Lords Sitting of 20 April 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858, Amendment*(38).
Second Reading—Stage Plays in Aid of Charities (32), negatived.
Committee—Report—Land Drainage Provisional Order* (26).
Third Reading—Bills of Sale (Ireland) Act (1879) Amendment* (29), and passed.

CHANNEL TUNNEL—THE JOINT COMMITTEE.
Message from the Commons, That they have ordered the Committee appointed by them to join with a Committee of their Lordships to inquire whether it is expedient that Parliamentary sanction should be given to a submarine communication between England and France, and to consider whether any or what conditions should be imposed by Parliament in the event of such communication being sanctioned, to meet the Committee appointed by their Lordships in Room B., this day, at Three o'clock.
Ordered that the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Committee appointed by the Commons, this day, in Room B., at Three o'clock.

CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIAN ADVANCE.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any intention on the part
  720
  of the Government to lay upon the Table Papers relating to the advance of the Russians in Central Asia?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have been in communication with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, and we do not think it would be of any advantage, or that it would be wise at the present moment, to lay Papers on the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Moved to resolve that the following be made a Standing Order:
"In any case in which an infant is or may be interested in the consequences of an Estate Bill, the Chairman of Committees may, if he think fit, require that such infant shall be represented before the Committee on the Bill by a person to be appointed as or in the nature of a guardian or protector of such infant by the Lord Chancellor, or the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal by writing under his hand."
Agreed to; and the said resolution ordered to be added to the Roll of Standing Orders, to be numbered 163a, and to be printed. (No. 41.)

STAGE PLATS IN AID OF CHARITIES BILL.—(No. 32.)
(The Earl of Onslow.)
STAGE PLATS IN AID OF CHARITIES BILL.—(No. 32.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he was not asking the Legislature to introduce any new practice, but merely to sanction that which had, in ignorance of the law, taken place for 40 years without any person interfering. It had hitherto been the practice of these who were owners of large houses—many being Members of their Lordships' House—to grant the use of these houses temporarily for the performance of stage plays, concerts, and other similar purposes in aid of charities; but, until recently, it appeared to have occurred to no one that it was possible that such benevolent intention was otherwise than perfectly legal. It would probably be in the recollection of their Lordships that a month or two ago a case was tried by one of the police magistrates of the Metropolis—the case of Sir Percy Shelley—in which it was stated that a private person had no power to lend his house for this purpose with-

  721
  out contravening the law. The effect of that decision was that any person who lent his house for the purpose of a charitable performance would hereafter be liable to a penalty of £20, and every person who took part in it would be liable to a penalty of £10. The history of the subject was briefly this. Before 1837 there was, practically, no Statute law on the subject. The law relating to the Theatrical Profession then consisted really in these portions of the Vagrant Acts which dealt with actors as rogues and vagabonds. But in 1837 a distinct authority was given by Parliament to the Lord Chamberlain, continuing and confirming his power to licence plays for the Metropolis, which continued until 1843, in which year an Act was passed giving to the Lord Chamberlain authority to licence places for stage performances within the whole of the Metropolitan boroughs. It was under that Act that the case he had referred to was decided, though for a considerable number of years no person had thought of interfering ill the matter. With regard to that Act a noble and learned Lord, who was not then in the House (Lord Bramwell), declared on one occasion that it was very clumsily drawn, and their Lordships would probably agree with that opinion; and although the point whether the Act applied to performances in aid of charities was not what was raised before him, the noble and learned Lord declined to express any opinion upon it. Under these circumstances, he (the Earl of Onslow) would ask their Lordships to relieve these who were labouring under the disability he referred to. There could be but little doubt that public interest in the Dramatic Profession had considerably increased in the last few years, and a school was now established in England for the training of actors. It had been said that there was considerable rivalry and jealousy between professional and amateur actors; but he thought there was much misconception on that point. Some somewhat scathing remarks were made a few days ago, by perhaps the leading actor of the present day; but he had ascertained that they wore intended to apply, not so much to these who were bonâ fide amateurs or who were members of Dramatic Clubs, which had for their object the training of young men and women for the stage, as to these who
  722
  appeared on the public stage before they were qualified to do so. As a proof that the public interest in dramatic performances had increased, he might state that while in 1843 there were only 29 theatres in the Metropolis, in 1878 there were 50, and the number had since increased by five or six. There were only two objections urged against the measure. First, that it tended to take away from an author the copyright of his work. Any such intention as that was far from his thoughts when framing the Bill; but if it could be shown that it would have this effect, he should be perfectly willing to insert a clause in Committee to meet it. The second objection was far more important—namely, that there was nothing in it to protect the public from the danger of fire. He had every desire to see the public properly protected in this respect, and, with that view, he submitted the Bill, three weeks ago, to the Metropolitan Board of Works, with a request that they would suggest a clause to meet the objection; but, up to the present, he had received no reply from the Board. He had, therefore, prepared a clause on the point, proposing that the occupier of any house where stage plays were performed should give eight days' notice of any performance to the Clerk of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that if it should appear that such place was defective in structure, or that there was any danger to the persons attending, the Board should have power to prohibit the entertainment. During the last 40 years there had been no interference on the part of the Goverment or the Metropolitan Board of Works with these who gave such charitable performances; and ho could not believe that their Lordships would now oppose an effort to rectify the law in order that they might be given legally.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKbelieved the matter was not of sufficient importance to call for legislation, and that the noble Earl had not made out a case for interference in the subject by Parliament. It was a pity to put in motion so great a machine to meet what at the most was a trifling inconvenience. The Lord Chamberlain's power was useful, and such measures as this tended towards its abrogation. What were charitable

  723
  purposes? And why impose upon magistrates the decision, which would vary in different places according to their idiosyncracies? If ladies and gentlemen now chose to assemble in a theatre, there was nothing to prevent them from subscribing what they pleased to any charity, provided that was done voluntarily; but if money was to be taken at the doors, there was no reason why they should escape the present restrictions. The licence was not costly, and the matter was really not one of public importance, or one which called for any legislative interference. He should oppose the Motion.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he quite agreed with every word which had fallen from the noble Viscount. His own views, however, went even further. The object of the Bill appeared to be this. It was not such a small thing, for it meant simply the cancelling of the main principle of the Act for licensing theatres. That principle—which was founded on the wise ground of public utility—was that no performance should take place in any but a patent or licensed theatre. It was not necessary to remind their Lordships that a licence was required for theatres on grave public grounds. The noble Earl, it was true, would make an exception in the case of performances for any purpose of charity or of public utility. But he (the Earl of Rosebery) thought both these terms admitted of very wide interpretation. The definition of charity could be applied to a vast number of cases, ranging over an infinity of subjects; but, after all, the question was, whether people assembled to see a performance for the purpose of charity or public utility or not, they must be protected, as all great assemblies should be protected. The idea of the Legislature in insisting on licences was not to recognize the authority of the Lord Chamberlain or of the Justices of the Peace, but it was to see that no plays were presented to audiences which were not suitable for representation. The noble Earl, as to that, only laid down that no play should be presented which had been refused the Lord Chamberlain's sanction; and there was nothing in the Bill, as far as he could see, to prevent any play, however improper it might be, which had not been submitted to the Lord Chamberlain, from being presented in this man-
  724
  ner. Another requisite in matters of this kind was the preservation of order, and there was also the protection against fire and the safety of the structure in which theatrical performances were given. If there were any particular theatrical performance that would seem to require the protection of the Legislature, it was one which took place, not in a structure usually employed for the purpose, but in a private dwelling-house or some building not intended for it; but it was exactly in that case that the noble Earl's Bill would withdraw every protection which was deemed essential with regard to buildings constructed for the purpose. The noble Earl had alluded to the great increase in the number of theatres which had taken place in London during the last 30 years; but that statement furnished one of the strongest arguments against his own Bill, because if there had been that very great increase, there was surely no particular reason for endeavouring to introduce a new and unlicensed sort of theatre for the amusement of London playgoers. If charitable performances were required, there was nothing, or very little, to prevent the engagement of a theatre for the purpose. For these reasons, he was sorry to say that the Government were not able to support the second reading of the Bill.
  Resolved in the Negative.

WESTERN ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC—AUSTRALIAN COLONIES—ANNEXATION OF NEW GUINEA BY QUEENSLAND.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in asking the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the report that the Government of Queensland has annexed the whole or part of New Guinea is correct; and whether Her Majesty's Government is a consenting party to this annexation? said: I wish to make a few observations upon the Question I have put to the noble Earl, and I will also add this further Question—Whether the other Australian Colonies are also consenting parties in the transaction? The territory which I understand to have been annexed may be described as half a continent. The other half belongs to the Dutch Government, and I

  725
  believe, therefore, that the portions claimed by the Queensland Government are these towards the south and southeast. But, in the first place, I wish to say that I do not make my observations in any adverse spirit towards the Government of Queensland, my object simply is to understand some of the conditions and circumstances of this transaction. I think I can partly understand the grounds on which the Queensland Government have acted. There has been of late years a much larger intercourse growing up, and a larger traffic passing through the Torres Straits, and, no doubt, a greater tendency to abuse with regard to many of the Natives employed in that trade; and I can conceive it possible that some salutary restrictions of greater weight than now exist, and such as can be enforced only by an organized Government, are necessary. But I apprehend that the real fear of the Queensland Government is that which is common to the other Australian Colonies—namely, the fear of some foreign annexation. I myself do not share this apprehension, at all events at this moment. When this question arose—as it did in 1876—Germany distinctly repudiated any intention of acting in such a manner. The United States also followed their traditional policy, and showed no inclination to depart from it, and it would be an unfriendly act in any Foreign Power to intervene and annex any portion of New Guinea when they knew that the matter was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. But, at the same time, I can also make large allowances for the feeling of Queensland on this subject, and I can enter into and understand it. I believe there are many questions connected with the Australian Colonies which it is hard for us to understand in this country; such, for instance, as the dislike to admit Chinese into Australia. The real question which arises, as I understand it, is the question of the policy, and, still more, of the principle upon which such an appropriation of territory as this is made. From the Queensland point of view, so far as Queensland is concerned, I believe there is no Colony which has made greater strides during the last few years; its development has been enormous; but, at the same time, the territory which they have now is
  726
  also enormous, and the territory which they propose to annex constitutes an immense addition to the responsibilities of the Government. It is very hot, being so many degrees nearer the equator, and the coast has always been supposed to be unhealthy. As far as I know, it is still comparatively a terra incognita, and some years ago, except the Missionaries, there were no White people in the Island. There are many savage tribes there; their numbers have been variously estimated, sometimes as high as 3,000,000 or 4,000,000; at all events, they are very considerable, and the larger the number of Natives the greater difficulty and responsibility in the administration. I want to understand whether it is proposed that the Government of Queensland is to govern this great territory by itself, or whether in connection with other Australian Colonies, or with ourselves? The Colonial Secretary was once very much opposed to annexation. I remember that he said in a speech some years ago that he thought we possessed "Blacks enough." and he did not desire that we should annex any more. I should like to hear his opinion on this question. I wish to draw the attention of your Lordships to another important point, and, in so doing, it will be necessary for me to refer for a moment to the history of the matter. In 1876 the question of New Guinea first arose. The annexation of the Fiji Islands had at that time been pressed on us in the interests of the Australian Colonies. At that time I thought it my duty to propose to these Colonies that they thould bear a share of the expense incurred in establishing the new Government. They declined, however, any system of joint responsibility in the matter. I did not complain then, nor do I now, of that action; but as soon as the question of contribution arose—and I asked for it, not for the sake of the money, but for the sake of the principle—they declined to assist. The next question which arose was that of the annexation of New Guinea, and I naturally reverted to the previous transactions with regard to Fiji. I will read a sentence showing the manner in which I mentioned this principle. In writing to the Governor of New South Wales, in December, 1875, I said—
  "I am satisfied that not only is there no disinclination, but that there is a hearty willing-

  727
  ness on the part of the people and Parliament of this country to accept, whether in expense or responsibility, the burdens which the annexation would throw on them; but it is simply impossible either to admit, or, if I made the admission, to persuade the English people that the Australian Colonies have no special interest in the annexation of New Guinea."
  And I then went on to argue from the case of Fiji that they ought to share in the burdens of that annexation. Since then the question has been at rest until now. But I draw attention to this point in order to show that if this annexation be accepted, it ought to be on some such principle that if ever greater consolidation is to be given to the Empire, it can only be given by and through that principle. Since I stated that principle in 1876, I believe the feeling, Colonially, has grown considerably in that direction. In time of war there has been ample evidence of the loyalty and devotion of these great Colonies. The slightest threatening of war has been sufficient to produce an outburst of loyalty on their part; and, therefore, it would not be a wise policy to press them unduly. But this is an occasion when that question forces itself on us for consideration. Of late years the Australian Colonies have been taking a forward step in this direction by erecting fortifications and works, which are no doubt primarily of importance to themselves, but secondarily of Imperial significance. The peculiarity of this annexation is that it has been done by a lawful, regular, and responsible Government, which has now appealed for the act to be sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government. I think that the action was premature; but I prefer to suspend my judgment upon it till I hear more of the case; and, anyhow, I now address this Question in no jealous or unfriendly spirit. I regret, however, extremely to find that "elsewhere" language has been used imputing to the Queensland Government unworthy and piratical motives. Such language is totally unworthy of the person using it, of the place, and of the subject to which it was applied; and if these words had been spoken with any authority they would be highly mischievous. The best excuse is the complete ignorance of facts which must have existed. But I am sorry such language has not been disavowed, and that the official answer made to it was such as may encourage
  728
  a belief that Her Majesty's Government may possibly in some respects share the opinion which these words convey.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I think I shall best answer the Question of my noble Friend—which I quite understand to be put in no unfriendly spirit towards the Government, and which, under the circumstances, is a perfectly natural and right Question to have been put—by telling your Lordships what I know in connection with this undoubtedly singular transaction that has taken place with reference to New Guinea. I think your Lordships will see why at the present stage it is better to abstain from all argumentative discussion, which, in my opinion, would be premature; and I will simply lay before you a plain statement of the facts. My Lords, some weeks ago Mr. Archer, the Agent General of the Queensland Government, called on me, by desire of his Government, and explained to me the strong feeling which prevailed in the Colony in favour of the annexation of New Guinea, or at least of that portion of it which most nearly adjoins the Australian coast. As I understood him, the desire for annexation was not due simply to a wish for extension of territory, but mainly it was due to three causes. First, a fear lest Foreign Powers should obtain command of the opposite coast of Torres Straits, and thereby be in a position to control and even to threaten a navigation which was every year becoming more important. Next, there was a fear lest some Foreign Powers should take advantage of the large unoccupied, territory of Now Guinea to establish a penal settlement there. That is a point on which the people, not only of Queensland, but of all Australia, are very sensitive. They apprehend if that were done it would be a great annoyance to the Australian Colonies. Thirdly, it was put forward that New Guinea was already becoming, or, at any rate, was very soon likely to become, the resort of adventurers and bad characters of all kinds, who go over from Australia, and when there are practically beyond the reach of British law, and who, if resident there, might become a source of annoyance to the Colonies. Mr. Archer stated to me that if the Home Government would only consent to the proposed annexation, the local authorities were ready to undertake

  729
  all expense and responsibility. They wanted only our sanction. They did not ask us to do the work, but simply asked permission from us to do it themselves. I answered in general terms that I could not reply to a proposal of that kind without full consideration and without consulting the Cabinet, and, above all, without knowing much more than he had been able to tell me of the details of the plan on which it was desired to act. I told him that, until I knew more upon the subject, no expression of opinion from me was possible. I wrote at once to the Governor of Queensland, asking him various questions which naturally arose out of this conversation; and in the meanwhile I carefully abstained, as I have done from that day to this, from saying anything either to encourage or discourage the scheme. Nothing more passed. There has not been time for a reply to the depatch I sent out, and I heard nothing further until, I think, Saturday last; when to my extreme surprise the Heater's telegram, with which we are all acquainted, appeared in the newspapers announcing the annexation. I telegraphed at once to the Governor of Queensland asking for an explanation. I received a reply on Monday, that—
  "To prevent Foreign Powers taking possession of New Guinea, the Queensland Government, through the Magistrate of Thursday Island, have taken formal possession, in Her Majesty's name, pending the decision of the Home Government. A despatch has been sent off.
  Mr. Archer called on me again, and brought me a telgram addressed to him from the Governor of Queensland in almost identical terms with that which I received. That is all that has passed, so far. We are awaiting these fuller explanations which will, no doubt, be forthcoming, but which cannot be sent by telegram. Until we receive these explanations I think it better to abstain from any comment on what has taken place. I may perhaps add that I have frequently seen in the newspapers communications, in which the annexation of New Guinea has been spoken of as if it were an accomplished fact; but the ceremony gone through of taking possession in the Queen's name does not in the slightest degree bind Her Majesty's Government until a decision has been taken at home, There are many in-
  730
  stances of British officers having hoisted the British flag over territory unclaimed, in regard to which no subsequent action has been taken. I think it will be clear, from what I have said, that the action of the local authorities in this matter has been taken on their own account altogether, and without any promptings, direct or indirect, from the Colonial Office at home. I was quite unprepared for the steps that have been taken, and my noble Friend was premature in his compliment or condolence—I do not know which it was—as to the Government having found itself compelled to adopt a policy of annexation. The Government are unpledged on the subject, and will remain so until they have more details before them which will enable them to come to a decision. With regard to the other Question of my noble Friend, whether the other Australian Colonies besides Queensland are consenting parties to what has been done, I have a telegram from the Governor of one other Colony ex23ressing general approval and support of the act of the Queensland authorities; and, if I am to express a personal opinion, I have no doubt that there is a strong feeling in Australia generally in favour of the annexation. With regard to what my noble Friend said as to New Guinea, it is undoubted that there are foreign claims on the western part of the Island; but I am bound to say, in reference to the reason assigned by the Queensland authorities for what they have done, we here have no knowledge of any intention on the part of a Foreign Government to establish itself in the portion of New Guinea at present unoccupied and unclaimed. With regard to the nature of the county, to which my noble Friend has referred, there is nobody, I believe, in England or Australia, who can give much information as regards the interior. Though it is, as he says, a terra incognita, I am told that the coasts are becoming pretty well known. I am informed by some of these who have visited them that the imputation of unhealthiness that has been passed on this Island is not justified when speaking of it as a whole, but that the unhealthiness is supposed to be confined to certain portions adjoining the coast. As to the population, what their number is no one can possibly judge; but I dare say my noble Friend's

  731
  estimate of 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 is not at all exaggerated. I am not in a position to make any further statement just now. The Government of this country is absolutely unpledged in the matter. We shall take no action until we have full information, and until we are able to subject the whole question to careful and deliberate consideration.

METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY—THE VENTILATORS ON THE VICTORIA EMBANKMENT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATI0NS.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether, considering the vast importance of the Thames Embankment as a source of health and pleasure to the people of the Metropolis of the United Kingdom, they propose to take any steps to abate the nuisance by which the District Railway are now engaged in destroying the beauty and amenities of that great public work? said, the comfort of the public appeared to be a matter of supreme indifference to the District Railway Company. The ventilators erected by them would not have the effect they wished the public to believe, for on the North Metropolitan system, where ventilators already existed, the air was just as foul as if they had never been made. Their real object was to get rid of the steam, which was, no doubt, an obstacle to the working of the traffic; but this difficulty could be get rid of much more simply, either by the obvious method of condensing the steam, or by using compressed air, which had already been tried with success on a section of the Metropolitan Railway, or by using the electric system, which had already been adopted in Ireland on the railway between Port Rush and the Giant's Causeway, and had been sanctioned by Parliament for a railway between Waterloo and Charing Cross. It was true that there was no precedent for taking away from a Railway Company the powers conferred on them by Parliament; but this was an unprecedented outrage and desperate diseases required desperate remedies. If the Company were ordered to remove the ventilators, they might receive compensation—that was, they might be repaid the actual expense they would incur in restoring
  732
  the Embankment to its former state. That expense might fairly be paid by the Metropolitan Board of Works, who had certainly been guilty of laches in not having opposed the Bill on its third reading. He wished to know whether the Government were going to stand by with folded arms and see this great work spoilt?
  LORD SUDELEY: I regret that I cannot give any other reply than I did three weeks ago to the noble Earl. The Railway Company are strictly within their right, and, having gone through all the usual inquiries before a Committee of both Houses, they have the law on their side. Under these circumstances, the Board of Trade cannot interfere, and cannot express any opinion on the subject. This matter rather rests with the Metropolitan Board of Works than with any other Body acting for the ratepayers in the government of London. Although they strongly opposed the Bill while going through Parliament, it seems a great misfortune that they did not take the step of appealing to Parliament last Session when they found themselves beaten before the Committee. I am informed by the Board that as soon as the ventilators were commenced they at once took steps this year to introduce a Bill to oblige the Railway Company to give them up and restore the Embankment to its original state. Unfortunately, however, as Notices had not been given in November, the Standing Orders Committee of the House of Commons refused to allow it to proceed, so that no further steps can be taken this year. There appeared to be, however, two Railway Bills coming before the House of Commons for the second reading soon—one promoted by the Metropolitan District Railway Corn-pan y, and the other jointly by the Metropolitan Railway Company and the Metropolitan District Railway Company. The Metropolitan Board of Works inform me that Notice has been given in the House of Commons of an Instruction to the Committee, to which these Bills will be referred, to consider whether, before further powers are granted to these Railway Companies, terms ought not to be made with them to restore the Embankment to its original condition, and give up the ventilators. Whether they are likely to succeed or not, I know not, and so far as the Board of Trade is con-

  733
  cerned, I express no opinion. The First Commissioner of Works is very anxious that the hideous iron ventilating structure, near Westminster Abbey, spoiling one of the most beautiful sights in London, may, at any rate, be swept away; and I trust, with many of your Lordships, that some of the steps taken by the Metropolitan Board of Works may be successful, and that the day may not be far distant when the ventilators will disappear, and that the Railway will, by means of electricity or some other power, be worked without them.

ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEasked the Lord President, Whether he is able to state the sums for which applications have been received under Sections 18 and 20 of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1882, distinguishing, in the case of applications under the latter section, between these made by Boards of Guardians and these made by other bodies or persons. The noble Marquess said they were soon to have a discussion which would raise the whole question of emigration from Ireland. Whenever that came on it was desirable that their Lordships should be aware of what had been done under the existing law on that subject. It was for that reason he had put this Question. Section 18 had reference to advances to the public for emigration, and Section 20 dealt with grants of public money to Poor Law Guardians and other bodies and persons approved of?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My noble Friend (Lord Carlingford), who is unable to be present this afternoon, has requested me to reply to this Question for him. Up to the present time, applications for loans to the amount of about £2,782 have been made by Boards of Guardians under Section 18 of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Act, and the applications for grants under the 20th Section come to about £19,774—namely:—Applied for by Boards of Guardians, £17,589; by Mr. Tuke's Committee, £1,526;by the Ardfert Committee. £659. I should observe, however, that the money applied for by Mr. Tuke's Committee is only a very small instalment of the grants which may be made
  734
  to that body, as the amount of the grants required can only be ascertained when the lists of the selected emigrants are received by the Irish Local Government Board. For the same reason, we do not know yet the grants which the Guardians want, although we are aware that they propose to emigrate a much larger number of persons than could be sent out for the sums I have named. The disparity between the loans and grants applied for is to be attributed to the fact that the difference between the Government grants and the actual cost of emigration is in many cases provided by the emigrants themselves.

THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—ST. JAMES'S PARK.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF BELMOREdesired, before the House adjourned, to ask again relative to the enclosure in St. James's Park. He was afraid it was intended always to shut the gates at 7 o'clock, whether it was dark or not; and he would like to know if it was so?
LORD SUDELEY, in reply, said, he was glad the noble Earl had given him an opportunity of correcting any misapprehension as to the hours of closing the Park which might have been caused by his answer to a Question by the noble Earl the other day. The gates would be opened at 5 a.m. from the 1st of April to the 30th of September, and at 6 a.m. from the 1st of October to the 31st of March. In order to keep the Park open as late as possible for the convenience of these who used it as a way of communication to and from their business, the enclosure would at no season be closed before 7 p.m. The hours of closing would be—from the 16th of September to the 15th of April, at 7; from the 16th of April to the 30th of April, 7.30; from the 1st of May to the 15th of May, 8; from the 16th of May to the 15th of August, 8.30; from the 16th of August to the 31st of August, 8; and from the 1st of September to the 15th of September, 7.30.

LEGITIMACY DECLARATION ACT, 1858, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858—Was presented by The Earl of Onslow; read lª. (No. 38.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.