Lords Sitting of 24 July 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Act (1874) Amendment* (156).
Second Reading—Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) (144); Sea Fisheries (Ireland) (146); Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) (149); Companies Acts Amendment (148).
Committee—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) * (87), discharged.
Third Reading—Poor Relief (Ireland)* (140), and passed.

BLACK ROD.
THE DEPUTY LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAINacquainted the House "That Her Majesty had appointed Admiral the Honourable Sir James Robert Drummond, G.C.B., to be Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod in the room of General the Right Honourable Sir -William Thomas Knollys, K.C.B., deceased, and that he was at the door ready to receive their Lordships commands," whereupon the House directed he should be called in; accordingly he was called in and officiated in his place.
SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—REPORTED DEFEAT OF CETEWAYO.

  QUESTION.
  EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, seeing my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies in his place, I wish to ask him whether he has received any confirmation of the news, which has been published in the newspapers, that Cetewayo has been defeated and wounded and many of his followers killed?
  THE EARL OF DERBY, in reply, said, that he had not received any official telegram containing an authoritative statement of the circumstances referred to; but Sir Henry Bulwer had forwarded by telegraph a statement made to him which tended to confirm the accuracy of the report.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.
(The Lord Winmarleigh.)
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD WINMARLEIGHsaid, he rose to move that the Order made on the 2nd day of March last—
  "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 21st day of June next,"
  should be dispensed with, in order that the Manchester Ship Canal Bill might be read a second time. The promoters of the Bill were not to blame for the Bill being brought on for a second reading at this period of the Session. The Bill was before the Examiners of Private Bills as far back as January 22; and the subsequent dates showed that there had been no negligent delay in the progress of the measure in the other House,

  259
  Having given the various dates, he thought he need not do any more than make the Motion of which he had given Notice.
  Moved, "That the Order made on the 2nd day of March last That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 21st day of June next' be dispensed with."—(The Lord Winmarleigh.)
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that he was surprised at his noble Friend in making this Motion, for which he had given no good reason, and there was really no reason why this Motion should be made. It was altogether contrary to the principles governing Private Bill legislation in that House. He must enter a protest against Bills coming up to their Lordships' House at a period of the Session when it was impossible to constitute good Committees. With respect to this particular Bill, he must frankly say, if their Lordships should decide to proceed with it, that at this period he thought it would be utterly impossible to appoint a Committee to whom it would be proper to refer this Bill. The character of the Bill was very important, the object being to make a Ship Canal between Liverpool and Manchester; but the Bill, as it now stood, contained no power of getting into deep water, and it was a condition that nothing was to be done until a Bill was passed next Session for a different work from that which was contained in the present measure. No such scheme had ever before been proposed in private legislation; and if they adopted such a course he thought they would be introducing a principle in legislation of a most objectionable and dangerous character.
  LORD WINMARLEIGH, in reply, said, that the Bill was a very simple one. It was to enable a Ship Canal to be made, in order to afford a cheap mode of transit for the goods of one of the largest manufacturing centres of the United Kingdom. The fact that the Committee of the House of Commons had divided the Bill into the two parts referred to by the noble Earl, postponing one part till next Session, was one of its greatest recommendations, inasmuch as it secured the Port of Liverpool from the possibility of injury. Their Lordships must not suppose that the title of the Bill included the whole of the
  260
  district affected by it; on the contrary, its operation extended far beyond Manchester, and the population affected by it was enormous. The Bill was of the greatest importance to the vast cotton trade of Lancashire. Meetings in support of it had been held in almost every town in the county; one of these meetings that was held in Manchester being the largest ever known upon a commercial subject. There had been 326 Petitions presented in favour of the Bill, signed by 108,000 persons, besides 31 Petitions from Chambers of Commerce, Town Councils, public Boards, and various Associations. This would give the House some idea of the feeling in favour of the scheme. The enormous value of the interests affected by the Bill was also shown by the fact that it was estimated that £100,000,000 had been invested in the cotton manufacture alone. Having regard to the increased sharpness of competition to which the manufacturers of Lancashire were subjected in all parts of the world, it was not to be wondered at that they regarded with great anxiety any measure affecting their interests, and especially one which would afford relief against the great increase of traffic rates which had taken place in the last few years. This Bill was in strict accordance with the recommendations of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and in pursuance of those recommendations it contained among its provisions powers to buy up the undertakings of certain Canal Companies. That was one reason why the Bill should be read a second time, and another reason was that the promoters had already undergone enormous expense in a lengthened investigation before a Committee of the House of Commons extending over 38 days.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that some of his Colleagues had been attacked for speaking in a dual character, and it was possible that the same fate might befal him, because, in the observations which he was about to make, he should not speak on behalf of the Government, but simply as a Member of their Lordships' House who happened to be interested in the locality to which the Bill referred. He sympathized with the noble Earl who spoke so earnestly in support of the regularity of the proceedings of that House; but he would point out that the Rule applying to Standing Orders was

  261
  not an inflexible Rule. The same Standing Orders had, in fact, just been dispensed with in the case of three Bills on the Notice Paper. There was, therefore, nothing very exceptional in the course now proposed to be taken. It must be remembered that the case under consideration was itself exceptional. It had been shown that the delay in bringing the Bill forward was not a delay for which the promoters of the measure were responsible. The delay arose partly from a difficulty connected with the Standing Orders of their Lordships' House, and partly from the great length and complexity of the inquiry in "another place," where the Committee sat for 38 days. Some of their Lordships might fear that a Committee of their House might be asked to sit for an equally long period at that late period of the Session. He thought, however, there was no ground for any such apprehension, as the question had now been thoroughly sifted. A good many of the details of the Bill had been modified, and various parties, who at one time opposed the Bill, were now satisfied. There was, therefore, no reason to suppose, if an inquiry were held, that it would be of unusual length. Public Business would probably detain their Lordships some weeks in town, and there would be ample time to finish the inquiry before the House would, in the natural course of things, break up for the Recess. If the Bill were passed, a Company would be incorporated, and plans would be prepared to be laid before the House of Commons next year, with a view to obtaining the approval of the Legislature to subsequent proceedings. The noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale) had objected to the Bill on its merits; but the question of merits, while a fair one to discuss, was one which the Committee were perfectly qualified to deal with. The House was simply asked that that Bill should be placed before that tribunal. He (the Earl of Derby) lead heard that the Mersey Commissioners were now perfectly satisfied with the clauses inserted in the Bill, and that no opposition would come from them; whereas if the Bill were rejected a whole year would be lost, and the enormous expenditure of money, time, and trouble would have to be again incurred. It was hardly possible to exaggerate the strength of popular feeling
  262
  which the Bill had created in the neighbourhood of Manchester; and it would be extremely hard if what was very little more than a technical objection should be allowed to interfere with the progress of the measure.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 87; Not-Contents 24: Majority 63.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Aveland, L.

  Bateman, L.

  Bedford, D.

  Beaumont, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Brabourne, L.

  Westminster, D.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Bath, M.

  Carlingford, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Carrington, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Clermont, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Cottesloe, L

  Crewe, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Dorchester, L.

  Bradford, E. [Teller.]

  Emly, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Fitzgerald, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Gerard, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Haldon, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Harlech, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Harris, L.

  Derby, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Devon, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Ducie, E.

  Feversham, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and MountEarl)

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Granville, E.

  Lamington, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Monson, L.

  Minto, E.

  Norton, L.

  Morley, E.

  Penryhn, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Robartes, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Strange, E. (D. Athol.)

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Sydney, E.

  Wilton, E.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Cranbrook, V.

  Strafford, L.(V. Enfield.)

  Eversley, V.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Lifford, V.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Thurlow, L.

  Strathallan, V

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Tyrone, L. (H. Waterford.)

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Waveney, L.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Winmarleigh, L. [Teller.]

  Abercromby, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Lathom, E.

  Milltown, E.

  263

  Powis, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Redesdale, E. [Teller.]

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Hawarden, V.

  Houghton, L.

  Balfour of Burleigh, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.) [Teller.]

  Clonbrock, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Colville of Cuirass, L.

  Crofton, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, that before the Bill was read a second time, he wished to call the attention of their Lordships to a matter of considerable importance. He never remembered the merits of a Bill of this kind being discussed upon the second reading; and he did not think that any of their Lordships who, by voting in the Division which had taken place, and thereby expressing an opinion with respect to the Bill, ought to sit on the Committee to which it would be referred.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he must express surprise at the view taken by the noble Earl (the Earl of Limerick). It appeared to him that noble Lords who had. voted on either side had not expressed any opinion whatever as to the merits of the Bill. They had simply removed the impediment in the way of its consideration; and, therefore, they would be perfectly justified in sitting on the Select Committee.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, he could only speak for himself.
  LORD WINMARLEIGHsuggested that the labours of the Committee had been shortened by the Estuary Clauses being dealt with separately.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) BILL.—(No. 144.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) BILL.—(No. 144.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading read; Debate resumed accordingly.
  LORD THURLOWsaid, he would remind their Lordships that the object of the Bill was to provide an important
  264
  code of guidance for the fishing trade and for the settlement of disputes. The Bill, as their Lordships were aware, was the result of au inquiry by a Committee appointed by the Board of Trade, in consequence of the numerous cases of cruelty to boys and apprentices on beard those beats. The Committee was composed of Members of Parliament and others specially selected on account of their acquaintance with the circumstances. They were instructed to visit the fishing stations, and they collected a vast amount of information which was given in the 273 pages of the Blue Book. They had examined over 200 witnesses whose evidence could be found in reply to some 6,500 Questions. He mentioned that to show that this was not an attempt at ill-considered and hasty legislation. The persons best informed on the subject considered the Bill necessary in the interests of humanity and for the benefit of the trade. he hoped, therefore, the Bill would be read a second time.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that when it was proposed before to read the Bill a second time his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) took exception to the Motion on the ground that its provisions were not known in the localities interested. He had himself received that day both a telegram and a letter from the Hull Smack Owners Association begging that the Bill might not be forced on, as they were unacquainted with its provisions altogether. It was not his intention to ask their Lordships not to read the Bill a second time; but he trusted that before Committee a sufficient time would be allowed to enable those smack owners to consider its provisions.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked whether, if the Bill were passed in its present form, every man in charge of a fishing beat, no matter of what size, would be obliged to have a certificate from the Board of Trade?
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, he had received a telegram to the same effect as the noble Viscount opposite.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he also had received a telegram to the same effect. It was to be very much regretted that the Government should proceed with a Bill which was not understood by those affected by it. Seeing the difficulty of introducing Bills into the House of Commons, he knew no reason

  265
  why they should not be first introduced in the House of Lords; but they ought to be brought forward at an earlier date than was customary in the case of the few Bills primarily submitted to their Lordships.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, in answer to the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss), that the Bill would apply to beats of 20 tons and upwards.
  Motion for the Second Reading agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

SEA FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Marquess of Waterford.)
SEA FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NO. 146.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he did not anticipate that there would be much objection taken to the Bill, because, curiously enough, it had been supported by the whole of the Irish Members in "another place." he was also satisfied that their Lordships would be glad to assist in any way in their power, and would be ready to do anything to develop the industries of Ireland. He was sure they were also satisfied that there were a great many too few industries existing in that country. This Bill did not propose to make any charge on the Exchequer—it merely proposed to utilize the Irish fund for Irish purposes; and every provision in it, he might say, had been approved of by a Committee which had sat in "another place"—a very important Committee—on Harbour Accommodation. he had no doubt it might be said that £250,000 was a very large sum to expend on Irish fisheries. It was to be taken from the Irish Church Surplus Fund. He was satisfied, however, that the expenditure would be entirely reproductive in the increased prosperity of the Irish fisherman himself, and the increased prosperity of the country would give a really good percentage on the money proposed to be laid out. As far as he could ascertain, since the Norman Conquest there had been only £175,000 expended on piers and harbours in Ireland—that was to say, upon fishing harbours, because he believed that something like £2,000,000
  266
  had been expended upon four Royal harbours, which were used for postal and other purposes. There was no doubt that these harbours might be used also for fisheries; but upon fishery harbours themselves only the sum he had mentioned had been expended, and out of that £42,000 was spent during the relief works of 1881 and 1882. Their Lordships had heard a great deal at different times of the disgraceful manner in which the industries of Ireland were crushed and destroyed by the selfishness and short-sightedness of the English Government; and how all classes of landlords and tenants alike—although only landlords seemed to suffer now—protested against such a fatal policy. He believed the fisheries of Ireland had suffered greater than any other industry from that policy, because that policy of destruction had been pursued with them up to a much later time. He should not dwell upon the history of earlier times. Their Lordships were aware, if they read the history of Ireland, how every class of industry was discouraged. But, as lately as 1804, when other industries were being encouraged in Ireland, a Bill was brought in for establishing a fishery upon the Nymph Bank, which was one of the finest fishing grounds on the Coast of Ireland; but that Bill was thrown out in consequence of Petitions presented from the English fishing interest, who stated that if the Irish were encouraged to compete with them their own trade would be destroyed. But he would come to later times than that. In the year 1837, a Government Bill, founded upon the Report of a Royal Commission, who were formed for the purpose of seeing how the Irish fisheries could be resuscitated, was brought in, and was thrown out again in consequence of the deputation from the Scottish fishing interest, who came up to London to declare that their trade would be injured if the Irish fisheries were encouraged by grants of money to pursue their own trade or to resuscitate that trade. At the same time, the Scotch fishermen were receiving money for the very purpose themselves. It was very curious, indeed, to note the manner in which the Irish fisheries had fallen off. He found, before the Famine, by the Government Returns, that there were 20,000 vessels employed in fishing in Ireland, with

  267
  crews numbering 113,000 odd men and boys; but last year—their Lordships would hardly believe it—there were only 6,089 vessels, employing crews of 22,391 men. Their Lordships would, therefore, see that the Famine finished what the short-sighted legislation of the English Government had begun. He was satisfied that there was quite as much wealth in the seas that washed the Coast of Ireland as there were in the seas around the Coast of this country; but, at the same time, they would find that the catch of fish by the English fishermen represented the enormous sum of £8,000,000 a-year, that the catch of the Scotch fishermen represented £3,000,000 a-year; but what did the wretched Irish catch represent? Why, only £500,000 in a year, and this was owing, to a great extent, to want of harbours. He had attempted to show some of the reasons for the decline of the fishing industry in Ireland; but there were two great causes at work which prevented its being resuscitated. The laws which pressed upon all classes of industry had now passed away, he was thankful to say; but they had left behind them a difficulty which was felt all over Ireland. Every industry had been destroyed more or less, and they had no strength or vitality to again resuscitate themselves; and one great cause of that inability with regard to the fishing interest was the poverty of the fishermen themselves, which rendered it impossible for them to procure proper beats and fishing gear. He was happy to say, however, that he found that had been met, in a great degree, by the loans granted by the Fisheries Commissioners, whose system of loans had worked most admirably. The other difficulty to which he alluded would be removed by the Bill which he was anxious that their Lordships should read a second time. At this time, harbour accommodation in Ireland was most inadequate—fishery Harbour accommodation, of course. Great tracts of fishing ground lay unproductive around the Coast of Ireland, and it was perfectly impossible that those grounds could be fished unless there were harbours of shelter for the fishermen. In Scotland, he was told, there was a harbour between every five or ten miles; but in Ireland, from Galway, 70 miles round the Coast, he believed there was not a single Harbour that was of any use for
  268
  fishing purposes. He believed the same thing existed in many other districts. The Fishery Commission had stated it was absolutely required for the fisheries of Ireland that 70 harbours should be either repaired or made. Many of the sites had such natural advantages that, he believed, the expense of giving effect to the recommendation would not be very large. The money which he was asking for would be amply sufficient. And without good harbours, as their Lordships must know, it was impossible to have good boats, because boats could not put out to sea unless they had some place to run for. Therefore, if they provided them with fishing harbours, he was satisfied that beats would before long be supplied to the fishermen. In addition to the money he was asking for, there was also an immense improvement with regard to the law relating to the building of harbours proposed by the Bill. The Royal Commission on Irish Sea Fisheries of 1870 pointed out that the harbours were often built in the wrong places, or were not erected at all, in consequence of the clause in the Act which prevented any money being granted by the Treasury unless a quarter was subscribed by the locality; and he also believed there was a provision that the repayment of the money should be secured, and many districts were so poor that it was utterly impossible that the locality should guarantee the money; and in other instances people only guaranteed the money for harbours that could be used for other purposes—for their beats and for getting merchandize. Therefore the sites of harbours were constantly placed in the most inconvenient and expensive positions. This Bill would alter that. It empowered the Treasury to find the whole of the money, provided they were satisfied that it was for a good cause. It altered the law which limited the loan in each case to £7,500, and did away with the necessity that repayment with interest should be secured. The Bill also provided—which was a very important part of it—that the Fisheries Commissioners were to see the places, and report to the Treasury as to their suitability before the work was undertaken. In the past, it had been their habit merely to recommend that a Harbour was wanted, and to leave it to the Board of Works to carry out the works in any way they thought fit; and

  269
  as, in many instances, they did not understand how to carry out the work properly, they had constantly failed to be completed. He knew their Lordships were always anxious to do anything in their power to benefit the people of Ireland, and he himself had advocated the establishment of industries for the purpose. He thought the employment of the people at home was preferable to any scheme of emigration; and that by encouraging the people of Ireland to develop the fisheries, which they would do by reading that Bill a second time, they would be taking a real step in the right direction. He hoped sincerely that the Bill might be followed by other steps of a similar character, that should have fur their ultimate object the development of the industries of Ireland. Before he sat down he should like to say one word with regard to a matter with which the Bill did not propose to deal, but, if it was to be really effective, should be taken into consideration at once by Her Majesty's Government. The Fishery Commissioners, in their Report of 1882, recommended strongly that a properly-equipped vessel should be attached to their Department for the purpose of making experiments, with the view of finding out and testing the fishing grounds round the Irish Coasts, and, at the same time, acting as a police vessel to prevent poaching and other illegal practices. He believed a vessel of this description would be of immense advantage to the Fishery Inspectors. By means of such a vessel they would be able to find out new banks, and generally to exercise a supervision over the fishing industry. He thought such a ship might also be made of immense advantage in teaching the unskilled fishermen of Ireland the best manner of catching fish and pursuing their calling. Boats of this description would not cost much money—they would really pay for them. selves, because they would be always catching fish which could be sold. The Government must also remember that the Bill proposed to confine the funds of Ireland for the building and repairing of the harbours. He would not trouble their Lordships further, but would conclude by expressing a hope that they would give the Bill a second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Waterford.)
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he did not intend to speak against the Bill, and he had no doubt that the application of the money proposed would be for the public benefit; but, at the same time, their Lordships would remember the anticipations that were formed regarding this Church Surplus Fund when it was originated. They were then told that the Fund would not be applied to any but the holiest and highest purposes; and he wished now to point out how completely these predictions were falsified. The Fund was being applied to none but the most secular purposes. It was applied to the paying of tenants' arrears, to the promotion of fisheries, and other matters which were all very excellent in themselves, but certainly not what they were led to expect the Fund would be applied to. He hoped this result would be regarded as an instructive moral when next Parliament proposed the spoliation of Church property.
  THE EARL OF HOWTHsaid, he supported the second reading of the Bill; but would suggest certain modifications in the application of the monies of the Fund. As to the results of the Bill, even supposing harbours were built, and there were increased takes of fish, it was difficult to see how the harbours would succeed without material aid. There was no market for fish in Ireland, for the Irish were not a fish-eating people. Mr. Blake, who was a great authority on this subject, had stated that an Irishman would not eat fish unless he had a potato beside him; even in time of famine it was almost impossible to get him to eat it. Again, there were no communications for carrying fish traffic into the interior of the country. Under these circumstances, it became a serious question what would become of the fish taken in these harbours. What he would, therefore, suggest was, that £150,000 should be expended on fishery harbours and piers, and the rest in providing cheap transit of the fish, and the improvement of the fishermen's beats and gear. Further, he thought a remedy was to be found in the plan that existed during the period between the years 1819 and 1829, which was, granting bounties for all fish caught. The result of that system was almost incredible, for it appeared that during the first year a fleet of 27 vessels received

  271
  a sum of 128,000, the total bounties for the 10 years amounting to £163,000. Then the Committee, of which Mr. Blake, the promoter of this Bill, was Chairman, stated in their Report that, although abuses did occur under the bounty system, there never, perhaps, was a similar instance of the benefits arising from a pecuniary outlay of that character. The opinion of Mr. Barry, who was for many years a Member of the Irish Fisheries Commission, was to a similar effect.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he had listened to the speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Howth), and yet he did not understand from it whether he intended to oppose the second reading of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF HOWTH: No.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that being the case, he would remind the noble Earl that the modifications he suggested were more properly matters for discussion in Committee. He was surprised to hear the noble Earl say that the Irish were not a fish-eating people. He had always understood they would eat any fish but conger eels. On a visit to Galway some few years since, he found that the only articles of commerce in the port were seaweed and conger eels. On asking a fisherman who had caught a large quantity of conger eels, and was packing them in perforated boxes, what they were for, he replied—"The people cannot eat them; but they are all going to London to be made into turtle soup for the Corporation." In giving, as he did, his warm support to the Bill, and expressing his gratitude to the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Waterford) for having taken charge of it, he would say that if there was one thing they could do for Ireland it was that they should encourage the promotion of industrial occupations. Whenever there was prosperity in Ireland was when the people were not dependent merely on the occupation of the land, but had also some industrial occupation; and when there was over-population he believed that the difficulty was to be met, not by emigration, so much as by promoting industrial pursuits. He did not want to criticize the statement of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) as to the disposition of the Church Fund; but this he would say—that, assuming his criticism to be perfectly
  272
  right, there could be no nearer approach to a holy purpose of the disposition of the Fund than by applying a portion of it to the great object of promoting industrial occupations in the country.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDwished to correct one or two statements made by the noble Earl (the Earl of Howth). He must own that he was very much astonished to hear him find fault with the Bill, for he really ought to be the last man in Ireland to have any objection to the laying out of money on the harbours round the Coast, because the harbour in which he was interested was one of the Royal harbours, upon which a larger sum of money had been laid out than upon any other. Under these circumstances, he really thought he ought to have some feeling for the fishery, and not be objecting to the money being spent as proposed. His noble Friend had said that this Bill had been introduced by a side-wind; but he was perfectly at a loss to understand what he meant. The Irish Church was disestablished a long time ago, and the Fund, which really appeared to be endless, had been spent in a variety of ways, and the religious objections raised to the proposed appropriation of the Fund was really not worth referring to. His noble Friend seemed to be entirely misinformed upon one point, because he wanted to allocate a certain sum of this money to a purpose for which there was already ample provision made. The fishermen could already obtain loans for the purchase of beats and gear, and he was thankful to say that they had applied for them; but they had not done so to anything like the amount which the Fishery Commissioners had in hand, and the Fishery Commissioners were most anxious to encourage the applications for those loans in every way. There was, therefore, no necessity for including such a provision in this Bill.
  THE EARL OF HOWTH: My noble Friend must have misunderstood me. I did not recommend that.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, another statement of the noble Earl was that they should adopt the four harbours recommended by the Harbour Accommodation Committee; but the fact was that three of these harbours were in England.
  THE EARL OF HOWTHsaid, he did not state any such thing. The noble Marquess must not have heard him.
  LORD THURLOWsaid, during the time that the Bill was in progress in the other House of Parliament it received the very serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Marquess had said that the Bill had received in the House of Commons the unanimous support of the private Members of Parliament on all sides. The Government were not without hope that the Bill, if properly carried out, might prove a really useful measure, conducing to the prosperity, happiness, and wellbeing of the people of Ireland; and, that being the case, they had decided to give it their countenance and support. He would like to say that it appeared to him that the money which was proposed to be taken for the purpose from the Church Surplus Fund was the very least that would be of any use; but he very much doubted—in fact he felt sure—that it would be impossible, at the present time, to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other House to allocate a larger sum. Under those circumstances, he trusted the noble Earl would not press in Committee the point he had raised. In answer to a suggestion that had come from a noble Lord on his own side of the House, he would point out that there was a great distinction between applying for public money for national and permanent works, such as piers and harbours, and applying for money for the purpose of aiding fishermen to procure beats and nets, which were articles liable to decay and disappearance.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

COMPANIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Aberdare.)
COMPANIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  (No. 148.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reacting read.
  LORD ABERDARE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that the object of the measure was to give workmen, who were owed wages, a first claim upon the assets of the firm employing them, in the event of the failure of the firm.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Aberdare.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

TUNIS—THE CAPITULATIONS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What steps have been taken with regard to the question of the capitulations in the Regency of Tunis; also, to ask if information can be given relative to the reported arrest of a Maltese British subject at Tunis by the French military authorities; and to move an Address for Papers and Correspondence, said, that the subject of the Capitulations at Tunis was one to which their Lordships' attention had been previously directed, and one which had been now for some time under the consideration of the Government. He trusted that the noble Earl would be able to state what decision had been arrived at, as the question was one which very materially affected the interests of British subjects in the Regency of Tunis. Under the Capitulations commercial advantages, as well as legal and judicial, were conferred upon British subjects, who numbered in the Regency not less than 10,000. The noble Earl could not be without information that there was anything but general satisfaction with the present state of affairs at Tunis. Civil rights and questions affecting property were receiving, under the French régime, a severe shock, and the authority of the Boy had been reduced to that of a mere official. He had also to ask the noble Earl if any information could be given about the reported arrest of a Maltese British subject at Tunis by the French military authorities? The reason for the arrest was not given. It was said in a telegram in the public Press—
  "The prisoner, a respectable man, has been brutally treated, receiving a sabre cut on the head after he was arrested by the soldiers. The French authorities refused to surrender him to the British Consulate. The British Colony has addressed a protest to the Government against the arbitrary conduct of the French authorities, demanding the maintenance of Treaty rights and the retention of the Capitulations."
  He begged to move for Papers and Correspondence.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for papers and correspondence respecting the arrest of a Maltese British subject at Tunis."—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  EARL GRANVILLE, in answer to the first part of the Question put by the noble Earl, said, that the French Government had communicated with the British Government on the subject of the French criminal tribunals in Tunis, and expressed a hope that Her Majesty's Government would waive their rights under the Capitulations so far as to allow English subjects to be brought under the jurisdiction of the French criminal tribunals, just as French criminals were brought under the jurisdiction of English tribunals in Cyprus, and of Austrian tribunals in Herzegovina. The Government replied that they had no objection to take measures to waive their claim so far as to allow English subjects to be brought under the jurisdiction of these tribunals; but they did not think it necessary to make any further changes than were necessary to give full scope for that purpose. Inquiries had been addressed to the French Government as to the meaning of the law, and as to the regulations to be established under it; and, subject to the answer they received to that question, and to the reserve he had already mentioned, Her Majesty's Government were ready to take steps to inquire as to the views of the other Powers represented at Tunis. With regard to the second part of the Question, he had to say that it was true that a Maltese British subject was arrested at Tunis by the French military authorities, and that, in the opinion of our Consul, the arrest was not justified by the circumstances. The prisoner had been wounded by a French officer. The Government telegraphed at once for an explanation, both to Tunis and to Paris. The answer from the French Representative at Tunis was that he had no wish to interfere in any way with our Treaty rights, but that this was a special case of an insult offered to a French officer. The Government then addressed instructions to Lord Lyons, who replied that he had reason to believe that the prisoner had been released on the ground of his having been drunk at the time, and that his sufferings in prison had been sufficient punishment to meet the case. The Government were in further communication
  276
  with the French Government on the subject. He would show the noble Earl the Papers on the subject; and although there would be no difficulty about the publication of the Papers at the proper time, he could not undertake to present them at present.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—MILITIA PERMANENT STAFFS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK, in rising to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Return by battalions of the number of sergeants wanting to complete Militia permanent staffs; and to call attention to the difficulty now experienced in obtaining properly qualified sergeants to serve on the permanent staffs, and in obtaining a sufficient number of volunteer sergeants, said, he disclaimed any intention of imputing blame, and observed that his reason for bringing forward the subject was the increasing difficulty of obtaining efficient non-commissioned officers for the Staffs of Militia regiments, and because the discipline and efficiency of the Militia depended on the discipline and efficiency of the permanent Staff. Formerly there were different sources of supply. There were sergeants who had served in the Army, there were pensioners, and there was a certain number who, though they had never been sergeants in the Regular Army, had proved their efficiency in the Militia itself. But now the supply was limited to one source, and it was found that those who were recommended for the Militia were not so good as formerly. Many of them were inefficient, worn out, or not very steady. Judging from his own experience, and from what he had heard, he had come to the conclusion both that there was an insufficient supply of noncommissioned officers, and also that the class was not so efficient as formerly. It was to be hoped that the noble Earl might he able to consider the question, and to take steps to remedy the evil of which he complained.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Return by battalions of the number of sergeants wanting to complete Militia permanent staffs."—(The Earl of Limerick.)
  LORD CARRINGTONsaid, he was of opinion that the present system worked remarkably well.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that, as far as he could judge from the Reports received at the War Office from various Militia officers, there was no reason to complain either of the number or quality of the supply of the permanent Staff of the Militia. Formerly, among the permanent staff of the Militia regiments were pensioners who had completed 21 years' Army service. Now, all the Militia permanent Staff was to be composed of men actually serving in their Army engagement. The object of the changes that bad been made was to insure a more efficient class of men on the permanent Staff of the Militia, and also to place them in such a position that they should be available for Army and other duties at the depots of the regiments when the regiments were not out for training. The noble Lord need not be afraid that the supply would run short, because they had power, under the Army Discipline Act, to make provision against such a contingency. The supply was not short, nor was it likely that it would run short. The noble Earl was well aware that the Annual Returns of the Militia would give all the information, and more than he required, up to the date of the last training, and the Annual Returns for this year would be published as soon as possible; and unless the noble Earl was very anxious on the subject it would be better not to press his Motion. With regard to the Militia sergeants, who were not on the permanent Staff, there was, no doubt, great difficulty in obtaining suitable candidates, and he was sorry the noble Earl was not prepared with any suggestion on the subject; but the whole matter was receiving the most careful attention of the 'War Office, who recognized the importance of the subject, and who were endeavouring to take measures to correct the deficiency at present existing among the ordinary Militia sergeants.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE X.—THE RUSTCHUK-YARNA RAILWAY COMPANY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to call attention to the tenth Article of the
  278
  Treaty of Berlin, with special reference to the Rustchuk-Varna Railway Company; and to ask if Her Majesty's Government propose to take any steps to enforce the stipulations of the Treaty with regard to the obligations of' the Principality of Bulgaria, said, the House might remember that under the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin the new Principality of Bulgaria, which was then created, became liable to a tribute to the Sultan as a compensation, though in a small degree, for the loss of one of the richest and most fertile Provinces of His Majesty's Dominions. Although five years had now elapsed since the ratification of the Treaty, it appeared that no tribute had yet been paid. While other Articles of the Treaty had been somewhat rigidly enforced, those which chiefly concerned the interest of Turkey seemed, in a great measure, to have escaped the notice of the signatory Powers. In connection with this he wished also to direct their Lordships' attention to the case of the Rustchuk-Varna Railway Company. In the 10th Article of the Treaty it was stated—
  "Bulgaria takes the place of the Imperial Ottoman Government in its undertaking towards the Rustchuk-Varna Railway Company, dating from the exchange of the ratifications of the present Treaty,"
  That was in the year 1878. Under the original concession, granted about 20 years ago, an annual subsidy of £140,000 was guaranteed for a term of years by the Ottoman Government. The liability for this was transferred to Bulgaria in 1878. The sum amounted now to £700,000; but no portion of this, up to the present time, had been paid to the shareholders of the Company. he desired to know whether the Government proposed, in conjunction with the other signatory Powers, to enforce the stipulations of the Treaty in this respect?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have to say, in answer to the noble Earl, that the Government of Bulgaria has consented to refer the obligations under the 10th Article of the Treaty of Berlin to arbitration. Communications are going on with regard to the terms of the Reference. There has been great delay in replying to the last communication of Her Majesty's Government on this subject, owing to the absence of the Prince of Bulgaria and the Ministers and to other reasons; but we have

  279
  lately received information from Mr. Lascelles that the matter will be carefully considered, and as soon as the Ministers return to Varna a communication will be made.

PUBLIC HEALTH—SANITARY CONDITION OF SOMERSET HOUSE.

  QUESTION.
  EARL FORTESCUEasked Her Majesty's Government (1), Whether there is any objection to lay the report of R. Rawlinson, Esq., together with the report of E. Griffiths, Esq., C.B., a very able sanitary engineer, which it enclosed, on the sanitary state of Somerset House, upon the Table of the House; (2) What improvements generally have been made subsequently to that report; (3) Whether any of the clerks of the Board of Inland Revenue have been placed in rooms in the basement which the Admiralty did not so occupy in their time; (4) Whether the opinion of the medical officer of the Board has been taken upon the suitability of those rooms for such occupation; (5) Whether, if those rooms are so occupied, any of the clerks in them bad suffered in health?
  LORD THURLOW, in reply to the first Question of the noble Earl, said, that the Report referred to by him was not one which could be laid upon the Table of the House. As to the second Question, everything which was recommended in that Report had been carried out, and there was every reason to believe with satisfaction to the inmates and the benefit of their health. There were some rooms now occupied by Inland Revenue clerks which had been used by the Admiralty as store rooms. There was no reason to believe that there was any objection to their occupation, and they were just as healthy as those above them. There was no exception to the opinion of the medical officer on the rooms. Previous to the alterations, there had been cases of illness; but since the changes had been made, as recommended in Mr. Rawlinson's Report, no case of illness or anything of the kind had come to the knowledge of the authorities.

EGYPT—THE CHOLERA.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Before the House adjourns, I wish to
  280
  ask the noble Earl the Representative of the War Office in this House, Whether any intelligence has been received relative to the spread of cholera in Egypt, and especially with regard to the extent to which it has affected Her Majesty's forces?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I can best answer the Question of the noble Marquess by reading the last telegram received from the General Officer commanding in Egypt to His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief. It is dated Cairo, July 24, and says—
  "The second case reported in Black Watch. at Suez died last night. Two cases, Army Hospital Corps attacked in Abbassiyeh Hospital, one fatal. Four cases in citadel, of which two were attacked in hospital, one proved fatal. One case Black Watch in Kasr-el-Nil, doing well. In all we have had four deaths, two in Black Watch, one Hospital Corps, One Cameron Highlanders. Troops are now scattered as followed:—Six companies Royal Highlanders encamped and in Indian Hospital, near Suez, one company Port Said, one Helouân of Rifles, seven companies encamped near Suez, one company in Cairo; Gordon Highlanders, one company Helouân, seven companies in citadel. Camerons encamped above citadel on Mokhaltam Heights. Sussex move from Abbassiyeh this evening to Ismailia on Canal. Hussars and two batteries Artillery and Mounted Infantry move to-morrow to Ashmin Gores, to camp in Desert on West Bank Rosetta branch of Nile, 30 miles North-West of Cairo. Please inform War and Foreign Secretaries."
  I may add, that all precautions possible are being taken to insure the health of the troops, especially by moving them about in small bodies.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is the effect of this telegram that the troops are withdrawn from the neighbourhood of Cairo?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: No; there will be eight companies left at Cairo, seven of which are in the citadel, and one in the town.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.