stated in the other House) is that they were ready to vote for the general principle of the measure dealing with this matter introduced by an Irish Member in another place. But in making that statement the Chief Secretary made some very important reservations. He reserved power in Committee to make alterations in four very important points. First of all, he objected to the present Land Commission being used as a Court of Arbitration; secondly, he objected to the Court of Arbitration set up by the Bill having no discretion, and being obliged compulsorily to re-instate tenants; thirdly, he objected to the proposal to postpone the payment of certain instalments in case of purchase; and, lastly, he criticised in a hostile spirit the proposal for the compulsory expropriation of settlers who had no substantial interest in the holding.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Those were recommendations of the Commission.
  EARL. SPENCER: I do not deny that; but they were not all the recommendations of the Commission. Those were suggestions in the Irish Member's Bill introduced in the other House, and
  1570
  I am only speaking of the suggestions contained in the Bill, and trying to make clear the exact position of the Government. What happened? Unfortunately, the Bill was talked out by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Debate was adjourned. But the Bill still remains. It may come on again; and when it comes on, the Government will be prepared to deal with it in the manner indicated by the Chief Secretary. My Lords, I have tried as calmly as I can to give the reasons why Her Majesty's Government attached great importance to this Commission. They still attach great importance to it, and they desire, if possible, to find a just solution of the difficulty. They consider it of the greatest possible importance to do this in the interests of Ireland—in the interests not only of the tenants, but of the landlords of that country. I confess I regret that the question has been raised more than once with great warmth, and in a spirit, I might almost say, of violent opposition. I had sincerely trusted that we might have met with some support even from Irish landlords. [Laughter.] Noble Lords opposite may laugh, but I should consider it of the greatest importance, if I were an Irish landlord, to get this fruitful subject of controversy and disorder set at rest. I regret, therefore, to find the spirit in which it is met; but I sincerely trust a more conciliatory spirit may yet prevail, and that the solution of what I consider to be a question of very great interest to everybody in Ireland may yet be found.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I desire, in the first instance, to call your attention to the manner in which the Government appear to feel themselves entitled to decline to give explanations which are demanded of them as to their policy upon important matters in this House. On Friday last my noble Friend, in a very able and temperate statement, called attention to the action of the Government in the appointment of the Commission which we are discussing, and to the proceedings of that, Commission, and he very naturally concluded by inquiring what steps the Government proposed to take in consequence of the Report presented by that Commission. The noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Government appeared to consider it was sufficient to

  1571
  state that it was not the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. That answer, although so far as I know it was perfectly accurate as far as it went, did not cover or profess to cover the scope of the inquiry which had been addressed to the Government, because the noble Lord must have been perfectly well aware that in the other House the Government had announced their intention of voting for the Second Reading of a Bill introduced by a private Member with the object of carrying out the greater part of the recommendations of the Commission; and the noble Lord not only abstained from stating, but absolutely declined to state, what were the intentions of the Government with regard to that Bill. My noble Friend who has just spoken has not added much to the information of the House with regard to the action which the Government propose to take. He has no doubt admitted that the Government have signified their intention of supporting that Bill, but I think we want to know a little more. We want to know what steps they intend to take in regard to that Bill—whether they consider that they have redeemed the pledges which they have given to their Irish supporters; whether they consider that they have given satisfaction to the expectations which they have raised by giving only the academical support to that Bill which they have already offered to it in the House of Commons; or whether they intend, as it is in their power to do, to take practical steps in order that that Bill should become law; whether they intend to find time for its discussion, and to press it forward in a way which shall enable the judgment of both Houses of Parliament to be given upon the proposals of that measure, embodying as it does the recommendations of the Report? I admit, with the noble Lord who has just sat down, that the matter is of the utmost importance to Ireland, probably of much greater importance to many classes and interests in Ireland even than the measure which appears likely to absorb the greater part of the time of the other House of Parliament. We were told, what we already know, that in a large number of cases where evictions on a large scale had taken place voluntary settlements have been arrived
  1572
  at. If more of these voluntary settlements have not been arrived at it is to a great extent in consequence of the expectation which is still entertained by a large number of the tenantry that some legislative proposal for their re-instatement will make it unnecessary for them to enter into voluntary arrangements with their landlords. It is a matter of the very utmost importance and urgency not only to know what the opinions of the Government on this matter may be, but what their practical intentions are. I have, perhaps, a more recent experience of the other House of Parliament than most of your Lordships, and I venture to express my strong conviction that such reticence on the part of the Government on a subject so important and so vital to great interests in Ireland would not be tolerated in the other House. It is not necessary for me to add much to what has already been said in the form of criticism and condemnation of the action of the Government in the appointment of this Commission and of the proceedings of the Commission. I do not deny that a great social evil exists in Ireland in consequence of the eviction of large numbers of tenants, and their continued residence in proximity to their old homes in a state of idleness, turbulence, and disaffection. Neither do I deny that it is a great social evil that a largo part of many estates should be left as they are at present in an almost derelict condition. I do not deny for a moment that the Government had great difficulties to deal with in regard to this matter, but I am bound to say those difficulties were very largely caused by their own action. Their political exigencies compelled them, during the period they were in opposition, to say many things in palliation—in excuse, if not in actual direct encouragement—of the Plan of Campaign. The noble Lord who has just sat down says that he has never expressed any approval—on the contrary, that he has expressed condemnation of that measure. But that has not been the attitude of some of the noble Lord's Colleagues, who, I am afraid, exercising a more important and a more powerful influence over the proceedings of the Irish Members than does my noble Friend himself. I can recollect the Prime Minister over and over again stating that the Plan of Campaign was

  1573
  entirely due to the action of the late Government and the late Parliament in rejecting Mr. Parnell's Bill; whereas it has been proved many times, and again to-night by the noble Marquess, that the adoption of that Bill would not have affected more than a small fraction of the evicted tenants. I appeal to your Lordships whether, perhaps with the single exception of the noble Earl who has just spoken, there came from any Member of the present Government during the late Parliament any direct condemnation and disavowal of the policy embodied in the Plan of Campaign. The Bill introduced by Mr. O'Kelly, which in their political exigencies they supported, has been rightly described as one of the most audacious proposals ever submitted to the House of Commons. The action of the present Government in regard to that Bill added to the difficulties which they were preparing for themselves and lie-came an additional obstacle to those voluntary arrangements between landlord and tenant which alone could put an end to the disastrous condition of things existing. In the circumstances, I am in the least surprised that the Government should have thought it desirable to resort to the appointment of a Royal Commission. I am not surprised that they should have eagerly grasped at the suggestion of arrangement which was contained in the 13th section of the Land Act of 1891. But the Instructions given to the Commission altogether ignored the only practical, the only equitable, the only just, and, in my opinion, the only possible means of solving this difficulty. The Government did not say one word about a solution by voluntary arrangement—not one word about a solution by equitable arrangement. The Instructions to the Commission were evidently understood by the Commissioners to be Instructions to devise a plan by which the evicted tenants could be universally re-instated totally irrespective of the circumstances which had led to their eviction. The Government had before them the proposal contained in the Act of 1891, and they paraded that precedent in season and out of season. The Commissioners really could not have interpreted their Instructions in any other way than they did. The tenants had acted in an illegal manner, the landlords had acted entirely within their legal
  1574
  rights; but, nevertheless, the first proceeding of the Commission was to issue a document which was very naturally understood to be an invitation to every evicted tenant to lay before them a claim for re-instatement, and an intimation of the terms on which he was willing to be re-instated. One of the documents contained in the Appendices to the Report actually bears upon its face the words "Claim made by an evicted tenant for re-instatement"—that is to say, a tenant who had no locus standi whatever, who had forfeited all rights under any Act of Parliament, was invited to bring in a claim against his landlord, who had in no degree violated any of the conditions upon which be had let his land. It is proposed in the recommendations of the Commission that a tribunal should be constituted which is to settle the terms upon which certain persons who were lately tenants, but who are not now tenants, are to be put into occupation of holdings occupied at the present time either by the landlords themselves or by their lawfully-appointed tenants; and it is proposed that this tribunel shall decide the terms upon which the legally-ejected tenants may have power to eject the legal occupiers whether they be owners or tenants. It is proposed to confer upon this tribunal rights of enormous extent and of a most arbitrary character—rights which could only be justified on the clearest evidence and the existence of moral right overriding legal or technical right. The noble Earl who sits near me (the Earl of Camperdown) showed that, so far from these special rights having been established before the Commission, there is nothing contained in the Blue Book containing their Report to justify the compulsory re-instatement of the evicted tenants. The statements that were made on their behalf were mere partisan, onesided statements, unsifted by the Commission or by anyone on behalf of those against whom they were directed. The only foundation for the recommendation of the Commission in favour of re-instatement appeal's to be that certain landlords have acted in what the Commission regard as a harsh manner. But I ask your Lordships to consider the period at which recommendations of this kind have been made by the Commission. We are about to be invited, in defiance of all past

  1575
  experience, to trust the power of final legislation on the Land Question to an Irish Parliament. It is proposed to sanction the principle that a landlord is not entitled to the possession of his land in case of the failure of the occupier to pay the rent which he has contracted to pay, or which he has been ordered by a judicial authority to pay. That is the only principle recommended by the Commission on which they suggest that legislation can be justified. It appears to me a somewhat strong proceeding for Parliament deliberately to legislate upon Irish land on the principles which were referred to by my noble and learned Friend near mo (the Earl of Selborne). It will be a strong measure to sanction another re-opening of the Irish Land Question as a whole; but it appears to me a still stronger and more objectionable proceeding by an ex post facto law to restore tenants to privileges which they have deliberately lost in consequence of their own misconduct; and, without any full or thorough examination of the principles which ought in future to guide the tenure of laud in Ireland, to make this mischievous exception in favour of certain tenants whose only claim is that they have deliberately violated the provisions of the law. I think the circumstances fully justify the attention which has been brought to this subject in your Lordships' House, and I hope that even now, before this discussion closes, some further information may be obtained from Members of Her Majesty's Government as to what are not only their theoretical opinions, but their practical intentions in regard to this subject of most vital importance to Irish interests.
  *THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that Lord Spencer had very truly pointed out, that important economic questions, as well as questions important to the landlords of Ireland, were mixed up in this matter; but he desired to impress upon their Lordships that the recommendations in the Report were not the proper method of settling those economic questions. The principle there laid down, as had been urged again and again, was simple compulsory re-instatement, which the noble Earl seemed to think would lead to a settlement of this question. As one who had known Ireland for many years, he ventured to say that so far from compulsory re-instatement bringing about
  1576
  a settlement, it would lead to an entire re-opening of the land difficulty. He was not one of those who objected to the settlement, of the Land Question by some proper mode of purchase and sale; in fact, he was one of its earliest advocates; but the principle of compulsory sale was one which it was impossible for those who had to sell to accept; and he favoured an extension of the 5th section of Lord Ashbourne's Act as the most hopeful method of settlement. That section provided, that the Land Commissioners might purchase the whole of an estate, whenever they were reasonably satisfied that four-fifths of the tenants would re-purchase their farms, which number might even, provided the Treasury consented, be reduced to three-fourths. He thought that the Laud Commissioners might be authorised to purchase an entire estate if they were satisfied that a sufficient number of holdings on a particular estate had been sold to give them a just idea of what was the value of the land, and without reference to the question whether they could or not immediately re-sell it to the tenants. If some proposal of that sort were given effect to, the money already voted by Parliament for that purpose would be absorbed within a, reasonable number of years. The whole question now before the House had been so thoroughly gone into, and the case of the landlords had been so completely stated by Lord Selborne, that he would not trouble their Lordships with further observations.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, that he had paused for a moment before Lord Belmore rose to address their Lordships in the hope that they would have heard from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack some reply to the very weighty and powerful observations made by the noble and learned Lord the Earl of Selborne on the first night of the Debate; for no one could regard the few trifling words then uttered by Lord Acton as an answer to anyone, either as lawyer or statesman, in reference to the character of this Commission. He should have been glad to be spared taking part in this Debate, but, considering the position he lately held in their Lordships' House, he felt it would not be proper for him to remain silent. Of the able and learned Judge who presided over the Commission he could

  1577
  speak from a life-long knowledge. He was the last man in the world consciously to do anything unfair. But, having said that, he felt bound to add, on the other hand, that this Commission in its essential nature was obviously unfair; and if he had to criticise, as he hoped one old friend might, the action of another, he should say this—that the learned Judge never ought to have accepted a Commission bound down by such restrictions as was this Commission. It was idle to suggest that the section of the Act of Parliament to which its defenders, and even the learned Judge himself, referred, formed any precedent for such a Commission. There were two essential particulars in which it was wholly different. Of these one had not yet been referred to. The section of the Act of Parliament contemplated voluntary arrangements, but it also contemplated dealing with vacant land, whereas this Commission proposed to deal compulsorily, and to deal with land occupied by existing tenants. He would assume that the Commissioners acted within the ambit of their jurisdiction, and that they intended to carry out the purpose of the Commission with which they were entrusted. It was obvious that the Reference of the Commission as understood, and, as he thought, rightly understood, by the Commissioners contemplated a general putting back of every one of the evicted tenants, however gross their dishonesty, however frandulent had been their con-duet towards their landlord. No such Commission ought ever to have been accepted by an English Judge. He now turned to what was done by the Commission, and be would say that where serious matters were at stake, where character was involved, it was not a question of technicalities, it was a question of principle which transcended all technicalities, and the person against whom the charges were made ought to have been brought face to face with their accusers and be allowed to ask questions. It was no matter if a man was said to be a bad Irish landlord, if he was said to have neglected his tenants and never to have spent anything on his estates. He did not care one farthing whether such imputations were true or not; but if they were permitted to be made, it was a matter of the merest justice that he or his counsel should be
  1578
  allowed to cross-examine. It was not, denied that the Commission had power to ask such questions as would show the relations of the witness to the landlord. It was not denied, further, that it would have been desirable that the Commissioners should inform themselves as to the means of knowledge of a witness apart from any question as to his character. It was enough to say that in every part of the volume, whose bulk was its own protection against the sort of criticism he would like to apply to it, what wag called evidence was a mass of the most violent partisan accusations and the merest hearsay testimony. It was the duty of the Commission, therefore, to take such means as might be most effectual for sifting that evidence and ascertaining what it was worth. The Commissioners were to have before them
  "any proposals for settlement which have been made or which may be made by landlord or tenant with a view to re-instatement."
  That was not a proper thing to be laid before such a tribunal. It would have been very proper indeed that arbitrators should have such matters before them; but to say that compulsorily, and against the will of one of the parties, the Commissioners were to have settlements framed with a view to peaceable arrangements laid before them would be a blow to the chance of any kind of settlement, because there might be admissions on one side or the other to the prejudice of the person who had put forward conciliatory proposals. On one estate the abatements offered by the landlord would have been accepted only that he refused to re-instate two tenants as a punishment for having acted as leaders. It was surely a reasonable thing for the landlord to decline to re-instate such men. What chance of peace or happiness would there have been on the estate if the two tenants responsible for the original quarrel had been re-instated against the will of the landlord? But the important question with which their Lordships had to deal was why was the Commission appointed? Was it intended that all the evicted tenants should be re-instated? He understood that the Chief Secretary had repudiated any such idea. If so, the Government repudiated both their own Commission and their own Commissioners. For what was the Commission

  1579
  to do? The Commission was instructed to see
  "What means should be adopted to bring about settlements and the re-instatement of the evicted tenants."
  He did not find any limitation of the discretion of the Commissioners. Therefore, persons who were now strangers to the estate, hut who had once been tenants, were to be re-instated, and tenants who were in possession were to be got rid of, and if that could not be done the Commission were to buy land and allow men who had been evicted for fraudulent misconduct to have laud provided for them at the public expense in order to establish peace and harmony in Ireland. If in any other country in the world—if in England—the doctrine was preached that if people were sufficiently riotous and so dishonest as to disregard their just obligations land would be provided for them, they would soon have a labourers' question quite as likely to produce social disturbance as in Ire-laud. The important question now, however, was not the Commission itself; the Commission was dead, and its recommendations were repudiated. The important question was the precedent. If that precedent were to be followed, a weak Government, dependent upon a particular majority, might issue a Commission which might set at naught the principles upon which the social condition of this country was maintained. But if, instead of the Irish landlord being the victim, some other industry than the laud were concerned, if it was a commercial question between employers and employed, the whole sense of the country would repudiate such interference with our social relations. This had been done because it was a comparatively feeble interest which was dealt with; but what Government would venture at this moment, when labour questions were rife, to issue a Commission in the language of this one directing the Commissioners to inquire under what circumstances employers and labourers should be compelled to re-establish the relations between them? What was the difference, except that both those classes were much too powerful, and that in their case no Government dare do it? There was absolutely no precedent for the Commission or the character of its proceedings, and he should like to hear some justification
  1580
  from the Government for the course of procedure adopted in this remarkable case. The word "Constitutional" had not, he supposed, been relegated to the distant planets, and there was still such a thing as recognising the right of people by law to have their property respected, and not to have, in such a country as Ireland, this kind of "evidence" published in respect of individuals. Their Lordships were almost entirely without information as to what was going to be done as the result of the Commission. On Friday the noble Lord opposite (Lord Acton) when asked the question, curtly replied that the Government were not going to bring in a Bill. The noble Earl (Karl Spencer) had to-night gone a little beyond that, but he did not tell the House the attitude the Government were going to take upon this question, though he admitted it to be a most important and burning question. Was it to be left by the Government without treatment on their part? Were they going to leave the matter in the hands of a private Member, and a Member, too, who was identified with no very moderate views on the Irish Question? From Friday night up to the present time they had been vainly endeavouring to get an answer to this question. The Government had not even told them whether they approved or disapproved the recommendations of the Commission. It was true that the noble Earl opposite quoted the view of the Chief Secretary—that he objected to some of them. But surely that was not such an answer as the House had a right to expect on a subject of such importance. Probably he should fail, as other speakers who had preceded him bad failed, in procuring from the Government a straight answer to a straight question. But it was the duty of their Lordships to put the question to Her Majesty's Government whether it was answered plainly or not. How many or what portions of these recommendations were to be adopted by the Government? Would they state in plain terms what they meant to do? Did they intend to deal with the matter at all, or to leave it in the hands of a private Member, and allow it to slumber until it could in due course come on? There were some Members of the House of Commons quite as curious on those points as he was, and who did not belong

  1581
  to his Party. Unless something was done to satisfy the curiosity of those hon. Gentlemen he was afraid the noble Earl opposite would find that they had the means of enforcing an answer to their questions which he himself did not possess.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, I should have been delighted to hear any criticisms from my noble and learned Friend upon what I have to say, but considering that one subject of this Debate has been an attack not only upon Her Majesty's Government, but upon the conduct of one of Her Majesty's Judges who presided over the Commission, I thought it was only just and right that I should hear all that was to be said upon that subject before addressing the House upon it. I wish to make one observation with regard to a remark that has fallen from my noble and learned Friend before I address your Lordships on the main subject. My noble and learned Friend said—
  "Whatever you are going to do with regard to this matter is of the utmost importance, because whatever you are going to do will be regarded, and must be regarded, as a precedent for what you may be called upon to do in consequence in England."
  That seems to me to be a strange and dangerous observation as coming from my noble and learned Friend. I should like to ask whether the noble Marquess, when he introduced and carried through Parliament the Act of 1887, would have liked to be told, or would have admitted, that because, in the circumstances of Ireland he deemed such a measure necessary, it followed that it was legislation which he might be justly called upon to introduce into England? I think, my Lords, those who read this Debate will be struck by the absence of any allusion, until my noble Friend, Earl Spencer, spoke, to the circumstances which led to the issue of this Commission. I understand, however, that the noble Duke (the Duke of Devonshire) admitted there is a question at issue, that there is a difficulty to settle, a problem awaiting solution, although he naturally did not approve of the milliner in which the Government seeks to deal with it. The noble and learned Lord (the Earl of Selborne) had maintained that the issue of this Commission was an unconstitutional act—the most unconstitutional act which the country had witnessed since the reign of James II.
  1582
  That proposition was strongly stated; but I cannot but think, when one looks back at the Constitutional questions which were raised during the last century, and remembers the language employed by eminent Constitutional lawyers, Predecessors of the noble and learned Earl and myself on the Woolsack, that the noble Earl would feel there was some lack of proportion in representing the issue of such a Commission as this as a more unconstitutional act than any of those denounced during the reign of George III. What is this Commission? It is a Commission merely of inquiry, which touches no man's rights. No man need have attended it unless he pleased, and if he desired he might have been heard as a witness before it. It is a Commission of Inquiry to obtain facts for the information of Parliament, in order that Parliament may be able to judge whether any or what legislation is required to meet the difficulty that exists. It passes my comprehension to understand how a Commission of that description, with powers so limited, can be termed unconstitutional. In substance it does not differ from the Bessborough and Cowper Commissions, which inquired into the Land Question. Those Commissions inquired into the action of the landlords and how they had exercised their rights, with a view to ascertain whether there was harsh and unreasonable exercise of those rights, and whether it was necessary for Parliament to interfere. The noble and learned Earl bases his allegation that the Commission is unconstitutional mainly on the statement that—
  "It is a Royal Commission to inquire into the exercise of the property rights of individual members of the community, with a view to overrule those rights and to undo that which had been done in the due and regular process of law."
  But does the noble Earl mean to assert that there can be no such exercise by landlords or landowners of their rights of property as to make it necessary, in the public interest, that there should be inquiry and even restraint applied? Supposing the whole of the landlords in Ireland combined to evict their tenants and to allow their land to run to waste, would the public have no right to interfere? If the noble Earl means to suggest that Parliament has never inter-

  1583
  fered with the exercise of the property rights of individuals, he is forgetful of an Act passed by the Government of the noble Marquess—the Act of 1887. In that Act power was expressly given to the Court, where land had been recovered under judgment, where execution was complete, and where the tenant had ceased to be the tenant, to stay that execution within three months after the passing of the Act, to set it aside, and to restore the tenant to his holding.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not know whether I am regular, but the noble and learned Lord is quoting an Act of Parliament; while I was speaking of the unconstitutional character of a Royal Commission, not sanctioned by Parliament, and without the character and powers which it, ought to have.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That, if I may respectfully say so, is really no answer to the argument I was addressing to the House. The noble Earl was maintaining that this Commission of Inquiry was unconstitutional, because it, was to frame a scheme for dealing with that which Parliament would never of itself contemplate dealing with. If Parliament has done this under particular circumstances, what can there be unconstitutional in making inquiries with a view to putting Parliament in the possession of facts to see whether in this case the same action is necessary? I do not understand why it should be improper to inquire into a matter which it is proper for Parliament to consider and possibly to legislate upon. The noble Earl used strong expressions about the conduct of the Commission in inquiring into the question of the exercise of their rights by landlords. What, then, let me ask, does the noble Earl think of the conduct of an Executive that not only inquired into the dealings of a landlord with his tenants, but refused to that landlord the use of the civil force for the purpose of enforcing his legal rights? I will read to your Lordships a description of what was done, not within the last century but within the last ten years, and by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland. The description was given by a learned Judge from the Bench, who said—
  "The Chief Secretary had intervened and had gone so far as to refuse the forces of law, when by the law he was bound to supply these forces in order to carry out the behest of a certain landlord."
  1584
  That was a refusal by the Executive itself—a refusal contrary to law, because they regarded as harsh the action of the landlord towards his tenants. I am not attacking the conduct of the Chief Secretary of the late Government in taking that course; but I am entitled to cite that as an example of conduct far more unconstitutional than that of the present Government in merely issuing a Commission of Inquiry into the relations between landlords and their tenants, if, indeed, this was unconstitutional in any degree, which I deny. It is said that the Commission was not impartial, and the noble Karl who opened this Debate pointed out "that four out of the five gentlemen appointed held Nationalist opinions." Well, I have known Commissions composed of Members all of whom wore in political sympathy with the Government who appointed them, and yet these Commissions were held up as perfectly impartial bodies. The only conclusion at which I can arrive is that when all the Members of a Commission profess the views of the present Opposition they form an impartial tribunal, but that when they do not do so they are not an impartial tribunal. In my opinion there is no ground whatever for maintaining that because the majority of those who formed the Evicted Tenants Commission shared the political opinions of the Government the Commission is to be regarded as partial or packed. If it was packed, I have known Commissions which very much more deserved that description. The next objection made is that the terms of Reference contain a misstatement as to the policy of the Act of 1881. Here, again, I cannot admit that there is any ground for the objection. It is, perhaps, more a matter of language than anything else; but what was the policy of Section 13 of the Land Purchase Act, 1891? Its essence appears to me to have been this—that it was held to be expedient that the tenants who were then evicted and out of their holdings should, if possible, be restored to them. It is true that the scheme of the enactment was to restore them by voluntary agreement, but the root of the policy was the expediency of their restoration. Whether it is by voluntary arrangement or by compulsion that the re-instatement of the tenants is to be brought about, the policy is precisely the same—namely,

  1585
  that these tenants shall, as far as possible, regain possession of their holdings, and that the land shall no longer remain without occupants. It has been said by noble Lords who have criticised the Commission that the terms of Reference assume that all the tenants are to be reinstated. I do not read the words in that sense, nor do I think that anyone who approaches the subject with an unprejudiced mind would do so. My noble and learned Friend, however, declared that the Commissioners did so read them; but in that my noble and learned Friend was mistaken, inasmuch as the Commissioners have not recommended that all the tenants should be re-instated. They have, as a matter of fact, recommended that whenever an evicted holding has come into the possession of a bonâ fide new tenant, no compulsion should be used against that tenant. In such holdings, then, there would be no re-instating of the evicted tenants. It should be borne in mind that when a Royal Commission is appointed, it is not customary to frame the terms of Reference with the accuracy of an indictment, for the Reference is not expected to be subjected to the kind of criticism which has been brought to bear upon the document under your Lordships' consideration. It is usual to indicate in the Reference the general aim and purpose of the Commission, and to leave the mode of effecting that purpose largely to the Commissioners. Then, with regard to the objection as to procedure and that cross-examination would not be allowed, I am not going to defend these proceedings on the ground of precedent, although that does not mean that there is no precedent, upon a Commission of this description, for counsel not being heard in cross-examination. But, putting that question aside, I would point out that the Commission was not designed as an attack upon the landlords or as a defence of the action of the tenants. It had a practical purpose and object—namely, to try to discover a scheme by which the unhappy difficulties existing might be healed, by which peace might be restored, and by which the dangers arising out of the existing condition of things might be diminished or made to disappear. But a learned counsel appeared and claimed to cross-examine on behalf of a particular landlord, who had informed the Commis-
  1586
  sion that he did not intend to offer them the slightest assistance, and who had addressed to them a letter, treating them in a very contemptuous fashion. I am very strongly of opinion that if counsel had been permitted to cross-examine, a vast amount of time would have been absolutely wasted. The Commissioners, however, did not say that the questions which it was desired to put should not be asked; on the contrary, they stated that they were willing to have questions suggested to them with a view to their being put to witnesses. When it is said that procedure of that sort must render an inquiry of this kind unsatisfactory, I may remind your Lordships that in courts martial the only questions permitted to be put are put in the manner which the Commissioners said they would adopt. Do noble Lords mean to say that courts martial are tribunals which do not conduct proceedings in such a way that justice can be done because questions are permitted to be put in that way without cross-examination? I am sure they will not. The course the Commission proposed to adopt was this, and it seems to me to have a great deal to recommend it. They said—"We will hear statements made about a particular estate, and we will hear any answer which it may be desired to make." Suppose the owner of a particular estate had come and said—"Those are the facts that you have before you. I have nothing to say and no alteration to make." If in such a case counsel had been previously allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, it would have been nothing more than a waste of time, because the facts would have been admitted to be as the first wit ness stated them. The Commissioners said—"We will permit questions to be put in the first instance, and then when we have heard one side we will hear the other; and if there are differences in the evidence on the one side or the other we are quite prepared to consider the question of cross-examination." Such a plan was much more business-like and satisfactory than the plan which my noble and learned Friend apparently advocates. It saved a vast amount of time being wasted, and did just as much justice as if cross-examination had been permitted in the first instance. The noble Marquess asked whether there

  1587
  was any precedent for the opening remarks of the learned Judge.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I said written remarks. These were remarks written out beforehand.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course, with regard to that I am not in a position to say; but whether they wore written or orally delivered does not seem to me to make any great Constitutional difference. But, on the face of it, it is obvious that the remarks were not written, because some of them followed immediately upon interruptions by counsel.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am sorry to interrupt again, but up to the point where the procedure of the Commissioners was attacked the remarks were written
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: All I can do is to read what is in the Blue Book, and I can find no trace upon the Report of the learned Judge having said before lunch that he would allow cross-examination. When counsel stated that he did, the learned Judge stated that he said nothing of the kind. There must have been some misunderstanding, for if noble Lords will read the observations made by the learned Judge as to the conduct of the case they will see that they are absolutely inconsistent with any such statement. It is said that the learned Judge prejudged the case against a certain landlord. No one can, I think, read his observations without seeing that, in the first, place, they were dictated by a desire, if possible, to obtain the attendance of the landlord referred to; and I am certain that nobody who knows the learned Judge would imagine that because he made these observations he had in the slightest degree prejudged the case. The facts connected with the estate of this particular landlord were common property. They were already in the possession of the Commission. It was not dealing with hearsay in the least, because another learned Judge had stated that the responsible officer of the Crown had refused the forces of the Crown unless Lord Clanricarde, who had refused the supplications of his tenants and their pastors, consented to give an abatement such as other landlords gave. It was not the learned Judge who presided over this Commission who on any hearsay was
  1588
  discriminating in that particular case, but he had a statement before him made by a learned Judge on the Bench.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: There is no evidence of that.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Has my noble and learned Friend ever been on a Commission? Is he not perfectly aware that a Royal Commission possesses itself at once of all the information it can got? It was only natural, having regard to the publication of the words to which I have referred, that application should have been made to Lord Clanricarde to come forward and give whatever information was in his power; but he treated the application with contempt. Would it not have been idle to invite the writer of such a letter as Lord Clanricarde wrote to the Commission to come forward and give evidence? Lord Clanricarde was represented by counsel, and when counsel found the opportunity they did what I have known counsel do before, when, perhaps, they thought it the more expedient course, they gracefully retired from the case. No one who knows Mr. Justice Mathew would suppose that if the noble Lord referred to, or any other landlord, had come before the Commission his evidence would not have received the fairest consideration. I am convinced that the learned Judge would have given all due heed and consideration to any such evidence. The late Lord Chancellor of Ireland has said that the whole of the evidence on which the Commission reported was hearsay. Before a Commission of this description a great deal of the evidence must be hearsay. It is impossible to carry on an inquiry of this kind by adhering to the strict rules of evidence. Hearsay evidence puts them in a position to obtain more direct and positive evidence. In this connect ion, your Lordships will remember that constant reference has been made to the statements of a witness called at the commencement of the inquiry with regard to a particular estate. Anyone would have thought that was the only witness who gave evidence about that estate; but no one can look through the Blue Book without seeing that a number of witnesses were called with reference to that particular estate, who had a personal knowledge of the circumstances. Then complaint is made that the evidence was

  1589
  all one-sided. If it was, it was because those who could have put the other side forward did not choose to do so. I venture to say that in the Report no trace of any unfair dealing with the evidence can be found, or of any reliance placed exclusively on such statements. The Government has been, if not attacked, twitted with not being prepared to adopt all the recommendations of the Commission. When has it ever been held that it is the duty of a Government to adopt all the recommendations of a Commission? They are appointed to inquire, not to come to conclusions which the Government is bound to adopt. Lord Cowper's Commission recommended that rents should be revised every five years instead of 15; but the noble Marquess who appointed that Commission refused to adopt their recommendation. It has been asked what course the Government proposes to take, and objection has been made that no explanation has been given of that course. It appears to me that, so far as is proper and legitimate, the explanation asked for has been amply given. It is surely something now, when the Government has stated that they do not intend to proceed by legislation, but has expressed their intention of seeking to engraft Amendments on a Bill dealing with the subject pending in another place, that your Lordships should be invited to discuss the course which the Government proposes to take on the measure so pending. The Government are under no obligation to inform your Lordships' House of the course they propose to take upon a Bill pending in the other House. I should like to ask some questions, in return, of the noble Duke (the Duke of Devonshire). What is the attitude which the noble Duke and his friends will exhibit towards that Bill if it should be brought forward? Will they accept it, and try by Amendments to make it a means of settling this question; or will they endeavour to waste time in inducing the House of Commons to reject it, and, if unsuccessful there, will they invite your Lordships to throw it. out in this House? I know the noble Duke is under no obligation to answer me; but when he expresses such great anxiety and eagerness to have the Bill brought on, I am entitled to draw my own conclusions as to whether it is a real disinterested thirst for knowledge that
  1590
  induces the noble Duke's question, or whether there may not be other considerations behind. The Debate has, no doubt, been interesting; whether it has been a very profitable one I have more doubt. Its object, of course, is obvious. It is thought that the discussion will damage the Government, but I am not very much alarmed at the effect it is likely to produce in that respect, because the observations that have been made will, for various reasons, be a good deal discounted by the general public outside. I think it is unfortunate that a question of this description should be approached in the spirit of combat and heat which has been displayed during the Debate. When the Commission was first announced, the names were not received in a hostile spirit by the Irish landlords; but, unfortunately, their political friends on this side of the Channel took a different view, and then the Commission was so vehemently attacked that there was little hope of it succeeding in its objects. But, my Lords, notwithstanding this discussion, the question still remains. I wish I could believe that the matter might be brought to a speedy settlement by voluntary agreements, but the evidence seems to be the other way. There are a few unreasonable landlords who are not prepared to take the course which the majority have taken, and they may continue to be the cause of a condition of disquiet and disorder which will be prejudicial, not only to the unreasonable landlords themselves, but to the many who have acted reasonably and equitably. The Government have not the slightest desire that there should be an inequitable or an unfair settlement of the question. They do not regard it as a matter in which they, of a Party, are specially interested. The noble Marquess and others who sit by him have predicted that very soon the Government will disappear from the scene, and that they again will resume the reins of power.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble and learned Lord say that I predicted that? I certainly do not remember it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The predictions have come so often from the Benches in the noble Marquess's neighbourhood, that perhaps I am wrong in supposing that the noble Marquess himself has assumed the gift of prophecy.

  1591
  But, whether that time is near or more distant, I should think that it is to the interest of any Government that these difficulties in Ireland should cease. Whatever has been the cause, whoever deserves the blame—and I do not deny that in very many cases the tenants have been deserving of blame—that does not alter the critical condition of affairs. I believe it to be to the interests of landlords and tenants and for the benefit of the country at large that an end should be put to the state of things now prevailing, which is not to the benefit of either tenants or landlords, and that the question should be settled on fair and equitable terms.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack appears to me to have relied for his defence principally upon the well-known Parliamentary figure of tu quoque; but I think the tu quoque to be effective ought to have some substantial similarity between the acts that are appealed to and the acts that are defended. The noble and learned Lord appealed to the Cowper Commission and to the Act of 1887. He defended the proposal for re-instating the evicted tenants who have been for several years out of their holdings by referring to a clause in an Act which enabled a Judge to stay execution for a short time, and I think he wound up his system of parallels by invoking the protection of martial law and showing that whatever might be said of Sir James Mathew's proceedings, at all events they could not be said to be more despotic or more summary than those of a court martial. I think that is very likely true, but I believe that more care is taken to secure an impartial president of a court martial than appears to have been taken in the present instance. In listening to the long, laboured, and very uncomfortable defence of the noble Lord, I could not think that he really appreciated or desired to appreciate the nature of the objections which we bring against what the Government have done. On the question of the selection of President I do not wish to dwell. It has already been touched upon by those who, from their legal training, are fitter to deal with it than I am; but I will say this—that if you appoint a Judge to execute a non-judicial duty you
  1592
  should be very careful that it is one in regard to which he is not known generally to be actuated by strong prepossessions or proclivities. Everybody knew Sir James Mathew's special disposition on this Irish Question, and it seems to me that it was not fair on him, that it was wanting in consideration for his undoubted merits as a Judge, and still more wanting in consideration for the position and prestige of the Judicial Bench in England, to ask him to undertake a work in which he would be at every moment compelled, if he acted justly, to renounce his own sympathies and push his own partialities in the background. But it is not the character of the Judge to which I think we have a right to take exception. The noble Lord was much scandalised because my noble and learned Friend opposite designated this Commission as unconstitutional, and he advanced in defence that there have been other Commissions which examined into the manner in which the existing law worked in reference to private rights. Of course, there have been other such Commissions, and it is the ordinary function of a Commission to perform that work. But what is absolutely new is that a Royal Commission should be appointed to investigate a quarrel between two private individuals upon a matter which has no public bearing whatever. The individuals were marked. It was the evicted tenants that were to be dealt with. There were only evicted tenants upon certain estates. It was a Commission evidently, as it proved to be, to examine into the conduct of Lord Clanricarde, Mr. Ponsonby, Lord Cloncurry, the Marquess of Lansdowne, and a certain number of other land proprietors in Ireland. That, we say, is an entirely unprecedented action, and one which, if it is to form a precedent, may be most injurious to the liberties and rights of Her Majesty's subjects in the future. But if this extreme and exceptional step was taken—a step which I cannot think could in any circumstances be defended—at all events the very utmost care should have been taken at the same time that the private individuals who were being assailed in this manner should have the fullest security that their case would be entirely and impartially heard, and that no prejudice or prepossession inter-

  1593
  fered with its being properly decided. But what was done? The noble Lord entered into an elaborate defence of the refusal to permit cross-examination. The best thing he could say was that the same thing was done at courts-martial. I think he told us that cross-examination, after all, was a very dangerous proceeding, because it often happened, after the cross-examination was over, that a witness came up who showed that all the cross-examination had been in vain. I do not know whether he is prepared to apply that principle in reforming the procedure of of the English Courts. I should not treat this matter as a question of procedure, or as a question of law; I should treat it as a matter of common equity that any Englishmen ignorant of the law would apply in dealing with their neighbours. If you had to deal with the accusation which one servant made against another, you would not refuse that other servant the right of asking questions. What was the practical result here? The ordinary laws of evidence were set aside. Hearsay was freely accepted. The evidence opened with an account of what the late Lord Clanricarde did in 1872, given by a man who had never seen him, and the result was, as my noble and learned Friend says, this so-called evidence was no evidence at all. Sir James Mathew was sent upon an expedition for the collection of malevolent gossip. It was nothing but gossip, and most of it malevolent gossip, which found its way into this Blue Book. Of course, if it had been buried in the breasts of Sir J. Mathew and of his two Nationalist Colleagues, it would not, perhaps, have done any very great harm. I dare say neither Lord Clanricarde nor any of the other landlords attacked cared very much what opinion was entertained of them by those Commissioners; but it was done in open Court, and it was done in the presence of reporters. Every word that was said against these landlords by strongly-prejudiced witnesses, even on the strength of hearsay evidence, was printed and circulated throughout the country. No opportunity was given for testing it by cross-examination, and for two months no opportunity was given for testing it by counter-statement. This is not a question of law, it is a question
  1594
  of common justice, and what we complain of is that common justice was violated for a political purpose. The end and object of the Government was to fulfil in some sort of shadowy manner the reckless pledges which they had given in Opposition. They had practically promised their sympathy and assistance to these evicted tenants; they must give them something to satisfy them. The Commission, at all events, was better than nothing, especially if it was a Commission unfairly constituted, and certain to contain in its Report injurious evidence against the landlords. And that same policy the Government are pursuing now. We have not been able, though many of us have tried, to extract any definite statement from the Government of what they are going to do in this matter. What they have told us is this—that they will not bring in a Bill in regard to the Report of the Commission. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has told us practically—at all events he has let us see between the lines—that he would exceedingly dislike to bring in a Bill that should support the recommendations of the Commission; but that though the Government will not bring in a Bill, they will vote for the SECOND READING of a Bill that contains what they object to enact. They, knowing that the Second Reading of this Bill will not come on for a very long time, and that there will be no possibility of its over getting into Committee, are confident that they will not be called upon to declare more distinctly than they have yet done what enactments they are prepared to approve, or to what principles they are prepared to give their adhesion in reference to dealing with the land. In dealing with this question every speaker on the other side always uses language as if there was a definite claim on the part of the tenants and a definite grievance which it was our duty to redress. The tenants of these evicted estates have no grievance. They engaged to pay their rent or to give up their farms; they declined to do either. Many of them are perfectly capable of paying their rents; they decline to do so. It is not even a pretence that their resistance is duo to any agrarian motives. We have Mr. Dillon's statement, made in November, that their action is entirely political, and is not

  1595
  prompted in any way by a regard for the tenants. He said—
  "The organised system of keeping evicted farms unoccupied is the greatest weapon ever placed in the hands of the Irish people, and long may the day be before the Irish people forget the lesson."
  My Lords, I will not detain the House now on a subject upon which your Lordships have dwelt for a long time; but I do earnestly protest against this being considered as a tu quoque question, or as a question of the merits of one Government or another. The burning question that should press upon our minds is—What will be the effect produced on the future government and, social condition of Ireland by the policy which the Government are pursuing with respect to these evicted tenants? The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack tells us that he is in favour of conciliation, that the sore will remain if we take no measures now, and he urges upon us that it will be our responsibility if the conciliation does not take place. It is the responsibility of the Government, because they will not take up a definite line and state their definite policy on the subject. As long as they keep their intentions under a cloud and allow these unhappy tenants to believe that if they hold out long enough, and refuse to come to terms with their landlords, the Government will, in the long run, come to their relief—as long as that idea is allowed to have currency, so long will the sore remain open, and they will not make arrangements with their landlords. And the line which has been pursued to-day, the studied ambiguity and reticence, the careful abstinence from any clear declaration of intention on the part of the Government will have the effect of enabling agitators and agitating priests in Ireland to keep up in the minds of the tenants hopes which are fatal to any prospect of renewed peace, or industry, or prosperity upon the evicted estates. The lesson, as Mr. Dillon, in effect, says, you have taught them and are teaching them is: that those who defy the law shall be taken care of, and those who obey the law shall be neglected. You divide the landlords of Ireland into two classes. Those landlords who have been the subject of this fraudulent conspiracy you propose to
  1596
  hand over to a Commission who shall deal as they will with their property, and impose upon them any terms which they choose to demand. You are telling the tenants that if they stick together, that if they listen to the agitator, that if they obey the priests, that if they refuse to settle separately with the landlords, and that if they disregard all the obligations which are imposed upon them either by their own agreements or by the decisions which they have obtained in the Land Courts—then they will be the subject of constant attention on the part of legislators and statesmen, that their condition will be declared a great problem, and that persons whose rights they are invading will be exhorted to give up one-half of them in order to show their love of equity; and that if the exhortation fails, compulsory powers will be applied in order that the plunderer may have the whole of his booty and that the victim may have no redress.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT or THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, the noble Marquess used some words which seemed to me incorrectly to describe the issue at stake when he said this was a private quarrel between two individuals. That is the aspect in which this question apparently presents itself to the noble Marquess and noble Lords opposite. If it were a quarrel between two private individuals, I agree that it would be unjust and unfair to issue a Commission to inquire into the facts between them; but does anyone who has followed this question really believe that the question of the condition of the evicted tenants in Ireland and the condition of the estates which remain derelict in Ireland, and the condition of the districts which are disturbed and unquiet in consequence of that state of things, is merely a quarrel between two private individuals, and not a matter of great and paramount public interest? It was upon that ground that Her Majesty's Government issued this Commission. Throughout this discussion it has been found extremely convenient to confuse and confound the terms of the Commission issued by the Government, and for which they are responsible, with the recommendations of the Commission. Of course, those are not the same by any means, though I know some of those who

  1597
  have spoken think it was. The late Lord Chancellor—for whose acuteness I have the greatest respect—and other noble Lords have argued that the terms of the Commission implied that there was to be a re-instatement of all the evicted tenants; but I cannot understand how the terms of Reference can be said to bear any such interpreration. The Commission was to consider—
  "What means should be adopted to bring about settlements and the re-instatement of evicted tenants, and thereby give effect to the policy of the late Parliament indicated by Section 13 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891."
  Well, I never had any education in the subtleties of law, but I think any person of ordinary common sense—I am not in the least imputing any want of common sense to the noble and learned Lord—would suppose that that meant that the cases of all the evicted tenants were to be inquired into, but that it did not mean that the Commission was necessarily to recommend the re-instatement of every one of the evicted tenants. Of course, a Commission of that kind is not drawn like a Bill in Chancery, but it is supposed to be read by plain men and to be interpreted according to the manner in which we interpret plain English; and, whatever may be the possible construction put upon this paragraph, it certainly never was the intention of the Government that the Commission should be bound to recommend the reinstatement of the whole of the evicted tenants. No such notion ever entered their heads. The evidence has been characterised as hearsay evidence, and some of it as malevolent gossip.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No; I said much of it was.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: At all events that a great deal of it was hearsay, and a great deal of it malevolent gossip. A great deal has been said, for example, about the evidence relating to Lord Clanricarde's estate. I should like to mention that there were called two witnesses who had had negotiations with Lord Clanricarde's agent and 12 tenants. That being so, I do not know in what way the Commissioners could have endeavoured better to discover what were the allegations made in regard to the management of that estate. The noble Marquess, as well as others, insisted very strongly upon the monstrous injustice of
  1598
  giving a preference to the tenants who had violated the law, and who, therefore, are now considered to be deserving of no consideration. Does he remember nothing of what was said at the time of the passing of the Act of 1891—the declarations of Members of his own Government admitting that it was for the interest of the country that a clause should be introduced in order that the evicted tenants might be re-instated in their holdings—that whatever may have been the terms of the voluntary agreements to be made that certain privileges were most distinctly given by law to those tenants who had violated the law?
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They were advantages given to the landlords. Undoubtedly they included the tenants when purchase was contemplated, but a main object was to enable the landlords to purchase.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I must say that I hear the declaration of the noble Marquess with blank astonishment. Docs he remember nothing of what was said when that Bill was passing through Parliament? Why, the declarations of Members of his Government teemed with assertions that it was for the interest of the country that this clause should be passed, in order that the evicted tenants might be re-instated in their holdings. It was never represented by them as a mere landlord's question. I do not remember the words—I wish I had them here—but I know they were words of a very pregnant and very decisive character showing great sympathy with the tenants, and a very wise desire that, in the interests of the country, they should be replaced in their holdings. When I say that favour was shown them, I mean in this way: that an Act was passed enabling public money to be advanced to those tenants whose acts we are now told have disqualified them for receiving any consideration. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has dealt so fully with the question of precedents for this Commission that I need say very little about that; but I find in that Act exactly what is stated in this Commission—namely, that it was an indication of the policy of Parliament that, in the opinion of Parliament and of those who promoted the Bill, it was a matter of public policy to endeavour to re-instate

  1599
  those tenants in their holdings. That policy having been so indicated, we thought it was our duty to endeavour to find some means whereby that policy could be carried into full effect. I admit there was nothing but voluntary arrangement under the Act of 1891; but voluntary arrangement had failed, and therefore it was natural we should consider whether any new arrangement could be made which would be more successful. But, as to the recommendations, did anyone ever hear before that a Government was bound to accept the recommendations of a Commission?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think any of us have said that: what we have said is that Her Majesty's Government were bound to express some opinion with regard to them.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I heard a great deal more than that. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Halsbury) spoke of our repudiating the recommendations of the Commission.
  LORD HALSBURY: The noble Earl has somewhat misunderstood me. I said that they had repudiated the interpretation which the Commissioners had placed upon their own instructions.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I did not know that the recommendations of the Commissioners were an interpretation of anything. It really seems to mo that, in order to please noble Lords opposite, we should have indicated to the Commissioners what their recommendations should be. When the Commissioners have heard the evidence and made their Report, it then becomes the duty of the Government to consider whether the recommendations, or any of them, are such as ought to be adopted. As to our intentions, I almost despair of satisfying noble Lords opposite. Our intentions were authoritatively and plainly stated by our Colleague, the Chief Secretary, in the other House upon the occasion of the Bill which has been so often referred to being brought in by Mr. McHugh. He said—
  "We assent to the fundamental principle of the Bill, and we will do the best we can to promote its becoming law at the earliest possible moment."
  That is quite explicit: we assented to the fundamental principle—
  LORD ASHBOURNE: What is the fundamental principle?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I should think the noble and learned Lord would be able to find that out from the Bill. I have not the slightest doubt the fundamental principle is most apparent to every Irish landlord and tenant, and it is the fundamental principle which noble Lords opposite have been denouncing for two nights.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I am asking for information; I should really like to know what is the fundamental principle?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I cannot give the noble and learned Lord any further answer. I have given him the answer which was made in the other House, and I refer him to the Bill for the principle of the Bill. I see nothing extremely amusing in that. It is a perfectly plain statement, and I can only tell noble Lords that, not with standing all their smiling, I have not the slightest doubt they perfectly understand what it means. With regard to our intentions I have only one word to add. The statement of my noble Friend (Lord Acton) was that it is not our intention to bring in any Bill at the present moment. That is all I have to say with regard to the intentions of the Government. As to the matter itself, I altogether protest against this question being treated as an altercation between two hostile parties to a litigation, each trying to do the other as much harm as possible, and so endeavouring to envenom the existing sore. That is the very best way to perpetuate the evils from which Ireland has suffered so long. Possibly the Government erred in thinking that the landlords of Ireland might have seen that it was better to try to settle the long dispute and have been willing to give a helping hand in devising some arrangement. I know it has been said the landlords were denied the right to cross-examine: but have they conciliated anyone by their action; have they proved to anyone that their case is a good one by the course they adopted? They left their case unstated and lost the opportunity, which, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, would not have been denied them, of cross-examining upon any points which might have been material. I do not think they are to be congratulated upon the issue of the course which they adopted. I dare say noble Lords opposite will manage to keep this question open, and that they

  1601
  will find it very useful for political purposes; but I cannot think that they have been well advised in this matter, and in the interests of Ireland I must say I deeply regret the course they have taken. I will finish with what the noble Marquess so much protests against—a tu quoque, but it is a tu quoque upon which I feel keenly. I will put to him, when he denounces this Commission as unjust to individuals and unconstitutional, whether he remembers the Parnell Commission, which I hold to be one of the most unjust and unconstitutional Commissions that over was appointed by any Government.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: The Parnell Commission was a Parliamentary Commission appointed by Act of Parliament.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Yes, and being a Parliamentary Commission it could compel any person to come forward and be subjected to cross-examination, whether he liked it or not. If this had been a Parliamentary Commission it would have been an inquiry into private rights and entirely unjustifiable, because it would have compelled persons to come before it and be examined. On this particular occasion I believe a Parliamentary Commission would not have been justifiable.
  The subject then dropped.

COPYHOLD (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 34.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Since I spoke upon this matter the other day I have succeeded in finding the clause which I could not find before. What had happened was that the clause with respect to escheats which had been put in as a species of compensation in the first Act was divorced from the clause to which it belonged, and banished to a distant part of the Bill where I failed to find it. I have, however, found it since.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I asked the noble Marquess what he desired with regard to this Bill. It is simply a Consolidation Bill, and is not intended to make any alteration in the law. A Joint Committee has been appointed by this and the other House to
  1602
  consider all measures which are merely Consolidation Bills; and, of course, if, in going through this House, a Bill is found not to be simply for consolidation, it will have to be dealt with. Of course, it must undergo rigorous examination, and there can be no objection to referring it to the Committee.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I find anything which seems to be objectionable, I reserve the liberty to mention it at a later stage.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I move that the Order be discharged.
  Moved, "That the Order be discharged; and the Order of Thursday last, committing the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House, vacated."—(The Lord Herschell.)
  Motion agreed to.

  SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL COMMITTEE (BORROWING POWERS) BILL. (No. 60.)
  Reported without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 57.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  POST OFFICE (ACQUISITION OF SITES) BILL.—(No. 36.)
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 77.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 78.)
  House adjourned at five minutes past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.