said, that when he gave Notice of his intention to move that evening the adjournment of the House for the Whitsuntide Recess, he was not aware that the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill would come before their Lordships' House so soon as it had done. Their Lordships were aware of the necessity that the Bill should pass into a law as rapidly as possible, and therefore if their Lordships should that night assent to the second reading—as he anticipated they would—he would then ask their Lordships to take the Committee and the third reading to-morrow, so that the Bill might go throught he remaining stages before the Recess. Many noble Lords, however, had made arrangements on the supposition that the Adjournment would take place that night, and therefore it might be inconvenient for their Lordships to meet at 5 P.M. This being so, he would, if it should meet with the wishes of the House, move the Adjournment until 2 o'clock to-morrow, instead of the usual hour of 5 o'clock.

said, his noble Friend Lord Granville, who was unable to be in his place that evening, had asked him to say that he thought the arrangement suggested by the noble Duke was a desirable one under the circumstances.

said, that, as that measure was of very considerable importance, he ventured to think it deserved to receive careful consideration before it became the law of the land. The time had passed when the necessity for legislation on this subject was disputed; but the subject was one of great complexity and great difficulty, and the Bill before their Lordships would affect a very largo number of manufactories, and consequently very large manufacturing and commercial interests. Therefore, although he did not underrate the importance of improving the state of our rivers, yet their Lordships must not lose sight of the fact that any legislation would affect most materially a vast amount of industry. The Bill had been only a very short time before the country. It had only been distributed to their Lordships on Saturday last. He did not ask for a postponement of the second reading; but he would suggest that those who would be so much affected by the enactments of the Bill, should have an opportunity of expressing their opinions before the Committee was taken. This Bill differed very much from other Bills that had been laid before Parliament. In the Bill of 1873 no fewer than 10 different tests were set out, and that Bill would have enacted that no liquid which did not satisfy those tests should be allowed to flow into any river. The noble Marquess who had charge of the charge of the Bill now before their Lord-ships (the Marquess of Salisbury) had shown by experiments made at Hatfield one rainy day last year, that those tests were too delicate and too unwieldy to be embodied in a Bill. This Bill went to the other extreme, and proposed to deal with the question in an heroic fashion. It dispensed altogether with chemical tests, and made the common sense of the County Court Judge the only test as to what was "filthy, noxious, or polluting." He spoke with all respect of the County Court Judges, but, originally, they were legal functionaries appointed to preside over Courts for the recovery of small debts. No doubt they had a fair share of common sense; but common sense was not such a common commodity as it was generally supposed to be. Practically, this Bill would give the County Court Judges control over manufacturing interests of the greatest importance; and, without any definition in the Bill to guide them, manufacturers might be put to a very large outlay by order of a County Court Judge. He ventured to think there would be a great deal of difference in the rulings of County Court Judges as to what would constitute an offence under the Bill, and he would point out that there was no appeal from his decision. Indeed, he would go further, and say that even in their Lordships' House there would be found various opinions as to what was pollution to a stream. In the Report of Dr. Franklin and Mr. Morton it was said—

"It is of the first importance, in carrying out any legislative enactment in connection with river pollution, that all river basins he uniformly dealt with. This has again and again been urged upon us by representatives of the staple manufacturers on the Mersey and Ribble basins. They state, and we think with reason, that it would he unfair, for example, to the calico printers of Lancashire to have a law stringently enforced against them, while in another river basin their competitors in trade were being treated with comparative leniency and indulgence."

In their evidence before the Committee of their Lordships' House scientific witnesses showed that they were not agreed on the point. Manufacturers did not know how to act; and if the County Court Judge called in the aid of experts their Lordships knew how conflicting were likely to be the opinions he would hear stated. He did not mean to assert that scientific witnesses were unduly biased on the side for which they appeared; but all of their Lordships who had served on Committees knew that the evidence of such witnesses when examined on the one side and the other, was usually to leave the Committee in the position in which it stood when the inquiry commenced, and to put out of its power any attempt to reconcile the conflicting scientific opinions. The Report of the Committee of their Lordships' House stated—

"Two sets of experts usually come to opposite conclusions, and, instead of helping the tribunal before whom they appear to form a sound judgment, they only increase its embarrassment, and the general result is either that the Court, rejecting altogether the conflicting scientific evidence, arrives at what it considers a common-sense conclusion, or by some ingenious and fallacious process contrives to twist the discordant statements sufficiently into harmony to afford some justification for conclusions thus apparently based upon them."

He had said so much, not by way of opposition to the second reading of the Bill, but to point out the necessity of giving full time for a consideration of the Bill and an examination of the proposal to leave so much to the County Court Judge.

said, that the object of the Bill was a very good one, but he could not conceal from himself that there would be very great difficulty in carrying it into effect. He had great experience with respect to the pollution of the rivers in Scotland, but he thought it would be very objectionable, if, merely because the manufacturers had been in the habit of polluting the rivers for upwards of 12 years, they should obtain the prescriptive right to continue to do so, merely by showing that they had taken some steps to prevent such pollution, and that these were the best means which they could adopt for the purpose. In Scotland it had been ruled that however long a person had possessed a manufactory, and had polluted the river, it gave him no prescriptive right to continue to do so. He did not think that the provisions of the measure generally were stringent enough, because there was no one appointed to put the law in motion. He thought it would be better if they appointed Inspectors—something in the character of Inspectors of Nuisances—who should examine the water, and on finding it polluted have the power of bringing the manufacturer before the County Court Judge—in other words, who should fulfil the office of public prosecutor. The rivers in Scotland were polluted to an enormous extent, and for a considerable distance from many towns the water of the rivers was altogether unfit for domestic purposes. In some parts of the Tweed it appeared bright and sparkling enough, and emitted no- thing whatever offensive to the smell, but nevertheless, when taken up, it was found to be as black as any of their Lordships' coats. Such a state of things ought never to be continued, and he was therefore desirous that the Bill should be amended in the sense of making it more stringent.

understood that the main objection to the state of the law as it now stood was its uncertainty, and the indefiniteness of the offence it was intended to punish. He would like to consider the provisions of the Bill from that point of view, because he thought that if they could pass an Act making clear what constituted the offence, that Act would be accepted by manufacturers and by the corporations of towns with great readiness; but if it failed in that point, it would encounter great resistance. Now, the Bill of Her Majesty's Government differed in several respects from any previous attempts in this direction. There was, in the first place, the constitution of the County Court Judge as the tribunal before whom these cases were to be tried. With regard to this point, his noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) had well pointed out the dangers which were likely to arise from leaving so much to the judgment of the County Court Judge. Then there was the substitution of the noble Marquess' common-sense test for the chemical tests upon which previous legislation had relied. He was bound to say that, whilst something was to be said against the chemical tests, a good deal was also to be said against anything which could be put in their place. It was quite true that chemical tests, if embodied in a Bill, would be likely to break down in some cases; but scientific men were almost unanimously of opinion that some kind of test should be adopted, and it was the opinion of almost all the men of science whose opinions had been laid before the River Pollution Commission that tests were practicable. Professor Frankland stated before the House of Lords' Committee that—

"There is actually no definite line of demarcation separating the purest spring water from the filthiest sewage; it, therefore, appears obvious that for the purposes of efficient legislation such a line, though an arbitrary one, must be drawn between waters which were to be deemed polluting and inadmissible into streams, and such as should be considered innocuous, and therefore admissible into running water; it would thus become easy on the one hand to convict careless or reckless corporations or manufacturers, and on the other, which is equally important, to protect them from the incessant and uncertain litigation that must ensue if no definition of polluting liquids were adopted; hence arose the necessity for the standards of pollution suggested by the Commissioners: the standards of pollution represent, in a concentrated form, the experience of the present Rivers Pollution Commission, acquired by the incessant investigation for five years of the chief manufacturing purposes carried on in this country."

He had read a very important statement to the same effect by Mr. J. Chalmers Morton—

"Without tests it was impossible that justice should invariably be done, for these standards were as necessary for the protection of the innocent as for the easy conviction of the guilty. At present, if you go before a Court with your complaint in general terms of the nuisance by which you are aggrieved you are certain to be met by evidence, also in general terms, that the thing is not so bad as you declared it, or that there is really no nuisance at all; or that if there be any discomfort it is as nothing compared with the tenfold injury which would be inflicted on one hundredfold the number of sufferers if any injunction should be issued; and what was a distracted jury, or even a clear-sighted Judge, to do for either complainant or defendant in the face of contradictory evidence, both lay and scientific, so long as both are allowed the resources of the English language with which to attack or defend?"

He could not but regard that testimony as of great importance. As showing the difficulties which would have to be encountered in the working of the Bill, he would direct attention to the 3rd clause, which stated that—

"Every person who causes to fall or flow, or knowingly permits to fall or flow or to be carried into any stream any solid or liquid sewage matter, shall be deemed to commit an offence against this Act."

Now, it would be impossible for the manager of a sewage farm—and this Bill appeared to contemplate sewage farms as the obvious remedy for the existing condition of things—to avoid doing what that clause prohibited. Again, by Clauses 4 and 5 anyone who, after the passing of this Bill, should knowingly cause or permit to fall or flow any filthy, noxious, poisonous, or polluting liquid proceeding from any factory or manufacturing process, or from any mine, into any stream should be deemed to commit an offence against the Act. A person who had been acting in that way for a period of less than 12 years preceding the passing of the Act was to be allowed two years after the passing of the Act, or such further period as the Local Government Board might allow, before he could be deemed to have committed such offence, and then he was to be subject to all the pains and penalties of the Bill; but a person who for a period of 12 years or more preceding the passing of the Act had been acting in that way was not at any time to be deemed to commit an offence against the Act, if he proved that he had used, and continued to use, the best practicable and available means to detain or render harmless the pollution. Now, if a man had taken and was continuing to take the best practicable and available means of purifying the offensive liquid, he could not see what difference two, five, ten, or twelve years' usage should make in the case. The proposal in the Bill appeared to him to be "prescription run mad," and he ventured to hope that the noble Marquess would reconsider his proposal, at all events in this respect. He had heard with great satisfaction from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) that the drainage of a district was not to be a matter for the local authorities; but unless the local authority took action under the provisions of the Bill, he should like to know who else was likely to do so? In fact, what it would come to was this—that the duty of giving effect to this Bill would fall upon the medical officer of each district. The duties of the County Court Judge had been multiplied by recent legislation, but the case of the County Court Judge was nothing to that of the sanitary officer, upon whom every fresh Act of Parliament cast new responsibilities. As their Lordships knew, that officer was in many instances the doctor in a small country town. Often he was not very liberally paid for what he did as Officer of Health, and in many instances—as shown by a Return which he held in his hand—he was allowed private practice; and therefore did not give his whole time to the duties of his office. He could draw only one conclusion from the difficulties which presented themselves, and it was this—that in order to successfully grapple with the subject, a wider and more comprehensive scheme of local government must necessarily be established, and he regretted that before bringing in this measure the Government had not addressed themselves to reforming the local government of the country.

said, he was aware that the subject with which the Government proposed to deal by this Bill was a most difficult one, but he thought the Bill failed to meet it. He concurred with his noble Friend who had just spoken (the Marquess of Lansdowne) in thinking there was no good reason for the prescriptive advantage proposed to be given to those manufacturers who had been polluting rivers for 12 years. He was of opinion that the pollution of rivers could not be effectively dealt with unless in other great manufacturing towns the course taken in the metropolis were adopted. He referred to the construction of a great central sewer to carry off the drainage of a large district to one appointed place. He could hardly think that the point had escaped the noble Marquess; but he did not observe that sufficient provision for the purpose was made in the Bill. He concurred with his noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) who had pointed out the embarrassment likely to arise from conflicting decisions of County Court Judges; and it appeared to him that competent persons to supervise districts should be appointed by the Government in order to secure uniformity in the working of the measure.

said, he did not object to the criticisms on the Bill, nor was he at all surprised at them; but he would ask their Lordships to consider what they had to do—what was the problem they had to solve. On the one side, the rivers had been so absolutely polluted that the rights of the riparian owners had been virtually ousted and destroyed. The owners lower down a stream had had from all time the right to use the water for themselves and their animals—the right to have it in a state in which it could be used. Consequently, they had the right that it should not be made noxious by those who dwelt higher up. On the other hand, the owners of great pecuniary interests—extensive manufacturers employing large numbers of people and carrying on manufactories essential to the prosperity of the country—had set up their works all along those streams. These were vast interests which neither our sense of justice nor our Parliamentary power would enable us to disregard. But that was not the only difficulty. It was to be borne in mind that Parliament took a bold step some years ago in the matter of drainage. Without inquiring too curiously what would be the effect to individual interests, it directed that the work should be done—they imposed on the local authorities the duty of draining towns and other places inhabited by large communities. The Government therefore had to deal with very complicated local governments and with people jealous of their rights and interests. What was to be done in this dilemma was a matter which could only be settled by arrangement. Undoubtedly there were difficulties which must be encountered by those who undertook to legislate on the subject of the Pollution of Rivers—they were difficulties inseparable from the constitution of the country. He could not concur with those noble Lords who had said that they saw no reason for the distinction which the Bill made between persons who had been polluting a stream for 12 years and those who had commenced to do so within a more recent period. If a man came to establish himself on the land of another person, he was a wrong doer, and that other person could at once drive him out; but if the man had been 12 years established on the land, that other person could not drive him out. He knew there was no legal parallel between that case and the case provided for in the Bill, but there was a moral parallel between them. He thought that if manufacturers had been allowed to go on pursuing a certain process for many years, and Parliament suddenly interfered to solve a problem, that solution ought to be sought for with some consideration for those manufacturers. As to what had been said about the local authorities being left to set the Bill in motion, he thought the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch) had not a clear apprehension of the proposal—he seemed to think that only the local authorities had power to set the Act in motion. No doubt had that been so it would have been a defect in the Bill; but he would point out that the Local Government Board was charged with the performance of the duty in case the local authorities had failed to perform it; so that a responsible Minister of the Government would have to see that effect was given to the provisions of the Bill. He quite agreed with what the noble Lord (Lord Aberdare) had said as to the importance of bringing the Bill to bear on a large area; and that, he apprehended, was the object of providing for Conservancy Boards in the way proposed by the Bill. There was, however, one point in respect of which he admitted the Bill was defective. As the Bill stood it did not confer sufficient power on Conservancy Boards to construct large drains in the centres of districts. He thought they could do this only by means of Private Bills, and when this Bill went down to the Commons it might be expedient to provide means for the Conservancy Boards to promote Private Bills for that purpose. As to the objections urged against the jurisdiction proposed to be given to the County Court Judges, in the first place, the Judges of the Superior Courts were already overworked. The County Court Judge was at once the Judge nearest to the locality and the Judge with the most time. To say that questions such as would arise under this Bill must be dealt with by Courts of great authority and not by the County Courts was to say that they must be brought to London—a proceeding which would be ruinous to the suitor and ruinous to the Bill itself. As to tests, if satisfactory tests could be embodied in the Bill, that, no doubt, would be a convenient and satisfactory arrangement; but he did not think they could be. The test of colour would be erroneous; the test of suspended matter would be futile, because it would always be found in an agricultural district after a heavy fall of rain; and as to the test of organic nitrogen, while there was still a dispute about it on a matter of scientific fact it would be going rather far to embody it in the Bill. But he did not think there would be that difficulty in coming to a decision which some noble Lords seemed to apprehend. They were only now dealing with the pollution of water; but it was a long time back since they commenced to deal with the pollution of air, and people who had noses had proved to be well able, by the old and well-known process, to decide what was a stink. In the same way he believed the County Court Judge would be able to decide, by common sense, what was the pollution of a river. It was for the persons who were affected by the pollution to say whether the water was pure or not, and for the Court to decide and say what was to be done. We should not be able to do altogether without experts, but he hoped we should have as little as possible to do with them. Their opinions were weakened by the very accuracy and minuteness of their scientific knowledge. He did not pretend that a perfect remedy would be provided by this Bill. It was a tentative effort. He believed the Government were going as far as they could go in the matter, and that the Bill would effect a marked improvement in respect of the many evils complained of. If that improvement should prove not to be sufficient, it would be competent to Parliament, by means of future legislation, to again take the grievance in hand and have recourse to further means to remove it. It was, in his judgment, the wiser course for the Government to move by slow steps, and not attempt to go too far.

said, that the discussion their Lordships had heard that evening showed the truth of the observations of his noble Friend (the Earl of Morley), that this was a Bill which ought not to be passed before time had been given to the great interests which it would affect to carefully consider its provisions. He had himself great difficulty in understanding what would be the operation of the Bill, and that difficulty had not been diminished—on the contrary, it had been increased—by the speech of his noble Friend who had just sat down (the Marquess of Salisbury). The noble Marquess did not appear to understand, as well as he might have been expected to do, some parts of his own Bill; because he first argued that prescriptive rights were not given to certain persons by Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill, and then he went on to say that, of course, it was necessary to show some respect for vested interests. The real difficulty which presented itself in connection with the words of those clauses was to say whether they did save any interests; and if they did, whether they did not save a great deal more than his noble Friend intended them to save. In the first place, even the person who had caused pollution for 12 years or more was required to show that he had used, and continued to use, the best procurable and available means to "detain or render harmless" the polluting liquid, so that it should not flow into the stream. If these words were to be read as requiring him to "detain" by the best available means, unless there were some available means of rendering the liquid harmless, this was not a matter of science; everybody could detain a liquid, in the sense of not letting it run into a stream. But, in that case, there was no greater tenderness shown to those who had polluted for 12 years, than to those who might only have began their pollution yesterday. The distinction was illusory; and every man who could not purify the liquid must detain it, though at the expense, possibly, of the destruction of his business. On the other hand, if a man who had for 12 years polluted a stream, was meant to be at liberty to go on doing so, if he could show that there were no better means available than those which he was actually using, either to purify or to detain it, consistently with carrying on his business, this would operate in a direction exactly the contrary of that desired by the noble Duke opposite. He (Lord Selborne) did not see how it would be possible to get rid of scientific tests and the evidence of experts when the question was whether the best and most practical means had been used to render the sewage harmless. The hearing of such cases in the County Courts would be very likely to cause a serious derangement of their business, for some pollution cases in which he had been engaged had lasted many days, and even weeks. There seemed to be undue latitude in the definition of "streams"—for if any watercourse was to be deemed a stream within the meaning of the Act, it would go much further than could be intended, and in particular it would interfere with mining operations, which could not be carried on without using watercourses. Under any circumstances it was necessary that time should be allowed for the consideration of all these details throughout the country.

said, the criticism of the noble and learned Lord related to the merest points of detail. What was meant by "detain or render harmless" was, of course, that one or two alternatives must be adopted—namely, either polluting matter must be kept out of a stream, or it must be rendered harmless before it was put in. If the definition of "stream" included an "artificial watercourse," that could be remedied in Committee. His noble and learned Friend, also, had spoken of the 4th and 5th clauses, as "Saving clauses" as though they had created vested interests; but he, (the Lord Chancellor), contended that anyone could argue on vested interests by having polluted a stream for 12 years, and he denied that the Bill set up any such prescription. At present an offender enjoyed immunity, because individuals had either not the money or the direct personal interest to resort to litigation; but that was the only kind of immunity which the Bill recognized; but this Bill provided a cheap and speedy process of law and enabled persons interested to stop a nuisance at once. As the main object of the Bill was to invest an authority with power to restrain the pollution of rivers, we must in this as in other cases face the difficulty of selecting a tribunal. Doubtless there had been cases in which great expense had been incurred in raising questions which experts could do little more than quarrel about; but if the power conferred by the Bill was to be denied to subordinate Courts like the County Courts, and was to be given only to Judges of the Superior Courts, the practical effect would be that the Bill could not be put into operation on account of the difficulty and expense. There would be a large number of small cases which would be much better disposed of on the spot, on a view of the place by the County Court Judge, than they would be on affidavits supported by argument before a Superior Court in London. Their Lordships might very well consider whether in all cases the decision of the County Court Judge was to be final; but it would be premature to discuss that now. No doubt the Bill had been a short time before the public, but the discussion on the second reading in that House would call public attention to it.

wished to say, in explanation, that he did not mean to affirm that any man could have a vested interest in the commission of a public nuisance. What he said was, that the Bill, as it stood, either created such vested interests, or that, if it did not do so and was not intended to do so, its terms were illusory.

said, that the noble Marquess had stated that there were various ways in which water might be purified, or pollution prevented. So, no doubt, there were. They had had long discussions in that House about patents, of which there were 45,000 in this country. The moment the Act came in force the holders of some of these patents would step in, each claiming that he owned a patent for the only means by which pollution could be prevented, and in that way the work of purification would be a heavy tax on every manufacturer. Another result of its operation would be, that a manufacturer who could easily avoid pollution—say by possessing a site suitable for a subsidence pond—would get the Act enforced against a rival in trade who, for want of adjoining land, could not solve the difficulty so easily. No doubt, there would be many cases of this kind. It was 10 years since the first Commission on this subject was appointed, and the conclusion at which he had arrived, after reading much of the evidence, was that our rivers were hopelessly polluted, and that we never could make their water potable. The foul matters encumbering streams might be got rid of, but the notion of their supplying water fit to drink must be altogether put aside. Towns must be supplied with pure water for drinking purposes in some other way, and the sooner that was generally admitted the better it would be for their large towns.

My Lords, I have tried more than once to address you on this Bill, but would not persist to the inconvenience of your Lordships. Now, however, before it leaves this House I must entreat your indulgence for a few minutes, and a very few minutes only. I have been for some time of opinion, and have publicly said so during the last 12 months at several Agricultural Chamber and Farmers' Club meetings, that some legislation on the subject was desirable; in order, while maintaining freedom of contract, to alter the legal presumption all over England to what it is in those parts, where an enlightened custom of the country has gradually obtained recognition in the Law Courts. I therefore think the Government was right in bringing forward a measure on the subject. But though this Bill has been much improved in its passage through this House, I still object altogether to its plan; I object to much of its wording; and I object to some of the grounds alleged by the noble Duke, its author, for its introduction. I object to the plan of the Bill because it begins by laying down a general principle in the most sweeping terms in one clause, while materially restricting its legal operation by subsequent clauses. I can conceive nothing more unwise or impolitic in the case of a question which has excited a great deal of popular feeling, and where a certain number of just and reasonable demands are mixed up with other unjust and unreasonable ones, than first to make an apparent surrender of almost everything with the one hand, while afterwards quietly taking back the greater part with the other hand. Such a plan of legislation hero I think most undesirable, not to say dangerous, from the landlords' point of view. Now, from the tenants' point of view, I think that, after you have limited, as I believe rightly, the tenant's compensation for any improvement to a sum not exceeding at most what he has expended upon it, it is most unjust to the tenant that you should further limit his claim for compensation to the case where the improvement has been successful; however honestly the work may have been carried out in accordance with the notice and description given of it to the landlord, and however complete may have been the landlord's consent and approval. Indeed, I felt this injustice so strongly that I had intended moving an Amendment about it; and was only deterred by the hopelessness of carrying it, and by observing that the point had been noticed by others in the course of the discussion. Then in the interest of both landlords and tenants, I object to the general scheme of the Bill; so great a part of which is taken up with elaborate provisions about valuations and arbitrations, that its whole working seems to turn upon them. I therefore confidently anticipate that it will prove far less profitable to either land-occupiers or landowners than to surveyors and solicitors. Now with regard to these two highly respectable and useful professions, it should be remembered that their work is classed by political economists under the head of verificatory processes as distinguished from those of production or distribution: and that when the work of verification is artificially stimulated and increased by special legislation, an undue proportion of the wealth of the country will be un-profitably diverted into this channel; and either the cost of production thus needlessly enhanced, or its profits needlessly diminished. I object, therefore, to the expensive and complicated machinery of the Bill. I object further to some of its wording, and especially to the term "unexhausted" improvements as applied not merely to manures, which may not unreasonably be described as exhausted by one or at most a few crops; but also to buildings and bridges, to wells and watercourses, to roads and orchards; as if the buildings and bridges must fall down, the wells and water-courses choke up, the roads be stopped up, or the apple trees be blown down in the course of 20 years at most. The legal operation of this expression is indeed limited by other clauses; but the word itself is most unfortunate and misleading, and must tend to create grievous discontent with the measure. Lastly I object to one of the grounds prominently assigned by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) for the introduction of the Bill—namely, increasing the production of food for the people. Time was, indeed, when that reason would have had just weight, in the days of the absurd sliding scale of the old Corn Laws, which we Liberals always denounced and the noble Duke so strenuously defended. For Protection did seriously restrict the supply of food to the people. But since its happy abolition immense quantities of food have been annually imported from abroad. And there is no argument of the noble Duke's about corn which does not apply more strongly to coal. Coal is even more essential to our manufacturing and commercial prosperity; for fuel means force. Coal is some 20 times as heavy in proportion to its value as corn, and therefore cannot near as easily be supplied from abroad. Coal is not reproduced, and therefore our coalfields are in slow course of exhaustion; unlike our cornfields, which under skilful cultivation can go on yielding corn for an indefinite period. Lastly, there is no extravagant waste or folly known in the production of corn, which has not been, and is not, ten times surpassed in the getting and using of coal. But the real fact is, that when a Tory Government determines under popular pressure to legislate in a popular sense, it is very apt, as we have seen before, to take a leap in the dark; to use clap-trap arguments and announce sweeping principles, quite unconscious of the inferences and consequences logically deducible from the premisses, which it has so rashly laid down.

moved to add at end of Clause 4 (Interpretation) the following definition of "letting value:"—

"The letting value means the value at which the holding could he or could have been let if the improvement had not been executed."

said, he was anxious at this stage of the Bill to give the House an opportunity of re-considering this one question—namely, what was the most proper measure of the value of the compensation to be awarded under this Bill. They had been told that the improvement should add to "the letting value" was a condition vital to the Bill. He confessed he did not understand that way of putting the matter. He was perfectly ready to agree that the improvement for which compensation was to be claimed should be such as would add to the value of the holding. But it was a practical question how the value and the improvement for which compensation was to be given under the Bill could best be measured. He ventured to doubt whether the measure adopted by the Bill was the best from a practical point of view, and whether it was likely to be understood by persons hitherto employed in determining questions of this kind. He was not aware that those gentlemen had ever heard of the condition of "increased letting value." He had carefully looked into the provisions of the Bill brought into the other House by the late Mr. Pusey, and also into the evidence taken by the Committee over which Mr. Pusey presided, and he had not been able to discover the phrase "increased letting value." Many of the improvements to be executed under this Bill would not add to the letting value. It was the large improvements which would have an obvious and palpable effect on the rent of the farm, and which could be proved in a Court of Justice by the valuer or the tenant when he made the claim. But would that remark apply to the minor improvements under this Act—which would be far more numerous? It would be very difficult in those numerous cases of minor improvements, however valuable the improvements might be to the occupiers, for the tenant to give evidence to the satisfaction of a valuer or a Judge that they would necessarily add to the letting value of the farm at the moment as measured by the increased rent that would be obtained. He doubted further whether this condition was consistent with the other provisions of the Bill. In conclusion, he begged to move, in Clause 5, line 23, to leave out ("adding to the letting value thereof,") and insert (" the benefit of which is unexhausted at the time of his quitting his holding.")

said, he had not interfered in the discussion of the Bill, because he had felt it did not apply, except in cases of the disability of the owner of land to give security to the occupier against the pressure of the successor to the estate; in fact, he had felt the force of "suave mari magno &c." principle; but now he yielded to the wish expressed to him to address the House. He had, in years long past, been in the habit, as a member of the Royal Agricultural Society, of visiting all parts of England, and holding intimate and friendly intercourse with farmers of all grades in all parts of the country, and he found that a real grievance existed, and was felt by them to need a remedy. He brought in a Bill in 1841 and again in 1843, which was supported by the present Lord Privy Seal, with some few other Peers yet alive, and was referred to a Select Committee, where it was amended and left for the country to consider. It was a Bill to give power to persons under disability to grant leases, and to make agreements for specified improvements on a fixed value, to be exhausted by yearly enjoyment, or to be paid for as the term of enjoyment was or was not completed. This House afterwards preferred to allow the subject to be considered in the House of Commons before taking any further step. Mr. Pusey, after conference with him (Viscount Portman), undertook the work, and although his Bill passed the House of Commons, it did not find acceptance in this House. Parts of it only were enacted in the Act called "the Emblement Act," wherein was a clause giving the tenant a remedy against the landlord, for the value of buildings he might have erected. The subject then dropped; because a system of loan was established which owners under disability were able to obtain a charge on their land to be payable by instalments by themselves and their heirs, really much better for all parties than expenditure of the money of the tenant; but in these more recent times an agitation of a larger kind had been created, and under its pressure it seemed that the Ministers of the Crown had decided to propose this Bill. In his (Viscount Port-man's) opinion the great body of the occupiers of the land were indifferent to the subject, except so far as regarded the giving power to bind the successors of owners under disability. The chief agitators were the implement makers, the manure merchants, the lenders of money, and the borrowers of money. All those men wanted to get the security of the land for their money, and as soon as that was obtained, then to press on to abolish the law of distress for rent. There were, however, to be added some good farmers, who intended to quit their farms, who, in their last two years, by the aid of stimulants, could secure the utmost crop, and by the use of cake could improve the condition of the sheep and cattle to be sold off, and in addition to the gain from the artificial manure wished to get all they could persuade valuers to give them to add to their gain, rather than to secure themselves against loss, for if they were so to be paid the probable loss would fall on the incoming tenant. Again, some farmers of capital desired to spend their money to avoid the payment of interest on money borrowed by the landlord, whereby such men could obtain double interest on their money by saving payment and by reaping the increased profit on the outlay. Improvement of a farm was made by continuous and steadily-continued good farming for a series of years, not by any sudden process; and although in some parts of the country larger crops might be obtained than could be grown by bad farmers, yet to talk of double crops was absurd, unless it was where none were grown, and all that was obtained thereon was of course double. Too much stimulant did not augment the profit of grain crops, but often lessened it, for it caused a mass of weak straw to grow, which fell as the grain became heavy, and the crop was often not worth half what it would have been with "good" farming as contrasted with what was called "high" farming. The tenant ought to have some advantage in his future lease for his improvements of the farm. His view had always been that increase of rent depended on extraneous causes to which the landlord had a fair claim, on the improvements made and paid for by the landlord, and on the improvements made by the tenant which should be allowed to him in the new rent. He had always been of opinion that the relations of landlord and tenant should be governed by contract—either by agreement or lease or other written contract—and he had let all his estates on written contracts for various terms of years, so he might say he was quite impartial as to the clauses of the Bill. He thought the great advantage of this measure was, that it would induce the generality of landlords and tenants to make agreements and define their engagements strictly. The words which Mr. Pusey deemed the best adapted for the purpose they were now discussing were—"The actual value of the improvement remaining after the termination of the tenancy," by which words he meant what remained to be paid of the sums previously fixed by agreement, in all cases, a necessary preliminary. His noble Friend (Lord Carlingford) proposed to use the word "benefit;" but he (Viscount Portman) preferred the present wording of the Bill. The Government had taken the right words, and had guarded them properly by the definition of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Penzance). In his opinion, if the present Amendment were agreed to, a great injury would be inflicted on the Bill and on the people of this country. Benefit implied an opinion formed by the valuer, while letting value meant rent which would be a fact established. To the three classes of improvement the words "letting value" were not equally applicable. To the first and second classes it was the best test; to the third class it was less applicable, because the so-called improvement was fugitive. It was, in fact, merely the use of stimulants to obtain a crop, and often was exhausted in one crop, or, in case of a dry season, was useless for any future crop. It was, in fact, the mode wherein a farmer was able to exhaust to the utmost the productive power of the soil, and yet it was capable of estimate in the increased letting value, by helping to maintain the land in a productive state, so that the rent was augmented by the continuous good farming of the occupier continued to the end of his term. He regarded this measure as one of very great value in one way. It would lead landlords to consider that Parliament thought it right that they should make their agreements in a particular direction, and it provided a remedy when the owner of the land was under disability to bind his successor. He trusted, however, that their Lordships would firmly adhere to this being a permissive and not a compulsory measure, and that they would take care to maintain the great principle of freedom of contract, which was the best for the landlords, the tenants, and the labourers who would derive benefit from their legislation.

thought the most convenient way of estimating the value of an improvement was practically that which had been proposed by his noble Friend behind him. He wished to point out that while this clause professed to give to the tenant a capital sum, representing the unexhausted value of his improvement, as calculated by the increased letting value, that sum was, under Clause 7, subject to a proportionate deduction for each year of the tenancy, whatever might be the increased letting value. This was sure to excite a letting of injustice, as the two principles of valuation conflicted.

preferred the words in the clause, which he thought were clearer than the proposed Amendment.

said, the noble Lord who moved the Amendment (Lord Carlingford) had failed to convince him that it ought to be accepted by their Lordships. The definition given by the Bill of an improvement was "an improvement which adds to the letting value." The Bill declared that compensation should be given for that which added to the letting value, and one of the clauses set out in detail the manner in which that compensation was to be determined. The noble Lord said that valuers generally throughout the country would be employed—and he had no doubt they would be—on such occasions, but that they would not be competent to deal with the letting value of a farm. He could not conceive any body of men who would be more competent than men whose whole lives were passed in valuing property.

said, he would not press his Amendment.

My Lords, as we have now arrived at the conclusion of our labours on this Bill, I trust the House will allow me to say a very few words on its general effect before it passes to the other House of Parliament. I am not sure that I recollect in my experience any similar case of a measure so important, so novel in principle, affecting such important interests, and having such extensive alterations made in it, and which, notwithstanding, has passed through all its stages without giving rise to a single division. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will admit that we on this side of the House, while we have discussed it fairly, have shown no inclination to damage the Bill—and, on the other hand, we on this side quite admit that in conducting this Bill through the House my noble Friend opposite has shown that he was quite willing to receive suggestions from this side of the House made to improve its provisions. As the Bill now stands, though we may entertain different opi- nions—and I entertain my own upon it—it will leave this House with the general assent and consent of your Lordships. I think, my Lords, this measure will have considerable effect upon the relations between landlord and tenants in England, and I will explain in a very few words what I think the effect will be. What is the state of things now, and what is it that it is supposed to require redress? I do not know that I can better illustrate the case than by telling the House a story that was told to me not many years ago by a very distinguished Member of your Lordships' House. I need not mention his name. My noble Friend told me that he had in a distant county in England an outlying estate, held by a very substantial tenant. It happened that he had never seen his property for some 12 or 15 years. On one occasion, however, he was hunting in the county, and visited a friend in the neighbourhood of this farm. Riding over to see it, he came to the place at which he imagined it to be. He looked round about him, and saw a large and substantial farm-house, which he had never seen before, and a very handsome windmill. He came to the conclusion that he must have gone to the wrong place, and that neither the farm-house nor the windmill could be upon his property. He therefore asked a labourer whom he saw where such and such a farm was; whereupon the labourer said—"There it is, straight before you." My noble Friend found that his tenant had actually, without his knowledge or sanction, laid out a very large sum of money, not only upon the farm, but upon the farm-buildings. On asking whether there was any custom under which a tenant might have done so, he was told certainly not, but he was simply holding the land at will under the ordinary law of England, at six months' notice. The story made a great impression upon my mind. No Scotchman certainly would have done such a thing without having some security for it—my noble Friend opposite knows that very well. It is a splendid illustration of the confidence between landlord and tenant in England and of the moral atmosphere which could bring about such a state of things. At the same time, if I am asked whether it is a satisfactory state of matters, I say, as the French officers said of the Bala- clava charge—"It is magnificent, but is it not war;" so I say of this—it is magnificent, but it is not business—it is an illustration of a state of things which calls for legislation such as the present, and I cannot help coming to the conclusion that in future there will be under this Bill clear written agreements for the letting and holding of land, and will induce landlords to insert in their leases some provisions giving compensation to tenants who might be obliged to leave their farms or who had expended their capital on the improvement of their holdings without opportunity of recovering that capital by any adequate length of possession. I cannot doubt that a feeling exists among many landlords in England which will still lead to discourage the letting of land on leases. As an instance of this feeling, I may mention that not many years ago a noble Lord a Member of this House possessed an estate in Scotland contiguous to my own and had lived upon it for a great number of years. One day I happened to meet him in this House, and he said to me, "I am about to sell my Scotch estate." "What for?" I asked him. "You seemed to be very fond of it, and to enjoy it very much." "Oh," he said, "I have been persuaded by an agent to adopt that abominable system of a 19 years' lease, and since then I have ceased to feel any interest in the estate, and intend to sell it." That was a speech that let a good deal of light on my mind as to the feeling which might exist in England between landlord and tenant. The objection on the part of some landlords to granting leases shows a state of things calculated to lead to the stagnation of agricultural industry. In the present day, if farming is to be successful and under the new conditions, landlords must learn to give up somewhat of the ancient feudal power which they formerly held over their property, and the tenants must have security for money expended under the new and costly system of farming which has come to be the custom in modern times. We must give them security for their tenures or assure to them a fixed term of years; if we do not give them leases we must give them some other security, that if they let on from year to year and laying out money on the improvement of the land they shall not be turned out of their farms without compensation. With regard to the proposal that has been made to render the measure compulsory, I can only say that if it had been adopted every English landlord would have been compelled at once to re-value his farms, for the reason that tenants cannot be compensated in two different forms—they cannot have the advantage of low rentals, as is the case with a permissive system, and, at the same time, receive compensation for improvements either at the termination of their leases or after a certain lapse of time. Although I think that, as a general rule, low rentals are connected with bad and lazy farming, I cannot avoid the conclusion that a general revaluation will have most mischievous effects. This measure cannot be made compulsory without involving a State valuation of rentals, for, without such a valuation, landlords will recoup themselves for the compensation they may be called upon to pay by an addition of £1 or £2 an acre to the rent of the land; and in that way tenants will be deprived of all the advantage the Bill is intended to confer upon them. We cannot, under a system of open competition, secure advantages to tenants unless we proceed the whole length of a State valuation; and are we to have regulation and over-regulation prices for farms? Such a state of things will not stand. So long as the Bill is permissive, it may have the effect of introducing voluntary agreements all over England; but any attempt to make it compulsory will be attended with infinite mischief. It is to the honour of the House that all parties have concurred in passing a Bill which is not an empty sham—which we have not passed because we think it will have no effect at all—but a Bill which we believe to be based on sound principles, and which will place landlords under strong and powerful motives to adopt agreements consistent with those principles. The Bill will have three great results—it will confer important powers on limited owners—which have long been enjoyed in Scotland under special Acts—it will make necessary written agreements all over the country, and it will allow compensation to go on as it does now in the form of low rents without necessitating—as a compulsory Bill would unquestionably do— a simultaneous and universal re-valuation of farms.

said, that the discussion on the Bill showed how everyone was disposed to look at the question from the standpoint of how it would affect himself, or how it would affect the interests of the community with which he was himself most intimately connected; and this was the case with the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), for the relations between landlord and tenant in Scotland were far more businesslike than they were in England. But then the diversities were so great that the customs of the South of England could scarcely be understood in Scotland. There the farms were principally carried on by men with large capital, while in England a man might have no more capital than he had borrowed. Till very lately not one among 30 or 40 tenants had a signed agreement. When he himself succeeded to his property, he did not find a single properly written agreement in existence between the tenants and his father—all they had to rely upon were memoranda of verbal promises and detached portions of letters. In the enthusiasm of youth, he wished to change all that and give leases; but he found his tenants would not accept leases. In the case of one tenant at £1,000 a-year of a farm which had been in the family for more than a century a lease was accepted; but when it lapsed nothing could induce the tenant to renew it; and he preferred a yearly tenure. Tenants insisted upon going on from year to year, and they would not have leases because they thought they were more independent without them. Now under this Bill landlords and tenants would be obliged, in their own interests, to have written agreements. If the Bill had been a compulsory measure nothing would have induced him to assist in carrying it. Nothing could be more disadvantageous to farmers than a compulsory law. It would be humiliating to them as suggesting that they could not take care of themselves, and humiliating to landlords as implying that they could not be trusted to make fair agreements with their tenants. Whatever changes might be made in the Bill in the other House, at all events he trusted no attempt would be made to tamper or trifle with the great principle of freedom of contract.

thought he might infer from the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) that discussion had changed his opinion of the Bill and had caused him to regard it with more approval than he did at first. For himself, believing it to be founded upon principles of justice between landlords and tenants, he saw no reason why-it should not come into operation. The call for compensation for unexhausted improvements was not owing to any real want of confidence in the great bulk of the landed proprietors; but, no doubt, among the smaller landowners injustice had been committed in various cases, and tenants had often grievances to complain of, that in parting with the land they had received no compensation for improvements they had made. He hoped the effect of this measure would not be the introduction of leases as in Scotland, for in this country tenants had full security for their holdings—he had tenants on his own property who had held the same farm, father and sons, for generations. But this measure would be useful to the agricultural interest by laying down the principle on which compensation should be afforded; and if it was sound in principle, he saw no reason why it should not be generally adopted. He could not allow the Bill to pass without expressing his acknowledgments to the Government for having brought forward such a measure, believing that it would be of great use to the agricultural interest.

, in reply, said, he wished to say one word in consequence of what had been said by a noble Lord (Viscount Portman) with regard to that part of the Bill which related to freedom of contract. He stated most emphatically that the Government adhered to that principle enunciated throughout the discussion on the Bill—namely, that it was not their intention to interfere with freedom of contract, and that any interference with freedom of contract they should consider as tantamount to the defeat of the measure altogether. The Government fully appreciated the conduct of noble Lords on the other side; they were grateful to them for the very considerate attention they had given to the measure and for the many valuable suggestions they had made; and he must add that the opposition to the Bill had been conducted in a manner that was most gratifying and satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government.

said, he need scarcely inform their Lordships that he felt very much the great importance of this measure which he had now the honour of asking them to read a second time, and the responsibility which attached to the Government for dealing with the question. But it would no doubt be in the recollection of their Lordships that in Her Majesty's most gracious Speech delivered from the Throne, these words would be found—Her Majesty stated that—

"The various statutes of an exceptional or temporary nature now in force for the preservation of peace in Ireland will be brought to your notice with a view to determine whether some of them may not be dispensed with."

He was sure he would not be contradicted when he said that no Government, whether formed of noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on one side or the other of their Lordships' House and the House of Commons, could with any degree of satisfaction feel themselves compelled to propose measures which were of a stringent and coercive character directed against any portion of Her Majesty's dominions; and when these measures had once been passed it was the duty, as it must be the wish, of every Government that they should no longer be kept in a more stringent form than was absolutely necessary for the safety of the country for which they were enacted. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government had thought it right and proper, as it had been their agreeable task, to look into those various statutes now in force, and see whether the state of Ireland and the condition of the country were such as to render it wise and proper to modify those measures and to do away with certain portions of them which were of the most stringent character. And they believed they were able to do this as to many such provisions. This Bill dealt with three separate Acts of Parliament—first, with the Peace Preservation Act of 1870; secondly, it dealt with the Act passed against Unlawful Oaths and Illegal Societies; and, thirdly, with another Act passed for the protection of Life and Property in certain portions of Ireland, called the Westmeath Act. The Peace Preservation Act of 1870 amended an Act that was passed in 18S6. The Act of 1856, introduced in that year, was a considerably milder form of legislation than prevailed in the year 1848; but in 1870, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Carlingford), in consequence of the disturbed state of Ireland at that time, thought it necessary to amend the law, and the Act of 1870 was the consequence. By the provisions of that Act persons, although duly licensed to carry arms, were not authorized thereby to carry or have revolvers in any proclaimed district unless with a special permission. The Act extended the Whiteboy Acts to proclaimed districts. That portion of the Act it was now proposed to repeal. It also gave the Lord Lieutenant power to grant general search warrants in proclaimed districts authorizing the person holding the warrant to enter into any house or place to execute the warrant, at any time—by night as well as by day; and such warrants were in force for three months. It was proposed to abrogate this power by the present Bill. The Act also dealt with the sale of gunpowder: it gave arbitrary power to summon persons who were supposed able to give material evidence. The second part of the Act of 1870 gave power to the Lord Lieutenant to issue special Proclamations—a power which was now proposed to be given up by the present Bill. There were also what were commonly called the Curfew Clauses, which gave power to arrest at night under suspicious circumstances persons found in proclaimed districts who could not give a satisfactory account of themselves. That was now proposed to be repealed. There were also stringent and coercive powers given to the Lord Lieutenant to deal with the Press in Ireland, and to seize and deal with newspapers in a manner hitherto unknown in that country. The state of Ireland at that time might well be judged by the very coercive nature of that Act, which the noble Lord opposite felt himself bound to introduce and recommend to the consideration of Parliament. He believed, he might say, it was passed with the general assent of Parliament—their Lordships did not think that the powers then asked were greater than the necessity of the case required. This Act was to expire in 1871. It had been renewed by other Acts for the protection of Life and Property in certain parts of Ireland for two years, and in 1873 it was further renewed till the 1st of June, 1875. He had now sketched very briefly and hurriedly the various Acts of a stringent nature which existed in Ireland, and he thought no Government would be justified in retaining them one hour longer than they were believed to be necessary for the protection of life and property in that country. The present Bill was a modification of the Act of 1870. In the first place, it enlarged the power of the licensing authority. It enabled that authority to extend the licence to carry arms, and made it obligatory to grant a licence to persons having an agricultural holding on the production of a certificate signed by two magistrates in the Petty Sessions district of the person producing the certificate. The Act also diminished the punishment for carrying or having arms contrary to the law from two years, with hard labour, to one year, without hard labour. It also provided that warrants of search for, and seizure of, arms should be executed only between sunrise and sunset, and it reduced the time during which the warrants were to run from three months to 21 days. These were concessions made by the Government in the other House to the feelings of Gentlemen who were deeply interested in Ireland. Then the Bill allowed a summary trial by the magistrates in Petty Sessions, with power of appeal if the punishment allotted was more than one month's imprisonment. It also modified the form in which compensation should be granted, making it necessary that the Grand Jury should be of opinion that material evidence was withheld; and it gave the Judge large powers of review. These powers the Government proposed should be continued for five years. Then there was the 2nd and 3rd of the Queen—the Unlawful Oaths Act—modified by the 11th and 12th, relating to the administering and taking Unlawful Oaths, and to unlawful combinations and confederacies which had signs and passwords as a means of recognition, and also to societies for the distribution of arms, It was quite evident that such societies, unless checked, might be the cause of considerable disturbance and danger, arising from the distribution of arms and the dissemination of revolutionary principles. Under these Acts the persons joining those illegal bodies were guilty of felony. The 11th and 12th of the Queen provided for the searching, under warrant, of places where those societies held their meetings in order to obtain information. By the 2nd and 3rd of the Queen, societies of Freemasons and Friendly Brothers which had registered themselves were exempt from penalty; but during the progress of the Bill through the other House of Parliament it was ascertained that some of those bodies in Ireland had not been registered, and the 4th clause of the Bill granted them an indemnity. With those modifications the Government proposed that the provisions of the Acts to which he had referred should be continued for five years. The third Act with which they proposed to deal was the Preservation of Life and Property Act of 1871. That Bill originated in the inquiries of a Committee of the other House of Parliament into the state of Westmeath, and parts of Meath and the King's County. Such a state of things was shown to exist that the Government of the day thought it necessary to come to Parliament for the very stringent provisions which were part and parcel of the Act as it at present existed. By that Act powers were given to the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council to enforce its provisions by Proclamation in the districts to which it referred, a statement to that effect being laid on the Table if Parliament was sitting at that time, and, if not, within 14 days after it had met. Power was also given to arrest and detain without trial any person suspected of complicity with the Ribbon Society. These powers were so stringent that anyone at this side of the water would be very much surprised if any Government were to ask for them; but we must not forget that this exceptional legislation was intended to deal with societies which for many years had had the most baneful effect on the condition of Ireland. He would venture to read a few words on that subject from the Marquess of Hartington when Chief Secretary for Ireland, The noble Marquess said—

"The reports we receive show that such a state of terrorism prevails that the society has only to issue its edict to secure obedience; nor has it even to issue its edict, its laws are so well known, and an infringement of them is followed so regularly by murderous outrage, that few, indeed, can treat them with defiance. Riband law, and not the law of the land, appears to be that which is obeyed. It reaches to such an extent that no landlord dare exercise the most ordinary of rights pertaining to land; and no farmer, employer, or agent dare exercise his own judgment or discretion as to whom he shall or shall not employ; in fact, so far does the influence of the society extend, that a man scarcely dare enter into open competition in the fairs or markets with anyone known to belong to the society."—[3 Hansard, cciv. 994.]

That was a true statement of the facts of the case, and though the Acts were stringent, the results showed that they had been wisely conceived and carried out with moderation and discretion up to the present time. This Westmeath Act the Government proposed to deal with in a different manner from the other two Acts, and to limit its continuance to two years. It was to be hoped that by the end of that time it might not be necessary to prolong it in its present stringent form. It was to be borne in mind that the fact that the other two Acts were to be passed for five years did not by any means imply that they would be enforced all that time, because it would be the duty of any Government—and an agreeable duty it would be—if the necessity for them no longer existed, to propose to Parliament to repeal them. It would be satisfactory to noble Lords' on both sides to see that the legislation contemplated by this Bill was entirely in the direction of relaxation, and he hoped this would be an earnest of what the state of Ireland would allow to be done for the future. He hoped it might be the pleasing task of whatever Government might be in power still further to relax the severity of measures which were of an exceptional character, and that the day might not be far distant when it might not be absolutely necessary to have a different law in one part of Her Majesty's dominions from that which prevailed in another. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

said, this Bill was so important that he could not allow the second reading to pass without taking the opportunity of offering a few general remarks upon it. His first feeling with regard to it was a hearty hope that it might be the last Coercion Bill they should ever see within those walls. His second feeling was that of satisfaction at the tone and substance of the statement their Lordships had just heard from the noble Duke. The noble Duke's statement was very fair to those who preceded him in office and whose painful duty it was to frame and carry the laws which the present Government were now partially repealing, and the statement was also fair and conciliatory to the people of Ireland. The Bill, in fact, amounted to a very large relaxation of the coercive code which had for some time been in force in that country. This fact, of which there could be no doubt, had been rather hidden by the course of events in "another place"—the almost endless Amendments moved by Irish Members during the progress of the Bill there, and the controversies to which those Amendments led, had concealed the fact that the measure very considerably relaxed the severity of the law. He did not grudge Her Majesty's Government any credit they might derive in Ireland from the fact that the Bill greatly relaxed the severity of the law; but he thought the people of Ireland ought to know that it was a fact, and that the Government and Parliament had been engaged all this time, not in framing a fresh law of coercion, but in largely relaxing the law which had been deemed necessary for some time past. With the very grave but still the limited exception of the Westmeath Act, the Peace Preservation Act, as it would stand in future, amounted to scarcely anything more than restrictions on the sale and possession of arms. If the Lord Lieutenant deemed it necessary, he might impose those restrictions widely; but, on the other hand, he might, if he deemed it safe and prudent, not apply the provisions of the law to any particular district. Of course, the Westmeath Act was a most exceptional measure, and one not to be justified except upon proof of absolute necessity. He hoped, however, it was known in Ireland that the late Government had had recourse to that Act with the greatest reluctance, and only upon proof of such necessity as made it the duty of any Government to endeavour to remedy the evil. The Act was not passed until a full inquiry had been made by a Committee of the other House, consisting of distinguished statesmen of both political parties. Ribbonism was an evil which the ordinary law had always found the greatest difficulty in coping with, and nowhere was this fact more fully recognized than in the very districts which had been subject to the provisions of the Westmeath Act. Westmeath, Meath, and portions of the King's County had been acknowledged for years to be the hot-bed of Ribbonism. The most important omission from the existing Act which the present Bill made was, that of the clauses relating to the Press; and here again he agreed with the noble Duke that unless positive necessity could be shown for the maintenance of such an exceptional enactment Parliament could not be called upon or expected to re-enact it. At the time when the law was passed there were, as the noble Duke had said, certain Irish newspapers which held, day after day, such language as no Government could allow to continue. These prints in various parts of Ireland were at that time using language, which amounted to a direct and audacious incitement both to rebellion and to individual assassination. That was a state of things which no Government, whether popular or despotic, monarchical or republican, could allow to continue without making some attempt at prevention. But things had now changed for the better, and he was not prepared to say that the Government would at this moment have been able to justify themselves to Parliament if they had proposed a re-enactment of the clauses affecting the Press. For himself he rejoiced heartily that they were able to let them go. The propriety of the large relaxations now proposed cast no doubt on the necessity of the original enactments at the time they were made. That necessity, he thought, was amply proved by himself, when as Chief Secretary for Ireland, he introduced in "another place" the Bill of 1870, and by his noble Friend Lord Hartington when he brought in the Westmeath Act in 1871. Not that in those two years the state of crime was unprecedented, for outrages and assassinations had been far more numerous in earlier times, for in 1847, when Lord John Russell's Administration introduced their Bill, the number of assassinations in Ireland amounted to 160; but, nevertheless, at that period of 1871–2 crime in Ireland was bad, dangerous, and increasing—being, moreover, of that kind which excited terror and paralyzed the energies of the country. The power which the Government now possessed of relaxing those severe laws had been brought about first of all by the success of the laws themselves, and next, he must add as his firm conviction, by the success of other laws of a very different character which were passed by the late Government at the same time. It would be un-candid in him if he did not say this, because when he performed the painful duty of introducing the Bill of 1870, he remembered saying most distinctly that it was his great consolation that Government at the same time intended to pass other measures, not of coercion, but of reform, to the effect of which, by moral means, it looked quite as much, and, in the long run far more, for the peace and tranquillity of Ireland. Still, it was, of course, impossible to wait for the effect of permanent measures, which no one but an enthusiast could expect to act by magic. The then Government recognized the necessity of exceptional legislation, and that necessity was strongly illustrated by the very remarkable concurrence with which those measures were received by Parliament, and in almost every part of the House of Commons itself. It was an important fact, often forgotten, that the amount of Irish opposition to those measures was quite trifling. Not as many as 15 Irish Members, he believed, voted against the second reading of the Peace Preservation Bill in 1870; and the case was much the same the next year with regard to the Westmeath Act. It was difficult to know exactly what effect would be produced by the long debates which had recently occurred in "another place." It was difficult for a bystander to judge. There seemed to have been a curious alternation of embraces and reproaches between the Treasury Bench and the Irish Members; but he believed it would be recognized in Ireland that both the Government and Parliament had brought to the consideration of this subject the utmost patience, and the utmost anxiety, to deal with Ireland as we would deal with this country, if we were legislating for any part of England or Scotland under similar circumstances. In conclusion, he must express his belief that the spirit of conciliation which characterized the noble Duke's speech to-night would not be without producing a good effect on Ireland.

said, he had no doubt the Bill was necessary—he regretted the necessity for its introduction as much as any Member of their Lordships' House; but he joined in the hope expressed by the noble Duke on moving the second reading that, long before the expiration of the five years, it might be possible to repeal this measure.

then moved that the House should meet tomorrow, at 12 o'clock, for the purpose of considering the Bill.