Lords Sitting of 20 July 1910

BARON WILLINGDON OF RATTON.
Freeman Freeman-Thomas, Esquire, having been created Baron Willingdon of Ratton in the county of Sussex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord LECONFIELD—Took the Oath.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Barry Railway.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
MINES ACCIDENTS (RESCUE AND AID) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAY) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
MINES ACCIDENTS (RESCUE AND AID) BILL.
Read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 121.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection in regard to the Merthyr Tydfil Order.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed for Tuesday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

LAWLESSNESS IN IRELAND.
LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK rose to call attention to the withdrawal of prosecution against the nine men engaged in violently resisting the law at the evictions at Kilmurry, Castle Island, co. Kerry, in June, 1909, and to ask whether His Majesty's Government are so satisfied with the present state of the county of Kerry as to deem the vindication of the law in this case unnecessary.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the circumstances connected with the eviction which forms part of the Notice on the Paper are so peculiar that I hope I may be allowed to state them in some detail. It appears that negotiations for the sale of this farm were entered into as early as the year 1903. The landlord is Mr. Peirce Gun Mahony; the name of the tenant was Mr. Richard Walsh, and the rent of the farm £34 13 s. 6d. At that time the tenant signed a paper stating that he was perfectly content with the terms offered, provided certain minor matters with regard to turbary were arranged. A scheme was then drawn up by two parish priests of the neighbourhood, but the tenant refused to accept their decision although he had previously stated he would do so. He then refused to go on with the terms of purchase or to pay any rent whatever. In the year 1905 three years rent was due, and proceedings were taken by the trustees for the rent. Judgment was marked against the tenant, and as he had removed all his hay and stock on the farm, his

345
interest was put up for auction and purchased by the agent of the property. An offer was then made to him to accept twenty-one and a-half years purchase of the rent, which was a second term rent. This the tenant refused absolutely. He then fell ill, and no further move was taken for some time.
But in the year 1907, the tenant having paid no rent in the meantime, the trustees of the property issued a writ of ejectment. He defended these proceedings unsuccessfully, and this caused still further delay. The next step was on November 5, 1908, when an attempt was made at ejectment, which failed owing to the insufficient force brought to protect the sheriff and the determined resistance offered by the tenant and others in the neighbourhood. On November 15 of the same year a large meeting was held under the auspices of the. United Irish League, at which violent speeches were made by Members of Parliament and others, calling upon the people in the neighbourhood to support Richard Walsh in his "sturdy struggle for his home against exacting landlordism." A fund was started called the "Castle Island Eviction Fund," which received large subscriptions, and by the help of the people in the neighbourhood the house was fortified in a most scientific manner. Trees were cut down and laid across the road, trenches were cut round the house, fences of bushes and barbed wire were erected, a subterranean passage was made from the house to the yard, the walls of the house were propped up with timber, and barrels of tar and lime were procured, with syringes and a pump in order that the ingredients might be poured on the attacking party.
Another attempt at ejectment was made on June 4, 1909, which again failed. Finally, early in July of last year a force of 250 police accompanied the eight bailiffs, and in the course of a several hours siege the police, as the right hon. gentleman the Chief Secretary stated in the House of Commons, were subjected to every kind of violence. Hot tar and lime were poured upon them, and the sight of one police officer was seriously imperilled. An entrance was effected after several hours by making a breach in the wall, and the garrison, consisting of fifteen men, were arrested on the spot. They were then brought before the magistrates at Petty Sessions, but though they had been caught red-handed, the magistrates
346
by a majority of one refused information. The then Attorney-General, recognising that there had been a gross miscarriage of justice, directed the prosecution of nine of them at the Spring Sessions last March. Six had in the meantime left the country and gone to America. One would have supposed, seeing the excitement and agitation that prevailed in the district and that the magistrates had refused to convict, that it would have been manifest that nothing better could be expected from a common jury, and one would have thought that the case would have been brought before the Winter Assizes, when the trial would not have been held in the county of Kerry, or else that application would have been made to change the venue. But the matter was brought before a Kerry jury last March, and the jury acquitted the prisoners on the main charge. The learned Judge who tried the case, Lord Chief Justice O'Brien, expressed strong disapproval of the verdict, but added some words of commiseration of the jury in the position in which he saw they were placed.
It was then stated, that the prosecution of the defendants on several other charges would be for the present postponed. But we saw from the statement of counsel for the Crown a fortnight ago at the Summer Assizes that these prosecutions had been withdrawn in consequence of the peaceable state of the county. It is only fair to say that the learned Judge who presided, Lord Justice Cherry, had previously spoken of the peaceable state of the county. There had only been a few cases of minor boycotting and threatening letters reported to him by the Constabulary. But even with this apparent outward improvement as regards the diminution of these offences, it is hard to imagine why His Majesty's Government, in the face of the terrorism which they must have known was exerted a few months before, when the jury were afraid to convict in the face of clear evidence, should consider the county to be. in a satisfactory state. They must surely see that if it is quiet, it is because the United League and the party of agitation have got matters so completely into their own hands and have been able to defy the law so successfully that they have exercised a system of terrorism over the country which has enabled them to dispense with any acts of violence. It is hard, therefore, to conceive how this could be considered a satis-

347
factory state. But, even if it were, I confess I fail to see the connection between the present peaceable state of the country and an outrage which was committed a year ago.
We sometimes hear comparisons instituted between the state of crime in Ireland and the state of crime in England. It would be no doubt impossible to draw a parallel with regard to this particular outrage, because I do not suppose it has ever happened in England that an ejectment for non-payment of rent has had to be executed by 250 police; but taking any other sort of crime, people would be very much surprised in England if they heard that a prosecution for any criminal offence was withdrawn because for the last few months no similar crime had taken place in the county concerned. Have these prosecutions been abandoned because the Government supposed that their abandonment would be popular in the county, that the majority of the people are in sympathy with the parties who were to be brought up? If that is the case, and if there is a widespread sympathy on the part of the majority of the people in favour of resistance to the law, what becomes of the peaceable state. of the country? Is it to be considered in a. satisfactory state? Or is it the case that the party of agitation have not only established a, thorough system of terrorism over the particular district, but that they have struck terror into His Majesty's Government, and that the Government are afraid that any proceedings taken against these men would create a disturbance? If so, it would appear that they are so anxious to be able to assure the country of the peaceable state of Ireland that they want peace at any price—even at the price of allowing offenders against the law to go scot free. It is so curious that I am anxious to know from His Majesty's Government what motive they had in dropping the prosecution.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend in his action in putting this Question to His Majesty's Government. I do not wish to go into the details of this case. They are sufficiently known to the officials at Dublin Castle, to the officials at the Irish Office, and to the Chief Secretary; and your Lordships have heard from my noble friend Lord Clonbrock what happened—how the jury refused to convict, and how the Lord Chief Justice said that, after all,
348
he pitied these jurymen for there was no doubt they could not convict, because we all know that a very broad hint is given to common juries in that part of Ireland that if they convict their lives will be made unbearable, and perhaps something worse may happen. The details of the case, as I have said, are well known. But some reference to the action of the Chief Secretary and the Law Officers of the Crown is absolutely essential with regard to this matter.
I will take what occurred at the Kerry Summer Assizes on July 8 this year. Mr. Lynch, K.C., referring to the case of the King against Richard J. Walsh and others, said—
"The principal indictment was disposed of at the last, Assizes."
We know how that was disposed of—by the jury refusing to find the parties guilty, although they were caught in the act. Mr. Lynch continued—
"There were still some minor charges, but the Attorney-General had directed him, in consequence of the peaceable condition of the county, to enter a nolle prosequi."
The Judge is thereupon reported to have said—
"I am very glad. Let it be done."
With regard to the "minor charges," I should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether they consider tins one of the minor charges. Sergeant John McIntyre, of the Royal Irish Constabulary depot, stated before the magistrates at Castle Island—
"The remains of a bag of dry lime were thrown on him; he became practically stone blind for a time, and his right eye was still very weak. He was medically treated."
There is one thing which is rather satisfactory with regard to this matter, and that is that since the authorities announced their intention of sending these persons for trial six of these blackguards have left the country. I only wish that the minor charges had been gone on with, because the rest of the blackguards would most likely have left the country also, and we should have had no more of this ruffianism in the district.. I know it is wrong to animadvert on anything that a Judge does, but I should like to refer to the remark of the Judge when the Attorney-General withdrew these cases at the Assizes. The Judge said he was "very glad." I wonder if the respectable citizens and farmers and those who wish to do their business

349
in quiet in the county of Kerry are very-glad that these people are not to be prosecuted for these offences.
With regard to the statement that the county of Kerry is in a perfectly peaceable state, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to what the Roman Catholic Bishop of Kerry said in his Lenten Pastoral published a few months since. The Bishop drew a very different picture. He referred to "wholesale drunkenness," "violence," deeply criminal conduct, in connection with malicious injury to property, which he denounced as "contemptible, mean and cowardly," "personal violence leading to the loss of human life"—these are some of the epithets employed by the Bishop in admonishing his people and trying to reform them. I submit that the Roman Catholic Bishop of Kerry knows a great deal more about the doings of his flock than even the officials, the police, or the resident gentlemen and farmers in the county of Kerry. He has the means of knowing exactly what is going on, and no stronger language could have been used than that contained in his Lenten -Pastoral. I wish that those in authority in Ireland and in another place would use that language or language approaching to it.
No doubt we shall be told that this is an isolated case, and that the rest of Ireland is in a prosperous condition. But what these people want is to be able to go about their business in a quiet and orderly manner, and to see the ordinary law of the land carried out and malefactors of this kind pursued in the same manner as they pursue their evil practices. I hope the Government will give a direct though I do not know whether it. will be a satisfactory answer to the Question which my noble friend Lord Clonbrock has put to them. We do not bring these cases up for Party purposes, or anything of that sort. It does not matter to those who live in Ireland what Party is in power. We ask that Party to keep the country in order according to the law of the land as it exists. That is what we ask, and I hope that an answer will be given which will at all events allay the doubts which exist in our minds at present.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, I am very glad that. the noble Earl who has just
350
sat down disclaimed any intention of making Party capital or advantage out of the case which Lord Clonbrock has brought before your Lordships' attention this afternoon. If we start from that basis, I think we shall get on better in this and similar matters than if a Party spirit prevailed. This case is on the general lines stated by the noble Lord, but perhaps you will allow me to recapitulate rapidly exactly what happened. This farm was held by a man named Walsh at a judicial rent of £31. and he had fallen into arrears for rent. In March, 1906, judgment was marked against him for £107 and £10 costs.
LORD ASHBOURNE: How many half-yearly gales was that?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I do not know how far it was retrospective, but that was the judgment given in March, 1906. Walsh thereupon removed his hay and stock from the farm. The sheriff then seized his interest in the farm and put it. up for sale, when the agent purchased it. In July, 1907, a writ of ejectment was issued, and after a good deal of litigation Walsh's eviction was carried out on June 22, 1909. On this date the sheriff's officers, assisted by a protecting police force, arrived at Walsh's house, finding it strongly barricaded as has been described, and on the sub-sheriff demanding possession, hot water, tar, lime, etc., were thrown at him and his officers as well as the police. In endeavouring to effect an entrance the sub-sheriff and his officers were assaulted, and the police, on instructions, forced an entrance. They were also attacked. and two men were rather severely injured., but. I am glad to say that I hear in both cases they are doing well and there is no permanent injury. There were fifteen men inside the house, and they were arrested and brought before the resident magistrate, who remanded them; on July 7, when the case came before the bench of magistrates, it was adjourned to July 16, and further adjourned to August 3, and on that date the magistrates refused information, the resident magistrate dissenting.
Upon that the Attorney-General took up the matter, and bills against nine of the defendants were sent up to the Spring Assizes. The charges made against them were three—first, resisting the sheriff's officers; secondly, assaulting the police;

351
and, thirdly, unlawful assembly. As the noble Lord has stated, the jury acquitted the defendants on the first indictment—that of resisting the sheriff's officers. I may here say, in parenthesis, that the position of the police in cases of eviction is peculiar. They are not entitled to assist the sheriff in bringing about the eviction. They can only step in if there is a breach of the peace, or likely to be a breach of the peace. I do not know whether it was on that ground that the jury acquitted the prisoners under the first. head. I merely mention it as a technical point which may have availed in regard to this case. The trial on the other indictments was postponed to the next Assizes, and then the Crown counsel, by direction of the Attorney-General, entered a nolle prosequi and the defendants were discharged.
LORD ASHBOURNE: What were the charges then outstanding?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Assaulting the police, and unlawful assembly. With regard to the state of the county, I may say no further disturbance occurred in connection with the eviction, and the county generally remained peaceful throughout the remainder of the year, although there were some cases of serious crime. Your Lordships will remember that an election took place in January of this year as a result of a petition, and although feeling ran very high the police were able to maintain the peace; in April and May there was a slight anti-grazing outbreak in a part of the county, but in June, however, the county inspector reported the county to be generally peaceful.
With regard to the statement of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Kerry in his Pastoral Letter, I dare say the House would like to have the figures as to the state of lawlessness in that. county at the present time contrasted with last year. There were last year 13 cases of incendiary fires; this year, up to June 30, there were 10. Of cattle maiming there were 7 cases in 1909; for the half-year up to June, 1910, there were 5. These are the chief headings under which compensation for malicious injuries is claimed. As regards the Bishop's reference to crime involving violence or loss of human life, I may mention that in 1909 there were: one case of murder,
352
2 cases of manslaughter, 3 cases of firing at the person, 5 cases of aggravated assault, and 3 cases of maiming. It is satisfactory to know that there has been no case of murder, manslaughter, or firing at the person since January of this year. In 1909 there were 3 cases of firing at the person, and 8 cases of firing into dwellings. There has been no case of firing at the person since January of this year, and there have been 5 cases of firing into dwellings. The number of cases in which police protection is afforded is about the same as in previous years, but there is no case of serious boycotting. Six cases of cattle-driving were reported in 1909; there has been only 1 case since January of this year. It was upon those facts, no doubt, that Lord Justice Cherry felt himself justified in making the speech to the Grand Jury at the Summer Assizes at Tralce, in which he said—
"I am extremely happy to be able to inform you that there are only three bills to go before you involving three offences, none of which is of a serious character";
and he went on to say—
"There is not any crime of a serious character which has not been brought to justice, and I am glad to be able to inform you that the whole county is now in a perfectly peaceable condition."
With regard to cattle-driving he said—
"I also hear that there is no cattle-driving here";
and then he made a statement with regard to threatening letters, the figure of which is contained in the schedule presented to Parliament, and I think what he said is worth considering, because very often these threatening letters are of a most bombastic kind, and have very little real intimidatory meaning. He says, for instance—
"There have been twenty cases of threatening letters; but threatening letters not followed up by any hostile action is not a very serious matter; and I am informed that they are entirely disregarded by the recipients, who are not even annoyed with them, so that they may be regarded as of no importance. There is in the Irish character a certain melodramatic temperament, which derives pleasure in writing bloodthirsty letters and making bloodthirsty speeches which do not mean very much."
I may say that, as Lord Mayo anticipated, the Government regard this as an isolated case. It is a case where many special conditions prevailed, not in any sense connected with a general conspiracy to refuse to pay rent. Several features

353
occurred of a kind which would be easily understood by noble Lords opposite. For instance, a new owner came into the property, and possibly he may have been a little lacking in tact in dealing with this case. Then there is the familiar figure of an old woman of eighty in the house, and all these things tended to inflame feeling in the district.
THE EARL OF MAYO: The landlord never interfered with the old lady at all. It was entirely the action of the son which created all this row. She is still in the house, and is as comfortable as circumstances will permit her to be.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I only mention that to show that there was in this case all the elements which lead to a popular demonstration in favour of the tenant. Anyhow, with regard to this prosecution, as I have said, the first charge failed, and the Attorney-General, using his discretionary powers, decided that it was undesirable, in the interests of the permanent peace of the district, to pursue the defendants with other charges. The discretionary power of the Attorney-General is a very real one. He is obliged to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, and it is for him to decide whether, in the general public interest and having regard to the general condition of the country, it is desirable that the Crown should prosecute or not. Even if the Government had been in possession of those greater powers under the Crimes Act, it would have fallen to the Attorney-General to use his discretion in exactly the same way. I also frankly admit, although I cannot speak for the Attorney-General, that he may have had a doubt in his mind as to whether the Crown would have been more successful in securing a conviction on the other two charges than they were on the first. What do noble Lords opposite suggest that we should have done?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Changed the venue.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I have no doubt the Attorney-General ' considered that, and came to the conclusion that it was not in the interests of permanent peace to pursue this matter any further.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Why?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Because the general state of the country is satisfactory. The noble Marquess himself admitted, in the recent debate on this subject, that with the exception of four counties—Clare, Galway, Longford, and Roscommon—the condition of Ireland is on the whole peaceful, and that a considerable improvement has taken place of late years.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Yes; but I was careful to point out that, however satisfactory the condition of affairs might be in other parts of Ireland, it is extremely unpleasant for the unfortunate people in these four counties to be ignored, and to be told that they must not complain of the misery they are undergoing because the rest of Ireland is satisfactory.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Speaking last year the noble Marquess gave the House to understand that in his opinion the condition of Ireland was worse than it had. been for thirty or forty years. That Was the impression which the noble Marquess conveyed to the House last year. But in the speech he made the other day he carefully stated, in his opening remarks, that he addressed himself merely to the condition of affairs in the four counties I have named.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My point is that the people in those counties have the same right to protection as the people in other counties, and ought not to be ignored and told that they must not complain because the rest of Ireland is satisfactory.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The noble Marquess will have an opportunity later of making his point. I say that there has been, as is admitted by noble Lords opposite, a great improvement in 'the condition of Ireland generally, and Kerry is one of those counties in which, according to the noble Marquess himself, there has been an improvement. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite are again hinting or suggesting that the Crown ought to be armed with greater powers than are now possessed for dealing with these cases. Of course, this is a bad case. I do not deny that for a minute, and it is very unfortunate that such a case should occur. I am not concerned to argue the inefficacy

355
of coercive measures, if it is coercion which noble Lords opposite desire. No doubt in a way and for a time you can, by the exercise of the Crimes Act, produce a temporary and superficial state of law and order. You can crush crime, no doubt, by the use of the Crimes Act, but what we say is that that policy is a sterile policy, and a proof of that is to be found in the fact that even in the eyes of its authors and advocates the policy of coercion has been a failure. In proof of that I would refer your Lordships to the speech made in this House by the noble Earl, Lord Dudley. Lord Dudley said—
"Ever since I went to Ireland I have striven, to the best of my humble ability, to do the best I could in the true interests of the country, and I cannot refrain now from dissociating myself from the advocacy of a policy the policy of coercion] which, though, perhaps, temporarily efficacious, to my mind cuts at the root of all true union between England and Ireland, and embitters public opinion in that country to such an extent as to render successful government difficult, if not impossible."
LORD ASHBOURNE: Lord Dudley stood in the debate alone in that opinion. I followed hint and repudiated many of the things he said.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: It is none the less true that Lord Dudley made that speech, and it is none the less true that he was your Viceroy in Ireland. If any further proof were needed of the failure of coercive measures, it is to be found in the introduction of Mr. Wyndham's Act. The fact of the matter is, the management of Ireland requires tact and patience. We shall no doubt have these cases from time to time. They are very deplorable and no one can defend them. But we do say that we are gaining ground, that the condition of Ireland is better than it was two years ago, and is increasingly on the mend. His Majesty's Government do not in any sense of the word condone anything that has happened in this or in similar cases, nor have they refrained from prosecuting because, as was suggested, it would be an unpopular act in the county. We are pursuing steadfastly the policy of putting into operation, so far as we are able and when not advised to the contrary, those ordinary processes of law which exist, and we believe that if we are allowed to continue that policy for a sufficiently long time the condition of Ireland will be very much better.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has gone
Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.
356
very much outside the point that was brought under the notice of the House by my noble friend Lord Clonbrock. My noble friend referred to nothing except the condition of Kerry, and in that connection he largely directed attention to one particular case. The noble Lord who has just spoken has gone far outside that. He even went back to a debate of a couple of years ago, when my noble friend Lord Dudley somewhat surprised many of us by a speech which he made on that occasion. With regard to this case, I think Lord Ashby St. Ledgers failed to give sufficient weight and significance to what was said, with all the weight of his responsible position, by the Roman Catholic Bishop in this part of Ireland. Every one knows the close attention which the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church give to everything that goes on in their diocese, and the deep interest they take in the happiness, well-being, and correct conduct of those within their religious jurisdiction. Therefore what was said by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Kerry and quoted by my noble friend Lord Mayo is entitled to very great weight. The grave words which the Bishop used in his Lenten Pastoral this year were written with a profound knowledge of the whole position, and are consequently entitled to serious attention from your Lordships and every one desirous of understanding the real, unvarnished tale to be told with reference to this matter.
An important circumstance is that very few of these people were made amenable for the offences. And of those who were made amenable, how many were convicted and punished? In other words, in how many cases were the crimes allowed to remain unpunished? This is a grave question. It may be that terror has now wrought its inevitable result, and that in many- cases the victim ceases to struggle. I do not disparage statistics, or suggest that the state of Ireland and the state of Kerry may not be reasonably examined by the light which statistics may give; but statistics have to be examined with a knowledge of the whole of the circumstances of the case. What. is the position which the noble Lord who has replied on behalf of the Irish Office has presented with reference to this special case? He has not sought to minimise its importance and gravity, except that the general tone of his remarks was rather, I will not

357
say, to whitewash it, but to prevent its looking as dark as people thought. And I think be described this as an isolated case. I am not sure that I could give assent to that.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I mean that it was not part of a conspiracy not to pay rent. It rested on quite exceptional circumstances.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I will take that as the noble Lord's meaning, but if I were discussing this question in the presence of those who were informed technically on the matter and with all the information before them, I would be disposed to greatly question that description. There was a great deal of co-operation in reference to the matter, and that it was an isolated case is one of the last things I would be disposed to accept. In occurrences of this kind if you find a good deal of local sympathy, no matter how you may describe it, it is a serious element, and there must have been a good deal of sympathy and cooperation among all the neighbours in this matter. What are the "exceptional circumstances"? Is not a man who is owed several years rent entitled to look for it? Is he not entitled, if payment is not forthcoming, to ask for possession of his land? Is he not entitled, if he does not get possession of his land, to take legal process?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The tenant has been evicted.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Yes, but where are the exceptional circumstances? What is there exceptional in a man who is owed several years rent asking for that rent? And what is there exceptional in a man who cannot get his rent seeking to regain possession of his land and appealing to the law? I think it is to be regretted that a word which gives a false impression should be used in reference to this transaction. To misrepresent a single word that the noble Lord has said would be the last thing I would desire.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I used the word "exceptional" in connection with the decision which the Attorney-General had to take. It was not at all a matter as to whether the man had a right to stay on the land. The circumstances were exceptional, and when the Attorney-
358
General had to make up his mind what to do, he took those circumstances into account.
LORD ASHBOURNE: The noble Lord now explains what he meant by exceptional circumstances.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: That is what. I said.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Then I take it that what was taking place in reference to this matter was normal; that it was not improper, not exceptional, and not unbecoming on the part of the landlord to seek to get possession of his land as he could not get payment of his rent. That being so, what is the state of facts? The landlord did not get his rent. He endeavoured to obtain possession of his land, but failed. He tried to execute legal process, but again failed. He then appealed to the Government of the day for aid, and I gather from the discussion that the Government felt it so important to overcome the feeling that was surrounding this case that they sent a large force of police to see that the legal process was executed and the law administered in that part of Ireland. If there is one thing that is needed everywhere, particularly in Ireland, it is to satisfy the people that the law is strong enough to assert itself and to insist on being obeyed. Here the law failed to enforce itself and to be obeyed. The police were repudiated and driven back; and when ultimately possession of the house was obtained the men who had actively and openly resisted the law were found to a substantial number inside. It is to those men and what was their fate that my noble friend has directed attention. Some of them have left the country. I do not regret it. Others were summoned before the magisterial bench, but informations were refused. Then they were presented at the Assizes, but the local jury acquitted them of one of the charges, and the two other charges, since baptised "minor charges"—resistance of the police and unlawful assembly—have stood over.
The result of the proceedings in Court being what it was, it would probably have been wiser if at an earlier stage in the proceedings some effort had been made to change the venue to a calmer atmosphere. The noble Lord has said that the Attorney-General has to consider

359
many things when he comes to decide, in reference to particular cases, how he will assert and vindicate the law. I have filled that office myself and know that it is one of great responsibility, and I have no doubt whatever that the Attorney-General in dealing with this case applied his mind to it with a desire to do the best he could in the circumstances. But, none the less, it is to be regretted, in face of the grave defiance of the law that had taken place and the painful incidents that occurred in the administration of justice in this case, that at an earlier period some vigorous effort was not made to ensure that the trial would take place in a locality and under conditions where prejudice, violence, and possibly terrorism did not prevail.
In reference to this matter I should like the noble Lord or any member of His Majesty's Government who may take part in this discussion to tell me whether anything has been done, or is going to be done, in reference to the carriage of arms in Ireland. I have no doubt that if there was a check on the holding of firearms in Ireland—a check unfortunately removed by the action of His Majesty's Government —the men who resisted the police and resisted the assertion of the law would have found themselves not in possession of the weapons which enabled them to offer the defiance which they did. I regard this matter as of the highest importance. Since the discussion the other day in this House many people, not men of my own way of thinking in general politics, have spoken to me in reference to this matter, and they say that one of the greatest misfortunes in Ireland at the present time is the ease and facility with which firearms can be -obtained. This ease might have presented a different aspect in some of its particulars if the Peace Preservation Act had been in force, and I venture to think that it is reasonable to press the Government upon this point. There is not a single member of the Government who does not agree with us in reference to this question of the carriage of arms. I do not think the Government were right, judicious, or prudent. in allowing to lapse the Act which placed restraint on the possession of arms; but, having done so, their responsibility to show that some kind of discretion will be exercised in reference to this matter is increased. I hope we shall have a satisfactory assurance on this point.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, with reference to the last part of the noble and learned Lord's speech, I can assure him that we are not losing sight of this question of the carrying of arms in Ireland, or, indeed, in the United Kingdom generally, and he can rely upon it that we shall endeavour to deal with the subject as a whole. At the same time I am not quite sure what bearing that fact, although I fully admit it is important, has upon the particular case brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clonbrock. In this particular case of eviction, when most regrettable and reprehensible violence was used, I am not aware that firearms were even produced. I am, however, certain that they were not used, and therefore I confess I do not quite follow the noble and learned Lord in his observation that had more severe restrictions been placed upon the carrying of firearms this particular incident might have assumed a different character. There was, I am afraid, a great deal of violent assault. with hot water and tar in the course of these proceedings, but I think I am right in saying that there was no exhibition of firearms in the case.
I do not complain of noble Lords opposite for having called attention to this case, but the general issue raised by the noble Lord's question is, I think, a simple one. It was somewhat complicated owing to the interruption made by the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, during the remarks by my noble friend behind me. My noble friend Lord Ashby St. Ledgers was, I think, justified in drawing attention to the fact that when four counties were specifically mentioned by the noble Marquess as forming the disturbed part of Ireland, the county of Kerry, in which this incident occurred, was not one of them; and the importance of that fact rests upon this, that the reason, as I understand, which actuated the Attorney-General in taking the course he did in not proceeding with the prosecutions was that the state of the county of Kerry was not unsatisfactory. That, I admit, is a point on which any noble Lord is entitled to hold his own opinion. Whether it is or is not a sufficient reason for not proceeding with the prosecution in a particular case that the general state of the county, particularly in relation to the special offence, that of

361
resistance to eviction, does not give cause for apprehension, is, as I say, a matter on which every one is entitled to his own opinion; but, after all, the Attorney-General has that particular discretion. It is in a sense an act of government, but it is the discretion of the Attorney-General, taking into account, as the noble and learned Lord has stated, all the circumstances of the case; and my learned friend the Attorney-General, reviewing the whole of the circumstances, did undoubtedly decide, in view of the general state of the county, and I conclude also bearing in mind the special circumstances of the case, that it was not expedient, in the interests of justice or of the public peace, to proceed with these particular prosecutions. We cannot, I think, take it further than this. The Attorney-General acted on his own discretion, and if noble Lords opposite consider that he acted imprudently I am afraid they must retain that. opinion. But the discretion exists, and I confess that, speaking for myself and with recollections of Irish administration, I agree that there are cases in which it may be more expedient not to proceed with a particular prosecution in view of the general circumstances of a particular locality.
There is only one other point to which I desire to allude. Lord Justice Cherry's charge to the Grand Jury and his expression of satisfaction at the result of the case have been the subject of souse animadversion, to some extent in this House, but also outside. As regards the learned Judge's statement as to the state of the county, that was obviously founded on the police reports, and upon them alone; and, in view of what was said by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, it is important to note that it was not merely the fact that there were but few cases before the Court which caused the learned Judge to express that satisfaction—
LORD ASHBOURNE: I did not mention Lord Justice Cherry.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I know the noble and learned Loll did not, but what the noble and learned Lord did say was that the mere absence of criminal cases might not be a true index of the condition of a county, because a county might be so terrorised that there is no crime. But in
362
reading the charge of the learned Judge I gather that the police had informed him—and, after all, a Judge speaks on police information—that there was not any quantity of undetected or unprosecuted crime, and that there was not any serious boycotting. If that is so, if there was neither crime nor boycotting, I think it is difficult to assume that a state of terrorism exists. Terrorism may be carried on in one of two ways. It may be carried on, as it has been at different times in some parts of Ireland, by threats to commit crime, by firing into dwellings, and so on, or it may be carried on by boycotting; but in the absence of those two symptoms it seems to me difficult to assume that a state of anything like terrorism exists.
But the point to which I wished to draw attention was that the learned Judge expressed his satisfaction, as was stated by Lord Clonbrock or by Lord Mayo, at the result of the ease. What I understand the learned Judge to have done was to have expressed his satisfaction that the state of the county was such that the Attorney-General felt justified in not proceeding with the case, which is altogether a different thing from expressing satisfaction at the result of the case. I think it is important to draw that distinction, because although we are not in the habit of discussing, I am glad to think, in this House the conduct of learned Judges on the Bench, yet this is a case in which I know animadversions have been made adverse to the particular learned Judge. I have nothing further to add, because my noble friend behind me dealt so very clearly and fully with all the details of the case itself.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who speaks for the Irish Office let fall one observation which I think sums up very aptly the whole of the somewhat unedifying story to which we have been listening. He said this was a bad case. So it is; and if the noble Earl who leads the House will forgive me, I am not sure that the statement to which we have just listened makes it a much better case. I am still puzzled as to the reasons which induced His Majesty's Government to abandon these prosecutions. We are, of course, all aware that there have been periods in the recent history of Ireland when His Majesty's Government have found it necessary, and have pro-

363
claimed that they thought it necessary, to deal leniently with persons who had broken the law. I do not suggest that they have condoned lawlessness. But take, for example, the case of the restoration of the evicted tenants to their holdings, many of whom, as we all know, were deeply implicated in lawless proceedings. They regarded these people as sufferers in a great agrarian conflict, and they desired that bygones should be bygones. That was the proclaimed policy of His Majesty's Government. More recently they have given the benefit of extenuating circumstances to persons implicated in the offence of cattle-driving. That was in a way justified by His Majesty's Government upon the ground that these people not unnaturally cast hungry eyes upon the great cattle ranches which joined their holdings; and I think we were once told from the Bench opposite that it was really we who were to blame because of the immense advantages which we have conferred upon the occupiers of land in many parts of Ireland by giving them the opportunity of purchasing their holdings, and that we had thus created the land hunger which the cattle-drives were to satisfy.
But in this case where are the extenuating circumstances? What is the pretext for taking a lenient view of the occurrences we have been discussing? It seems to me, in the first place, that the initial offence committed by the people who defended "Walsh's Fort"—I think that is what it was called—was absolutely unpardonable and unjustifiable. The tenant held his farm under a judicial rent which had been twice reduced. It was a rent considerably below the Poor-law valuation, and that is notoriously a low rent in that part of Ireland. The tenant had, moreover, an opportunity of acquiring the fee of his farm upon terms of the most tempting and advantageous character. Some of my noble friends will, perhaps, correct me, but I will venture to say that in all probability this man before he went into the Land Court had been paying a rent somewhere in the neighbourhood of £40, and that he had an opportunity of buying his farm upon terms which would have left him the payer of an annuity of £20. That was a. golden chance for any occupier of land, and the terms were notoriously good because they were accepted by the other tenants on the estate. In the case of this particular man there was a breakdown owing to some hitch with regard to turbary.
364
We know how extremely important this question of the supply of fuel is to Irish tenants, and nobody would think worse of a man for declining to proceed with a purchase arrangement because he found that satisfactory terms were not forthcoming with regard to the supply of turf. But that is not what he did. He said he would neither buy nor pay rent, and he remained for several years without paying any rent.
What followed? The farm was fortified, and the people of the neighbourhood were incited, I am sorry to say. by Members of Parliament and others who visited the county, to resist the operation of the law, with the result that there were no less than three successive attacks on this place before it finally succumbed to the police. There was an assault in which sixty police were involved, a. second in which 170 were employed, and finally a third in which no fewer than 250 police were engaged. The noble Earl pointed out just now that no firearms were employed. That is quite true, but it is, I believe, in evidence that boiling tar, quicklime, scalding water, and I think I heard something about vitriol—I am not quite sure—were employed by the defenders. The resistance, to use the Chief Secretary's language, was so fierce that the Chief Secretary thought it desirable to pay a high compliment to the police force that was employed. The place was finally carried, and I see that when the trustees of the estate put in a claim for compensation, Judge Shaw, a learned Judge no doubt well known to many of your Lordships, described the whole occurrence as a shocking outrage. I must not forget to mention that among the persons caught red-handed in the so-called fort was one person who had been concerned in the second of the three assaults, and who had been bound over to keep the peace, but nevertheless was found engaged in these hostile operations.
Then, after that, we get a most instructive glimpse of the criminal law as it works in Ireland. First there were the proceedings before the magistrates. The evidence was amply sufficient. I believe it satisfied the stipendiary magistrate who was present. But the two other magistrates refused informations. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has lately been paying attention to the circumstances under which

365
Justices of the Peace are appointed in this country, and I would suggest to His Majesty's Government that it might. be useful if some inquiry were to be made as to the conduct. and appointment of some of these Irish magistrates. In spite of this miscarriage before the magistrates, the men were put on trial and the trial took place at Tralee, in a county which, in spite of all that has been said, was, at any rate a very few months before, considered to be—parts of it., at all events—in a not very peaceful condition. So much was this the case that Lord Justice O'Brien went out of his way to say that he sympathised with the jurors—that is, the jurors who had acquitted the persons charged—on account of "the state of society." Now what does that mean? It means that the state of society, in that particular neighbourhood at. any rate, was such that the jurors had to choose between, in plain words, forswearing themselves, or taking the consequences of the honest discharge of their duties and facing the persecution to which that honest discharge of their duties would certainly have exposed them. After that abortive proceeding the accused men were to be tried a second time, and on that occasion, as your Lordships have been told, the Attorney-General entered a nolle prosegui on behalf of the Crown, and he did so on account of the condition of the county.
I do not want to enlarge on the condition of the county. I am quite certain it has undergone considerable improvement. I am quite certain that there are many parts of it wholly free from lawlessness and crime. But it is, perhaps, asking a good deal to ask us to accept the view that the condition of the county is wholly satisfactory when we remember the emphatic words used this year in his Lenten charge by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Kerry. Let me remind the House of the words which the Bishop used. He said—
"Another subject which claims our attention is malicious injury to property. We must candidly state that recently we were shocked to see the large number of these criminal cases which came up for hearing before some of our Courts.… Recent happenings oblige us to censure very severely the tendency still existing in some places to settle agrarian disputes by recourse to violent and lawless methods."
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think he also spoke in two places of the improvement of the county.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I hope the noble Earl will not misunderstand me. I admit the improvement. That is conceded. Then there is the remarkable statement made by Lord Justice O'Brien in regard to the jurors which I quoted a moment ago, and which also seems to me to show that one must take cum grano the assertion that the condition of the country is quite so satisfactory as we are asked to believe. What I venture to put to the House is this. Let us assume that the condition of the county has not only improved, but that it is as satisfactory as we are told. Is that a sufficient reason for not allowing the law to take its course in a case of this kind? I fail altogether to follow the train of thought which leads to that conclusion. I say nothing of the question of moral right or wrong in this matter. Let us put it merely upon the bare ground of expediency. The noble Lord who spoke for the Irish Office told us that it was necessary to deal, I think he said, with tact arid patience with these matters. 1 do not see that any tact or any patience is exhibited in the abandonment of this prosecution. What reason can there be for letting off men who break the law, because their neighbours have not broken it? It seems to me so illogical that I cannot understand the reasons -which have influenced His Majesty's Government. Whom are they going to propitiate by this clemency and forbearance? Not the law-breakers. I do not believe for one moment that persons who are disposed to be lawless in that or in any part of Ireland are going to become less lawless because you deal with these matters with kid gloves on. Then what about the effect upon the law-a biding part of the population, the people who have stood aside and kept clear of all these conspiracies? What will be the effect upon their minds of seeing that His Majesty's Government are so easily deterred from following up a really atrocious case such as the one we are discussing this evening? I am afraid that what has happened in this case will further inculcate a lesson which we have been too apt to inculcate upon the people of Ireland during the last few years—I mean that in all these cases the scale inclines in favour of those who break the law and against those who have the courage to abide by the law and to vindicate it.
There is one other point. What will be the effect of this action upon the police,

367
who were complimented upon the courage with which they faced the defences of this so-called fort? Could anything be more discouraging to them than to see the whole of the arduous work which they had done rendered abortive by this miscarriage of justice in the last stage? Then, my Lords, are we quite sure that an occurrence of this kind does not place rather a slight upon the Courts of law and the learned Judges who have had these matters before them, and who at the last moment see that no further attempt is to be made to vindicate the law and to uphold what they have done? Finally, is it not worth while to consider what effect a scandal of this kind—for I can only call it a scandal —must have upon the progress of land purchase in Ireland? Land purchase, as has been readily admitted on both sides of the House, has proved the panacea for most of this discontent and lawlessness. Here you have a case where a land purchase transaction was going forward quite smoothly and satisfactorily, but one reckless, malcontent, cantankerous man is allowed to disturb the whole peace of the locality and to upset by his conduct all the good that is being done by the transfer of their farms to the tenants. It seems to me that this affair has been discreditable from beginning to finish, and I do not think that in the course of the debate anything has been said to diminish the grave misgivings with which we regard the conduct of the whole business.

ALDERMEN IN MUNICIPAL BOROUGHS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to state briefly what it enacts. The Bill was introduced in another place on behalf of the Local Government Board, and it has passed that House without any amendment at all. Its object is to assimilate in two very small particulars the procedure in municipal boroughs to the kind of procedure now in vogue in the case of county councils and metropolitan borough councils. The councils of municipal boroughs, as your Lordships well know, consist of a mayor, aldermen and councillors; the number of aldermen being one—
368
third of the number of councillors; the aldermen hold office for six years, one half of their number retiring every three years, when their places are filled again by election. At these triennial elections of aldermen in municipal boroughs the aldermen, other than the outgoing aldermen, have been allowed up to now to vote; but in the case of county councils and metropolitan borough councils the sitting aldermen have not been allowed to vote in the election of new aldermen, the object being to secure that the aldermen should be chosen only by the elected representatives —namely, by the new councillors. This Bill extends this principle to municipal boroughs.
The second portion of the Bill is as regards outgoing aldermen. It provides that an outgoing alderman shall not, as alderman, vote in the election of mayor. As your Lordships are well aware, as soon as a new council comes together the first duty is to elect a mayor, who presides over the deliberations of the councillors during the corning year, and it seems only reasonable that the outgoing aldermen, who will not, unless they are re-elected, form part of the council, should not vote in this election. As I have already said, this is the rule which prevails in the case of county councils and the metropolitan borough councils, and it seems only right to extend it to municipal councils. The second subsection of Clause 1 merely makes the necessary amendment to the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, to carry into effect the object of the Bill. In other words, this Bill is simply an amending Bill to the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Liverpool.)
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, I do not rise to oppose the passage of this Bill, the objects of which, indeed, I entirely approve, but to suggest to your Lordships the expediency of making certain additions to it in Committee which will make it even more useful than it is as presented to your Lordships now. Let me, in the first place, call attention to the fact that we. are put in rather an inconvenient position in respect of this Bill, because, although it was brought up here some time since, it has not been circulated, and it was not until this after-

369
noon when I came down to the House that I was able to procure a copy. I do not know where the delay has arisen, but I think that as it his occurred we ought not to suffer for what has happened.
The object of the Bill, as the noble Earl has said, is to extend to the election of aldermen of municipal councils the rule which now applies to the election of aldermen on county councils and the metropolitan borough councils. As your Lordships will remember, the introduction of aldermen on county councils and municipal councils was long resented by the advocates of pure democracy as an inroad on the principle of confining the composition of these councils entirely to those elected by the people. But we have had less and less objection of late years to this principle, and it now seems coming to be well admitted that, owing to the defects in representation as we have it at present, it is necessary that elected councillors should be supplemented by co-opted persons if you desire to obtain a body which shall be competent on all sides to undertake the affairs of the community, whether from the point of view of knowledge or experience or even of judgment and practical action. So that now the question is how we can best secure these aldermen, how we can bring into the composition of municipal councils aldermen who shall satisfy the conditions to which I have referred.
Formerly, under the Municipal Corporations Act, on all these councils aldermen were admitted to equal rights with the elected councillors, and therefore had a share in the election of the aldermen and were not distinguishable in their powers from other members of the corporation. That gave rise to much criticism, and the unfairness of the operation in the election of aldermen was long made the subject of complaint. There used to be in the other House a Bill annually brought in providing for the election of aldermen by a different method so that they should represent as nearly as possible the different elements in the composition of the original council. It did not, however, pass, but when Mr. Ritchie brought in his County Councils Bill he conceded the objection to the system which then prevailed by providing that in the election of aldermen to county councils the aldermen themselves should have no voice in the election, but
370
that the election should be entirely confined to the elected councillors. But he did not provide that the elected councillors should themselves elect the aldermen by methods which would secure a fair apportionment of aldermen among the different parties represented by the elected councillors, and he may not have done that for many reasons. Up till quite recently in the election of aldermen on the London County Council care was taken to apportion the aldermen among the two main parties on the council so that they should represent a fair proportion of the original elected elements, not disturbing the balance but bringing into the composition of the council elements corresponding to the original elements in the council. I am sorry to say that that method, so honourably initiated and pursued in the London County Council, has recently been flagrantly abandoned, and the election of aldermen has been employed, not for the purpose of adding to the council elements of experience and judgment and weight from persons belonging to both parties, but simply employed in order to add to the voting power of the majority; and I desire that your Lordships may seize this opportunity by means of this Bill to add to the proposal of His Majesty's Government, which provides that in the election of aldermen on municipal councils only councillors should take part and that the aldermen themselves should not vote—to add to that a provision that the councillors themselves shall elect according to a method which shall secure an addition to the council of aldermen representing the different elements in the original composition of the council; in other words, that the aldermen should remain as valuable an addition to the council as it is possible to secure.
It has been said by the noble Earl that this Bill passed through the other House without amendment, and it may be asked whether it is prudent to raise this question here. The conduct of a Bill through Parliament has become, owing to various circumstances, largely a series of manœuvres. You introduce your Bill and construct it so as to prevent as far as possible any discussion or any amendment, and this Bill was brought into the other House in a manner which effectually prevented the mooting of the question I am submitting to your Lordships. The Motion was made to bring in a Bill to deal with the election of aldermen

371
by alderman, and inasmuch as the Resolution admitting the Bill governs the subsequent dealing with it, it was impossible to introduce into the Bill the Amendments which I now suggest to your Lordships it would be advisable to bring into it. Here we are free to deal with the matter as we may think desirable in the public interest, and it will be in the power of your Lordships, if you are so disposed, to secure that the councilors engaged in the election of aldermen shall vote in such a fashion that the aldermen they elect shall correspond to the divisions of opinion among the councilors themselves. Amendment can be made to the Bill to secure that result, and it would be competent for your Lordships to alter the title of the Bill so as to cover the additions you make to it; and I have reason to believe that they were totally unable to make owing to the very ingenious way the Local Government Board presented the Bill to their notice.
As I have said, this Bill was brought in without your Lordships having had an opportunity of seeing it, and it will be obvious that the Amendments which I have hinted at, and which I propose to put on the Table, require some little care and attention in their construction. I think, therefore, I may appeal with confidence to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to allow the Committee stage to be postponed for a sufficient time to enable your Lordships not only to become acquainted with the scheme of the Bill as it stands but to consider the Amendments which will be put down to it.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, we propose to take the Committee stage of this Bill on Tuesday next, if that meets the view of my noble friend. We are most anxious to get the Bill through before the end of this portion of the session. There is, therefore, not a great deal of time, and if that meets my noble friend's view, we could put down the Committee stage for Tuesday.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: I will do what I can by then, but the time is rather short.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

CONVEYANCING BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, this is in substance a Bill which has already passed its Second Reading in this House, and it has run the gauntlet of a Select Committee. There have been some alterations and additions made to it, but not of any really vital import, and if any question is raised by any noble Lord with regard to it I think the Committee stage would be an appropriate time to discuss it. I approved the Bill myself, but as it is very technical, and in case I might have overlooked something, I sent it to one of His Majesty's Judges who is very skilled in conveyancing and asked him for his opinion with regard to it, and he advised that it was a very sensible Bill. It has already passed, in substance, the Second Reading, and I hope your Lordships will not offer any objection to it to-day.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CENSUS (GREAT BRITAIN) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, in moving that this Bill be read a third time, it would perhaps save trouble if I explain at once that the Amendments I have put down are purely drafting Amendments. Although His Majesty's Government still disapprove of the Amendment which was inserted on the motion of Lord Newton, they think that the Bill ought to go to another place in a form which will not be disapproved of by the Government draftsman. Therefore I have put these Amendments on the Paper and I think on the most cursory examination your Lordships will be satisfied that they are purely verbal. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Amendments moved—
Clause 4, page 2, line 3, after ("profession") insert ("or") and after ("occupation") leave out ("or")
Clause 12, page 4, lines 31 to 33, leave out ("Provided that no person shall be subject to any" such penalty for refusing to state his religious "profession")
Clause 12 page 5, line 8, after ("pounds") insert ("Provided that no person shall be subject to any "such penalty for refusing to state his religious "profession."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SMALL HOLDINGS (No. 3) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a, To-morrow.

BISHOPRICS BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to facilitate the foundation of new Bishoprics and the alteration of dioceses and to amend the Bishops' Resignation Act, 1869, and for other matters incidental thereto—Was presented by the Viscount St. Aldwyn; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Wednesday next. (No. 122.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.