Lords Sitting of 22 May 1868

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Poor Relief. (No. 110.)
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—County Courts (Admiralty Jurisdiction)* (108); Consolidated Fund (£17,000,000)*; City of London Gas*: (109).
Report—Poor Relief * (110–111).

THE ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION—THE DESPATCHES.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHasked the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal, What was the cause of the delay in publishing the despatch of Sir Robert Napier?
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: For some cause for which we cannot account we have received no recent despatch from Sir Robert Napier. There have been private letters from him; but he either has not written a despatch, or it has failed to reach our hands. The Government has been most anxious to invite Parliament to express its opinion upon the brilliant services that have been rendered by the army in Abyssinia, and the only reason we have refrained from inviting the House to do
694
so hitherto has been the reason I have just given to my noble Friend. But I think it would be useless—and, indeed, I improper—to delay any longer a compliment to the army which is so richly deserved; and it is at present the intention of the Government to move on this day week a Vote of Thanks in both Houses of Parliament. Before I sit down I may mention, for the convenience of noble Lords, that it is my intention on this day week to move the adjournment of the House until the following Monday week.

NEW FOREST—DEER REMOVAL, &c, ACT, 1851.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  VISCOUNT EVERSLEYpresented a Petition of Persons having Rights of Common over the New Forest and others: That the Report of the Commissioner in charge of the Royal Forests to the Lords of the Treasury (laid before the House on; the 28th of February last) may be referred to a Select Committee, said, that by various recent Acts the rights of the Crown and of the Commoners in respect of the game, timber, pasturage, and other forestal rights in the New Forest had been dealt with; and as regarded the Commoners, the petitioners complained that by these Acts the rights they possessed from time immemorial had been unduly abridged and prejudiced, and they therefore prayed for inquiry into the matter. He therefore moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the subject.
  Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Operation of the 14th and 15th Vict. Cap., 76., intituled "An Act to extinguish the right of the Crown to Deer in the New Forest, and to give Compensation in lieu thereof; and for other Purposes relating to the said Forest.—(The Viscount Eversley.)
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he would recall to their Lordships the circumstances under which the Act of 1851 was brought forward. It had been frequently complained in the House of Commons that the Royal forests were not properly managed; and it was alleged, in especial, that the New Forest, which had been transferred to the public, was so managed—or rather so ill-managed—as to be of no public benefit. The matter was inquired into by a Committee, and also by a Commission, who reported that the existence of deer in the Forest was demoralizing to the community, giving rise to

  695
  the existence of a number of poachers and deer-stealers, while they were of no advantage to the Crown. In consequence, in the year 1851, he (the Duke of Somerset), being then First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, introduced a Bill (the Deer Removal Act), authorizing the removal of the deer and the inclosure, in lieu, of 14,000 acres for the Crown. The measure was very carefully inquired into by a Select Committee, and by a Committee of their Lordships' House; and in consequence of the statements which were made by gentlemen connected with the Forest, he agreed to reduce the number of acres to be appropriated by the Crown to 10,000. In that form the Bill passed. Complaints were now made that the plantation of the Forest had been injurious to the rights of pasturage, and it was said that the foresters did not know that that would be the result. Well, he could only say that their own knowledge and observation ought to have made them aware what would happen. Again, their complaints were inconsistent; for, while they called on the Government to drain the land, they said that the drains prevented the cattle from passing from one part of the Forest to another. The object of the Act of 1851 was to make the land more valuable, and in this it had been perfectly successful. The Act had been carried out as was proposed, and had operated very beneficially.
  EARL NELSONwished to make an appeal for an inquiry, not so much on the part of the landowners, as of the poor foresters, who had been seriously injured by the action of the Act of 1851. There were few real paupers in the New Forest, for in fact the forest labourer generally held five or ten acres of land; be was able to keep his cow and his pony, and with his turn-out he was placed above the position of most of the agricultural labourers of the kingdom. Inquiry was needed, because it was plainly seen that numbers of these agricultural labourers would be utterly ruined unless something was done. By other inclosures additional employment was provided, and until the waste land was broken up there was no real damage done to the peasant's right of turning out his cattle; but, in this instance, the inclosure opened no new fields of employment, and the foresters' turn-out of cattle was practically ruined. It was a mistake to suppose that the deer were an unmitigated evil, for they kept down the growth of holly and gorse
  696
  during the winter, and improved the pasturage; whereas now whole tracts of country were overrun by the underwood, and in the inclosures lately thrown out the rides where alone pasture was to be found were destroyed by the additional traffic through the Forest caused by making new plantations. The understanding, when the Act passed, was, that the land to be inclosed should be taken from the distant parts of the Forest, and not from the best parts; and it was a great grievance to the small holders he had named to find that large tracts of land were proposed for inclosure close to their dwellings. In time the whole Forest would become one vast wood, and it was absurd that in the 19th century such a barbarism should be permitted for the sake of growing timber for the navy, which would not come to maturity for 200 or 300 years, when, most likely, no timber would be required.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, that the question as to whether the Act of 1851 was a proper settlement of the matters connected with the Forest, and whether that Act was one which should be continued in its present form or be modified, was one which it appeared to him might be advantageously discussed in a Select Committee. The interests of the Crown and the public were slightly at variance with those of the Commoners; and the question now was, whether the Act of 1851, should, after seventeen years' experience, be modified in some way, if allowed to remain intact. All the statements made that night seemed to point strongly to the necessity of defining the interests in the Forest. The Act of 1851 effected a great improvement on the former management of the Forest; but the result of its working might, he repeated, be advantageously inquired into, and he therefore had no objection to the appointment of the Committee moved for.
  Motion agreed to.
  And, on May 26, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  D. Somerset

  L. Portman

  E. Devon

  L. Stanley of Alderley

  E. Doncaster

  L. Belper

  E. Romney

  L. Northbrook

  E. Nelson

  L. Fitzwalter

  V. Eversley

NEWFOUNDLAND—GRANTS OF LAND ON FRENCH COAST.—PETITION.
LORD HOUGHTONrose to present a Petition from the Commons House of

697
Assembly of Newfoundland, praying that the Restrictions with regard to Grants of Land on the so-called French Coast, imposed on them by Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies in a Despatch dated 7th December 1866, may be removed—said, that as the Petition proceeded from so important a body as the Colonial Legislature he felt it proper to accompany its presentation with a few remarks. The Petitioners stated that—
"Your Petitioners desire to bring under the consideration of Your Most Honourable House a grievance to which your Petitioners in this island are now subjected. Her Majesty the Queen has the territorial dominion over the Island of Newfoundland and its dependencies, and, as a consequence, Her Majesty's Government of this Colony ' has the authority to issue grants within the island for mining, agricultural, and other purposes.
"This right was never questioned until the year 1866, when, by a despatch from the Right Honourable the Earl of Carnarvon, Secretary of State for the Colonies, to his Excellency Governor Musgrave, bearing date the 7th day of December 1866, the issue of grants of land in that part of this island called the 'French Shore' was prohibited.
"The French Shore, referred to in the said despatch, includes at least one-half of the territory of Newfoundland and the restriction thus placed on the Local Government is in effect a denial of the exercise of those rights which your Petitioners most humbly submit belong to the British Crown, and therefore to their enjoyment by Her Majesty's subjects in this island.
"Believing that the Government of this Colony has a clear right to issue grants for mining or other purposes, the Legislature on the 9th day of April 1867, in reply to the said despatch, passed certain resolutions and addresses declaratory of such rights, and transmitted the same to the Secretary of State for the Colonies through his Excellency Governor Musgrave, to which neither his Excellency nor your Petitioners have received any reply.
"The restriction contained in the said despatch has had the effect of preventing the exercise of British territorial dominion, and of depriving Her Majesty's subjects of the power of taking advantage of the mineral and other resources which exist within the said French Shore.
"The importance of this subject to the people of this island is such that your Petitioners feel aggrieved that no reply has been received to the remonstrance of the Legislature, and that, so far as your Petitioners are informed, no action has been taken by the Imperial Government to assert the undoubted right of the British Crown, and to place within the reach of Her Majesty's subjects in this island the mineral and agricultural resources which exist within the said territory.
"For some years past the Legislature of this island, though embarrassed by financial difficulties arising from the distress prevalent amongst the labouring population, have voted large sums of money for the purpose of obtaining a mineralogical survey of the island which will, to a great extent, be valueless if that portion of the island he withheld from the use of Her Majesty's subjects.
698
"Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Most Honourable House will be pleased to make inquiry into the matter, and to cause the restriction contained in the Right Honourable the Earl of Carnarvon's despatch to be removed, so as to place the Local Government in a position to exercise those functions necessary to ensure to your Petitioners their territorial rights."
Now for many years our principle of legislation with regard to our colonies had been to allow them, as far as possible, to exercise independent rights; but that principle appeared to have been departed from in regard to that part of the colony which was commonly called the "French Shore," which comprised a large portion of land which was supposed to be rich in minerals. The noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) who, then being Colonial Secretary, imposed these restrictions, must have had very strong reasons for his interference; and they must refer, it was to be presumed, to the particular condition of that portion of the colony. Now, Her Majesty by the Treaty of Utrecht had territorial rights over the whole colony, and that treaty was subsequently confirmed by the Treaty of Paris in 1814; but the French possessed with respect to fisheries certain rights, and had put forward certain claims which had long been a source of dispute with the colonists, and which had been matter of frequent discussion between the Foreign Office of this country and the French Government. But, admitting all the French claims to be well founded, there would be still no ground for the restrictive interference of which the Petitioners complained. He would refer to some words of Lord Palmerston to Count Sebastiani, dated July 10, 1858. The noble Lord said—
"I will observe to your Excellency in conclusion that if the right conceded to the French by the declaration of 1783 had been intended to be exclusive within the prescribed district, the terms used for defining such right must assuredly have been more ample and specific than they are to be found in that document. For in no other similar instrument which has ever come under the knowledge of the British Government is so important a concession as an exclusive privilege of this description announced in terms so loose and indefinite.…The claim put forward on the part of France is founded simply on inference and upon an assumed interpretation of words."
At the time of the Treaty of Utrecht, Newfoundland was merely a fishing station. It was so entirely a fishing station that the Admiral under whose command it was had the name of the Fishing Admiral. But the position of Newfoundland had entirely changed; it had become a

699
very valuable colony, and commanded such a position that it was a matter of the greatest interest to us to consult the wishes of the population as far as possible in the view of securing their loyalty and attachment to the British Crown. This question had grown out of the increasing value of the coast. Besides its value as a fishing station there had been discovered large copper mines, mountains of statuary marble and mineral wealth, and also, more lately, the existence of petroleum in large quantities; all of which, if these restrictions on the grants of land were continued, would be excluded from the profitable enjoyment of the colony. There was a separate article of the Treaty which affected the question of the land; but it merely stated that no British buildings or enclosures should be erected or maintained on the shore reserved for French exclusive use, except for the purpose of military defence or of the public administration. Although the French had at different times desired to assert some right of possession of this land, it had never been admitted by the English Government or by the local Legislature of Newfoundland. Throughout the whole of these transactions great care had been taken to avoid all recognition of that claim. Governor Darling, who was supposed by the colonists to have very much compromised their rights, said—
"The residence of British subjects has been always deliberately encouraged by the French, since in them they find the necessary guardians for their establishments when they themselves retire to France at the close of the fishing season."
The colonization of the French coast had begun long since; several populous settlements had been made on that coast, and no attempt was ever made to move them. At the present moment a very large population, in some thirty or forty considerable stations of English subjects, on the coast were living in a condition of society such as existed nowhere else on the face of the globe. They were squatters living without jurisdiction, without law, without any punishment of crime or enforcement of rights, acknowledging, as it were, no Sovereign. He could not but believe that this condition of things had been rendered much worse by the despatch of the noble Earl, which prevented the grants of land on the French coast. Such grants would, by employing these persons in useful industry, have tended much to promote their civilization; and the question now
700
was whether the prohibition of those grants should not be rescinded; its immediate effect being to prevent the most valuable copper mines in parts of the coast, very close to what was called the French Shore, from being extended in that direction. It also prevented the working of all the marble quarries, which were said to be very considerable and likely to be very productive; and would prevent the use of the discovery of petroleum to which he had already alluded. And what was the condition of the colony which was trying to recover itself? It was in such a condition of poverty that one-half of its revenues were appropriated for the maintenance of the poor. The British fisheries could not compete with the French, which were supported by large bounties, the object of the French Government being not only to extend the fisheries, but to train up a large body of marine. The colonists, therefore, laboured under every possible disadvantage; and there was great temptation to disloyalty and entire separation. Already the voice had been heard, that if they became part of the United States they would receive very different treatment. The present state of things stood entirely in the way of the colony of Newfoundland joining the great Northern Confederation; they did not see their way clearly to any advantage they would derive from it. He therefore hoped their Lordships would give their serious attention to this subject, and, having received all the information that might be addressed to them on the other side of the question, that they would do all they could to direct Her Majesty's Government to remedy what appeared to him a great wrong.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he had no fault to find with the noble Lord (Lord Houghton) in presenting this petition, complaining of what he had felt it his duty to do when filling the office of Secretary of State. It might, however, be more convenient to the noble Duke the present Secretary for the Colonies (the Duke of Buckingham) and to the House generally, if he interposed for a few moments with some remarks on the subject. The noble Lord had told them that the petition was founded on a despatch which he (the Earl of Carnarvon) wrote during the autumn of 1866. The case which presented itself for decision was this—a certain gentleman in Newfoundland desired to prosecute some mineral researches

701
upon that part of the coast which was known by the name of "the French Shore;" and he (the Earl of Carnarvon) felt it his duty to hold that for the present it would not be right for Her Majesty's Government to sanction such a proceeding. That might appear an arbitrary course, and perhaps an impolitic one to the noble Lord; but, at the same time, there were grave reasons that led him to adopt it. There was no question of older standing, none more complex, none, perhaps, less understood in this country, and none more capable of mischief than that of the Newfoundland fisheries. The subject was very little understood, and the extent and validity of the French claims had been canvassed by sanguine Ministers in every form. Newfoundland was originally claimed for this country in the time of Henry VII.; it was subsequently occupied by the French; then after a long series of negotiations and disputes it passed to this country by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, the French securing to themselves—or, rather, we securing to the French—certain rights of fishery and certain rights on parts of the coast in reference to fishery rights. The Treaty of Utrecht on this point was renewed at a subsequent period by the Treaty of Versailles. That was the basis on which all the claims on both sides now rested. It was important, also, to remember that the object of the fisheries to the French and the object of Newfoundland as a possession to us was not the mere foundation of a colony, but the training up of seamen and the creation of a nursery for the navies of both nations. The notion of colonization or settlement was entirely foreign to their ideas. An enormous variety of points had from time to time been raised upon these treaties, and the mass of correspondence upon them was such, that if he were to attempt to place them before the House he should certainly weary their Lordships and perhaps only succeed in confusing them; but substantially the questions of real importance which had thus arisen were, he thought, these two—First of all there was a claim on the part of the French to certain rights at sea; and, in the second place, there was a claim on the part of the French to certain rights on land. It had been argued on the part of the French that their right was absolute and exclusive, and on the side of the colonists it was argued that it was a concurrent and not an exclusive right. The French claimed not only the
702
right to fish in those waters themselves, but to turn off others who might wish to fish there. The colonists contended, on the other hand, that they had a concurrent right to fish in those waters. On the other hand the French claim to the shore was, as the noble Lord had said, what really amounted to a claim to the occupation of that shore. There had been questions as to how far inland that French right of occupation should extend—whether a few yards or a considerable way into the interior; and there had been the claim, and one that was admitted on both sides, of the French to remove establishments from that shore, inasmuch as they might interfere with their fishing rights. Then there arose the question what the nature of those establishments was—whether they were purely fishing establishments or included shops, warehouses, and other permanent buildings. The noble Lord had argued the case from a purely colonial point of view. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) did not, of course, object to the colonial point of view being urged before their Lordships; but he must remind the House that in as far as it was only a colonial view, derived from colonial information, it was necessarily a one-sided view, and did not represent either the course which the negotiations between this country and France had taken, or indeed the opinion entertained at various times by successive English Secretaries of State, whether connected with the Colonial Department or with the Foreign Office. The noble Lord had quoted the opinion of Lord Palmerston as being very strongly against the exclusive right claimed by the French. On points of that sort the authority of Lord Palmerston was always entitled to great weight; but, in the other hand, other Secretaries of State, whose authority was perhaps as great, had held a somewhat different opinion; and, moreover, if one set of Law Officers had counselled one view on that subject, another set of Law Officers had counselled a view that was far from identical. When, therefore, the noble Lord said the whole stream of authority ran in one direction, he could not quite assent to that assertion; because as they went further back into the history of those treaties and negotiations, he thought they would find that, in those earlier days, there was a greater inclination to admit an exclusive or very stringent right on the part of the French than in subsequent times. Acts had been passed

703
and instructions issued to Governors in that sense; and to such a degree had that; view been taken, that an Act was passed in the colony many years ago which absolutely excluded the electoral franchise from extending over any portion of the French Shore. He would not express any opinion as to how far the French claim was or was not just; but the view urged by the noble Lord was by no means so clear and unmistakable as he supposed; for there had been a large difference of opinion on both sides in the matter, and it would be very unwise for any English negotiator to overlook that fact. Formerly constant collisions occurred between the English and French fishermen on the fishery grounds, sometimes leading to very serious results, and ships of war had been ordered up to take part in the difference. Subsequently those collisions had, perhaps, given way to bickerings and quarrels between the two parties. But the Governments of the two countries had uniformly felt—and, he thought, wisely felt—that it was desirable, if possible, to come to such a settlement of this long-vexed question as would at once secure the treaty rights of both parties and give a just development to colonial resources. In 1857, in consequence of the action of the Colonial Parliament, a Convention entered into for that object broke down. In 1859 the difficulties were felt to be as great and as dangerous as ever, and a Commission was issued by the Government to inquire on the spot. Upon the recommendations of that Commission a further attempt was made in 1861, and again the two Governments agreed on the terms of a Convention. But again the Colonial Legislature interposed, and would not consent to conditions which they stated were prejudicial to their own interests; and the hope of an adjustment once more failed. The difficulties were renewed; and in 1866, when he (the Earl of Carnarvon) accepted the seals of the Colonial Office, he found there was some reason to anticipate that negotiations might be resumed with advantage. But he also felt very strongly that it was absolutely necessary, if they were to be resumed, that there should be a clear understanding on their part and on that of the colony, that they should not be subjected a third time to disappointment and failure from the same causes. Believing that the circumstances were favourable at that moment to the resumption of the negotiations, he knew well that, if the issue of grants of land
704
were to be made in the manner which had been contended for, the existing most injurious state of things must be indefinitely protracted. Therefore, while appreciating the unsatisfactory position of affairs on the French Shore, and being anxious to remedy it, still he had felt that the permanent interests of the colony, not less than the interests of this country and of France, rendered it desirable that one more effort should be made to secure the settlement of that question, which, as long as it remained open, endangered the friendly relations of the two countries. He desired to speak of the colony with great respect; but he must ask whether they had placed this country in a fair position? There were already in existence in British North America questions of a very difficult, complicated, and even irritating nature—questions of boundaries, such as those of San Juan and Vancouver's Island, questions again arising out of the events of the late war; and it certainly was not desirable to have in Newfoundland a fresh magazine of combustibles to be added on the first opportunity to those already existing in Canada, in New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, to imperil our relations with the United States. Let no one suppose that these disputes were the less dangerous because they had lasted for so long a time. As long as our relations with a foreign State were perfectly smooth and friendly, these matters were free from danger; but once let a feeling of irritation arise, and they would assume proportions that they did not possess at any other time. It should be recollected that Newfoundland was the cause of very considerable naval and military expense to this country, and it was therefore not too much to ask that the colony should meet us half way in a matter of this kind. What, after all, were the real facts of the case? Partly by conquest, and partly by treaty, we acquired this territory of Newfoundland many years ago; and, in return, certain rights were secured to the French. Time went on—a colony sprang up—a circumstance which, at the time the treaties were entered into, was not anticipated. English fishermen gradually abandoned the shores, and left them to the colonists; and now British interests having virtually ceased, we were called upon in the interests of the colonists to ask France to yield rights which it was doubtful whether we had not formerly conceded to her. That was not a position in

705
which this country ought to be placed. But our duty was very simple. It was to secure to France all those treaty rights and engagements to which she had a clear claim—the honour and faith of the Crown were pledged to this, and no servant of the; Crown would have a right to recommend the Crown to evade its obligations. On the other hand, it was our duty quite as strongly to accept the present state of things, to admit the growth of population and the change of circumstances upon that shore, and as far as we could, within treaty rights, to secure the just and proper development of colonial resources. Hitherto, the attempts made to bring about a settlement of the question had been rather in the way of dealing with special difficulties as they arose out of the early treaties than by placing the fisheries upon a new basis. But as he had held the office of Colonial Secretary, and now that he was out of Office being able to speak with greater freedom than the noble Duke, the present Colonial Secretary, he ventured to make a suggestion as his humble contribution towards the settlement of what might turn out a serious question. One thing was quite clear, that the French and the colonists had power to do each other considerable mischief, by insisting upon particular restrictions. The French might obstruct, the formation of colonial settlements on the French shore, and the colonists might prevent the reasonable exercise of the French rights by refusing to sell them bait, and by similar restrictions. Why should not both parties agree to place matters on the far simpler and truer principle of a pure commercial reciprocity? If, on the one hand, the French would consent to abandon their exclusive claim to particular fisheries and modify their power of ordering the removal of buildings on particular parts of the coast; and if, on the other hand, the colonists would consent to throw open the whole of their fisheries to the French, gaining in return the right of fishing in French waters, these concessions would be largely for the benefit of both parties; but in the main the advantage, he was persuaded, would be chiefly on the side of the colonists, who had always urged that the French had possession of the best fisheries. It would be said, no doubt, that the fisheries were not sufficiently large to accommodate both parties, and that the stock would be soon exhausted. But the Report on our home fisheries, made a few years ago, showed
706
that the resources of nature were so prolific that the supply of fish was absolutely inexhaustible. Experience likewise, since American fishermen had been admitted under the Reciprocity Treaty to fish in Nova Scotian waters, showed that these waters could perfectly well bear a double number of fisherman. But such an arrangement as he suggested might be made for a few years, and then when practical experience had been gained of its working, it could be seen whether it was desirable to renew it. In conclusion, he would urge strongly upon the Government the duty of not losing sight of this very important question; and he would also urge upon the colonists that they should not stand on their extreme rights, but having stated their opinions fully and frankly to Her Majesty's Government, taking a reasonable and not a one-sided view, should allow the Government to negotiate with the Government of France with the view of obtaining, if possible, a satisfactory settlement. He would not, however, advise the Government to attempt a third negotiation in the same manner as those commenced on two former occasions, when, after most of the Articles had been agreed upon to the satisfaction of the two great countries, the Colonial Legislature came in between the two Governments, overthrew the agreement, and set everything once more adrift.
THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, that after the statement of his predecessor in Office as to the circumstances under which he had written the despatch in question, it was unnecessary for him to enter into that part of the question; but, at the same time, it was right he should assure the House that the importance of attempting to effect a settlement of the questions arising upon the shores of Newfoundland had not been overlooked by Her Majesty's Government. The state of things existing there was suited to former, but not to present times, having grown up under entirely different circumstances. He agreed, however, with the concluding remark of the able statement of his noble Predecessor in Office, that it was not expedient that the negotiations should be again taken up in the form in which they had twice previously failed. And it was because of that feeling, and because they were desirous of considering how far they could defer to the representations of the colonists, that Her Majesty's Government had not been able to make an earlier reply to the despatch of the colonial Govern-

707
ment. The state of things which had grown up could only be approached with any hope of success in a spirit of compromise. It did not appear to him when he assumed the seals of Office that a settlement would be facilitated, or the views of the colony advanced, by withdrawing those restrictions which his noble Friend had thought fit to impose with regard to grants of land within the disputed territory. The question was altogether one of difficulty, and could be met in no other way than in the spirit of compromise on the part of the colonists, the French Government, and Her Majesty's Ministers. He did not think it would be prudent to take up the negotiations at the point where they had been dropped, or to hamper them by contests as to the rights of the several parties in times past. He rather favoured the plan of accepting the position of each, and negotiating in a spirit of compromise on that basis.
LORD HOUGHTONasked whether the noble Duke would object to lay before the House the Papers on the subject?
THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, he had intended to lay the Papers on the table later in the Session; but if the noble Lord would repeat his question on Monday, he would gladly state how far he could meet his wishes.
Petition ordered to lie on the Table.

REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.
(The Duke of Richmond.)
REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.

  (NO. 101.) THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  LORD REDESDALE LORD REDESDALE moved to re-insert in Clause 22 the following words, struck out on bringing up the Report:—"Nor shall any intimation be sent as to any person to whom the proxy may be given or addressed."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the object of the noble Lord seemed to be simply to place the government of Railway Companies in the hands of those who attended the meetings, and to disfranchise those who were unable to attend. But it was obvious that the largest shareholders, who had most right and most reason to exercise control over the management of a railway, were those who, in consequence of the multitude of their engagements, had no time to be present at the meetings—especially if they lived in the country. It should rather be the
  708
  policy of their Lordships to place the management of railways in the hands of the richer shareholders, and take it away from the less responsible, who attended the meetings as often from motives of amusement as business. The legislation of Parliament in regard to railways seemed to be minute in the extreme. If the Bill became law, a Railway Company desiring additional powers from Parliament would have to apply for them supported by the decision of a Wharncliffe meeting, and here again the Motion of the noble Lord t would tend to throw the control of these applications into the hands of the less responsible shareholders. He would prefer to leave out the clause altogether; it embodied a most vicious principle. He believed his noble Friend very much in error in pursuing a system of tying up companies by minute and vexatious restrictions. The results of such a course had been most distressing, and he was tempted to say of the noble Lord, "Si monumentum quæris, circumspice." If anyone wanted to estimate the merits of a paternal system of government, which the noble Lord seemed so highly to approve, let him look at the condition of Railway Companies.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTYhoped that his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees would not insist upon the Amendment; because it was important, as the noble Marquess had remarked, that every inducement should be held-out to large shareholders and capitalists to select a good Board of Directors and to give such a Board a full and generous support.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDmade a few remarks, which were inaudible.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, it was not advisable to put extraordinary powers into the hands of Railway Directors. The richer shareholders generally knew where to forward their proxies, and it was only the poorer shareholders who required that this should be indicated to them. The consequence was that the extraordinary powers possessed by some of these Boards were the result, to a great extent, of the proxies sent by the smaller shareholders who forwarded them on the indication furnished in the proxies and without due inquiry. No doubt, when a Railway Company had a good Board of Directors, the shareholders were quite right in giving them their support; but there could be little doubt that all the injury done to the affairs of Railway Companies had resulted from the action of the respective Boards

  709
  of Direction. What was wanted was that the Directors should act under a stronger feeling of personal responsibility. He thought that for this end they required to be reduced in number. The effect of the Amendment would simply be to prevent persons from intrusting their proxies to Directors without knowing who these Directors were.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he consented to the omission of these words the other evening at the suggestion of the noble Marquess, who proposed the omission without giving Notice. It was only subsequently that the full effect of their omission was pointed out to him, and, be lieving the alteration to be unwise, he should now be prepared to support the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to; Words inserted.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

COTTON STATISTICS BILL.—(No. 102)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
COTTON STATISTICS BILL.—(No. 102)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that there could be no possible doubt that the object of the Bill, which was to obtain periodical information respecting the quantity of cotton imported into the United Kingdom, the quantity re-exported, and the quantity held in stock, would be of great public utility An indirect object, which it was hoped would result from the Bill, was to put an end to the present gambling in cotton. The only parties who could possibly be aggrieved by the Bill were the "Ware-housers," and the "Forwarders"—that was to say, every person or corporation who carried or forwarded cotton for toll or other consideration—who were required to make monthly returns to the Board of Trade of the quantities of cotton received or forwarded by them. The principal carriers were, of course, the Railway Companies, and the Directors of the lines principally concerned had given their assent to the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF POWIScalled the attention of the noble Marquess to the fact that
  710
  the definitions employed in the Bill were too large, and would render liable to heavy penalties many persons whom the noble Marquees could not have intended to include.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he had no desire to oppose the Bill; but, concurring in the remarks of the noble Earl who had just sat down, hoped that the noble Marquess would see the propriety of amending the wording of the Bill between this and going into Committee.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXopposed the Bill on the ground of the indefiniteness with which some of its provisions were worded.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYhoped their Lordships would not reject the Bill. Whatever alterations might be necessary in detail—and he admitted that the Bill was susceptible of amendment—they might be made in Committee.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Six Months.")
  On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 13; Not-Contents 6: Majority 7.

  CONTENTS.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Carnarvon, E.

  Hawarden, V.

  Richmond, D.

  Lifford, V. [Teller.]

  Chelmsford, L.

  Bath, M.

  Clinton, L.

  Salisbury, M. [Teller.]

  Colchester, L.

  Denman, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Feversham, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Somerset, D

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Powis, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Portman, L.

  Halifax, V. [Teller.]

  Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.