My Lords, this Bill is regarded as of considerable importance by the friendly societies of this country' and as such I think it merits a few words of explanation to this House. When I say that the membership of the friendly societies includes some of the best elements of the working classes of this country and that the accumulated savings of those societies amount to over fifty millions, I am sure your Lordships will agree that their wishes deserve consideration, at all events, at the hands of the Legislature. This Bill has the unanimous support of the friendly societies in the country, and it has also received the unanimous support of all parties in another place. In fact it is really a non-contentious Bill. It has been supported consistently by the National Conference of Friendly [Societies] for some years past. The Bill is really an amending Bill. It seeks to alter the law in one or two cases, and also to make the law clear on one or two points which have arisen with regard to the constitution governing the friendly societies. But there is one clause in the Bill of particular importance which the friendly societies are most anxious of seeing passed into law—Clause 2. At present infants of or under one year cannot be admitted as members of friendly societies. This clause would permit them to be so registered. I believe that the age of one year was originally named because it was feared that people who had charge of infants might cause their death by neglect or otherwise in order to claim the insurance money from their society. But members of industrial insurance companies are able to insure their children from birth, and I am glad to say it has not been found in practice that the evil to which I have just alluded does exist, or, at all events, to any appreciable extent. Therefore this clause only puts the friendly societies on the same footing in this respect as industrial insurance companies; and as there is some competition, I understand, between the two classes of societies it is eminently fair to the friendly societies that this should be so. Having regard to the at least equally deserving character of friendly societies and to the fact that they are probably better supervised than the industrial insurance companies and that the members of friendly societies have interests in common and acquaintanceship in common, it is far less likely that the evil I have just mentioned would occur in the case of friendly societies than in the case of industrial insurance companies. There are other points in the Bill, but they are really legal points of a rather complicated character, and I do not think that any detailed explanation of them is necessary at this stage. Clause 4 defines the word "security" in the Friendly Societies Act; and Clause 9 deals with the case of an officer of a society who is unable to account for moneys of the society but where the case is not strong enough to justify the allegation of fraud. This Bill, I may mention, is to be read in conjunction with the principal Act of 1896. It may appear, on the face of it, that the difficulties entailed by legislation by reference might ensue in relation to this Bill; but Clause 13 provides that, if the Bill passes into law, it shall be printed as one with the principal Act of 1896, and this confusion will, therefore, be avoided.

My Lords, I do not interpose for the purpose of opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, but I cannot help thinking that one feature of the Bill to which the noble Lord has referred was passed over rather too lightly. I sat on the Committee which inquired into the subject of infant insurances, and I am bound to say that the tendency of the evidence was that this was a very serious evil. Although it may be true that there are societies which are entitled to do this, certainly the feeling on the Committee was that the power of doing it as it existed ought to be checked—I do not mean to say absolutely prohibited, but that, instead of being allowed to get the money, the parents should be compelled to take the amount that they would have received in money in the expenses of the funeral, which was, of course, the point on which it was said infant life was insured in that way. That seems to me a very serious question not lightly to be disposed of. As to the legal question, I do not know what it is. The noble Lord did not expound what the question was, but merely said it was for the purpose partly of making the law clear—a very desirable object if it can be done. Then the noble Lord said there was some provision which altered the law; but he did not state what the law was or what the alteration consisted in. As I say, I have not risen for the purpose of opposing the Second Reading, but I shall certainly ask for more particulars when we go into Committee.

My Lords, I rise for the purpose of asking your Lordships to allow this Bill to pass through Committee pro forma so that it may be reprinted as amended and recommitted, thus following the precedent so recently put before your Lordships in dealing with the Nurses Registration Bill. As your Lordships will remember, this Bill came up from the House of Commons in a form which excited some very severe criticism, especially on the part of the noble Viscount opposite, Lord St. Aldwyn, who objected altogether to its being entertained in the form in which it was presented. It is, in fact, a conspicuous example of legislation by reference. The subject of the Bill, however, recommended itself to your Lordships approval, and it was read a second time. Since then Amendments have been placed on the Paper which, if incorporated in the Bill, will meet the defect in form to which attention was properly directed. The Amendments standing in the name of the noble Viscount will entirely meet this objection. There is also an Amendment, standing in the name of Lord Ridley, to insert a new clause which was approved in another place. What I now propose is that your Lordships should go into Committee pro forma so that these agreed Amendments should be accepted and incorporated in the Bill, after which it will be recommitted. We shall then begin again at the same stage, but with a Bill which presents an entirely new shape. There I might, perhaps, stop; but I am aware that there is some feeling in high quarters as to the possible reception of the Bill so amended in another place. It is suggested that if the Bill goes back so completely transformed, although it accomplishes exactly the same object and makes no greater or less change in the law, there may be some feeling in another place unfriendly to its reception. I have consulted the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced the Bill elsewhere and conducted it through all its stages, and he does not entertain any anxiety on this ground. He is, at all events, ready to run the risk. Moreover, there is little or no chance of the Bill getting through this House unless it is so transformed, as your Lordships would not willingly approve of such a conspicuous example of legislation by reference as the Bill presents in its present shape. I beg to move.

My Lords, ordinarily on this Motion there is no debate, but it may be convenient to say a word or two on the subject that has been broached by Lord Courtney. My desire is to further the Bill. That is my sole object. At present it is in a form in which it is not likely, I apprehend, to commend itself to the House. Indeed, it is in a very inconvenient form, because it is a rather extreme instance of legislation by reference. What, therefore, is to be done? The noble Lord proposes to go into Committee pro forma in order that the Bill may then be re-committed and come on again in October after the recess. So far as the postponement is concerned, I think that is the right course to take. But then what course is to be adopted? There are two courses open. One is that which commends itself to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill and also, I understand, to Lord St. Aldwyn, namely, to strike out Clauses 1, 2, and 3—that is, all the clauses in the Bill—and substitute others incorporating the Act of which this purposes to be an Amendment, so that when the Bill went back to the House of Commons it would not be recognised even by those who claim its paternity, for there would not be a single word of the old Bill remaining. I am not putting it that that is an impossible view; on the contrary, if the noble Lord and the noble Viscount are convinced that it is the best course I would not put my view against theirs. But I consider that it is a preferable alternative to amend the Bill as it stands with all its defects and introduce a Bill alongside of it which shall be a real Consolidation Bill, consisting of the old Act and of this Bill as amended. I think that course would facilitate the progress of the Bill in another place. It is rather a piece of Parliamentary tactics. I do not wish to dogmatise, and still less to be obstinate; but I think that is the better course, for pure consolidation has never been objected to in this or in the other House.

My Lords, I understand from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that he does not object to the proposal made by the noble Lord opposite, but that he prefers the alternative he has himself suggested. I confess that I very much prefer the proposal of the noble Lord opposite. I think it is important that we should take in hand so gross an example of bad drafting as this, and show the House of Commons that at any rate this House does not intend to pass legislation of that kind. Therefore, I should be very sorry if, concurrently with the Bill drafted as your Lordships would desire to see it drafted, a Consolidation Bill were sent down to the other House, because it would then be possible that the Commons might prefer the original Bill and negative our Bill. I understand that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill does not intend to take any further stage beyond this formal stage until after the adjournment. The practical work of Committee would therefore be taken in October, which would give plenty of time for noble Lords who desire to amend the Bill and put it in a proper shape to place their Amendments on the Paper.

I have not said anything about deferring the further consideration of the Bill until October, but I think that course so desirable that I offer no objection to it.

My Lords, the Bill which I have the honour to present to your Lordships for Second Reading to-day is substantially the same Bill as the present Lord Derby introduced into the House of Commons when he was Postmaster-General. Its object is to amend the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1907, with respect to the construction and maintenance of telegraph lines for telephonic and other telegraphic purposes. Your Lordships are aware that when the Postmaster-General desires to construct a telegraphic line along a road application is made to the local authorities, and if those authorities give leave the work is proceeded with; but in the event of a local authority objecting, the case is taken before a County Court Judge. In the case of a road where there is no grass margin, but only a hedge and ditch, the property generally of the adjacent landowner, and where permission is refused by this landowner, the Postmaster-General has no means whatever of constructing the line. In some cases this had led to considerable trouble, although I must say that during the time I have been connected with the Post Office—nearly three years—we have had very little trouble indeed with way-leaves. There have, however, been one or two occasions when the agents of the landowners have objected, but on the Postmaster-General approaching the land- lords themselves they have invariably given us the facilities required. This Bill only gives us power in the case of land within 20 feet of any street or road; if the ditch or hedge is further than that the Bill is non operative. Another clause in the Bill deals with the cutting of corners. At the present time we have no power, where there is a corner, of going across another man's land, and we have to take the wires right along the road. This is not the case in a town, for under another Act we can take a telegraph wire across anybody's house. By this Bill we shall have similar powers in the country. The landowner is very carefully safeguarded, as if he objects to the carrying of the Wires over his land he can appeal before the two Railway Commissioners or the County Court Judge. There is one other question with regard to the lopping of trees. At the present moment a local authority has power to lop trees providing the owner refuses to do so. We have no such power, and we propose, subject to arbitration, to take this power in connection with trees which obstruct a telegraphic line on a street or road, giving the owner or occupier of the land one month's notice. These are the main provisions of the Bill, which, I may add, is strongly supported by the National Footpaths Preservation Society and the National Trust for the Preservation pf Historical Monuments. I beg to move.

My Lords, I do not wish to offer any objection to the Second Reading of this Bill, particularly as the Bill has been before both Houses of Parliament in previous sessions. But I wish to point out that it makes a somewhat new departure, because up to now, if the Postmaster-General proposed to place wires across the approach to a dwelling house or to erect a post within ten yards of a dwelling house, he could only do so with the consent of the occupier. This Bill would enable the Postmaster-General to put up a post and to carry wires along right in front of a person's window, so long as it was within twenty yards of the public road. That is a very considerable power to give to the Postmaster-General, and I think that when your Lordships are giving a Second Beading to a Bill you ought to be aware of what the effect of it may possibly be.

My Lords, I do not rise to oppose in any way the Second Reading of this Bill, but there is one clause in it to which the noble Earl omitted to call attention, and which, I understand, was put into the Bill during its passage through the other House. I refer to Clause 3, which runs—

"Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act no telegraphic line shall be constructed on, over, along, or across any land dedicated to the recreation of the public, or any hedge or bank adjoining such land, without the consent of the person in whom such land is vested, or under whose control and management such land for the time being remains."

It seems to me that if all the landowners in the country are to be taken to arbitration, it would only be reasonable that those in whom recreation grounds are technically vested should be similarly dealt with. You are just as likely to have persons unreasonably objecting in cases of this kind. As the clause now stands, there is absolute prohibition where the person in whom the recreation ground is vested refuses his consent. The noble Lord referred to the lopping of trees. At the top of page 3 of the Bill there is an expression which is now to me as far as the English language is concerned. The sentence runs—

"The Postmaster-General shall issue instructions to his officers with a view to ensuring that trees shall be lopped in a husbandlike manner and so as to avoid injury to their growth."

I understand the rules of good husbandry and also the proper management of trees, but I do not quite understand the expression "lopped in a husbandlike manner." In these days when ladies are so assertive of their rights, I am not quite sure what this is meant to imply. There may, however, be some authority for this word, but I think that before we give the sanction of Parliament to it it should be examined with care.

My Lords, I am rather anxious to do penance in a white sheet on the matter of the word "husbandlike," to which the noble Lord has alluded. In the course of the proceedings on the Agricultural Holdings Act the noble Marquess opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, introduced an Amendment in which that word was included. I took upon myself to doubt whether it was familiar in Acts of Parliament; but the noble Marquess adduced such strong evidence that it was a word, not merely familiar in the English language, but completely proper to the occasion, that I was entirely convinced, and I am bound to support its retention on this occasion.

My Lords, I do not know that I understood the remarks of Lord Balfour aright, but it seems to me questionable to extend the powers of the Post Office to lands which are dedicated to the recreation of the public. I do not know that such lands come entirely in the same category as lands privately owned. I think there ought to be absolute power to prevent telegraph wires being put across recreation grounds or any interference with the pleasure of the public. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will not limit the rights of the public in any way.

My Lords, I am glad that Lord Balfour drew my attention to Clause 3, which I had omitted to mention. This clause was introduced in the House of Commons, and it seems to me that some amendment is advisable. I therefore propose, subject to your Lordships' approval, to move, in Committee, to add at the end of the clause the following words—

"Provided that if such consent is withheld or any condition is attached thereto to which the Postmaster General objects, a difference shall be deemed to have arisen between the Postmaster-General and that person, and Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Telegraph Act shall apply as if the difference arose under that Act."

The effect of that will be to put these public recreation grounds on exactly the same terms as everybody else in the Bill. I do not know whether your Lordships would object to that, but it seems to me to be the proper course to adopt.

My Lords, this Bill refers to a not very important matter in relation to the Territorial Forces Act of last year, although it is one which has a certain bearing upon the efficiency of those Forces. The point arises in relation to the presidency of the Associations formed under that Act. Some of your Lordships may remember that when the Bill came up from the House of Commons it was left to the discretion of the Army Council as to whether or not the Lord-Lieutenant of the county should be the president of the Association, the idea being that there might be some cases in which the Lord-Lieutenant would obviously not be the person who ought to take charge of the organisation of the Territorial Forces in a particular county. When the clause came before the House in Committee the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumber land, moved to insert words that the Lord-Lieutenant should not act if he did not assent. That was objected to from this side of the House, and my noble friend Lord Portsmouth moved the insertion of the words which are now in the Act, empowering the appointment of the Lord-Lieutenant, or, failing him, such other person as the Army Council may think fit. I do not think at that time we were quite certain what the words "failing him" meant, whether they meant exactly the same thing as the noble Duke desired to insert—namely, that the Lord-Lieutenant should always be the president unless he agreed not to act, or whether they meant something different. As a matter of fact, we are now advised that they do mean practically the same thing as the noble Duke's words, and some inconvenience has arisen, and is likely to arise in future cases, owing to the existence of this provision in the Act. Some of your Lordships may have noticed a correspondence which appeared in the newspapers a short time ago between the noble Earl, who I think has not yet taken his seat in your Lordships House, Lord Derby, and my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth, in relation to the cast of Lancashire. That was a correspondence which, both for good taste and good feeling, reflected the highest credit on both parties, but it did draw the attention of the Army Council and of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War to the existence of a possible inconvenience in these cases. That inconvenience arises in this way. Where a man has been acting as chairman of the Association and has become de facto the president, a difficulty may arise if a new Lord-Lieutenant is appointed and becomes ipso facto president of the Association. If such a difficulty should arise your Lordships will see that the Government of the day would be confronted with a dilemma. Either they would feel themselves bound, for the sake of the efficiency of the Territorial Force, to appoint the chairman of the Association Lord-Lieutenant, which is not a reasonable thing to expect—the duties of Lord-Lieutenant are by no means confined to the administration of the County Association, and I think it would be generally agreed that to bind the Government of the day to appoint the chairman of the County Association Lord-Lieutenant, whoever he might be, would not be a desirable thing—or, on the other hand, they would run the risk of possibly losing a very efficient chairman of the Association, and, even if he agreed to remain on, of causing a good deal of unrest and disappointment in the Territorial Force itself, owing to the fact that they would believe that their chairman had been superseded. I need hardly say that in introducing this Bill, which leaves it open for the Army Council to appoint somebody else than the Lord-Lieutenant president of the association in special cases, no disrespect whatever is intended to that high office. I think that is sufficiently shown by the fact that so many Lords-Lieutenant have undertaken, not merely the duties of an honorary presidency but also those of active chairmanship; and I should hope, therefore, that this Bill will be generally agreed to because the case is not in the position in which it was when the Bill was before the House last year. I think that the noble Duke opposite, in moving his Amendment, may have feared that the Army Council might introduce outsiders, and possibly military officers, who had no special connection with the county, and make them in some cases presidents of Associations; but the Associations are now formed; and even if the Army Council wished to do such a thing, which they certainly do not, it would not be in their power to do it. Therefore this Bill only meets the rare case to which I have referred, where the chairman ought to be allowed to go on being the principal person in relation to the County Association. It may be asked, What is the particular urgency of this matter? We have had one case in which very marked inconvenience has arisen. In that particular case it was not that Lord Derby felt that his personal position was compromised in any way, but I happen to know for a fact that the general body of the Territorial Association in Lancashire felt very strongly the idea of his being superseded in the principal place, and it caused a considerable degree of unrest in the county which was by no means confined to the political friends of the noble Earl, Lord Derby. Lord Derby certainly acted from no personal motives in the matter, but he was very anxious that, if possible, some steps should be taken to meet future cases. It was on that account, I think, that he acted, and I have no doubt that if he were in the House he would give his warm support to this Bill. These cases might arise in the future. I should be very sorry to discount the expectation of life of anybody, especially of a Lord-Lieutenant, but a vacancy might occur at any moment, and it is conceivably possible that we might be again confronted with the same difficulty. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will agree to give a Second Reading to this Bill, and if you are good enough to do so, allow it to pass so far as this House is concerned before we adjourn for the summer recess.

My Lords, as this matter arose out of an Amendment of mine, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words. I wish to dissociate myself altogether from any circumstances that have lately arisen. I know nothing about them more than all your Lordships do from the public prints, and I beg that in anything I may say I may not be supposed to be referring to this particular instance at all. It seems to me that this Bill is a rather more important one than the noble Earl who has just sat down would lead us to believe. The Lord Lieutenant occupies a double position; he is Lord-Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum, and I ask the noble Earl what the duties of a Lord-Lieutenant as such are. By his old duties as Lord-Lieutenant he was head of the Territorial Forces of the county. Under the Cardwell system that was changed, but he still remained the titular head, and when the Government introduced their scheme they very wisely made the Lord-Lieutenant again the head of the forces under the new condition of things. If you take away from him that right, what do you leave him? I believe that you leave him the recommendation of deputy lieutenants, and that is rather a peculiar duty for a Lord-Lieutenant who is not the head of the Territorial Force to perform, because all Lords-Lieutenant have been told that in future the deputy lieutenants are to be chosen from the ranks of those who have done good service in, or in connection with, the Territorial Force. Certainly, by excluding the Lord-Lieutenant from the Associations, you are going to deprive him of the means of judging of their services. I cannot think that that is a good step to take. You will reduce the Lord-Lieutenancy to a mere title. I do not, I confess, see why the Government have gone back from their intention, very deliberately expressed last year, to make the Lord-Lieutenant the chief head of the new organisation they were creating. We have heard from the noble Earl an account of the particular transaction to which I do not wish to allude further. But what does the noble Earl's argument amount to? It amounts to this. You have a Lord-Lieutenant and you have some one in a subordinate position to him—namely, the chairman of the Association. The chairman of the Association has done such good work that it is for the advantage of the force that he should continue to do that work, and the Lord-Lieutenant has left most of the work to him. In order to get over that difficulty, which I should have thought was a very common difficulty in all relations of life—there are many instances in which a vice-chairman is more active than the chairman—you are going to sweep away the right of the Lord-Lieutenant altogether. I should have thought that one very simple way of getting over the difficulty, one which I have known in other connections carried out very successfully, would be to hint to the new Lord-Lieutenant the fact that the chairman should continue to take a leading part in the management of the Territorial Force. This Bill removes all duties from the Lord-Lieutenant. Is the case sufficiently common, is it one which is so difficult to get over in the way I have indicated or in some other way, that it is really necessary to disestablish the Lord-Lieutenant? I am particularly glad to hear that the Government did not know what the words "failing him" meant. I thought that was so at the time, and I think I have some ground for complaining, because I Only accepted them on the ground that the Government did know what they meant, and that they meant what they have turned out to mean.

My Lords, I venture to express my, agreement with the noble Duke when he tells the House that this proposal is a rather more important one than the noble Earl in charge of the Bill seems to suppose. I have referred to the report of the debate upon the clause of the Act last year, and I have no doubt that what was present to all our minds on that occasion was that, unless there were very strong reasons to the contrary, the Lord-Lieutenant of the county was the proper person to be at the head of the Territorial Association. May I read from the report of what then took place? I said—

"What I would rather like to elicit is whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to give a Lord-Lieutenant at any rate the refusal of the honorary presidency, or whether they desire to preserve to themselves the right of refusing even an honorary presidency in certain cases."

Thereupon Lord Elgin, who spoke for the Government, said—

"It was the, intention of the Bill that, the Lord-Lieutenant should be appointed in all cases in which that would be at all practicable, the only reason for putting in the reservation being that there might be cases in which it was inexpedient or inconvenient for the Lord-Lieutenant to act. Obviously if that were so the decision must rest with somebody, and His Majesty's Government thought that, on the whole, this being a scheme for military defence, it was better to put upon the Army Council the responsibility of giving or withholding approval."

The end of that discussion was that some words which my noble friend behind me had moved were not accepted, but we did accept the words "failing him"—that is, the Lord-Lieutenant—at the suggestion of Lord Portsmouth, who was then Under-Secretary of State for War. That is the history of the case. It is now desired to alter the law, and to alter it in such manner as to dissolve the intimate relation which we desired to see between the Lord-Lieutenant and the presidency of the Territorial Association. That is, I think, a very considerable change, and my only doubt is whether the change which His Majesty's Government propose is not really one which goes beyond the necessities of the case. There was, as we all know, a leading case which attracted a good deal of attention the other day, and of which I venture to say, concurring with the noble Lord opposite, that the manner in which it was conducted, between the two parties was entirely creditable to both of them. A solution of the difficulty has been found, and now it is desired to prevent a recurrence of a similar difficulty. The noble Earl admitted that these cases were likely to be extremely rare, and I would put to him whether, in order to provide for cases so rare, it as desirable to strike what looks like a blow at the connection between the Lords-Lieutenant and the County Associations. The Lord-Lieutenant is responsible for the recommendation of deputy lieutenants, and I believe that quite lately—I shall be corrected by some of my noble friends if I am wrortg—the Lords-Lieutenant received a circular in which it Was put to them in very unambiguous terms that in future all deputy lieutenants were to hold office because they were persons likely to have special opportunities of promoting the success of the Territorial Associations. This shows to my mind how necessary it is that the Lord-Lieutenant and the president of the Territorial Association shall be one and the same person. The noble Duke suggested that the difficulty might be met in some other manner, and the suggestion which I venture to make to noble Lords opposite is that as this cannot really be such an extremely urgent matter, the discussion of the Bill might be allowed to stand over and be resumed after we have had time to consider at our leisure the effects of the proposal put forward by the noble Earl.

My Lords, of course if the noble Marquess opposite makes that appeal we are really not in a position to resist it, and therefore we must give way, although I know my right hon. friend was anxious to have this matter settled. The noble Duke suggested that it might be possible to make it a condition of the appointment of a Lord-Lieutenant in certain cases that he should not act as president of the County Association. That seems to me to place a very invidious duty upon the Government of the day. It had occurred to us whether that course could be taken instead of the one we have adopted, but it certainly does seem to me that to exact from a Lord-Lieutenant on his appointment a promise that he will fail to act under the Ace of Parliament is a rather anomalous and inconvenient course to take. Of course, it is possible to do that, but it seems to me to place both the Government of the day and the man to whom the office is offered in an invidious and disagreeable position. It is perfectly true, of course, that these cases may not be very numerous, but when they do occur they are extremely important; and in the particular Lancashire case to which reference has been made the effect upon the Territorial Force there, connected with one of the most successful of County Associations, would have been, I am informed, very great indeed. I understand that there would have been something like a general resignation of all the people concerned in the promotion of the Territorial Force there, and that is a prospect which naturally my right hon. friend, however great his respect may be for Lords-Lieutenant, could not regard with equanimity.

Does the noble Earl mean that this consequence would follow the fact that the Lord-Lieutenant became president, or the fact that as president he would take an active and leading part in the management of the Association?

If a Lord-Lieutenant is appointed and is president of the County Association, what part he will take will be within his discretion, unless the expedient suggested by the noble Duke were adopted of, as a preliminary, exacting from the Lord-Lieutenant an honourable obligation that he would fail to act.

Not fail to be president, but fail to act; that is all.

If the noble Duke will look at the Act he will see that it is assumed all through that in ordinary cases the Lord-Lieutenant will be the president. Obviously it could not be to the interest of the Army Council to appoint any person other than the one to whom, in the particular circumstances, the duties ought to be entrusted. It is hardly to be supposed that the Army Council would go out of their way to appoint someone else to make the scheme a failure. In the great majority of cases I have no doubt that the Lord-Lieutenant would be the active chairman of the Association. However, I do not know that it is worth while labouring the matter further. If the noble Marquess desires to have it postponed, postponed of course it must be.

To put myself in order I move the adjournment of the debate.

My Lords, I rise to move the addition of a new clause to provide that a Justice in Ireland shall not be disqualified to act for any purpose under the Licensing Acts by reason only of his being interested in a railway company, which is a retailer of intoxicating liquor. A similar disqualification existed in this country until the Licensing Act of 1902, in which a clause was inserted precisely similar to the one I now move. I think it is quite manifest that it was not the intention of the legislature that a magistrate should be disqualified from sitting for such a cause, and as the disqualification has been removed in this country, I ask that the law in Ireland should be assimilated with that in England in this respect.

My Lords, with the object of the noble Lord's Amendment I am in entire sympathy, but I think it is my duty to point out that the proposed new clause is hardly relevant to the purposes of this Bill. The Bill is one dealing with married persons when habitual drunkards and with persons found drunk in charge of children. It is quite true that it does deal with summary jurisdiction, but the Amendment is of a general kind, enacting that a Justice in Ireland shall not be disqualified to act "for any purpose" by reason only of his being interested in a railway company which is a retailer of intoxicating liquor. Having had some experience in the interpretation and administration of the law, I venture to say there is great inconvenience in a clause being inserted in a Bill which is not really germane to the purpose of the Bill; and I suggest that such an Amendment would not be held to be in order in the other House. I know that we are not so strict here, but I suggest to the noble Lord that his proposed new clause is not relevant to this Bill.

My Lords, after what has been said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

My Lords, this is a Bill which is mostly consolidation. There are certain Amendments inserted in it which are the result of the recommendations of a Departmental Committee two or three years ago. They are not substantial Amendments, but they do tend to convenience. I think your Lordships would not wish me to enter in detail into the uninteresting subject of costs in criminal cases, but I shall be very glad to answer any question in Committee.

My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government, in view of the statement made by Lord Denman, when speaking on the Earl of Donoughmore's Motion on Wednesday, 15th July, that—

"The Government were not prepared to ask British taxpayers for a further contribution; eliminating taxpayers and ratepayers, only the landlords and tenants remained, and it was evident that there would have to be a readjustment of existing contracts as far as those parties to the bargain were concerned.…";

whether this is to be taken to mean that existing agreements between landlord and tenant that have been signed by both parties and lodged with the Estate Commissioners are to be re-arranged between the said parties before the estate is declared to be an estate by the Commissioners and the closing day fixed.

My Lords, the Question which the noble Earl has placed on the Paper arises out of a mistake in The Times report of something I said in your Lordships' House in the debate on the Irish Land Purchase Act. I do not think that the mistake was mine, because I noticed that in the report in Hansard and in other newspapers it was not as in The Times report. Referring to the bargain contained in the terms of the Act of 1903, I said a readjustment of the existing contract would be necessary. I made no reference whatever to existing agreements. I do not know whether the noble Earl requires any further information in answer to his Question.

rose to ask His Majesty's Government: (1) Why the whole of the County of Galway was proclaimed instead of the restricted areas which are in a state of disturbance. (2) What are the legal grounds for the assertion of the Government that the expenses of extra forces of the Royal Irish Constabulary in disturbed areas can be made chargeable only on counties at large. (3) If the peremptory directions of the Irish Government to the Galway County Council to levy the demands for these expenses—made each half year from September, 1905 to September, 1907—of various districts and townlands were wrong and illegal. (4) Whether, if the laws is as they assert, they will immediately introduce legislation to remedy the glaring injustice of this indiscriminate mode of taxation in this matter. (5) When and for what periods have counties in Ireland been proclaimed under 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 13, during the last thirty years; and what demands for the expenses of extra police were made on each such occasion; and on what areas—whether counties or baronies, districts, or other parts of a county—were these demands ordered to be levied; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said, My Lords, in bringing this matter for a second time under your Lordships' notice when I have so recently raised it, I feel that possibly some apology is due to your Lordships; but my excuse must be that I consider the treatment of the proclaimed counties and the heavy expenditure both out of the Exchequer and locally—I understand something like £47,000 in the last year, and in the County of Galway something like £16,000 in one year—a subject of very great importance. I, therefore, think I am justified in bringing it again to the notice of the House and of the Government, and, so far as is in my power, to the notice of public opinion, especially in Ireland, where I hope by attending to this matter some improvement may take place. I also have this excuse for bringing the matter pertinaciously under your notice, that I am an elected county councillor in the County of Galway, and, as such, it is my duty to protect the interests of the ratepayers whom I have the honour to represent on that body, and who I consider, by the treatment of the Government in this matter, are being dealt with most unjustly. Furthermore, when I brought this matter before the House a fortnight or so ago the noble Lord who represents the Irish Office and the noble Earl the Leader of the House practically confessed that they were unable to answer the questions and the points I made; and the noble Earl, with his usual courtesy, asked me to bring up the matter again. I do not desire to go at great length into the whole story, but I think it is necessary more or less to describe the situation. Certain districts in Ireland are, unfortunately, in a state of disturbance. That is admitted by everyone. The Lord-Lieutenant has proclaimed the counties in which those districts are; he has poured into those counties an immense number of police, and, thereby, a great expenditure has been incurred. This mode of dealing with the trouble does not commend itself to me, for the very simple reason that it is doing no good whatever and is absolutely ineffectual. In spite of the large numbers of police poured into these districts, in spite of new barracks being built, these crimes and outrages still go on unchecked and they even increase. The police seem to have no power of stopping them, and they actually take place in the presence of the police, who are simply spectators of what goes on. The reason for that is quite easy to see. The people know that whether they are arrested or not, they will not be punished and nothing will happen. Consequently, these practices, in spite of the presence of the police, continue. Possibly the contention of the Government is that, though this mode of treating the matter is not directly effectual, it may be effectual through the taxation which it is necessary to place on the districts. That is reasonable. I do not myself admire that mode of punishment, but I recognise that if this taxation was levied on the disturbed districts, if the taxation was made punitive, it would possibly deter the people from continuing these practices, and thus remedy the matter. But whatever chance there was of that form of dealing with the matter being effective, is completely destroyed by the fact that the Government, instead of levying the taxation for the extra forces of police on the disturbed areas where the outrages take place, levy it on counties at large, including districts that are peaceful and have no connection whatever, with the disturbances. It that way they are, to my mind, depriving this taxation of any possibility of being indirectly effective. I would also point out, in this connection,, that the districts in which these disturbances take place are not alone not being punished by the taxation, but they are actually deriving benefits from the presence, of the extra police. You have only to be acquainted with these small towns and villages in the West of Ireland, where the population is numbered by hundreds, to know that the moving of a hundred policemen to that district is a great advantage. There are the most amazing stories in circulation as to what is going on in reference to private lodgings for the police, means of conveyance, and provisions. I have heard—and I believe it to be true—that in a certain town in the West of Ireland a house which is usually let at £30 a year has been taken by the police authorities at £30 a month; and cars are hired in these districts for the conveyance of the police at an expenditure for which you could get a special train from Dublin to Galway. The Royal Irish Constabulary was never, and is not now, an unpopular body in Ireland. It is composed of good-looking and attractive young Irishmen, and, therefore, in these districts they are a great addition to the society of the place, and, as a matter of fact, I have heard that in a small town in the West of Ireland there have been within the last month five marriages of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. There is another point of view, and it is the one which, as a county councillor, I admit more especially interests me, and that is that by levying this taxation over the whole county you are not alone not making the taxation punitive, but you are including within it A large number of people and great tracks of country which are as quiet and peaceable as possible, I am not referring to small districts where it is inevitable, perhaps, that those who are innocent should suffer. I am referring to the whole of the western half of the county of Galway. If the noble Lord wants to know what positions I am referring to I may mention them specifically. I refer to the rural district of Clifden, to the whole of the rural district of Oughterard, and to at least half of the rural district of Galway and also to the town of Galway, and I say that in all those districts there is no ground for taxing the people. I also wish to ask why the whole of the county of Galway was proclaimed. The section of the Act of Parliament which gives the Lord-Lieutenant the power, of proclaiming districts gives him full power—in. fact, directs him—to proclaim only those portions of a county which are in a state of disturbance. It is Section 13 of 6 and 7 Wm. IV., c. 13, and is as follows—

"The Lord-Lieutenant may declare by-proclamation that any county, county of a city, or county of a town in Ireland, or any barony or baronies, half barony or half baronies in any county at large, or any district of less extent than any barony or half barony, is or are in a state of disturbance and require an additional establishment of police."

Will the noble Lord say that any of those districts to which I refer—they are fifty miles long and fifty miles broad—are in a state of disturbance requiring additional police? As a matter of fact, are there any additional police in those districts? Is it not rather the fact that police have been taken from those districts in order to be placed in the disturbed districts? I submit that that part of Galway is quite undisturbed, and that the people are living in that perfect peace which always obtains in Ireland when there are not agrarian troubles. Therefore I contend that to proclaim the whole county was an abuse of the Lord-Lieutenant's power considering the section I have just read, which expressly and wearisomely mentions the various sub-divisions of a county which he may declare to be in a state of disturbance requiring an additional establishment of police. I therefore deliberately ask His Majesty's Government to hive the whole of the western portion of the county of Galway unproclaimed. It is an insult to that part of the county to proclaim it; but far more important is the injury done to these people by inflicting the extra taxation upon them. It becomes worse when we recall that nearly all that district is scheduled as a congested area, and at this moment the county council of Galway are having to tax those districts for the purpose of starting relief works to prevent the inhabitants dying of starvation. Therefore I say it was tragic to include those districts. His Majesty's Government might just as well proclaim and levy this taxation off the county of Middlesex, and, in my humble opinion, it would be less absurd to do so, because at least in the county of Middlesex the noble Lord, Lord Denman, resides as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and, although I do not accuse them of intentionally encouraging this disturbance, I do say that in fact they are more connected with this agrarian trouble than anyone living in the western half of the county of Galway. What is the answer of His Majesty's Government in this matter of levying the taxation on the whole county? I understood the noble Lord who represents the Irish Office to say that it was necessary to levy it on the whole county. I understood him to speak sympathetically the other evening, and to imply that if it could be levied on the districts they would do so, but that they were compelled to levy it on the whole county. Of course that is a legal matter, but I have looked as well as I could into it and I would refer the noble Lord to two sections in the Acts of Parliament which deal with this matter which I consider are very pertinent. I mentioned these sections to the noble Lord yesterday so that he would have time to give me an answer, because I desire the matter cleared up. I submit to His Majesty's Government that there are only two ways of putting extra police into a disturbed county—they must come either from another county or from the reserve depot in Dublin. In the case of police being moved from one county to another, Section 28 of 6 and 7 William IV., c. 13, decides what is to be the area of charge. That section says that in such a case the expenses of such police—

"During such time as they shall be, or remain, in any county or any barony or half barony, or other division of a barony, or county of a city or county of a town, or town and liberties, shall be defrayed in the same manner in all respects by such county or barony or half barony, or other division of a barony or county of a city or county of a town, or town and liberties, in respect of which such expenses shall have been incurred, and to which it shall be by the said Lord-Lieutenant declared that such expenses relate."

I therefore submit that, in so far as these police are moved from another county, the expenses must be defrayed by the district into which they are moved. But in the case of police sent into a county from the reserve in Dublin, Section 8 of 2 and 3 Vict., c. 75, says—

"One moiety for the payment of police composing the said Reserve Force shall be raised off the county, county of a city or county of a town…provided always that it shall and may be lawful for the Lord-Lieutenant, if he thinks fit, to direct that the monies or any proportion thereof, so payable in respect of the Reserve Force, shall be raised off any barony or baronies, half barony or half baronies, or other division of a barony, for the better execution of the law wherein such Reserve Force or any part thereof may have been employed, instead of the county at large."

Therefore I contend that it is in the power of the Government, in so far as the police coming from another county or from the reserve depot in Dublin are concerned, to see that the expense is placed on the baronies and not on the counties at large. In conclusion, I would appeal to His Majesty's Government to give full and fair consideration to this matter. I have not raised it in any party spirit. In fact, I think that calling attention to it is of advantage to the Government and to Ireland in that it might lead to people realising what is occurring, and to a stop being put to these disturbances. I should be glad if that were the result. In that way I should be doing a friendly turn to His Majesty's Government. But I do most earnestly ask them to look into the whole question, and if they do they will see that the present mode of dealing with the matter is proving wholly ineffectual, that in the meantime there is a wasteful expenditure of public money, and that the manner in which the taxation is being levied is most unjust. Moved, "That there be laid before the House a Return showing the counties and portions of counties proclaimed under the above Act during the last thirty years, with the dates at which the proclamations were made and withdrawn."—(Lord Killanin.)

My Lords, in the able and eloquent speech which the noble Lord has addressed to the House he has dealt with two separate and distinct questions; the first was a matter of law and the second a question of policy. I will endeavour to deal first with the question of law. The county of Galway was proclaimed because the Lord-Lieutenant in Council was satisfied that the county was "in a state of disturbance" such as to "require an additional establishment of police" within the terms of the Statute, 6 Will. IV., under which the proclamation was made. Police reports show a very considerable part of the West Riding to be undoubtedly in a state of disturbance. But even assuming that certain limited areas were not disturbed to an extent that would require additional police, that would not affect the question about which Lord Killanin appears mainly concerned—namely, the charge upon the local authorities. Even if limited areas only were proclaimed, the county at large would equally have to bear the charge.

Under what section?

Under Section 37 of the Act of William IV. the amount chargeable for extra police under Section 13, sent in pursuance of a proclamation, has to be raised off the county at large. In 1880 and 1882, when a number of counties and parts of counties were proclaimed and the police forces largely increased, the law officers advised that the charge for additional police appointed in pursuance of the proclamation must be on the county at large and not on any limited district of the county. Some of the proclamations of 1880–2, as the noble Lord is aware, remained in force for many years. I think the last proclamation remained in force till the year 1899. In the case of Galway the additional police were withdrawn in 1898. Throughout, under both Liberal and Conservative Governments, the charges have been made on the counties at large. The present Law Officers agree that the law is as stated by their predecessors in 1880. The extra police for which charges were made against certain districts and townlands in Galway, as stated in the third part of the Question, were not additional police appointed under proclamation as in the present case, but consisted of detachments of the established police forces of other counties temporarily sent to County Galway Under 11 and 12 Viet., cap. 72, Section 6, the charge for such detachments—namely, a moiety of the cost—was made upon the county at large. In 1874 that was the opinion of the Law Officers of the day. In the year 1900, however, the then Law Officers of the Crown advised that the charge could be made upon the rural or urban districts in which the men were employed, and this course appears to have been followed until March, 1906, after which date the original practice was reverted to on the advice of the present Law Officers, who agree with the view expressed by the Law Officers of 1874, that the charge should be on the county at large, a view which has been supported by judicial decision. Speaking generally, it may be said that it is open to any local authority who consider that the methods of charge for extra police are illegal to test the matter by proceedings in one of the superior Courts. I have stated the opinion of the present Law Officers, and that it is supported by a judicial decision.

; What is the judicial decision, and when was it given?

It was given by Mr. Justice Harrison at the Wexford Assizes in 1888. The noble Lord has quoted the case of the reserve force of police. It is true that in some cases the reserve force may be used for a rather similar purpose to those in counties; but the law regarding that force is that it is to be used for "sudden and extraordinary emergency." A continued state of disturbance requiring comparatively permanent additions to the police force, as in County Galway at the present time, must be treated under the Act of William IV. Even if the reserve force were used, I understand that it would not be sufficient, in the opinion of the Government, for the purpose of policing County Galway at the present time. In reply to the fifth question, I shall be glad to give the Return asked for, but to enumerate the extra expenses of police would entail enormous labour, and I hope the noble Lord will not press for that part of the Return. As to the question of injustice, I cannot admit that there is any injustice resulting from the mode of taxation. I admit that this is a rough-and-ready method of dealing with this matter, and in some cases no doubt innocent persons must suffer with the guilty. But what would be the effect of narrowing the area? Supposing a particular grazier has his cattle driven; he is probably the largest ratepayer in the district, and therefore if we narrowed the area not only would that man suffer all the inconvenience and hardship of having his cattle driven, but in addition would have to pay the greater part of the expense of the police sent to protect his property. I quite admit that in the case of the noble Lord himself and of the neighbourhood in which he resides, it is a hardship to have to pay for the misdeeds of other people in a different part of the county. I admit that. But the question, I think, is whether some people should suffer a certain amount of hardship, or a much smaller number of people suffer considerably greater hardship. I gather from the tenor of the noble Lord's remarks that he was averse to drafting police into County Galway at all.

I said it was use-less.

Well, my Lords, I submit that if the condition of County Galway is bad it would be considerably worse if the police already there were to be withdrawn. After all, the remedy is with the people of the County of Galway itself. Let thorn set their faces against cattle-driving and other forms of disturbance and then the police will be withdrawn, and if a hotter state of things should come to pass in that county there is nobody who would welcome such a state of things more warmly than the Chief Secretary.

My Lords, I cannot allow this debate to terminate without saying a word with regard to the extraordinary statement to which we have just listened. The condition of things is entirely due to His Majesty's Government. They have not taken steps to put down cattle-driving, but have allowed it to go on increasing until it has spread over eight counties, and they have proclaimed six counties under the Act of William III. and placed enormous expense upon them for extra police. The law if properly administered is perfectly capable of dealing with cattle-driving, and I want to know why His Majesty's Government have not put into force the powers they already possess. The condition of Ireland is one of increasing lawlessness. The Chief Secretary in his speeches has tried to gloss over the state of affairs, but there were during the first six months of this year, I believe, more cattle-drives than in the whole of last year and more people under police protection. Yet I think I have never heard a responsible Government make a weaker answer than that made by Lord Denman to my noble friend.

My Lords, in rising to speak on this subject I crave from your Lordships a full measure of that indulgence which of your goodness you concede to those who address you for the first time. I venture to address your Lordships to-day because I am familiar with the subject under your notice, because I have sympathy with the views of my noble friend Lord Killanin, and because the subject possesses certain aspects to which I wish to invite your Lordships' attention. My purpose will be facilitated if your Lordships will permit me to explain very briefly what the organisation of the Royal Irish Constabulary is, so far as that organisation is germane to the questions placed on the Paper by the noble Lord. The Royal Irish Constabulary is divided into two bodies, which are recruited under different legal provisions. One of these bodies is called the Free Force, and the other body is called the Reserve. The Free Force is limited by law to a maximum strength of 10,678 officers and men; the Reserve is similarly limited to a maximum strength of 412 officers and men. The Reserve Force, as its name implies, is intended for use on emergencies only. It is quartered in one body in the Constabulary Depôt in the Phoenix Park. On the other hand, the Free Force is divided, triennially, among the counties of Ireland and the City of Belfast, which for special reasons is policed by the Royal Irish Constabulary; and the number of men allocated to each county is technically called the Parliamentary quota of that county. It frequently happens that the quota of a particular county has proved inadequate for the county's needs and as the quota itself cannot be increased during the currency of the triennial allocation, other means are provided by law and practice for meeting the particular emergency or by increasing its total police force of the county. Lord Killanin said there were only two ways of doing that, but there are four. One way is by the magistrates of the county, in special meeting assembled, requisitioning the Lord-Lieutenant for any increase. Another way is for the Lord-Lieutenant, on the advice of his Privy Council, to increase the police force of any particular county. A third way is to employ part of the reserve in the county, and the fourth and last way is to transfer for temporary service to the disturbed county part of the quotas of other countries, which, being in a peaceful condition, can afford to spare the men. No matter under which of these four methods the police quota of a county is reinforced, one-half of the cost of the reinforcement falls upon the rates. The important question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, really comes to this. Should the cost be recovered from the county at large, or should it fall on the disturbed districts alone? Where the police force of a county has been strengthened by the action of the magistrates or the initiation of the Lord-Lieutenant on the advice of the Privy Council, the invariable practice has, I believe, been to treat the cost as a county at large charge; where the reinforcement has come from the reserve, the practice has been to treat the cost as recoverable from the particular districts in which the additional police have been employed. But where the reinforcement has come from the Free Forces of other counties the practice has varied. Under the last and the present Liberal Administration it has been treated as a county at large charge. During the last five years, at all events, of the late Unionist Administration, the charge was recovered from the districts whose condition made necessary the introduction of the additional police. My Lords, it is, I think, very desirable that there should be uniformity of practice in this matter. I confess that, looking at the matter from the point of view of an executive officer, my preference is strongly in favour of the interpretation which the Unionist Law Officers have placed upon the law. I consider that it is in the interests of peace and order and of fair play that those people who are peaceable and law-abiding should not be fined because of the sins of people who are disorderly. I think it is unfair that if three-fourths of the county are peaceable and orderly, those three-fourths should have to pay for the one-fourth which is disorderly. I have had much experience of the use of police in this way. In India we used to call them punitive police, and I found this method one of the most efficient in manitaining order. Under a Western as under an Eastern sun the most sensitive part of communities or of individuals is their purses, and if you bring sufficient force to bear in that direction you generally re-establish order and deter other people from breaking the law. I have only one remark more to make, and it is, with reference to what has fallen from the noble Marquess opposite. I am not here to speak for the Government; I speak for myself alone as a private Member of your Lordships' House, but, of course, I have had exceptional opportunities for acquiring information, and, indeed I feel that in addressing your Lordships I suffer from the inconvenience that I have so lately come from public service. But I think I may say that the enforcement of the Coercion Act did not relieve the Unionist Government from having recourse to this strengthening of the police force of the country. Speaking for myself alone, I am disposed to think that, when the Unionist Government, with intentions of which I completely approve, made its excursion into the fields of Liberalism in 1898, it introduced into the Local Government (Ireland) Act certain provisions which have had very great effect upon the magisterial benches throughout Ireland. I have belief and confidence in my countrymen that whatever hasty action was then taken will in time be justified; but in the meantime the action of the Unionist Government has had this effect, that it has compelled the Liberal-Government of this day to cope with disorder in Ireland with broken harness and with blunted weapons.

My Lords, I have no desire to discuss the point of law, and I do not at all rise to enter upon the material question how far the action of the Government of 1898 blunted the weapons for preserving law and order. I will only venture to say, in passing, that if they were blunted, at all events, we managed to maintain law and order in Ireland. But I rise for an entirely different purpose. I am one of those who had the good or evil fortune to give an opinion that it was not necessary to do such an extremely absurd, and, in my opinion, perfectly abortive, thing as when one division of a county was disturbed, to punish, not only that division, but its peaceful neighbours. Accordingly, we advised that under the statute it was competent, when a district was proclaimed, to send police to that district, and to charge its support upon that district. I now rise to make a suggestion. Lord Denman invited my noble friend to raise the question in a Court of law. That was a very barren and mocking invitation. He cannot raise it in a Court of law. The question is not whether the Lord-Lieutenant is bound to have the expenses raised from the disturbed districts; it is whether or not an option is given to him to direct that it be levied off the larger area. I suggest to the Government that in one of the proclaimed counties the Lord-Lieutenant should direct that a small sum should be levied on a particular area, whereupon the legal question whether the Lord-Lieutenant had or had not the jurisdiction to charge over the smaller area could be decided. If he has not, then I quite agree with Lord MacDonnell that unquestionably the law ought to be changed, for nothing could be more unjust than that people who have no connection with the disturbances should be mulcted for the support of the additional police that are necessary to check the disorder of their neighbours.

My Lords, the case presented with singular clearness and fairness by my noble friend Loud Killanin is that it seems unjust to tax the wider area, a substantial portion of which might be entirely innocent, if there is a power of concentrating the charge on the portion of the county which is disturbed. The noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Irish Office stated that until 1906 the practice had been as stated by Lord Killanin, but that in that year a change was made, and instead of the smaller localities being charged the expenditure was, spread over the whole county. It is obvious, from the speech of Lord Macdonnell, that the practice which was stopped in 1906 had been acted upon on previous occasions by various Governments and under various Law Officers without question; and Lord Macdonnell has intimated very clearly that, in his opinion, the power of charging the smaller area was a wise and useful power, and that as a question of policy and prudence it would be well to adopt that course. Lord Atkinson has also presented the case in the fairest possible way. I venture to suggest that, by the light of what has fallen from both sides of the House, it would be only fair and reasonable for the Government to apply their minds to this question and see whether they have not a discretion to make the charge upon the narrower locality if they think it expedient in the interests of law and order.

My Lords, the noble Lord opposite who replied on behalf of the Irish Office said, in the concluding words of his speech, that the people of Galway must set their faces against cattle-driving. I ask whether the Government have set their faces to the best of their ability against cattle-driving. The answer, I think, is, "No." The fact remains that after many months of their efforts cattle-driving still goes on, not alone in Galway but in other places. I should like to draw attention to a statement made by Judge Kenny at the Galway Assizes the other day. He said—

"The only part of the County Galway not in a state of extreme lawlessness is Connemara."

Connemara is the most congested part of County Galway. What, then, becomes of the argument that it is in the congested districts that the people want these extra grass lands? The fact is that this cattle-driving is engineered by the people in the small towns and by the young blackguards who gather round the public-houses at night. It is not the people in the congested dis- tricts who indulge in these raids. Lord Denman said that the grazier would suffer if the extra rate was put on the particular district where the cattle were driven, but the truth is that he would much rather pay the extra rate and have his cattle protected. I admit that on the whole Ireland is peaceful, but there is, as I have said before in this House, a gangrene in the country that will spread if it is not stopped. We have to look forward—and next winter, if the measures that we are continually promised are not properly put into force, we shall have further trouble. The answer of the Government is an evasion of the actual question. I only hope that a little backbone will be put into this matter. The Government know as well as I do that cattle-driving could be stopped if they put into effect the remedies at their command.

My Lords, in spite of what the noble Earl has said it appears to me that the question raised by Lord Killanin is purely a legal question or, at any rate, almost entirely a legal question, and consequently the discussion has very properly in the main concentrated itself on the legal aspect of the case. Previous to the year 1900, owing to a decision, I imagine, of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Ashbourne in 1874——

I did not come in until 1877.

Well, owing to the decision of the Law Officers of the Conservative Government of that year the charge was placed on the county, and it so remained up to 1900, when the Law Officers of the then Government gave a different decision. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, stated that it would not be possible, for the reason he gave, for the county council of Galway or any other county council to do what my noble friend behind me invited them to do, which was to bring the matter into Court. The proposition, therefore, of Lord Atkinson, was this, that assuming the present Law Officers are right in denying a discretion to the Lord-Lieutenant, and in saying that he is obliged to charge on the county, the Lord-Lieutenant should place himself within the possibility of an action being brought against him by making a small charge on some particular barony or half barony. I will consult my right hon. friend as to whether he is prepared to recommend any action of that kind. Noble Lords will understand that I cannot, of course, say what view he will take. I think there is no doubt that there is a very plausible case for saying that if this extra establishment of police is to be regarded as punitive, the punitive effect will be more concentrated if the charges are made on the particular district to which the police are sent. But at the same time, it does not do entirely to lose sight of the consideration mentioned by my noble friend behind me, namely, that if everybody in the disturbed area was guilty of disturbance, it would no doubt be a proper method to charge all the money on them; but even in this small area there would be a large proportion of innocent people, who would have to pay more per head if the whole charge was concentrated on the small district. I do not say that that is conclusive, but it is a point which has to be considered. I was a little amused at the way in which the noble Earl, Lord Mayo, seemed to me to give away Lord Killanin's case when he quoted the statement of Mr. Justice Kenny that the whole of county Galway, except South Connemara, was in a state of extreme lawlessness. If that is so, it is clear that the charge ought, at any rate, to be distributed over the greater part of the county.

Judge Kenny said, I think, Connemara, and that would include the whole of the district which I referred to. I did not allude to the West Hiding but to the western part of the county, which is not disturbed and ought not to be included. With regard to the Return, could the noble Lord not make it a little fuller, showing on what areas these charges were levied? Perhaps it would be easier if I reduced the period to the last twenty years.

I should think that would entail an enormous amount of labour and correspondence. I will give the noble Lord the counties which have been proclaimed.

rose to call attention to the report of a deputation which waited upon the Prime Minister to invite him to repeal the Diseases of Animals Act, 1896, which prevents the importation alive of cattle into this country from abroad; and to ask what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government on the subject. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I observed in the usual channels of information a short time ago that a deputation had waited on the Prime Minister with respect to the state of the law affecting the introduction of live cattle from abroad. No very lengthy report of that deputation, or of the answer which was made to it, was given; but so far as I could gather, the right hon. Gentleman said that he came from a constituency interested in this question, and that he was prepared to give very favourable consideration to the introduction of live cattle into this country if he could be satisfied that they came from countries where there was no disease. But we also were informed that the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture took a very different line, and was not at all sympathetic to the objects of the deputation. I confess that that is entirely in accord with everything we have heard from the noble Earl either in this House or elsewhere. The question was raised last session or the session before, and the noble Earl, with no uncertain voice, said he had no intention of departing from the policy of his predecessors. There has been some agitation in this matter, and it has been chiefly based on the idea that there is a scarcity—I believe it has been put as high as a famine—in the meat markets; but if your Lordships will look at the prices of recent months and of recent years you will see that meat is not really any dearer now than it has been on frequent occasions, due to temporary causes, in recent years. There have been some fluctuations, consequent, I believe, on a shortage of maize in America. As a result, the price of cattle went up in May and June, but I see from the official reports of the Board of Agriculture that it has gone back again. In the report dated July 2nd, I noticed that there was a marked fall in the price of beef, and that all the dead meat markets, especially American and Argentine chilled, were dull. The following week all kinds were more or less down, and then on July 16th it is reported that, while Scottish and English beef remained firm, there were heavier supplies and prices were lower. I venture to think that there is no ground for the assertion that there is a marked scarcity in the supply of meat in this country, and that there is no difference between the present position and the position in recent years. Then it has been alleged that there is a feeling of grievance on the part of our Canadian brethren on this question. I should like to ask whether any, and if so, what representations have been made by the Government of Canada to this country as to the state of the law which prevents the importation alive of Canadian cattle. My own belief is that there is no feeling at all in Canada on the subject. I have heard it said by Canadians that at the time they were sending over store cattle to this country they were not alive to the fact that they were sending us the raw material and that this country was making the profit after fattening the cattle and turning out the finished article, but they now preferred to do the finishing off of the raw material at home and get the profit from both rearing and fattening the stock as well. I assume that there has been no great agitation on the part of our Canadian cousins to have cattle admitted alive into this country, and I venture to think that the recent rise in price is only one of those fluctuations in the market which we must anticipate. I hope to hear from the noble Earl opposite that he, at any rate, has not departed from the policy he has announced to Parliament, and that that policy is endorsed by his colleagues in the Cabinet.

My Lords, the Act of 1896, as your Lordships are aware, prohibits the importation of cattle unless they are slaughtered at ports of landing, such as Deptford, Liverpool, Bristol, and Glasgow. I have to say that the Government do not propose, in existing circumstances, to initiate any legislation on the subject. I may, perhaps, be permitted to add that the President of the Board of Trade intends to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire how far, and in what mariner, the general supply, distribution, and price of meat in the United Kingdom are controlled or affected by any combination of firms or companies. I have had no representations lately from the Canadian Government on the subject, and I am informed on very high authority indeed, that whatever restrictions we are obliged to put on the importation of Canadian cattle will be loyally accepted.