Lords Sitting of 4 June 1907

Preamble
Lucas Peerage.—Committee for Privileges met: Counsel heard to open the case on behalf of the claimant; the Attorney-General appearing on behalf of the Crown; the Attorney-General heard; witnesses examined; claim considered: Then it was resolved that the Petitioner Auberon Thomas Herbert, claimant to the Barony of Lucas of Cradwell, hath made out his claim to the said Barony; report thereof to be made to the House.
Viscount Midleton.—Petition of— William St. John Fremantle Brodrick, Baron Brodrick in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and Viscount Midleton, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Alton Military Hospital Bill [H.L.].— Presented (pursuant to leave given yesterday), and read 1a
Birkenhead Corporation Water Bill [H.L.].—The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty Bill [H.L.].— Reported, with Amendments.
Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill.— Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers Bill; Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill.—Read 2a, and committed. The Committees to be pro posed by the Committee of.Selection.
Renfrewshire Upper District (Eastwood and Mearns) Water Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.—Brought from the Commons.
Armagh Urban District Council Bill.— Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Royal Bank of Scotland Bill [H.L.]; Society of Apothecaries of London Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Maidstone Gas Bill.—Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Worthing Gas Bill; Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill; Taff Vale Railway Bill; Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill; Swansea Harbour Bill; Ann-field Plain and District Gas Bill; Broad-stairs and St. Peter's Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Great Northern and City Railway Bill; City of London (Union of Parishes) Bill [H.L.]; Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill; Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers Bills.—Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.:—
E. Abingdon,
E. Morley,
V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore) (chairman),
L. Oriel (F. Massereene),
L. Bowes (E. Strathmore and King-horn);
agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Wednesday, the 12th instant, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Canals Tolls and Charges (New Junction Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Surrey, etc.) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.].—Committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.—Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 62.)
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders [(No. 2) BILL[H.L.].—ABill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Fleetwood, Portsmouth, and Sennen. Was presented by (The Lord Granard (E. Granard) ).Then it was moved, That the Order of the 20th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill originating in this House shall be read a first time after Thursday, the 2nd day of May next," be dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 1a; agreed to; Bill read 1a accordingly; to be printed and referred to the Examiners. (No. 63.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TURKEY (1907).
  No. 1. Further correspondence respecting the affairs of South-Eastern Europe. (In continuation of "Turkey, No. 1." (1906) [Cd. 2816.].)
  No. 2. Correspondence respecting the increase of the Turkish customs duties.
  No. 3. Despatches from the British Adviser on the Macedonian Financial Commission.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3810. Germany (Pomerania).
  No. 3811. Portugal (Madeira).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MARRIAGE WITH DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.
  Petition against legalisation of; of clergy of the deanery of Midhurst; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATION BILL [H.L.]
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out except to members of the Committee and such other persons as the Committee
  420
  shall think fit until further order. (No 61.)

ARREARS IN THE LAW COURTS.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Lord Chancellor a Question of which I have given him private notice, as to the stops that are being taken with reference to the state of business in the Court of Appeal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, there is undoubtedly a very serious arrear of business, and through no fault at all of the Judges of the Court of Appeal. They have done their utmost, but there is a heavy arrear which I am quite satisfied ought to be cleared off if the business of the Courts of Justice is to be efficiently conducted. For that purpose I have brought in a Bill which has passed through your Lordships' House and is really in the nature of a Bill providing for emergencies. I hope that the Bill may be allowed to become law, and then I think we shall be able to take in hand the clearance of the list in the Court of Appeal. In addition I have asked a number of distinguished gentlemen to act as a Committee to consider the working of the Judicature Acts and to report whether any alteration in the constitution or practice of the Courts is advisable. Lord Macnaghten has kindly consented to act as Chairman, and I myself propose to serve on the Committee, though I am afraid I shall not be able to give so much attention to the matter as I would wish. The following have also consented to serve:—The Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Probate and Admiralty Division, Mr. Justice Bigham, Mr. Justice Warrington, the Attorney-General, Sir Robert Finlay, G.C.M.G., K.C., Mr. J. E. Bankes, K.C., Mr. S. A. T. Rowlatt, Mr. Willes Chitty, Mr. C. A. Coward, and Mr. William Cobbett. These gentlemen are all familiar with this subject, and I do not apprehend that much, if any, evidence will be required. I sincerely hope that the efforts of this Committee will enable us before long to get the whole of the business of the High Court of Justice placed on such a footing that there will be no delay and no arrears in the management of public business.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee(according to Order).
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:—
THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid he desired to put a question to the Government with regard to Subsection (b) of Clause 2. There was, he said, no mention in the Bill as it stood of any notice being required to be sent to the inspector as to the days of the week upon which a particular laundry elected the system of employment there set out. He understood, however, that by Section 32 of the principal Act notice would be required to be sent once in every quarter. There occurred in Section 32 of the principal Act the following words—
"The occupier of every factory and workshop…shall, subject to any special exceptions made by or in pursuance of this Act, specify in a notice—"
He feared that there was some danger that the words "subject to any special exception" might, in any subsequent proceedings, be urged as doing away with the necessity of sending any notice at all, inasmuch as the whole of this clause was an exception to the general Act. He would like to know if the Government had fully considered this point.
EARL BEAUCHAMP:assured the noble Earl that His Majesty's Government had considered the matter, and that in their opinion there was no doubt at all upon the point.
THE EARL OF LYTTONmoved to leave out subsection (d) which ran—
"(d) Different periods of employment may be fixed for different days of the Week."
He did so for the reason that the "subsection seemed to him to tend to complicate what was already a very complicated measure. From year to year constant references were made in the various Factory Reports to the great difficulty of getting the Act understood, and to the fact that constantly in prosecu-
422
tions which were instituted Under the Act for breaches of the law excuses were put forward on behalf of the guilty person that he was utterly unable to understand the law as it stood and the complicated notices brought before him. There was no doubt that this Bill would be a great improvement in that direction, but he maintained that this particular subsection tended in the direction of increased complication. Therefore, unless some very strong reason were put forward for its inclusion in the Bill he would ask the House to cut it out.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2. lines 21 and 22, to leave out paragraph (d)."—(The, Karl of Lytton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP:expressed the hope that their Lordships would require further reasons before consenting to the elimination of a somewhat important part of the clause. As their Lordships were aware, by this clause laundries were brought under special provisions in a manner in which they had not been regulated up to the present time, and it had been thought only right that there should be a certain latitude in the matter. This was part of the general scheme by which His Majesty's Government had considered that they could meet the equity of the case and give that liberty in the management of laundries which they thought those institutions ought to have. The scheme was not so complicated as the noble Earl seemed to imagine. The factory inspector would have information as to where employment was going on at a specified time, and the inspectors would always be able under this subsection to visit a laundry if at any moment they had reason to suppose that employment was improperly taking place.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:—
*LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHmoved to leave out the words "or

423
religious" from the second line of Clause 5, which ran —
"Where in any premises forming part of an institution carried on for charitable, reformatory, or religious purposes," etc
He explained that his Amendment was intended in no way to be hostile to the object of the Bill. It appeared to him, however, that the words as they would stand if his Amendment were agreed to would be quite sufficient to include every case proposed to be covered by the Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 16, to leave out the words 'or religious.'" —(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid His Majesty's Government were quite willing to meet the noble Lord on this point, and would agree to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LYTTONmoved to substitute the word "or" for the words "and not" in the beginning of Clause 5. As amended the clause would read—
"Where in any premises forming part of an institution carried on for charitable or reformatory purposes or subject to inspection by or under the authority of," etc.
By the Bill as it stood all institutions which came under the authority of any Government Department other than the Factory Department were exempted from the provisions of the Bill. There were laundries attached to such institutions as industrial schools, orphanages, reformatories, workhouses, and so forth, which would all be excluded by the words as they stood, together with Clause 6 of the Bill. Surely it was just as necessary that dangerous machinery should be fenced in a laundry connected with one of these institutions as in any other. Indeed, it was even more necessary, because in a great many instances the people who had to look after the machinery in these institutions knew very little about it, and were not qualified to take care of it properly. Then, if this machinery was to be fenced, and if the sanitary conditions, ventilation, and so forth were to be properly regulated, it was obvious that such work could only be carried out by an inspector of the Department responsible for this sort of thing. No inspector under
424
the Board of Education or the Local Government Board would be qualified to inspect laundry machinery, or to see that a laundry was properly ventilated. He supposed he would be told that the Government were now for the first time placing the services of the Factory Department at the disposal of other Government offices, but they were only placing those services at their disposal when those offices came to the Factory Department and asked for them. He could not help thinking that so long as the matter was left in that position the circumstances would be in the future exactly as they were at present—namely, that there would be no inspection at all, that machinery would remain unfenced, and that laundries requiring better regulation as regards ventilation, drainage, and such matters, would be left exactly as they were at present. Therefore he felt that, merely to meet what might be called departmental etiquette, a very serious evil would be left in existence. If the Government could see their way so to amend Clause 6 as to place the initiative with the Factory Department and leave the right of consent or refusal with the Department under which the institution came, he would be perfectly satisfied, and would be willing to withdraw his Amendment.. But unless they would amend the clause in that way ho, would be compelled to press his Amendment to a division.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 17, to leave out the words 'and not' and to insert the word ' or.'" — (The Earl of Lytton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid His Majesty's Government were quite ready to draft the clause in the way suggested, and he would bring up Amendments on the Report stage which he hoped would be satisfactory to the noble Earl.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHmoved an Amendment to the first subsection, inserting after the reference to institutions in which manual labour was exercised the words "as a source of pecuniary profit to the institution and as one of the purposes and objects thereof."

425
The Amendment, he said, was not intended in any hostile spirit. It appeared to him that the Bill as drafted spread the net rather too wide, and was liable to bring in places where work was not carried on as part of the ordinary working of the institution, but only as a secondary or temporary object. He did not conceive that it was the intention of the Government to include such cases and to bring institutions of this kind under the Factory Act; and to make that clear he moved his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 18, after the word 'exercised' to insert the words 'as a source of pecuniary profit to the institution and as one of the purposes and objects thereof.' "—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
EARL BEAUCHAMPassured the noble Lord that his Amendment was not necessary. So far as regarded institutions in which labour of this kind was only done occasionally, the provision would no more apply under this Bill than under the original Factory and Workshop Act; but, so far as pecuniary profit was concerned, he hoped that the noble Lord would not press the point, for the reason that there were instances in which the Government were anxious that institutions should be inspected, even though pecuniary profit was not made out of them. It was, indeed, one of the purposes of the Bill that the mere question of pecuniary profit should not be made a test as to whether inspection should take place or not.
*LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid that, subject to any action he might consider it necessary to take on Report, he would for the present withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHexplained that the object of his next Amendment was to remove any doubt there might be that the particular premises in which the work was carried on constituted the part of the building which was subject to inspection, and not any other part.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 23, after the word 'premises' to insert the words 'where such labour is
426
exercised,' and to leave out from the word 'notwithstanding' to 'that' in line 24.'"— (Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP:referred the noble Lord to the first line of Clause 5, which contained the words—
"Where in any premises forming part of an institution—" etc.
Therefore it would only be that part which was affected by the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHcalled attention to the language of subsection (2) of Clause 5, which provided that, if the managers of an institution satisfied the Secretary of State, among other things, that the only persons working therein were inmates of the institution, or persons, not exceeding two in number, engaged in general supervision, an order might be made applying the principal Act to the institution subject to certain modifications. He asked their Lordships' attention to the phraseology of the subsection. He was not really sure what it was intended to mean. The question he wished to ask was, what was the legal interpretation of the word "inmates"? There was no definition in the Bill, and he wished to know whether it applied to those who were, in current phraseology, "inmates"—namely, persons who were objects of charity and were there for reformatory purposes—or whether it meant to include those who were engaged n supervision. He could hardly believe that matrons, superintendents, and so on were intended to be described under,he word "inmates." He thought the natural meaning of the word excluded hat suggestion, but if they were not included in the word it seemed to and them in this absurd result, that no institution, however large, could have more than two persons engaged in the supervision of the inmates. It was not quite clear on the face of the clause,what was meant, and he hoped that some definite assurance would be given that,he definition which seemed the natural one was not intended, and that words would be inserted to give its proper meaning.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 31, after the word 'persons' to insert the words 'dwelling elsewhere.'"— (Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
EARL BEAUCHAMPassured the noble Lord that in the opinion of the Home Office his fears were groundless. If he would withdraw his Amendment at the present time the Government would be willing to consider the matter carefully. If it were found necessary to amend the wording they would do so, but the present opinion of the Home Office was that such an Amendment would not be necessary.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHexpressed the hope that they would have a definite assurance that in Standing Committee the point would be looked into, because those whom he had had an opportunity of consulting shared his doubts as to whether the provision was really workable in the form in which it was presented. Their Lordships would see that the sentence was an extremely involved one, and, in the interests of those who would have to work the Act and understand it, he thought the provision might be drafted in a more understandable form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid his next Amendment proposed to leave out the whole of Clause 5 after the first subsection. If the clause remained as it stood the conditions of labour in the institutions dealt with by the clause would be left entirely vague. The only thing they would know was that each institution would have to submit a scheme and satisfy the Home Office that n its general respects it was not less favourable than the corresponding provisions of the principal Act. His Amendment proposed to omit all that part of the clause and to define in precise terms in the Bill what were the special exemptions which, by reason of their special character, ought to be allowed to these institutions. In support of the Amendment he urged, on the Second Reading, the immense amount of additional labour which would fall on the Home Office if it were called upon to
428
look through all the schemes submitted; but he would not go further into that argument at the present moment. His objection to the clause as it stood was that every single point at the present moment in dispute with regard to the conditions which ought to prevail in these institutions was put on one side; not one of the points was settled, the whole thing was left vague, and those points were the very ones which required the most precise definition.
There were only three points of importance which could be dealt with under any scheme which an institution might submit to the Home Office—namely, the hours of work, the question of meal times, and the question of holidays. With regard to hours of work it would scarcely be contended, he thought, by any religious or charitable institution, that any licence should be given to work longer hours in such a place than were allowed under the ordinary law to commercial laundries. Nor would longer hours, he imagined, be allowed under the scheme, which had to be on the whole not less favourable than the provisions in the original Act. Therefore, there were only two modifications with regard to hours which could be asked for. One was that different periods of labour should be chosen from those allowed by the Act. The Factory and Workshop Act at present allowed the hours of labour to be from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., or from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. That, he thought, was sufficiently wide for any laundry. Those were limits arrived at, he might almost say by international agreement, and if institutions on charitable or religious grounds were going to ask to be allowed to begin work before 6 a.m. in the morning or to continue work after 9 o'clock at night, he could not help feeling very strongly that that was an exception that ought not to be made in their favour.
On the other hand, an institution might ask within those limits to be allowed a wider discretion; in other words, to be allowed to choose their own period of twelve hours between 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock. If that was what they were going to ask for, it was exactly the situation which had caused so much trouble in the past and been objected to

429
by factory inspectors. That loose system by which a laundry could choose its own period of employment did away altogether with the value of inspection. This was bad enough in an ordinary laundry; it was considerably worse in a laundry attached to a charitable or reformatory institution, because the only way the inspector could ascertain whether the law was being carried out was by questioning the inmates, and that was a course which should as much as possible be avoided. Those were the only points in regard to the question of hours which could be put into a scheme, and both of them, he maintained, in the interest of the institution themselves, ought not to be made matter of special exemption.
With regard to meal times, it was often urged by these institutions that it was impossible for them to conform to the provisions of the principal Act that all the inmates should take their meals at the same time, but there was a clause in the Factory Act which gave power for a variation in that respect. Clause 40 subsection (4) of the principal Act enabled the Secretary of State to make any exception in the case of a particular factory or workshop, where cause was shown, to enable the meals to be taken at different hours, so that in regard to meals there was no need for this exemption. There only remained the question of holidays, and that was a matter on which these institutions were entitled to some little consideration. If the condition of the weather or other matters were unfavourable and they wished to change their holidays at very short notice, he did not see why that liberty should not be given to them; but that should be put into the Act and should be definitely stated as an exception in their favour. That was what his Amendment proposed to do. In all other respects these laundries ought to work on the same conditions as commercial laundries with which they competed.
He would remind the Government that there was a possibility of objection being taken to their Bill from the other side, and that if the Bill were sent down with these points which had been for so many years in dispute unsettled considerable objection would be taken to the Bill as from a different quarter in the
430
House of Commons. He would also remind the Government that the institutions themselves were not united in this matter. Among these institutions there was a progressive section and there was a timid and apprehensive section. Those who belonged to the former had constantly felt that the more the conditions of labour in the institutions were brought into line with those outside the better it would be for the institutions themselves. He was convinced—and he was sure the most rev. Primate would bear him out—that it was in the best interests of the institutions themselves that where they were engaged in industrial work they should frankly accept the conditions which had been accepted by and were enforced upon all bodies carrying out the same industrial work, and that it would only do harm to them in the long run if they claimed, on special religious grounds or in consequence of their special reformatory work, privileges which would only have the effect of arousing suspicion and mistrust. Therefore, unless the Government offered to amend in some form or another this clause as it stood in the direction of greater definition, he would respectfully ask the House to cut out the clause and substitute one of a more definite character.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line, 27, to leave out from the beginning of subsection (2) to the end of the clause, and to insert as a new subsection:—

(2) In laundries attached to or forming part of any institution to which this section applies the following modifications of the law relating to holidays and notices shall have effect:

(a) Subsection three of Section thirty-five of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, shall not apply, and the following provisions shall be substituted in lieu thereof: A notice of every holiday or half holiday must be forwarded during the first week in January to the inspector for the district, and unless the notice has been so sent, cessation from work shall not be deemed to be a whole holiday or a half holiday. Provided that any such notice may be changed by a subsequent notice sent in like manner not less than twenty-four hours before the holiday or half holiday to which it applies.

(b) The managers of the institution shall not later than the fifteenth day of January in each year send to the Secretary of State a correct return in the prescribed form, specifying the names of the managers and

431
the name of the person (if any) having charge of the institution under the managers, and such particulars as to the number, age, sex, and employment of the inmates and other persons employed in the work carried on in the institution as the Secretary of State may require, and shall, if any requirement of this paragraph is not complied with, be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds.—(The Earl of Lytton.)

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: asked the meaning of subsection (d)—
"The provisions of the principal Act as to sending notices to the inspector shall not apply except so far as an order made by the Secretary of State may otherwise direct."
If this meant that an institution was not, for instance, to be obliged to send notices of accident just as a trade laundry was, he would deprecate that in the strongest possible manner. He found it difficult to imagine what notices were hens referred to unless they were the notices regarding holidays about which the noble Lord had already spoken. The more consideration he gave to this question the more he felt himself coming to the conclusion that the justification for very exceptional treatment of institutional laundries was unnecessary and practically unworkable. He did not believe that institutions properly conducted need fear anything from inspection. This was a matter of administration rather than of legislation. If the administration was carried out by the Home Office in the way he believed it would be, he did not think the occasions would be at all numerous on which any difficulty would arise from inspection taking place in the ordinary way. He was strongly in favour of inspection by experts in machinery. While there were some few points on which special information was necessary, he felt that what the noble Earl called the timid section of managers must not be allowed to prevent the more trustful section of the managers of these institutions from claiming that protection for their inmates which would result from inspection, which was feared much more from ignorance of what it really meant than because of any real harm that it would do them.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH:hoped the noble. Lord would not accept
432
the very sweeping Amendment pro posed by the noble Earl. It would destroy the scheme which the Home Office had elaborated in concert with those who were for the first time to be brought under inspection. It would destroy all the elasticity which was necessary to the working of the Bill in these institutions. He agreed with the most rev. Primate that the institutions which dreaded the interference of a Government department were unduly apprehensive, but they were willing to try it loyally under the safeguards and conditions proposed by the Home Office in the Bill. The Amendment would re-open controversy, and the failure of the Bill in another place would be risked. There was no desire in the institutions for which he could speak that the hours of work should be longer than in commercial laundries, but i t was reasonable to ask that there should be greater elasticity in the arrangement of them. If any institution were caught even once deceiving the Home Office or its inspectors, there might be a penal power given to the Home Office to strike it out of the list of privileged institutions, but he would not harass those engaged in a difficult and delicate work by putting them all at once under the stringent regulations applicable to an ordinary factory. In regard to holidays, he would point out that it was one of the objects of certain institutions to teach their inmates lessons of self-control and discipline, and for that purpose the power of giving or withholding holidays was a valuable assistance. The public holidays were not the occasions on which to turn this class of inmate out into the streets. He had no desire that they should have fewer holidays, but the managers should have power to change the holidays or to substitute two half-holidays for one.
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the noble Lord had expressed so admirably the views of His Majesty's Government, and he thought also the commonsense point of view, that he need not detain their Lordships at any length in further reply to an Amendment which went at once to the root of the part of the Bill under consideration. If the noble Earl would turn to the words of subsection (a), he

433
would see that the Secretary of State would have to be satisfied that the provisions of a scheme were not less favourable than the provisions of the principal Act, and there would be no unfair competition, therefore, with industrial laundries. For the information of the inspector the necessary particulars had to be entered in a register, and no notices would be required to be sent to the inspector except such as the Secretary of State might direct; but he could assure the most rev. Primate that notices of accident would be amongst those which the Secretary of State would expect to have sent to the inspector. The idea was that if the Bill became law there would probably be a conference between representatives of the Home Office and these institutions, and the general lines of a scheme would be laid down showing the conditions under which modifications would be allowed. In institutions dealing with women whose characters were not well regulated, it was essential for purposes of discipline that variation of the regulations applying to industrial laundries should be allowed, and the concessions corresponded generally with those asked for by a representative deputation to the Home Secretary upon the subject.
THE EARL OF LYTTON:replied, expressing himself as dissatisfied with the answer he had received. He denied that inspection would be obstructive to discipline, and quoted from a letter he had received from the mother superior of a large institution in favour of inspection as a help rather than a hindrance to the maintenance of discipline. There was enough elasticity in the provisions of the Factory Act to meet the conditions existing in institution laundries. He would not now press his Amendment, and withdrew it, but without prejudice to proposals he might make at a subsequent stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to, and Bill reported with an Amendment to the House.
EARL BEAUCHAMPasked whether, in view of the noble Earl's intention to bring up Amendments on the Report stage, their Lordships would think it necessary to deal with the Bill in Standing Committee. The reference of the Bill to that Committee would somewhat delay matters, and time would be saved and two discussions prevented if the Amendments were dealt with on Report only. If that were agreeable to noble Lords opposite— and only if it were agreeable—he would move that the Standing Committee be negatived.
Moved, "That the Standing Committee be negatived."—(Earl Beauchump)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Report of the Amendment to be received on Thursday next; and the Bill to be printed us amended. (No. 64.)

THE STATE OF IRELAND.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY:rose to "call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the continuance of acts of lawlessness in various districts in Ireland; and to ask the Government whether, having regard to such acts, they were still of opinion that 'the condition of Ireland as a whole was very satisfactory,' as stated by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I have no doubt whatever that in raising this question I shall, in the mind of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, be classed with those of my hon. friends in another place of whom the right hon. Gentleman said their questions were put with the sole object of maligning and misrepresenting their country in the eyes of the English people. Well, my Lords, that may be the opinion of the Chief Secretary, but I venture to say it is not the opinion of fair, honest-minded men in any part of His Majesty's dominions; it is not the opinion of the law-abiding, industrious inhabitants of Ireland, and I am perfectly convinced that it is not the opinion of the unfortunate inhabitants of those parts of Ireland to which my hon. friends in the House of Commons alluded who

435
are now groaning under the tyranny of the United Irish League.
I need hardly explain to your Lordships that on the present occasion I have no intention of raising an ordinary Irish debate. I have myself had official experience of Ireland. I have also had practical experience of that country as an Irishman, and I therefore venture to think that your Lordships will do me the credit of believing me when I say that had this not been a matter of extreme importance I should not have raised it at the present time. I have taken this action in the interests of Ireland as a whole, and to show those unfortunate persons who live in the less peaceful parts of the country that we in the north of Ireland are not unmindful of their welfare. I can assure your Lordships that I put the question with a full sense of my responsibility, and I feel that His Majesty's Government have an even more serious and important duty in answering the question. Upon that answer will depend the condition, whether peaceable or disturbed, of a very great part of the south and west of Ireland.
I have myself always taken the line— and I am sure the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council will agree with me as to its wisdom—of not laying too great stress on violent speeches when those speeches have been made in districts where no great harm is likely to accrue. The noble Earl will remember that I endorsed a remark of his last session when he stated that Irishmen often say a great deal more than they mean, and in consequence of that belief I am not prone to attach undue importance to violent speeches delivered in districts where comparatively little harm is likely to be done by them. But it is a very different thing when violent speeches are made in districts under the thraldom of the United Irish League; for there they are calculated to injure the property and endanger the lives of the people denounced, and consequently it is the bounden duty of the responsible Government to prevent them. I assert that such speeches are now being made in certain parts of the west of Ireland, where the United Irish League is so strong and powerful that it is able to
436
carry on a widespread conspiracy almost with impunity.
Now, what has been the answers to the Questions of my hon. friends in another place? Of course the Government naturally do not desire to offend their Nationalist supporters in the House of Commons. Consequently the Chief Secretary and his representative, whose answers I shall quote in a moment, have made very light of the present serious condition of affairs. The right hon. Gentleman has declared, in answer to a Question in another place, that there is no widespread conspiracy, though he admitted that certain limited areas gave some cause for anxiety. I think that is a very remarkable statement for the Chief Secretary to make. Supposing it were true that this conspiracy is confined to certain limited areas, I would ask His Majesty's Government whether the life of every individual within those areas is not as valuable as the life of every individual outside them; and have any responsible Government the right to disregard the lives of people within certain limited areas on the ground that the rest of Ireland is in a peaceable condition?.Such a contention is unworthy of any responsible Government. Every individual in every part of Ireland has just as much right to look for protection to the law as the Chief Secretary himself in his lodge in Phoenix Park.
I entirely controvert the statement of the Chief Secretary that this violent conspiracy is confined to certain small areas. Proof that the conspiracy is widespread is to be found in the admissions of the Chief Secretary himself and the Attorney-General for Ireland in answer to Questions in the House of Commons during May. On 7th May Mr. Cherry, answering for Mr. Birrell a question put by Mr. Bridgeman, stated that—
"On 1st May, 245 grazing farms were under police protection."
On 15th May, Mr. Birrell, replying to a question by Mr. Arkwright, said that—
"Eighty-one policemen are occupied in affording protection to occupiers of grazing farms in the counties of Galway, Mayo, and Roscommon. In addition some 400 police secure the stock on the farms from molestation."

437
Then on 29th May, Mr. Birrell, replying to a Question by Captain Craig, said that during the month ended 25th May approximately twenty cases of driving cattle off farms occurred, and prosecutions had been instituted in eight of these cases. During the same period six police officers and 280 men were drafted into Connaught. In two cases, Mr. Birrell added, policemen were encamped on farms, one being in County Roscommon and the other in King's County. On 30th May, in reply to Mr. Long, Mr. Birrell gave the following districts as those where additional forces of constabulary were employed, viz.—

(1) County Clare, four districts, one head constable and sixty-five reserve.

(2) County Cork, East Riding, two districts, seven reserve.

(3) County Leitrim and Cavan, two districts, twenty-two reserve.

(4) County Galway, E.R. Athenry, thirty- five reserve.

(5) County Roscommon, districts of Stokes-town and Castlerea, one district inspector, two head constables, eighty-three reserve, and fifty men from other counties.

(6) King's County, Parsonstown, one district inspector and twenty-five reserve.

Mr. Birrell added these very significant words—
"In all these cases the augmentation of the local police force was necessitated by the disturbed state of the district."
Yet in spite of these facts it is asserted that the state of Ireland is satisfactory.
I have received a large number of letters on the state of the west of Ireland; I will not trespass upon your Lordships' indulgence by quoting them all. I will only mention three cases to illustrate the nature of the offences on account of which extra police have been drafted into the disturbed districts. I will first give the Russell case. Mr. Russell held a grazing farm at Kilmore. On 5th May as he was coming from church a mob of forty or fifty people rushed out of the Temperance Hall close by, where a meeting of the United Irish League was being held, shouting, groaning, and booing until Mr. Russell passed on. In the evening a crowd of 200 men came out to Mr. Russell's house, shouting, booing and cheering and banging a drum. Five hundred yards from Mr. Russell's house they were met by thirty police who barred
438
the way. A free fight ensued; some of the crowd tried to get across the fields to Mr. Russell's house, but finally the crowd were forced back. The case was tried at Hill Street on 28th May, and these parties were bound over; they refused to give bail and accepted the default of a month's imprisonment. After the trial a free fight between the mob and the police ensued. Later the prisoners left Hill Street for Carrick-on-Shannon in cars, under constabulary escort. On their arrival at Carrick the police and cars were attacked by the crowd at the railway station, but the prisoners were ultimately got safely away. It is now reported that the magistrates concerned in the case have been boycotted.
I will now give your Lordships another case. A Protestant merchant named Nathaniel Luttrell, who held a grazing farm at Roscommon, was denounced at a public meeting on April 14th. This public meeting, according to the poster, was held—
"For the purpose of taking immediate steps to have the large grazing tracts divided up amongst the people."
Mr. Michael Reddy, a Member of Parliament and a supporter of noble Lords opposite, said at the meeting—
"You are cowards if you allow Luttrell to stand between you and your just rights."
Further on he said—
"You ask me how there lands are to be divided—"
and then, waving his hands in the direction of Mr. Luttrell's farm, he continued—
"And I tell you to follow the example of the West."
Then on April 30th, forty-one cattle, nine horses, and 291 sheep were driven off Mr. Luttrell's farm by a crowd of 300 men, the greater portion of whom were armed with sticks. The police were not present. The case was tried on May 27th, and, as the Court was evenly divided, the case was adjourned for a fortnight. On May 18th another drive occurred, in which 200 men were concerned. Twelve were arrested, and their case was heard on May 31st. They were returned for trial at Nenagh Assizes and allowed on bail. The point of this persecution of Mr. Luttrell was the announcement at a

439
meeting of the United Irish League at Roscrea on 27th May, that Mr. Luttrell had promised to surrender next gale day. Can it be denied that such persecution would not for one moment be permitted in any other part of His Majesty's dominions? The third case is furnished by a circular issued by the Athenry Branch of the Town Tenants' League, pointing out in violent language that their desire to secure accommodation land is frustrated because the farms are in the occupation of graziers who refuse to surrender.
I have received a number of letters from inhabitants of county Clare which lead me to believe that their lives are being made a burden to them. There was a case of a man named M'Auliffe who, when walking home with his brother, was fired at and he fell senseless on the road with twenty-seven shots in his neck and shoulders, and the doctor declared that it was only by a miracle that the man was alive at all. I do not, however, propose to read private letters; it is sufficient for me to rely on the public utterances of public men. In charging the grand jury at the Clare assizes Lord Chief Justice O'Brien said—
"He regretted very much that it was not his pleasing privilege to congratulate them on the condition of the county. He was afraid that many parts of the county were in a demoralised and lawless condition.…Now, in a shire in England, if it was found necessary, either by special protection or protection by police, to protect from risk of outrage thirty persons, what would be thought?"
The Lord Chief Justice at Tralee, on the opening of the assizes, said as regards county Kerry—
"I regret to say that there are a considerable number of people under police protection. There are thirteen persons under constant police protection—protection by police living in the houses of these people, or living in huts immediately contiguous, and the object of the protection is to shield them against outrage. There are eleven people protected by occasional patrols, that is to say. by police coming from the neighbouring barracks or from certain constabulary huts. Now, the existence of so many people under police protection, the necessity for this protection, is unquestionably an ugly feature."
Then there is a statement of the Judge with regard to county Leitrim, in which he declared that the condition of that county was unsatisfactory. Mr. Justice Ross, in the Land Judge's Court, on
440
17th May, made this important statement—
"He had known from other receivers about this widespread and audacious conspiracy at present rampart in the West of Ireland. There might be something to he sail for it if it. were a conspiracy not to take up any land that had belonged to any former evicted tenant, but this was actually a conspiracy which on ordinary moral grounds amounted to highway robbery, to seize on these grass lands, to drive away the stock of the people who had been in the habit of taking it, and then, when the owner had been starved out, the Estates Commissioners were expected to buy up the property and distribute it amongst the very people who had been urging on the business, and who had been engaged in these outrages and unlawful assemblies."
Upon that statement I believe the Chief Secretary has more or less cast doubt; but from Mr. Justice Ross's position as receiving Judge of the Court of Chancery, I beg to state, with all due respect to Mr. Birrell, that if the opinion of the learned Judge was to be put in the scale against that of the Chief Secretary, the scale would come down heavily on the side of Mr. Justice Ross. The people in the districts in question, in which lawlessness prevails which would not be tolerated in England or Scotland, believe that they have, the Government at their back. At Athenry there was the case of the Nationalist justice of the peace, Mr. Kelly, who, sitting on the Bench, said—
"We have, it out of the mouth of the Chief Secretary that they should agitate, and arc you going to condemn these men for what they were told to do by the Chief Secretary?"
I commend that observation to the consideration of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I should like to ask the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council to state, when he replies, how he justifies such an expression, and how he justifies the Chief Secretary for not contradicting it. As that statement was made from the Bench and has not been contradicted these people naturally believe that they have the Government at their back. I would point out to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that this same Mr. Kelly, on the occasion in question, went out of his way to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution, showing that his bias was undoubtedly on the side of the prisoners. I would ask my noble and learned friend whether, in his opinion, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland is justified in allowing to

441
remain on the Bench a man who takes such a line as that. Then I find Mr. James Fagan, a leading local Nationalist in Roscommon, addressing a meeting at Carrick-on-Shannon on 2nd May declaring—
"I know we have the sympathy of the English Government on our side, and I know the Chief Secretary, Mr. Birrell, is heart and soul with us in the movement."
There was a curious statement made at a land convention by Mr. John Fitzgibbon, who said—
"They in Roscommon had taken the land question into their own hands and had constituted compulsory power without waiting for legislation."
I ask noble Lords opposite whether they consider that a statement which ought to be passed by in silence. Can we wonder that the people in Ireland believe they have the Government at their back when such statements arc made on the Bench or by prominent men in public meeting and never contradicted by responsible members of of the Government in Ireland? There was a most remarkable case a short time ago. A number of men were brought before the resident magistrate at Athenry for lawlessness, and were told that they must either give bail or go to jail for three months. They refused to give bail and the magistrate committed them to prison for three months, but within fourteen days the Lord-Lieutenant, at the request of the Chief Secretary, released those men. Now what must be the effect of action of that kind in that part of Ireland where lawlessness is rampant and the law is ignored?
There is another reason which leads people to believe that the Government do not disapprove of this intimidation, and that is the attitude of the Irish executive in acceding to actions recently taken by the majority of the Estates Commissioners in Ireland. I speak subject to correction, but I believe my noble friend Lord Atkinson framed a rule which enabled the Estates Commissioners to postpone purchasing any estate if it were found that intimidation had been indulged in. That rule was carried out in its entirety by Mr. Walter Long when he was Chief Secretary. I believe that since then the majority of the Estates Commissioners have dis-
442
obeyed that rule, and comparatively recently one of the Estates Commissioners, a layman with no professional knowledge, gave it as his considered opinion that that rule was ultra vires. The ruling of this lay gentleman was accepted by the Irish Government exactly as if it had been the ruling of a Judge of the High Court. The Commissioners were naturally bound to obey the Executive, and the adoption of this ruling was a direct encouragement to intimidation. Cattle are driven off farms in the hope that the unfortunate owners will be forced to sell their holdings to the Commissioners at any price whatever, and the Commissioners will then distribute the property among the people in the district. What will be the result of that? These men will enter into holdings from which honest men have been driven, and the money will either come out of the pocket of the unfortunate owner who is forced to sell, or out of the pockets of the British taxpayers, who thus becomes a party to what I may call robbery by violence.
I think I have shown that I am justified in asking the Question that stands in my name. The question of insisting on the preservation of law and order should not be made a Party one. I hope that in the interests of the country as a whole the Government will take steps to put an end to a state of lawlessness which does not extend over small areas merely, but is rapidly spreading over very large areas. They will, I am sure, receive from the Unionist Party in Ireland hearty support in taking measures to restore law and order, and to do justice to the unfortunate people in the districts to which I have referred.
What can the Government do? They can make use of the Crimes Act of 1887. They can bring to justice the people who are guilty of these outrages, and not go through the farce of a trial where they know that the accused will be acquitted. They might also insist that where intimidation exists the Estates Commissioners should postpone their operations. The Government have no right to gloss over the present state of affairs. Hon. friends of mine in another place have frequently raised this question. It is the duty of the

443
Unionists Members to take under their protection the law-abiding people in other parts of Ireland. I noticed with pain the epithet which the Chief Secretary applied to them for taking such action. I have looked on the Chief Secretary as a man of courtesy and culture, and I could not hear without indignation the epithet which was applied to men who were merely doing their duty. I hope they will raise these questions whenever it is necessary to do so. That is the only way in which a knowledge of the condition of Ireland can be brought before the English people. I beg to put the Question standing in my name.
*LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, coming as I do from the West of Ireland I regret—I most deeply regret—for the credit of my country that I can only confirm the description which has been given by my noble friend of the state of agitation and terrorism existing there. The noble Marquess has fully described the nature of the movement against the holders of grass farms and the object which the agitators have in view, but I wish to add that this agitation is not conducted solely against holders of farms held under the eleven months system, or against large farmers. It has been directed against men who have held the same farm for years, and against small farmers. Only the other day a woman, evidently in very humble circumstances, was summoned before the United Irish League for not surrendering her share of grazing on a farm. She agreed to surrender, but a fine of £5, which was subsequently reduced to £2, was imposed upon her for not promptly obeying the order of the League. The League holds regular courts, summons people before it, decides whether they should be allowed to work for certain persons, and regulates the whole proceedings of the. country, and the League is able, owing to the state of terror that is inspired, to enforce their decrees with impunity.
To show what the power of the League is, I might mention that the other day a man who was going to Loughrea Fair put a few cattle on the land of a shopkeeper at Loughrea who was in bad odour from having refused to join the
444
League, and in the night the cattle were daubed over with paint to show that they were boycotted and were rendered unsaleable. These cases are at one end of the scale. I will now take the other. I have had a letter put into my hands, since I came into the House, from a gentleman, a magistrate for the county, describing his experience on a journey to attend the fair at Loughrea. He stayed at an hotel over night and found difficulty in getting a car in the morning. After waiting some hours he recognised that they were boycotted. The police procured a car for him. His man was assaulted and his hat thrown into the river." He made a request for police protection, which was complied with. His man was taken by the police to his lodgings, but he was not admitted, nor could he get any lodgings at Loughrea. On the fair morning the cattle were escorted by police, and neither he nor his man could move a step without protection. The people were warned not to buy his cattle, which consequently could not be sold and had to be taken back under police escort. Such a case as is described by the writer of this letter, who is implicitly to be relied upon, shows the terrorism that exists in the country.
A personal friend of my own has the hardihood to hold a farm of which he is the owner. He has refused to sell it, and therefore has committed the unpardonable offence of being possessed of property coveted by others; he is also a very active magistrate. He has been unable to obtain shearers to shear his sheep. No one would work for him. He therefore sent them to another farm of his, seven or eight miles away; but a mob came on to the farm, assaulted the shearers, and drove the sheep into the road, at the same time scattering the wool that had been shorn. I have since seen a letter from his herd saying that they were forbidden by the League to shear or brand the sheep, and were ordered to inform the agent for the property that if he did not remove the sheep by last Saturday they would be driven out. This latter farm has a curious history. It was offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners and a provisional offer

445
from the Estates Commissioners was accepted; but when their inspector came to make the survey, a mob suddenly appeared and drove him and everybody off the farm. What the object was I do not know, except that because they could not all get a slice of the farm they determined that nobody should have any. The inspector tried again, and was again molested, and now the commissioners have dropped the negotiations. That is an illustration of the lawless state of the country.
The same gentleman the other day was driving through the town of Athenry and left his car outside a house, when a man came up to the groom and asked him how he dared drive his master. The groom replied that he was a good master, and he therefore intended to remain in his service. The man then drew a revolver from his pocket saying to the groom, "This fires six times. We have all got them now." There is another case within my knowledge, of the agent of a friend of mine receiving a threatening letter that he would be killed if he did not give up his farm. All the graziers on his property have surrendered and the house of one has been fired into. As showing the power of the League the shopkeepers in Loughrea, acting on the orders of the League, do not now get the boxes and things that they require for their trade from his sawmill. There has been plenty of warning of all this; yet it is not so long ago that we were told "Redeunt Saturnia regna." The golden age has come back to Ireland under the auspices of His Majesty's present Government, and Ireland is quieter than it has been for 600 years, while those who asked inconvenient questions, or dragged out information conflicting with these golden dreams were stigmatised as the maligners of their country and as carrion crows. I cannot help thinking that that was an unfortunate simile, for carrion crows do not show themselves in any locality unless there is good reason for it; "wherever the carcase is there will the eagles be gathered together," but the carcases must be there first.
I cannot answer for 600 years, but I can answer for about sixty, and excepting some terrible period when
446
crime and outrage were rife in the country, and many trembled daily for the life of their friends, I cannot recall any period when property has been so insecure and the action of the Government so supine as at present. I fully admit that steps are now being taken for the protection of property, and that prosecutions are being instituted; but what we complain of is that they were not taken in time. In the year 1905 precisely the same campaign against graziers was contemplated; but Mr. Walter Long, the then Chief Secretary, sent a large force of police into the country, and his firm attitude had the desired effect. The month of May passed off quietly. The noble Marquess did not, I think, refer to the Judge's charge in regard to the county of Galway at Spring Assizes. The Judge there said—
"I regret to say that lawlessness in the form of boycotting and intimidation has been rife in connection with agrarian agitation, and it is of such a nature that it leaves ma no option but to refer to it. There are now forty-one cases in which police protection has to be afforded. In addition there; have been twenty cases of intimidation by threatening letters, and during the same period there have been eleven cases of firing into dwelling houses, some of them being within the last few days."
This was before the announcement was made of the tranquil state of Ireland. Orders had also been sent by the League to graziers, in very many cases, to surrender their farms, sometimes with the intimation that bands of men had been enrolled to drive off their stock if they did not do so. The Government surely must have known of this, and I cannot conceive how such a roseate description of the condition of the country came to be given.
My noble friend referred to the case of a man who refused to give bail and was committed to prison for three months but was released after fifteen days. The explanation given in another place was that fifteen days was an adequate punishment, the sentence having been inflicted under an old Statute of Edward III. The other day another man was summoned for a similar offence, and he said—
"He did not care. It was only fifteen days, and King Edward III. was dead and buried."
Again, the other day, when a man was remonstrated with by a constable, and

447
ordered to desist from driving cattle off a farm, he said he had a perfect right to do it because—
"They had the Government at their back."
The people are firmly convinced that while the Government would repress any overt act of violence, they look with no unfavourable eye on the agitation which prompts such acts, as it may lead to the grass lands being sold by landlords at a low rate. I have received assurances from a very high quarter privately that the Government look upon intimidation as every right-minded man does, but I appeal to them to set the matter at rest and. to discontinue the practice of prophesying smooth things and crying peace where there is no peace. The area of disturbance is said not to be widely extended. If it is not I do not know when we should use the phrase. Perhaps it is not to be considered wide unless agitation approaches the gloomy portals of Dublin Castle, of which we heard lately. In that case the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary might not think it an unmixed evil that those gloomy portals separated him from the stream of national life flowing outside. I appeal to His Majesty's Government to set the matter at rest, and by their action and by public announcement to express emphatically their stern disapproval and condemnation of the system of terrorism which lies like an incubus upon all classes in the country, keeping people from going about their legitimate business, and forcing them to comply with any tyrannical or unjust order which the Party of agitation may choose to issue.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I do not think there is anyone better qualified than the noble Marquess who initiated this discussion, and the noble Earl who has just addressed you, to raise a discussion on this Question in your Lordships' House. I do not propose, in replying to those speeches, to deal at any length with the wider questions of policy which were raised more especially by the noble Marquess. I will confine myself rather to show, by such facts and figures as I have been able to obtain, what is the state of Ireland generally at the present time, to refer to those parts of the country
448
in which disturbances have lately occurred, and to tell the House briefly what action the Government have taken in dealing with those disturbances.
In Leinster and Minister, with the exception of a small part of King's County bordering on Tipperary, near Roscrea, and parts of County Clare, things are in a normal condition. In parts of Connaught, as Lord Clonbrock has told us, notably in the East Riding of Galway and Roscommon, there is considerable unrest and disturbance. The total number of outrages, agrarian and non-agrarian, for the first four months of 1907 was 548; for the corresponding period of 1906 it was 587, and for 1905, 555. Taking agrarian outrages alone, the number up to 29th May of this year was 139, including seventy-seven cases of threatening letters, which even when trivial are included in the Crimes Return. For the corresponding period of 1906 the number was ninety, including fifty-seven threatening letters, while for 1905 it was 125, including seventy-nine threatening letters. Therefore the House will see that, so far as the number of agrarian outrages is concerned, the condition of the country is pretty much the same as it was in the spring of 1905.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: May I ask the noble Lord how those figures have been arrived at?
LORD DENMAN: I am afraid I cannot inform the noble Marquess. They have only just come over from Ireland. Coming to the cases of boycotting, in the first four months of 1907 the number of serious boycotting cases reported was ten, in 1906 they were seven, and in 1905 they were thirteen. At the end of April, 1907, the number of persons under constant police protection was forty-six, and those receiving protection by patrol was 154. At the same time in 1906 the numbers were forty and 165. I think it is fair to state, with regard to these cases of police protection, that many of them are cases of long standing, some of them extending over ten or twenty years.
The noble Marquess and the noble Earl who spoke last have quoted the statements of Judges in their charges to the

449
grand juries at the recent spring assizes. I am perfectly prepared to admit that in four counties the reports of the Judges have been distinctly unsatisfactory, but I think I am right in saying that in every other county of Ireland the reports of the Judges have been eminently satisfactory. When you take this into consideration, as well as the facts and figures I have quoted, it does seem to me that there is furnished, I will not say conclusive proof, but at any rate ample justification for the statement that, generally speaking, Ireland is in a satisfactory condition at the present time.
I will now come to the question of the disturbed districts. At present those parts of the country which in our opinion can be described as disturbed are the East Riding of Galway, the County of Roscommon, parts of County Clare and County Leitrim, and in King's County the district adjoining Tipperary, Roscrea. The agitation, as both noble Lords have told us, is due especially in the case of the two first-named districts, to the grazing system. At this season of the year most of the grass lands are let for the ensuing eleven months, and these lands ape generally surrounded by a number of uneconomic holdings occupied by small tenants, who have in past years made attempts to prevent the letting of the grass lands, in the hope of accelerating their purchase by the Estates Commssioners or by the Congested Districts Board.
This year the agitation against the grazing system has resulted in a determined attempt to force the surrender of grazing land. When the tenants have refused to surrender, in many instances disorderly crowds have assembled and driven cattle off the land, but without any attempt at injury. In the other districts, in County Clare and County Leitrim and in King's County, from information which the Government have received, the grazing system has hitherto played a comparatively subordinate part in the disturbances. I have here the details of the cases in these parts of Ireland which are said to have been the principal cause of the disturbances. I do not think I need take up the time of your Lordships by quoting them, with the exception of the one to which the
450
noble Marquess alluded—I refer to the case of Mr. Luttrell. Mr. Luttrell is the holder of a grazing farm in King's County, and his stock on two occasions had been driven off. In the same locality the stock on the farms of three graziers had been driven off on a day when the police had been drafted into Roscrea. Although in our opinion the driving of cattle cannot, of itself, be considered a crime of a very serious nature—
LORD ASHBOURNE: Will the noble Lord kindly repeat that sentence?
LORD DENMAN: I said that although in our opinion the driving of cattle cannot, of itself, be considered a crime of a very serious nature—
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: It would be in England.
LORD DENMAN: It is a crime, but hardly a crime of a serious nature. Although, as I say, in our opinion the driving of cattle cannot, of itself, be considered a crime of a very serious nature, nevertheless the disturbance in these districts is such as to give grave anxiety to the Government of Ireland. In the case of Galway and Roscommon, where the disturbance is more widely spread and I believe more acutely felt, we think that we know what the cause of the agitation is. There are grounds for believing that in those districts a legitimate grievance does exist, and if the recommendations of the Royal Commission appointed for the purpose of investigating the question of the congested districts are such as to hold out the hope of removing, at any rate in part, the cause of this alleged grievance, the Government will not be slow to act upon them. At the same time we do deplore—we very deeply deplore—this agitation, not only for the reasons which the noble Lords have given, but also because in our opinion it must be entirely fruitless. It may seriously retard or even defeat any attempt which may be made later on to deal with this question; and we have no option but to administer the law with firmness and decision.
As to what has been the action of the Government in these disturbed areas

451
additional police have been drafted into the East Riding of Galway for occasional service as required, and thirty-five men have been added to the police force stationed at Athenry. In the County of Roscommon thirty-five additional police are at present stationed in different parts of the county. In these two counties fifteen prosecutions, affecting 127 persons, have been ordered, a number of the accused have been returned for trial, and other cases are still pending, In County Clare an extra force of fifty-six police is at present stationed in four of the police districts. In County Leitrim an extra police force has been sent to the disturbed area which now appears to be settling down. In King's County twenty-six police have been drafted into the county and are stationed on Luttrell's farm. In the disturbed counties proceedings have been taken in twenty-eight cases and the number of persons prosecuted is 189. I hope, my Lords, that this statement will serve to refute the suggestion of the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, that the Government are engaged in encourgaing intimidation and lawlessness in Ireland. We in this House are always accustomed to hear him state his case with fairness and moderation, and I confess I was surprised to hear from him, as I think I did, a suggestion that the Chief Secretary himself was engaged in encouraging intimidation and lawlessness in that country.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: What I said was that the action of the Chief Secretary had given the people in the country the right to say that they had the Government at their back, and the Chief Secretary had never contradicted that statement. I am glad to hear that the Government are taking these steps. What I said was that these people made the statement that they had the Government at their back.
LORD DENMAN: I am glad to hear from the noble Marquess that he does not hold that view of the Chief Secretary's conduct. In conclusion I wish to say that we have no desire whatever to minimise the seriousness of the disturbances in these particular districts.
452
Equally it does seem to me to be inexpedient to over-estimate the character and extent of these occurrences. Surely it is obvious that nothing can be so congenial to persons engaged in agitation as that notice should be taken of their sayings and doings by Parliament, and that they should be commented on and quoted in the country. It is in the interests of good government that no exaggerated idea of the extent or importance of the disturbances which have occurred should be conveyed through whatever medium to the people of Ireland.
*THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, as one who lives in Ireland I feel that the House will expect that I should say something on this matter. The noble Marquess said he did not regard this as a Party question, and I hope in what I say I shall not be considered as wishing in any way to make Party capital out of the present state of lawlessness in the country. The fact that there is lawlessness in Ireland has often been drawn attention to, and it must be remembered that the forces which direct and organise defiance of law and order, and especially agrarian outrage, always exist in Ireland, The movement begins in a small way, but the authorities at first ignore it, and notwithstanding that attention is drawn to the matter in Parliament and in the Press nothing of any importance is done. The Ministers responsible as a rule take the matter very easily and do not credit the statements of those who live in Ireland, whose business is carried on there, and who have a stake in the country. Suddenly his Majesty's Ministers wake up one fine morning to find that parts of the country are almost in a state of revolution, and that unless they are prepared to allow this revolution to go on it is necessary to have police outside Court houses armed with rifles and ball cartridges, and also to provide police to camp out on land herding castle. That is what is going on now. I ask if it is a dignified proceeding that the officers of the law in Ireland should be so occupied on farms. The noble Lord in his answer actually justified cattle driving—
LORD DENMAN: I deny that I justified it.
*THE EARL OF MAYO: The noble Lord described it as a crime not of a serious nature. Let us consider what this cattle driving is. A man takes a grass farm for eleven months, paying rent, and because the people living around would like to have the grazing land divided among them they turn his cattle on to the road, and then shouting and yelling they drive the animals at full pace to near the owner's house, and there leave them, and this in a district where it is impossible to get people to assist in putting the cattle back. Is that not a crime of a serious nature? The United Irish League have had their eyes on these grass lands for the last two or three years, and have found out that to drive cattle from the owner's land and to leave them to wander for miles over the country is not a serious crime, and they encourage the practice in the hope that the grazing lands may become derelict and be purchased by the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners. This to those unacquainted with Ireland seems a charmingly simple plan of campaign.
Let me now state the areas where disorder at present exists. They are Sligo, Leitrim, Roscommon, Mayo, Gal-way, Clare, Kerry, King's County and West Cork—nine counties in all; and signs are not wanting that the agitation is spreading to Queen's County and to Longford. This is hardly a satisfactory state of affairs, notwithstanding that the noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Government described the condition of Ireland as normal with considerable "unrest" in parts. We know perfectly well that this unrest is exactly like a gangrene in the little finger of the human hand; unless it is cut out it spreads to the whole body and involves loss of life. That is the reason why we have drawn attention to the matter. The noble Lord said that there were 548 agrarian outrages in Ireland. The number of these outrages depends upon how they are ordered to be reported by the police. I have not the honour of a seat on either Front Bench and therefore I do not think there is much harm in my saying that. We know perfectly well that when the police have orders they report agrarian outrages, and that when they do not receive orders they sit quiet, and small blame to them.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): As I shall have to speak later I would like to ask the noble Earl whether he means to suggest that the police have at present orders not to report outrages?
*THE EARL OF MAYO: I did no suggest anything of the kind. I simply stated that we believe in Ireland that the police have instructions to report or not to report outrages. That may be perfectly wrong, but it is the belief, and I have lived in Ireland many years. I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to a case that came under my own notice. I was going to Mallaranny in county Mayo the other day for change of air. At Castrea station I noticed the station to be full of police. I subsequently ascertained that that morning about 200 men, under the command of Mr. Gamble, Assistant Inspector-General, and County Inspector Gray, Roscommon, and five district inspectors, proceeded to Ballymoe, where Mr. Payne lives. This is the account of their operations—.
"Here they were met by another force of Galway police. In a short time thirty cattle were driven out, the police surrounding them. They proceeded to within half a mile of Fohenagh where they were met by about twenty women and children, who set up a mournful cry. The police afterwards drove the cattle on the farm, where they now remain. The whole force is at present located on Fohenagh farm, and the district is in an excited state."
That is where the police are camping out. Then in County Mayo, on a Saturday night, near Ballina, about 100 cattle and sheep on a grazing farm not far away were driven during the night and on Sunday morning were found roaming about the roads. Some ill-feeling had been caused by the tenant renewing his eleven months take of the farm.
I should like to call your Lordships' attention to an Answer which was given by the Chief Secretary in the other House to a Question put to him by Lord John Joicey-Cecil. The Chief Secretary was asked in this Question if he would state how many of the persons who attacked Mr. Payne's farm, near Ballintubber, on the 10th May were employees of the Congested Districts Board and of the Estates Commissioners, and whether he

455
proposed to take action in the matter. Mr. Birrell replied—
"I am informed that about Seventy-five labourers who were temporarily in the employment o the Congested Districts Board, and about thirty employed by the Estates Commissioners, were members of the crowd, some of whom drove the cattle off Mr. Payne's farm. This fact has already been brought to the notice of the Departments mentioned. Twelve persons are being prosecuted for unlawful assembly on the occasion, and the case is sub judice."
I hope that these men who amuse themselves by driving cattle will not be again employed by these Departments. These are people employed by Government Departments, and yet with a gay heart and in a free-and-easy way they take part in these disturbances. This incident, I think, throws a little light on what is going on in Ireland.
The opinion of local Nationalists as to the duty of popular justices in such cases is well exemplified in the following extract from a letter published in the Roscommon Herald on 18th May—
"Dear Sir,—If there had been two more Nationalist J.P.'s in Elphin on Wednesday the Crown would have got a fall in their first coercion prosecution. I am informed that the local leaders sent out urgent whips. A prepaid telegram was sent to the Chairman of the Boyle District Council and another was sent to him on Wednesday, but he did not reply. It was the people made him, and they can unmake him."
There is no doubt that noble Lords in this House will take for granted what we who come from Ireland say with regard to the unrest in that country. The English people, however, have been deceived in the matter, and I would like to ask how much longer are responsible. Ministers going on deluding themselves and the public. I admit that Ulster is quiet and that the district in which I live is quiet—thank God for it—but my point is that if you do not stop this now it will spread all over the country. Ireland was peaceful when Mr. John Morley was Chief Secretary, and I do not see why the present Liberal Government should not be able to manage to maintain peace in these districts just the same as Mr. Morley did.
It would not be difficult to deal with the disorder without exceptional legislation or calling out the military. Let the Government restore the regulation providing that the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners
456
would deal with no land that was made the subject of any kind of intimidation, and let the convictions of guilty persons be secured by change of venue, and the agitation and rule of the United Irish League would cease and an end would be put to the untold misery caused to all who have anything to do with it or come under its ban. Under the rule of the United Irish League business and trade come to a standstill, friends view each other with suspicion, and a dread of evil comes over the land. Moreover, if this system of cattle driving is not suppressed, there is a grave danger of Ireland's most important industry of stock-raising being ruined. I hope, therefore, the Government will take the bull by the horns and put a stop to the ruffianly proceedings now going on. What is wanted in Ireland is law and order and not too much legislation.
LORD BARRYMORE: My Lords, the discussion up to the present has chiefly dealt with Connaught and the Western portion of Ireland. It is not alone the west of Ireland that is disturbed. The county of Cork, in which I live, appears to be in a complete state of peace according to the view of His Majesty's Government. I am sorry to inform the noble Lord opposite that that county is by no means in so satisfactory a state as he appears to imagine. In the western portion of the county of Cork the greatest difficulty has been experienced for some time past in collecting rents.
On a small estate near Berehaven the landlord's offer to sell at nineteen years purchase was not alone rejected by the tenants, but they refused to pay their arrears of four years rent, and only last week 300 police had to accompany the sheriff to execute writs. I am glad that in this most recent case in County Cork the Government appear to have realised the danger of the situation and to have fully supported the sheriff in the execution of his duty. This small army went down to the estate and a settlement was, I believe, come to, but there was a regular battle royal; resistance was made by men and women; stones, mud, water, and every sort of thing was thrown at the sheriff and at the attacking party. One man was

457
seriously injured and is now in hospital, whilst one of the defending party who struck him with a stone is in jail. This certainly does not look as if there was a peaceful state of things in that county.
In the central part of the county, around Macroom, things are in even a worse state. A well-known land agent in the city of Cork who acts for landlords in that district recently sent a writ for the non-payment of rent for service to a civil bill officer at Macroom, and got the following reply—
"Sir,—Owing to the disturbed state of the district at present, I do not think it safe for me to serve writs for rent."
Two similar letters were produced in evidence in the King's Bench, Dublin, at the end of April last from other civil bill officers in the district. One gentleman writes—
"Being unable to get rent we were obliged to submit to the tenants' own terms and sell at a very low price. The district is in a terrible condition, and it is practically impossible to get rents there. Tenants absolutely refuse to pay unless you sell at their terms."
The result is that the landlords, burdened with very heavy charges, are forced to sell at a loss. What is worse, these unfortunate landlords will not get the purchase money for five or six years, and meanwhile they will be paid only2½ per cent. interest on the amount, while they will have to pay 5 or 6 per cent. on the charges on their property.
In the same district an eviction took place for non-payment of rent and a caretaker with two policemen was placed in charge. The house was attacked by a mob of 150 people, and the result was that the police and the caretaker had to get out by a back door. They succeeded in retiring to the police barracks, where this wretched caretaker remained for twenty-four hours before they could smuggle him back to Cork. A week or two later another caretaker went down, accompanied by fifty police. They took possession of the house and occupied it that night. The house was again attacked by the mob, but the police were afraid to take any active steps in resisting, because they were afraid that if they did they would probably run the risk of being summoned and tried before a jury in Cork, and that the consequences would be very severe. They also feared that
458
they would not get the support and protection of His Majesty's Government. That caretaker was again withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CREWE: May I ask the noble Lord's authority for the statement that the police took that view.
LORD BARRYMORE: That was the information I obtained from the caretaker and the people who were mixed up in the case. The fact remains that the police made no attempt to attack the mob beyond firing one or two shots through the roof of the thatched house in which they were. Then in March there was the case of a postman who was going down to that neighbourhood with a number of letters purporting to contain writs and processes. The postman was waylaid by disguised men and relieved of a number of letters which had significant marks indicating the nature of their contents. The postman resisted the attack but was unable to save the messages from confiscation.
Then on 4th April the police went to arrest a man who was known to the police as having been engaged in one of these outrages. He was working in a field with some others. The attempt to serve the writ was resisted, and a fight ensued, and the police, as far as I can make out, went off without their prisoner. One of the men was struck on the head with a truncheon and the result was that he brought a summons against the policeman for assault. The summons was tried before seven magistrates on 27th May, and after a long trial the magistrates decided by a majority that they would send the policeman for trial at Cork. The chairman, who was the resident magistrate and an exceedingly able and capable officer, gave judgment in these words—
"They had given the ease considerable attention, and he regretted to say they were by no means unanimous. The majority had decided to return the ease for trial. Speaking for himself, he had no hesitation in emphatically dissenting from the decision of the majority of the Court, and he thought the administration of the law in the county of Cork, and particularly in this neighbourhood, stood a bad chance in the future, if a policeman with a warrant going to effect the arrest of an offender were openly resisted and treated in this way. it boded very ill for the maintenance of law and order in the county.

459
These cases show that there are places besides Connaught in which the law is broken and where the country is in a very serious state. These cases have nothing to do with evicted tenants, and such matters as these cannot be remedied by any Bill introduced by His Majesty's Government to reinstate those tenants.
The cases which I have laid before your Lordships show that throughout parts of the country there is an organised determination on the part of lawless people to band together to defy the law. They show, moreover, the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of getting the officers of the law to do their duty, and, more serious still, that magistrates themselves are not to be trusted to carry out the law which they have sworn to administer. I hope that before it is too late the Government will realise the state of Ireland, and endeavour to do something to put things upon a better footing.
*LORD DUNBOYNE: My Lords, I happen to reside in County Clare, and can testify that the state of that county is not quite as peaceful as the noble Lord opposite, who spoke on behalf of His Majesty's Government, would wish the House to imagine. Within the last two months there have been no less than seven cases of shooting besides other outrages, and those who say that the outrages are not serious would probably change their opinion if they could place themselves in the position of the unfortunate peasants.
I will state to your Lordships a few of the outrages that have been committed On the night of 23rd March, at Scariff, the house of a farmer named John Carroll was fired into. His daughter was struck by the broken glass through which the shot passed. The outrage is attributed to a local land dispute. Again, at Crossagh, Newmarket-on-Fergus, in the county of Clare, the house of a man named Christopher Boland was fired into. He was in charge of an evicted farm. On 16th. April, in Kilbogin district, a man named Frank M'Auliffe, while returning from Ennis, was fired at and received a gunshot wound in the shoulder. But, as these people were not killed, perhaps the offence, is not considered a serious one.
460
Cranagher House, midway between Ennis and Tulla, belonging to General Sir Bindon Blood, was recently the scene of a dastardly outrage. Men broke into the house and in several of the rooms started fires on the floors with hay saturated with paraffin oil. A hay barn, which contained about ten or twelve tons of hay, was also set on fire and destroyed, while attempts were made to destroy the herd's house. All the indications pointed to a deliberately planned outrage. A claim was made at Ennis Quarter Sessions on 16th April by Sir Bindon Blood for the malicious injuries to his property. The agent of the property, in giving evidence, said he had received a threatening letter in connection with the farm. This threatening letter contained these passages—
"Sir,—As a member of the Sacred Society of Clooney I would draw your attention to the state of the Cranagher Farm at the present time. In order to avoid murder and bloodshed we hope you will be good enough not to give the farm in question to any one man; more than that, you will not give said farm through your own hands…as we will not take it except through the Estates Commissioners.…No other measures will do us. Any who becomes tenant of said farm will meet an untimely death. … No protection will save you from an unexpected death if you make tenant of any one man in Cranagher.…A sudden death awaits you if you do not act fair, and you will be responsible before God for the death of any man you make tenant of."
This letter is signed by the "Captain of the Sacred Society, Clooney." Compensation was recovered in that case.
I have details of another case which happened in the Corofin district. A respectable farmer named Michael O'Connor, who resides at Shanballysallagh, was, it seems, on a visit to a friend's house, about a mile and a half distant from his home, on the night of March 21st. He left for home at half-past ten o'clock, and had only gone a short distance when a shot was fired at him from behind the roadside wall. One grain of the shot struck O'Connor on the calf of one leg. O'Connor ran as hard as he could towards home, when six or seven more shots were discharged after him, none of which, however, struck him. He subsequently reported the matter, and the county inspector and district inspector visited the place. No arrests were made. The outrage is said to be attributed to Mr. O'Connor's having

461
taken portion of a large farm in the district lately, over the division of which there was some local feeling.
Then on 3rd May there was another shooting outrage in Ruane district, the victim being John Murphy, a young man of the farming class. He was on horseback, and on his return home, within three or four hundred yards of the village of Ruane, two gunshots were fired at him from behind a hedge. Though badly wounded he galloped to Ruane and reported the outrage at the police barracks. As late as 23rd May the house of a farmer living at Fermoyle was fired into, but fortunately without injury to the occupants. One revolver bullet lodged in the window frame, and a second in a door. The county and district inspectors visited the scene, and as the result of their inquiries two young men were arrested. This, however, is of very little use, as the unfortunate peasants are so intimidated that it is impossible to procure evidence. The only government in these districts is that of the United Irish League, and the people know that if they attempt to do anything contrary to the orders of the League the probability is that they will be made severely to suffer. They know that they can get no protection from the properly constituted authorities, and that makes them unwilling to come forward.
There was a case last September within a mile of my house. A most respectable young man was picking nuts on a Sunday afternoon, when a man came up to him and drew a revolver. He said, "Now I have got you," and fired two bullets into him. One went through his neck and the other through his thigh. The young man struggled with his assailant to get the revolver, but fell down exhausted through loss of blood. The man then jumped on him and deliberately fired two more bullets into him while he was lying on the ground. The young man told me himself that pressure was brought to bear upon him, and that if it had not been for the parish priest he would have been obliged to say he did not know the man who assaulted him, although he knew him intimately. That shows the state of terror which exists in the country, and the fact that the League alone in that
462
part of the country can enforce the law, and the law they enforce is their own law. I do not speak for the landlords. They are to a great extent immune, most of them being quite capable of taking care of themselves. But I do earnestly plead for deliverance for the poor tenants and farmers, who groan under the terrible oppression of the League. There can be no real happiness nor prosperity among the Irish people so long as the law of the United Irish League is allowed to rule the country.
Moved, "That the debate stand adjourned."—(Viscount Hill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.