Sitting of 13 July 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—4° Court of Chancery (County Palatine of Lancaster); Burials beyond the Metropolis; Sale of Beer, &c.; Medical Graduates (Ireland and Scotland).
2° Borough Rates; Militia (Scotland); Royal Military Asylum.
Reported—Convict Prisons (Ireland); Criminal Procedure; Standard of Gold and Silver Wares; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c.; Heritable Securities (Scotland); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements; Highway Rates.
3° Drainage of Lands; Parochial Schoolmasters (Scotland); Youthful Offenders; Merchant Shipping Acts Repeal.

THE WAR WITH RUSSIA—BLOCKADE OF THE RUSSIAN PORTS—QUESTION.
MR. HUTTsaid, he begged to ask the noble Lord the President of the Council what was the actual state of the blockading operations undertaken by the British Government in the Black Sea, and whether the Government contemplated an immediate blockade of all the ports in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azoff?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, with respect to the first question of my hon. Friend, the answer I can give is, that there is an effective blockade of the mouths of the Danube, which has just been regularly notified. With regard to the question as to what are the intentions of the Government with respect to the immediate blockade of all the ports in the Black Sea, and the Sea of Azoff, I must answer it with some reserve. Admiral Dundas, the commander of our fleet in the Black Sea, came to an arrangement with Admiral Hamelin on this subject; it was, however, necessary that the propositions should be transmitted to Constantinople, and Paris as well, for the purpose of coming to some agreement on the subject. On the arrival of the document at Constantinople, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe had some doubt whether the propositions made by the two Admirals were in strict conformity with the law of nations, and thought it necessary to refer them to this country. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has taken opinions on the subject, which have been transmitted to Constantinople, and afterwards the intentions of Government will be declared.
MR. HUTTsaid, after the statement the noble Lord had made relating to the Black Sea, he should like to know something with respect to the White Sea; and he begged to ask the right hon. Baronet
164
the First Lord of the Admiralty what were the intentions of the British Government as to the blockade of ports in the White Sea?
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: Sir, by an arrangement with the French Government, orders have been transmitted to the French and English Admirals commanding the combined fleets at the entrance of the White Sea to institute a strict blockade of Archangel and other ports of the White Sea, commencing on the 1st of August.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL, AND LEASING POWERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read; House in Committee.
Clause 1.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he rose to make the statement of which he had given notice in the early part of this week on the subject of these Bills. It was in consequence of the appeal he had made to the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) on a former night, that he was then enabled to make observations which he deemed necessary in reference to the extraordinary statement of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland, to which, as yet, he had had no opportunity of replying. He confessed that statement had quite taken him by surprise; and it was, therefore, with the deepest and sincerest regret that he now felt himself compelled to ask the attention of the Committee to the circumstances under which he was called upon to address them. The right hon. Baronet, at the end of the morning sitting of Tuesday, said—and that he (Mr. Napier) might not misrepresent him in anything, he would give the leading passages in his speech on that occasion as they were reported in the Times, and he believed the report was substantially correct—the right hon. Baronet had stated, in reference to the two Bills before the House—namely, the Landlord and Tenants (Ireland) Bill and the Leasing Powers (Ireland) Bill—that if they had been Government Bills, they would not have been proposed at this period of the Session—
"Sir J. Young assured the House that if these had been Government Bills, they would not have been proposed at this period of the Session. Nothing could be fairer than the course taken by the Government upon these Bills, or more courteous to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Napier), to whose skill and ability they were undoubtedly owing. A Committee of that House, fairly appointed last Session, discussed these Bills, and at

165
a late period of the Session they were sent up to the House of Lords. They were taken up by the Duke of Newcastle, but it was found impossible to carry them at that time. The Landlord and Tenant Bill, the Leasing Powers Bill, and the Tenants' Compensation Bill, were read a second time by the House of Lords, and it was resolved that the Bills should be considered by a Select Committee at the beginning of the present Session. A noble Lord, a Member of that House, brought in this year a Landlord and Tenant Bill, and a Leasing Powers Bill, which had a resemblance to the Bills of last Session, but without the Tenants' Compensation Bill. These Bills were all sent to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House. The Landlord and Tenant Bill emerged from that Committee, but no Tenants' Compensation Bill, and that which he (Sir J. Young) proposed and was responsible for was not before the House at all. The two first-named Bills were, he thought, good measures as far as they went. The Landlord and Tenant Bill was a good consolidation of the law, and the Leasing Powers Bill was a very good measure, and, taken by itself, was a great improvement on the law. But was he to take this for the whole code of tenancy? Was the House to take a part of legislation without the rest, and would the two Bills now before the House be acceptable without a Tenants' Compensation Bill? He inclined to think they would not. If hon. Members who were usually supporters of the Government had asked the Government to proceed with the Bills this Session, the Government would have done so. But no one representative of an Irish constituency, who had come to him on the subject, had wished these Bills to be persevered with during the present Session. Still he had determined to leave the decision to the House, and he had obtained a morning sitting for the discussion of this subject. After what had taken place that day, he must confess he did not think it fair and right to press these Bills further upon the House. The compensation clauses of the first Bill, unless accompanied with the provisions of the Tenants' Improvement Compensation Bill, would only create dissatisfaction."
Not only was he (Mr. Napier) desirous not to misrepresent the right hon. Baronet, but he was anxious to put his observations in the best light. It was quite true, as the right hon. Baronet stated, that he (Mr. Napier) had been treated up to yesterday with very great courtesy, and with every respect by the Government in the matter; but having been so treated, with propriety and candour, as he supposed, he could not have had any doubt that he was in full cooperation with the Government to have these Bills passed with all the energy which could be brought to bear upon them by both. The first intimation he had received of the slightest indisposition on the part of the Government to proceed with these Bills occurred yesterday—not before; and he (Mr. Napier) would appeal to the Committee and to the country, therefore, as to the manner in which all par-
166
ties had been treated in the matter. But more than that, he complained of the way in which a question which he conceived to be most important to Ireland had been dealt with. The right hon. Baronet put his case on this ground. He admitted that the two measures then under discussion were valuable measures, and that there could be no objection to them; but that the third Bill, which he (Sir J. Young) had proposed—the Tenants' Compensation Bill—and for which he claimed the responsibility, not having come down to that House from the Lords, he considered it would be unfair to ask the House to go on with the other two Bills, which, he added, were not Government measures, or they would not have been proposed at that late period of the Session for the consideration of the House. A discussion had previously been raised as to whose Bills these were, some hon. Members saying that these were Government measures, and others that they were his (Mr. Napier's); and the very first words used by the right hon. Baronet were "if these had been Government Bills"—and the right hon. Baronet added that he was not responsible, because the whole of the measures were not before the House, and he would not go on with but a part, said to be imperfect and defective. In the other House of Parliament, however, the Duke of Newcastle had made a very different statement on the same afternoon. On that occasion the Duke of Newcastle expressed himself in these terms—
"The Duke of Newcastle said it would have been very convenient if the noble Earl had given him only five minutes' notice of the question which he had meant to put to him, as he had only heard of the facts to which he referred just as the noble Earl rose, from a noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Bath), and therefore had had no opportunity of conferring with his Colleagues on the subject, and of confirming or setting right the statement which the noble Earl had made. He would, however, take the earliest opportunity of doing so, but he might say now that it was always intended, that it had always been intended, to persevere in the Bills to which the noble Earl referred to, if the circumstances of the Session permitted, but still, at the present period of the Session, and considering the lengthened discussions which had always taken place on this subject, it might be impossible, even if a few Members persevered in their opposition to it, to carry those Bills without throwing over all other public business. The Bills were not party Bills, and had never been looked on as such, and though, technically speaking, they might not be Government Bills, there was no doubt that the Government had adopted them in their essence, He was quite sure that there was no unfair repudiation of these Bills contemplated by Her Ma-

167
jesty's Government, and that the only reason why they were withdrawn was, that it had been found impossible to proceed with them during the present Session."
Nothing could have been more fair than this statement. If the case presented by the right hon. Baronet had been, that from circumstances over which he had no control, or from the unscrupulous use of the forms of the House by Members who opposed the Bills, he had been defeated in his attempts to proceed with these measures, he (Mr. Napier) should have had nothing to say on the subject, as he would consider that a fair excuse for relinquishing them. But the right hon. Baronet did not put the case on that ground; he put it entirely on this ground—that as they were not accompanied by the Tenants' Compensation Bill, which had passed the House last Session, he could not go on with them. He (Mr. Napier) had never had the slightest intimation from the Government, though he had been in frequent communication with them on the subject of these Bills, that it was not their intention to press two without the third; or that the Tenants' Compensation Bill, having been rejected by a Select Committee of the Lords, they felt themselves not to be bound by that decision, and that they did not intend to press forward the others. So far from this, he believed there was not a dissentient voice in that Committee, on which were several Members of the Government—the Duke of Argyll presided over it. The other two Bills were adopted as a fair settlement of the question, and sent down to the House of Commons as Government Bills. The first reading was moved by the right hon. Baronet, and he (Mr. Napier) believed the second reading also; certainly it was moved by a Member of the Government; and the day was fixed for going into Committee. He was himself at that time absent in Ireland. Communications had been made to him with regard to them, and he applied to the noble Lord to know what day he could give for them to be taken into consideration. He admitted that every courtesy was shown him at that time, and everything conduced to make him think they were to be bonâ fide proceeded with. He had kept continually working at them with that view, spending his own time and that of others in considering them; and now, having proceeded so far in this way, under the belief that these two Bills were to be passed, he learnt from the lips of the right hon.
168
Baronet that they were renounced by the Government in consequence of the rejection of the Bill of the right hon. Baronet by the Select Committee of the Lords; and the sore that had so long been festering in Ireland was to be again torn open, with the intimation that these Bills would not be proposed unless that rejected Bill accompanied them. He (Mr. Napier) wished to know whether the Members of the Government in the two Houses resolved on speaking different things. The right hon. Baronet had talked of those Members who honoured the Government with their confidence; perhaps he had communicated his intentions to them. But those hon. Members who represented Ulster, and who, for the most part, did not honour the Government with their confidence, they were certainly kept in ignorance, as well as he (Mr. Napier) himself, on the subject. The first thing the right hon. Baronet said was, that these two Bills were not Government Bills. If so, who placed them on the paper? By whom had they been brought forward? The right hon. Baronet wished, perhaps, to say that he would not take the onus of these Bills. He had intimated that they were his (Mr. Napier's) Bills. He (Mr. Napier) could have well understood the right hon. Baronet if, on the rejection of the third Bill, he had come forward and stated that he would not be bound by the Select Committee; but that he had not done, nor had he intimated to him (Mr. Napier) and such intention or opinion. Let him for a moment trace the history of these Bills. Originally there had been three of them—the two now before the House and the Tenants' Compensation Bill. All three were confided to the Duke of Newcastle to take charge of them in the House of Lords, and in his Grace's hands he had been quite satisfied to leave them, knowing that when Secretary for Ireland, in 1846, he had given great attention to the subject and in conjunction with the right hon. Baronet, prepared a Bill on the same subject, which had not gone beyond the first stage of it in consequence of the change of Government. They were presented to the House of Lords accordingly. But a noble Marquess, who endeavoured to be as unkind to him (Mr. Napier) as possible, asked the Duke of Newcastle, on the 8th of August last year, whether the Bills had been submitted to the law advisers of the Irish Government, and what was their opinion as to the safety and accuracy of the Bills. To that his Grace replied that, after the change of

169
Government, it was thought desirable that the Bills should be submitted to the law officers of the new Administration; they had been accordingly submitted to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and the Attorney and Solicitor General for Ireland, and they reported that the Bills had been drawn up with great care and accuracy, accompanying their report with a recommendation that they should be passed as speedily as possible into law. Under these circumstances he (Mr. Napier) thought he needed not be ashamed of the paternity of the two Bills, as there were no higher authorities on the subject who could be officially consulted. On the next day, on moving the second reading of the Bills, the Duke repeated that the Bills had been referred to and approved by the present Lord Chancellor and the present law officers of the Crown in Ireland. He ended by saying, "Her Majesty's Government were ready to place the responsibility of settling this question to the credit of the late Government, if the proposed measures succeeded, with a certainty of blame to themselves if they did not." What occurred last Session of Parliament was this:—When his Grace proposed to submit them to the House of Lords, he (Mr. Napier) was absent in Ireland, and there was great confusion and unpleasantness on the matter; and it being then close on the end of the Session, the Earl of Aberdeen said, that the Government would undertake themselves at the beginning of the next Session to send the Bills to a Select Committee of the House of Lords, and have them fully considered—that they would then see what could be made of them, and would endeavour to pass them as they should be moulded by the Committee. In the interval between Session and Session, he (Mr. Napier) had again looked over them, and he had taken all the advantage in his power of the observations made in the House of Lords. He could not but perceive, he admitted, that the Tenants' Compensation Bill was objected to in all its parts, and he found that so much misrepresentation prevailed in Ireland, that, in reply to his noble Friend (the Earl of Donoughmore), he addressed him a letter stating the true facts of the case. He then sent this to the Duke of Newcastle and informed his Grace that he would disembarrass him of the two Bills. The difficulty was to find a father for the Tenants' Compensation Bill, though with regard to its authorship there was no doubt, for in the official list of Bills
170
published in July, 1853, the Landlord and Tenants Bill and the Leasing Powers (Ireland) Bill were set down to him (Mr. Napier), and the Tenants' Compensation Bill to the Government; the third reading was, in fact, moved by the Solicitor General for Ireland. He (Mr. Napier) had endeavoured, as he said, to amend the two Bills, and the Earl of Donoughmore proposed them in their amended form upon the first night of the Session. The Duke of Newcastle thought, in consequence of the pledge already given at the end of the last Session, that he ought to produce all in their original form, and he did so. In three weeks after, the noble Marquess alluded to (the Marquess of Clanricarde) produced another Bill, and a fourth Bill was produced by a noble Lord connected with the north of Ireland (Lord Dufferin). All these Bills were referred to the Select Committee over which the Duke of Argyll presided. Shortly after that Committee sent a message requesting him (Mr. Napier) and the Solicitor General for Ireland to attend and give evidence. He (Mr. Napier) did for many days attend accordingly, and he heard with some surprise and indignation the charge which had been made against the Committee the other day by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, after witnessing the unwearied pains, the ability, the attention, and the impartiality of that Committee. It was in his (Mr. Napier's) mind impossible to have made a better selection than the Duke of Argyll to preside over such a Committee, conversant as he was with Scotch law, from which several of the provisions of the Bill were borrowed; his Grace had made himself master of almost every branch and every detail of the question, and he had never met and he could never expect to meet with greater courtesy and fairness than had been exhibited by that nobleman. His Grace it was who suggested that Mr. Ferguson, to whom he (Mr. Napier) was so deeply indebted for the preparation of these Bills, should be sent for and paid by the Government; and it was due to the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Young) to state that he at once acceded to that proposition. The Committee went to their work, and on the 11th of May they made their Report. On the 18th of May the Duke of Argyll, on moving the recommitment of the Bills, made a full explanatory statement. He said—
"With regard to the first Bill, when it was read a second time some weeks ago a strong feel-

171
ing with reference to some of its provisions was expressed by noble Lords on both sides of the House. In the discussion which had taken place in the Select Committee there had been, on the one hand, a firm determination to maintain those great doctrines of property on which must depend all agricultural and, indeed, all other improvement; while, on the other hand, there had been an equal determination not to allow a pedantic adherence to abstract principles to stand in the way of the real justice of the case."
After mentioning the titles of the various Bills referred to the Committee, the noble Duke said that—
"With respect to this measure, the whole of their discussions had arisen with respect to the clauses relating to the compensation to be given to the tenant for existing improvements. It would, however, be a mistake therefore to suppose that these clauses were all that was important in this Bill, for, in truth, the most important parts had no reference whatever to compensation. On this question he (the Duke of Argyll) adhered to the great fundamental principle that the relation between landlord and tenant should be founded upon contract. In perfect consistency with this, however, he thought they might pass enactments referring to the relations between landlords and tenants in cases were there was no agreement, or where the agreement was silent."
The noble Duke went on to say—
"He thought that it would be politic in the House to ease off the hardships which might be attendant upon this period of change, by making provision for the compensation of tenants for the expenses they had actually incurred by erecting buildings under customs which were now passing away. With this view the Select Committee had determined, to a certain extent, to give a retrospective operation to the principle of the Act of 1851, which he had already described to the House. In the Bill as it was originally introduced, it was proposed to declare absolutely that 'all buildings which shall have been erected at the sole expense of the tenant shall belong to him, and be removable from the farm.' It was, however, objected to this that in many cases the tenant had been sufficiently compensated for his outlay by the length of his lease, and the Committee had therefore modified the clause as follows. They had prepared a list, in the first place, of the cases in which any claim on the part of the tenant should be absolutely barred; and, in the second place, a list of circumstances which should be taken to limit the amount of the claim. The tenant was to be absolutely barred from making any claim for buildings erected at his own expense if they were erected in pursuance of any agreement, if they had been already compensated for by any abatements or allowances of rent, or if they were erected in violation of any covenant against sub-letting, and, lastly, if they had been enjoyed for twenty-one years. The amount which could be claimed by the tenant as compensation, should the landlord elect to purchase the improvement, was to be reduced in proportion to the length of time short of twenty-one years, during which the tenant had enjoyed the improvement; and the landlord might also reduce it by showing that allowances or abatements of rent had been
172
made on account of the improvement, or by showing that arrears of rent were due to him. He believed that, thus modified, the clause was founded upon sound principles, which it would be equally for the interests of landlords and tenants that that House should adopt. After the Landlord and Tenant Bill and Leasing Powers Bill had been passed through the Committee, they next came to the consideration of the Tenants' Compensation Bill. It was proposed originally that the Bill should have reference to improvements not only in, but on, the soil; but when the Bill left the House of Commons the improvements in the soil were totally excluded, and as the Bill came to the House of Peers there was nothing referred to in it but roads and fences. It was thought by the Select Committee that it would be absurd to have a special Bill for roads and fences, having already dealt in another measure with houses and buildings, and the Committee had reported against the expediency of proceeding further with the Tenants' Compensation Bill. They had reported in favour of the other two Bills, and he should, therefore, move their Lordships to go into Committee on those Bills."
It certainly was most satisfactory to himself, as a matter of personal congratulation, that out of all the Bills which had been referred these two alone should have been selected by the Committee to be proceeded with. In May the right hon. Baronet was aware that the two Bills went into Committee of the House of Lords. On the 11th of May the report was brought up, and every one was aware that in that report the Tenants' Compensation Bill was unanimously abandoned. On the 18th May the Duke of Argyll made a speech, and explained the reasons for this proceeding; so, therefore, the right hon. Baronet must have been aware that his Bill relating to tenants' compensation would not go on; and yet Mr. Ferguson was brought over at the expense of the Government. The two Bills came on for third reading on the 26th May. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde), with persevering consistency, called attention to the fact that no one was responsible for the Bills. The Duke of Newcastle then made a statement, in reply to the noble Marquess—
"The Government had no disposition whatever to please any extreme party in Ireland by these Bills. So far as the Government had had a hand in these Bills no such object had existed. It had undoubtedly been sought to allay any irritation which might exist on the part of any of the people of Ireland, in consequence of injustice which they might feel had been inflicted upon them; but the object of the Bills had been simply to amend the law relating to landlord and tenant, as much for the benefit of the landlord as for that of the tenant, and to satisfy those moderate men who wished the interests of both to be consulted, and not any extreme party whatever, whether of land-

173
lords or tenants. The noble Marquess, and also the noble Earl who moved the first Amendment, had complained that these Bills had been introduced without any one being responsible for them. Now, though he (the Duke of Newcastle) had introduced these Bills in the exact form in which they were last Session received from the House of Commons, in order that they might be referred to a Select Committee to be moulded into a form for submission to the House, yet the Government—one of its Members having presided over that Committee, and having most carefully superintended the examination of these Bills and been a party to the amendments which were made—the Government was not prepared to throw upon that House or upon any other person the responsibility of these Bills. The Government accepted the responsibility of them exactly as if they had been framed under its direction, and had been introduced in the shape in which Government Bills were generally introduced. If the noble Marquess meant to deduce from his argument that the Government intended to shift upon the House the responsibility of accepting these Bills in whatever form they might come from the House of Commons, he could assure the noble Marquess that there was no such intention; but the Government was not prepared to offer to the House of Commons the insult of saying that they would reject any amendments which might be introduced into the Bills in that House. As regarded these Bills, as regarded others going from this House, the Government accepted the responsibility of them in the shape in which they were sent down to them by their Committee, and they would judge how far the principles involved in the Bills, as they now stood, were affected by any alterations which might be made in another place, and by their honest conviction as to the condition in which they came up they would be guided in the course which they should take." [3 Hansard, exxxiii. 1006.]
Now, at that time the Tenants' Compensation Bill had been rejected by two Cabinet Ministers, by the unanimous Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords; and no one on the part of the Government had raised a voice against the other two Bills, which it was proposed should be proceeded with as Government Bills, and might therefore be regarded as a fair settlement of the question. The proceedings were fair and open; they were dealt with in the other House as Government Bills, and for his own part he shrank from no just responsibility, and he would ask the House to say if he had not acted with the most perfect fairness with respect to these Bills. He had no wish to refer to personal matters; he always avoided doing so if possible, as he desired only to have kindly feeling, whatever might be their political differences. But he was bound to refer to Tuesday last, and before doing so he would just state that he had previously received one letter from a Member of the Government inclosing a sugges-
174
tion relative to the Landlord and Tenant Bill, and another letter from another Member with a suggestion as to the Leasing Powers Bill. These suggestions, he would say, he considered to be valuable. He repeated it was not his inclination to refer to personal matters, but he must do so on this occasion, and he then must fearlessly ask the House to say if he had been honourably treated in this matter. He would appeal to the noble Lord to say whether it was likely he would, day after day, have given his time to the question, or have attended every time he was requested by the Duke of Argyll and the Lords' Committee to give assistance, had he not thought the measures would be proceeded with bonâ fide, and had he not known that there existed a great anxiety in Ireland to have the question settled? It had been the fashion to keep the question open—a question affecting a large mass of property; and it was generally felt that any settlement was better than no settlement. But what was the present position of the question? After so many years of labour, it was never worse than now; and all this had been accomplished by the unexpected and unjustifiable statement made by the right hon. Baronet on Tuesday last. He (Mr. Napier) owned the subject was one of intense interest to him; he had given his assistance and his time to the Government freely and without stint, and he owned he thought that under such circumstances a high-minded Government would have rallied round him to support a beneficial measure—not a measure that was all that every one might wish—not such a measure as the right hon. Baronet might wish—nay, not even such a measure as he (Mr. Napier) would have wished; but a measure which had in view, and certainly was calculated to accomplish largely a beneficial purpose. He would say, in a Constitution like ours, it was impossible that the views of one should override the opinion of many, and though he might desire to go somewhat further than the House of Lords—yet, looking at the prevailing opinions on the landlord and tenant question—looking at the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice Campbell and other high authorities—looking at the difficulty of dealing with the question and the general opinion of moderate men that the two Bills presented a fair settlement of the question; considering that so much was already done towards that settlement, and that what was done had

175
been mainly owing to the good sense and ability of the Duke of Argyll in consequence of the manner in which he had managed the proceedings of the Committee, he deplored the conclusion at which the Government had arrived. He much doubted whether any other man could have got so liberal a settlement of the question as had been obtained by the Duke of Argyll. The two Bills came from the House of Lords substantially as Government measures. The House of Lords had passed these two Bills, considering them to contain a fair settlement of the question. And what was the course taken in the House of Commons when the Bills came down? The right hon. Baronet, holding, as he did, a high official position, ought not—he would take the liberty to say—ought not to hand himself over to any particular section of Irish Members. These measures related to property in Ireland, whether connected with landlord or tenant; the question, therefore, was one which ought not to admit either of party or class legislation. The right hon. Baronet knew how he had been attacked by both parties in Ireland for the course he had taken with reference to this question; he had endured much abuse, and had been subjected to a great deal of misconception, for dealing with the question at all between landlord and tenant. But the right hon. Baronet now took a new position, and said it was unfair to press the two Bills, because they were not accompanied by the Compensation Bill. Why, how were the Bills proposed to the House? The second reading was moved, a debate was got up, and the Bills were proceeded with in the ordinary way. Was the right hon. Baronet, then, taken by surprise by what occurred here last Tuesday? These Bills were on the paper yesterday; and the right hon. Baronet asked whether he could have expected that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Serjeant Shee) would have allowed the Bills to proceed—he could not have expected that, for it would have been ruin to some Members had he done so. Why, so long ago as the 15th of June, he found on the paper a notice standing in the name of Mr. Serjeant Shee, to the effect, that, on the Motion for leaving the chair, he would move that these two Bills be postponed until the second reading of his own Tenants' Compensation Bill. He (Mr. Napier) came down yesterday and heard a long speech in which he was coarsley abused; he expected that, as he
176
was accustomed to it, always consoling himself with Dean Swift's lines—
"On me when dunces are satiric,
I take it for a panegyric."
The hon. and learned Gentleman said he would not trust him (Mr. Napier) out of his sight, for he had not his confidence. He did not want the hon. and learned Gentleman's confidence. The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared, however, to have none to spare, except for the Government, who appeared to give their confidence to him in exchange. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained of the number of Amendments he had placed on the paper, and enumerated them. But these Amendments nearly all related to verbal matters. The number of Amendments occurred this way. They were noted in the Committee of the House of Lords, and he was told that the House of Lords would adopt them; and during the recess he was ready to put them in a legal form. But he could get no copies of the Bills at that time, as altered by the Committee in time for the House of Lords, and as he had only recently obtained copies he could not introduce the Amendments before. These Amendments were mostly verbal and grammatical; some proposed to substitute clauses more accurately framed; but, with the exception of one of the Amendments, there was not any which had anything to do with any question of disputed principle. When he proposed to have the Amendments printed he was opposed by the learned Gentleman, who would not consent to so reasonable a thing. He was obliged to sit down without obtaining his object, that object being merely to make the Bills at an early stage more accurate and complete. He would do the right hon. Baronet the justice to say it was not on that ground he had put his case. The right hon. Baronet had put it on this one point, that his Tenants' Compensation Bill ought to accompany the other two Bills, because, after what had taken place, the compensation clause of the first Bill, unless it were accompanied by the Tenants' Compensation Bill, would only create dissatisfaction. If that was the opinion of the right hon. Baronet and the Government, let the House just see in what position they were placed. The Select Committee of the Upper House, the Duke of Argyll presiding, and acting on the part of the Government, the House of Lords itself, and, indeed, almost all parties were agreed as to the value of the two Bills, and were of opinion

177
that the Tenants' Compensation Bill should not pass. And yet Government now said that the two Bills could not proceed, however valuable they might be, unless the Compensation Bill accompanied them. He did not object to Government having their opinion on the subject, but then he would ask, was it fair, reasonable, or just to the country, or to himself, after bringing the Bills up to the point at which they stood—Bills pressed forward substantially as Government measures—after throwing the responsibility on others, and after he had been invited by Government to give his unremitting attention to that subject—after he had given his time and attention to the Bills, believing them to be bonâ fide beneficial measures, was it fair to him to say, if the Tenants' Compensation Bill could not be passed, the whole question should be thrown overboard, and the decision of the House of Lords pronounced to be wrong? Was it fair, he would ask, for the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny to taunt him with bringing in a Bill from political objects rather than to settle a great question? He would ask the House whether from the first time he had spoken on the question, he had ever shown a disposition to act with party or political feelings? It was at the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, before he took office himself, that he had given his attention to this question. When the right hon. Baronet sat on the opposition side of the House in February, 1852, at a time when there was a severe attack on the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) the right hon. Baronet, as well as the Secretary of the Admiralty, asked him to take up the question. His opinion was then well known—it was embodied in that publication for which he was substantially responsible. He did take the question up from that time, and having taken it up as an independent Member, and followed it up with all the weight he could bring to bear as a law officer of the late Government—after having throughout followed one consistent course in reference to the question—he thought that at least he was not open to any of the imputations that had been thrown out against his course of proceeding. With respect to the Bills before the House, the right hon. Baronet admitted their value—they had the approbation both of the Government and the House of Lords, and the Tenants' Compensation Bill was the right hon. Baronet's Bill. The right hon. Baronet would recollect that when he introduced his Bills, two of them were more or
178
less connected with the subject of tenants' compensation. One of these Bills he admitted was more comprehensive in one respect than the measure of the right hon. Baronet. But the Select Committee were of opinion that his measure was too complex. He believed there was no section of that House who refused to concede the abstract principle, that if a tenant made an improvement on his farm he ought to be compensated; the only difficulty was as to the mode of carrying the principle out. The Committee of 1853 examined a good deal of evidence, and here was the Resolution they came to—
"That the attention of the Legislature be directed to an early consideration of the laws which regulate the relation of landlord and tenant in Ireland, with a view to their consolidation and amendment; and especially to consider the practicability of such legislation as might provide adequate security to tenants for permanent improvements, and otherwise place the relation on a more satisfactory basis."
Well, then, he did accordingly attempt to consolidate and amend the law on these subjects. The two Bills were to be considered as consolidating and amending Bills. With regard to tenants' compensation, he did the best he could to adjust it; but the Committee thought the machinery too complex, and they set it aside. The right hon. Baronet then brought in his Bill, and that Bill be supported, and as far as he was individually concerned he did not think it would he injurious to property; but he found that great dislike existed towards it in Ireland, and that scarcely any was inclined to accept it. Many said it was contrary to all principle, and as it did not include compensation for improvements in the soil, others said it was worth nothing. The right hon. Baronet brought forward his Bill in the belief that it would be of use, but it had been ultimately rejected in the House of Lords. The question, then, was—the two Bills being considered a fair settlement of the question—Government having endorsed and adopted them in two Sessions—the Bills having passed through Committees of their own nomination in both Houses—he having given his co-operation, because invited to do so by Government—and having not the slightest reason to expect but that the two Bills would be passed, the question was, whether under all these circumstances the Government were justified in having at the last moment thrown these Bills overboard for the reason given by the right hon. Baronet? And he fearlessly put it to the Committee and country to decide, whether

179
his conduct had not been consistent, and whether they who had thrown up the whole question at this moment, after so much had been done, were the parties deserving of praise or censure? He believed honestly that it was only holding out a delusion to the farmer tenants to encourage them now to look forward to the passing of this rejected Bill. Had he foreseen what was to be the result of the matter, he certainly would have taken no part in the question. The course adopted by Government would only invite further agitation hereafter, and keep the minds of the tenantry of Ireland in an unquiet state of expectation; that was not just to them, nor honourable and candid to him. It was always his wish and desire, whatever might be the difference of political opinion, to be on terms of good feeling with all parties, but under the present circumstances he thought he had a right to complain of the manner in which he had been treated, and the unjustifiable course pursued towards him by the Government.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, it appeared to him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made his complaint upon two grounds. The first was, that he had not been treated fairly—that he had not been honourably treated by him; and the second, that the postponement of these questions was not, under the circumstances, wise and judicious, and was likely to lead to evil. Now, with respect to this last point, it was clearly a matter of opinion to be decided on by every one according to the facts to be brought before them; but with respect to the right hon. Gentleman's first ground of complaint—that he had not been treated fairly by him—all he could say was, that if the right hon. Gentleman thought he had not been fairly treated, he very much regretted it. But he would recall to the right hon. Gentleman's recollection the circumstances under which he had spoken on Tuesday last. He had pressed the noble Lord the leader of the House to give the right hon. Gentleman a day for proceeding with his Bills, and finally Tuesday last was fixed. He (Sir J. Young) then came down, having heard that considerable opposition would be offered to the Bills. He had, in fact, a fortnight ago stated to the right hon. Gentleman his fear that they would be met with strong opposition. At that time, however, he certainly had had no idea of the strength of this opposition; he had thought that the opposition would have soon died away, but on Tuesday, as would be recollected,
180
Mr. Bouverie had scarcely taken the chair in Committee before the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) rose to propose that he should report progress; and the hon. and learned Gentleman was followed by a number of other Members on that side of the House, who were generally supporters of the Government, and who repeated in public the statements they had made in private—that they one and all opposed further proceeding with these Bills during the present Session, and stating their wish that they should be postponed in order to allow of its due consideration by all parties in Ireland. That wish was also expressed with equal emphasis by more than one deputation which came from Ireland, and it did not seem very unreasonable. Last year these Bills were brought forward, and met with strong opposition in the House of Lords, and were postponed in that House; this year, parties who were supposed to represent the tenant interest one and all prayed for the postponement of the measures, in order that they might have time to consider them, and see whether they would or not accept the propositions that were made by those who might be considered representatives of the landlords. There were two perfectly distinct phases of opinion under the guise of tenant-right agitation in Ireland—one to a certain degree fair and reasonable; the other wild, visionary, and unpracticable. There was one set of political agitators who aimed at no agricultural improvement, whose only object was merely to keep alive the cry at elections, and to place the tenants in a position of independence of their landlords, so that they might be enabled to vote against them. Another class based its views upon a real desire for agricultural improvement, and in that view insisted on the right to compensation for improvements actually made by the tenant, as in Ulster. It appeared to him impossible for human ingenuity to devise a scheme that would unite the allegiance of two parties with views and ends so different; but every one with whom he came in contact, as representing either the one or the other party, had begged for the postponement of the legislative measures, in order that the propositions of the House of Lords might be duly considered. The question was, how far he was precluded from entertaining this request. The right hon. Gentleman said they were the Bills of the Government. Either they were so, or they were not. Supposing they were, was not Go-

181
vernment at liberty to deal with them? If they were, then he dealt with them as the Bills of the Government, and it was their judgment that, with a view to the final settlement of the question, a postponement should take place, and that time should be given to those representing the tenant interest to consider fully their own position, and the state of opinion both in Parliament and in the country, in order to see whether they could agree upon reasonable terms. Supposing the Bills were not Government Bills, what was there unfair or dishonourable in his tendering his advice to the person who had charge of them not to press them on at present? He did not act with a view of exciting agitation, or of keeping open a difficult question; but, on the contrary, he believed that the time given by the recess for consideration would facilitate the settlement of the question. He did not believe that the tenant class in Ireland were so easily misled as to be induced to suppose that this question could be carried against the public opinion of England, against the unanimous voice of the House of Lords, and when in that House it had been found difficult to get a small majority to carry the moderate proposition of last year. He was convinced that the postponement of these Bills, so far from keeping the question open, would turn to good account, and would lead to its being satisfactorily adjusted. He was ready fully to admit that the right hon. Gentleman had all along bestowed the greatest pains upon this subject, and that he had acted towards him (Sir J. Young) with the greatest courtesy; but the view which the right hon. Gentleman took was, that he was to act for both parties. Surely it was not acting for both parties when there were men interested on both sides who broadly declared that they would not accept this settlement of the question as at present advised, and asked for time till next Session to consider the subject fully? That was a fair proposition, and one that he was bound to accept. He did not know that he could say anything more in defence of the course which he had pursued, except to repeat that either these were Government Bills, or they were not. If they were Government Bills, he had surely a right to deal with them, and he thought that, under the circumstances, the wiser course would be to postpone them;—and if they were not Government Bills, surely he had a right to advise their postponement. With regard to the Bills them-
182
selves, what were they? The Leasing Powers Bill was an enabling Bill, giving to landlords the power of making leases which should be binding on their successors, and the other, the Landlord and Tenant Bill, was a consolidation of the existing laws, and, as he had been informed, a very good consolidation, but neither one nor the other contained any element for the final settlement of the landlord and tenant question. Representations had been made to him by persons who represented, he believed, the tractable and industrious tenantry of Ulster, that the retrospective clause in the Landlord and Tenant Bill would leave the tenantry of Ulster in a worse position than if no such clause existed. The complaint made by those persons was, that owing to the custom of the country, upon the faith of which the tenantry had laid out large sums of money, the tenant was supposed to have some claim to a renewal of his lease, and they wanted validity to be given to that custom. That custom went beyond the retrospective clause of the Bill, for the Bill said that a tenant should have an interest in improvements which he might make, but that that interest should cease after the lapse of twenty-one years. Now, in Ulster, it had never been the habit to lay out money when the tenure was so short as twenty-one years, so that this clause would not be of as much advantage to the tenantry as the custom at present in existence. He questioned if any Gentleman in that House would take a farm and lay out 200 l. in improvements if he lost all interest in them in twenty-one years. That was what the clause proposed, and the tenantry of Ulster said that they would be placed by it in a worse position than they were at present, for, although their custom was not imperative, it was so sanctioned that, in reality, they received more than this Bill would give them. When such persons came to him and made these representations, and when deputations came to him, as he understood, from the respectable tenantry in different parts of Ireland, surely it was not unreasonable in him on that ground alone to have urged the House not to pass these Bills during the present Session? On the other hand, on Tuesday four hours were occupied in advancing a single clause of the Bill, so that, supposing these Bills, which had gone through a Select Committee of that House, which had been for about two months before a Select Committee of the House of Lords, to have been

183
debated clause by clause in that House, he would like to know to what date the Session would have been protracted to pass them? There was one other position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman which was, that he (Sir John Young) should be allowed the conduct of these Bills with the proviso that he was not to make any alteration in them. If he had the responsibility of these Bills—and he was quite willing to take it—although he did not wish to detract from the merit due to the right hon. Gentleman for his attention to this subject, still he was bound to state his conviction that the best course to be pursued was to postpone these Bills to next Session, and then to take them for what they were worth. If anything were to be superadded to them to meet the demands of the tenants, that would be a separate and distinct question, which might be dealt with in time to come; and he did not believe that any difficulty would be added to the final settlement of the question by having given to the tenantry time fully to consider the subject. He thought if any man had been aggrieved in this matter, he (Sir John Young) was the party, and not the right hon. Gentleman. On Tuesday last the noble Lord the Member for Coleraine (Lord Naas) got up and asked what course the Government proposed to take with regard to these Bills. He (Sir John Young) was "discourteous" enough not to make any answer. Shortly afterwards the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) rose and urged the Government, in no very polite terms, to state what they intended to do. He (Sir John Young) still remained silent. Hon. Gentlemen opposite then put up another hon. Member to ask the same question. Then it was, being so pressed, that he stated that he thought it would be better, under the circumstances, not to proceed with the Bills during the present Session. Therefore, instead of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Napier) being the aggrieved party, he (Sir John Young) thought that he himself was the party aggrieved. He believed if the question had been left to the right hon. Gentleman himself no more would have been heard about it, but a noble Lord in another place on the same evening referred to the subject. He had reason for that supposition, because on the 26th clause of one of these Bills he had proposed an important Amendment, which the right hon. Gentleman at first would not hear of, but which, after a few days'
184
reflection, he had adopted and embodied in the Bill. That showed what was the result of reflection with the right hon. Gentleman, and he was persuaded that in this case reflection would have produced the same effect. He should be sorry for anything to occur to interfere with the courtesy and good feeling which had always existed between the right hon. Gentleman and himself; but he thought that it would have been well if the right hon. Gentleman had taken more time for consideration before making this attack upon him. He (Sir John Young) repeated that he was the aggrieved party; he had treated the right hon. Gentleman throughout with uniform courtesy and with perfect fairness, and the only return he had had from him was, several very cavilling observations and perfectly groundless accusations.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that in the ordinary course of proceeding, the Landlord and Tenant and the Leasing Powers Bills would not have come under discussion at this time; but when he heard that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had a personal complaint to make against the Government, having great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and not wishing the Government to remain under that imputation without an opportunity of explanation, he had consented that the charge should be made and the explanation given at the commencement of the sitting that evening:—and he had done so at some sacrifice, because there was a Bill which stood next, of which he had charge, and which it was important to proceed with. He would now submit, therefore, to the Committee that, the right hon. Gentleman having made his charge as fully as he wished to make it, and his right hon. Friend having made his explanation, this matter should not be pressed further. ["Hear, hear!"] If any hon. Gentleman said it was his wish that the debate should go on, certainly he (Lord J. Russell) had no power to prevent it; but in that event it would assuredly prevent him showing any similar courtesy again. What he should now propose would be, that he should move to report progress. The Bills would then remain in the possession of the House; the right hon. Gentleman might afterwards, before the close of the Session, if he thought fit, move that they be brought forward in Committee; but in that case his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Young) would move that the Chairman

185
report progress, with the view of proceeding no further with them in the present Session. He believed that the whole of this misunderstanding had arisen from a misinterpretation of a few words which had fallen from his right hon. Friend on a recent occasion. The right hon. Gentleman said that his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Young) had stated that he would not propose these Bills, and the right hon. Gentleman founded a good deal of argument upon that remark. Such a statement would certainly be inconsistent with the course which the Government had taken in either House of Parliament, and inconsistent with what his right hon. Friend had said and done in that House. But what his right hon. Friend said on the occasion in question was, that he thought it right not to press these Bills during the present Session. Now, between the words "propose" and "press" there was great difference. He (Lord John Russell) was not present on the occasion, but he understood that "press" was the word which his right hon. Friend used, or meant to use. Be that as it might, however, looking at, the progress they were likely to make with these Bills before the close of the Session, and considering that so many hon. Gentlemen objected to them, he (Lord John Russell) thought it would be inexpedient to proceed further with them for the present.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the noble Lord would agree with him that they who represented the opinions of Ulster in that House would be condemned in the eyes of their constituents if they had not elicited from the Government what their intentions were in reference to that the most important question that affected their country at this moment. The complaint that he had to make against the Government was of a breach of faith. That accusation at least had the merit of being short and distinct. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Young) had complained that he was the aggrieved party, if any, in that it was not until he had been pressed by several hon. Members on Tuesday last that he disclosed the intentions of the Government as to the measures in question. It was perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, that he was greatly indisposed to respond to the questions then put to him; but he (Mr. Whiteside) had not been five minutes in the House on Tuesday before he was told by an hon. Member that he would find, from the tone of the speech made by the hon. and learned Gentleman
186
the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee), that these Bills would be abandoned by the Government. He was told that by an experienced Member of that House, who well understood the by-play of the Government. It was of that that he (Mr. Whiteside) had now to complain. Nothing could be more courteous and kind than the conduct of the Government in the other House of Parliament in regard to this question. The other House of Parliament, through the intervention of the Ministers there, threw out one of the three Bills—a circumstance which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Young) pretended was the reason why they should not proceed with the two remaining good Bills which he (Mr. Whiteside) for his country should pass into a law. What was the language used on Tuesday by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Serjeant Shee)? "Here is a code," said he, "to which the Government are pledged, one Bill a very good Bill, another a very good Bill, and a third my own Bill, much better than either. I cannot accept these two good Bills, which are calculated to tranquillise the country." He, and those acting with him in this matter, did not represent the counties of Tipperary, Kilkenny, or Clare, where there were very few improving tenants, but they sat in that House representing the industrious population of a province in which tenant right was a matter of the last importance. He said that these Bills had been sacrificed by the right hon. Gentleman to gain a certain support in that House, and that he and those with whom he acted were astonished at the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman, and quite as much pained as surprised. Now, whatever might be said of the legal reforms of the Lord Chancellor, he never heard any one doubt his Lordship's veracity. What did the Lord Chancellor say when this subject was under discussion in the other House? He said—
"The true mode of legislating on this subject, as well as the most safe and efficacious, was to give the greatest facilities for contracts, and the greatest facilities for enforcing them. When that was done by Parliament, Parliament had done nearly all which legislation could effect."
Then, with reference to the third Bill, he said—
"The question of retrospective compensation stood on a very different footing, and he confessed he looked on that portion of the measure with some trepidation."—[3 Hansard, cxxxi. 50.
On the first night these Bills were introduced into the other House these were the opinions expressed by the Lord Chan-

187
cellor; and, after that, did any one doubt that the third Bill could never be passed into a law? And what did the Duke of Newcastle, who introduced the Bills, say? The noble Duke was a War Minister now, but at that time he was a Minister of peace. He said—
"They would refer these three Bills to a Select Committee, in order that men representing all parties in Ireland might combine, and, if possible, come to some conclusion, aye or no, on the question of compensation to tenants. He could not but believe, with respect to two of the Bills, that, under the superintendence of noble Lords in Committee, they would be made sufficient for all purposes and most invaluable to Ireland."—[3 Hansard, cxxxi. 28].
Yes, those Bills were most invaluable to Ireland. Did the noble Duke know what one of those Bills did? Why, it enabled any person or corporation under disability, to make leases precisely, as the Lord Chancellor said, in the direction in which Parliament might safely walk. And it was not merely an enabling Bill, but it was a remedial one also, for it provided means for the future of obtaining compensation for all rational improvements. It carried out what was reasonable and right, and what was approved by the Ministers of the Crown. If the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Young) was opposed to retrospective compensation, why could he not have had the manliness to say so at once? The right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to place the House in a dilemma by saying that these Bills were either Government Bills or not; but he (Mr. Whiteside) did not think that a Minister of the Crown, or a Gentleman holding the position of the right hon. Baronet, could safely speak as he did on Tuesday, and then use that language. The right hon. Gentleman in his (Mr. Whiteside's) hearing said distinctly that these were not Government Bills; and he said because they were not Government Bills he could justify the conduct he had pursued towards them. When, however, they turned to the language used by Ministers in the other House, they found they were treated as Government Bills. He (Mr. Whiteside) would tell the right hon. Gentleman why he was called on to justify the conduct pursued by him on this occasion. It was because Her Majesty's Ministers, consisting individually of many talented men, were, as a Coalition Ministry, without consistency, without principle, and without a policy. After what had taken place, the right hon. Gentleman and the other Members of the Government might rest assured that ere the next winter
188
was past the Tenant League agitation would be again renewed in Ireland, and that men, having no interest in the soil of the country, would recommence their criminal tactics of agitation, and, in order to gratify a criminal ambition, disturb the peace of the country in the vague endeavour to obtain some visionary advantage for others and themselves. It was true the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) made a long speech on Tuesday; but had he not a right to make a long speech? It was equally true that he praised the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Young); but the moment he (Mr. Whiteside) heard the panegyric, he saw the fate of these Bills. What was the result? The hon. and learned Gentleman might retire from that House satisfied that, because he had aided the right hon. Gentleman in defeating two useful Bills, it was in the power of that indefatigable party with whom he was identified, not only to defeat Bills of a certain kind, but to defeat every Bill, and to become the rulers of the British Senate. He (Mr. Whiteside) believed these to be good Bills—he believed them also to be Bills calculated to give great satisfaction to the country; but because they were likely to give satisfaction to Ireland, the hon. and learned Gentleman would not allow them to proceed, lest some cause of agitation should not remain among his unfortunate countrymen, by means of which men, when they ceased to be agitators, might sink down into contented placemen.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that he was not aware that there sat on that side of the House any Members of the Tenant League, though there were on the other side several Members connected with the League, with whom the hon. and learned Gentleman frequently had the satisfaction of voting in the same lobby. The hon. and learned Gentleman had accused the Government of a breach of faith and an abandonment of principle—language that could only be justified by the most extreme necessity. The observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman led to the inference that the Government had abandoned these Bills, not because they were bad Bills, or because they were not calculated to benefit the country, but in order to catch votes, and to gratify a particular party in that House. But what took place on Tuesday night? Not alone the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny, but the hon. Gentleman

189
the Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon), whom no one would accuse of being a supporter of the Government, and several Members on that (the Ministerial) side, pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman the inexpediency of proceeding further with these Bills during the present Session. When the Bills were introduced into that House, they were, along with a Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, referred by the Government to a Select Committee. He might remind the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside), that two days afterwards, the Earl of Derby, then at the head of the Government in the other House of Parliament, in reply to a question put to him, denounced one of these Bills that had been sent to the Select Committee as communistic and as intended to confiscate property. He (Mr. FitzGerald) had always been an advocate of the tenant interest, but he unhesitatingly stated that those Bills which came from the Lords, though they contained much that was unobjectionable, would not have been satisfactory, and that the passing of the two Bills alone, now before the House, would have been the very means of producing agitation. He lamented that a whole evening was likely to be taken up in discussing a mere personal grievance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier). The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) had said that the passing of the Bill would have ruined certain gentlemen, and destroyed their political capital; but, so far from anything of the kind taking place, he (Mr. FitzGerald) believed it would have increased agitation. They had all considered this question together, and there appeared to be concurrence of opinion on it in all parts of the House, amongst those who represented Liberal constituencies in Ireland. They made an appeal to the right hon. the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the Bills should not be pressed forward in their present shape until the Compensation Bill; and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Napier) now complained that a personal grievance had been inflicted upon him because at their united request that course was adopted. He (Mr. FitzGerald) recollected that when the right hon. Gentleman introduced these Bills, he said that the measure that was called his Compensation Bill honestly carried out the intentions of the Devon Commission. The right hon. Gentleman was ready to use the word honesty on all occasions, and no person doubted
190
him; but he (Mr. FitzGerald) would wish that the word was less frequently used. The Bill carrying out the recommendations of the Devon Commission was abandoned, and now they were told by the right hon. Gentleman that the other measures would be satisfactory to the tenants. The other measures, without the Compensation Bill, would not be satisfactory, and for that reason, and that reason only, they had pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to withdraw those Bills. At twenty minutes to four o'clock on Tuesday he consented to withdraw them, and that was really the only cause of complaint which the right hon. Gentleman had against the representative of the Irish Government in that House.
MR. LUCASsaid, he certainly did not expect or wish to take any part in the very pretty quarrel that had arisen between the right hon. Gentleman on the one bench and the right hon. Gentleman on the other. He had nothing to do with their refinements or quarrels, provided they confined them to themselves, but they had both gone out of their way to attack others who were not mixed up with the dispute. The right hon. Gentleman who made the first statement, and the hon. and learned Gentleman near him, and the right hon. Baronet, all spoke of a party connected with the discussion of this question in Ireland as making use of the grievances of the tenants for the purpose of keeping up political agitation, without having the smallest notion of procuring a redress of the grievances of the tenants. The right hon. Gentleman on that side of the House went beyond the language of the right hon. Baronet opposite, and said they were obstructing the course of legislation on the subject, and that some proceedings should be taken to put down the course they had pursued. He (Mr. Lucas) was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin use that language. The right hon. Gentleman had forgotten what had taken place, or he never could have uttered the words that fell from his lips. They had had only one discussion on the subject in that House during the present Session. Last Session the subject underwent long and mature consideration, and at the close of the Session he (Mr. Lucas) received in the lobby the thanks of the right hon. Gentleman for the facilities which he (Mr. Lucas) had afforded for the settlement of this business. He (Mr. Lucas) had also received the same

191
thanks from the right hon. Gentleman publicly in his place, and had received likewise the thanks of the present Solicitor General for Ireland in the other "lobby." Where, then, was the obstruction on his part? He had not opened his mouth during the present Session on the subject, and they had had but one discussion upon it, which accidentally took place on the Motion to report progress, after having gone into Committee. But because the right hon. Gentleman, and the hon. and learned Gentleman near him, could not get their views adopted, they had the astonishing presumption to charge a large body of men in that House with being obstructionists, and said they ought to be put down by the power of the Government and of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) had made also the offensive imputation, that if the measure was passed, their political capital would be gone, and they would be ruined. But he (Mr. Lucas) would tell him that, so long as he (Mr. Whiteside) remained in that House, with his bigotry and fanaticism, and with the unjust spirit that animated all his proceedings when the religion of millions of his fellow-subjects were concerned—if they had not political capital in themselves—they could never be in want of that which the hon. and learned Gentleman's bigotry and fanaticism would supply. Thanks to the hon. and learned Gentleman's genius for statesmanship, they were not in want of employment, because he and his friends had provided it for them during the present Session. It was not on the land question they were obliged to occupy the attention of the House, but in resisting that most unjust aggression which the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends had made upon their religion, and which, in spite of his threats, they should always resist with the same firmness and determination as they had displayed in the present Session. He (Mr. Lucas) might have mistaken the right hon. Baronet's meaning when he spoke of those who were making use of this question not to procure redress for a great grievance, but to keep up political agitation. The right hon. Baronet apparently alluded to Members in that House. He (Mr. Lucas) had received, as he already said, the thanks of the Solicitor General for Ireland for his efforts during the last Session to promote the settlement of the question; and when the hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. J. D.
192
FitzGerald) said there was no Gentleman sitting at his side of the House to whom the taunts that were thrown out could apply—when the hon. and learned Member said there was no Member of the Tenant League sitting on the Treasury side of the House—and that consequently all the imputations that came from both sides of the table were to be lavishly distributed amongst the Members acting with him (Mr. Lucas), he (Mr. Lucas) begged to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that there was one Member from Ireland sitting, not on his (Mr. Lucas's) side of the House, but sitting on the Treasury side above the gangway, in receipt of a State salary as a Member of the Government, and one of the law advisers of the Crown, who was for a long time a member of the council of the League—whose name was on the back of Sharman Crawford's Bill—who publicly professed in repeated speeches throughout the course of a year or eighteen months that he would never accept office, "So help him God," in any Government that would not make that Bill a Cabinet question, and who, having made his political capital out of that agitation, had recanted his professions, had swallowed his oaths, and who ought to have been present on that occasion, when a question of this kind was discussed and imputations of this kind were thrown out from the Treasury benches. That hon. and learned Gentleman now sat on the Treasury benches, and duly earned, and continued to earn, the wages of his extraordinary apostacy. Sitting as that hon. and learned Gentleman ordinarily did, in terms of familiar intercourse with the right hon. Baronet, and being his great helper on that and other questions, it would have been more decorous, and he (Mr. Lucas) would say more decent, had the right hon. Baronet refrained from throwing out those imputations which, at all events, could be proved to be true of no one but his own Colleague. So far as the people of Ireland were concerned, of whatever shade of opinion or class they might be, they would know that the Bills were abandoned, and that legislation on the subject for this Session was at an end. They were not interested in the past except so far as it gave them a light to know the future. They were all, of whatever opinion or class they might be, deeply interested in the future. He had listened with painful attention in the hope of learning from the Government what were their intentions for the future. He had not yet

193
learned their intentions. They had a right to ask, at the end of two Sessions during which this question was carefully considered and discussed, what were the intentions of the Government for the future? Did they mean to take up this question next Session with the intention of making a final settlement of it? Did they intend to bring in merely the two Bills of the right hon. and learned Gentleman without the Tenants' Compensation Bill, the principles of which were sanctioned and affirmed by the House? He thought the last two hours and a half would have been very ill spent if no additional matter was introduced into the debate, and if they did not receive from the Government a statement that would assure the people of Ireland of what they might expect at the hands of the advisers of the Crown.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I do not mean to enter into the personal question, or to attempt to correct the misapprehension of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, or to explain the words which have been imputed to my right hon. Friend near me; but the questions which the hon. Gentleman asks as to the intentions of the Government with regard to this important subject, though it does not require any detailed answer, yet certainly I think deserves some notice. It has always appeared to me that this question was one of the utmost difficulty in the way of settlement; and I cannot but recur at present to the course I was obliged to take myself respecting it on a former occasion, and which I am sorry to find comes to be very nearly repeated three years after. My right hon. Friend (Sir William Somerville), when Chief Secretary for Ireland, was very sanguine with respect to the settlement of the landlord and tenant question in Ireland, and he introduced a Bill which was referred to a Select Committee. The Select Committee paid very great attention to the Bill, went through all the clauses of it, and amended it. When that Bill came out of the Select Committee my right hon. Friend was in hopes that he might be instrumental in settling a question which was not only a cause of great heartburning, but stood in the way of material improvement. But large deputations came over from Ireland—I saw some of them myself—and they stated that the remedies proposed were of so conflicting a nature that it would be useless for them as tenants to endeavour to take advantage of them, and
194
they requested that the Bill might be abandoned. Upon examining the Bill I could not but see that there was great justice in their representations, and their observations led me certainly to take a very desponding view with regard to the settlement of this question by mere legislation; because I think in attempting to settle it by legislation you are between these two dangers: if you attempt to make your remedy exceedingly simple, you depart from the course of justice—you either impose upon the landlord or upon the tenant burdens which you have no right to charge upon him—you interfere with respect to contracts in a manner in which legislation ought not to interfere—you deprive a man who has property in land of the right of exercising the rights of property, or else you give to the tenant a very insufficient and delusory remedy. On the other hand, you may, as was stated by those deputations from tenants, make the process so difficult and so dilatory that they would not take any advantage from it. So that certainly I came to the conclusion, which I stated in this House, and which was the subject of so much attack, that it was useless to go on and endeavour to fix by legislation the precise mode of contract, which was only likely to be beneficial if it were carried into effect by good faith, confidence, and liberality on the side of both landlord and tenant. If you go on the presumption that the landlord will use all his powers as a landlord and all which the law gives him to oppress his tenant, and that, on the other hand, the tenant would endeavour as much as possible to cheat the landlord out of his rights of property—if you go on that supposition, you can never arrive at a satisfactory settlement of this question. These were my opinions; others, however, were more confident, and my right hon. Friend (Sir J. Young), who sits near me, was exceedingly confident as to the possibility of making a settlement of this kind; but, above all, the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier), who has made his complaint to-night, was very sanguine about it, and gave himself very great pains and trouble concerning it. I have nothing to say but what I have always said, that he deserves the highest praise for the attention he has bestowed upon this very difficult question. When the right hon. Gentleman brought forward his measure, and when I heard his explanation of it, I confess—instead of

195
thinking that he did not go far enough—that I heard some of his proposals with some of the trepidation which it appears my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has expressed. I thought he was going rather too near to those social principles which are somewhat dangerous when introduced into Acts of Parliament. The measure, which was intended to do justice to all parties, was sent before a Select Committee, and that Select Committee adopted the proposals and stipulations with regard to the relations of landlord and tenant. The Bill then went to the House of Lords, where that part of it which was intended for the benefit of the tenant, and to give to the tenant certain rights that were not usually given to him by the law in this country, was strongly objected to by the landed proprietors in the House of Lords, and also by the great law Lords, the lights of that House, who seemed very unwilling to assent to that part of the Bill. They have this year passed a Bill which contains some provisions favourable to the tenants of Ireland, but which does not go to near the extent which the persons holding the opinions I have referred to wish to carry the law. I therefore think it is not unnatural that, when the Bill came down from the House of Lords and was found to be deprived of that portion of it which the noble Duke the Lord Privy Seal told me was calculated to excite discontent and dissatisfaction among those who had hitherto been favourably disposed to pass a legislative measure on the subject, though they could not concur in the extreme position which had been propounded in Ireland upon it, it should have created dissatisfaction among those who hold those extreme views; and here I beg leave to disclaim altogether those imputations which have been thrown upon those hon. Members who have been most extreme in their views upon this subject in opposition to myself. They are men who have evinced the most constant perseverance in urging the claims of the tenantry of Ireland. The most persevering and energetic of them all is a man whose integrity is not to be disputed by any man—I mean Mr. Sharman Crawford—who has come to London for some purpose, and who has expressed his great despondency about the Bill passing this year, but whose anxiety on the subject, and whose views also, I think, no human being can doubt for a moment. No doubt in every party, whatever their opinions,
196
political or religious, may be, there are some who look only to their own selfish advantage—I dare say the Tenant League party have men of that kind among them—but as a party, as far as I have known them, I am willing to give them the same credit that I would give to any other party who feel persuaded that their views are consistent with justice, and that the adoption of them would be for the benefit of Ireland. But what is more natural, when a Bill comes down from the other House containing what is supposed to be a settlement of a much-disputed question, but which does not contain any of those provisions which certain parties think essential, that they should protest against it and should say, "If this is passed we shall be told that nothing more can be done by Parliament; we shall therefore make every opposition to this measure?" Though I do not agree in their views, still I think nothing is more natural or more consistent than that conduct. If we had plenty of time and not any other business before us, I think it very possible that one of these Bills might have been amended, and that the clauses might have been so altered as to admit of the Bill being sent up to the other House of Parliament, and of their agreeing to a measure which would have given satisfaction generally to the tenantry of the North of Ireland. The House of Lords might have embraced that proposition or have rejected it; but it is obvious that at the present period of the Session it would be impracticable to go through the immense number of Amendments which have been suggested. With those Amendments and the new clauses which would be proposed, it is obvious that, with the business still remaining to be done, the House would have to sit for two or three months longer in order to get at the end of such a question. I therefore come to the conclusion—unwillingly, I confess, for I should have been disposed to agree with my noble Friend in the other House of Parliament, that it would have been desirable to pass this Bill if the time had permitted—but I come to the conclusion that it is hopeless to attempt during the present Session to effect a settlement of this important question. Whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland is right in supposing that during six or eight months' further deliberation the whole substance of these several Bills may be contained in one Bill, or may still be presented

197
in separate Bills, it is impossible for me to say. If there is a disposition shown on the part of those who take an active interest in this question to the production of one legislative measure on the subject, I quite agree that whether the Bill which is called the Tenants' Compensation Bill be contained in the Landlord and Tenants' Bill, or be in a separate Bill, is a matter of immaterial importance. But I own, if we find that the question is still a subject of so much passion that no disposition exists to agree to a Bill to the extent of that which we have now before us—namely, the Bill which is called "the Landlord and Tenant Bill"—then it would be almost useless to attempt to enter upon a consideration of the subject. There is one thing which the Lord Chancellor is reported to have said, and which was quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman—namely, that the best thing to be done upon this subject was beyond all question that which I think no one will dispute, and that which my noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) has always contended for—that you should endeavour to make your law as perfect as possible with regard to voluntary contracts; that the tenant on entering upon the land should have the means of knowing perfectly what he has covenanted to do, and what his rights are. When that contract is made, there should be a simple mode without delay or expense—which in itself is perfectly practicable, and is in fact contained in this Leasing Powers Bill—by which the tenant may enforce his rights. I must own that the Leasing Powers Bill appears to me to be a most excellent Bill, and one which I hope will enter into our legislation hereafter. The hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) has made use of some very hard words against the Government on this subject. I do not wish to refer to the history of the conduct of the Government to which he belonged with respect to this question, nor will I refer to the speculations that were made here with respect to the second reading of the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee), which was always opposed by us. I will not use any hard words; I think it much better not to enter into any rejoinder upon this subject, the difficulty of which is sufficient of itself to engage our attention, but it is enough to show that one party is as vulnerable as another on the subject. The subject being in itself a difficult one, there
198
was some consolation to be derived from the statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny on Tuesday last, when he proposed the postponement of the Bills. I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman stated, as one reason why it would not be necessary to settle this question at the present time, that there was a better state both of material prosperity and of feeling in Ireland, and that he did not think any angry contest could be created by postponing this question. Such a statement, when coming from one who has been always arguing for the immediate settlement of the question, is very satisfactory. I have seen a gentleman to-day, an old friend of mine, and a man who has much property in Ireland, and he entirely confirms the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He told me that he has never known a time when the landlords and tenants of Ireland were on better terms together, and that the state of Ireland was very greatly improved. I may add to this statement, that I have within a few days received a private letter from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in which he expresses his satisfaction, both at the state of peace and tranquillity which prevails in that country, and the general good feeling that exists among all classes. I therefore hope that there may come a time when these Bills may be considered with greater dispassionateness and deliberation than they have hitherto been. It is not altogether a work of legislation. Much depends on the conciliatory disposition of the parties between whom the contest at present prevails. I do hope that the extreme views of both parties will be modified. I hope the views of those who ask that the rights of tenants shall be carried beyond what is reasonable, and of those who are for the maintenance of the rights of property and of landlords in such a way as works inconvenience and hardship to tenants, may be modified, so that at last we may arrive, if not at a perfect mode of legislation, yet at least at an attempt at some very useful and happy enactment upon this difficult, long-pending, and important subject.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, that if the Government were sincere in their desire to settle this question, they had adopted a very curious and unsatisfactory mode of accomplishing that object. If they had been sincere, they would not have adopted the Landlord and Tenant Bill, which only

199
made the law more stringent, and adopted it as a Government measure, only with the view of abandoning it. He believed that the declaration just made by the noble Lord would be a death-blow to the hopes of the tenantry of Ireland, who would remain in this country if there was hope of a fair settlement of this question, but who would now leave the country in increased numbers to swell the greatness and increase the prosperity of a foreign land. The fact was, the Government had not the courage to make a fair and honest Landlord and Tenant Bill a Cabinet question, and until they did so they would never carry a measure that would settle this question. He threw back with contempt on the right hon. Gentleman the taunts he had thrown out that they were making political capital out of the question; every man in Ireland was interested in the settlement of this question, and let it not be said that a man was not interested because he had not a large estate and a great number of tenants. He wished to God the Government had had the power and the candour to have carried, at the commencement of the Session, some satisfactory measure which would have stopped the bleeding wounds of Ireland, and stayed the tide of emigration which was now desolating her shores. With regard to the obstruction which it was said he and his Friends threw in the way of the Bill last year, he would say that some of the Irish Members abstained from discussing the Leasing Powers Bill last Session, because the Irish Solicitor General warned them that a long discussion of the measure might imperil that Bill. It now appeared, from the speech of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, that there was no hope of the Irish tenantry obtaining justice from the Government with respect to the improvements they might effect upon their lands. The Government, after all their promises, now showed that they had only been trifling with the Irish tenants. A meeting of Irish Members of Parliament took place in Dublin some time ago, at which fifteen of them resolved that they would support no Government which would not make a Bill containing the principles laid down by Mr. Sharman Crawford a Cabinet question. But the present Government had not made, nor had they promised to make, a Bill of that sort a Cabinet question. In compliance with that resolution some of the Irish Members
200
now sat on the Opposition side of the House; and he did not think that their speeches or votes were open to the imputations of the hon. and learned Member for Ennis.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he had never taunted the fifteen Irish Members alluded to with respect to their speeches or votes in that House. [Mr. MAGUIRE: You did so three times.] As for the hon. Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Maguire,) he had distinctly congratulated him on the distinguished company which he kept in that House. He had said that that hon. Member went into the same lobby with Mr. Disraeli, against the proposition that the Catholic juveniles of London who would come under the operation of the Middlesex Reformatory Schools Bill should be instructed on Sundays by Catholic priests. He had also said that the hon. Member for Dungarvon was to be found in company with Mr. Whiteside, who had the hardihood to assert in that House that a portion of the Irish Members were keeping up agitation in Ireland for their own purposes. He (Mr. FitzGerald) was present at the meeting of forty-one Irish Members alluded to by the hon. Member for Dungarvon, but he had the good sense not to concur in the resolution of fifteen of them, who pledged themselves to oppose every Government that would not adopt Mr. Sharman Crawford's views on the landlord and tenant question.
MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTrose, to express his regret at the speech just delivered by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and at the refusal of the Government to secure to the tenantry of Ireland a measure that would secure to them compensation for any improvements that they might effect on their farms. It would be in the recollection of some hon. Members, that in the year 1845 Sir Robert Peel said, he could hold out terms of bold defiance to the American Government on the Oregon question, because he had just sent a message of peace to Ireland in the shape of the Maynooth College Act. And was there less reason for sending a message of peace now to Ireland when we were engaged in a war with a man who ruled the sixth part of the habitable globe, and who was defended by granite fortifications and tempestuous seas? It was true that Ireland was at present perfectly quiet. She was never more free from sedition or agrarian outrage; but he warned the Government that the people of Ireland had

201
discovered a far more effectual and dangerous way of embarrassing them than by sedition or outrage—namely, by availing themselves of the enlarged constituency, which gave them a greater means of acting on their representatives than they had before possessed. By that agency the Irish tenantry could put the screw upon their representatives in that House, and compel them to embarrass the proceedings of any Government that would not do justice to Ireland. He would ask, were not the people of Ireland justified in the view they had taken of this question, when four millions of tenants in Ireland were deprived of those securities which were possessed by almost every tenant in every other part of Europe, and which were absolutely necessary to the due development of industry? Did the Government think that the cottier tenants of Ireland would quietly submit to be taxed for the keeping up of expensive armaments to carry on distant wars, in which they had no personal interest, if the Government did not do everything in their power to secure to them the enjoyment of those rights which were enjoyed by almost every tenant in continental Europe, and to which they were fairly entitled? What interest could the Irish tenantry take in our national glory as long as they were denied their honest rights? The noble Lord in 1846 turned out the most eminently practical and successful Ministry of modern times, because they did not bring forward measures of conciliation for Ireland; and he asked, did not the conduct of the present Government justify the people of Ireland and their representatives in pursuing what was termed an obstructive course? Was it nothing that the continued denial of these rights was driving thousands of the Irish tenants to America, upon whose shores they landed with feelings of bitter indignation against the English Government, whose injustice compelled them to seek new homes. Was it not most impolitic in the Government to do anything which could have the effect of raising up a foreign Power with feelings of hostility against England?—and that they were most assuredly doing by driving away their fellow-subjects to America, where they would become England's bitter enemies. Our relations, even at this moment, with America, were not of so pacific a character that we could afford to lose our Irish fellow-subjects, with the strong probability of their becoming our American
202
enemies. He earnestly entreated the Government, as they valued their future prospects in these arduous times, to show themselves willing and anxious to do equal justice to every section of their fellow-subjects in the United Kingdom.
SIR ARTHUR BROOKEdid not wish to deprive tenants of any privileges which the legislation of that House might justly confer upon them, but he believed that no Bill with reference to this question could be proposed which would not be a direct infringement of the rights of property. The tenants of the North of Ireland would suffer materially if any of the Landlord and Tenant Bills that had been proposed in either House of Parliament should pass, because they already enjoy greater privileges than any contained in those Bills. If a Bill were passed, the northern landlords would abandon their present system, and give their tenants no more rights than those specified in such Bills, and the consequence would be that many tenants would be subjected to great sacrifices. He believed the Chief Secretary for Ireland had misunderstood the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier), who complained not so much of the withdrawal of the two Bills which he had prepared, as of the want of courtesy manifested towards him in not communicating with him upon the subject. He (Sir A. Brooke) hoped that the Tenant Leaguers would abstain from agitating Ireland on this question during the next Parliamentary recess. The Irish people were now in a better condition than they had been for some years. All parts of Ireland were in a satisfied state, and he hoped that no inflammatory harangue would be addressed to them on this question by those gentlemen who had heretofore conducted the affairs of the Tenant League.
MR. POTTERsaid, he believed it was true that considerable sums of money were laid out in the North of Ireland on the land; but in the south, which was in a very different condition, both politically and otherwise, the tenants had not dared to lay out their money on the land; and the event showed they had reasoned correctly, for at one period a meeting—not an open, if not exactly a secret one—had been held at Dublin, at which the landlords resolved to grant no more leases to the tenantry. While this state of things lasted, there would be no development of industry. He appealed to the right hon. Baronet the

203
Chief Secretary, whether it was not the fact that millions of money were now lying unemployed in the Irish banks, simply because the tenants were afraid to invest it in the improvement of their land. Under these circumstances he regretted that the noble Lord had held out no hope of some measure for the protection of the tenants.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I cannot allow this conversation to cease without making one or two observations with reference to my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Napier). I observed with great regret that some doubt has been attempted to be thrown upon the sincerity of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin in undertaking the consideration and conduct of this question in Parliament. I can easily understand that to a gentleman of such great susceptibility and such high sense of honour as my right hon. Friend such an imputation must be extremely painful; and being perfectly well acquainted with the conduct of my right hon. Friend in this matter from first to last, and knowing how single-minded it has been in every respect, I think I should not be doing my duty if I did not express my opinion upon this subject. Sir, long before my right hon. Friend introduced this question to the notice of Parliament—nay, long before he even imagined that he should have the opportunity of introducing it in a responsible position—he conferred with me in the most confidential manner on the subject, and intimated to me that it was a question which a public man, who aspired to take any great part in the conduct of the affairs of the country, could not safely neglect or evade. He placed under my notice the labours of Mr. Fergusson, who has been so often referred to to-night, and his own part in those labours, and I am therefore able to speak with some confidence and some authority of the sentiments which influenced my right hon. Friend in dealing with this question. Long after that period accident brought both my right hon. Friend and myself into a position in which our sincerity could be tested on this subject; and it was then that my right hon. Friend sketched those measures which with great elaboration and completeness he afterwards introduced before the House; and I am bound to say that, without having regard to minute details, which under our happy Constitution are always considered and settled by the criticism of the two Houses of
204
Parliament, I myself gave my complete adherence to the general views which my right hon. Friend entertained upon the subject of the tenure of land in Ireland. It was my opinion that it was a question which those who aspired to govern the United Kingdom ought to meet; that it was a question that should be met in the general spirit and scope of the plan which had been sketched out by my right hon. Friend; and I was perfectly prepared to support him in the measures which he proposed for the consideration of Parliament. We have been told to-night that those were measures that it was impossible could be passed through the two Houses of Parliament. Well, Sir, I am not at all of opinion, after they had been subjected to the critical examination of Parliament, and after they had been subsequently submitted to the mature consideration of a powerful Government—I am not at all of opinion that they were measures which would not have been passed, and passed in a manner which, I think, would have contributed to the happiness and well-being of Ireland, and have proved satisfactory to all moderate men of all parties, whether of the landlord or of the tenant class. The Lord President has told us to-night, adverting to the measure respecting tenants' compensation which was introduced by my right hon. Friend—and he sneered at it while he did so—that it contained a communistic sentiment. In my opinion, it did not contain, and had no tendency to, any legislation of that character. There certainly were bold, but wise provisions contained in the measure of my right hon. Friend; but they were restricted with such prescience and sagacity, so prudently and judiciously limited, that the application of those provisions would have been, in my mind, for the advantage of that portion of the United Kingdom. I cannot say the same for the Tenants' Compensation Bill which was produced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant under the authority of the President of the Council. That was a measure, indeed, which did not include any of those restrictions or prudent limitations recommended by my right hon. Friend—that was a measure, in my mind, which had a communistic tendency—that was a measure, in my opinion, which was open to the great objections which the Lord President urged, although he unfortunately forgot that the object of his criticism should not

205
have been the measure of my right hon. Friend, but rather the measure of the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant. Well, Sir, it is impossible for us to consider the peculiar subject which is under our consideration to-night without taking a large and general view; we cannot enter now into minute details upon such a subject as the tenure of land in Ireland. The Lord President to-night has told us that the reason why he does not support the two measures which have been brought before our consideration is, that the season is too late, in his opinion, to venture to ask Parliament to go into their consideration. Well, Sir, I am ready to admit that that is a legitimate reason to be offered by a Minister, and especially by a Minister who leads the House of Commons. Whatever may be the causes of the delay, if a Minister finds that at so advanced a period of the Session as the middle of July, an important question is about to be introduced to Parliament, and that there is little prospect of a satisfactory consideration of it—I say that that plea for procrastination is, primâ facie, a valid plea. But, before I enter into a discussion as to whether it is a valid plea in this case, let me remind the Committee that it is a plea totally inconsistent with that which was offered by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to-night. The noble Lord tells us that this is an important question, that it is a question of great magnitude, but that we are so advanced in the Session that it is impossible to do justice to it. But what says the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant? In point blank contradiction to the Lord President he tells us that this question may be one of great importance and of great magnitude, but that it is brought before us in such a form that upon no condition whatever will the Ministry consent to its consideration. [Sir J. YOUNG: I never said that.] You may not have said it in those very words, but I will ask the Committee, was not that the meaning of the statement of the Chief Secretary? If that were not his meaning, the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of telling us what his meaning was; but it is very unfortunate that we should have discussed this question until this hour, and yet not have arrived at what the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman is. I understood the meaning of the noble Lord to be this—it was offered to us with plainness
206
and straightforwardness, and I am sure that I have no desire in any way to misrepresent him—that this was an important question, but that at this advanced period of the Session he could not ask the House of Commons to consider it with any prospect of it being fairly discussed or satisfactorily concluded. What says the Chief Secretary? I understood the Chief Secretary—and of course I am subject to his correction if I mis-state him—I understood him to say, that whether it be February or July, you are asking the House to legislate upon this important subject upon conditions which he considered at all periods to be unacceptable—that you have declined to legislate upon a most important and indispensable portion of the subject, and therefore he cannot agree with you. The Committee can correct me in a moment if I am mis-stating the right hon. Gentleman, and they can decide in a moment whether the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is consistent with that of the Lord President. Sir, I will not dwell upon this flagrant and glaring inconsistency further, though really, so far as the conduct of the business of this House is concerned, the validity of the noble Lord's plea depends upon other circumstances. But I cannot adopt from the Lord President even his undisputed statement. I agree with him to this extent—that if the Session be so far advanced, as undoubtedly it is, it may be inconvenient to enter into a discussion of one of the most important propositions that ever was submitted to the consideration of a British House of Commons; but why have six months been wasted? What have we been doing these six months that we could not consider and attempt to settle a question, not now introduced for the first time, but years ago, to the consideration of Parliament—a question which for a long series of years has been a subject for the consideration and study of statesmen—which, two years ago, was formally introduced to the consideration of Parliament—which was submitted last year to the consideration of the House of Lords—and which, by special arrangement, in order that no time might be lost, has been, with all the fruits of the mature deliberation of the other House of Parliament, sent back to us this year? One would have thought, considering the gravity and all importance of the subject, considering the period of time that it has occupied the attention of Parliament, considering the special circum-

207
stances under which, after having been introduced to the notice of Parliament, it was submitted to the mature examination and settlement of the House of Lords last year—one would have thought after all this, that the House of Commons this year having sat six months, the Government would have been able to have offered some solution of the question. What have they been doing, I want to know? What have Her Majesty's Ministers been doing the last six months that we have not had this question fairly considered and ably arranged? I want to know what is the catalogue of their legislative exploits which may be an excuse for the period of time which has been thus employed or thus wasted? I want to know, if they have been at war, what conquests they have achieved? I want to know, if they have been at peace, what beneficial arrangements—what advantageous legislation—they have accomplished? Have they reformed Parliament? Have they revised Parliamentary oaths? Have they educated the country? Have they even educated Scotland? What corrupt constituencies have they punished? What have they done which may be a valid excuse for not having dealt with this all-important measure? I should have thought that, instead of moving to report progress, it would have been more satisfactory to the country, and more satisfactory to the feelings of any Minister who pretends to lead the House of Commons, if he had given some reason why six months should have elapsed in which they, having done nothing, should not have done this. Report the progress of these two Bills! Why, Sir, it's too derisive a proposition to be made. Report the progress of the Ministry! Tell us what they have done. Make a Motion to that effect. Report the progress of Her Majesty's Government. Come forward to the table and tell us what Her Majesty's Ministers have done. And that would be a reporting of progress far more edifying and satisfactory, I think, than the Motion which has been made by the Lord President this evening. Well, Sir, if the noble Lord and his compeers have not succeeded yet in dealing with this difficult question—at any rate, vast and difficult as it is, the late Government attempted to deal with it with some efficiency and with all sincerity—what is the prospect which the noble Lord holds out of the future legislation of his Government—if it be a Government—
208
upon this subject? A few nights ago a distinguished Member of the Treasury bench spoke of the conduct of the Gentlemen upon this side of the House—at least, right or wrong, not inconsiderable in number as a party connection, and more important still, in my opinion, for the principles which they profess—he spoke of them as "a party, if they be a party." That was the courteous comment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Well, then, I think if we are spoken of as "a party, if we be a party," that I may speak of the noble Lord and his Friends as "a Government, if they be a Government." But, conducting our debates in a spirit thus mutually provisional, I would ask the noble Lord, who tells you he can do nothing at present, whether he will answer the question of an hon. Gentleman who addressed him from the other benches, and who asked what are the intentions of his Government with respect to the tenure of land in Ireland for the future? I think that that was a very fair Parliamentary question. How it was met I leave the Committee to decide. The noble Lord says that it's a difficult question, and therefore we are not to deal with it. My idea, Sir, of a Government is, that it is a body of men who ought to deal with difficult questions. I know that the Lord President, for a number of years, has, somehow or other, contrived to govern this country— personally speaking, I admit, with admirable ability—for he is a ripe scholar, an adroit debater, in my opinion no common orator—still I think that the secret skill of his administration has always been that he has evaded questions that are difficult. But I do not think that that is a satisfactory answer to the Gentleman who addressed that query. The question may be difficult. In my opinion it is very difficult; but I think that it is the duty of the noble Lord and his Friends—especially when I remember the public expression of their sentiments upon the subject of the tenure of land in Ireland in 1846—I think, I say, that it becomes the noble Lord to be something better than a critic upon his opponents on this subject, and that he ought to do something upon the question of the tenure of land in Ireland beyond reading to us passages from private letters from Lord Lieutenants. Why, the noble Lord has never yet had a difficulty upon Irish politics which he has not attempted to answer by reading a passage from a private letter from a Lord Lieutenant. But, says the

209
noble Lord, "I could retaliate upon this subject. I could remind you what occurred when you had to deal with this question. I could remind you of your consenting to the second reading of the Bill of the learned Serjeant, and of the subsequent speeches which were made condemnatory of that measure in the House of Lords by the Earl of Derby." Sir, if the noble Lord thinks that that is a retaliation he is perfectly welcome to make use of it; but knowing that the noble Lord is one of the most adroit debaters in this House, and that if he has a weakness, it is that he always overstates his own case, and always misstates his opponent's, I am quite sure that the noble Lord could have made a great deal of that point if he had not known that it was utterly worthless and untenable. True it is we did consent to the second reading of the Bill of the learned Serjeant the Member for Kilkenny (Serjeant Shee); but did we agree to the second reading of that Bill because we in any way approved of it? On the contrary, we expressed our disapprobation of it. But when there was a variety of Bills in this House upon the subject of the tenure of land in Ireland which were about to be referred to a Select Committee, we thought that it would be most unfair, and not only most unfair, but that it would justly excite great odium and suspicion in Ireland, if we said, "This Bill shall be shut out from the tribunal, and shall not be submitted to that critical, and searching, and impartial examination which the other Bills upon this subject are to be submitted to." We acted in that instance quite in deference to the highest Parliamentary authorities and precedents; and I believe that nothing would have been more unjustifiable, nothing more unjust, nothing more calculated to provoke suspicion in Ireland, than if we had said, "All these Bills upon the subject of the tenure of land in Ireland shall be submitted to the Select Committee, but we will specially prevent one particular Bill being submitted to the same test and tribunal, because we disapprove of the general principles upon which it is founded." It was in complete consistency with our view on this matter that the Earl of Derby, almost at the same time, in the House of Lords, utterly condemned the principle of that measure. In so doing, allow me to say, he took a course which, if he had only considered what some statesmen consider
210
—influence in this House and the power of commanding votes—he certainly would not have pursued. He took that course in the very teeth of menace, and, because he would not be misunderstood, with the entire consent of his Colleagues; and whatever may be the consequences of that course, I, for one, have never for a moment regretted it. Sir, one of the supporters of the Government who have spoken upon this subject has described the learned Serjeant the Member for Kilkenny as a supporter of the Opposition, or rather he has repudiated the claim of the Government to the support of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Chief Secretary has described the learned Serjeant as not one of those Gentlemen who honour the Government with their support. Well, Sir, I confess, especially at this advanced period of the Session, that I will not enter into the inquiry of who are the Gentlemen who honour the present Government with their support. That is one of those questions which might lead not only to debate, but even to an adjourned debate. I hardly know any question of the present day which might be susceptible of such variety of treatment and of such interminable discussion. Whether, after the longest discussion, it could satisfactorily be proved to the country that there are any Gentlemen who extend to Her Majesty's Government that unbounded confidence which, of course, they may desire, we need not now settle, and I shall leave it as one of those vexed controversies which agitate and perhaps amuse the political world. I want, upon the present occasion that the House and the country—as I think is due to my right hon. Friend, who has acted throughout this business in a manner so honourable, so honest, and, as I know, so single-minded, taking up this question before he ever anticipated being in a responsible position, and finding himself in a responsible position, pressing it upon the attention of the Cabinet with all the energy of which an able man is capable—I want that the House and the country, in deference to him, should clearly understand what we are talking about this evening, and that the noble Lord shall not rise in a thin House with no one present, and think that he is to stifle the expression of Parliamentary opinion by moving that you, Sir, should report progress. Why, Sir, I am in the habit frequently of sitting oppo-

211
site the noble Lord, and taking an humble part in the conduct of the business of this House; I am constantly in the habit of witnessing Motions to report progress which the noble Lord generally most energetically or plaintively opposes; and, in deference to the noble Lord's feelings, I very often exercise the slight influence which I have—the result of kindly feeling, and not of authority—in preventing those Motions for reporting progress. What, therefore, was my astonishment when the Lord President, having fixed this evening with solemn notice for this discussion, moved that you report progress, after hearing from a distinguished Member of the late Irish Government his statement upon this important subject—the most important subject connected with the Government of Ireland—a statement which I am sure made, and which I was witness of having made, a deep impression upon the Committee, followed by a statement of a very different character, and, as I believe, upon the part of the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, producing a very different effect. I am, of course, unwilling to speak with any personal allusion to the statement of the Chief Secretary. It was made at the twilight hour, which, according to Dante, "softens the heart," and may perhaps soften the brain; but certainly, that any man filling a responsible position, and a position of such extreme responsibility as the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, should suppose that those muttered sentences upon such a subject could carry any conviction to a Committee of the House of Commons, or any satisfaction to the country upon this vital question, appears to me to exceed the most sanguine estimate of Ministerial audacity. But, Sir, I say that it is to me most surprising that the Lord President himself, having fixed in the most formal manner the occasion for hearing the statement of the late Attorney General for Ireland, and having listened to the rejoinder of the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, should have got up and said that in the state of the affair there was but one course to take, and, under the circumstances, to move that you report progress—that appears to me to have been a most singular, unauthorised, and indefensible course. Why, Sir, what was the motive of my right hon. Friend in asking permission of the House to make that statement? My right hon. Friend,
212
acting from that impulse of personal feeling which is always respected by Gentlemen in this House, upon whatever side, thought that his honour was impugned, and that the public interest was affected by the course which the Government had chosen to take upon this all-important question. Why, Sir, the sense of honour and self-respect is, after all, the most powerful stimulus that a man has in public life. We all agree in that. But if, in addition to supposing that his honour is wounded by the conduct of the Government in this House, a public man believes, at the same time, that the public service has been grievously injured, then I say that he is fully authorised to make such an appeal as was made by my right hon. Friend to the noble Lord. But what does he make that appeal for? Does a man make that appeal in order that he may get up and merely state his case, and receive a common-place formal and official answer in reply? On the contrary, it is that he may elicit the opinion of this House on the main question; it is that he wishes to ask Gentlemen among whom he lives, and whose opinions—whatever be their political party—he respects, whether they believe that, on a considerable question of his public life he has acquitted himself in an unworthy manner, or whether they believe that the Government of the country has trifled with him in an unjustifiable mode. Is that to be answered by the Lord President getting up and moving that you, Sir, shall report progress? Why, Sir, he might have left that to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford. That would have been consistent conduct on the part of the Government—that would have been in admirable taste—that would have achieved and accomplished in the happiest manner, that which the noble Lord has himself condescended to attempt. I have not, Sir, seen of late in this House that extreme readiness to pass without sympathy or respect over the feelings of eminent Members, who think themselves aggrieved by the conduct of this House or by the Ministry, or by the public circumstances of the day. I have not seen of late any unwillingness on the part of the House to pass by unnoticed, or without giving fair opportunity of explanation, without a decent expression of sympathy, or of opinion of a contrary character if necessary, the conduct or policy of public men when they

213
have appealed to this House. Why, Sir, we had a very important measure—a measure, perhaps, quite as important as the question of the tenure of land in Ireland—long under the consideration of this House and of the country. It was a measure which had certainly excited the sympathies of some, and the alarm and susceptibilities of others, throughout the nation—it was one which might have affected the organisation of political parties—it was in every respect a question of great public interest, and a Member of this House, of great eminence, was connected with that question. The country expected a measure upon that question, as it expects a measure upon the tenure of land in Ireland. Upon the conduct of the eminent man whose name was connected with that measure, depended much more than depends on the labours of my right hon. Friend. Upon the decision of the House on that question depended the fate of parties, and, perhaps, the destinies of Administrations. Well, that was discovered to be a question at the last moment involving difficulties; it was supposed for a long time that it was one which would be easily settled—so easily settled that the Government was formed with the avowed purpose of settling it; but it was discovered to be a very difficult question. Well, Sir, the individual connected with that question, when the hour arrived which could no longer be postponed, and he felt that the measure could not be carried—when he felt, as an honourable man, that the Ministry of which he was a Member might, if that measure were not carried, be subjected to vile imputations—came forward, stated the motives that had influenced his public conduct—placed himself fairly before the country, interested in the character of so eminent an individual, and asked for the verdict of the House. Did anybody get up then, when the Reform Bill was abandoned and say, "The best thing we can do is to move the previous question, and ask Mr. Bouverie to report progress?" On the contrary, the House felt that the individual who appealed to them was justified in appealing to them; and not only justified in appealing to them, but that it was his duty as a man, as a public man, and as a statesman, to enter into the details of the motives that had influenced him, and of the circumstances which had prevented the legislation which he believed to be all-important;
214
and we respected the occasion and the individual. I ask for my right hon. Friend the same treatment, and that the conduct of those who have endeavoured to suppress opinion on this subject, who have endeavoured to place in an insignificant position a most able and estimable man, who in high office endeavoured to fulfil his duty to his Sovereign and his country, shall not be sanctioned or tolerated. My right hon. Friend has, perhaps, too plaintively touched upon the injury to his own private feelings in this matter; perhaps he has dilated a little too much upon the abuse, the odium, and the obloquy to which the fulfilment of his duty has subjected him in his attempt to do that which he thought was politic. Sir, if there be such weakness upon the part of my right hon. Friend, such expressions, in my opinion, ought to increase the feeling in his favour of the House generally; and, for my part, I only respect still more the public man who will manfully and sincerely confess that he is sensible to the power of an unjust attack. I think, however, it would be a wise thing for those who embark in the strifes and struggles of political existence either to be less sensitive, or to conceal their susceptibilities. When my right hon. Friend has been abused as much as some of those who were some time since his Colleagues, we shall hear far less of his complaints to the House than we have to-night. But there is one point in the appeal of my right hon. Friend, on which, from a sense of candour and of justice to Her Majesty's Ministers, I feel it right to express my opinion—that he has been seduced into an excess of sensibility. My right hon. Friend complains of a want of fairness towards him on the part of the Government; they behaved, if we may trust, as almost every one must trust, the expression of his opinion—they behaved with some degree of perfidy. He tells you—and it is a very simple story—that these Bills were submitted to the consideration of the House of Lords; that a Committee of the House of Lords was appointed to examine them; that some of the Members of that Committee were Members of Her Majesty's Government; that the Chairman of that Committee was the Lord Privy Seal; that they examined into the question, and that it was their unanimous opinion that of the three Bills—the one entitled the Tenants' Compensation Bill should not for

215
a moment be encouraged—that it should be thrown aside; that, in deference to the determination of that Committee, another of Her Majesty's Ministers—a Secretary of State—came forward in the House of Lords and adopted two of the Bills as Government measures, and these two were the Bills which had, to a great extent, been matured by the labours of my right hon. Friend; that subsequently, and in due course, these two Bills were brought back to this House; and that after the Committee of the House of Lords, with Members of the Government serving on it, with a great officer of State for the Chairman, had availed themselves, through a prolonged and protracted investigation, of the knowledge, energies, and unwearied assiduity of my right hon. Friend, and had, by their organ in the House of Lords, accepted two of these measures, and had discarded the third as impolitic and incurable, they then sent them down to the House of Commons; that in that House a distinguished, but inferior Member of the Government—the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant—rose in his place, after all this protracted labour and investigation, and senatorial approbation of those measures, and announced that, in consequence of the third Bill having been rejected, the two others approved and adopted by Her Majesty's Ministers in the House of Lords could not be recommended for the sanction of the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend seems to have been touched to the quick by this conduct; it was but natural that he should be so, interested as he was in the subject—having given—and this I beg the Committee to recollect—long hours, and almost years, of study and painful investigation to his subject—having, in office and out of it, devoted thought and heart to its solution—after having placed himself in painful collision with Members of his own party, both in this and in his own country—after having received the confidence of the Lord Privy Seal—after having received the approbation of a Secretary of State, and the unanimous sanction of a Committee of the House of Lords—after having seen his measures passed by that House—he is thrown over scarcely with common respect by the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant. And I think the Committee will sympathise with this distinguished man—the late Attorney General for Ireland—in the disappointment
216
he has expressed. But although I feel that the expression of his opinion was justified, I admit that it was too extreme. My right hon. Friend quite forgets that, however the Government may have behaved towards him, they have only followed the rule which, with admirable impartiality, they have always extended to themselves. He must remember that if they have treated him faithlessly, it is much the same way—so far as we can learn, not only from private report, which is not always right, but from public demonstration, which must ever influence us all—it is, I say, much the same way in which they have conducted themselves towards each other. I think that my right hon. Friend was overcome by a surplusage of sensibility when he complained of the perfidious conduct of the Government towards him, being only a simple Member of the Opposition; for I cannot understand that the process and treatment by which the Reform Bill was postponed differs much from those who have been employed in the settlement of the tenure of land in Ireland. I think my right hon. Friend ought to take that into consideration, and if, before he made this appeal to the Committee—which I candidly admit he made without consulting me—if he had asked the opinion of some of his friends, who regard his honour, and take as much interest in his career as those whom he did consult—if he had asked me—and he is generally kind enough to consult me on the course he pursues—I should have said, "I most earnestly recommend you not to take the course you propose; for, however reasonable such a course may seem to your admirable simplicity of nature, yet I believe it is best that you should forget the treatment you have received, though I can believe that in your case the sense of outrage is infinitely increased by the deep and profound conviction I know you entertain that these measures are admirably calculated to benefit your country." If the case had been thus put to my right hon. Friend, and it had been told him that, in order to conduct the affairs of the country in a Government of such singular material as the present, these little misconceptions must necessarily and perpetually occur—that they are obliged, even among themselves, to make each other withdraw Bills after they have given the most solemn pledges that they would introduce them—and that their administration of the

217
affairs of the country cannot be carried on without habitual perfidy—of course I mean confined to themselves, and not as regards the public, with whom they always accomplish their promises—if all this had been stated to my right hon. Friend before he made this appeal, he would not have done so. He must have felt that appeals of this character to the country at this moment are extremely inconvenient. We are involved in circumstances of great difficulty; this is a great national emergency, and it is of the utmost importance that we should persuade all Europe that we have a powerful Government, supported by a unanimous Parliament; therefore I should have said that if, instead of bringing this appeal forward, my right hon. Friend had, as by the Standing Orders he had the power to do, moved that no strangers should be admitted for the remainder of the Session, so that no report of our proceedings should transpire under any circumstances, I think such a course would have tended to strengthen the Ministry and to consolidate a Government, on whom depends, as at present, so perilous a responsibility. Therefore, I think that my right hon. Friend has, to a certain degree, erred in that particular. But still, if, from these feelings, which will always animate gentlemen, which will make them not stop to speculate upon what is prudent, but upon what is due to their honour and to their public character, my right hon. Friend has thought this appeal necessary, I do believe the House of Commons will sympathise with that appeal so made to them, and that it will not hesitate—not, perhaps, by a formal vote, but at least by that expression of feeling which cannot be misunderstood—to show to my right hon. Friend and to the country, that, whatever may be their opinions upon the main question, they are sensible that, as a public man, he has earnestly endeavoured to do his duty, and that he does not deserve to be treated as he has been treated by Her Majesty's Ministers this evening.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: The question, Sir, as I at first submitted to the House, is a very simple one. I had appointed an important Bill as one of the first Orders of the Day. A right hon. Gentleman, whom everybody respects, thought himself aggrieved by the conduct of the Government upon another subject, and wished to give a personal explanation. I said, if he wished to make any personal explanation, or to
218
bring any charge against the Government, I would postpone other business, however important, in order that he might have that opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman was fully heard; my right hon. Friend near me (Sir J. Young) offered his explanation; and I then thought that, as I had given way to the right hon. Gentleman, sacrificing the progress of an important Bill, the House would consent then to proceed to the proper business of the evening. Some hon. Gentlemen, however, who take a deep interest in this question, spoke upon it, and protracted the debate; but the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has taken another course—he has taken the course of making a party attack upon the Members of the Government with reference not merely to this Bill, but with reference to their general conduct—he has taken the opportunity of referring to a measure, or rather to the course taken with regard to a certain measure, to which he was a party when he was in office, and to which I, not wishing to rouse angry feeling in debate, very likely should not have adverted. However, the right hon. Gentleman has called attention to that subject, and I feel myself obliged to call attention to that subject too, in order that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman may be valued at what it is worth. Mr. Sharman Crawford, when a Member of this House, was in the habit of proposing to introduce a Bill which the Members of my Administration thought contained principles which ought not to be countenanced by the House. We always fairly declared our sentiments on the subject, and either on the proposal to introduce such Bills, or on the second reading, stated our objections fairly. The right hon. Gentleman, when a Member of the Government, thought fit to pursue a different course. There were other Bills introduced by the Attorney General of that Government—the Attorney General for Ireland—and he (Mr. Disraeli) consented that an hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Serjeant Shee) should have leave to introduce his Bill on the same subject. The learned Serjeant and those who supported him were evidently surprised at the concession, but at the same time greatly gratified, as they took it for granted that the Select Committee was fairly to consider that Bill, that its provisions were to be fairly before them, and that the Committee were to consider whether they were just to the landlord and fair to the tenant.

219
But, after having made that concession, which so greatly pleased the Gentlemen interested in that Bill, the Earl of Derby, then the head of that Government—not, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, to satisfy his own views and at the risk of losing support—made a declaration of an opposite character. The fact was, that great alarm was excited in the other House of Parliament. The supporters of the Earl of Derby's Administration there felt that property was in danger by the introduction of that Bill and its second reading. One noble Lord asked a question upon the subject. It was then that the Earl of Derby was understood to have declared that he utterly disapproved the principles of that Bill, that it was not intended seriously to consider them, and that he for one never would sanction the principles contained in that Bill. Why, what did all this amount to? Deception, in the first place, towards those who had proposed the Bill. They were allured by the notion that their Bill was to be fairly considered; and then, after they had obtained that concession, they were told that it was mere deception, that that Bill had been sent to a Select Committee, without any intention of fairly considering its provisions, but had been simply sent there for the purpose of being rejected. I must say I think a more disreputable and more discreditable course on the part of a Government never was pursued than that of allowing a Bill to be read a second time in this House, referring it to a Select Committee, as if it was to be fairly, deliberately gone into, and then assuring the other House of Parliament that it was not to be fairly considered, and that there was no intention whatever of paying the least regard to its provisions, but that the chief of the Government pledged himself to the rejection of all its provisions. Such was the conduct which the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to bring under the notice of this House; and, when I purposely avoided laying any stress upon that conduct, he brings it forward in such a way as to make it absolutely necessary to call to the recollection of the House what that conduct really was. If he thought that that Bill was a fair Bill—that it contained provisions which deserved the attention of this House—it should have been fairly considered in Committee. If, on the contrary, he thought that it contained provisions dangerous to property, the declaration
220
that such was the opinion of the Government should have been made when it was proposed for the second reading. But this was not done, and an attempt was made to gain the favour of those who had always supported the principle of that Bill; but when the Government of Lord Derby found that this conduct had excited the alarm of a numerous body of the Members of the upper House of Parliament, they took a totally opposite view. Such was the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, when in possession of power. He has found great fault with the conduct of Her Majesty's Government during the present Session. But, Sir, it is to be considered that, with regard to the party which the right hon. Gentleman leads, he is in a very peculiar position, and that position very often induces him to pursue a line of conduct which, if his position were not so peculiar, would not, perhaps, be the line of conduct he would pursue. He is the leader of a party who have attached much importance, as regards their credit or their character, to the traditions which belong to that party, and to the maintenance of certain principles to which—whether they are sound principles or not for the Government of the country is not now in question—they are deeply attached. It consequently follows that when any great question comes before the House in which the principle of conservatism or progress is clearly at issue, when any of those questions upon which that party have been always afraid of innovation are at issue, then they are ready to follow the right hon. Gentleman; but if the questions involved nothing of this, or they were questions in which it appeared to them the honour of the country is involved, or if in following up their principles it led to a support of Her Majesty's Government, then that party—whether the right hon. Gentleman will lead them or not—give their fair and hearty support to the Government accordingly. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, finds himself disabled from that course which a leader of Opposition, disapproving of a Government, would naturally pursue—namely, upon some question or other bringing to an issue the conduct of the Government, and whether or not it deserves the support of the House of Commons. He finds himself unable to bring that question to an issue, and the support he would have upon many of these questions would be such as to strengthen the Government

221
which he wishes to overthrow. There is another course, however, which the right hon. Gentleman finds it in his power to take, and that is to lie in wait for Motions which are made by independent Members; and, whatever the colour of those Motions may be, provided there is no great principle involved in them—no immediately disastrous consequences to ensue from the adoption of those Motions—then the right hon. Gentleman has influence with his party—then Gentlemen who have not much attended to the question are ready to follow his lead, and he pursues upon these questions one undeviating course, which is, whatever the question may be, to endeavour to put the Government into a minority, and then take his chance of saying that their measures have failed and that Motions which they opposed have been adopted. I have now stated the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to a measure of much interest when he was in office, and I have stated what has been his frequent conduct since. It is certainly a conduct which is somewhat new to me. [Derisive cheering from the Opposition.] Yes, it certainly is new to me; because, Sir, I have been a Member of a Government which has been opposed by such leaders as Sir Robert Peel and others who preceded him in the lead of the Conservative party. Such leaders, when they found that their opinions induced them to oppose the Government, openly and fairly opposed it, but they never thought of coming down to this House merely to take up any Motion which might be under discussion. If they thought it was a question which did not tend to the transaction of public business, they considered it their duty either to abstain from opposition or give their support to the Government. The right hon. Gentleman, however, thinks that no such duty is incumbent upon him. He seems to consider that Motions in which the character and the institutions of the country are involved constitute a game in which it is perfectly competent to him to embarrass the Government when he can, to utter his sarcasms, to come down with his taunts, and not to consider what important consequences may follow. If the right hon. Gentleman can find that his party will go with him upon a great question—such as I do not say a vote of want of confidence, but any question involving a principle upon which a Government must stand or fall—let him
222
take that course and act as his predecessors have done. But, if there is a question upon which he and his party really are not bound by any principle of theirs to oppose the Government, if, on the contrary, it is a question in furtherance of their principles, let them act with that regard to character and to integrity of conduct which have distinguished their party in former times. I believe that this is one of the causes which has made the conduct of the business of this House what it has been during the later part of the period in which the right hon. Gentleman has been leader of the Opposition. I am not going now to refer to these various questions to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded. Each in its turn was, no doubt, of importance. The Reform Bill, to which he has adverted, I certainly postponed with the greatest reluctance; but I postponed it with the agreement of the majority of hon. Members on this side of the House, and in accordance, I believe, with the general feeling of the country at large. I am not now shaken in my view of the importance of that measure, nor, if I felt myself pledged to yield and to withdraw the Bill, was it at the suggestion of my Colleagues—because I myself, having charge of the measure, was obliged to propose to the Cabinet that I should take the course I did. But I did so, finding it impossible to stand against that general impression which prevailed not only in this House, but throughout the country, that it was not expedient to proceed with it. Sir, I have not on that account at all changed my opinion with regard to the importance of that question, and I feel great confidence that the time will come when those defects which remain in the first Reform Bill will come under the consideration of the House, and when amendments of those defects will be effected. I have only further to say, that, with regard to the right hon. Gentleman who began this discussion, nothing was further from my intention, in moving that the Chairman should report progress, than at all to disparage the speech that he made or the conduct that he has pursued. I cannot conceive that he thought that during the present evening we could make much progress with regard to these Bills. What has happened to these Bills is what has happened frequently, and almost every Session, under various Governments, when in the middle of July it has been found impossible to go

223
into various complicated questions, and to obtain a solution of that which has always been difficult. I therefore do not see that there is any advantage in attempting to pursue these Bills any further. I have already spoken with regard to the merits of the landlord and tenant question in Ireland. I did not say, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, that it was the duty of the Government to leave this question without a solution. What I did say was, and what I believe is, that the most useful measure that could be provided would be a measure giving power and force to voluntary contracts, and a simple remedy for the breach of these contracts. One of the measures of the right hon. Gentleman certainly does contain provision for that purpose, and I trust that before long it will become law. Whether it may be possible to go further than that, and to make compulsory arrangements between landlord and tenant, is a matter upon which I have very great doubts, not merely because it is a difficult matter for legislation, but because I doubt whether legislation upon that subject can be so minute as to act at the same time with efficacy and with justice.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, that though by no means inclined implicitly to follow the Government upon all matters in reference to Ireland, yet he would readily acknowledge that the course pursued by them on the present occasion met his approval. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had introduced these Bills, which were referred to a Select Committee, when the fate of the late Government was on the balance, and astonished the House by declaring in favour of tenant compensation. One of these Bills, however, was, in his (Mr. V. Scully's) opinion, a mere landlords' Bill, which he could never consent to pass as an isolated measure. The whole of the Bills went to a Select Committee, notwithstanding his (Mr. V. Scully's) protest. Lord Derby's Government was then in the balance, and he (Mr. V. Scully) believed there was a bonâ fide intention on their part, therefore, to pass these Bills. The Tenants' Compensation Bill, however, as introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, was an utter delusion. He (Mr. V. Scully) should have been much better pleased if the noble Lord had given some exposition of the intentions of the Government on the subject of these Bills next Session. His reasons for believing the right hon. Baro-
224
net (Sir J. Young) was sincere in his course with regard to these Bills was, that he had sent them bonâ fide to a Select Committee, and that he had manifested a determination to go on with the Tenants' Compensation Bill, but he had reluctantly postponed it at the request of the hon. Member for Kerry. On the 20th of June the Bill was brought forward, and opposed by the worst enemies of Ireland, the Tenant-League representatives in that House, now leagued with hon. Gentlemen opposite. The result of the opposition of the hon. Member for Meath was that the Landlord and Tenant Bill was proceeded with, and it was not until the 21st of July that the Tenants' Compensation Bill could be brought forward, in consequence of the opposition of those hon. Members. The Secretary for Ireland could not do more for any Bills. It was quite impossible that these Bills could pass in August when they went to the House of Lords. They were, therefore, thrown over; and at the opening of the Session, they, in conjunction with other Bills on the subject—seven in all—were referred to a Select Committee of twenty-two Members, most of them in opposition to the Government, or belonging to the Conservative party. This Committee accordingly rejected the Tenants' Compensation Bill, which the hon. Member for Dungarvon had designated as a libellous mass, and which the right hon. Member for Bucks had denounced as impolitic and unendurable. He (Mr. V. Scully) did not concur with the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought it would be more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman had indicated what he would do on the subject when he came into office—an event, of course, looked upon by him as "looming in the future." The Bills coming from the House of Lords were not printed for the House of Commons and delivered until the 9th of June. On the 12th June they were read a second time, at the instance of the right hon. Baronet, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman was absent for some considerable time after, and it was not until the 29th June it became his convenience to come to London. At a late hour of the night of the 29th June the right hon. Gentleman expressed a wish to commit the Bill pro formâ, for the purpose of proposing certain Amendments, and then he adjourned the debate. On that occasion the noble Lord said, the usual courtesy was, to

225
afford the right hon. Member an opportunity of putting the Bill into shape; proving that the Bill was the Bill of the right hon. Member, and not of the Government. On the 11th July the Bill stood on the paper with no less than six closely printed pages of Amendments, containing as many as a dozen new clauses. There were four pages of Amendments by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, and three by another hon. Member. These were to be considered, with 140 clauses of the Bill, and the Tenants' Compensation Bill also. Any man of common sense would see that there was no practical chance of going on with any of these Bills, except the present one, the Landlord and Tenant Bill. The only safe course, therefore, to pursue on the part of the Government was to throw over the Bills altogether; and the only course open to the Liberal Members of that House was to support them. He hoped the noble Lord would consult with those men who were able to give him honest advice as regarded these measures in the future on one side of the House and on the other—such as the hon. Member for Fermanagh, who had a deep interest in the question, and not those men of extreme opinions, who called themselves the leaders on the question, and had no weight in the country. He trusted the noble Lord would not be deterred by anything which he advanced that evening from endeavouring to settle this question. With regard to the attack of the hon. Member for Meath on the Solicitor General for Ireland, who had been compelled to leave London for Ireland that morning on private business, he (Mr. V. Scully) was sure the language indulged in would not have been used had that hon. and learned Gentleman been present.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, with regard to the taunt of the hon. Member (Mr. V. Scully), that the hon. Member for Meath would not have used such language in the presence of the Solicitor General for Ireland, he would refer the hon. Member to the Committee upstairs, where the hon. Member for Meath met the Solicitor General face to face, and there made his accusations. He (Mr. Maguire) was present at a meeting in Ireland when the hon. and learned Gentleman himself took a resolution into his hands, making it more stringent, for the purpose of binding independent Irish Members to resist any Bill on the subject of landlord and tenant which did not em-
226
brace the principle of Mr. Sharman Craw-ford's Bills. The hon. Member for Meath had not obstructed the Tenants' Compensation Bill, but simply wished its postponement until the Landlord and Tenant Bill, an equally important measure, had been considered by the country. The charge of the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. V. Scully) was merely intended to cover the retreat of the Government, whom he (Mr. Maguire) contended should either declare their intentions on this subject or resign their posts. To justify the Tenant League from the aspersions of the hon. and learned Member for Cork would be attaching too much importance to them.
MR. DISRAELI: I do not wish to enter into any personal controversy with the noble Lord; but there is one observation which he made, which, as it concerns the general business of the House, I cannot allow to pass unnoticed. The noble Lord has made some comments on the relation which exists on this side of the House between the Members of the Conservative party and those who have the office of directing their general conduct. It seems to him that they have no confidence in their leaders, and that their leaders have no confidence in them; but, nevertheless, he admits that they are always putting Government into a minority. That is extremely unfortunate for the Government; I admit that that is a very inconvenient result to arise from the anomalous circumstances to which the noble Lord has referred. But I wish to disabuse him of the impression which he seems to have imbibed, that my principal business is to study how we can put the noble Lord in a minority. On the contrary, I can assure him that if he occupied my position under similar conditions, and under the circumstances which now prevail in the political world, he would find that the principal business and duty of the leader of Opposition is to study, if possible, how the Government should not be put in a minority. The noble Lord has made a very strange comment upon this remarkable state of affairs. He says he does not expect that I should propose a vote of want of confidence in the Government. I think he was quite right in that remark, because that is a Motion which ought only to be made under very extraordinary circumstances; and I may say, in passing, that, although quite a constitutional proposition under those circumstances, it is indirectly somewhat

227
interfering with the prerogative of the Crown. The noble Lord says, "I do not expect you to propose a vote of want of confidence in the Government, but you ought to ask the opinion of the House on some great question; and if on that great question the opinion of the House is adverse to that of the Government, Ministers would draw the necessary deduction." But as the noble Lord admits that it is not my province, and that it is not incumbent upon me to propose a vote of want of confidence in the Government, I wish he would have the kindness to inform the House what is the great question which he wishes to be brought forward, and upon which he wishes to obtain the opinion of the House of Commons. Is it a question which concerns the distribution of political power—such as a Reform Bill? or is it a system of National Education? Surely these are great subjects; and, although there are not many subjects of that importance which can be quoted as having been brought before our consideration this year, there have been some other subjects of first-rate Parliamentary importance, the result of having submitted which to the notice of the House has generally been to place the Government in minorities—in considerable minorities—some twelve, fourteen, or sixteen or eighteen times during this Session. I do not say that that is any reason for the noble Lord to take the course which he contemplates as possible under other circumstances and with other persons; but, when he says, "I do not want you to bring forward a vote of want of confidence in the Government, but I wish the opinion of the House to be tested by a decision on some great question," he is bound to tell us, after the experience of the Session, what is the character of the great question which he wants the decision of the House to be asked upon. The noble Lord is laying down a principle applicable to our meetings every day. The noble Lord, disquieted by the phenomena which he observes around, gives vent to his feelings by saying that he is opposed by a body of Gentlemen who have no confidence in their leaders, and whose leaders had no confidence in them. That is fortunate for the Government. It seems to me that, if the contrary were the case—if they were opposed to a party who had confidence in their leader, and whose leader had confidence in them, bad as is the present state of things, the Government would not last out
228
the evening. The noble Lord is fortunate in having that peculiar combination which has, however, produced such disastrous results to the Government. But as the noble Lord has brought forward votes of confidence and votes of want of confidence in a Government, and as he is a constitutional scholar, and on great occasions is accustomed to read the House lectures on constitutional questions, I need not remind the House that generally before the reformed Parliament, which he wishes to reform again, and since the reformed Parliament, whenever any Government has found itself in extreme difficulty—not perhaps in as frequent minorities as the present Government, for in that respect its fortune is peculiar and unprecedented—but whenever any Government has been in frequent and embarrassing minorities, the conduct of the Government has not been to get up in that pettish spirit of which we have had so many instances during the present Session from almost every Member of the Cabinet in the House of Commons, and to taunt us with not bringing forward a Motion or vote of want of confidence in the Government—which I must, in justice, say the noble Lord has never sanctioned, but has in a direct manner disapproved of. But what has been the conduct of the Government in old days? What has been the conduct of the Governments of which the noble Lord during the last twenty years has been, more or less, so distinguished a Member? Why, they have always felt that nothing can be more embarrassing, nothing more inconvenient, nothing more injurious to the Parliamentary constitution of England, than that power should be possessed by men who apparently cannot pass measures and do not possess the confidence of the House of Commons. What, then, have Ministers done? Why, like men of spirit, men who had confidence in their cause and in their standing in the country, who were not squabbling among themselves, and giving up measures like some Administrations of which I have heard—they have gone to some eminent man on their side—such as Lord Ebrington, now Earl Fortescue—and said, "This is intolerable—this in painful—this system of constant minorities—it is painful to us as men of honour; it is much more than that—it is injurious to the Parliamentary constitution of the country—and we call upon you as one of our most distinguished supporters

229
to come forward and test the opinion of the House of Commons, and propose a vote of confidence in the Administration which you uphold and support." Why, Sir, in old days what did the noble Lord do when he was in minorities? He did not get up and make a few observations like those which he has made to-night—for I cannot call it a speech—he did not get up and ask the Chairman to report progress when the conduct of the Government was called in question. No, he went to Lord Ebrington or some other of his supporters, and said, "We will have the question settled at once—it is not for the advantage of the country that this state of things should continue, and we ask you to give a notice in order that we may have the opinion of the House of Commons tested, for we will not be a Government on sufferance?" And that is the course which the noble Lord ought to pursue if he means to have the confidence of the House of Commons proved in the present Government. I would advise him first certainly to consult the Secretary to the Treasury as to whether he has a majority or not. Of course that is a friendly intimation, and he will follow his own discretion. Now, although hon. Gentlemen on these benches do not wish to disturb the present Administration, they consider they have the right of exercising the privilege of opposing measures of which they do not approve. I have said before that I, for one, would never be a Member of an Administration that existed on sufferance. It is not that I depreciate the great sacrifices which right hon. Gentlemen and noble Lords make in the fulfilment of their duty. I think we ought to be very grateful to them for being Members of an Administration on sufferance. I ascribe it entirely to patriotism. What they gave up publicly or privately it is impossible for us to estimate, but I have no doubt we ought all to feel grateful to noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen who endure such multiplied and such continuous mortification. But when we are willing to give the noble Lord credit for patriotism and for no lower feeling, and he and his friends get up and tell us that the confidence of Parliament ought to be tested, I tell him that those who ought to test the confidence of Parliament are Her Majesty's Ministers, and I call upon the noble Lord to do that which he and his predecessors have done before—to ask some of their principal supporters
230
to introduce that question to the House. The noble Lord says that he meets with an opposition which is carried on in a spirit to which he has been unaccustomed. I think that was a most unauthorised observation on the part of the noble Lord. The noble Lord says that Sir Robert Peel did not do this, and that other leaders of Opposition did not do that. I know pretty well the career of Sir Robert Peel in opposition, having sat on the same benches with him for many years, and having read the history of his political career when I was not a Member of Parliament; and I ask the noble Lord to adduce any period when Sir Robert Peel conducted an opposition, when he had to encounter a Ministry which, on the average, was in a minority twice a week? Why, the Opposition is now carried on by other parties. With the exception of the divisions on the University Bill—some of those divisions having been originated by Gentlemen who are habitual, if not avowed, supporters of the Government—every division on which the Government have been placed in a minority have originated with those who formerly sat on their own benches. I, therefore, protest against the opinion which the noble Lord has stated. If he wishes the confidence of the House in the Government to be tested, he is bound to ask one of his supporters to originate a Motion for that purpose. I do not want the opinion of the House of Commons to be tested, or else I would ask the House to express an opinion on the subject. I do not wish to disturb the Government. I admire their powers of sufferance. I am willing, as one of a grateful community, to do justice to their patriotism. Sir, when the Coalition Government was formed, I was asked how long it would last, and I ventured to reply, "Until every Member of it is, as a public character, irretrievably injured."
House resumed; Committee report progress.

STAMP ACTS.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee; Mr. BOUVERIE in the Chair.
On the first Resolution, increasing the stamp duties on leases,
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to have some explanation of the objects of the proposed changes in the stamp duties. What was the kind of property that the Government intended to affect,

231
and what was the amount of additional revenue which they expected to gain? At present leases were subject to a low stamp duty, and conveyances in fee to a high duty, and he understood that one object of the proposed changes was to equalise these duties. He thought, however, that this should be done by lowering the duties on conveyances in fee rather than by augmenting those on lease; for the result of the latter plan, which was that embodied in the schedule annexed to this Resolution, would be that a heavy duty would be imposed upon that description of property which was the least fitting subject of taxation—the small plots of land sold on building leases.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he objected particularly to the proposed schedules of duties on leases, which would injuriously affect a large community in the manufacturing districts—the members of building societies. The schedules of the present Bill were equally absurd and blundering with those of the Stamp Amendment Act of last year. For instance, the duty on a lease of 100 years was to be 3 per cent, and on a lease of 1,000 years was to be 6 per cent, although the value of each was practically the same. Last year the Stamp Duties Bill was so blundered that it was necessary to bring in a Bill to amend it as to counter-parts of conveyances, and another Amendment Bill as to progressive duties. He pressed it upon the Committee whether it was right, after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had abandoned the excessive duties on this class of conveyances, to reimpose such duties? It was unjust to tax long leases heavily in order to relieve chief rents in fee. He should propose an Amendment in conformity with the determination taken on a former occasion, and should divide the Committee against the Resolution.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "if the term shall not exceed 100 years."
MR. J. WILSONsaid, at present the same stamp was applicable to every lease for whatever period it was granted, so that a lease for three years paid the same amount as a lease for 999 years. The stamp upon a lease was equivalent to ½ per cent upon the rent. Upon a conveyance it was equivalent to ½ per cent upon the value; and, taking the value at twenty-five years' rent, its relation to the stamp upon the lease would be as 25 to 1. It would be 12½ per cent in one case against
232
½ per cent in the other. There were two kinds of conveyance. One was for money paid down, the other was for a perpetual annuity. These last were very common in the neighbourhood to which the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Hadfield) belonged. They were taken for the purposes of building; a perpetual rent-charge was reserved; but they were as much conveyances in fee as if the whole purchase money had been paid at once. The hon. Gentleman complained that, although he could take a lease for 999 years, and be taxed only at the rate chargeable upon other leases, he could not take a conveyance in fee to be paid for by an annuity at the same rate. His object, therefore, was to reduce the stamp upon conveyances where the consideration was an annuity, but not where it was a sum of money. The Government made this proposal entirely with a view of meeting an apparent discrepancy in that part of the country to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, but without having any wish or disposition to press it on the Committee. It appeared to them, however, that there was a great difference between a mere occupation lease, which was granted for the purpose of business, and a lease for 999 years, which to all intents and purposes might be called a conveyance in fee, since the reversion was worth nothing. They proposed, therefore, that leases for any period not exceeding thirty-five years should pay the same stamp duty as at present; where the term was more than thirty-five, and less than 100 years, it was proposed to charge 3s. per cent, and where it exceeded 100 years 6s. per cent. The hon. Gentleman wished to adopt the lower part of this scale, and to reject the higher; and having done that, he wished to put conveyances in fee for chief rents upon the same term as leases. The tenure, however, was the same as if the money were paid down; there was the same freehold, the same right of property, and what would the purchaser for money say, if the purchaser for an annuity were placed, in relation to taxation, upon so very different a footing? He believed that the effect of the change upon the revenue would be very slight, but there was more likely to be a trifling loss than any gain.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Resolution."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 36: Majority 84.

233
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Remaining Resolutions agreed to.
House resumed.

TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE, &c. BILL.
Order for Committee read; House in Committee.
The clauses having been agreed to,
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he wished to propose a clause of which he had given notice. Under the provision of the Act the Commercial Road was the only one liable to be rated to the poor rate, and that liability having been confirmed by a recent decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, an application had been made to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the subject, who, however, expressed an opinion that the matter should be dealt with by private Bill; but he (Sir W. Jolliffe) conceived that the only proper way to remedy the grievance complained of was to bring the road under the operation of the General Turnpike Act, and therefore he now asked the Committee to agree to the insertion of the present clause.
MR. WRIGHTSONsaid, he should support the introduction of the clause, which he believed would have a very useful tendency.
MR. FITZROYsaid, he must oppose the clause on the grounds that the Committee ought not to decide upon a question of this kind upon a mere ex parte statement, and without hearing the other side.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEconsented to withdraw the clause for the present, but would propose it again on the third reading.
House resumed; Bill reported.

YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Bill read 3°.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he wished to ask whether the Bill was intended to apply to the whole of the kingdom, including the county of Middlesex, as he was anxious that the inhabitants of that county should have the advantage which would be conferred by the measure? He also desired to know whether there would be any objection to insert words empowering the Home Secretary, if he thought fit, to remove juvenile offenders from one reformatory school to another?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON, in reply to the last question, said, that it would be no use to insert the words suggested by the
234
noble Lord, as the power of the Home Secretary to remove juvenile offenders was undoubted. The Bill was intended to apply to the whole of the kingdom.
MR. J. O'CONNELLthen proposed a clause, providing that the clergy of all denominations should have access to the juvenile offenders during the week, subject to such regulations as the authorities might make, and should be at liberty to perform divine service on Sundays.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he must oppose the clause as unnecessary, and as one which, if insisted upon, would cause the Bill to be lost. It was very similar to a clause which was recently expunged from a Bill in the other House.
Clause brought up, and read 1°.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 69: Majority 46.
Bill passed.
The House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Acknowledgment of Deeds by Married Women; Commons In-closure (No. 2); Court of Chancery.
2a Merchant Shipping.
3a Oxford University; Cruelty to Animals.

THE SLAVE TRADE ON THE COAST OF CIRCASSIA.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDclaimed the indulgence of their Lordships while he put a question to the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, of which he had given him notice, and which was one of great interest to the public. He had to recall to their Lordships' recollection that there had appeared in the public journals within the last few days a series of statements, which would lead their readers to imagine that the first effect of the deliverance of the Circassian coast from the Russian domination had been to revive there, in its worst form, that greatest curse with which the human race had ever been afflicted—the slave trade. A correspondent of one of the morning journals wrote as follows—
"At present the only trade that may said to be carried on here is that in women, and that seems to be extraordinarily active at present, from the large prices obtainable in Constantinople, and the removal of all obstacles. I have been told from good authority that a girl bought for 15 purses here, is sold in Constantinople for 40. Numbers of little boats arrive all along the coasts from Trebizonde almost every day. They haul themselves up on the beach and spread the sails on the sides of the boat to form tents; here the captain sits, and the natives bring down to him their girls to exchange against his cargo, which generally consists of calicoes, prints, and other stuffs, and of salt. There is no money in the country, so that all the bargains are struck with reference to so many pieces of calico, each piece being called a 'mall;' one 'mall' is worth about 15 s., and 25 'malls' make a Turkish purse.'"
Another correspondent wrote—
"I regret to state that the slave trade is greatly on the increase here. Every boat that arrives from the ports of Abasia brings in eight or ten girls or boys destined for the Constantinople market. It is right to add, that when the coast was blockaded by the Russians this traffic necessarily ceased. But now that communications with Trebizonde are free, the rush to dispose of daughters, sons, sisters, &c., is immense. I hope that our Government at home will bear this in mind, and put an end to such ill-practices. I regret, also, to mention that the Austrian steamers do not raise objections to convey the slaves to Constantinople, and every boat takes 80 or 100 down."
Now, he thought it was of great moment

123
to call their Lordships' attention, and that of Her Majesty's Government, to such a statement as that; because, although happily at present the great and necessary war in which this country was engaged, was highly popular, there was no reason why, if it was of long continuance, it should not share the same fate of all the wars in which England had been ever embarked, and become eventually unpopular; and he was sure their Lordships would agree with him in the opinion, that it would be a great misfortune if the objects for which the war was undertaken were left unaccomplished at its termination. On the other hand, he conceived nothing would tend more to the creation of such an unhappy feeling in the public mind of the country than a belief that the very first effect of the arrival of our arms off the coast had been to revive this abominable evil. He thought, however, it would tend greatly to quiet the minds of many throughout the country if Her Majesty's Government were able to say that their attention, at least, had been given to the subject, and that whatever might have been the first effect of the demolition of the Russian forts, it would be no fault of England. He was sure that the minds of the great mass of the people of this country would be not a little misguided if they were led to believe that the first effect of a war, undertaken in the name of justice and righteousness, and for the protection of the liberties of Europe, was to perpetuate and increase in Turkey the worst evil to which humanity could be exposed.
THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, he had read the paragraph to which the right rev. Prelate had alluded with sentiments of horror and repugnance similar to those to which he had given utterance, and he certainly was not surprised that his right rev. Friend, with his well-known feelings upon this subject, and with his hereditary claims to advocate the cause of the slave, should have drawn the attention of their Lordships and of Her Majesty's Government to the subject. Their Lordships were well aware of all the features of what he might term the social system of Turkey, and they need not, therefore, be told of the extreme difficulty that existed of inducing a Mahomedan Government to entertain seriously the question of the abolition of this horrible traffic. But he could assure their Lordships that the efforts of Her Majesty's Government, as well as those of
124
other Governments, had been directed to the subject, and, although Her Majesty's Ambassadors at Constantinople had stated reasons why they feared the abolition of this traffic amounted almost to an impossibility, yet, two or three years ago, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, acting upon instructions received at the time from Lord Palmerston, did bring the matter formally and seriously before the attention of the Ottoman Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; but he regretted to say that Lord Stratford did not consider he could afford any reasonable hopes that such interference upon the part of foreign Governments would be successful, because of the habits and customs of the Ottoman people. With regard, however, to any particular information possessed by him on the subject, he was unable to tell his right rev. Friend whether the description he had communicated this evening to their Lordships was correct or not, or whether the statement was well founded that the trade had greatly increased since the withdrawal of Russian troops from the coast, or whether the description merely referred to the ordinary traffic. However, even since his right rev. Friend had given notice of his intention to put his question, he had seen a despatch which had arrived from Admiral Dundas, saying that his attention had been called to the subject, and that consequently most strict orders had been sent to the officers commanding Her Majesty's forces on the coasts of Georgia and Circassia to intercept and prevent by all friendly means the continuance of the traffic; and, what was of more importance, Admiral Dundas said, that having ascertained that Schamyl was unfavourable and hostile to the trade, Her Majesty's officers had received orders to communicate with him and with his deputies, in order to concert together measures for its suppression, and prevent its continuance. That, then, was the first opportunity which Her Majesty's Government had had of directly interfering in reference to the traffic, but he hoped he need not assure their Lordships that no effort would be wanting on their part to effect its entire suppression as soon as possible.

COUNT PAHLEN—RUSSIAN SUBJECTS IN LONDON.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid: My Lords, I trust I may claim your indulgence while I make a very short statement on a subject personal to myself, arising out of a charge

125
to which—from the place in which it was made—it would be irregular for me to refer more particularly. I have been accused, and it has been imputed to me as a grave offence, of having introduced into English society, and presented to an English club, a Russian subject—the subject of a country with which we are at present at war. Count Pahlen, my Lords, a Russian subject, is at this moment in this country. I believe he is well known to several of your Lordships; his high character, his accomplishments, and his partiality for this country, are also well known. He has come here, not from Russia, not from any part of the Continent, but from Madeira, where he has been spending the winter for the advantage of the climate. I believe he has never been employed in any capacity by his Government; but he has spent the greater part of his life in travelling in various parts of the world, and this country he has visited repeatedly. His object in coming here at this time is to settle some small pecuniary matters, but principally to take leave of those intimate friends whom he has here, before that, which at his age, and under present circumstances, may be a final separation from them. As to the charge of introducing Count Pahlen into English society, I think I need only say, that at the time of my birth he was an intimate friend of my father, of the Duke of Wellington, of Earl Grey, and of a great many of the most distinguished men in this country. Since the earliest time that I can remember I have received kindness from that gentleman, and I have always seen him treated with the greatest respect by those on whose judgment I have been taught most to rely. On his arrival here I invited him to my house, and I signed, as I have frequently done before, the printed form of recommendation, on the receipt of which it is usual for the Committee of the Travellers' Club to invite strangers as visitors to the club. That my conduct has not been distasteful to that society, I infer from the fact that in the space of one short ride along Pall Mall yesterday not less than twenty members of the club stopped me to express their indignation at the complaint which had been made. I have stated thus much to show the character of Count Pahlen's visit here, and that, from the somewhat exceptional position which he holds, he has strong claims to courtesy and civility from the members of English society with whom he has been so long in honourable relation; but I may, perhaps, be allowed
126
to say a few words upon the more genera question. I entirely deny that it is not justifiable on the part of an Englishman to treat with civility and kindness the subject of a foreign Power, even when we are at war with that Power. The cases to the contrary are numerous on both sides, even during the late war, when the struggle was so intense, and when so many new restrictions were imposed on international intercourse. The law of nations in times of war was originally barbarous and unchristian in the highest degree; but, as civilisation advanced, mitigations have taken place from time to time in the severity of that code. The office which I lately had the honour to hold gave me the opportunity of taking a humble part in the modification of our own practice in time of war. Those modifications have received the almost unanimous approval of this country and the sanction of public opinion all over the world. My Lords, it must be the interest of all civilised nations to mitigate, as far as possible, the evils of war; but, if it is the interest of any country, it is especially the interest of this country, which has connections and subjects all over the world, and even at this very moment in Russia itself. The only limit I know to such mitigation is, that we should not diminish our own power of carrying on the war with vigour, and therefore of bringing it to a speedy conclusion; but I ask your Lordships, whether civility to an individual stranger in this country, where everything is as open as noonday, can in the slightest degree weaken our means of attack or strengthen our enemy's means of defence? For my own part it appears to me that, if a perfectly faithful statement were taken to the Emperor of Russia of the material state of this country at the present moment, and of the feelings which animate every class of society with which at least I am in the slightest degree acquainted, such an account would not lead that Monarch to take a more favourable view of the probable issue of the war than he does at present. But, my Lords, as I have been accused of acting, not only in an unbecoming, but also in an illegal manner, it is some consolation to me to be able to say, that I have the sanction of the highest authority living in international law for every proposition which I have taken the liberty of laying before your Lordships. As a mere individual Member of your Lordships' House, I might, perhaps, have thought it impertinent—if I may use such a word—to trouble your Lordships with

127
any observations arising out of this subject; but, looking to the official position which I hold, and to the effect which any misrepresentation might have on our national relations, I thought it right to trouble your Lordships with this short statement; and I hope I sit down cleared, in your Lordships' opinion, of having acted improperly or unbecomingly, either as a servant of Her Majesty or an individual Member of your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, although I think that my noble Friend has somewhat exaggerated—has stated more strongly than he need—the remarks which appear to have been made against him upon this subject, I am very glad that he has brought it before your Lordships, that the country may see that on both sides of the House there is no sympathy with the remarks which have been made, offensive to the noble Earl, and offensive to a high and honourable gentleman, who has for a few days enjoyed the hospitality of this country. I can only say that for my own part I regretted to see those observations made both in a public journal and in another place. I have had the honour of knowing Count Pahlen for many years. He is, perhaps, more interested in, and has a greater partiality for, this country, than any other foreigner whom I ever knew. I know that the whole occupations of his life, his private tastes, and his love of travelling, remove him entirely from diplomatic or political questions, in which he takes only that interest which every intelligent person must take in the questions which are being discussed at the present moment; and I cannot conceive how any exaggeration could have seen, in his presence, any danger to the interests of this country. Your Lordships know that I am personally an eager advocate for the vigorous prosecution of this war, which I consider both just and necessary; but your Lordships will do me the justice to say, that in this House I have never used language which may be construed, even by those partial to the Russian Government, as implying abuse either of Russian statesmen and diplomatists, of the manner of their performing their duties, or of the Russian nation itself. I have heard the word "barbarous" used in this House as applying to Russia, and I should be anxious that all foreigners should think that when we use that adjective it is applied not to the persons of the Russians as being Russians, but to their mode of
128
Government as compared with ours. We all know that there are many Russian gentlemen of most accomplished and polished manners and understandings. The gentleman who has been alluded to is one, and we have seen others in this country who are models of the intelligence and the high feeling—who are too well known to your Lordships to make any language necessary to prove how unjustly the word "barbarous" can be applied to them, or indiscriminately to the country and people they represent. That the Russians are not barbarous has been proved by the conduct of their generals. I know nothing more touching, and have read nothing in history more gratifying to our feelings of chivalry and Christianity, than the behaviour of the Governor of Odessa, General Osten Sacken, and his most amiable wife. I believe your Lordships know how the General himself behaved towards the prisoners, and how his lady behaved to their wounded officers and the poor boy who had fallen into the power of the Russians. I am glad to have said what I have done, because, although no one can more strongly feel anxiety for the carrying on of this war with the whole force and vigour of this country, though no words that I can use can express my desire that Her Majesty's Government should continue it, yet I should be sorry that in an Assembly which I may call the highest, and which, I believe, is certainly the oldest Legislative Assembly in the world, language should be used which should cause misapprehension on this subject, or that our feelings upon the point to which my noble Friend has called the attention of your Lordships should be misunderstood and misconstrued.
VISCOUNT STRANGFORDsaid, that he could boast of forty-two years' intimacy with Count Pahlen, and considered the friendship of such a man a legitimate subject of congratulation.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It is scarcely necessary for me to occupy your Lordships' time in rising to bear my cheerful testimony to the worth and merit of that distinguished gentleman, whose friendship noble Lords on both sides of the House seem mutually desirous to acknowledge and to boast of. I can only say, that I myself have personally had the advantage of knowing Count Pahlen for the last thirty years, and a man more distinguished in society I do not know, or one who has made himself more respected and esteemed in every way. Under all

129
circumstances and at all times during the period I have had the pleasure of knowing him, I can truly say that all my experience of his character and conduct leads me to speak in the highest terms of both; he is a gentleman who, from the habits and tendencies of his mind, has kept himself peculiarly free from political occupations. He is really a citizen of the world, and as one of those many foreign and distinguished men who have a taste for the society of our countrymen, I believe him entitled to our high consideration and esteem. I am one of those, my Lords, who think that in a time of war, equally as in a time of peace, there should be men who form as it were the connecting links of society, and who exert the vigour of their minds, the purity of their intentions, and the greatness of their genius, in unison with the intelligence of the great and learned men of all other countries, as well as their own, to combine, and, as opportunities occur, to diffuse the blessings of civilisation to the different nations of the world, and this in the face of, and independently of war.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that the highly respectable gentleman to whom reference had been made needed no testimony from him, after what had fallen from noble Lords on both sides of the House. With all that had been said in praise of Count Pahlen he most heartily concurred. He rose principally for the purpose of declaring how entirely he concurred with his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne), that it was a most excellent thing that we should, as far as it was possible, mitigate the inevitable horrors of war by not imposing more restraints upon private and personal intercourse than the necessities of war rendered imperative. It was a great mistake to suppose that such intercourse of a few individuals was in any way a modern invention. Until the Emperor Napoleon, then First Consul of France, took the step which he did in 1803, that intercourse was most usual during the whole course of a war of extraordinary violence and excitement between the parties; and even after the breaking out of hostilities in 1803 there were numerous, though not so frequent, instances of Frenchmen being allowed to remain in this country, and of Englishmen remaining in France, with the proper passports, and under the proper restraints and superintendence, but still being allowed freely to inhabit the two countries. He had him-
130
self known many instances of this. It was not even in modern times, and in the more mitigated form of war alone, that this had prevailed. It was known to their Lordships that, even in the dark ages, there were great exceptions as regarded individuals to the rule which excluded the intercourse of people in time of war. He had only to remind their Lordships of a distich, which, though not very classical, expressed a much more amicable feeling than classical times frequently exhibited:—
"Clericus, agricola, mercator tempore guerræ
Movetque, colat, commutet, pace fruantur."
This showed that we acted for our own interest in thus mitigating the severities of a state of war; and he thought it would be equally to our interest to extend still further that mitigation.
THE EARL OF CARLISLE: I have had the pleasure of knowing Count Pahlen for many years, and of meeting him in many countries and under various circumstances, and I am enabled to say that I never met a man who, while having due regard to the interest of, and attachment and affection for his own country, became entitled so much to the respect of every other country that he visited. I have the greatest pleasure in bearing my testimony, as a sincere friend, to his goodness and worth.
LORD CAMPBELLrejoiced that his noble Friend (Earl Granville) had been induced to say what he had upon this subject, and thought that his noble Friend had not had due credit for the exertions which he had used to effect the improvement that was required in the law of nations. There was no doubt that the laws of this country said, that a contract with an enemy was an unlawful contract; but no one ever could suppose that such an enactment was intended to apply so as to forbid the indulgence of the ordinary civilities of private life with the subject of a foreign country with which we might be at war, and that the encouragement of such civilities could in any way be construed as treason, misprision of treason, felony, or misdemeanor. He considered that the noble Earl had been very improperly assailed on this subject, and he thought too much praise could not be bestowed upon aim for his exertions in mitigating the restrictive laws of warfare. We talked much about law reform; now this branch of the law had received an unspeakable improvement since hostilities began; because, preserving our right of blockade, preserving our right of preventing contraband of war

131
being imported into an enemy's country, we had given a great accession to our strength as well as to the commerce of the world, by saying that free bottoms should make free goods.
THE EARL of ELLESMEREsaid, that his imagination could suggest to him only two grounds on which any person could entertain apprehensions concerning the presence of this distinguished foreigner in our country. One was that he was employed as a diplomatic agent to the Government. That imputation Her Majesty's Government had fully answered, and he was sure that the experience of the noble Lords on the opposite side who had spoken would show them how unlikely it was that Count Pahlen should be here in such a capacity. The next imputation would be more offensive—namely, that he was here as a spy. An intimacy of thirty-four years' standing would prevent his (the Earl of Ellesmere's) believing for a moment that such an employment was consistent with the high character of that gentleman; but assuming that he was employed in that capacity, he said that it would be the interest of this country and the duty of their Lordships to retain him in this country altogether rather than to dismiss him, to give him access to all the clubs, and to all the information that society could afford him; for what lesson would he carry back to his own country? We were told the other day with perfect truth and justice, in a speech delivered by a very distinguished servant of the Crown, upon a public occasion, that much of the misfortunes of this unhappy contest originated in the ignorance of the Sovereigns of the Continent. He believed that to be the root of the matter. What, then, would be the report of an intelligent Russian as the result of a mission to this country? Is there anything which we should seek to conceal from his knowledge? Would he not tell his Sovereign that the people of this country are rallying round its standard with a unanimity which could never have been anticipated by those who do not understand our institutions and our habits? Would he not tell him that an alliance, which he doubtless thought would never come to pass, now appeared to promise immutability, if that term might be applied to any human institutions? And if this were so, would not the lesson he had learnt as to what he had seen and what he had heard be such as we could allow him safely to carry home to his Sovereign? These were the lessons which even a three
132
weeks' residence in this country would enable Count Pahlen to carry back to his Sovereign, and he should very much regret the withholding of such lessens from the Sovereign of Russia.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, after what has passed and the observations which have been made from all parts of the House relative to Count Pahlen—and in which, as far as they personally affect that gentleman, I cordially join—it will scarcely be necessary for me to assure your Lordships that Count Pahlen has not arrived in this country on a secret mission to me—a notion which has been, I hope, not seriously entertained, but at any rate put forth and asserted by those who oppose the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government generally, and mine in particular. ["Name!"] The authority I refer to is that of a newspaper which it is very well known is the organ of the noble Lords opposite. ["No, no!"] Well, then, in connection with the name of this Russian gentleman, and to show the truth of such authoritative statement, I beg to assure your Lordships that, although for the last forty years I have been a more intimate friend of Count Pahlen than I have been of his Sovereign, yet, notwithstanding this friendship, until I was made aware of the attack which has been made upon my noble Friend (Earl Granville), I had not even heard that Count Pahlen was in this country.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYmoved the second reading of this Bill, the provision of which he stated, and said that, in asking their Lordships' assent to the second reading of this measure, he would remind them that within the last few years most important alterations had been made in the laws regarding merchant shipping. He was sure that their Lordships would feel pleasure in being informed that these alterations had been attended with the greatest benefits, and that the measure of last year had relieved the merchant shipping of this country of about 100,000 l. of dues. There was a balance of 70,000 l. remaining in the marine department of the Board of Trade, and there was a sum of 50,000 l. expected to be added to that amount in the course of the present year, which would enable the Government to make further reductions. By

133
the Bill recently passed for opening the whole of the coasting trade to the shipping of all countries further advantages had been gained. And their Lordships, he was sure, would agree with him in the opinion that the mercantile marine of this country had never shown greater activity and greater energy than at the present moment, or a greater desire to construct vessels of the highest class and on the most scientific principles of naval architecture. Above all, their Lordships would feel still greater satisfaction at the fact that there never was a period when the remuneration of those who were spending their capital and energies in those works was so great as at present.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
LORD CAMPBELLconcurred in the general objects of this Bill, which he thought would be attended with beneficial results. With regard to the liability of shipowners in case of accidents, he was in favour of limitation to the value of the ship, but would reserve his consideration of the mode proposed till they got into Committee. There were nearly 600 clauses in the Bill, which would require very careful consideration on the part of their Lordships.
LORD COLCHESTERwas highly favourable to the principle of consolidating the laws affecting our mercantile marine, and was glad that the whole subject had been brought before them in this Bill. It dealt with no fewer than eleven different branches connected with shipping, and there could be no doubt of the benefit that would be derived from having all these matters brought under one Act of Parliament. There were one or two points on which he thought amendments might be made, and these he would submit to their Lordships when the Bill went into Committee. He thought this measure would be of the greatest possible benefit to all connected with our mercantile marine.
On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

NEW FOREST BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he desired to call their Lordships' attention to the present state of the forest. Notwithstanding all the legislation that
134
had taken place upon this subject within the last five years, he was sorry to say that the state of feeling in the forest was worse than he ever remembered it to have been before. It had been supposed that the destruction of the deer would tend to improve the morals of the people; but so far from that having this result, it appeared to have had a contrary effect, for there had been no fewer than twenty-one incendiary fires in various parts of the New Forest between February and May last. This would give their Lordships an idea of the state of feeling which existed. The fact was that the laxity which had prevailed for a great number of years—he might say for upwards of a century—with respect to the rights of the commoners and of the Crown, had been followed by a sudden and severe reaction, and the consequence of this reaction had been that a vast number of those people had been stopped from exercising rights which for many years before they had been allowed to exercise without any molestation. Their Lordships would see that at this moment, when coals were 25 s. per ton, turf was extremely valuable, and the right of cutting it was a matter of considerable importance, not merely to rich proprietors and their tenants, but also, and more particularly, to the poor. If his noble Friend opposite would consent to introduce a clause, preserving the right of turbary to those who had enjoyed it before the year 1800, it would let in a great number of persons who were now excluded, and would be received as a very valuable boon. He was particularly anxious, also, that in a country remarkable for its beauty no useless destruction of timber should take place; and he wished to call the attention of the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government to the fact—which a noble Friend of his upon the cross-benches (the Duke of Buccleuch) would corroborate—that within the last two or three years some magnificent trees had been cut down, which were perfectly valueless, either for sale or ship-building, and could only have been felled through carelessness; and to express a hope that such orders would be issued as that a repetition of this might be prevented.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHcould assure their Lordships that in one particular instance a clump of trees had been cut down, which was not only an ornament, but a landmark in that country. Every single tree had been swept away, and a

135
remarkable feature of the country, to which the inhabitants were very much attached, entirely destroyed. These trees were wholly valueless for ship-building; and having had considerable experience in the management both of old and young timber, he would venture to say, as an additional reason why these trees should have been left standing, that it was very important to the growth of young timber that a sufficient quantity of old timber should be left for shelter, and to check the violence of the wind.
THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, this was the first he had heard upon the subject referred to by the noble Earl opposite, and by his noble Friend upon the cross-benches (the Duke of Buccleuch). He did not know at what time this destruction had taken place, but, whenever it was, he should regard such proceedings as had been described as amounting to wanton destruction instead of being a proper administration of the forest affairs. It never could be the object of the Government, or anybody having the management of the forest, to sanction a proceeding of that kind; and he could only assure the noble Earl that although his noble and learned Friend behind him (Lord Lyndhurst) considered him a "rock" and a "stone" in public matters, with respect to this question of old timber he had a very tender heart indeed.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwas understood to consent to the introduction of a clause preserving the right of turbary to the houses which had enjoyed it before 1800, limiting the right, however, to cutting for use, and not for sale, and at the same time providing for the protection of the herbage.
On Question, agreed to; House in Committee accordingly; Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received to-morrow.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.
THE EARL OF CARLISLEsaid, in the discussion which had taken place on Tuesday on the report upon this Bill, it had been stated, and he believed more than once, that he had expressed a wish that the new private halls should be "retreats" for Dissenters. Now, he was not prepared to say that his words had been incorrectly quoted, but he did mean to say that his meaning had been inaccurately conveyed.
136
His wish was—in accordance with the clauses introduced by the House of Commons, and happily adopted by their Lordships—that Dissenters should be admitted to the advantages of a University education; and his next wish was, that they should be infused into the general body of college students, among whom, both as regarded their general conduct and their religious feelings and habits, he did not anticipate they would appear to any disadvantage. That was what he thought would be a preferable course—that they should be infused into the general body, and admitted into the present colleges and halls. But he understood that it had been intimated by the noble Earl the Chancellor of the University that he thought it probable that the authorities of the present colleges and halls might impose conditions on the Dissenters who might be admitted which would be incompatible with their religious convictions—for instance, the compulsory attendance on divine worship, although he admitted that it would not necessarily be so. Now, he conceived that, in the new private halls, the same rigid adherence to existing rules and to existing customs and observances might not be so strictly exacted; and in that case, but in that case only, he expressed a wish that these halls should serve as retreats—he would not shrink from the word—that they should serve as retreats as well for Dissenters themselves as for that liberty of conscience which had been thus far given to them.
On Question, agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRE LAND) BILL, AND LEASING POWERS (IRELAND) BILL.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, the day before yesterday I gave notice that to-day I would call the attention of the Government to two Bills which were sent up from this House to the House of Commons on the 26th of May last. I mean the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill, and the Leasing Powers (Ireland) Bill. In order to make myself clearly understood it will be necessary to go back to what took place on this subject last year. Your Lordships will recollect that when my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) was at the head of the last Administration he caused three Bills to be framed on this subject, which were intended, if possible,

137
to quiet the agitation which had taken place in Ireland with regard to tenant-right; but before he could bring these Bills before Parliament in such a shape that they could be discussed, a change of Government took place. Subsequently, as your Lordships are aware, these Bills were referred to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, who altered them into various shapes. The first two Bills, namely, the Landlord and Tenant Bill and the Leasing Powers Bill, although changed from the form in which they were framed by the Earl of Derby's Attorney General for Ireland, still retained so much of the spirit which he intended should be infused into them that when they were again brought forward in their altered shape by the present Government, the Members of the late Government thought it right to continue to support them, and voted that your Lordships should go into Committee on them. With regard to the third Bill, the Tenants' Compensation Improvement Bill, which the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Newcastle) endeavoured to include with the others for our adoption, the alteration effected was so great that we refused to have anything to do with it. Mr. Napier, on reading it in its altered shape, said to me that he could not accept the paternity of it; and in this House I myself stated to the noble Duke, in the name of the late Cabinet, that I repudiated it. On that occasion the noble Duke seemed to be impressed with the opinion that it was of the utmost importance that for the purpose of appeasing agitation in Ireland this question should be settled, and the Bill pass your Lordships' House; but I cannot help thinking that since that time the noble Duke must have adopted the opinions which his Colleagues expressed at that period—namely, that as only eight or nine days of the Session remained, and there would not be time to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, it would be advisable to postpone legislation until the present Session. The noble Earl at the head of the Government said that such was the course he should take, and it was approved of by the Opposition, the understanding on both sides of the House being that the Bills were to rest during the recess, and that they should be reintroduced as soon as possible in the present Session, and first in your Lordships' House. In the present Session the Government lost no time in bringing forward three Bills, which were I believe the identical Bills of the previous Session.
138
These Bills were presented, as we understood them, as Government Bills, and I think it would be hardly worthy an English Government to say they were not Government Bills. They were endorsed with the name of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Newcastle), were referred to a Select Committee upstairs, and some of the most distinguished Members of your Lordships' House served upon it. But besides the Government Bills to which the name of the noble Duke was attached, there was an analogous Bill brought in by the Earl of Donoughmore, and another by the Marquess of Clanricarde. We considered these Bills in the Select Committee, and had the advantage of the presidence of the Lord Privy Seal (the Duke of Argyll), who represented the Government on that Committee. I never knew a Committee work harder, with more good humour, or with a more sincere desire to frame in their Report such an arrangement of legislation as should meet the approval of all parties. We were mainly assisted by the efforts of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll), and we looked on him as the agent and representative of the Government. We appealed to him, as we should have appealed in this House to any Member of the Government sitting on the opposite bench, and we received all his communications with the weight that attached to them as coming from a Cabinet Minister. Your Lordships agreed in the Report presented by the Committee to your Lordships, which was to the effect that the Landlord and Tenant Bill and the Leasing Powers Bill should be recommended to Parliament for legislation; whilst the Tenants' Compensation Bill was rejected by the Committee as not being an advisable measure to be passed. When the Lord Privy Seal moved that the Report of that Committee be received, he said that, "The Committee having approved of a Bill which dealt with the question of buildings, it was not thought desirable by the Committee to have a separate Bill on the subject of roads and fences." And it was understood in the Committee that the noble Duke, both as his own private opinion, and as representing the opinions of the Cabinet, did not think it necessary to press on the Committee or upon the House the passing of the Compensation Bill. It was clearly thought to be his opinion that the first two Bills should be passed, and the third be dismissed. Your Lordships then came to the third reading of these Bills on the

139
27th May, when the noble Duke the Secretary at War (the Duke of Newcastle) used expressions which showed that the Government adopted the Bills as their own. The noble Duke distinctly stated that the Government were prepared to accept the responsibility of the Bills in their present form as if they had been introduced by the Government. Such, my Lords, was the language used by two noble Dukes—language which I think does them credit for wisdom and proper feeling, showing as it does that they were conscious of the dignity which should attach to the Government in such a matter. The impression left on my mind by the communications of the Lord Privy Seal was, that the Government would do their utmost to carry these Bills through the other House of Parliament. It was also my impression that these Bills would receive the support of a great many Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House; that if any obstruction were made by a certain part of the Irish Members, who were sure to obstruct the Bills if possible, that obstruction would be met in a manly manner by the Government; and that measures which it had taken your Lordships two months to examine would be passed into a law. This delusion, my Lords, was suddenly dispelled the other day by a statement which has been made to the House of Commons, not by a Cabinet Minister, but by the Secretary for Ireland, the pith of which is that the Government had abandoned these important Bills. The language of Sir J. Young, in stating the reasons why the Government have so acted, was very different from that which has been held by the two noble Dukes. He said that—
"If these were Government Bills, ho did not scruple for one moment to say that they would not have been proposed at that period of the Session for the consideration of the House. He was bound in candour to say that he did not think any Bill of this kind would be satisfactory without a Compensation Bill; but the Compensation Bill had been rejected, and therefore the measures which he had supported were not before the House, and how, then, could it be said that he was responsible for them? He believed the Bills were good, as far as they went; but the question was, were they to have legislation upon a part of the subject only, and would that course be satisfactory?"
On that ground, my Lords, Sir J. Young seems to have withdrawn the Bills on behalf of the Government. Your Lordships will observe, in the first place, that he repudiates them as Government Bills, al-
140
though the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Newcastle), in the strongest way, acknowledged them to be Government Bills, and accepted the responsibility of them; and when the right hon. Baronet spoke of the Tenants' Compensation Bill as indispensable, he was utterly at variance with the noble Duke, who did not at all deem it a sine quâ non. It must have struck your Lordships that when the noble Duke was asked how this had happened, he was ignorant that it had happened, or that it was likely to happen. My Lords, I do not accuse the noble Dukes of having dealt unfairly by your Lordships if they were ignorant of what was going to occur. But I have a right to say that the Government has acted as Governments seldom have acted, and as I hope no Government will ever act again. Their conduct displays an extraordinary degree of insubordination on the part of certain inferior Members of the Government, who give up Bills for which two Cabinet Ministers—the two noble Dukes opposite—made the Government responsible. What are we to suppose, my Lords, is the cause of such conduct? It does not appear that in the other House any Cabinet Minister endeavoured to explain it. The whole thing has been done by a subordinate Member of the Government, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who declares that he abandons the Bills because the Tenants' Compensation Bill is a sine quâ non. Sir John Young said, that if they had been Government Bills they would have been brought forward at an earlier period of the Session: but they had been brought forward by the Government as early as possible: the Committee sat upon them one week only after the Easter recess, the Tenant Right Bill passed on the 26th of May; now it is the 13th of July, and it was only on the 10th that the matter was mentioned in the House of Commons. What then did Sir J. Young mean by his statement as to want of time? What had been done during the six weeks which had elapsed between the 26th of May and the 10th of July. It appears plainly that the proceeding taken by Sir J. Young has nothing to do with any delay of the measures in this House, and that it was not sanctioned by any Cabinet Minister in this or the other House of Parliament. It is, therefore, with considerable astonishment that I ask the Government if the Bills are abandoned at a period when we have more time to consider them than we had on a former occasion, when the

141
Bills were first brought in in the other House, and after they have been thoroughly sifted by a Committee of your Lordships? I ask the Government whether it is true that these Bills are abandoned?—and, if so, why have they been abandoned? and then, thirdly, I ask, how is it that the Chief Secretary for Ireland has taken upon himself to state to the other House that these Bills were abandoned for the reasons which he mentioned, when the noble Dukes opposite—Cabinet Ministers—were not aware either of the fact of the abandonment, or of such statements having been made or being about to be made?
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEcould not help thinking, although the noble Earl was exceedingly ingenious in discovering any ground for throwing censure on Her Majesty's Government, that on the present occasion he had signally failed in making out a case with reference to these Bills. Before he took any notice of what the noble Earl had said as to these Bills, he must refer to the first part of his statement as to what had occurred last year—and he referred to it with great unwillingness, because personal differences and disputes as to facts had taken place on that occasion, which, if the noble Earl had permitted, he should have wished to remain buried in oblivion. But the noble Earl having referred to those facts, he felt bound, in justice to himself, to say he had misrepresented what took place last year between him and a gentleman who did not occupy a seat in that House. The noble Earl said that these Bills were moved by him, and pressed by him last year in a manner which warranted him in drawing a distinction between the course he took, and the course taken by the noble Earl at the head of the Government, in that discussion. He would state shortly what took place. These Bills were brought in by Mr. Napier, as the organ of Lord Derby's Government, in the course of the short Session at the end of 1852, and were referred to a Select Committee of the other House, upon which Members of all parties sat and devoted much attention to the subject during the whole of that Session. When these Bills had passed through Committee, and were nearly on the point of coming up to this House, it was asked by Gentlemen connected with Ireland, who was likely to take the Bills up, as they were not Bills belonging to this Government, but to the preceding Government, which Members of this Go-
142
vernment had done their best to put in a shape to enable the Legislature to pass. Some conversation took place, and eventually, in consequence of his having devoted great attention to the subject when he was Secretary for Ireland in 1846, and having brought in two measures himself, he was asked whether, if no one else would take them up, he would. He replied that if it were wished, he was willing to do so; and shortly after Mr. Napier sent for him to come to the bar of their Lordships' House, and told him how glad he was that he had consented to take charge of the Bills; and he told him also, in most distinct terms, that although the Session was late, there would be no difficulty in passing them; that Lord Clanricarde and one or two other Peers connected with Ireland were opposed to their passing, but that the noble Earl at the head of the late Government, and the late Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, and one or two others who had not held office, but whom he named, would give their utmost support and assistance. What he stated last year, and he repeated now, was the assurance he received from Mr. Napier. And further, when the noble Earl opposite referred to a letter of Mr. Napier's—
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYdenied that he had referred to any letter.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEappealed to their Lordships whether the noble Earl had not distinctly referred to a letter of last year, in which Mr. Napier said the three Bills were so completely altered?
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he had referred to what Mr. Napier said in the House of Commons.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLErepeated, that the noble Earl had distinctly referred to a letter from Mr. Napier; and, as he had done so, he also referred to a letter, if not of the same date, one which he received about the same time, and in which Mr. Napier did not make any such statement, but requested him to take charge of all these Bills, and led him to expect that the noble Earl opposite, and those who acted with him, would, if they did not agree to every clause, at least give every facility to passing them. He had been placed in a most unfair position, for when he brought forward the Bills under that assurance, he found that a most active whip was used to bring up noble Lords even from the Isle of Wight and other places by the Opposition, for the purpose of throwing out the Bills after the declara-

143
tion of their own officer to him that they would support the Government in passing them. When it was seen that the Bills would be disputed clause by clause, then, undoubtedly, the noble Earl at the head of the Government, not acting at variance with the course he had taken, but in entire accordance with his views, and after consulting various Members of the Government, agreed that the circumstances were so completely altered that it would be right to withdraw the Bills, and proposed that they should be introduced in the next Session. Those were the facts connected with the Bills of last year; and he would willingly have said not one word on that subject had the noble Earl not chosen to revive the discussion—a discussion which was extremely painful to him, though he was prepared there and elsewhere to maintain that he had not overstated one single fact of the part he took in these transactions. In fulfilment of the pledge which was given at the commencement of the Session, he brought in the three Bills in statu quo as they had been postponed the last year. The noble Earl said they were brought in and recognised as Government Bills. He wished to prevent misapprehension, not to raise any quibble, for he was ready to defend every act of the Government; and must therefore say the noble Earl had misrepresented what took place on that occasion. He stated broadly that the Bills were brought in in fulfilment of the pledge which had been given in the last Session, and that if they had been brought in as Government Bills there were certain alterations which he should have introduced; and he was quite confident a noble Earl, who brought in other Bills, blamed the Government for bringing them in precisely in the same shape as in the previous Session. The observation then was, that there was not sufficient responsibility on the part of the Government; and now they were told the whole responsibility devolved on the Government, because they recognised the Bills by introducing them. He was perfectly ready to adopt every word he used on the third reading, but he said the Bills were not introduced as Government Bills, and the Government was attacked because they were not introduced as Government Bills. What then occurred? The Bills were referred to a Committee upstairs, and his noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal took the Chair, and assented to a great extent, though not entirely, to certain al-
144
terations; and he (the Duke of Newcastle) then said, and he said now, that the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) having presided over that Committee, and having reframed these Bills, with the assistance of others, the Government adopted them on his authority and recommendation as measures which might advantageously be passed, as so far settlement of the questions involved in them. He stated on that occasion that in his opinion the Bills had not gone sufficiently far, but that the Bills were good Bills, and the Government would take the responsibility of sending them down to the other House. The noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury), acting, he supposed, on behalf of his party, and in the absence of the usual leader of Opposition in that House, now said they were taken up as Government Bills, and abandoned in the other House as Government Bills. What was the fact? So long as there was a prospect of these Bills being passed, and as long as there was some popularity attaching to them, they were not allowed to be considered Government Bills—Mr. Napier took them up as his Bills. Though literally not moved by Mr. Napier, he, being absent in Ireland, wrote to Sir John Young, requesting him to move the second reading in order to save time. Sir John Young having complied with this request, the Government, when it afterwards suited Mr. Napier's views, were said by him and his Friends to have adopted the Bills. On his arrival from Ireland, however, Mr. Napier, not having yet thought of resigning the Bills into the hands of the Government, would not allow the Government the responsibility or the credit, but gave notice that it was his intention—not the intention of the Government—to move the recommittal of the Bills, with a view to introduce certain Amendments. The Bills then were still his at that time, and he continued to claim them as his up to Tuesday last, but now all responsibility was to be thrown upon the Government. On Tuesday the Bills came on for discussion in Committee in the other House. The noble Earl said the circumstances were different from the circumstances under which the Bills came up to this House last year, and that they were sent down to the other House considerably earlier, and that they might have passed through the Commons in a short space of time, inasmuch as they had been thoroughly sifted by a Committee of this House. They certainly were sent down a few days earlier; but as to

145
their being sifted, the noble Earl did not seem to consider that the Bills when they came up from the other House last year had been sifted in a Committee of the other House; but as their Lordships would not allow that to be any authority for them, they could not expect the House of Commons to take the Committee of this House as a bit more binding upon them—the Commons were as little inclined as were their Lordships to pass measures sub silentio and without examination. Well, on Tuesday the Bills came before the Committee of the House of Commons, and Mr. Napier having had the opportunity of recommending all manner of alterations and withdrawals—in fact, he was almost a Member of their Lordships' Committee—notwithstanding these advantages gave notice of a few Amendments, and he held them in his hand—no less than eight closely printed pages of Amendments, amounting to something like 200, to say nothing of Amendments by other Members of the House. These innumerable Amendments were proposed on Bills which had been so thoroughly sifted by their Lordships' House, and so thoroughly recognised by Mr. Napier, who fathered them, that the Government was taunted with the difficulty stated by Sir John Young in passing them. The noble Earl said that at this point of time the Bills were withdrawn, and by the Government, which statement was incorrect. So anxious was the noble Earl to make his onslaught upon the Government, so anxious was he not to lose the advantage of his temporary leadership, that before he knew anything of the facts he gave notice of this question. But, surely, in two days he might have found out the facts a little better, and come down prepared to substantiate what he advanced. The Bills were not withdrawn. They were on the Votes of the House of Commons now; for all he knew, the discussion was then going on upon them. The Government could not withdraw Mr. Napier's Bills. Mr. Napier was so jealous of these Bills that, instead of Sir John Young calling the Bills Government Bills, all that took place vas this:—at the close of a long discussion, in the course of which Members from all parts of Ireland, and not of extreme opinions, had expressed their opinion that it was impossible to pass these Bills satisfactorily in their present shape at this late period of the Session, the Secretary for Ireland said, with the feeling evinced by the House, if the Bills had been Govern-
146
ment Bills, and in his charge, he should not be prepared to press them, and that he believed the interests of the measures themselves would be promoted by being postponed to another Session of Parliament. Whether rightly or wrongly, that was the opinion of Sir John Young. He did not know what was the feeling in Ireland upon the subject, his right hon. Friend had the means of judging; and, in his opinion, these Bills, good in themselves (for in the speech irregularly quoted by the noble Earl, though he did not complain, he said he thought they were good), would not be satisfactory in Ireland, unless the compensation principle were carried further. He knew the opinion of his right hon. Friend was, that they were good in themselves, but that it was almost impossible to carry them in the present Session, and that they could not be carried in that temper to do the same benefit to Ireland which they would probably effect if carried in the next Session. He believed in the present state of Ireland no pressing necessity rendered it essential that they should be passed this year. At the same time, he should greatly regret if the Bills should not be passed—if indeed they were not to pass. He believed the Bills were good; but he had not yet received information whether or not they were to be persevered with. Probably, by that time, Mr. Napier had made up his mind what course he meant to take with reference to these Bills. He regretted they had not passed, and undoubtedly, if the further question of compensation were to be raised at some future time, he knew enough of the circumstances of that country to be persuaded that any matter taken out of the category of constant agitation was so much gained for Ireland.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, the Bills which came to this House in July last were two Bills—the Landlord and Tenant Bill and the Leasing Powers Bill—which were proposed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Napier), and a third Bill proposed by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland—the Tenants' Improvement Compensation—identical in name with a Bill of Mr. Napier's, but differing from it in its provisions and its machinery. There was an extraordinary discrepancy between the language of the Government in this House then and the language in another place now. Then the noble Duke did everything to fix the responsibility of that third Bill on that side of the House,

147
and now Sir John Young said the Bill was his, and he was responsible for it; therefore it was clear it could have nothing to do with the Opposition. The noble Duke had entirely misunderstood the statement of Mr. Napier. Surely, it ought to have been in the noble Duke's recollection that, so far from there being any concert between Mr. Napier and the leader of the Opposition in this House, Mr. Napier told him he had not spoken on the subject to Lord Derby, but would do so, and no doubt Lord Derby would support the Bills. [The Duke of NEWCASTLE: I utterly deny it! I utterly deny it!] He was merely putting in contrast with the noble Duke's statement what he believed to be in the recollection of his right hon. Friend. Mr. Napier had always asserted, both in his place in the House of Commons and in private communications with him and with the noble Duke, that he never for a moment wished to give up that responsibility to any one. But, at the same time, his right hon. Friend thought, and he entirely agreed with him, that after these Bills came out of the Select Committee, over which the noble Duke the Lord Privy Seal presided, the Government had adopted and were responsible for them. The speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle), in moving the third reading, on the 26th of May, proved conclusively that the Government had adopted them as their measures. The first reading, the second reading, the recommittal, and the third reading of these Bills were all moved by the noble Duke, and if that were not proof that the Bills were considered to be Government Bills, he did not know what proof they could have. The Bills went down to the House of Commons, and the second reading was moved by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. [The Duke of NEWCASTLE: I stated so distinctly, at Mr. Napier's request.] He thought it was perfectly natural that Mr. Napier, taking great interest in these measures, should have written to the Secretary for Ireland and requested him to proceed with them. Did the noble Duke mean to say that the having written that letter took the Bills entirely out of the hands of the Government? Then he supposed he was to understand that the Government were perfectly willing to pass these Bills, provided the merit were given wholly to them, but would give them up if their originality was to be attributed to any one else?
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: So far
148
from that, the Secretary for Ireland acted as second to Mr. Napier, leaving him the full credit throughout.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: And leaving him that full credit, the Government would have nothing further to do with them. The noble Duke had laid great stress on the Amendments which his right hon. Friend intended to propose in Committee on these Bills. On that point he would state that Mr. Napier was requested by the Select Committee to revise these Bills, particularly one of them, which had undergone much discussion during the Easter recess, and have them reprinted. But owing to the printers taking holiday the printed Bill was not sent to Mr. Napier in Ireland, and it was impossible to get the Bill reprinted before the third reading. The noble Duke, he believed, considered it was a great object to send the Bills as soon as possible down to the other House, and therefore they had not that thorough revisal which, in Bills dealing with legal questions, was so necessary. Therefore it was that these Amendments were proposed; but, with one exception, they were merely verbal, to make the sense more clear. After the second reading of the Bills in the House of Commons, Mr. Napier, anxious that they should come before the House in a more perfect shape, asked leave to have the Bills recommitted, that these Amendments might be introduced. That favour was refused, and the consequence was, all these verbal Amendments appeared upon the paper. The noble Lord said the Bills were not withdrawn, and he had admitted, as a matter of form, they were not withdrawn; but why? They remained on the paper, to allow of his right hon. Friend explaining the improper position in which he was placed by the conduct of the Government, and defending his character from all imputations. Mr. Napier, as well as their Lordships, had been led to believe that these were Government Bills, and that his aid and assistance, from being thoroughly conversant with the questions, were desired by the Government. Mr. Napier had no complaint to make of the noble Duke the Lord Privy seal; on the contrary, he stated nothing could be more kind or more handsome than the conduct of the noble Duke throughout the whole course of these transactions; but he did complain of the conduct of the Government. The Compensation Bill, which the Secretary for Ireland thought indispen-

149
sable, was withdrawn by the Government in the Select Committee on the 11th of May, and subsequently Mr. Ferguson, who had been engaged in preparing these Bills, was brought over from Ireland and paid a large remuneration by the Government for his services. If it was not intended to proceed with these Bills, that was a gross waste of money. Mr. Napier's statement was, that up to four o'clock on Tuesday he believed the Government intended to use their utmost endeavours to pass these measures, and that they were glad of his assistance on a subject with which he was so familiar. He could not understand the statement of the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle), that Mr. Napier had taken the matter out of the hands of the Government. The only proof he alleged was the letter written to the Secretary for Ireland, requesting him to move the second reading. Surely it was but natural that Mr. Napier, absent on business, should wish to have the measures forwarded. The right hon. Gentleman must have been a madman to take the matter wholly out of the hands of the Government, for he must be well aware, with the few opportunities private Members had, at that period of the Session, to bring forward their own measures, it would be impossible to pass these Bills, unless the Government took them up, and used their influence and the time at their disposal for the purpose. As to what had been the cause of this conduct, he hoped he should not offend the noble Duke if he said a few words of the plain truth. At the last general election a certain number of Irish Members were returned, pledged to vote for Mr. Sharman Crawford's Tenant Right Bill, and to oppose any Government which would not make that a Cabinet measure. He need say no more about Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill than that it contained provisions as absurd as the theories of Prudhon and Cabet. When the present Government acceded to office they received support which was felt to be inconsistent with the pledge, and displeasing to many supporters of the question of tenant right. The position of the Government, then, was this—they were obliged to yield to their Irish supporters, and to keep open a sore which every patriot would wish to see closed for ever, because their friends felt that their political vocation in Ireland would be endangered if this question was settled. He went further, and said that it was lamentable they should have a Govern-
150
ment which was so weak that it was obliged to yield to the demands of that party, to give up for that purpose measures which it acknowledged to be useful and desirable, and to keep open an agitation which was, of all agitations, the most dangerous and most to be regretted in Ireland, and all because the Government had not either the inherent strength or the moral courage to make even one effort to pass those measures in the House of Commons.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: My Lords, I cannot allow the statements which the noble Earl has just made to your Lordships, and which were cheered by at least one Member of the late Government, to pass without at once rising, not only to contradict what the noble Earl thought himself entitled to call the plain truth, but to state to your Lordships how the matter really stands as regards the late Government and the question of tenant right in Ireland. The present Government is not bound in any way whatever to those who advocate extreme views of tenant-right in Ireland, and the noble Earl ought to have known better than to make such a statement. If the noble Earl chooses to represent the present Government as bound in any way to those Gentlemen, I think he ought to be a little more cautious in the use of his expressions in this House; and the noble Marquess the late Lord Privy Seal (Marquess of Salisbury) ought also to be a little more cautious how he cheers statements addressed to your Lordships. How stand the circumstances connected with the late Government and the general election in Ireland? It is perfectly notorious that those who were sent to stand for the cities, the boroughs, and the counties in Ireland on behalf of the late Government were instructed by those who manage these things to hold very strong language upon the subject of tenant right, with the full understanding that there would be no inconvenience attached to the course which was subsequently to be taken with regard to that question. That is a matter of perfect notoriety. What did the late Government do after the election? The noble Earl talks of Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill, and of Prudhon and Cabet. What did the late Government do with that which was a counterpart of Sharman Crawford's Bill—I mean the Bill introduced by Mr. Serjeant Shee? When a critical division was about to take place, they made a bargain with the supporters of that Bill, and agreed to refer it to a Select Committee,

151
thereby recognising its principle. The noble Marquess may shake his head; but the fact is well known, and can be substantiated, that the late Government referred Mr. Serjeant Shee's Bill to a Select Committee, and thus encouraged the agitation in Ireland. [The Earl of RODEN: Hear, hear!] The noble Earl opposite, himself a supporter of the late Government, acknowledges and cheers that statement. I believe, my Lords, that the agitation of extreme views of tenant right was more promoted and encouraged by the course adopted by the late Government, both during the general election in Ireland and subsequently in the House of Commons, than by any step which any Government, either preceding or subsequent, has taken; while, for the present Government, I utterly deny what the noble Earl has been pleased to call the plain truth.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I know nothing of this subject, except what I have heard to-night. I heard the commencement of this discussion with some regret, and that regret has been constantly increasing during the whole period that the discussion has lasted. My Lords, when the noble Earl who began the discussion asks two or three questions, I must crave the pardon of your Lordships to ask another. It is this—what benefit can the public derive from a discussion carried on in the temper in which this discussion has been carried on? My Lords, the noble Earl on this side of the House thinks that there is insubordination in the camp of the Government, and the noble Duke on the opposite side of the House thinks that there is some degree of insubordination in the camp of the Opposition. Now, I will not say that there is insubordination in either; but I must believe, from what I have heard to-night, that there is a want of that previous communication on both sides between the leaders and those who act with them—who are not the subordinates, but who co-operate with them—the presence of which would most materially conduce to the public service. With respect to these Bills, it is clear to me that there is a very great extent of misunderstanding, and that misunderstanding will only be increased by what has taken place to-night. I deeply regret it. It is evident from what has proceeded from both sides of the House, that substantially these measures are good measures, and measures required for the benefit of Ireland. I will not say
152
whose cause is made better by the discussion of this night, but I am quite sure that the cause of the Bills is made a great deal worse. All I venture to hope is this, that for the sake of the public interests these personal feelings and discussions will be put an end to, and that those Gentlemen who are interested in these Bills will communicate with each other in a friendly spirit, having regard solely to the public advantage, with the view of seeing, even now, whether these Bills may not pass.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he entirely concurred in the observations of the noble Earl. He bore his willing testimony to the good temper and good feeling shown by the Members of that Committee over which he had the honour to preside; and when he remembered the manner in which they discussed the details of these Bills, he felt that he had entered a very different atmosphere when he listened to the violent and most unworthy party attack made by the noble Earl opposite. The whole history of these Bills showed that they were disputing about words. In one sense they had been Government Bills, in another sense they had not been Government Bills. If by Government Bills were meant party measures passed through Parliament with all the strength of the Government, without reference to individual opinions, then undoubtedly they never had been Government Bills, either in their origin or in their subsequent progress through Parliament. The noble Earl opposite had himself related a fact which showed clearly that the Bills had not been Government Bills, properly so called. Instead of the Government or the Committee referring for advice and assistance to the present law officers of the Crown, they consulted almost exclusively the law officers of the late Government; and he was bound to say that, so far as he had had any communication with the late Attorney General for Ireland, he had no reason to believe that there had been anything influencing the mind of that Gentleman except a sincere desire to get the Bills passed. He must add, however, with regard to the conduct of noble Lords opposite, that their whole endeavour had been to avoid the smallest acknowledgment of the principle of tenant compensation in Ireland. Although he admitted that the Members of the Committee had shown a good spirit and good temper in dealing with the details of the Bills, chiefly, he believed, in consequence of the personal exertions of Mr. Napier, yet he

153
did feel it odd, when the Bills were brought down from the Committee, that those Members of the late Government who were responsible for their original introduction should have been the parties to resist to the utmost even the smallest acknowledgment of the principle of compensation. He believed that the vast majority of noble Lords opposite, whatever they might say now, rejoiced that there was a prospect of these Bills failing in the present Session. Nothing but the personal exhortation and entreaties of Mr. Napier, and the proceedings of the Committee, would have induced them to pass the Bills through that House, even in a very damaged state; and he did not think they seriously regretted that it would be impossible at this late period of the Session to pass the Bills through the other House of Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the noble Duke opposite had been pleased to inform their Lordships that the late Government encouraged the agitation of the tenant-right question in Ireland. If by that the noble Duke meant that the late Government permitted their law officers to prepare Bills for setting the question of tenant right at rest, and to submit those Bills to the country, then undoubtedly he was quite right, but not otherwise. The late Government certainly did, with the full consent of the Lord Lieutenant, permit Mr. Napier to prepare the Bills in question; but he was at a loss to conceive how that could possibly be construed into an encouragement of the tenant-right agitation. The noble Duke had denied that the Bills were presented to their Lordships in the present Session as Government Bills, and, as evidence of the accuracy of his statement upon that point, had laid great stress upon a conversation which he had with Mr. Napier; but he would defy the noble Duke to get over the fact that the Bills were introduced and moved by himself as the organ of the Government, even after he had been informed by Mr. Napier in writing that a noble Earl (the Earl of Donoughmore) would take charge of the Bills before their Lordships. Again, the noble Duke had said that the Bills were moved in the House of Commons by Mr. Napier, but the fact was not so, for both the first and second readings were moved by Sir John Young.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: I have twice distinctly stated that Mr. Napier wrote from Ireland requesting Sir John Young to move these Bills for him, and that Sir John Young did so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was glad that fact was admitted, for it proved that the Bills were considered to be Government measures. He was surprised, therefore, that it should have been stated in another place, that at this late period of the Session it would be impossible to proceed with these Bills. It was true that Mr. Napier had requested the permission of the Committee to correct several inaccuracies which had crept into the Bills; but, in the opinion of the noble Duke the Lord Privy Seal, who presided over the Committee, those Amendments were merely verbal, and might be made in the House of Commons without leading to much discussion, there not being a single principle involved in them. For his own part, he was not one of those who would abuse the Government for withdrawing Bills. They had done so very often during the present Session. He agreed with them that second thoughts were best, and for withdrawing these and other Bills he begged them to accept his most sincere thanks.
LORD MONTEAGLEhoped their Lordships would turn their most serious attention to the steps that were absolutely necessary to be taken before the close of the Session, if they wished to do their duty to the people of Ireland. It was to him a matter of comparative indifference what might be the relative claims of the Gentlemen concerned in the production of these Bills, or what had been the conduct of the late or the present Government; but as an Irish proprietor—as one interested in the well-being of that country—he took the liberty of calling their attention to the unfortunate position in which they now stood. He might be allowed to say, however, that although it was perfectly true that the Committee sought the advice and assistance of the Gentleman who had so long applied his great energy, his indefatigable industry, and his undoubted public spirit to the settlement of the difficult question of tenant right, yet he never heard it suggested for a single moment that they were thereby casting on Mr. Napier a personal responsibility for these Bills. This was so far from being the case, that he believed he did not misinform their Lordships when he stated that the Committee actually sent a message to the law officers of the present Government, requesting their advice and assistance likewise in dealing with this intricate subject. The Committee felt some reluctance and delicacy in calling upon Mr. Napier, whom they only knew as a private

155
Member of the House of Commons, to assist them in preparing measures for the House of Lords, and which had been introduced and moved by a Member of the Government; and most assuredly they never imagined that the time would ever come when by reason of the help most patriotically and freely given, the whole responsibility of these Bills would be thrown upon Mr. Napier. He was happy to say that the discussions in the Committee had been conducted in a fair and temperate spirit, though some provisions of it were carried, not because they were right, but because it was thought they would conciliate the Commons. This was a fatal error. When the Report was presented to their Lordships, and the time arrived for the third reading of the Bills, he certainly did feel that the Bills were not only under the charge of the Government, but that he was entitled to look to the Government as responsible for them. His mind was more fully satisfied upon that point, when, wishing to ascertain the responsibility of the Government for the Bills as they then stood, as against the risk of finding them returned in an altered shape from the House of Commons, he put a question on the subject, and the reply given by the noble Duke the Minister of War distinctly was, that he considered the Bills to be the Bills of the Government. But, leaving that branch of the subject, he entreated their Lordships to believe that this question was not one of indifference, or without danger, in Ireland. He admitted, for the sake of argument, that the responsibility of the Government had now ceased, so far as the present Bills were concerned; but they continued responsible for the tranquillity of Ireland, and for the maintenance of that tranquillity it was necessary that the Government should inform the people of Ireland, plainly and distinctly, what they really intended to propose. Suspense and uncertainty were as mischievous as they were unpardonable. These had been the sources of agitation and danger. It was a fatal mistake originally to have sent into Ireland a roving Commission to take evidence of all kinds, and to give the people of that country such a picture as that contained in the Devon Report, if they were not prepared, the moment the Report was laid before Parliament, either to introduce such remedial measures as they considered necessary, or else to confess frankly that they had no intention to bring forward any measure at all; but to leave the country for a series of years
156
expecting a measure from the Government, or threatened with a measure by the Government, allowing the whole of the agitation to be directed against the proprietors and the management of land in Ireland, was one of the most dangerous, fatal, and unjustifiable courses ever pursued by any Government. He agreed with the noble Duke the Minister of War that it was dangerous and culpable on the part of the late Government to deal with this question in the way they had done. When the Secretary of State (Mr. Walpole) consented to read a second time a Bill which the head of his Government (the Earl of Derby) was compelled to disavow, he was, in fact, giving to a bad, mischievous measure, the same weight of Parliamentary and Governmental authority which he granted to a Bill prepared by the law officers of the Government themselves; but all this was now past, and, instead of dwelling upon former errors, it was their duty to see what could be done, and that immediately and undisguisedly, towards the settlement of a question that had long disturbed and agitated Ireland. He believed that there never was, or perhaps never would be, a better opportunity for effecting that object than the present moment; and he thought that the Government would be highly to blame if they did not, before the close of the Session, lay upon the table the Bills which they intended to abide by. He therefore called on the Government to declare their real intentions by producing a definite measure. The Bill introduced and carried by the Ministers in one House had been repudiated by the Secretary for Ireland in the other. Let them tell us to what we are to trust—let them frame and produce their own measure—let there be no further question of mixed responsibility. He did did not call upon them to adopt this or that measure. By the rejection of the Bills which had passed this House they had at present a tabula rasa before them, and it was their duty to produce what might emphatically be called their own Bills. They could no longer plead the responsibility of the Earl of Derby or Mr. Napier—they were bound to show to the people of Ireland that which, in their judgment, was wise, moderate, and practical; if they would produce and carry such a measure, it would at once save that country from the dangers of agitation, and protect themselves from the risk and hazards of the next Session.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he wished to correct one mis-statement on a point of fact which had fallen from his noble Friend who had just sat down. He was sure that mis-statement was quite unintentional on his noble Friend's part. He understood his noble Friend to say that the only argument used in Committee with reference to the tenants' compensation clause was that it had been put in in order to satisfy the House of Commons, and not because it was right or just in itself. Now, he (the Duke of Argyll) had most distinctly contended that the clause which was drawn up on this subject for allowing compensation to the tenant was just and equitable in itself. He confessed that he had been greatly astonished to hear his noble Friend's exhortation to the Government that they ought to introduce a Bill exclusively confined to the question of tenants' compensation. [Lord MONTEAGLE: No.] If his noble Friend merely meant that the Government should bring in a Bill on the subject of leasing powers, or a Bill for the simple consolidation of the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland, without touching at all upon compensation to tenants, it was not at all improbable that such measures would be received with general assent on both sides of that House; but it was the subject of tenants' compensation that his noble Friend must have meant when he said that it was a dangerous subject of agitation in Ireland; and if it was now his advice to the Government that they should pass a Bill on that question, certainly that counsel was strangely at variance with the language that had been previously held by his noble Friend both in the Select Committee and in their Lordships' House, because his language had hitherto uniformly been that they ought to let that question alone—that they should not touch the subject of compensation to tenants; and, above all, that they ought not to give any retrospective compensation—that the agitation on the subject was dying away, and that they should not keep it alive by any legislation of this kind. Therefore he could not see that there was much consistency in his noble Friend's exhortation to the Government to introduce a Bill on that question. However, he (the Duke of Argyll) would express his own individual opinion to his noble Friend in reference to this subject. He held in the main that for the future the relation between landlord and tenant ought to rest upon contract, and upon contract only; and he believed
158
that the most mischievous parts of the Bill that was introduced by the late Government were not those that were retrospective, but those of a prospective character; and the paternity of the latter the noble Earl opposite would hardly deny belonged to the late Government. He (the Duke of Argyll) said that, whatever their legislation might be, it ought to be confined to the past, and should declare that in future the relations of landlord and tenant must rest on that which was the only sure and solid foundation—namely, contract, and contract alone. That was his individual opinion, for which nobody but himself was responsible; and he repeated that whilst it would be but right to adopt a measure giving compensation to the tenant under a state of things that was now rapidly passing away, and in which it was but fair and just that his exertions and his outlay should be considered, let their compensation be retrospective, and retrospective only, and for the future let it depend entirely upon contract.
LORD MONTEAGLEexplained that he had not meant to say that the noble Duke rested his advocacy of the compensation clause exclusively upon the strong feeling entertained in the House of Commons in its favour, and the consequent necessity of conciliating that branch of the Legislature; but certainly there could be no doubt that, but for the argument which had been urged with regard to the feeling of the other House, that clause would never have been carried by their Lordships. To this principle he had strongly objected, as an unworthy motive for legislation. As to the course which he had ventured to suggest that Her Majesty's Government should take, and which he considered to be the only wise and just one, it referred to the duty of delivering a deliberate and final opinion on the general question of the relation of landlord and tenant in Ireland. He was, indeed, far from asserting that the Government ought to bring in a measure for giving tenants compensation, but that they ought in a distinct and manly manner declare the principles by which they meant to abide. For this purpose they were bound to lay upon the table of the House such measures with reference to this important subject as they really intended as a Government to propose and adhere to, so that the people of Ireland might know what they had to expect from them on this question, and might be undeceived with respect to their

159
future intentions so far as those intentions might be inferred from the course taken by their Colleagues in the other House.
THE EARL OF RODENsaid, that he had listened with great regret to the debate which had just taken place on a measure materially affecting the interests of that part of the empire with which he was connected. No noble Lord who had yet spoken on the question had expressed sentiments with which he (the Earl of Roden) could entirely agree. He lamented as much as the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) the spirit that had been evinced on both sides of the House, and concurred with him in thinking that such a discussion could be of no possible advantage, but quite the reverse to the great interests at stake on this question. He was sorry to hear from the noble Duke opposite that Her Majesty's Government had not withdrawn these Bills, and he had been in hopes that he would have to discharge the pleasing task of thanking them for adopting such a course, and he knew that in so doing he should only have been expressing the opinion of the great majority of the landed proprietors of Ireland. He knew that they were opposed to these Bills, as being founded upon a principle that was unjust and on a principle of legislative interference with the management of property in Ireland that no Government would venture to introduce in reference to England. The landlords of Ireland felt that they were capable of managing their own property as well as the landlords in England, and they expected that the same law and justice would be dealt out to the one part of the empire which was enjoyed by the other. He agreed with his noble Friend opposite (Lord Monteagle) that it was very desirable that something should be said or done on the present occasion calculated to disabuse the minds of the people of Ireland of the idea that any such measure as some persons had led them to look for would ever be allowed to become the law of the land. He believed that a great change for the better had taken place within the last few years in the management of Irish property; and he entreated their Lordships to leave this subject alone, and not to take measures or bring in Bills by which matters could only be rendered worse and worse, and which, instead of allaying discontent and setting this question at rest, could only tend to exasperate public feeling, and to make it more unsettled than ever it was
160
before. These were the sincere opinions of one who was not unacquainted with the circumstances of Ireland. He had now spent a long life in that country, and knew well the feelings of its people—knew the objects which they had at heart, and was likewise aware of the improvements that had there taken place; and, therefore, in expressing thus strongly his opinion upon a question of such vital importance as the present, he felt that he could speak as one who had authority to do so. He would only entreat them then to forbear from legislating upon that of which legislation had hitherto proved the ruin. It was never known in Ireland, from one year to another, what the law upon this subject might be, the changes that were made being so constant and frequent; and he therefore trusted that their Lordships would now allow that country to enjoy a little of that repose and respite from legislative meddling which prevailed so happily in England.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY said: My Lords, I think it incumbent on me to explain myself in reference to the accusation made against me, to the effect that this attack had something personal and was intended to be personal. My Lords, I utterly deny that accusation. If there was any expression of mine that could by possibility offend any noble Lord, I am ready to withdraw it, and also to express my sorrow for having used it. But I am so certain of my expressions, of the spirit of what I say, and of the feeling with which I have accused Her Majesty's Government, that I know no word or expression unbecoming a Member of your Lordships' House has escaped my lips, or could even be construed of a personal nature. I wish, my Lords, I could say as much for noble Lords on the opposite side. Of the noble Duke the Secretary for the War Department I will say nothing beyond this, that he does not at all times display that control over his temper and language which his position as a Member of Government would lead the governed to expect. However, I shall only say of the noble Duke, that, altogether, he made as good a defence as possible to my accusation. There is another noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) of whom I must complain for using expressions not at all customary in your Lordships' House, and which are not at all borne out by what I have stated. The noble Duke said my attack was "unworthy." My Lords, I consider that an offen-

161
sive expression. I am sure I meant nothing offensive. But the noble Duke should know such language is not ordinarily used in this House; and I cannot see how my attack can be construed into an "unworthy" one, when your Lordships will recollect how much I have been identified with this subject. What are these Bills? They originated with a Government of which I had the honour to be a Cabinet Minister. The following year a discussion—a very warm discussion—took place on the subject. Another year passes, and discussion is again taken on the subject, and I am appointed a Member of a Committee to which these Bills are referred. I attend regularly on that Committee for two successive months, and give the Bills every possible attention, therefore, that being the case, I say I should be a dolt indeed if, understanding those Bills and devoting so much time and attention to them, I had remained careless of their fate, and heard with indifference that they were abandoned by Her Majesty's Government. When comparing the policy and intentions of Her Majesty's Ministers with their acts at this moment, though I am certain of my language, I cannot say what my manner might have been in giving it utterance. But I know I used no expression "unworthy" the dignity of your Lordships' House, although the noble Duke opposite designated my attack as "unworthy." I hope the noble Duke will withdraw that phrase.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLwas sorry if he had said anything personally offensive to the noble Earl; and if the noble Earl thought he had done so, he would withdraw it. All that he had meant to say was, that the attack was a party one, and therefore, in that sense, an unworthy attack. He considered that this question was not a party question, and ought not to be so treated; neither did the noble Earl's own friends treat it as such in the Committee; although he certainly thought they were now doing that. They first said it was a Government measure, meaning thereby, a party measure (otherwise their argument was worthless), and then they made what he conceived to be a party attack on the Government.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I am quite satisfied with what the noble Duke has stated as applicable personally to myself; and I assure him I entertain no party feeling beyond that which must always exist in a House divided into two parties—
162
the duty of the Opposition being to scrutinise, on behalf of the country, the proceedings of those in authority; and the duty, or one of the duties, of the Government, being to sit still and receive Opposition attacks. In reference to the statement of the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle), to the effect that the late Administration had authorised or encouraged its supporters to use the cry of tenant right, I have only to say it is the first time I heard such a statement, and, what is more, I do not believe it. As far as my knowledge goes such is not the fact; and it scarcely could have been the case without my knowledge. But, my Lords, I am not anxious to occupy your time, and shall, therefore, conclude by saying that, upon the main point, I wish to know if these Bills are given up, or if they are to be persevered in. On that we have not had a distinct answer throughout the evening.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that if the noble Earl had given him a few minutes' notice of his question, perhaps he might have been able to give him a more distinct answer to it. He was not aware of what had that night taken place in the other House on this subject, and, perhaps, the noble Earl knew more of it than he did. But he already stated what was the literal fact, namely, that when the Bills were under consideration in the other House the day before yesterday (Tuesday), the Secretary for Ireland said that if he had the charge of the Bills—and it was generally thought that they required a very lengthened and laborious discussion in Committee—he should certainly be prepared to state that at that period of the Session they ought not to be persevered with this year. There the matter rested till that day, and the Bills remained on the books of the other House for six o'clock. He had not seen a Member of the House of Commons, and did not know what had since occurred; but this he could say, that the Government felt that several evenings must be employed in discussing the Estimates and in other important business; and, that, therefore, at this period of the Session, if there was an intention on the part of the fifty or sixty Members for Ireland in the other House who took an interest in this question to raise a discussion upon every clause, it would be impossible to proceed with these Bills during the present Session of Parliament.
House adjourned till To-morrow.