Lords Sitting of 27 July 1885

MINUTES.
Select Committee—Fifth Report—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. [No. 210].
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Medical Relief Disqualification Removal (207); Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* (209).
Committee—Public Health (Members and Officers) * (194).
Committee—Report—Shannon Navigation* (184); Polehampton Estates* (183); National Debt*; School Boards* (200); Exchequer and Treasury Bills*; Greenwich Hospital* (201).
Report—Post Office Sites. * (181); River Thames (No. 2) * (171).
Third Reading—Waterworks Clauses Act (1847) Amendment (127); Turnpike Acts Continuance* (174); Public Health (Ships, &c.)* (186); Artillery and Rifle Ranges* (193); Submarine Telegraph Cables* (203), and passed.

NEW PEERS.
Alexander William George Earl Fife in that part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called Ireland, K.T., having been created Earl of Fife—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Right Honourable Sir William Baliol Brett, Knight, Master of the Rolls, having been created Baron Esher of Esher in the county of Surrey—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

MEDICAL RELIEF DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.
Bill brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed. (No. 207.)
THE EAEL OF MILLTOWN: I beg leave to give Notice that I propose on Thursday next to move the second reading of this Bill.
EARL GRANVILLE: I do not know, in the absence of the noble Marquess

3
the Leader of the House, by what right the noble Earl takes upon himself to move the second reading of this Bill on Thursday. It is a most unusual course. I myself intended to move the second reading to-morrow, as it is a matter of great urgency.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I shall be most happy to meet the suggestion of the noble Earl, and put the Bill down for to-morrow.
EARL GRANVILLE: I do not quite know why the noble Earl has taken up this measure.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I suppose I have as great a right to do so as any other Peer.
EARL GRANVILLE: I have been asked to take charge of this Bill; but the noble Earl, of his own Motion, takes charge of it. The Government, as stated by their Leader in "another place," do not wish to delay the Bill; and yet the noble Earl has taken upon himself, without any request from any other person, to move the second reading on Thursday. That is the most unusual course that I have ever seen taken since I have been in the House of Lords. I give Notice that, unless we hear something as to the intentions of the Government, I propose to take the second reading of the Bill to-morrow.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I object to this action of the noble Earl as entirely out of Order, and inconsistent with the Standing Orders of the House. I gave Notice, as I had a perfect right to do, to the Clerk of the Parliaments, that I would take charge of the Bill when it came up from the other House, as I have always felt very strongly on the subject. It was not in charge of anyone in the other House when it was passed, and Sir William Harcourt stated that it was in charge of the House itself. The noble Earl is absolutely in error; for the Bill is a derelict, and came to this House without a Leader, and it was therefore open to anyone to take it up here. I accordingly came down to the House to take charge of the Bill, and I cannot understand on what grounds the noble Earl objects to my action.
EARL GRANVILLE: The first reading of a Bill is usually considered a formal stage in this House, and in this case was taken as a matter of course. Not being able to walk very quickly at present, I was two or three minutes late
4
in reaching the House, and therefore did not hear it; but I had intended, in accordance with an arrangement I had made with those interested in the Bill in the other House, to intimate that I would give Notice of the second reading for to-morrow.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: My Notice having been given first will remain first on the Paper, according to the Standing Orders.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The noble Earl has given Notice that he will move the second reading on Thursday. By that time, no doubt, he will find that the Bill has been read a second time and passed on the Motion of my noble Friend. We have no objection.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: I rise to Order. I beg to point out that this discussion is irregular, and I object to its being continued. I have been called to Order for much less.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I must call attention to the facts of the case. If this Bill is a derelict, it is because it was abandoned by the Leader of the House of Commons. There can be no question as to who ought to have charge of the Bill in this House, for it was at once taken charge of by the Liberal Leader for the time being—Sir William Harcourt. [Cries of "No!"] It was at all events passed on his Motion, and he handed it over to my noble Friend near me. There is no question as to whose Bill it is.
EARL GRANVILLE: We entirely agree as to the advisability of passing the Bill, and it is very undesirable that we should keep up this quarrel about it. I think, however, I have some little title, by my position in the House and following the usual practice, to say that I will take charge of the Bill.

MALTA—EXAMINATIONS FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE (ARMY, NAVY, AND CIVIL).—OBSERVATIONS.
EARL DE LA WARR,in rising to call attention to the subject of centres of examination for the Public Service (Army, Navy, and Civil), specially with reference to Malta, said, that, in bringing this question under their Lordships' notice, he felt he ought to offer some apology when there were noble Lords who, from the Office which they had held as Secretary of State for the Colonies, must be better informed than he could be with

5
regard to the circumstances and the wants of Malta. At the same time, from his own personal knowledge, he was not without confidence that the subject, being one of such great importance to the interests of the Maltese people, would meet with favourable consideration from their Lordships. On a former occasion, when he called the attention of the House to the subject, he was not in a position to be able to refer to official Papers. Those Papers had since been laid on the Table; and he now hoped to show that the view which he had previously taken was supported by those who were best able to form an opinion. In the Notice which he had given, he had asked their Lordships' attention to the subject of examinations for the Public Service. He thought, however, it might not be necessary to enter now into any details upon the general question; but, assuming that their Lordships were aware of the importance of these examinations, as being now almost the only way of admission for a young man to enter into public life, and, therefore, how important it was that they should be open to, and within the reach of, all Her Majesty's subjects, he would confine himself to the question so far only as it related to Malta. It was in the year 1878 that a Member of the Council of Government in Malta—Mr. Savona—moved an Address to the Governor, which was seconded by the Chief Secretary, to the effect—
"That Her Majesty's Government might be induced to permit such of Her Majesty's subjects Natives of the Maltese Islands as may wish to compete for the Array, Navy, or the Civil Service in England and India, to be examined in Malta under such regulations as the Civil Service Commissioners may deem it expedient to lay down."
It would be well, perhaps, to notice here an objection which was made last year in this House by the noble Earl the late Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby) with regard to making Malta a centre for these examinations. The noble Earl said—
"Malta could not be treated differently to other Colonies; and if this question were raised, it would have to be raised on a larger scale, for peculiar favour could not be shown to Malta to the exclusion of other Colonies and Dependencies not much more distant, and with equal claims."
Now, with reference to this it should be remembered that the circumstances of
6
different Colonies and Dependencies were widely dissimilar; their position, their means of trade and commerce, their native industries, their character and nationality, their climate—in many of these and other respects there was often little or no resemblance. Was it not, therefore, reasonable, before drawing a hard and fast line and treating all alike, to take each case upon its merits? What applied to Malta might not apply to Canada or Australia, or vice versâ. That view was taken by the Civil Service Commissioners in the Correspondence recently laid before the House. They said—
"Any proposal to hold examinations in remote localities would have to be considered on its own merits."
But, besides this, Malta could not be considered as at all similar to other Colonies and Dependencies of the British Empire. Strictly speaking, it would be incorrect to describe it as a Colony, which, in the usual acceptation of the word, was an offshoot of the parent country. Malta was a country which voluntarily placed itself under the dominion of England, and thenceforward the Maltese people became entitled to all the rights and privileges of British subjects. It was said by Lord Cochrane in the House of Commons, in 1816, referring to the relations of Malta to this country, and as a Dependency of the British Crown—
"The fortresses were reconquered from France by the Maltese, and not by this country."
He need hardly remind their Lordships that Malta was one of the most valuable Dependencies of England. Where would British influence in the Mediterranean be without Malta? With France at Toulon, and now also at Tunis, where one of the finest harbours in the world might with little difficulty be made, what in the event of war would be the position of this country without Malta? It was the interest of England to accord to the Maltese people not only the rights and privileges to which as British subjects they were entitled, but also such advantages as might tend to cultivate loyalty and attachment to the British Crown. Was it not a small thing which was asked for? A small thing to grant, but which would be a great boon to the receiver, a boon which would be highly valued, and which would open a door to

7
the rising and talented youth of Malta to become useful subjects in the British Empire wherever British sway extends. It was said, why should not the youth of Malta come to this country to attend the examinations for admission to the Public Service? It must be remembered that Her Majesty's subjects in Malta were not in the same affluent circumstances as those in England, or some other Dependencies' and Colonies, and that the salaries of those holding Government appointments bore no resemblance as regarded amount to those in this country and elsewhere. The salary of a Judge, or Councillor, or Head of a Department did not exceed £500 a-year, and other offices and appointments were in like proportion. Very few young men could provide the means of coming to England to attend the examinations, with the uncertainty also of success, owing to the high pressure of competition which now existed. On that point Sir Charles Straubenzee, when Governor of Malta, said, in one of his despatches to the Colonial Office—
"The great boon, however, that such concessions would confer upon this community by the opening out of a new field of industry beyond the narrow limits of these islands, and also the very limited means of the parents and families of the young men (who may have distinguished themselves at the local schools and are desirous of embracing professions beyond those obtainable in Malta), which almost preclude the possibility of permitting them to do so owing to the expense of the voyage, their maintenance in England, &c, have together induced me to bring this subject under your most favourable consideration."
With reference also to the peculiar circumstances of Malta, Lord Glenelg, when Secretary for the Colonies, said—
"It was peculiarly the duty of Great Britian to take care that the principles of British freedom, and the full benefit of British legislation, should be brought into operation in Malta even above all other Dependencies of the British Crown."
He (Earl De La Warr) regretted that in the government of Malta we had not fully acted upon the principles of British freedom and the full benefits of British legislation. It was quite possible to treat Malta as a fortress—a most important fortress—and, at the same time, to remember that there was a Native population, and a considerable one, who were entitled to the rights, the privileges, and the advantages of British subjects. Sir Patrick Keenan, Commissioner of
8
National Education in Ireland, who in a Report made to Parliament in 1880 on the educational system in Malta, said—
"It would be serving a great Imperial purpose, besides strengthening the service by the introduction of men of the diligence and intelligence of the Maltese, if they could arrange to make Malta a centre for all the examinations which are open to the public at home."
Their Lordships were aware that Italian was the language in Malta of the Law Courts, of the Church, and of commerce. There was, therefore, little inducement for men of education to study the English language. If, however, the public examinations were within their reach, it would be widely different. A field would be opened to talent and diligence, and the youth of Malta would, no doubt, soon be found in honourable competition with other British subjects for appointments in the Public Service. In a letter from the late Governor of Malta (Sir Arthur Borton), which he (Earl De La Warr) had permission to make use of, after strongly advocating this concession in despatches which were on the Table of the House, were these words—
"I feel certain that, if it can be done, no measure will be more likely to strengthen the hands of my successor and increase the loyalty of the Maltese."
These words represented very much the views of the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley), who was Secretary of State for the Colonies in the year 1880. In a letter from the Colonial Office to the Civil Service Commission, who at that time expressed an unfavourable opinion, it was stated—
"Lord Kimberley would, however, strongly urge that this decision should be reconsidered. He attaches considerable importance to this measure, both as a means of facilitating the efforts of the Colonial Government to promote the study of the English language in Malta, and of attaching the Maltese to this country by enabling them to enter Her Majesty's Service."
He (Earl De La Warr) would wish to make these words his own, in urging Her Majesty's Government to consider the claims of a people who, as British subjects, had never swerved from their loyalty to the British Crown. It must be remembered that the British Empire was a wide-spreading and far-reaching one, and it must also be borne in mind that there were British subjects in distant lands as much to be cared for, and who were as

9
capable, if the opportunity were offered them, of serving their country, as those who were living in this great Metropolis.
VISCOUNT ENFIELD,as Chief Civil Service Commissioner, said, he wished to state what the action of the Commission had been in the important question to which the noble Earl opposite (Earl De La Warr) had called attention. In June, 1878, the Secretary of State for the Colonies sent to the Civil Service Commissioners a despatch from the Governor of Malta, as to the possibility of Natives of that place being admitted to compete for appointments in the Army, Navy, or Civil Service of England and India. The then Secretary of State looked favourably on the idea of making Malta a centre of examination, as the expense of a journey to England to attend such examinations almost acted as prohibitory to the young men in the island. But, on the 3rd of August, the Civil Service Commissioners replied that they considered the difficulties so great as to make the suggestion impracticable. The subject was re-opened in 1880, and on the 25th of October his noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley), then Secretary of State for the Colonies, inclosed to the Civil Service Commissioners the copy of a despatch from Major General Fielding, acting Governor of Malta, requesting that the matter might be further considered, urging as additional reasons that the measure would be—
"A means of facilitating the efforts of the Colonial Government to promote the study of the English language in Malta, and of attaching the Maltese to this country by enabling them to enter Her Majesty's Service."
On the 19th of November the Commissioners wrote to the Director General of Military Education to inquire whether his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief would have any objections to the candidates for the Army undergoing their preliminary examination at Malta, while they postponed the question as to whether the "further examination" could be held there. They were informed that His Royal Highness had no objection. On the 15th of December the Commissioners addressed the Treasury, stating that they were considering whether they could hold at Malta "preliminary examinations," and possibly from time to time a competitive examination for "Clerkships of the
10
Lower Division." On the 28th of January, 1881, his noble Friend forwarded to the Commissioners an inclosure from the Governor of Malta, General Sir Arthur Borton, intimating that such a concession to the feelings and wishes of the inhabitants of Malta would materially facilitate the adoption of certain educational reforms in that island, which were shortly to be submitted to the Council. On February 23, 1881, the Treasury, in reply to the Commissioners, urged the objection that, if this concession were made to Malta, the Commissioners would in time be obliged to hold simultaneous examinations in every Dominion of the Crown, and declined to commit itself to such a principle without much further consideration. On March 11, in reply to the Treasury, the Commissioners said that they did not think the precedent would prove embarrassing, as they had declined to hold such examinations in India and in Australia; the distinction, in their view, lay in the remoteness of the country, and each case should be decided on its merits. The Commissioners also expressed their willingness to hold the following examinations in Malta:—(a) Preliminary examinations for Army; (b) Preliminary examinations for Class 1; (c) Examinations for registration as copyists; (d) Competitions for men clerks, Lower Division. On the 28th of March the Treasury, in their reply, offered no objection to the preliminary examinations being held in Malta, but again declined to sanction the examinations for temporary copyists and the Lower Division. This decision of the Treasury was communicated to the Colonial Office by the Civil Service Commissioners. On the 24th of May the Colonial Office sent to the Civil Service Commissioners a copy of a despatch from the Governor of Malta, urging a reconsideration of their decision, in which it was pointed out that the boon of holding preliminary examinations only in Malta would be but a very slight advantage, as the Maltese could hardly meet the great expenses of coming to this country for the open competition. Correspondence on the subject had since remained in abeyance. The Civil Service Commissioners in the meantime agreed to hold examinations for engineer students at Malta; but the arrangement had not been carried out. But during the last

11
few years, examinations had been held on the island for entrance into the Fencible Artillery, and for certain appointments in the dockyards and military prisons. He could not help hoping, however, that in the course of time the difficulties might be smoothed away; and, so far as the Civil Service Commissioners were concerned, they would be glad to lend a helping hand to the Colonial Office in carrying out the laudable object of the noble Earl opposite. He entirely agreed that the subject was one of great interest; and if a concession could be made it would be of the very greatest importance.
THE UNDEE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of DUNRAVEN)said, that with the remarks of the noble Earl who had brought this matter forward (Earl De La Warr) he almost entirely agreed. The noble Earl had laid great stress upon the importance to us of Malta; but it was not necessary, or indeed possible, for him to say anything on that point, because he was sure that Her Majesty's Government, in considering the possibility of granting any privilege to any of the Colonies or Dependencies of this country, would judge of the matter solely on its merits, and not with any reference whatever to the relative importance of the Colonies to this country. He thought that the question was more difficult and more complicated than the noble Earl supposed. The noble Earl had very wisely confined his observations to the case of Malta; but it was impossible not to consider the question with reference to the case of other Colonies and Dependencies also; and, as regarded the more distant Colonies, difficulties existed which, he must say, appeared to him to be insuperable. He did not see how vivâ vocs examinations could be carried on in different centres of examination without danger of gross injustice. In the case of examinations conducted on paper, it was, of course, different; but, in that respect also, difficulties arose which seemed to him to be almost insuperable with regard to their more distant Colonies, because it was obvious that a delay of many days, and even weeks, in receiving the examination papers at home would be attended with great inconvenience, hardship to candidates, and possible injustice. But these objections did not apply to the same
12
extent to the Dependency with which the noble Earl had chiefly dealt—namely, Malta. As far as the vivâ voce examination went, the objection, of course, applied equally to both cases: but as regarded the examination conducted entirely on paper, the objection did not apply to the same extent in the case of Malta, which lay at a distance of four or five days from London. For himself, he might say that he believed that very sound arguments could be adduced in favour of making a difference between Malta and other Colonies. He did not think, however, that he need go into that question now. There was a difference between great self-governing Colonies and a small Dependency such as Malta. There was no outlet at all in Malta for the energies of the people. They were very poor as a rule, and could not afford the expense of coming to this country. There was a very large population, and a very small area upon which they could be supported. It was quite obvious, and it was most important, therefore, that they should have a fair opportunity of obtaining employment in the Civil Service, as well as in the Army and Navy. He saw a great deal of weight in the arguments which the noble Earl had brought forward, and, personally, he hoped that the difficulties which stood in the way might be got over. The question was one which had been before the Colonial Office on a great many occasions. It had always been pressed forward by that Department, and he could certainly undertake to say that the Office which he had the honour to represent in their Lordships' House would continue to press the matter on the attention of other Departments that had to deal with it, in the hope that many of the difficulties which stood in the way might possibly be overcome. More than that he was unable, at the present moment, to state. The matter was, no doubt, one of very considerable importance; but he was sure that the noble Earl and their Lordships generally would see that it was impossible that the Government could yet have had time to attend to it. He was very much obliged to the noble Earl for having brought the matter forward, and to the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Enfield) for having stated authoritatively the views of the Civil Service Commissioners. He (the Earl of Dunraven)

13
could only say that the Colonial Office would not lose sight of the matter, in the hope that at some future time Her Majesty's Government might be able to come to some conclusion on the subject.
LORD EMLYsaid, he hoped the matter would be pressed forward with as little delay as possible.

PARLIAMENT—PALACE OF WESTMINSTER —HOUSE OF LORDS—THE FRESCOES IN THE PEERS' ROBING ROOM.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTONasked Her Majesty's Government, What steps they intend to take to complete the frescoes in the Robing Room of the House of Lords? All who had visited that room must have been struck with admiration for the works of Art there painted by Mr. Herbert, R.A. The best judges of Art had classed them among the most remarkable paintings ever produced; and yet the series was left uncompleted. Some 20 years ago it was understood that the room was to be finished, and that a complete series of pictures was to be executed by Mr. Herbert. In the case of one of them—"Moses coming down from the Mount"—Mr. Herbert was very shamefully treated. The canvas was actually painted twice. Mr. Herbert, having undertaken to paint this series, refused a number of Continental engagements. Bearing these facts in mind, he thought the time had now come when their Lordships should make up their minds what was to be done.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of REDESDALE)said, that this matter had been before their Lordships' House on several occasions. After the careful consideration given by Mr. Herbert to the subjects of his pictures, and the enormous amount of time he had spent in their design, it would be obviously unfair to intrust the work to other hands.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, only one part of the scheme of decoration for the Palace of Westminster, recommended by the Fine Arts Commission under the direction of the Prince Consort, remained uncompleted. In this House, events appertaining to Royalty were depicted. In the Royal Gallery, the greatest victories by sea and land.
  14
  In the Corridor, the struggles between Charles I. and his Parliament. In the Queen's Robing Room, the legends of King Arthur. In the Upper Hall, illustrations of the greatest English Poems. But the one Chamber which was devoted to Religious Art was the only one that remained incomplete. It was used as the Judicial Court of the Chairman of Committees. In the Central Panel was the giving of the law by Moses, the most consummate and admired work of the whole decoration, and universally recognized as a great achievement in design and colour and impressive power. It produced a vivid realization of that great event. On one side was the Judgment of Daniel, and on the two remaining sides only blank spaces. That left the room lop-sided and ill-balanced. Mr. Herbert's claim to complete the decoration, whenever a Vote should be taken for it, could not be overlooked. He had spent precious years in studying and preparing for the remaining subjects of the Judgment of Solomon and the Sermon on the Mount. At least, compensation would be due to him for the labour and thought he had expended in the execution entrusted to him by the Fine Arts Commission.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he felt bound to express his great sympathy with Mr. Herbert, who had practically for years past abandoned his profession and its profits, and given up his whole mind to the completion of the great works which he had so ably commenced. The first of the series, "The Descent of Moses from Mount Sinai," had, at the time, been pronounced to be the greatest of modern pictures. He hoped that the great artist would not now be thrown over, but would be allowed to complete the work he had undertaken.
  LORD HENNIKER,on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, said, that their Lordships were aware that that was not the first time that subject had been discussed in that House; and in order to make his reply complete he must refer to the debate of July 27, 1883, or rather to the reply given at the time for the Government by his noble Friend (Lord Thurlow). It appeared that in 1850 the Fine Art Commissioners entered into an agreement with Mr. Herbert to paint nine pictures for their Lordships' House for the sum of £9,000, which were to be completed in not less

  15
  than 10 years after the Robing Room, where the pictures were to be painted, was ready for Mr. Herbert to work in. The room was not ready till 1858, and in 1864, when one of the finest pictures in the House, the magnificent picture of "Moses coming down from Mount Sinai," was finished, Mr. Herbert asked that the question of the amount of his remuneration should be reconsidered, on the ground that the system he had been compelled to adopt—the "water-glass" process for fresco-painting—had proved a failure—caused a great deal more labour, and involved the expenditure of a great deal more time, while the actual cost was a great deal more than was originally thought of. With respect to the remarks made by the noble Lord (Lord Lamington), he (Lord Henniker) believed the late Prince Consort did favour this process as the best to be adopted; but he was not aware that His Royal Highness in any way unduly pressed it upon Mr. Herbert. The question of the original agreement with the Fine Arts Commissioners was then referred to the Treasury by the First Commissioner of Works, who had at that time superseded the Commission, and the Treasury ordered an inquiry into the matter. The result of that inquiry was that the sum of £3,000 was paid to Mr. Herbert, in addition to the £2,000 already paid him for the picture of Moses. In 1866 another agreement was made with Mr. Herbert to complete the picture of "The Judgment of Daniel" in three and a half years. The sum to be paid was £4,000, and the picture was to be handed over to the First Commissioner of Works in 1869, the agreement having been made early in 1866. As a matter of fact, Mr. Herbert did not hand it over to the First Commissioner by that time, and it was not handed over to him in a finished state till 1880, although he was very much pressed to complete the work. He might add that the original agreement of 1850 for the nine pictures was cancelled by a Treasury Letter in 1866, and Mr. Herbert then came to a distinct understanding that he had no further claim on the Government unless the other pictures proposed were proceeded with under a fresh contract. On consideration of these facts in 1883, the then First Commissioner of Works came to the conclusion that he could not
  16
  hold out any hope whatever, or give any assurance that the request of Mr. Herbert to be allowed to finish the series of nine pictures would be acceded to, for the water-glass system was much more costly than the first proposal of fresco-painting, and caused an indefinite amount of delay. There was no one, either inside or outside the House, who appreciated more fully than his right hon. Friend (Mr. Plunket) the many merits of Mr. Herbert's paintings; paintings which had been justly praised in his own generation, and would certainly carry his name down to posterity as one of the greatest painters of the day. ["Hear, hear!"] He was sure their Lordships would agree with him in this expression of opinion. Nevertheless, after the most careful consideration on the part of the First Commissioner (Mr. Plunket), he had come to the conclusion that there was no reason to alter the decision of his Predecessor in 1883, not to call upon Mr. Herbert to execute his original designs. With regard to the finishing of the Robing Room, he was not aware that any scheme had been put forward, or any estimate made, for completing it; but if the noble Lord chose to put a Question at the beginning of next Session, no doubt the Chief Commissioner would be able to give an answer.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (The Earl of IDDESLEIGH)said, he wished to say a few words of an unofficial character, for the official answer had been given by his noble Friend (Lord Henniker), who had just spoken on behalf of the Department which was responsible in this matter. As a personal friend of Mr. Herbert for more than 40 years, and as one who had had an opportunity of knowing well the work he had done, he (the Earl of Iddesleigh) wished to make one observation with regard to the references which had been made to the length of time taken by Mr. Herbert in the accomplishment of his work. When Mr. Herbert undertook this work, it should be remembered that fresco-painting was almost a lost art in this country; and Mr. Herbert's undertaking created a great deal of sympathy, a great deal of expectation, and, at the same time, a great deal of very natural criticism. Their Lordships were aware that Mr. Herbert was frequently obliged to lay aside the work which he

  17
  might otherwise have prosecuted on account of unforeseen difficulties, and questions that had to be solved—for instance, the question with regard to water-glass painting. If Mr. Herbert seemed a long time in completing the work he had undertaken, the circumstances must be taken more fully into consideration. He rose for the purpose of expressing his own sympathy and admiration for the great work Mr. Herbert had done in reviving what was supposed to be a lost art among us. Mr. Herbert had made himself a reputation which would last as long as that building endured, and a name which would be immortalized in the history of painting. Whatever disappointment Mr. Herbert might feel, no doubt the sympathy and admiration they all felt for him would be some compensation to him. While not wishing to interfere with the decision of the Office of Works, he would only say that the matter was one which, under any circumstances, and more especially in the peculiar circumstances under which Mr. Herbert completed his work, should be treated with the greatest consideration.
  LORD EMLYsaid, he deeply regretted that Mr. Herbert was not permitted to complete the frescoes, a work which called forth the admiration of the world. He (Lord Emly) should be very much surprised if the unanimous wish of their Lordships was not to condemn the gross injustice that had been done.

DEFENCES OF THE EMPIRE—ARMAMENTS AND MUNITIONS OF WAR.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALA,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether it would not be desirable to convene a Royal Commission to consider the present condition of the armaments and munitions of war in the United Kingdom and the Colonies, and what additions to them are necessary to meet any emergency or hostile combination? said, that taking into consideration the smallness of their Military Force, and the extent of the Empire it was called on to defend, it was imperative that they should be supplied with the very best weapon. Therefore, he had been impressed for a considerable time with the feeling that the proposal which he now presented for the consideration of their
  18
  Lordships and of Her Majesty's Government was necessary, in order to ascertain if there were deficiencies in our military armaments and munitions of war; and, if so, that they might be brought to notice and remedied. There had been a feeling that our military stores had been allowed during the last six years to fall below a sound level. First among present demands stood the Artillery. The increased activity in the Navy, stimulated by the national demand, would require increased activity in the gun factories to supply the artillery for the new ships, and especially to supply the carriages for which heavy guns had too often had to wait. The Colonial ports and coaling stations, in addition to our home coast defences, made a heavy demand for guns of position. The newly-awakened consciousness of national weakness on our coasts would lead to much self-help; but in the matter of weapons the State must assist. No one who had observed the working in battery of heavy muzzle-loading guns could hesitate to demand breech-loaders; and the above considerations led to the conclusion that it would be better to enlarge our Government manufactories for the construction of guns and gun carriages, and our small-arm and gunpowder factories for fabricating materials on which we could thoroughly rely, than to be greatly dependent on external aid; and, also, for our Field Artillery, we must correct the error committed some 15 or 16 years ago in rejecting breech-loaders. The new field gun, which had been so highly approved, had to be supplied to a large part of the Artillery Forces. He understood, also, that a new rifle had been approved after the severest tests. Whether that weapon was to be adopted into the Service, or whether we should retain the Martini-Henry, a considerable strain must be put on our small-arm manufactories to maintain the supply for our Regular Army, and for the Deserve and Auxiliary Forces. It might be said that the requirements of the arsenals and manufactories could be well represented by the Departmental officers, who must know better than anyone else their own wants. In submitting those observations he (Lord Napier) was very far from implying any want of efficiency in the officers at the head of the Ordnance Department. On the contrary,

  19
  he was impressed with the great ability of these officers, more especially of the Director General, General Alderson; but his duties were enormous, and it was difficult for a Departmental officer to initiate any considerable increase to his establishment. He could not move independently, being only able to act to the extent of what was supplied him. If he made recommendations he was apt to be regarded as overrating the wants of his particular Department. His opinions would be listened to with more attention if they were confirmed by the voice of an impartial Commission. He did not think it convenient to bring the subject forward when there appeared a prospect of a disturbance of the peaceful relations between Great Britain and some other countries. It was not at such a time that we should begin to make new weapons and new machinery; it was the time to turn to account the best weapons we possessed. But now, when there appeared no such strain or severe tension, it seemed the right and fitting time to put our house in order, and to proceed calmly and deliberately to correct any deficiencies rather than to wait for a time of danger, and then to hurry into contracts and preparations, which were more costly than in ordinary times, and were too often not completed in time for the occasion. The noble and gallant Lord concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that he had a Motion down on the Paper for to-morrow with respect to the new arm; but probably it would be convenient if he were, on this occasion, allowed to make a few remarks on the subject which his noble and gallant Friend had brought before them. His noble and gallant Friend had done good service in calling attention to our want of stores and efficient guns, and he had not done so without ample grounds. His noble and gallant Friend recommended a Commission; but much good could hardly come of that, because, for many years past, there had been a perpetual series of Committees and Commissions. There was hardly a room in the War Office in which a War Office Commission had not sat at some time or other, and nothing came of them all. Another Commission would only lead to the same result. It seemed to him that Commissions served only as a screen to
  20
  enable a Government not to do what they ought to do, and to shield those who ought to have done their duty without necessitating an inquiry as to why they did not. He would wish to have a Return of our stores and guns. The Government might not wish to give such a Return; but they might be sure that foreign nations knew the state of our stores and guns very well. None knew better than his noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War (Viscount Bury) the deficiency of our supply of guns, and it was also notorious that our stock of small arms was very far from what it ought to be; and it was essential for the proper defence of the country that we should be well supported with guns, both large and small. The Militia and Volunteers were shortly to be armed with the Martini-Henry; and, when that was done, he would like to know how many were in store? He believed the amount would be very small; at any rate, not approaching what a nation like ours ought to have. It should be remembered that in the French War arms were taken by hundreds and thousands at a time. He believed that about 3,000 a-week was all we could turn out. It was notorious that the 40-pounder was now inferior to the 12-pounder and the 16-pounder, and steps ought to be taken to improve it. He pointed out last year that our present rifle at 2,000 yards made excellent practice, and it would be better to try and improve it than to have an entirely new weapon which would necessitate a break of gauge. The fact was, each Party as it came into Office tried to cut down expenditure, in order to make a good show with the Budget That was the real reason why the armaments of the country were in their present condition. He should like to ask what course the Government intended to take with reference to the new arm?
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he hoped that, if the Commission was appointed, it would be an independent body. Had those who were responsible for those matters spoken out in the way they ought to have done, our Army would not now be in the position in which it was. It was absolutely necessary, if information was to be sought, that it should be from those who were hard-working soldiers, whose merits were too often overlooked, and not from

  21
  those soldier politicians who had constantly held Staff appointments, and who had never for an hour commanded a regiment. It was absolutely necessary that something was done, for the Army had not been in the state in which it ought to have been as regarded its armament, and various other important particulars, for upwards of 25 years.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Viscount BURY)said, that no one could bring this subject forward with greater force than the noble and gallant Lord who introduced it (Lord Napier of Magdala). The noble Earl who followed him (the Earl of Wemyss) spoke of the re-armament of the Army with a particular rifle; and, for the sake of clearness, he (Viscount Bury) would dispose of that question first, and then address himself to the remarks of the noble and gallant Field Marshal. The noble Earl was himself a Member of the Committee which sat to consider the subject of a change of rifle for the Army. That Committee reported mainly and generally in favour of an improved arm. The matter, when the late Government left Office, appeared ripe for settlement; but it had not been settled. It, therefore, devolved upon the present Government to decide what should be done. His right hon. Friend at the head of the War Office could not take any decision of his Predecessors, but felt it his duty to examine the matter for himself; and, although there was a considerable consensus of opinion among military experts as to the advantage of having an improved weapon for the rank and file of the Army, that question had not yet been decided upon. The noble Lord on his right (Lord Ellenborough) had stated that the evidence of working soldiers should be taken on this matter. He (Viscount Bury) was quite in accord with the noble Lord on that point; and he might say that it was the very course which his right hon. Friend at the head of the War Office was about to adopt. The Papers and evidence with regard to this change of rifle had been to-day given into the hands of a small Committee, over which an officer well known to their Lordships' House would preside, Colonel Philip Smith. A more practical soldier than Colonel Smith could not be found. With him would be associated a couple more practical soldiers.
  22
  He did not, of course, know what that Committee would decide; but, whatever it was, it would only be in the way of advice to the head of the War Office, who, after the Committee had reported, would form his own judgment upon the subject. That was the state of the case with regard to the re-armament of the troops with the new breech-loading rifle. He would now come to the somewhat larger question raised by the noble and gallant Field Marshal. The condition of the armaments and munitions of war had already occupied the serious attention of the Government. They found that their Predecessors had come to recognize the necessity for improved guns, and for a remedy in the matter of the deficiency of stores. He (Viscount Bury) was not there to say that the armaments were or were not in a satisfactory state; but he merely said that the matter had occupied the serious attention of the Government; that something had already been done in the time of their Predecessors; that more was now being done by the present Government; and that they hoped to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. He should like to give a general statement as to what had occurred. The following was the provision that was being made during the year on account of the Naval and Submarine Mining Services. The normal Vote amounted to £2,227,000, and the Vote of Credit to £2,360,000—making an available sum of £4,587,000. Of that, £2,227,000 was due to the normal Vote and £2,360,000 to the Vote of Credit. Of the latter sum, there was due to Egypt £800,000; this left £1,560,000; and there was due to the Navy £560,000, which left £1,000,000 available. There were sundry schemes for the supply and increase of armaments, which were provided for out of that £1,000,000 to the amount of £465,000, and that left of the Vote of Credit and the ordinary Estimates together about £500,000. That £500,000 would be allocated as follows:—Expended on rifles, which would be recovered on repayments, £100,000; small arms ammunition beyond previous programme, £100,000; acceleration of guns for land and sea services, £120,000; additional torpedoes for Navy and plant for increased manufacture, £85,000, which was far in advance of former years; making good loss on appropria-

  23
  tions in aid, £50,000; and these items, with £45,000 for margin, account for the £500,000. It would be seen that very considerable advance had been made this year in the provision for stores, for ammunition, and for guns. He did not say that we were in a satisfactory position; but he did say that we were progressing towards that position. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War had by no means lost sight of the importance of the subject, which had been before him over since he entered upon his Office. This appropriation of £500,000 for increased armaments would leave to be provided next year the sum of £250,000 for a further reserve of stores, and that would not exhaust the demands upon the Treasury, for there would probably be in future years a permanent addition of £150,000 on account of these extra stores. As to Field Artillery, he was not able to quote from the Report he had in his hand, because it had not yet been laid on the Table; but of Field Artillery we had a very considerable provision, and we had enough to send a considerable number of guns to India if they were required. As to 40-pounder guns, there was a 40-pounder which was new and which was a breech-loader—it was a gun of very great power and accuracy—and of that we had a considerable store. It was not at all a contemptible arm. With regard to mountain guns, we had seven batteries—that was, 42 new guns this year; and there was the material for turning them out at a considerable rate. A considerable addition had been made to the plant, and the Secretary of State for War was inclined to add still further to that arm. We were very fairly off for siege guns. As to the reserve of small arms, it was true that with the arming of the Volunteers and the Militia with the Martini-Henry rifle, the reserve of small arms had fallen below what it ought to be. At present we were turning out about 3,000 a-week. Alterations were being made in the mode of working, which would bring the turn-out to about 4,000 a-week. This was the normal position; but by night shifts and other arrangements we could turn out double the number. We should practically have about 20,000 of these Martini-Henrys in store, and we should go on manufacturing them as rapidly as we could. He
  24
  thought his noble Friends might dismiss from their minds that they would be caught napping in this respect. Nothing had been decided as to the arming of the Army with a new gun; and, therefore, the production of the Martini-Henry would go on with all possible speed. The idea of appointing a Royal Commission did not commend itself to the Secretary of State. He was engaged almost day and night in investigating the condition of affairs for himself; and he felt that while he was doing that the appointment of a Commission could hardly have a satisfactory result. If he afterwards found it necessary to seek the assistance of a Commission, he would be most happy to do so. But at present he hoped that a Motion for a Commission would not be pressed.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, he had no doubt as to whether the Martini-Henry rifle was an arm adequate for the defence of the Empire. If they ought to have a store of 800,000 stand of arms, at the rate they were mating them—4,000 a-week—it would take four years to have that quantity ready. He wished to warn the Government against allowing alterations and improvements to bring about delays.
  LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALAsaid, he should like to know how many field guns could be sent to India, and whether they were of the latest breech-loading pattern? He would also observe that though the sum reserved for heavy guns no doubt required an effort, and was so far satisfactory, it would not go very far to meet the demand for the foreign ports and coaling stations. It was satisfactory to know that the Secretary of State for War had given his serious attention to the subject; and, therefore, he would not press the Motion for a Royal Commission.
  VISCOUNT BURY,in reply, said, there were 271 muzzle-loading guns of 16 lbs.

WATERWORKS CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 127.)
(The Viscount Enfield.)
WATERWORKS CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 127.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Viscount Enfield.)
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he wished to raise a last, and he feared an unavailing, protest against a measure which was wholly unjust in principle, and the proceedings in which had been of a most unusual character. The Bill was grossly unjust, and would cause much misery. It altered the Private Acts of eight different Water Companies supplying the Metropolis. It altered the private bargains which those Companies had made with the public, and the Bill was in reality a Private Bill, and would have been so treated if the Companies had themselves proposed alterations of a like character. And the alteration in those Acts would operate to the grievous loss of the Companies and their shareholders, many of whom depended wholly for their maintenance on the dividends received on their shares. The income of these poor people would be diminished by one-fifth. There had been no complaints of the Water Companies; and no Petitions, except from Vestries which did not understand the question, and would be glad to reduce the income of Water Companies as low as possible, had been presented in favour of the Bill. The Companies would be obliged to charge on assessments as to which they had no voice. Everybody else was entitled to appeal against an assessment; but in consequence of the time at which that Bill would be passed it would be too late to appeal, and the Companies would be subjected to this gross injustice for the next five years. If this Bill had been referred in the proper way to a Select Committee, witnesses would have been examined and the subject properly thrashed out. But that course was not followed, and this great wrong was to be perpetrated. The Water Companies had done their best, and it was a very remarkable fact that out of their 700,000 customers they had only had 50 complaints settled by the magistrates, and that all those cases except two were settled in favour of the Companies. As he had said, the Bill would work a grievous amount of injustice, and he could not believe their Lordships could understand its injurious and unfair effect. He begged to oppose the Motion.
  LORD TRUROsaid, he deeply admired the courage and persistency of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) in fighting the battle of the Water Companies as he had done, although it
  26
  was ad misericordiam; but he must call the noble and learned Lord's attention to the fact that, while doing so, he had wholly ignored the extortion in the shape of exorbitant overcharge practised by those Companies for a great number of years. He (Lord Truro) would impress upon their Lordships that there was great necessity that the Bill should pass.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) had used such strong terms in regard to this Bill that he must recall their Lordships' attention to the history of the measure. It was before the other House of Parliament for four months, and the third reading was passed without opposition.
  LORD BRAMWELL,interposing, said, that the Bill certainly did not pass without opposition.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he thought he was correct in saying that the third reading was passed without opposition. It was true, however, that there was an important division in Committee, on the question whether the Bill should be treated as a Public Bill or not. When it came to that House, the noble Earl who presided over their Lordships' Committees (the Earl of Redesdale) did not treat it as a private measure, and consequently it came before them as a Public Bill. After having been read the second time without a division, it was referred to an impartial Committee, who heard an able representative of the Water Companies, and reported the Bill without Amendment to the House. He hoped it would be passed.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) and the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) had reiterated the arguments against this Bill several times over, and had asked their Lordships to reverse their previous decisions. For himself, he could not understand such a course of action. What had been advanced on behalf of the Water Companies only went to show that for years they had been taking too much. What his noble and learned Friend denounced as spoliation was this—No person being appointed to make a valuation under the Act of 1847, the Water Companies made valuations for themselves, and on that footing they continued to charge until a case was

  27
  brought forward by a gentleman named Dobbs. Then it was decided by their Lordships' House, in an eloquent and conclusive judgment, delivered by his noble and learned Friend, that annual value meant net annual value. This Bill was a consequence of that judgment.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he wished to entirely deny the assertion that the judgment in the Dobbs case had anything at all to do with this matter.
  On Question? agreed to: Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.

MEDICAL RELIEF DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.—OBSERVATIONS.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it would be convenient to their Lordships if he took that opportunity of asking the noble Earl who had given Notice with regard to the Medical Relief Disqualification Removal Bill (the Earl of Milltown) whether, after what had passed, he intended to adhere to that Notice? He (Earl Granville) did not remember a similar course being taken in their Lordships' House; but there were three noble Lords on the Treasury Bench opposite who had had large experience in the House of Commons, and probably they would be able to say whether such a course was ever taken there. The; Bill having come up that day to their Lordships' House was, like all other Bills coming up from the House of Commons, read a first time. Then the noble Earl suddenly jumped up and, referring to the Bill as a derelict, gave Notice of his intention to take charge of it. He (Earl Granville) did not think the Bill was exactly a derelict, and it would have been more reasonable if the noble Earl, before coming down there at half-past 3——
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN,interrupting, begged the noble Earl's pardon. The noble Earl had been misinformed, for he had not come down at half-past 3 for the purpose of giving the Notice.
EARL GRANVILLE,continuing, said, that he would not say half-past 3; but before the House met, the noble Earl came down with the Notice which he subsequently gave when he was in Order in doing so. Now, the noble Earl, as far as he (Earl Granville) was aware, was not requested by anyone to take charge of the Bill, and he did not know
28
that he had any connection with it. The House was aware of the circumstances under which the Bill passed through its later stages in the House of Commons. When the Government refused any further responsibility for it, he (Earl Granville) was asked by Sir William Harcourt and Mr. Jesse Ceilings to take charge of it in their Lordships' House. He was, therefore, prepared to do so. If, however, the noble Earl opposite had been requested by the Government to take the course he had taken, and if, as he was told, the noble Earl was very anxious to pass it in its present shape, he (Earl Granville) would think it in better hands than his own, and would gladly resign it to the noble Earl. But if the noble Earl had not received any such instruction from Her Majesty's Government he (Earl Granville) thought he was bound to acquiesce in the wish which had been expressed to him by those who passed the Bill in the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that he simply adhered to his previous statement. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) had said that the course he (the Earl of Milltown) had taken was unprecedented; but it was also unprecedented that a Bill which had been in the charge of the Government should come up to their Lordships' House as this one had. The noble Earl also said that he had been requested by Mr. Jesse Collings and Sir William Harcourt to take charge of the Bill. It seemed to be thought, from what the noble Earl had said, that Sir William Harcourt had moved the third reading of the Bill in the other House. As a matter of fact, however, the noble Earl was misinformed, for the third reading was moved by Mr. Jesse Collings; and neither Sir William Harcourt nor any other Member of the late Government was present at the time. He could not see what reason the noble Earl had for looking on the Bill with so much favour and veneration, considering that it contained a clause which was not in the Bill of the late Government.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, they had better not go into the provisions of the Bill.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he merely referred to it because he was giving his reasons for taking charge of the Bill. The noble Earl wanted to know why he took charge of it, He

29
had taken it up as an independent Conservative Peer who was in favour of the provisions it contained; and he might say that he had no communication with the Government on the subject, and did not believe that one of his Friends on the Government Bench had any idea of what he intended to do. He never imagined that the noble Earl (Earl Granville) would wish to take charge of it, and he did not see how on earth he could, seeing that the Bill was so different from the proposals of the late Government. It was true that, having other business to attend to in the Library in the way of looking up references, he had come down to the House at half-part 3, and incidentally mentioned to the Clerk of the Parliaments that he proposed to take up the Bill if it arrived from the Commons, and that he would move the second reading to-morrow. But the Clerk of the Parliaments told him that there might be a difficulty in doing so, as the Bill might perhaps not be printed by to-morrow, and then he put it down for Thursday. But when the noble Earl said that he would move the second reading on Tuesday, then he gave Notice himself for Tuesday. Why the noble Earl objected to what had been done, if he really desired to see the Bill passed, he could not understand. It was not a Party measure, as it had been supported by both sides, and he had only done what he was entitled to do; and he intended, as an independent Conservative Peer, to move the second reading to-morrow.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, as he understood the noble Earl had not been asked by the Government to take charge of the Bill, he (Earl Granville) should adhere to the Notice he had given, and would move the second reading tomorrow.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that perhaps the noble Earl was not aware of the Standing Order on the subject. Standing Order No. 18 was to the effect that all Orders and Notices should stand according to priority of Notice; and that if a noble Lord gave Notice to the Clerk of the Parliaments that he intended to make a Motion, it should so be printed in the Orders of the Lay. He had altered his Notice in consequence of the statement of the noble Earl.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the Standing Order showed that he was en-
30
tirely in his right; because he gave Notice that he would move the second reading to-morrow.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: After me.
EARL GRANVILLE: No; the noble Earl opposite gave Notice afterwards that he would do so. However, putting that aside, the Standing Orders must be read with some regard to common sense; for instance—and he appealed to noble Lords on the Government Benches, and especially to those who had had experience in both Houses—would it be held permissible that any noble Lord might, by giving Notice in the way the noble Earl had done now, entirely block out the persons really connected with the Bill. In this case the promoters of the Bill wished that he (Earl Granville) should take charge of it.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, that once before a question arose as to dealing with the Orders of the House, and the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) spoke on that occasion as if a noble Lord had a right to take possession of a Bill. It was the courtesy of the House that when an Order was put down in the name of a particular Lord that noble Lord should deal with it. Their Lordships made their own Standing Orders; and if the noble Earl wished them to be changed in any way—for instance, if he intended to proceed against the noble Earl who had priority of Notice—it must be done by a Motion. In that case it would be for the House itself to decide.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he had given Notice for Thursday, in consequence of what had been said to him by the Clerk of the Parliaments; but as soon as the noble Earl (Earl Granville) objected to the delay he agreed to alter it to to-morrow. However, the noble Earl was still discontented, and said he himself would move it to-morrow. He (the Earl of Milltown) maintained that his own Notice had been given first.
EARL GRANVILLE: I do not desire any alteration in the Standing Order. I have already given Notice that I shall move the second reading of the Bill tomorrow.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, in that case, he would ask the Clerk of the Parliaments who gave Notice first?
The CLERK of the PARLIAMENTS (Sir William Rose)said, that the Notice of the Earl of Milltown stood first.
EARL GRANVILLE: Stands first for Thursday, but not for Tuesday.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he must again say he gave Notice of his Motion for Thursday; but in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Earl he had altered it to Tuesday. After that the noble Earl was still discontented, and said he would move it himself.
THE LORD PRESIDENT (Viscount CRANBROOK): But who stands in the Order Book for the first place to-morrow?
LORD MONSONsaid, that his noble Friend (Earl Granville) came into the House after the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Milltown) had given Notice for Thursday. He (Lord Monson) told his noble Friend what had taken place, and the noble Earl, in a state of surprise, said—"Why, the Bill was committed to me." Then his noble Friend got up and said he would move the second reading to-morrow, thus having precedence of the noble Earl opposite, and then the noble Earl opposite said he would alter the day.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Monson) was not quite correct. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) did not give Notice, but said—"I was just going to move the second reading to-morrow." In fact, no Notice was given by the noble Earl opposite until after the Notice of his noble Friend (the Earl of Milltown).
LORD FITZGERALD,after reviewing the history of the Bill, said, that his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Milltown), who had no connection with the Bill, assumed possession, and gave Notice of the second reading for Thursday; and then his noble Friend near him (Earl Granville), who was requested to take charge of the Bill, objected to Thursday, and he put down his Motion for to-morrow. The noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown) subsequently put down a Notice for to-morrow also. The Standing Orders did not affect the question in the least. What the Standing Orders said was, that the Notices of Motion should be recorded on the Minutes in the order in which they were given in. He would make an appeal to his noble Friend opposite. There was
32
such a thing as courtesy in that House, and it was only consistent with courtesy to leave the matter in the hands of the noble Earl who had been given charge of the Bill by the parties who had the right to do so. He hoped that the noble Earl opposite would not forget what was due to the courtesy of the House. One thing, however, appeared to be clear from the action of noble Lords opposite, and that was that the passing of this Bill was assured.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (The Earl of IDDESLEIGH): I do not profess to be able to decide any thing with regard to the order of your Lordships' House; but as the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) has referred to me, among others, as having had experience in the House of Commons, I should wish to say that, so far as the proceedings of the House of Commons are concerned, I believe it to be an entirely unprecedented and disorderly thing for a Bill which has been revived, and on which an Order has been moved by one Member, that another Member should come in and make another proposal in regard to the same measure. The noble Earl the Loader of the Opposition may have thought he had acquired the right to fix the Bill for Tuesday; but the Bill having already been fixed for this day by my noble Friend (the Earl of Milltown), according to the proceedings of the House of Commons, the noble Earl would certainly have no right to take it out of the hands of my noble Friend.
LORD FITZGERALD: There is no Order made. It is a mere Notice of Motion for an Order.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (The Earl of IDDESLEIGH): My noble Friend (the Earl of Milltown) gave the Notice, and thereby placed himself in charge of the Bill, and the Motion was made by the noble Earl, and, as I understood, taken down by the Clerk at the Table. That undoubtedly would, in the practice of the House of Commons, be giving precedence to the Member who had so taken charge of the Bill. But there appears to be some inaccuracy in the statement of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitzgerald) as to what passed in the House of Commons. A Bill was introduced by Mr. Jesse Collings on the subject, which, after certain progress had

33
been made, was superseded by another brought in by the Government, and which has now come up to your Lordships' House. Undoubtedly, an important change was made in the Bill during its progress through the House of Commons, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of that House stated that, in consequence, the Government could take no more interest in the Bill there; and, therefore, they did not take an active part in the third reading. But neither did the Colleagues of the noble Earl opposite. The proceedings closed by a Motion made by Mr. Jesse Collings for the third reading of the Bill, and that Motion was carried without any objection. In that way the Government, represented by my right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), fulfilled their obligations in the matter by saying they were not prepared to take an interest in the Bill, neither were they prepared to vote against it. Accordingly, the Bill was left in the hands of the House, and the third reading was carried without a division. It thereupon comes up here, and then the noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown), who has himself always supported the measure in the shape in which it comes here, says he will move the second reading of the Bill on a given date. He is quite entitled to make such a Motion, and I should have thought that the fact of his giving Notice would entitle him to precedence in making it.
EARL GRANVILLE: When I asked the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Iddesleigh) whether there was any precedent in the House of Commons, I meant was there any precedent in the case of a Bill coming down from the Lords to the Commons, and the Leader of a Party in the Commons of the same political opinions being requested to take charge of it, it was competent for an independent Member to slip in and try to insert his own name instead. I must own I am a little disappointed at the line which the noble Earl has taken. I have had the honour of representing my Party for a long time in this House; and I believe I should have been perfectly incapable, if the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had informed the House that, he desired to take charge of the Bill at the request of his Friends in the House of; Commons, and one of my best Friends
34
and Supporters had managed to slip in his name before that of the noble Marquess—I say I should have been incapable of not making the strongest appeal to my Friend not to take so unusual, and I must say so unprecedented, a course.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has been all throughout treating this as a question of right; but upon that question of right he is undoubtedly wrong.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do I gather from the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) that some intimation had come to me from my Friends in the House of Commons to the effect that I should take up the Bill?
EARL GRANVILLE: No; I did not say that I was only suggesting a hypothetical case.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I am mistaken. I had no idea that the noble Earl wished to take up this Bill.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I should like to say that I also had not the slightest idea that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) intended to take up the Bill, as the late Government not only did not insert any provision in their Bill such as that moved by Mr. Jesse Ceilings when it came up to this House, but opposed the Amendment moved by Mr. Davey. How could I know, in those circumstances, that the noble Earl would take up such a Bill as this? There was nothing to show that he took any interest in it. On the contrary, I had always taken an interest in it, and it has always been supported on the Conservative side of both Houses of Parliament. It was not a Party Bill in any sense of the term; and I did not see why I should not have come down in the regular manner and given Notice in accordance with the Standing Order. I did so; and I cannot see, alter I had given Notice to the Clerk of the Parliaments that I intended to move the second reading, and after the Clerk had called upon me to give my Notice—I say I cannot see how on earth the noble Earl could object to my action. I gave Notice that I would move the second reading on Thursday; and the noble Earl then stated that time was of importance, and that he intended to have

35
moved that the second reading he taken on Tuesday. I thereupon said that I should be most happy to meet his wishes, and put down the second reading fur Tuesday. He replied that that did not suit his wishes; and he gave Notice that he would put the Bill down himself for Tuesday. In any case, I contend that the noble Earl's Motion was subsequent to my own.
EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Earl's chronology seems to be defective. I said that I intended to put the Bill down on Tuesday, and I did give Notice for to-morrow.
VISCOUNT BURY: There is another point of Order which I venture to submit. One noble Lord having given Notice to make a certain Motion on a particular day, is it competent for another noble Lord to give Notice of the same Motion for an earlier day?
EARL GRANVILLE: Does the noble Viscount seriously mean to say that, after a Bill has been read a first time, any person, however hostile he may be to the Bill, can jump up and fix his own day for the second reading, a day which may be beyond that on which it would probably be token at all, and that the person who is friendly to the Bill cannot fix an earlier day? The proposition is absurd.
LORD DE ROSsaid, an appeal had been made to the Clerk of the Parliaments, who stated that the noble Earl below (the Earl of Milltown) had given Notice first; therefore he did not see why this irregular discussion should be continued.
The CLERK of the PARLIAMENTS (Sir William Rose): I received no written Notice. A verbal one was given to me by the Earl of Milltown, who told me that be wished to put down the second reading for to-morrow; and afterwards, when I told the noble Earl that there might be some difficulty about printing the Bill, he said he would put it down for Thursday.
EARL GRANVILLE: Precisely; the noble Earl put it down for Thursday, and I put mine down for Tuesday.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Whatever may be the view entertained as to the courtesy of the matter, it is certainly not in accordance with the usual practice of the House, when one noble Lord puts down a Motion for one day,
36
for another noble Lord to put down the same Motion for an earlier day, though there may be occasions when it might not be desirable to adhere too closely to the rule. As this discussion has gone on for some time without any definite result, I venture to suggest, as the only way of deciding: the question at issue, that the opinion of the House should be taken as to whether the Motion should stand in the name of the noble Earl on this side of the House, or in that of the noble Earl opposite.
LORD BRAMWELL: I distinctly heard what took place, and I can declare that my noble Friend (Earl Granville) gave a distinct Notice for Tuesday, when the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Milltown) had left his Notice for Thursday. I thought that the noble Earl's public Notice was a mark of his wish to associate himself with the Bill. That was what impressed it upon my mind. I also took particular notice of the Motion made by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, which fixed Tuesday for the second reading. That, as I take it, is how the matter stood—namely, that the noble Earl opposite gave Notice for Thursday, and the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition gave Notice for Tuesday. But apart from all this, is it not desirable, as a matter of common sense, that those who promoted the Bill, and who have conducted it to a successful termination in one House of Parliament, should select someone to take charge of it in the other House?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My recollection is quite different from that of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Bramwell). The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, after the Notice fixing the Bill for Thursday had been given, expressed a wish that the second reading should be taken on Tuesday. The noble Earl who gave Notice for Thursday agreed to alter his Motion and insert Tuesday. I think it most desirable that this irregular discussion should come to some sort of end. I will, therefore, move that the Motion of the Earl of Milltown should have precedence.
Moved, "That the Earl of Milltown have precedence."—(The Earl of Limerick.)
LORD THURLOWsaid, he understood that the question was set at rest

37
by the declaration of the Clerk of the Parliaments.
On Question.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would not trouble their Lordships to divide; but he must say that the course taken was a most unusual one, to say the least of it.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, Four o'clock.