quiry will assist the public in arriving at the truth that I move the Resolution of which I have given Notice. the Act of 1876; that under the arrange- | I am sure, will have but one object in ment by which the panel is selected view-namely, to arrive at the truth. mechanically and in alphabetical rota- It is because I believe that such an intion there are no means of preventing improper persons serving; that a system of terrorism prevails in many parts of Ireland, and that the classes from which the jurors are drawn are peculiarly to inquire into the operation of the Irish jury liable to that terrorism. Ministers of laws as regards trial by jury in criminal cases." the Crown and Judges have called at-(The Marquess of Lansdowne.) tention to the grievous miscarriages of Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed justice which have occurred. I submit LORD CARLINGFORD said, he was that I have made out a case for the ap- glad his noble Friend had done full pointment of the Committee for which I justice to the merits of the measure move. I will only add that in agreeing introduced by the Lord Chancellor for to the appointment of that Committee | Ireland (Lord O'Hagan) for the reform your Lordships will in no way be parties of the Jury Laws in Ireland in 1871. to the expression of opinion that trial Anyone who had looked into the matby jury ought altogether to be super-ter, and knew the condition into which seded. I will not suggest to the House the system had fallen at that time, must what alternative measures might be taken to deal with these difficulties; but I will enumerate, without discussing them, the expedients to which recourse might be had. There might be a further revision of the qualification of jurors; further steps might be taken to enforce the attendance of jurors of a superior class who now neglect their duties; it might be found desirable to intrust some official with the power of purging the jurors' list in the manner formerly adopted by the sheriff under the old Acts; recourse might be had more often to the use of special jurors; the venue might be more frequently changed when excitement prevails; the verdict of the majority might be taken, as is done in almost every country on the Continent in criminal cases. If it were demonstrated that steps of this kind are not likely to mitigate the existing state of things, the further question might arise whether the summary jurisdiction of existing tribunals might or might not be increased, or whether, in some cases, and in exceptional and temporary circumstances, they might not be superseded by tribunals constituted for the express purpose of dealing with agrarian crime. The Motion on the Paper ought to commend itself equally to those who are dissatisfied and to those who are satisfied with the existing state of the law. It is only just to the former that they should have the opportunity of giving expression to their criticism; and I have no doubt that the latter will be glad of the opportunity of defending and vindicating the system in which their belief is possibly unshaken. Both sides, recognize that the measure of his noble and learned Friend was a most important and valuable reform. The system had fallen into the greatest confusion and weakness. The qualification and numbers of jurymen in most parts of Ireland were quite inadequate to the necessities of the case; in some parts of the country those who were qualified were a mere handful of the population; and in that respect and many others the measure of his noble and learned Friend was a most valuable reform. But the inquiry which the noble Marquess now proposed related to a limited, though most vital, part of the jury system in Ireland-namely, the working of Irish juries under the present law in the case of agrarian crime and in a time of dangerous agrarian excitement; and the Government did not doubt that he had made out a strong case for such an inquiry. The Government were most willing that the inquiry should take place, and would give the noble Marquess all the assistance in their power in conducting it. He therefore thought it unnecessary to trouble their Lordships with many more words. Indeed, he thought it would be inconvenient for any Member of their Lordships' House, and certainly for anyone on the part of the Government, to give expression to their opinion on the Irish jury system in favour of any great change, or against the necessity of any change, in anticipation of this inquiry. He would not attempt to give to their Lordships any such opinion; but he would just remind them of this fact-that two Parliamentary inquiries had taken place since 1871, when the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in troduced the subject. Those inquires had been conducted by two most competent Committees, in two successive Sessions, under two different Administrations, and presided over by two Chief Secretaries to the Lord Lieutenant-the Marquess of Hartington and Sir Michael HicksBeach. The qualification of jurors, in consequence of these inquiries, was raised, and the last pronouncement on the subject by the last Committee contained an important paragraph to the effect that, in the opinion of the Committee, it was indispensable to secure absolute impartiality in the formation of the jury panel. But although this was the latest pronouncement on the subject, there was no reason why, in the light of recent events, there should not be another inquiry. He only trusted the result of that inquiry might be to enable the Irish jury system to sustain better than it did at present the burden which it was called upon to bear. LORD DENMAN said, that he thought this was not a time for inquiring as to trial by jury in Ireland, as the Government had full powers, and there was a challenge to the array and as to individuals, and a change of venue might be ordered. The Association for the Amendment of the Law would meet in Dublin in October, and could obtain information and dispassionately consider the subject. LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE said, he would remind their Lordships of the fact which had been omitted by the noble Marquess, that out of 40 charges of murder there had been only one conviction. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) stated, only a few nights back, that more crimes of a barbarous character had been committed in Ireland than had ever disgraced any savage country. It was therefore full time that something should be done, either through an improved jury system or in some other way, to improve the present unfortunate state of things. Crimes of a serious character were doubled within the last month; and, though there were large bodies of military and police in Ireland, they were not allowed to defend themselves, much less the law. The Government had passed Acts to preserve the peace in Ireland, but they were not enforced; and he was sorry to see that Mr. Parnell had shown he was more powerful than the Government, and Lord Carlingford could carry out his promises while they could not carry out theirs. The Prime Minister himself stated that crime occurred coincidentally with the Land League meetings; yet those meetings were allowed to continue, spreading terror throughout the country. If the Common Law of the land had been ezforced, and had these illegal meeting been put down, Ireland would not have been in its present state. He feared i would be of little use to try remedia measures such as those proposed, wh.. only robbed Peter to pay Paul; there must be a fair administration of the law. If the law had been enforced in Ireland as it was enforced in Great Britain, the present state of things in Ireland would not have existed. It was only weakness to be playing fast and loose in this matter. With regard to Griffiths' valuation, it was very unequal; it only took into consideration the value of the land, without regard to its locality. It put no special value on town parks, though their position often increased their value five-fold, or of land on the sea shore, where abundance of seaweed supplied the necessary manure. Y unequal as it was, it was the best valustion that existed. Under the proposed Land Bill all rents were to be settled by a Court, on application of tenants; ari, pending such valuation, no proceeding for enforcing rent could take place. There were 600,000 tenants, and doubtless, under the Land League organization, these would nearly all apply. The Court, or Courts, would be blockeddecisions could not be given for years, and if they won the case rents would be abolished. Unless this were the intention of Her Majesty's Government, they must settle some basis of rent pending these decisions. LORD O'HAGAN said, he entirely agreed with the observations of his nobie Friend (Lord Carlingford) as to the propriety of appointing a Committee. He also agreed with his noble Friend that, pending the appointment of the Committee, this was not an occasion for discussion. He would, therefore, reserve any observations he might have to make on the subject. On question, agreed to. House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, haf past Ten o'clock. CONSTITUTION OF THE BOARD OF MR. GOURLEY asked the President of the Board of Trade, What difficulties prevent the granting the Return ordered by Parliament on the 19th June 1879, relating to the names of the existing members of the Board of Trade, and the memorandum setting forth the order or charter under which members of the Board were originally appointed? Also, When he anticipates being able to lay upon the Table of the House a detailed statement showing how the Board of Trade have disposed of moneys received from the Admiralty on account of the Merchant Seamen's Greenwich Pension Fund? to other localities the natural resources of which are said to need nothing but labour to convert them into sources of plenty? THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON : Sir, the Question to which my right hon. Friend refers is the subject of a Correspondence between the Government of India and the India Office. That Correspondence is not yet complete. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will ask the Question at a later period of the Session, when I hope to be able to give him a fuller answer. EVICTIONS (IRELAND)-CO. MAYO. MR. PARNELL asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. G. A. H. Moore, of Moore Hall, county Mayo, has, since the rejection by the House of Lords of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, evicted a number of tenants, and, amongst them, one named Stephen Loftus, of Ashbrook, Strard, Ballyvoy, Mayo, whose family numbers eleven, and the rent of whose holding was £8 158., while the Poor MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, the hon. Member put to me a similar Question on the 7th of January, and I am unable to add anything to the answer I then gave him, to the effect that the Order was dropped in consequence of the Disso-Law Valuation is only £4 78. 6d. ; whelution. Of course it could be renewed; but I do not think that any public object would be served thereby, as all the information is already contained in books of reference at present in the Library of the House. As regards the second Question, I am informed that Papers will shortly be laid before Parliament showing the number of seamen to whom annuities have been granted and the amount paid to each annuitant. This ther the holding has been in Loftus's possession and that of his forefathers for one hundred and ten years; whether he has been left by the eviction without any employment or means of living; and, whether he will consider the desirability of advising the insertion of such clauses in the Land Law (Ireland) Bill as will protect this class of tenants? MR. W. E. FORSTER: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone this Ques tion. I have not been able to get all | Slattery's; that Slattery has no other the particulars. The man referred to employment or means of living than tha: was a sub-tenant, and he was evicted given him by his farm, and that is for non-payment of rent. There appear family are nine in number; and, whe to have been five tenants and four sub- ther, if these are facts, he will endeavor tenants. to have a Clause introduced into the Land Law (Ireland) Bill to prevent su-à evictions in the future? MR. PARNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether Loftus was evicted by Mr. Moore, or by the tenant? MR. W. E. FORSTER: That I cannot tell. FISHERIES-EAST COAST FISHERIESTHE NORTH SEA-OUTRAGES ON BRITISH FISHERMEN. MR. BIRKBECK asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the report of Mr. W. H. Higgin on the outrages committed by foreign upon English fishermen in the North Sea; and, whether Her Majesty's Government intend taking any steps with regard to obtaining a convention between England, France, Belgium, and Holland, which is so urgently required? Before a reply was given to his Question he begged the permission of the House to read the following telegram from Messrs. Capps, of Lowestoft : "The Warrior,' belonging to us, fishing last night, 30 miles off Lowestoft, had 15 nets and ropes cut away by a foreign trawler. Believe done with Belgian devil.'" SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have communicated with the Governments of France, Holland, and Belgium with a view of dealing with this matter; but they have not yet received a reply to their communications. EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CO. TIPPERARY. MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that since the rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill by the House of Lords, the Rev. Edward Denny Lynch, a landlord owning property in Tipperary, has evicted among other tenants a person named Thomas Slattery, from a farm at Milltown, near Tullamore, Fethard, Tipperary; whether it is a fact that the rent of the farm was sixty pounds, while the Poor Law valuation was thirty-five pounds; that the farm had been for thirty-six years in the occupation of the Mr. W. E. Forster MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I think the hon. Member is under a misappr hension as to the date of this eviction. This occurred on the 6th of June, 1879. before the existence of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. I believe that the rent was £60, and the Poor Law valu tion £40. It is true that Slattery had ment, and that he depended on the farr no other means of support-no employ He was admitted a caretaker on the 20th of August, 1880. MR. T. D. SULLIVAN asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutena:: of Ireland, If it is a fact that, since the rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, the Rev. Edward Denny has evicted a tenant named Dennis Dooley from his holding at Milltownmore, Tullamaine, Fethard, co. Tipof said tenant was £95 and the valuation perary, for arrears of rent; if the rent of his farm £47 per annum; and, if the farm was in possession of the family of the said tenant for a period of about seventy years? MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I have no doubt the land owner was the gentleman described. The name of the tenant was, I think, Dennis Loomy, not Dooley. He also was evicted in June, 1879. I believe the Question is accurate in other par ticulars. MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY said, the last part of his Question had not been answered. MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, it is not customary to state, in answer to a Ques tion of this kind, what steps it is intended to take with regard to a Bill before the House. I must remind the hon. Member that the Minister in charge of the Bill is the Prime Minister. COPPER AND COPPER ORE-RETURN OF EXPORTS AND IMPORTS, 1880. MR. W. CORBET asked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to a Return issued to Members on Wednesday the 18th instant, "of all Exports and Imports of Copper and Copper Ore, &c." for the year 1880; whether he has observed that Ireland is | plied with; and, will the Local Governnot credited with any exports whatever; ment Board take steps to compel the whether he is aware that the "Wicklow Board of Guardians to comply with the Copper Mine Company," incorporated Act of Parliament ? under the Act 26 Vic. c. 209, have for years carried on mining operations and exported ores from the port of Arklow; whether such exportations have now ceased altogether; and, if not, whether he can state what is the reason for omitting all mention of them from the Return in question? LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, as this Return is prepared by the Customs Department, I have to answer the Question on behalf of the Treasury. If the hon. Member will look again at the Return, he will see that it only professes to give the exports and imports from and into the United Kingdom. It does not profess to include removals coastwise, or from one part of the United Kingdom to another. I have no knowledge whether or not there has been copper or copper ore sent from Arklow to England; but if there were it would not appear in this Return. POST OFFICE-COLLECTION OF ASSESSED TAXES. BARON HENRY DE WORMS asked the Postmaster General, Whether, having regard to the far greater convenience of the public, and to the saving which would be effected to the State, he will consider, in conjunction with the Board of Inland Revenue, the expediency of using the machinery of the Post Office for the collection of assessed taxes? MR. FAWCETT: Sir, the Question concerns the Board of Inland Revenue and the Treasury rather than the Post Office; but if either of these bodies have any representation to make to the Post Office on the subject I need not say it will be carefully considered. VETERINARY DEPARTMENT (IRELAND) FORD. MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I find from inquiry that the order was made by the Local Government Board, and transmitted to the Board of Guardians. The present Inspector has been acting since 1878, and has been re-appointed from time to time. The Board of Guardians expressed full confidence in his efficiency, and stated that when last appointed there was no answer to the advertisement issued by them offering to accept the post on their terms, and they think it desirable that his services should be retained. There is an order under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, that if from any sufficient cause it is desirable to appoint a person, the Lord Lieutenant may authorize the local authority to appoint a person not having the qualification of Veterinary Inspector, and it appears there was no other course to adopt in this case. ARMY-THE 58TH REGIMENT. COLONEL DIGBY asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the case that the 58th Regiment, which behaved so action of Laing's Nek, is about to be sent gallantly and suffered so severely at the to the unhealthy island of Mauritius? MR. CHILDERS: I think, Sir, that the House will agree with me in deprecating any interference by the House of in the selection of particular regiments Commons with the military authorities have to be detailed from the regiments for particular duties. Three companies in South Africa to form the garrison at Mauritius, and the selection which the general officer commanding has made is approved by his Royal Highness and by myself. ARMY RETIREMENT-WARRANT OF MR. COBBOLD asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case MR. LITTON asked the Chief Secre- that the provisions of Her Majesty's tary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Warrant of 5th February 1880, allowing Whether the Local Government Board officers to count service given under the is aware that the order made by them, age of twenty as qualification for beneand transmitted to the Longford Board ficial retirement, have, under that Warof Guardians on the 3rd February last, rant, retrospective application in the case directing them to appoint a duly qualified of officers who had left the Army between veterinary inspector, as required by the the 13th of August 1877 and 5th FebAct of Parliament, has not been com-ruary 1880, after completing twelve |