Lords Sitting of 17 July 1882

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl of Gainsborough, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 4) *; Friendly Societies (Quinquennial Returns)* (194).
Report—Public Offices Site* (184); Entail (Scotland) (191–195); Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) * (181); Corn Returns (No. 2)* (187).

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS (SCOTLAND) ELECTION PROCEDURE BILL.

  POSTPONEMENT OF SECOND BEADING.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)asked the noble Earl in charge of the Bill (the Earl of Galloway) to postpone the second read-
  674
  ing, which was down for to-morrow, the Bill not having been printed.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he thought it was rather hard that he should be asked to postpone the second reading, seeing that the measure was simply a re-echo of the Report of the Select Committee, which had been in the hands of their Lordships for over three weeks. Considering that they had now arrived at the middle of July, the noble Earl might allow the Bill to be read a second time, on the understanding that a discussion would be taken on going into Committee on Friday.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he thought it would be most unreasonable. He had not seen the Bill, and as it proposed to make a very great alteration in the election of Representative Peers for Scotland, he thought it would be extremely hard and very unreasonable for them to be asked to read the Bill a second time to-morrow, when, at that moment, they had not even received a copy of it. He must protest against any attempt being made to proceed with the measure to-morrow.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORalso thought that the Bill was one which should be printed and in their Lordships' hands before second reading.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that next week there would be an interval of repose when other Business would not come up to any great extent, so that it might be convenient if the noble Earl would fix the second reading for that week.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYstated that, after what had occurred, he would put down the second reading for Friday next.
  Second Reading (which stands appointed for To-morrow) put off to Friday next.

EUPHRATES VALLEY RAILWAY.

  OBSERVATIONS. MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD LAMINGTON, on rising to call the attention of the Government to the Report of the Euphrates Valley Railway Committee, and to move for Papers, said, that that Committee sat in 1871 to consider the subject of the desirability of constructing a railway in the Euphrates Valley. They reported on the matter to the House; but the subject of their Report had never been submitted

  675
  to their Lordships, and he thought the House would agree with him that no time could be more hopeful or opportune than the present for bringing a subject in connection with it before their Lordships which had long been recognized as one of great importance—namely, the communication between this country and India. The question of enlarging that communication by a railway passing through the valley of the Euphrates was of great importance, and had for many years occupied attention on the part of both the Home and Indian Governments. It was so considered in the time of the Marquess Wellesley; and, in 1834, the Government of Lord Melbourne thought the matter so important that Parliament was induced to vote £20,000, and the Government of India £5,000, for a survey of the whole line through the valley, and the survey was under taken by Sir John M'Neil and Colonel Chesney, two very eminent engineers. Their Report was a very valuable one. Nothing was done, however, and the matter was allowed to rest until the year 1857, when the Euphrates route once more claimed the attention of the Government. Lord Palmerston, referring to the Report of a Committee, of which Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham were Members, then appointed to examine into the matter, said that the Government were fully alive to the importance of the Euphrates route, that they had supported it in the past, and would continue to do so in the future. Subsequently, however, to that time, the scheme of the Suez Canal sprang up, and was carried out, and it was now a subject of absorbing interest in England. He trusted that the Government of the present day would not adopt the same attitude towards the undertaking he was now bringing under their Lordships' notice which it then assumed when the construction of the Suez Canal was suggested. Now, what were the arguments against that Canal? Why, that it would not pay, and that there would not be shipping enough to make it pay. The practical answer was, that they knew now how rapidly the tonnage passing through it increased, so that instead of 300,000 in 1870, in 1881 the Returns showed as much as 3,700,000 tons; while it was generally acknowledged that, if the Canal could be widened so as to admit the passage of double that amount of
  676
  shipping, there could be very little doubt that the amount of shipping passing through would show a proportionate increase It was impossible, however, to double the width of the Canal; but it was not impossible to construct the Euphrates Valley Railway, and they had now an opportunity of carrying it out. Consul General Herbert, Lord Stratford do Redcliffe, and other authorities were in favour of it. Sir Henry Rawlinson, an authority of the greatest weight, had emphatically pronounced his approval of the scheme. In March, 1872, Sir Henry Rawlinson said—
  "It cannot be doubted that there is a certain political value both to England and to India in the opening of a line such as is contemplated. The first great advantage is having an alternative line with Egypt; that must be a political object of considerable importance, especially in reference to the chance of local troubles in Egypt. If local troubles supervened in Egypt it might be of vital consequence to be able to avail ourselves of the other line of communication. Besides, the mere fact of our possessing an alternative line would, I think, also strengthen our prestige in India—that is to say, the knowledge that we had a double line, and that we wore not liable to have our communications interrupted by the single accident of local troubles in Egypt, would, I think, improve our position in India. Then there is another element of political value in the development of the resources of Turkey, which would, no doubt, follow from the opening of this railroad."
  Their Lordships would see that the reference to local troubles in Egypt was specially in point at the present time. He would also refer the House to another great authority on this subject; he alluded to Mr. Consul Barker. Mr. Barker, who had resided 26 years as Vice Consul and Acting Consul at Seleucia, Antioch, and Aleppo, and had, perhaps, as intimate an acquaintance with the country as any man living, stated in an official Report, addressed by him to Lord Granville, that—
  "A railway through Mesopotamia as a route to India would not, at first, be productive of much income to a company from traffic; but in a few years—certainly before the railway could be finished—the cultivation of grain would increase a hundredfold, and would go on increasing a thousandfold, and would attain to a magnitude and extension quite impossible to calculate, because bad harvests arc almost unknown in these parts, for there is always plenty of rain and a hot sun to ripen the corn. Populous villages would spring up all along the line, as there is abundance of sweet water everywhere. Cereals can be grown there so cheaply that no country the same distance from England—say, for instance, Russia—could compote with it at all. And if Great Britain finds it

  677
  necessary to rely more on the importation of foreign corn, where could a better field be found than the fertile plains of Mesopotamia, the cradle of mankind, which has all the advantages of climate, soil, sun, and water in its favour?"
  All this showed that the line could be made, and that it would be beneficial to this country, to India, and to the country through which it passed. Further, no difficulty would arise from any unwillingness on the part of the Porte to consent to the proposal. In answer to a letter upon the subject, written by Sir George Jenkinson, on the 16th of February, 1870, to His Excellency Musurus Pasha, Sir George Jenkinson received an answer, which he would read to the House. It was as follows:—
  "Imperial Ottoman Embassy, March 12,1870.
  My Dear Sir George,—Having communicated to my Government the contents of your letter of the 16th ult., respecting the project of a railway from Alexandretta to Aleppo, and from Aleppo to Bagdad and Bussorah, I hasten to inform you that, after mature consideration, the Sublime Porte has authorized me to declare to you that they accept and undertake to carry out all the conditions contained in your letter above referred to. In communicating to you this decision of the Imperial Government I do not hesitate to give you, according to your request, full authority to make of this letter such use as you may think necessary.
  Believe me, &c,
  MUSURUS."
  That showed the attitude of the Turkish Government in 1870; and, considering that nine-tenths of the traffic passing through the Canal was British, he asked their Lordships whether they were prepared to make the same blunder now with respect to the railway that they made in years gone by with regard to the Canal—namely, to postpone the matter to a time when it was too late to make the railway? It should be seriously considered by the Government, looking at the events which were passing in Egypt. Not only that, but politically, commercially, and strategically considered, this country could not have too many means of communicating with our Eastern possessions, and it was most important that we should have alternate routes to India. It might be said that there were difficulties in the way of making such a railway in connection with the wild tribes of the districts through which it would pass; but it had been found that the independent Chiefs were quite willing to do everything in their power to open up the country. An article
  678
  in The Times contained the following apt remarks on this subject:—
  "The loss to England by exclusion from the Canal route would be political as well as commercial. To any other nation the fact that the Canal was obstructed, or that the control of it had fallen into hostile hands, could only mean that certain mercantile profits were placed in jeopardy) though even from this point of view it should not be forgotten that our stake exceeds in magnitude the stake of any rival Power twentyfold or thirtyfold. But in our case the necessity of keeping open the great highway between the Mother Country and her dependencies in Asia and the Southern seas is added to commercial interest and our financial interest in the Canal. Mr. Gladstone's attempt to show in 1877 that in time of war we might reasonably rely upon the Cape route has been abandoned by its author. It may be true enough that the Canal is too shallow and too narrow for the large and swift ocean-going steamers of the most modern type; but the moral is not that we should be willing to surrender the advantages of the Canal route—which may be measured by this single fact, that Bombay is distant from London 6,330 nautical miles by way of Suez, and 10,595 by way of the Cape—but that in time the necessity of enlarging and deepening the waterway through the Isthmus must be encountered, and the requisite improvements carried out at any cost."
  By the Euphrates Valley Railway we should save 10 days between London and Lahore and the North-West Provinces of India, and five days in the journey to Bombay. The general features of the projected railway might be summed up thus—
  "1. It would pass through 900 miles of level country, and if it were made, it would connect the Mediterranean with the head of the Persian Gulf, between which and Kurrachee and Bombay regular communication is now maintained by a line of powerful steamers subsidized by the Indian Government. 2. Making Kurrachee the European port of India in place of Bombay, it would save about 1,000 miles in the distance between England and India, and by the substitution of railway for boat transit would reduce the time occupied in the journey by one-half—i.e., to 10 days instead of 20 days. 3. It would render it possible to maintain India with a smaller European garrison than is now necessary, and would thus reduce our military expenditure. 4. It would save the Government large sums in sudden emergencies by the facilities it would afford—and that at all seasons of the year—for the transport of troops and stores. 5. It would enable troops from England to be landed at Kurrachee in about 14 days, and in two or three days more at Lahore, Peshawur, or Delhi. 6. It would subject an enemy advancing towards the North-West Frontier of India to easy attack in the flank and rear, and would render the invasion of India all but impossible. 7. It would make the resources of England so promptly available in the East that any hostile movement directed against us, whether from

  679
  within or without our Indian Frontier, might thus be effectually checked before it could assume formidable proportions. 8. It would give our extensive military establishment in India a direct influence in support of our power and prestige in Europe. 9. It would give England the first strategical position in the world. 10. It would facilitate the protection of Asia Minor by England."
  He maintained, then, that they ought to see whether they could not at once take some steps to carry out that scheme, which had been proposed so often, and he was sure that the Government would recognize the importance of it. He was sure that the noble Earl the Leader of the House, if he had been present, would have admitted the importance of the question. If it were not constructed by Her Majesty's Government or a British Company, Russia or Germany, which had both been negotiating for concessions for the construction of a railway, and neither of which Powers was so much interested in the new route to India as this country, would he before us. He implored the Government not to shut their eyes to the great importance of the question. It had often been brought forward. They had made many great blunders. Lord Palmerston's Government made a great blunder in connection with the Suez Canal question, and they had only seen the mistake when it was too late. Let them not be too late again. They should derive benefit from their experience, and refrain from blundering in the case of the Euphrates Valley, the importance of which the Government should at once admit. Let them not give the Russian or German Governments the opportunity of making this line. Let them at once perceive the importance in a political, commercial, and strategical sense, of constructing the line by England or by English capital. He did not say anything about giving a guarantee for the £8,000,000, which, he believed, the scheme would cost; but let them be prepared to give a fair amount of encouragement and protection to those who were willing to make the line, which would place this country in the first political position in the world, would render the events now occurring near the Suez Canal of comparatively little importance, and would tend to maintain the glory and dignity of the Empire.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in reply, said, that his noble Friend the Se-
  680
  cretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) would have answered the noble Lord opposite (Lord Laming-ton) had he not been summoned to attend the Queen at Windsor; but, in his noble Friend's absence, it devolved upon him (the Earl of Kimberley) to say a few words on that occasion. The observations which the noble Lord had made were of very interesting character and related to a subject which had for many years excited a great amount of interest and attention both in India and in this country. In fact, he hardly remembered a time when the question of an alternative route to India by the Euphrates Valley had not been under discussion. As the noble Lord had stated, the result of that discussion culminated in the appointment of a Committee of the House of Commons to inquire into the whole subject. That Committee sat in 1871 and reported in 1872. They discussed all the alternative lines, and he thought they agreed as to which particular line would be most desirable; but they also went into the question of expense, and he believed that the amount required to construct such a line was reckoned at £10,000,000 sterling. The requisite capital, it appeared, could not be obtained without a guarantee from the Government, and from the time when the Report was presented until now no Government had thought it advisable to enter into such a guarantee. No one doubted that an alternative route or alternative routes to India might be constructed, and that they must all of them be valuable. They would increase trade, and would, of course, afford the means of expediting our communication with India by another line in case the Suez Canal should unfortunately be interrupted; and, no doubt, that would benefit the commerce of the whole world. It did not, however, follow that the Government ought to enter into a guarantee; and he had no authority for saying that the present Government, any more than the late Government, were prepared to give such a guarantee. He was afraid, therefore, that the project would have to remain what it had been for so long—namely, an interesting project, but one not likely very soon to be brought to a successful issue.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that, if he rightly understood his noble Friend (Lord Lamington), he was not asking for

  681
  a guarantee either from the Imperial, or from the Indian Government. All he (the Earl of Derby) understood him to ask was for such unofficial assistance as might he fairly given by the State to any Company which undertook the construction of that line. If his noble Friend's request went no further than that, there could be no possible objection to it. In fact, the only persons who would he likely to have any cause for complaint would be the shareholders of the line. But having himself looked a little into that matter in former days, he (the Earl of Derby) saw little prospect of that railway being constructed without large and liberal assistance from either the English or the Indian Exchequer. In the present state of things, and considering the small amount of traffic that would arise from the desert districts through which it must pass, he did not think it would require much argument to convince their Lordships that an unguaranteed and unsubsidized line had not the slightest chance of success. It was true that a deputation had waited on Lord Palmerston on the subject, and that strong arguments had been used on the occasion, grounded on the advantage of a second line of communication with India; but since then the Suez Canal had been constructed, and a different state of things therefore existed. At the time referred to, not only was the Canal not made, but there was a strong belief that it never could be made. It must be borne in mind that what made a railway prosperous was passengers, goods, and mails, and there was not likely to be much prosperity of that kind, looking at the enormous expenditure of capital which would be necessary. His noble Friend had truly said that a saving of many miles would be gained by a line of this kind to the Persian Gulf, and that postal communication with India would be more rapid; but that was discussed a quarter of a country ago, when circumstances were different. Now that so large a proportion of the communication between this country and India was carried on by telegraph, it was far more important that the telegraph system should be rendered efficient and economical, than that a somewhat cheaper Mail Service should be provided. As to passengers, he thought his noble Friend had not sufficiently considered the difficult nature of the country over which this
  682
  line was to pass. During half the year the line would be impracticable, owing to the excessive heat. This line, 700 miles in length, was to be carried through a burning desert in order to save four or five days; but there would be no passenger traffic over it for half the year. No doubt the Red Sea route was long, but it was performed in an open steamer, and not in a closed-up railway carriage. There was a great difference between travelling by a steamer, where it was possible to get some air, and being penned up in a railway carriage; and if a regiment of Europeans were sent by this line at any time between April and October, it was extremely probable that very few would arrive at their destination in a healthy condition. With regard to the goods traffic, all goods sent by this line would be liable to a double transhipment, the expense of which the goods could not bear, especially having regard to the competition of the Suez Canal. As his noble Friend did not propose to make this line a Government work, he would not enter into the question, which otherwise he might be prepared to raise—namely, the political difficulties which might arise in the event of protection being necessary in case of foreign invasion or domestic disturbance in the districts through which the line would pass; but such questions would have to be considered before anything could be done. No doubt their Lordships would agree with him as to the extreme importance of there being no interruption of the Suez Canal, nor did he believe that any British Government would permit it to be obstructed; but when it was said that the mere increase of traffic would make a second line necessary, as a matter of comparison between the two in an economical point of view, he believed that it would be found far more economical to widen and deepen the Suez Canal, rather than to construct a new line of communication. Many of the largest, and therefore most economical, class of vessels could not at present use the Canal, and he thought that money would be far more profitably spent in widening the Canal than in the construction of the proposed railway. Commercially speaking, he thought there would be a greater return from £1 spent on the former object than there would be from £10 spent on the latter. If the object of the Company was to obtain

  683
  valuable commercial results, he had no hesitation in saying that he did not believe that they would be obtained by the Euphrates Valley line. The expenditure was far too heavy to afford a chance of any favourable returns; and even if such could be reasonably expected, he did not believe that either on political or commercial grounds the matter was one of urgent necessity.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that in alluding to the Suez or overland route to India the name of Captain Waghorn should not be omitted, as having been the instrument selected by the President of the India Board, in 1839, to carry out the arrangements for the Overland Mail Service to India, a noble Relative of his having been at that time First Lord of the Board of Control. A Camel Service should be first tried, not only to open communication with the different Chiefs, but as a means of ascertaining, to some extent, how far a Mail Service would be remunerative; also some intermediate railway communication would have to be first tried to ascertain how the proposal would work, in which the Government should assist in the shape of a subsidy. At any rate, not any step should be omitted to insure the proposed route eventually to this country, after the preliminary steps were more complete in respect to surveying the route.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that the question raised by his noble Friend (Lord Lamington) was one of great importance and interest; but, at the same time, there was no doubt that the proposed route was full of difficulties, and the main objection was that the termini would be at a great distance, and in the event of war that at Trebezond might be completely closed. There was, no doubt, something very attractive in an alternative route, which would be shorter than the existing route, and he (the Earl of Carnarvon) believed that this was the best that had been proposed for a railway through this district; but it would cost £8,000,000 or £10,000,000, and he could not see how any Company would undertake it as a commercial enterprize. The only justification for the Government affording any large assistance in its construction would be on military grounds; but there were three objections to it from that point of view. In the first place, the climate was so severe during half the
  684
  year that it would be probably impracticable to send troops by the proposed route, closely packed for three days in railway carriages, without suffering a great deal; and, secondly, full advantage could not be taken of the railway unless it passed round the head of the Persian Gulf, and until, consequently, another line of railway was made to complete it. Lastly, it could hardly be denied that, although Colonel Chesney had stated that the tribes might be subsidized to prevent them doing mischief to the lines, yet an English general, in a time of difficulty and at a great crisis, would probably pause and consider how far he was justified in sending troops over long distances of railway lines that could not by any possibility be guarded, for it must be borne in mind that breaking up the line at any point might expose a large number of men to serious danger. There were, beyond doubt, two great lines of communication between this country and India—namely, the Suez Canal and the Capo route. They should not, though fully acknowledging the obvious value of the Suez Canal, neglect the Capo route. At present, the difference in the distances amounted, in point of time, to only 10 days, and that difference was a diminishing one as the largo steamers increased their speed. Believing, as he did, in the enormous importance of the route, yet he would urge the Government to omit nothing to insure the safety and efficiency of the old route by the Cape. He quite admitted that the heat of the climate by the Euphrates Valley route would be very distressing to railway passengers, that the expense of construction would be enormous, and there would be little likelihood of any return; and he thought that if any preference or assistance was given, it was far better that it should be given to the Cape route.
  LORD BLANTYREsaid, there could be little, if any, doubt that a railway between the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf would pay, if the right line were taken. That line he would suppose to be from Alexandretta, by Aleppo, to Mosul, and along the left (East) bank of the Tigris to Bagdad. There would be no difficulty in passing soldiers along it—in hot countries, as in Spain, express trains started in the evening in place of the morning—the troops would travel at

  685
  night, and pass the day resting in airy barracks. When the average return on about 10,000 miles of railways in India was about 5 per cent, a trunk railway, and selected line through Asiatic Turkey, must pay commercially. The difficulties were political. For instance, if an English Company had built a railway in Bessarabia, after the Crimean War—the Company would now find itself delivered over to Russia—the same, or something of the kind, might happen in Asiatic Turkey; but if England would give a guarantee, or a substantial subsidy, as in the case of the Suez Canal, the British nation would have an interest in supporting the Company. They did not fear for the undertaking as a commercial project, but required to be protected against political changes.
  LORD LAMINGTON, in reply, said, with reference to what had been said by his noble Friend (Lord Ellenborough), he would remind the House and the Government that all the preliminary steps had been taken, and, with the consent of the Turkish Government and the approval of Her Majesty's Government, the line could be commenced at once. He would move for the production of the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons of 1871, and also request that any communications with the Indian Government on the subject should be presented at the same time.
  Moved for, "Reports from the Select Committee of the House of Commons of 1871 and 1872; together with the Minutes of Evidence, &c."—(The Lord Lamington.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the Government would consent to the production of the House of Commons Committee's Report; but he could not undertake to say whether they would produce Correspondence with the Indian Government on this question without Notice being given.
  Motion agreed, to.
  Message to the Commons for Copy of the Reports from the Select Committee of that House of 1871 and 1872; together with the Minutes of Evidence, &c.

ENTAIL (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 191.)
(The Earl of Rosebery.)
ENTAIL (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 191.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALEsaid, he wished to draw the attention of their Lordships to the large number of measures—14, he believed—still on the Statute Book dealing with entail in Scotland. Those Acts required to be consolidated; and it would be well if the Government would give their attention to the question of the desirability of consolidating them. The effect of the present condition of affairs was, that in every case in which an owner of land, or person interested, wished to bring the law into operation, he would be obliged to call in the services of a lawyer, not only at great inconvenience, but very often at great expense, in order that none of the provisions of the Acts might be omitted from consideration. He did not suppose the Government could move in the matter at the present time; but he wished to impress upon them the great desirability of consolidating the law in this regard.
  THE EARL OF MINTOsaid, he fully concurred in the observations of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Tweeddale).
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he would at once admit that it would be very desirable if steps could be taken to bring about a consolidation of the Law of Entail in Scotland. With regard to the subject complained of by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Tweeddale) as to the expense necessarily resulting from employing a gentleman of the Legal Profession, of course there was always a certain amount of work which could only be done by legal advisers. The noble Earl who spoke last (the Earl of Minto) appeared to think that the task of consolidation would be an easy one; but he (the Earl of Rosebery) could not agree with that, because, in the experience they had gathered from drawing the present Bill, they had been obliged to refer to previous Acts, and it was at once apparent to them that the codification of those Acts would be a work of considerable time and labour. After the passing of the new Act, however, probably it would not be so difficult to ascertain the state of the law as it was before; but still it would not be an easy matter. He would promise to submit the matter to the Scotch Legal Advisers of the Crown, and he hoped those hon. and learned Gentlemen would see their day at some future, but not very distant time, to carry the suggestion of the

  687
  noble Marquess as to consolidation into effect.
  Clause 2 (Definitions).
  On the Motion of The Earl of ROSEBERY, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 9, after the second ("Acts"), insert ("and sections of Acts.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Provisions for applications for authority to borrow, charge, lease, and feu).
  On the Motion of The Earl of ROSE-BERY, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 29, leave out ("expedient") and insert ("for the public advantage and not prejudical to the estate"); line 31, leave out ("or nominal"); line 32, add new paragraph—
  "Provided that it shall not be lawful for the applicant to take any grassum or consideration for granting such fees or lease other than the feu duty or the rent, and if any such grassum or consideration shall be taken such feu or lease shall he null and void;"
  line 33, after ("feu") insert ("or grant leases.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Lease may be renewed throe years before expiration).
  On the Motion of The Lord WATSON, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 38, leave out ("fourteen"), and insert ("seven.")
  THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALE THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALE moved an Amendment in respect of renewals of leases before their expiration.
  LORD WATSONsaid, that in the Bill, as originally drawn, it had been proposed that a lease should be renewable to the tenant and his heirs at any time within "three years" previous to the expiration; but "two years" had been substituted for three, and power given to let to any tenant. He could not agree to the Amendment, as he believed that every facility should be given to those interested to renew their leases. He failed to see why the right should be restricted to the tenant in possession and his heirs, because the object was to provide for the letting of the property to the best advantage.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that, in his view, to
  688
  settle the renewal of a lease before the expiration of the old lease was contrary to the whole spirit of the law in Scotland. That would be interfering with the liberty of a landlord, who might desire to retain a particular person on his land. The end of the tenancy would be the time to make these arrangements.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, in his opinion, it would not be fair to take away any of a tenant's existing rights.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Provision for disposal of fund deposited or invested after fourteen years).
  On the Motion of The Earl of ROSEBERY, the following Amendment made:—In page 5, line 24, leave out ("disentail"), and insert ("original application.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Earl of ROSEBERY, the following Now Clause (a) was added after Clause 13:—
  (Settlements by marriage contract not to be disappointed.)
  "Where any heir of entail in possession of an entailed estate, or the heir apparent to such estate, shall, together or separately, have secured by obligation in any marriage contract the descent of such estate upon the issue of the marriage in reference to which such contract is entered into, it shall not be competent for such heir of entail in possession or heir apparent, or either of them, to apply for or to con-sent to the disentail of such estate until there shall be horn a child of such marriage capable of taking the estate in terms of such contract, and who by himself or his guardian shall consent to such disentail, or until such marriage shall be dissolved without such child being born, unless the justice or justices named in such contract, or the party or parties at whose sight the provisions of the contract are directed to be carried into execution, shall concur in such application or consent."
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, in moving the insertion of a new clause (b,) to follow the one just inserted in the Bill, said, that when the Bill was in Committee the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns) had taken a strong objection to the clause as it then stood, and it was considered advisable to strike out the section, in order that the matter might be reconsidered at this stage. He (the Earl of Rosebery) must confess

  689
  he attached great importance to the clause, and it had been reinstated with well-considered Amendments, which he believed would go far to obviate the objections which had been expressed. He did not, however, think that the words he proposed would carry out the arrangements the noble and learned Earl was willing to accept. The whole question had been argued on a previous occasion, so that it would not be necessary for him to repeat what he had already said in favour of the proposal. He would merely point out that, unless there was some such provision imported into the Bill, no creditor would either advance money or supply goods; and, if they did not provide such a clause, the proprietor only would be in a position to sell the estate. He thought their Lordships would consider the clause to be an equitable one, and he hoped they would accept it.
  Moved, After the new Clause inserted after Clause 13, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Powers of creditors of heir entitled to disentail,)
  "Where any heir of entail in possession is entitled to disentail the estate, with the consent of any other heir or heirs, or upon such consent being dispensed with by the Court, any creditor of such heir in possession in respect of debt incurred after the passing of this Act who has obtained decree against him for payment and charged upon the decree, shall, in the event of the debt so incurred not being paid for six months after the expiration of the charge, be entitled to apply to the Court, and the Courtshall, if the said debt is not paid within three months after the date of the application, proceed as if the heir in possession had made application to disentail the estate, and shall ordain him to execute an instrument of disentail of the estate, or of such parts thereof as may be necessary for payment of such debt; and if he refuses or fails to do so the Court may grant authority to the clerk of Court to execute such instrument, and after provision is made for the interests of any other heirs of entail whose consents are necessary in the application, and any other creditors whose debts are secured on the estate, the creditor shall be entitled to affect the estate for payment of such debt, and shall have the same rights and interests therein as if an instrument of disentail had been executed and recorded by the heir in possession himself.
  "If the estates of such heir of entail in possession of an entailed estate shall be sequestrated for debt incurred after the passing of this Act, the trustee on his sequestrated estates shall be entitled to apply to the Court for authority to disentail the estate, and the Court shall forthwith proceed as if such heir had made application to disentail the estate, in the same manner as is directed in this section with regard to an
  690
  application by a creditor."—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  LORD WATSONsaid, he must point out that the original clause included creditors whose debts were incurred before the passing of the Act, whereas the present clause was limited to creditors in debts incurred after the passing of the Act. That was certainly an Amendment. As the clause stood originally in the Bill, it would have acted very unjustly, and it was accordingly struck out. He (Lord Watson), following the example of the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery), would refrain from arguing the question further than to observe that in the case of an entailed proprietor the position of the debtor was perfectly well known. As he had previously opposed the Amendment on general principles, he should not occupy their Lordships' time further, but would state that, in his opinion, if the Amendment were accepted the clause, as now framed, would be quite unworkable.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the last objection of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Watson) would be a most formidable one, if it were well founded. He (the Lord Chancellor), however, believed that it was not well founded. He believed that the principle contained in the clause was a just and equitable one, and that the creditors should exercise the same power on the estate as their debtor, when he had a right to ask for its disentailment. The law was perfectly well settled in England, and creditors, under similar circumstances, could obtain a remedy against the tenant in tail in possession, although the effect would be not, as under this Bill, to buy out, but entirely to defeat the succession of the next heir.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not think the new clause would effect the object the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) had in view. No doubt, the creditors would well study the question, and there would really be no question of their disappointment. The next heir would take possession of the property, subject to the engagements to other members of the family, and to engagements with other persons afterwards. Now, by the clause it was proposed that, under all circumstances, he should be forced to oust the members of his family in favour of other parties having claims against him. It seemed

  691
  to him that, in cases of that kind, the heir should be given a right of election. The clause, in his opinion, ought not to be adopted.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he was much grieved and surprised that the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) should have brought forward such an immoral doctrine. He (the Earl of Rosebery) was quite aware of the fact that there were some engagements entered into by the heir with the other members of the family; but engagements with the family should only run a reasonable time. It was all very well to argue this question on the ground of honesty; but, besides the ground of honesty, there was another ground which could not be lost sight of, and that was the ground of expediency. If a man who had the power of disposing of an estate chose to run into debt, and thereby become involved in difficulties, surely he ought not to be allowed to avoid disposing of his property. Supposing a man were owing £5,000 upon an estate, and that he was able to keep his creditors out of it by simply refusing to disentail, would that be an act of justice to the creditors? Would it be just to deliberately repudiate the power of paying debts by a simple application to the Court of Chancery? On the grounds of morality and justice, he hoped their Lordships would accept the proposal of the Government to insert the clause. If the clause were not agreed to, and if their Lordships should thus repudiate the power of paying their debts on application, the enemies of their Order would be furnished with a very serious argument against them.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 52; Not - Contents 67: Majority 15.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Morley, E.

  Northbrook, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Sydney, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Canterbury, V,

  Northampton, M.

  Eversley, V.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Dartrey, E.

  Derby, E.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Kimberley, E.

  Minto, E.

  Aberdare, L.

  692

  Annaly, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Reay, L.

  Braye, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Calthorpe, L.

  Carlingford, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Churchill, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Coleridge, L.

  Crewe, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Fitzgerald, L.

  Sudeley, L,

  Houghton, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Howth. L. (E. Howth.)

  Truro, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

  Leigh, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Waveney, L.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Wolverton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Richmond, D.

  Brabourne, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Bath, M.

  Hertford, M.

  Colchester, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Denman, L.

  Amherst, E.

  de Ros, L. [Teller.]

  Bathurst, E.

  Digby, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Dunsany, L.

  Clonmell, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Bucclench and Queensberry.)

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Feversham, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Harris, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Lamington, L.

  Milltown, E.

  Leconfield, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Manners, L.

  Onslow, E.

  O'Neill, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Oranmore and Browne,

  Powis, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Romney, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Rosslyn, E.

  Sandwich, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Wilton, E.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Cranbrook, V.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Hardinge, V.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore,)

  Trevor, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Watson, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Abinger, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Resolved in the negative.
  Clause 18 (Price to be consigned. Where price paid in consols, dividends to be paid to applicant and his successors. Where estate encumbered.

  693
  Where applicant desires investment, trustees may be appointed. Powers of trustees. Purchase of lands. Investment after applicant's death.)
  On the Motion of The Earl of ROSEBERY, the following Amendment made:—In page 7, line 26, leave out ("subsection"), and insert ("sub-sections.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Disposition to be granted at sight of Court).
  On the Motion of The Earl of ROSE-BERY, the following Amendment made:—In page 9, line 25, after ("transaction"), insert—
  ("And in particular a clause providing that the purchaser shall have warrandice against the price, so long as the same shall remain extant, deposited or invested as aforesaid, and binding the applicant and his heirs of provision in warrandice to the extent of the shares of the price received by them respectively, in the event of the price being disentailed and divided among the applicant and his heirs of provision according to their respective interests therein.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Marquess of HUNTLY, the following new Clause was inserted after Clause 18:—
  "In all applications for disentail or sale under this Act, where the heir in possession shall have expended sums in improving the estate which he is entitled to charge upon the entailed estate without consents, such heir shall be entitled to produce a statement of such expenditure, and upon the Court declaring such expenditure to be properly chargeable upon the estate, the amount thereof, or such portion as the Court may declare properly chargeable, shall be paid to such heir out of the price of the estate, and shall be taken into consideration in fixing the values of compensation payable to the next heirs."
  On the Motion of The Earl of GALLOWAY, the following new Clause was inserted after Clause 20:—
  "Where any money or other property heritable or moveable has been or shall be held or invested in trust for the purpose of purchasing land to be entailed, it shall be lawful for the person, who, if the land were entailed in terms of the trust, would be the heir entitled to possession thereof, to make summary application to the Court for warrant and authority to the person or persons by whom the said money or property is held in trust at the time, to deal with and apply the same or the proceeds thereof as if it were the price of entailed land sold in pursuance of this Act."

  SCHEDULE.
  On the Motion of The Earl of ROSE-BERY, the following Amendments made:
  694
  —In page 11, line 4, after ("50"), insert ("ss. 14, 15, 16, 17,"); in line 9, after ("51"), insert ("ss. 2, 3.")
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 195.)

ANNAM—OCCUPATION BY FRENCH TROOPS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD HARRISasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If it is the fact that the French Government have landed troops at Hansi in Annam, and for what purpose; and, whether there is any reason to suppose that the effect of such landing of troops will in any way affect the interests of British trade in those parts? The noble Lord said that, in asking the Question, he did not wish to imply that there was even a remote possibility of the friendly relations at present existing between this country and the Chinese Empire being strained, or that there was any cause to fear French competition; but Annam was on the South, as Corea was on the North, a tributary of China, and he believed there was reason to fear that the encroachment of European Powers on either of those tributaries might lead to complications with China, which complications might affect our large and increasing trade in those seas.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in reply, said, it was quite true that French troops had attacked Hansi and captured it. The reason assigned was, that the position of the French in Annam had been endangered by the conduct of certain Mandarins. He was glad to be able to say that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, this would not in any way affect or endanger the interests of British trade in that part of the world.

FOREIGN OFFICIAL REPORTS.

  QUESTION".
  LORD HOUGHTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can make any arrangement with the Foreign Offices of Continental Powers by which the papers on foreign affairs communicated by Foreign Governments to their respective Public Assemblies may be deposited in the Library of the House for the use of its Members?
  EARL GRANVILLE, in reply, said, the Question was not so simple as the noble Lord seemed to suppose. There was an official objection to giving statements of what took place in the Parliament of foreign countries; but as regarded the other branch of the Question, there was now a Committee sitting on the subject of the communication to Parliament of certain Papers of an international character, and the point might perhaps be considered by them. The Librarian of the House of Lords was a Member of that Committee.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow a quarter past Two o'clock.