HL Deb 05 June 1882 vol 270 cc4-19
THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER,

in rising to move that the Wrexham, Mold, and Connah's Quay Railway (Extensions and Dock) Bill be re-committed to another Select Committee, and, at the same time, presenting Petitions in favour of the Motion, said: My Lords, I cannot allow this Bill to proceed without asking your Lordships to re-commit it; and I have taken what I know to be a somewhat unusual and exceptional course, because, as I am about to endeavour to show to your Lordships, the proceedings taken by the Select Committee, who have already had the Bill before them, testify that the course they have followed has also been unusual and exceptional. The matter, therefore, requires at your hands unusual and exceptional treatment. But there are precedents in your Lordships' House for the re-committal of a private Bill, such as this is, by your Lordships. There was one in 1859; and though I am aware that the House, as a rule, supports the decision of its Committees, still I am also aware that, having a strong sense of the public estimation with which the decisions of your Committees are regarded, where a sense of justice requires it, your Lordships have justly held that Bills should be re-com- mitted to another Select Committee. If, therefore, I can show that the action of this Committee in the present case has been somewhat irregular and somewhat unusual, I know that your Lordships will, doubtless, allow it to be re-committed. I will very briefly allude to some of the facts with regard to the case itself, and will then call attention to what the Committee actually did with regard to it. The Wrexham, Mold, and Connah's Quay Railway Company was formed about 20 years ago. It is independent of two great Railway Companies at either end—namely, the Great Western on one side and the London and North-Western Railway on the other. It was formed for the purpose of giving the collieries in the district access to the River Dee at a place called Connah's Quay—the coal raised in that district being very considerable. In Denbighshire the output in the year 1861 was 1,260,000 tons, and in 1881 it had increased to 1,874,000 tons. Since that time the Great Western has tapped the district to a considerable extent by carrying branches through the coalfields of Denbighshire, the result being that that railway has largely increased its traffic, having in 1870 carried 643,000 tons of coal from the district, while in 1880 it carried 960,000 tons. At the same time, the prosperity of the district has been greatly retarded by the want of better outlets for the coal, and the inhabitants are not at all satisfied with the accommodation which has been given them by their railway, or by the system of the Great Western Railway; and they have, therefore, brought forward this Bill, the provisions of which give them access to Connah's Quay on the River Dee. It is rather difficult to explain all the various extensions and junctions which the Bill provides, and it is almost impossible to do it; but perhaps it is not necessary for the purposes of my argument. There are no engineering difficulties with regard to the making of the proposed line, and the money which will be necessary will, I understand, be forthcoming. The population of the district amounts to 45,000 souls; and I may say that, almost without exception, the whole population and the whole trade of the district are in favour of the Bill. There are 498 owners of land and lessees of collieries in the district, and only one is opposed to it. The only formal opponent to the measure is the Great Western Railway Company, who, I willingly admit, have done a great deal with regard to the development of the trade of the district by carrying branch lines into it; but the population of the district feel that they have not done all that they could. Of course, what they have done, they have done as much with a view to their own advantage, as well as to that of the advantage of the district; but I admit that they have done a great deal to the district, especially with regard to the collieries which I happen to own myself. The Bill before the Committee gives them extended accommodation for the increasing trade of the district, and that is the case with regard to the railway itself. Now with regard to the action of the Committee. The Committee met on the 11th of May. Mr. Rodwell, the counsel for the promoters, made his opening statement, and in the course of it he said more than once—and laid great stress on the observation—that he would shorten his address for the convenience of the Committee, because he relied principally upon the evidence to be given in support of the promoters' Bill. Witnesses were called, and among them Mr. Charles Townshend, who is the Chairman of the Westminster Brymbo Coal and Coke Company, by far the largest colliery in the district, which has an output of about 200,000 tons per annum, and his evidence went to show that he wanted a connection with the London and North-Western in order to get to Holyhead and Connah's Quay. The evidence of the other witnesses was to the same effect. Mr. Townshend, moreover, stated that, by the proposed system of railways, he would be able to get his coal carried at a cheaper rate than by using the Great Western Railway. The Committee examined only 10 witnesses, out of some 40, whom the promoters wished to bring forward, and of those 10 witnesses, five—one of whom was the engineer—gave only general evidence; the others gave specific evidence. After hearing these witnesses for about three hours, the Chairman of the Committee, speaking on the same afternoon when the proceedings had been opened, the 11th of May, said that they would pass that part of the Bill which related to the upper end of the proposed railway system—the end close to the River Dee, and that was done in spite of there being no other opponent to the Bill beside the Great Western Railway, who were not hoard at all against it. Well, that part of the Bill was passed, and they said they would not pass the other portion of the Bill; the result being that the Committee passed that part of the Bill, which was practically useless without the Wrexham end of the line, and the other part was ignored; the extensions, &c., were passed over, and thus the Bill was practically thrown out. The Chairman of the Committee used these words— The Committee are fully impressed with the advantages that would he derived by competition, the only question being whether the competition would be fair, and whether the project is a good or a bad one. Notwithstanding this opinion of the Committee, they refused to hear the evidence as to whether the project was "a good or a bad one;" and they did not appear to think that the proposed competition with the Great Western Railway would be fair, or that the project contained in this Bill was a good one. The fact was, however, that the Chairman admitted that the proceedings were virtually stopped, when, practically, no evidence was given to show the merits of the proposal, or rather when only one-fifth part of the evidence had been given. The Petitions that I present are from 2,524 inhabitants of the district. They wore got up in a hurry; and, in addition to this, there is also a Petition from an enthusiastic meeting held at Wrexham near the lower end of the proposed railway—a meeting at which 1,500 persons were present. There is likewise another Petition from the Mayor and Corporation of Wrexham, and bearing their corporate seal. I mention these things to show that there is very great feeling in the district with reference to this subject about the Bill being re-committed. The whole district is in favour of the Bill, and the people think it a very great hardship, and a very unfair thing, that the Bill should be thrown out in this very summary manner, without at least going fully into the evidence, which, I think, the Committee were bound to do before adopting such a course. In introducing this subject I promised your Lordships' House a precedent in favour of the course which I am now taking; and I will refer just briefly to a precedent of the 12th April, 1859, when the The Duke, of Westminster Bill on the subject of the Thames Watermen and Lightermen was before the House. It does not, however, quite run on all fours with the present case. In that case, the opponents of the Bill were not heard fully by the Committee. The Committee was presided over by a noble Relative of my own (Lord Ebury), who is not now present, and Lord Campbell asked that the Bill be re-committed, and in doing so said— That the Committee sat on the 29th of last month, when the case of the petitioners was opened, and evidence was tendered on their behalf…On the 4th of this month the opponents gave evidence against the Bill; but afterwards, on the 11th of April, though there remained several witnesses to examine, and without hearing counsel, the Committee cleared the room, and afterwards announced that they had come to the conclusion that the Preamble of the Bill had been proved. Lord Campbell further said— That this appeared to be a very unusual and unfair course to pursue…There could be no disparagement to the Committee in saying that they had decided under mistake, and that the matter should he referred back to the same Committee for re-consideration."—[3 Hansard, cliii, 1618.] I will now refer to what was said on that occasion by the noble Earl opposite, whose opinion upon these questions your Lordships always treat with respect. The noble Earl, then Lord Redesdale, said that— A chief consideration in this matter was the effect it would produce on the public at large as to the character of their Lordships' proceedings."—[Ibid. 1621.] That is a remark very well worth weighing in the present case. My noble Friend (the Duke of Somerset), following the noble Earl, said that— The question with which their Lordships had to deal was one of considerable difficulty. On the one hand they would be most anxious to uphold the character of their Committees; but, on the other hand, they would be no less anxious that the decisions of those Committees should enjoy the confidence of the public…He therefore thought that the Bill should be recommitted."—[Ibid.1622–3.] That remark was equally applicable with that of the noble Earl opposite to the present occasion. In that case the opponents' evidence had not been put forward; in this case, the promoters' case had not been fully gone into, but had been summarily dismissed. Under all those circumstances, what I ask your Lordships to do—and I ask it with the utmost confidence—is to vote for the Motion which stands in my name for the Bill to be re-committed to another Select Committee.

Moved, "That the Bill be re-committed to another Select Committee."—(The Duke of Westminster.)

LORD METHUEN

said, that as Chairman of the Select Committee in question, he should not detain the House by going into details of what the Committee did; but he should rely upon this—that what they did was done in the public interest. It was a peculiar Bill. It was an abandoned line, and the proposal was to obtain a better financial condition. There were other objectionable proposals in the Bill. He would just remark, in passing, that he only wished that their Lordships had had a map of the district showing the proposed railway in the outer Hall, and then he did not think that there would be one of their Lordships but who would require much stronger evidence than could be possibly given to induce them to believe that this Bill was one which ought to be passed in the way in which its promoters wished it to be passed. The line was impecunious, and, indeed, he might say was bankrupt. The noble Duke (the Duke of Westminster) thought that his interests and those of the proprietors of land in the district was not sufficiently attended to in the decision that they had come to; but the Committee decided upon another and much better way for providing for the interests of the district. If the promoters had gone to the Great Western, and had asked them for through rates or more running powers, they would have come before the Committee with clean hands; but they did nothing of the sort, preferring simply, as it were, to work on their own hook. The decision the Committee arrived at was one which they came to in the interest of the public; and he, therefore, held that, under the circumstances, the Committee were bound to protect the interests of the opponents. They were unanimous. There was not a single Member of the Committee who cast a doubt on the decision that they came to. He could only say that he never came to a decision which he intended to uphold more than in the present case. It was given for the benefit of the public and the railway interest at large.

THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH

said, that, having been a Member of the Committee now brought prominently before their Lordships, he wished to say a few words, and he should not trespass very long upon their time. He would say, at the outset, that he could entirely endorse what had been said by the noble Lord who had just sat down (Lord Methuen), the Chairman of the Committee which sat on this Railway Bill. That noble Lord very properly said that he wished their Lordships had a map before them to assist them in their decision upon this question, for by its means they would not only be able to see those lines projected all over a particular tract of country like an octopus, but they would easily see that one limb of the octopus was not sound—that particular limb had been some time out of working order, and was not fit to be used. He could only say that the Committee were unanimous in their decision that the promoters had not made out their case. He had to make a further remark with regard to a whisper that the Committee had some corrupt Great Western influence brought to bear upon them. He could say positively that no Great Western influence had any possible effect upon him. He had the misfortune of living on a northern branch of the Great Western, and he could confidently affirm that a more unsatisfactory line to dwell upon there could not be. He said nothing about the main line of the Great Western, for he knew nothing about it. So far from showing any undue bias in favour of the Great Western, he might call the attention of the House to Question 841, which he (the Earl of Dartmouth) put to a witness—Mr. Kenyon—which was in these words— I daresay it is your experience that the Great Western Railway have very good reasons to give for not giving additional accommodation. In print, of course, the irony of that question was completely omitted. He (the Earl of Dartmouth) put it ironically, and the witness to whom he ventured to put it took it up ironically. He repudiated for the whole Committee, as well as for himself, any other wish than that of doing justice to the public, and to prevent the creation of unnecessary branches by an impecunious and almost insolvent Company.

LORD ABERDARE

said, it might be objected to the noble Duke who moved the re-commitment of the Bill (the Duke of Westminster) that, being personally interested, he was not entitled to be heard. He (Lord Aberdare) wished to say that he was wholly disinterested; and he said so, because he inhabited a portion of the Principality, and some people considered that Wales was a sort of geographical unit or area, where everybody knew everybody else, and where the actions of one part of the Principality are known to the other. Living at Glamorgan, he was ashamed to say that ho never hoard in his life of the Wrexham, Mold, and Connah's Quay Railway until the other day, when a friend of his called his attention to the facts of the case, and asked him to look into them, as ho thought that the circumstances were very unusual. He did look into these facts, and what did ho find? Living as he did in the centre of a mineral district, he was, perhaps, very sensitive as to the amount of accommodation required for the mineral traffic; but he found a railway in existence from Wrexham to the River Dee, which was doing very little business. At one end of the Dee it had a connection, and at the other end it was not connected with the other railways. Wrexham was a town of 20,000 inhabitants; but it was surrounded by a girdle of mining villages, and it was of the utmost importance that there should be a number of branches in order to make the place useful. Now, into the merits of the case he did not go for a moment. In his opinion, when a Committee saw that a Bill was promoted under such circumstances, they should hear all possible evidence. If they were of opinion that the evidence was insufficient to pass the Bill, they were more than justified in stopping the evidence. But what did he find here? He found, in the first place, that out of 13 railways, three were carried, those three all connected with the branches. That would be like setting up a trunk without the branches. There was one opponent, Mr. Freeme, who objected to certain lines; and the announcement was made that the Committee was favourable to the granting of those lines; but Mr. Freeme's Counsel said that he should not, after what had fallen from the Committee, make any observations, but reserve them for "an- other place;" and that was the usual thing. With respect to the feeders of the line, he (Lord Aberdare) said, in his opinion, the Committee were not justified in treating the evidence as they did. At a very early period, when 10 only out of 40 witnesses had been examined, the Committee cleared the room, and called for engineering evidence. The engineering evidence they appeared to be satisfied with; and having heard 10 out of 40 or 50 witnesses, they held that those portions of the Bill—one of them the most important of all for the purposes of the Bill—should not be passed. What was the consequence? The whole of the district was up in arms. With the exception of the Great Western Railway, there was not a man but who was for this line. He (Lord Aberdare) was told that the line was impecunious. He could not understand a railway, existing as it was, being otherwise. But, at any rate, he had the positive assurance of gentlemen of capital and respectability that they were ready to find £170,000 for the purposes of this railway at once. He did not think that anyone present would think that the Committee had acted under any pressure; but, nevertheless, he considered that, under the circumstances, there was a case to justify the re-committal of the Bill. He cast no reflection upon any Member of the Committee. There was no person who questioned that they were acting in the interest of the public, and not of any particular railway. He (Lord Aberdare) was a shareholder in the Great Western. Most of the Directors were his personal friends. His interests, as an owner of minerals, would lead him to wish success to the Great Western; but he had examined this matter, and could come to no other conclusion than that the Committee were not justified in rejecting the most important portions of the line without hearing the whole of the evidence bearing upon them. He, therefore, supported the Motion of the noble Duke (the Duke of Westminster).

EARL DELA WARR

said, the question was not whether the Bill was a desirable one; that question could not be settled by their Lordships now, for it was impossible for them to know whether it was desirable to make the line or not; but the question was, as he understood it, whether the pro- motors of the Bill had had a fair hearing before the Committee? It appeared that, although the Bill was supported by all the owners and occupiers of land with one exception, though it was supported by all the landed interest of the country, though they brought forward a large number of witnesses in support of their case, yet when the matter came before the Committee only one-fifth of those witnesses were examined before the Committee. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Methuen), acting as the Chairman of the Committee, stated that no evidence which could be produced before them could alter the decision of the Committee. Now, he (Earl De La Warr) would put it to their Lordships that inasmuch as there was only one-fifth of the witnesses called, how could it be possible that nothing—no number of witnesses that might be produced—could alter the decision of that Committee, seeing that those witnesses were prepared to give important evidence? Therefore, he would ask their Lordships whether the promoters of the Bill, upon that ground alone, could have had a fair hearing of their case before the Committee? He thought the character of their Lordships' House was also concerned in the matter, and, for the reasons he had given, should most certainly support the Motion of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Westminster).

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he came down to the House that evening quite ignorant of the merits of the question; and he hoped his noble Friend (the Duke of Westminster) would forgive him, when he (Earl Granville) said that he came down not inclined to vote with him on a Motion to re-commit a Bill when the Committee had unanimously decided on a certain course. From what he had heard in the debate, however, he was inclined to alter that view. At the same time, he gave no opinion as to the abstract merits of the question. He thought it was quite possible that the Committee might be right, and that it was not desirable that the Bill should be passed. But whether they were or were not right in taking that course, there appeared to be a fact stated which was not denied, that the course which the Committee adopted was not to allow the promoters' case to be heard. That being so, without any feeling of disrespect to the Committee, he thought that so important, that, as a matter of principle, the Bill should be re-committed.

THE EARL OF LIMERICK,

in opposing the Motion, said, knowing nothing about the matter except that it was a Motion to re-commit the Bill to another Select Committee, he must say that he thought that it was one that their Lordships should hesitate in supporting. He must say that ho himself could not vote for it; because it was not—as had been represented by every noble Lord who had spoken—the re-committal of the Bill to the Committee to hear further evidence; it was a Motion that the Bill should be referred to another Select Committee. He could not imagine any stronger Vote of Censure on a Select Committee of their Lordships' House than passing a Motion in those words; and he thought the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Westminster) had altogether failed in producing such a precedent as would justify their Lordships in adopting the course recommended in the Motion. It appeared to him to be a very extreme mode of dealing with the matter, inasmuch as it would appear on the Notices of their Lordships' House, and could not but for all time be viewed, as a Vote of Censure upon a Committee who had acted to the best of their ability for the public good. Viewing it in that light, without in any way knowing anything of the merits of the Bill, and knowing how strongly he (the Earl of Limerick) should have felt it, if he had been a Member of that Committee and such a course had been taken—in fact, he should not have, felt justified in sitting on a Select Committee again, he should not be able to vote for the Motion brought forward by the noble Duke.

LORD WENLOCK

said, that in supporting the Motion of the noble Duke (the Duke of Westminster)—and he felt bound to do so—he might premise by saying that he appeared in this case as an interested witness. He himself was looking forward to the decision of the Committee upon the Bill, and he could barely express the feelings of those who were promoting it, when he said that great disappointment was felt when they found that the Committee had thrown out the Bill. From a statement in their Lordships' hands, their Lordships would see that the evidence that the Committee thought fit to take was such as hardly justified them in coming to their decision. The fact that public meetings had been held in Wrexham and the district showed the general disappointment which had been felt at the decision of the Committee; and he knew that he could speak for the promoters of the Bill as to the great disappointment which they had felt. It had been moved by the noble Duke that the Bill should be referred to a fresh Committee; and he (Lord Wenlock) could not help thinking that that was the only solution. The old Committee had lost one of its Members by death, and that offered additional facility for the appointment of a fresh Committee. He did not wish to impugn the reasons on which the Members of the Committee acted; but for the promoters and for himself he should feel it very unsatisfactory if the Bill were to go back before the same Committee. They would feel bound to justify their former decision; and if they passed the Bill they would only stultify the opinion they came to before. Therefore, he hoped that their Lordships would support the Motion of the noble Duke. He need hardly say that the British public had the fullest confidence in their Lordships' House; and he could only say that that evidence had been shaken by the manner in which the Committee had arrived at their decision. He appealed to their Lordships' sense of justice, and to the knowledge of the magnitude of the interests involved that they now possessed, and trusted that they would support the Motion of the noble Duke.

THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)

My Lords, I feel that this is a very difficult question. There is no doubt that it is most important that decisions of Committees of this House should be supported. In this case we have a most distinct statement from the Chairman of the Committee, and by another Member of that Committee, of the manner in which they were satisfied with regard to the decision to which they came; and it is a very difficult matter for us to decide how we are to treat questions of this sort, which are brought forward in the manner in which this question has been put before the House. If because those persons, who are interested in a particular measure, and are dissatisfied with the decision of the Committee, are to come before the House and ask a Bill to be re-committed because they are dissatisfied with that decision, it seems to me to be establishing a precedent of a very dangerous character, and one which, if we do not take care, may lead to very injurious consequences indeed. And I may say, and I cannot help noticing, that it is unfortunate that the Motion and the support of it conies from parties distinctly interested in the matter. In the instance quoted, and almost the only one in support of it, is that one which is mentioned with regard to the Thames Watermen and Lightermen Bill. In that case, the Motion for a re-committal of the Bill was moved by the then Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Campbell), who had inquired into the case, and he was dissatisfied with the course adopted. His Motion was to refer it back to the Committee, in order to hear further evidence. From what passed in the House, however, in the remarks from the different Members of the Committee, it was thought not to be expedient to refer it back to the same Committee; and it was, therefore, referred back to another Committee. But the question was brought forward before the House in a very different manner from the way in which this question has been introduced, which, in my opinion, is one which requires very careful handling. There is one point to be taken into consideration, and that is the action of the promoters of the Bill. When the Committee said that they were ready to allow the Bill to pass in a certain form, the promoters said that it would be useless for them unless they had the entire provisions of the Bill; and they, therefore, desired to withdraw the Bill. There was practically a withdrawing of the Bill by the promoters themselves; and if the action had been taken upon the withdrawal of the Bill, the Motion for its re-committal could not have very well been made. The Committee came to the conclusion that, after that statement, it was more desirable not to put the parties to further expense, and then they decided on the terms with which these gentlemen are not satisfied. Upon that a Motion is made for the Bill to be recommitted. There may be an impression in the minds of many a noble Lord that further evidence should have been heard; but whether that was so or not I shall not discuss. I confess, for my own part, taking the manner in which the question has been brought before the House and the consequences, if this Motion is to be adopted, that persons interested in a measure who are not successful, are to seek to re-commit a Bill by bringing it before the House itself, it is, I think, under these circumstances, that it would be attended with such danger that I shall not be disposed to vote with the noble Duke.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am quite as desirous as the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees to support a Committee of this House, and I am sensible that a great deal of inconvenience would result to the House if Motions were made by persons interested, merely because they were dissatisfied with the decision of a Committee, or, I will add, by anybody else, who chose to re-open the question by referring the matter back to a Committee. But the very importance of preserving the public respect for, and confidence in, the decisions of the Committees of your Lordships' House makes it equally necessary to attend to any representations which may be made, if by inadvertence—and I do not doubt the very best and most upright intentions—there has been a deviation in substance from the rules which, according to the established principles of justice, ought to regulate the proceedings of your Lordships' Committees. Now, the short ground on which it appears to me that an error of that kind has been inadvertently made—and, as I say, I do not doubt with the very best intentions—on this occasion is this. The promoters had opened their case, and when they had produced some evidence in support of their Bill, but with the greater part of their witnesses remaining unexamined, the proceedings were suddenly stopped by the Committee declaring a foregone conclusion, and that, my Lords, not against the whole scheme, but in favour of a certain part of the scheme which, as I recollect, related to some branch railways to connect the lines with the sea, and against those other parts of the scheme which related to other short railways by which the line was to be fed. I think that was a most unfortunate course. It is said in the Paper which has been circulated by the promoters of this scheme, that they had not had any opportunity of producing the greater part—if, indeed, they had produced any part—of the evidence in sup- port of those portions of the scheme which the Committee were disposed to reject. I am unable to distinguish this case on any principle which I can understand from the precedent referred to by the noble Duke (the Duke of Westminster). The only distinction is, that here, before the promoters had had an opportunity of submitting their whole evidence in support of the scheme, the scheme was suddenly rejected; whereas, in the other case, the same thing happened to the opponents. The opponents had called some evidence, after which they were stopped by the Committee, who decided against them. This House thought that was a mistake which required correcting, and not only did this House think so, but the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale), who used arguments as strong as those of any other person on that subject, said— A chief consideration in this matter was the effect it would produce on the public at large, as to the character of their Lordships' proceedings. It was impossible, after what they had heard from the Members of the Committee, to doubt that the Committee had decided without hearing the counsel for the opponents, and he did not wonder, therefore, that they should have complained."—[3 Hansard, cliii. 1621.] My noble Friend said that the Motion on that occasion was made by the then Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Campbell); but on what principle? Not because he took an interest on the one side or on the other side; but because it was important to preserve the regularity of the proceedings of your Lordships' House, and not to have decisions pronounced until the parties were heard. This is what he said— He regarded this Motion as very similar to what was well known in the Courts of Law—namely, sending back an award to be reconsidered by the arbitrator; and then he gave his reasons for altering the original form of his Motion, which was to re-commit the Bill to the same Committee. He said— When he heard one Member of the Committee say that the onus was entirely on the petitioners…and another, that his mind was made up, and a third that he had conclusively made up his mind, he (Lord Campbell) was disposed to change his Motion and move for a new Committee."—[Ibid. 1623.] The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, at the same time, said this— After what had fallen from the noble Lords who formed the Committee, it would be useless again to refer the Bill back to them, and he therefore should support the appointment of a new Committee."—[Ibid.] I think, under these circumstances, it is no disrespect at all to the Members of the Committee, in the present case, to adopt the same course of proceeding. I think it is not so invidious as to call upon them to hear the case again. Of course, I very much regret to have to take this course; hut under the circumstances I see no other way than to recommit this Bill to another Committee.

LORD METHUEN

My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord (Lord Selborne), and from four or five of your Lordships, I do not think it would be for the public interest that I should divide the House.

Motion agreed to; Bill re-committed accordingly: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.