Lords Sitting of 6 August 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Patents for Inventions* (179); Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) * (178).
Second Reading—Trial of Lunatics* (184); Railway Passenger Duty, &c. (167).
Select Committee nominated—Petroleum * (154).
Committee—Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Act (1874) Amendment (156).
Committee—Report—Greenwich Hospital * (165).
Third Reading—Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats)* (170), and passed.
Withdrawn — Merchandise Marks (Channel Islands and Isle of Man) (143).

MERCHANDISE MARKS (CHANNEL ISLANDS AND ISLE OF MAN) BILL.
(The Lord Belper.)
MERCHANDISE MARKS (CHANNEL ISLANDS AND ISLE OF MAN) BILL.

  (NO. 143.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he would suggest the withdrawal of the Bill. Since the last stage of the Bill was reached communications in reference to it had been received from the States of Jersey and the Governor of the Isle of Man. The former pointed out that the Imperial Parliament had never exercised the right to legislate for the Channel Islands, and that the passing of this Bill by Parliament would establish a precedent which would be highly inconvenient to the States of Jersey. It was also urged that the object of the Bill would be much more easily obtained by an Act of the local Legislature than by one passed by the Imperial Legislature. As to the Isle of Man, the Governor stated that there was no objection entertained on the Island to this particular Bill; but that it would be more convenient and proper that it should be submitted to the Tynwald, and by them passed into law. On these grounds, he appealed to his noble Friend to consider whether it would be well to ask the House to proceed with the Bill; but if he did so, he (the Earl of Dalhousie) would, on the part of the Government, feel obliged to oppose it on the third reading.
  LORD BELPERsaid, that the statement of the noble Earl had placed him in some difficulty. He had received a
  1602
  letter from the Lieutenant Governor of the Isle of Man, and he understood that there was no opposition to the Bill. He hoped that the Government would give some assurance that the necessary Orders in Council would be passed to enable the provisions of the Bill to be carried out.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he believed that by this time next year, at least, there was some chance that there would be no further necessity for legislation.
  Order discharged, and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

SUEZ CANAL—CONCESSION TO M. DE LESSEPS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in rising to call attention to the further correspondence upon Egypt; and to move for copies of the original concessions to M. de Lesseps on the Isthmus of Suez Canal, said: My Lords, I came down to address the House a week ago upon this Notice, when Her Majesty's Government referred to the absence of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as an objection to proceeding. We are now in August, and the unavoidable satiety of the House at such a moment imposes on me more compression than might have otherwise been necessary. At the same time, the reasons for discussion upon Egypt, and the rather burning question it has recently forced on us, have accumulated in the interval. The world is full of novel contributions from well-known and independent writers on the subject. The opinions of M. Leon de Say have been communicated to our public. This very day some new despatches have appeared, if they have not been yet delivered to your Lordships. The daily Press of France and of Great Britain is still engrossed with the Canal. It is too late for Parliamentary Committees to discriminate and methodize the different propositions which are offered. The Government are engaged to the claim of M. de Lesseps, and cannot, of their own initiative, bring the matter under any scrutinizing process. Unless in this House some advance is made towards a practical conclusion, the Session would not close under the circumstances

  1603
  which the public are entitled to anticipate. The strongest ground of all for giving some consideration to the routes across the Isthmus at this moment is the great variety of schemes which may be rapidly enumerated. M. de Lesseps seems to favour a new and parallel Canal. A diagonal Canal from Alexandria, over the branches of the Nile, has been contemplated. A Canal from Syria through the Dead Sea, with a different termination from that of Suez, has been suggested. Another project is to widen the existing channel. There is a fifth suggestion that of Mr. Talbot, a Member of the House of Commons, which appeared in a morning journal, to prevent confusion which exists, by devoting alternate days to the traffic from the Red Sea and the traffic from the Mediterranean. These schemes are all in need of accurate comparison. My impression is that M. de Lesseps cannot form a new Canal without a new concession on many grounds, and partly upon this one. The old concession specified the different stages he was bound to traverse, and does not give authority to traverse any others. It hardly seems desirable, however, that a new concession should be granted to him, as it would do little to advance the end of those who are dissatisfied at present. The insufficiency of any scheme to widen the Canal is known to naval men, and has been explained in the Report of Admiral Ryder, which may be found in the work of Mr. Percy Fitzgerald, the glowing, but not on that account inaccurate, historian of M. de Lesseps and his enterprize. Whether a Canal can be formed independently of M. de Lesseps may be doubtful. Even if it can, Her Majesty's Government are not at liberty to sanction it. Committed as they are, they can only sanction a Canal which would defeat the aim of further enterprize and outlay. Before quitting the subject of the Canal, there is one reflection which late events might almost force upon us. It is that, were Lord Palmerston surviving, he might now easily demand indulgence or acquittal for the course he had pursued in first opposing the design of M. de Lesseps. He might insist that as to commerce, those immediately engaged in it proclaimed the inconvenience and inadequacy of the project; that, setting wealth aside, the Canal had not at all contributed
  1604
  to the safety of the Indian Empire, or any military object; that we had purchased largely to avert a risk which it involved; that we had gone to war in order to defend it from a mutiny; and been led by that war into an occupation of the country dangerous to prolong while cholera is menacing our troops, difficult to terminate when anarchy may follow our departure. As the authority of Lord Palmerston in foreign policy is valuable, the reflection may not be an useless one. But even those who are inclined to recognize his former prudence on this subject may concur with the aggrieved interests and labour for a scheme by which their object would be realized. When it is remembered to how prodigal an outlay, to how crude a scheme the shipowners were an obstacle, they seem to be entitled to more than unsubstantial gratitude from Parliament and from the country. No doubt the Correspondence shows that Her Majesty's Government were assailed by an extraordinary pressure; that a well-known Member of this House we do not often see among us (Lord Napier and Ettrick) was its organ; and that the project of a new Canal could hardly be avoided. But it shows also that the secret of that pressure was the desire of the shipowners to be released from the ascendancy M. de Lesseps had established. In what manner Her Majesty's Government were led to think that they would satisfy the movement by a plan to double the ascendancy complained of, and to restore in Egypt the specific influence which the war had recently diminished, is a mystery the Correspondence leaves for other sources to dispose of. My Lords, no one who engages to call attention to the further Correspondence upon Egypt can entirely pass over the despatch of February 6 from the noble Lord the Ambassador at Constantinople. The labour it involves would be a title to our notice. Of all his varied and exhaustive details as to the improvement of the country, what has fallen from the noble Lord on irrigation may now appear to have the greatest practical importance. According to the noble Lord, immeasurable wealth may be reclaimed by such a fertilizing process. He uses language which, were it not in a despatch—to guarantee its accuracy and exactness—might seem to border on the realm of poetry and fancy. The Nile he thinks

  1605
  in its effects has more than equalled the Pactolus. Were irrigation organized more thoroughly, he teaches us that deserts might be transformed into gardens, and wealth derive an impulse which would bring down the actual debt to utter insignificance. As irrigation turns a good deal on the system of canals adopted, the opinion of the noble Lord may tend to guide the country as to the new mode of joining the two seas which it is most desirable to favour. With regard to the organic projects of the noble Lord, his local Councils, General Assembly, Governments restricted to eight Members, there may be little to object to them. They are marked by an aversion to sudden, violent, exotic innovations in an Oriental country. They are marked by much consideration for the welfare of the masses and the remedy of evils which had before been noted by such travellers as Baron Malortie, Mr. do Leon, Mr. Nassau Senior. Whether such projects could be realized without a lasting occupation is a question to be seriously canvassed. Indeed, my Lords, the most important passage of the Correspondence, if I am not deceived, relates to occupation of the country. The noble Lord was gravely urged, so far as he was able, to extend it. He was urged in that sense by a body of merchants and by a body of missionaries whose opinions he reported. It appears that his instructions were prohibitory of all hope upon the subject. It appears, likewise, that his own mode of thinking was opposed to that of his petitioners. I admit now having contended before Easter that there are many grounds on which a lasting occupation ought to be avoided. On this point, or rather on the question of permanently holding Egypt, the judgment of Lord Palmerston was a most decisive one. Although no one was less inclined to acquiesce in the supremacy of other Powers in that region, although no one laboured more assiduously against movements to detach it from the Ottoman Empire over a long and agitated period, which closed in 1841, Lord Palmerston, as his private correspondence has revealed to us, was thoroughly opposed to British tenure of that country. He regarded Egypt only as a moans of transit for Great Britain, and held that we had no more reason to be proprietors within it than a traveller from Edinburgh to London would have for buying
  1606
  the hotels which might be useful on his journey. But even if Lord Palmerston was silent, the: inconveniences of lasting occupation would not be less manifest. As the noble Lord the Ambassador at Constantinople has justly pointed out, it would be a burden to the Treasury of Egypt. It is felt as a blow to the dignity of the Ottoman Empire, and thus renders it still more averse to any counsel we may offer. It must beget in Russia endless aspiration to some dominion on the Bosphorus, of which, according to her view, the price has been surrendered when Egypt falls under Great Britain. By withdrawing so large a force it does not lessen the anxiety which Ireland habitually occasions. It prolongs the animosity of Franco which the decision to avoid the terms of M. de Lesseps must in some degree have kindled. It renders it more difficult to address to France the least remonstrance on the Tunisian Protectorate, or any other subject which arises. But there is something else to be considered. We learn, if not from the Blue Books, from many other sources, that the Vice-regal power has been a good deal undermined; that movements may spring up as grave as that which drew us into Egypt; that the actual Khedive, although irreproachable to us, has not sufficient power to defend himself against intrigues which may occur. It does not seem to be a groundless calculation that when the British garrison withdraws, the Sultan will retain a kind of balance in the country between the forces which divide it. It is now historically clear that he might have done much more to control the movement of Arabi. But we cannot possibly depend on the co-operation of the Sultan—it is in no spirit of invective I allude to such a circumstance—until the British Government has ceased to be identified with the actual First Lord of the Treasury. Whether the Sultan looks back to his language before the General Election, or to his conduct since that period, he must regard the First Lord of the Treasury as an implacable opponent. It is well known to your Lordships, and it is well known to me, that the Sultan does regard him as an implacable opponent. The conclusion is that either the garrison must stay in spite of many risks and disadvantages connected with it, or that the First Lord of the Treasury must soon withdraw from the position which

  1607
  he occupies. Which of these two alternatives is most to be desired would hardly be a question to enlarge upon on such a Notice as the present, since it embraces points of foreign and domestic policy which lie beyond the Correspondence upon Egypt. The Motion before the House is one Her Majesty's Government can scarcely hesitate in granting. The original concessions, in the form of a Return, have been presented to the other House of Parliament. They are essential to a just opinion on a controversy so very far from being exhausted. They may be seen in the volumes of Mr. Percy Fitzgerald; but these are not accessible to everyone. They are the only means of ascertaining how far M. de Lesseps is entitled to form a new Canal, or how far the Khedive is at liberty to do so.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for copies of the original concessions to M. de Lesseps with regard to the Isthmus of Suez Canal."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have listened very attentively to the speech of the noble Lord; and although do not personally agree with him that the resignation of Mr. Gladstone would put an end to the political evils of the world at home and abroad, yet in general I do not think that I have anything to complain of in the tone or purport of his speech, in which he has gone over many of the most important subjects connected with Egypt, and has shown great study of the past and the present Papers on the subject. I did not get up immediately after the noble Lord concluded, because I wished to see whether your Lordships desired on this occasion to enter into a serious discussion on this question. The speech of my noble Friend has been rather of an academic character; and as there are several Bills of an important character awaiting your Lordships' consideration, I have merely to point out, with regard to the Motion, that the Papers which the noble Lord asks for have been already presented to your Lordships' House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is it the intention of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to take any opportunity of making any statement with respect to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to some of the matters touched upon by the
  1608
  noble Lord, analogous to that which it is understood is about to be made in the other House?
  EARL GRANVILLE: It is not my intention; but if the noble Marquess wishes to raise a discussion, I am perfectly prepared to meet him.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in reply, said, that perhaps the noble Earl the Secretary of State would inform the House where the original concessions had been brought before their Lordships. [Earl GRANVILLE was understood to say No. 6.] If that was the case, he (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) would withdraw the Motion. He must remark, however, that he had by no means held out the disappearance of the First Minister from his actual post as an universal panacea. He had only pointed out that until it happened it would not be possible to take away the garrison from Egypt, while to retain it led to evils of a grave and serious description.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

IRISH REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND ACT (1874) AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Greville.)
IRISH REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND ACT (1874) AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 156.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Loans to Town Commissioners from Irish Reproductive Loan Fund).
  LORD VENTRYmoved, in page 3, line 20, to substitute "Boards of Guardians" as administrators of the Fund for the "Town Commissioners." He did not see why they should trust the management of this Fund to bodies who had had no connection with it in the past. It appeared to him that Boards of Guardians would be more suitable bodies for the management of the Fund than any Town Commissioners; because this Fund was intended, not specially for the development of any parts of the particular counties dealt with in the Bill—Tipperary and Roscommon—but for the benefit of the counties at large; and if they entrusted the Funds to be administered by Boards of Guardians the whole community would, both directly and indirectly, obtain the benefit of the expendi-

  1609
  ture, whereas if the expenditure of the money was placed in the hands of the Town Commissioners it would be limited to a few small towns.
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 20, to leave out ("Town Commissioners") and insert ("Boards of Guardians.")—(The Lord Ventry.)
  LORD GREVILLEsaid, the object with which the management of the Fund was proposed to be put into the hands of the Town Commissioners was to enable the two counties of Roscommon and Tipperary to carry out certain works for which this money had for the last 40 years been denied them.
  LORD VENTRYcontended that, under existing legislation, the Town Commissioners could obtain loans for effecting improvements independently of the Fund in question. Their Lordships ought not to forget that this money was originally subscribed for charitable objects, and that the balance after those particular objects were attained was devoted to casual charitable purposes. He should persevere with his Amendment.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment, if carried, would be that the money would be applied to no use whatever. The fact was, it had lain absolutely idle for the last 50 or 60 years; and it would, if the noble Lord had his way, remain idle probably for 60 years more. The object of the Bill was simply to find some useful purposes for employing this Fund strictly by way of loan, and not by way of grant. He had heard nothing from the noble Lord or anyone else to induce him to think that Boards of Guardians were better bodies for using the Fund in the two counties in question than those bodies which were proposed by the promoters of the Bill. Why Boards of Guardians were considered the more suitable bodies he was not able to understand. He knew that the suggestion of the noble Lord was made by a single Gentleman in "another place;" but it received no support. He had heard nothing as to what use Boards of Guardians would make of these loans. The loans could not be applied for the relief of the poor, for emigration, or for any of the other purposes with which Boards of Guardians had to deal.
  1610
  Boards of Guardians, for purposes beyond the relief of the poor, such as emigration or sanitary matters, had powers to borrow money already; and if this Fund were put at their disposal he saw no other prospect than that it would be "frittered" away and wasted. Under those circumstances, he conceived that it would be better to leave it in its present useless condition. If the Fund was put within the reach of the Town Commissioners of the small towns in the two counties he could very well conceive that loans could be applied by them to very useful public purposes. The benefits of such loans would not be confined to the towns themselves, but would, as a matter of course, extend into the neighbouring country. As between the two public bodies, which was the only question raised by the noble Lord, he could not doubt that the Town Commissioners had far better means of making use of such loans for useful public purposes than Boards of Guardians, to whom the noble Lord wished to have them transferred.
  LORD EMILYsaid, the only change which was made by the Bill was that the Town Commissioners had the power of levying rates for the purpose of paying the instalments of these loans as they became due. What would be the result of that? Of course, they could not ask people to contribute towards objects which were outside their own town; and, therefore, the real object of the Bill was to take the money from the counties of Tipperary and Roscommon and give it to the small towns in which these Commissioners had jurisdiction. The Bill gave these small towns the power of appropriating to their own objects this money, instead of allowing it to be applied to objects which were to benefit the whole counties. He did not like very much Boards of Guardians, if some other more suitable body could be found. He was not sure the Fund should not be handed over to Grand Juries, who had control over the whole of the counties. Still, he thought, on the whole, that the Boards of Guardians had a very much larger and more extensive jurisdiction than the Town Commissioners; and, therefore, if the noble Lord went to a Division, he should vote with him.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he would

  1611
  remind the noble Lord that Boards of Guardians had no power whatever of using these loans. With regard to making the loans available to the whole of the counties that was scarcely possible. In all other counties, with the exception of the two inland counties named, these loans were applied solely for the purposes of the fisheries.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Clause 5 (Conditions of loans).
  LORD VENTRYmoved the addition of the following provision:—
  "No money shall be expended under this Act for any institution having for its object the reclamation of criminals."
  LORD GREVILLEsaid, he would agree to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY, &c. BILL.
(The Lord Thurlow.)
RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY, &c. BILL.

  (No. 167.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD THURLOW, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the Bill was intended to consolidate the law with reference to the conveyance of the Queen's Forces by railway. It was also the purpose of the framers of the Bill to carry out the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. That promise was that he would make some reduction in the Railway Passenger Duty if the Companies would make certain concessions. The sum which the right hon. Gentleman stated would be remitted amounted to £400,000. The chief benefits that would be conferred on the Railway Companies by the Bill were—first, that all fares not exceeding 1d. per mile would be exempted from duty in the future; and, secondly, that duty would only be payable at the rate of 2 per cent, instead of at 5 per cent, on fares exceeding 1d. per mile between stations on urban lines. Certain reductions would
  1612
  be made in the rates charged for the conveyance of troops. The present scale of charges was fixed in 1844 at 2d. per mile for first-class passengers, and 1d. per mile for third-class passengers. Since 1844 ordinary passenger rates had been greatly reduced; and the Bill aimed at making such a reduction in the rates charged for troops as should be in accord with the original proportion between the rates charged for the public and the rates charged for troops. This was a Revenue Bill; and it was based on arrangements come to with the representatives of the principal lines of railways in the Kingdom, and on mutual concessions made to and by them. The Bill gave the Board of Trade power to regulate workmen's trains. There had been no opposition to the Bill in the House of Commons; and he trusted their Lordships would give it a second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now road 2a."—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that since he had been connected with the railway management of the country he had—for reasons which their Lordships would understand—forborne from taking part in discussions in that House upon railway matters. This Bill, however, was of such an exceptional character, and involved such serious consequences, that he must humbly crave their Lordships' attention for a brief space of time. Of course, their Lordships could simply accept or reject a Money Bill, but could not alter it; and if this Bill dealt simply with the abolition of a tax, he should be the last to raise any question as to it, more especially as he had himself brought the subject of the Passenger Duty before the other House of Parliament, had served upon the Committee which had inquired into it, and had a full, share of responsibility in the Report of that Committee condemnatory of the duty. Incidentally he might observe that this duty had been imposed because there were duties leviable upon other public conveyances; and these latter duties having all been removed, it was claimed, and recommended by the Committee, that this duty should share the same fate, without any question of a quid pro quo. The 3rd clause in this Bill, however, gave power to the Board of Trade to interfere with private enter-prize by regulating the time and man-

  1613
  ner of running workmen's trains, and regulating the fares already authorized in each case by special Act of Parliament; and if the Railway Companies did not agree to what the Board of Trade proposed, they were not to have the benefits conferred by the Bill. The House of Commons endeavoured to interfere with private enterprize; and their Lordships were told that they had no power to interfere, because an allusion to a tax was tacked on to the end of the clause. Again, the arrangements for the conveyance of troops had nothing to do with Imperial taxation; and yet their Lordships were told that they could not interfere with it; whereas this clause had relation to railway rates and fares, which might be a very proper question for arrangement between the Department of Government and Railway Companies, but had no place, by right, in a Revenue Bill. The novel powers which were given to the Board of Trade in this Bill, and the powers to lower the rates of conveyance of troops, were powers which the House of Commons had no right to give alone, but which, if right to be given, should be given by the concurrent legislation of both Houses of Parliament.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the question of principle seemed to him quite plain. Any noble Lord might move the rejection of the Bill. On the other hand, a Bill for the conditional remission of taxation must be dealt with on the same principle as a Bill for the unconditional remission of taxation. They must either accept it as it stood, or reject it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, there could be no doubt, according to the practice of the House and the precedents which guided their Lordships, remissions of taxation were not matters with which they dealt. It might also be fairly said that if the remission was conditional, and if the House of Commons proposed to receive certain work done in the place of a tax, their Lordships should not interfere so far as concerned the remission or condition. But the precedent brought forward in the celebrated speech of Lord Lyndhurst on the question of the Paper Duty 20 years ago bore him out in saying that if the conditional remission of taxation was directed towards the attainment of any object of public policy, and that public
  1614
  policy was one in which their Lordships' House could not concur, it was entirely open to them to give effect to their view by their votes. Were it otherwise, the House of Commons would be enabled, by its management of the public purse, to affect the legislative rights of that House. He did not, however, take an attitude hostile to the Bill, because he believed there was a good deal of foundation in the remarks made by the noble Earl, and the object it had in view was a very good one, and dealt with a grievance which the House would be anxious to remove. At the same time he thought a good deal might be said as to the inequality of the Bill in its bearing upon the Railway Companies.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that the great
  question of Privilege relating to the tacking on of Money Bills might be so managed as to exclude the House of Lords from the whole legislative Business of the country. On that principle they were bound to object to such a course, which would curtail the Privileges of the House in a most objectionable manner.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had only referred to bonâ fide Money Bills.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

METROPOLIS—DRAINAGE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD FORBES, in calling attention to the drainage of London, said, he certainly believed that in Cavendish Square, where he lived, the drainage system was very objectionable. He was perfectly convinced that the system adopted in the Metropolis must be unsatisfactory. The drainage was conveyed to the sea, and at a certain time of the tide there was no exit for it, and all the gases were forced to escape through openings in the drains themselves. His attention had recently been called to a system of drainage, which appeared absolutely faultless in its working. Exhibits of it might be seen at the Fisheries Exhibition, and the Company were at that moment draining Aylesbury. He had no connection with the Company in question; but a relative of his was its Chairman, and had ex-

  1615
  plained the system to him. Immediately the drainage was received, it was conveyed into tanks, where it was treated with blood, carbon, and clay, and also with a certain compound of alum. After going through three tanks it flowed into the River Thames in the shape of water, pure and perfectly innocuous. The refuse also provided a useful manure. The Company were quite ready to drain any other towns; and lie did not see why the sewage of London should be conveyed away to poison the sea at Margate or elsewhere, when it could be satisfactorily disposed of in the manner he had described.
  LORD THURLOWsaid, he concurred in the importance of the question raised by the noble Lord. As, however, he had not received Notice of the matters to which he had referred, and had no previous knowledge of the system he had alluded to, he would not attempt to follow his remarks. He would, however, take care that the noble Lord's observations were brought to the knowledge of the proper authorities.
  PETROLEUM BILL [H.L.]
  Select Committee on: The Lords following were named of the Committee:

  D. Somerset.

  L. Ramsay.

  E. Milltown.

  L. Norton.

  L. Monson

  The Committee to meet this day, at One o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock