Lords Sitting of 1 May 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Industrial Schools (Ireland)*(95); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Provisional Order*(96).
Select Committee—Burgh. Police and Health (Scotland)*(57), nominated.
Committee—Water Companies (Regulation of Powers)*(87).
Committee—Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Public Health Act) (No. 1)*(63).
Third Reading—Federal Council of Australasia*(69); Criminal Law Amendment (92), and passed.

NORTHFLEET DOCKS BILL,

  PETITION'S PRESENTED. RESOLUTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYpresented Petitions with respect to this Bill, and moved—
  "That the Examiners' Certificate of noncompliance with the Standing Orders be referred hack to the Standing Orders Committee."
  The noble Marquess said that the Bill was in this position—that it had not been before the House upon its merits, as it had been rejected by the Standing Orders Committee. These Petitions asked for leave to re-introduce the Bill. They were from Gravesend, Northfleet, and from workmen who were members of Associations in the Metropolis. There was a Rule of the House that by a certain day in January a sum of money should be deposited by the promoters of a Private Bill. The money was usually borrowed from some Insurance Company or stockbroker, and repaid the next day. In this case it was alleged that the person whose business it was to negotiate for the deposit being made was so seriously ill in January that the deposit was not paid until the middle of March. There was nothing more than that to justify the rejection of the Bill. The promoters complained that their opponents did not give them any notice of
  1268
  their opposition, but reserved their fire until they got before the Committee, and then the Bill was rejected upon a technicality. It was a Bill in which the inhabitants of the locality took a great interest, inasmuch as in the event of its being allowed to go forward employment would be found for a large number of workmen now out of work at the East End of London, for it was a matter of notoriety that thousands of people in that district, although willing to work, had no work to do, and were prolonging their existence in a state of semi-starvation. It would be extremely advantageous to them if work could be found, and if capital were allowed to be expended upon this work; and it was the wish of the Petitioners that all the obstacles raised against the expenditure of this capital should be removed. There were capitalists who were willing to expend the money. No objection was raised to the Bill by landowners or other persons in the neighbourhood, and the only objection came from the East and West India Docks, which might be called, without any disrespect, the rival shop over the way. The people who were suffering were not so much the contractors, but the thousands of workmen to whom employment would be given. It was by a technicality of the very slightest character that this Bill was not allowed to go forward. He did not wish to cast the slightest censure or blame upon his noble Friend at the Table (the Earl of Redesdale), or upon the Members of the Committee themselves; but it had been well said that all self-imposed rules should be sufficiently elastic to avoid inflicting injury out of all proportion to the irregularity they sought to arrest. Punishment was, no doubt, a very good thing; but it should be inflicted with some reference to the magnitude of the offence, and on the right person. But in this case the punishment of stopping these great works was inflicted for a very trivial breach of a technicality, and really fell not on the capitalist, but on the unfortunate men who would be employed. That was the case he had to lay before his noble Friend, and he asked him in this case to temper justice with mercy. It had happened two or three times that these Standing Orders had prevented the investment of private capital, and that at a very critical period. He did

  1269
  not in the least appear in the position of a rebel against the despotism of his noble Friend, but he appeared rather as a suppliant to his mercy; and he exhorted him not to press the technicality in this case, when there were hundreds and thousands of starving men looking with anxiety for the decision of the House.
  Moved, "That the Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders he referred back to the Standing Orders Committee."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he was sure their Lordships would feel that it was with great regret that he rose to oppose the Motion of his noble Friend. He thought the Rules of the House ought to be supported; and if they could be got rid of simply because they happened to be an inconvenience to one party to a Bill or the other, they would practically be of no use. There was one matter with regard to this Bill which he felt he must bring before their Lordships, and that was that a Bill with this very object was brought in last Session, and was dropped. The same Bill was brought in this Session, and the pro-motors failed to perform the duty of paying up the deposit money on the day fixed by the Rules of the House, and did not do so until two months after that day. The important question in this case was, Why was not the deposit paid? It was said someone was too ill; but it was clear that those parties who were acting as promoters of the Bill were not themselves actively concerned in providing the means of carrying it on. The Standing Orders Committee before which this Bill came was a strong one, and came to a unanimous conclusion against the Bill; and he believed there was, practically speaking, no instance in which the House had set aside a Standing Order in the way proposed. He thought the decision of the Committee was right; and those who were opposed to the Bill would be put to great inconvenience and expense if they were not supported, as they believed the matter had come to an end.
  LORD BALFOURwished to point out that the Standing Orders Committee came to the decision at the end of March; and if there had been a desire to appeal against it, it should have been brought on before the 1st of May. It would be
  1270
  a great injustice to the other side to reverse the decision after such a long period had elapsed.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNagreed that it was unfortunate that at a time when a great deal of distress prevailed an Order of that House should have, even indirectly, the effect of diminishing the amount of money that might be thrown into the labour market. There was, however, no guarantee that if the Order were reversed the Bill would pass and be carried into execution. The breach of the Standing Order that was committed was a very distinct breach. A deposit which ought to have been made in January was not made until March. Two months, therefore, elapsed, during which the opponents of the Bill naturally believed, that it had been dropped. It would be a considerable hardship to the opponents of the Bill if they were now to be suddenly called upon to renew their opposition.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he hoped the House would not feel itself obliged to act in strict accordance with the techicalities of the question. The Committee were, of course, compelled to adjudicate according to the strict letter of the law; but the House might take a broader view, and consider the merits of the case as well as the technicalities, particularly when a considerable amount of work could be found for those who were in want of it.
  EARL GRANVILLEobserved that six of the Peers who had for med the Committee were present, and that not one of them had shown any intention of receding from the judicial decision to which the Committee came. It was necessary that Committees of that character should, in justice to both parties, act according to the Rules laid down; but they did not consider themselves rigidly bound by technicalities, and considered judicially whether sufficient reason existed for suspending the Standing Orders or not. The noble Marquess asked the House to reverse the decision of the Standing Committee, on the ground that the scheme advocated by the promoters of the Bill would provide employment for certain persons who were now suffering from distress. He would remind the noble Marquess that if money was prevented from going in a certain direction for the employment of labour, it was almost always

  1271
  certain of so going in some other direction, and thus the same result was reached in the end. He hoped that the House would support the Standing Orders Committee in their action in this case.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the noble Earl seemed to treat with great contempt the fact that he had appealed to their Lordships on the ground that if this Bill were proceeded with work would be supplied for those who were starving. He would leave the noble Earl in full possession of that opinion. He was aware of the necessity of supporting technicalities; but, after all, they were not the Alpha and Omega of the matter. In regard to the present case, he would say that the distress which prevailed should make the House pause before determining to adhere rigidly to technicalities. It was said that the course which he advocated would be unfair to the opponents of the scheme; but it should be remembered that its opponents were, after all, only a rival Dock Company. He feared that by a rigid adherence to their rules in this case, and by stifling an enterprize which was said by the inhabitants of the locality interested to be of great importance, they would not increase the people's estimate of the action of Parliament.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYrefused to be guided in his conduct in this matter by the ex parte statements of the noble Marquess to the effect that the merits of this scheme were so very remarkable. Anything said on the merits must be an ex parte statement. If he were instructed by the opponents to say that the scheme was a very bad one, and if, therefore, he strongly urged the House to maintain its Rules, he thought that was an argument which would not be listened to by their Lordships. The fact was that the Rules had been laid down for the protection of the public; and if they were good rules, as they were ably and fairly administered by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale), they ought to be complied with.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNobserved that his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) never asked their Lordships to suspend the Standing Orders on the ground of the merits of the scheme; but simply told them that the scheme, if carried out, would give a vast amount of
  1272
  employment, and on that account alone he asked to have the certificate of noncompliance referred back to the Standing Orders Committee. He (the Earl of Milltown) trusted, under the circumstances, that the House would assent to the proposal.
  On Question? resolved in the negative.

SOUTH AFRICA—METHUEN'S IRREGULAR HORSE—MILITIA LIEUTENANTS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD HARRISasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take into consideration the advisability of distributing a few commissions amongst Militia lieutenants now serving with Methuen's Horse in South Africa? The noble Lord said, many of those officers volunteered under the idea that their absence in South Africa would not spoil their chance of getting commissions; and he hoped that the noble Earl would be able to return a satisfactory answer to the Question, and that those who were unable to pass the requisite standard equally with those who were would share in those commissions.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: In addition to the 75 commissions granted half-yearly to Militia candidates, Line commissions have been offered to all Militia candidates who have not been successful in the last and in previous competitive examinations in military subjects, but who have obtained at these examinations the number of marks required to qualify them for commissions, provided that they were under 22 years of age on January 1, 1884. These offers have, of course, been made to any qualified Militia officers who may be serving under Sir Charles Warren in South Africa. Six Militia officers serving with Sir Charles Warren are so qualified. Three of them have already received commissions in Line battalions at the Cape, and three more will shortly be
  LORD INCHIQUINurged that the War Office would do well to stretch the limit of age a little further.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he was afraid he could hold out no hope that that would be done.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that it had always been held by medical men

  1273
  that 23 was the age at which they would be most fit.

EGYPT—THE SOUDAN—THE FRIENDLY TRIBES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT BURY,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether, having regard to the announcement made in both Houses of Parliament on 21st April, to the effect that the Forces in the Soudan are to be henceforth considered available for service wherever they may be required, and that the Vote of Credit of £11,000,000 "does not include any provision for further offensive operations in the Soudan," they will give a distinct assurance that ample provision will be made for insuring the safety and rewarding the services of the Mudir of Dongola, and of others who have been in active alliance and armed co-operation with the British Forces in the Nile Valley, as well as of the friendly tribes who have joined the British standard at Suakin? said, that there had been a great many massacres in the Soudan, and a large number of people had perished uselessly there. Inquiries had often been made why they were there, and what they were going to do; and now, when the Nile Expedition was pronounced to be a useless failure and their troops were to be retired, when their Forces on the Red Sea were to be held disposable for future events and to go they knew not whither, the whole subject of this Soudan Expedition, in which they had been engaged so long, seemed likely to remain a matter of hopeless mystery, and he supposed they would never know either why they went there, or what object, if any, they had attained. On the 26th of February the noble Marquess behind him (the Marquess of Salisbury) moved a Resolution, one part of which was—
  "That the policy of abandoning the whole of the Soudan after the conclusion of military operations will be dangerous to Egypt and inconsistent with the interests of the Empire."
  That question was debated, and a statement was made in both Houses of Parliament which most distinctly declared that the policy of the Government was not to abandon the Soudan, but their object was to overthrow the Mahdi at Khartoum. In reply to a Question put in the other House by an independent
  1274
  Member, the Prime Minister very warmly disavowed the construction put upon his words, that he contemplated abandoning the Soudan as soon as the Mahdi was overthrown. Nothing had changed in the Soudan. They were still confronted by the power, be it more or less, of the Mahdi; they did not know what were his objects or what his resources; and if they were bound to attack him then in Khartoum, they were equally bound to attack him now. If they did not, it was simply because the hot fit had been succeeded by a cold fit, as it had so often been before in the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and that they had, in fact, got tired of their objectless slaughter of those brave men who had been pronounced on the highest authority to be persons "rightly struggling to be free." The strange point was that throughout the whole transaction they were told that they were not at war. They had been engaged since 1880 in military operations; but they never amounted to war. Mark Twain, in one of his books, described an interview he had with a French gentleman who was about to engage in a duel, and whom he said he found immersed in a profound French calm. But he added that a French calm differed in some material particulars from an English calm, and that it induced the French gentleman to tear his hair, to foam at the mouth, and to break up the furniture. At the time of the interview he was engaged in smashing his last chair. He could not help thinking that the phase in which they had been so long involved resembled the calm in which that French gentle-man indulged. The whole policy of Her Majesty's Government in the Soudan and in Egypt seemed to have been simply to take the minimum of responsibility with regard to their dealings in that country. No doubt there was a time, after the bombardment of Alexandria, when the fortunes of Egypt remained absolutely at the disposal of England. Three courses might have been pursued. They might have allowed the Egyptian Government to make itself feared, to hang Arabi, and to establish the old form of Government. He did not say that that would have been a right course to pursue. Then they might have assumed the government of Egypt themselves, and established a strong Government on

  1275
  lines which would have been acceptable to the English people; and the third course—a course which Her Majesty's Government adopted—was to rule under the cover of a Native Prince, to thwart and insult him at every point, to paralyze his influence, to reduce him to a mere cipher, to do as little as possible themselves, but to do that little from behind the mask of their puppet, the Khedive; to allow the finances of Egypt to go to absolute ruin, and the Government to anarchy; to proclaim at every moment their non-responsibility for what was taking place, and then, when the Egyptians showed some signs of independent action, Her Majesty's Government turned against them suddenly with savagery and anger. This third course Her Majesty's Government pursued, and the natural result of their policy was anarchy, ruin every day more profound, and paralysis at the very heart of Egypt. Her Majesty's Ministers, it was true, amused themselves in establishing some form of representative Government in Egypt; but the domestic policy which had been so successful in this country was utterly and absolutely inapplicable on Egyptian soil. In July, 1882, there came the revolt in the Soudan, and, true to their fatal policy, Her Majesty's Government disclaimed responsibility. The Egyptians took the matter into their own bands, and announced their determination of retaking the Soudan; but Her Majesty's Government advised them not to do so. Then followed General Hicks's Expedition to restore order in the Soudan. At first Hicks had some success; but from January to May, 1883, things assumed a different character. The General was shut up in Kordofan, and in November his whole Army of 11,000 men was defeated and massacred. Upon Her Majesty's Government must rest the responsibility for that Expedition and massacre. In the same year the Earl of Dufferin's Mission was sent to Egypt, and the noble Earl recommended that certain parts of the Soudan should be resigned, and that a certain part should be held. The wise counsel of the Earl of Dufferin was never followed, and matters were left simply to drift. A month after the massacre of General Hicks there came another massacre, that of Moncrieff at Tokar, and then the Government seemed to wake up from their attitude of positive neutrality to imme-
  1276
  diate action for the moment. They determined to evacuate the Soudan, and they declared that the Egyptian Ministers who would not consent to the dismemberment of their country should be dismissed. In February, 1884, yet another massacre took place—Sinkat fell. Public opinion in England was certainly stirred to its depths by that event, and the immediate result was the sending out of the first Expedition of General Graham on the 12th of February. The first Expedition of General Graham to Suakin was immediately after, and consequent upon, the massacre at Sinkat; and the last Expedition of that General was immediately after, and consequent upon, the massacre of General Gordon. Two battles were fought in February and March, 1884—Teb and Tamanieb—and thousands of brave Arabs were killed. It was magnificent on both sides; but it was not war. The result of those battles was the withdrawal of General Graham as fast as possible to his ships. After that five months of inaction took place, and during that time the Government were deciding what further steps they would take. The Prime Minister, in "another place," stated that during those five months the Government were considering what was the best way of getting up the Nile to Khartoum; and he was not ashamed to say that the time was not too long in which to come to a decision upon so momentous a point. On the 23rd of April, soon after Gordon was shut up in Khartoum, Berber was invested. That investment was denied in that House, and in the other. It was said Berber was not in danger, and that the Government were without information which tended to show that relief ought to be sent. On the 10th of June another massacre of 5,000 men ensued, and Berber fell. Then came the Vote of Credit for £300,000, that miserably inadequate Vote. They now knew that £15,000,000 was the sum that had been ruthlessly spilt in the sands of the Soudan. On the 11th of February news came that Gordon had died in defence of Khartoum; so that all the gallant blood of their soldiers was spent in vain, and their gallant opponents were slain in vain, and the Relief Expedition was so much wasted energy and courage. It would have been far better never to have gone there at all. In February General Graham

  1277
  went out once more to Suakin to establish a route from Suakin to Berber, and to co-operate with the Nile Expedition, and join hands with Wolseley, who was on his way to Khartoum. What had been the effect of all that? One objectless battle after another. The best blood of England was sent out to die at Suakin. And they were told now that the whole of that was at an end; that their troops were wanted elsewhere; that the whole of their blood and treasure had been spent in vain; and that this Expedition had ceased. At the beginning of that time there were 10 fortified places in the Soudan; and, besides Hicks Pasha's Army, there had been massacres at Sinkat, Tokar, Teb, Tamanieb, Berber, and Khartoum, Now, Kassala still remained; and he believed that the garrison of that and Sennaar were the only garrisons which still remained unmassacred. They were going to withdraw from the Soudan; but they had had allies and friends. Among them was the Mudir of Dongola. Were they going to repeat in the Soudan what they had done elsewhere? Would the Government give some assurance that means would be adopted to prevent their Allies and friendly Arabs from suffering because they had helped them? They might have had more help if the Arabs had not feared that they would desert them. They could not by scuttling out of the Soudan get rid of their responsibility to those who had been friendly to them, nor of their responsibility in Egypt. Egypt was their road to India, and from the beginning that had been recognized. If they left Egypt to its fate, it would be at the mercy of France, and Englishmen would not like to see the highways of India in the hands of any Foreign Power. They must, therefore, remain responsible for the affairs of Egypt. If they withdrew, they must do so with their responsibility on their heads. He, therefore, trusted the Government would be able to say that they had made arrangements to protect those who had been friendly to them. The Prime Minister once wrote—
  "The curtain has been slowly rising, and what a scene has it disclosed.…. We look hack over this tract of lethargy as over days of case purchased by dishonour; the prolonged fascination of an evil dream. They have not understood the rights and duties which inseparably attach to this country.…. They
  1278
  have been remiss when they ought to have been active. They have been active where they ought to have been circumspect and guarded. They have seemed to be moved too little by an intelligent appreciation of prior obligations and of the broad and deep interests of humanity, and too much by a disposition to keep out of sight what was disagreeable and might be inconvenient."
  These words were taken from the pamphlet on Bulgarian horrors. Worse horrors, and more directly connected with English rule, had been transacted in the countries of which he had been speaking within the last two or three years. He concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Marquess opposite the Leader of the Opposition, two or three days ago, asked me whether I was prepared to make any communication with regard to the Egyptian policy of the Government? He expressed a wish that such a statement should be made, and asked me whether I could fix a day for that statement. It was a request which the noble Marquess had every right to make, and it came with very great authority from him. It was with regret I said that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, such a statement would be premature, and I declined to make it. I said it was impossible for me, at that time, to make a statement with regard to Egyptian policy. The noble Viscount who has just sat down prefaced the Question of which he had given Notice by reading to us a very long essay—an essay which appeared to me to bear a very strong family likeness to a long speech which he made when the Vote of Censure was moved—a speech which I have no doubt greatly contributed to the adverse vote which fell from your Lordships on that occasion. But in the essay to which I have just alluded the noble Viscount has not stated a single ground for supposing that it would be proper or consistent in me, having declined to answer a Question put to me by such authority as that of the noble Marquess, two days afterwards to go into a statement as to a great portion of our Egyptian policy. I am quite sure the noble Viscount, on reflection, will not be surprised at my not answering the Question he has put to me.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am not surprised that the noble Earl opposite should feel stung by the

  1279
  eloquence of the speech we have heard from the noble Viscount near me. I shall not attempt to go into the lamentable history which he has so well sketched. I fully acknowledge that the noble Earl opposite is the master of the time when he will think it right, having regard to the state of public affairs, to explain the policy of the Government. I regret that there should be so much delay in the performance of that task; and I do not believe that the task will be less easy, or the result more acceptable to the people of this country, by reason of delay. The time for balancing the books must come. We must ask ourselves how much blood has been shed; how much money we have poured out on the deserts of Africa; what we have got to show for the blood of our countrymen and others that has been shed, and the money that has been thrown away; and what we have done for the reputation of England? How can we defend ourselves for the treatment of many whom we have induced to risk everything on our behalf, and whom, when the danger came, we left in the lurch? How can we defend ourselves before our countrymen for having repeated the sad story of Candahar and the Transvaal, and allowing garrison after garrison, tribe after tribe, to be defeated? My Lords, this is a terrible account which must be rendered, and the sooner it is rendered the better. At present, if the policy of the Government in Egypt is to be what it seems to be, I am afraid the opinion passed upon it will be that our friendship has been a curse to every tribe and nation, to whom it has been offered, because it has always been followed by desertion.

SOUTH AFRICA-STELLALAND.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  LORD HARRIS,in asking Her Majesty's Government, Whether they are in a position to give the House any information as to the course affairs are taking with regard to the settlement of difficulties in Stellaland? said, that he had no idea of raising a debate, as there was not sufficient information to enable him to do so; but he thought it right to move for Papers. He wished to know what progress had been made in discovering the murderers of Mr. Beth ell and Mr. Walker; secondly, whether
  1280
  Montsioa's location had been secured to him; and, thirdly, whether Sir Charles Warren's action was tending to secure the trade route in Central Africa; and, if it was, whether that course was to be considered as tending to any scheme of annexation? Gratitude was owing to Mr. Rhodes for the arrangements he had been able to effect, especially after the somewhat precipitous course of Mr. Mackenzie. He believed Mr. Rhodes had brought about a better feeling throughout Stellaland. A few weeks ago it was stated that Mr. Rhodes had suddenly left Stellaland shortly after the arrival of Sir Charles Warren. He hoped that did not indicate any divergence of opinion between Mr. Rhodes and Sir Charles Warren. He desired, lastly, to know whether the Imperial Exchequer was responsible for the sums advanced by Mr. Rhodes for the Government of Stellaland; and, if that were so, whether the Home Government would also be responsible for the debt incurred in Stellaland? He would conclude by moving for Papers.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Papers respecting the settlement of difficulties in Stellaland."—(The Lord Harris.)
  THE EARL OF DERBYquite agreed with the noble Lord that the information was not sufficient to justify him in raising a debate, and, indeed, even that in his own possession was not sufficient for that purpose. The unfortunate deficiency of Papers arose from causes over which he had no control. The cable had been broken, and no telegram had reached the Colonial Office of a later date than the 21st of March. The interruption still continued as regarded telegraphic communication; but a series of despatches up to the date of April 8 had reached him within the last two hours. They were very voluminous, and he had not had time to look into them. The noble Lord's inquiry for Papers was perfectly justifiable; but it would be more convenient if the noble Lord would withdraw his Motion. He should be ready to present the Papers before Whitsuntide, so that there would be ample time for a discussion upon them. With regard to what had passed, he could answer some of the noble Lord's Questions. He could, however, give no answer regarding the arrest and punishment of the men against whom

  1281
  charges of murder had been brought; but with respect to the securing of Montsioa's rights, he knew that was a primary object with Sir Hercules Robinson and Sir Charles Warren, and he had no doubt that whatever Montsioa could fairly claim he would obtain with their assistance. As to the trade route and the security of the line of communication, those were points of which the Government had never lost sight; and, in the new Convention with the Transvaal Government which was come to about 15 months ago, special care was taken to carry the boundary so as not to intercept the line of communication between the Cape and the independent districts North of the Cape. Sir Charles Warren had occupied Bechuanaland with a military force, and had entirely restored order. A Protectorate had been declared, including a large extent of territory to the North, and no armed opposition had been met with; but the question of what was to be done in the future for the country had not yet come before him. It was, in his view, desirable that it should be ultimately absorbed in the Cape Colony, rather than that it should be permanently maintained as a separate State. At the same time, he was not in a position to announce that any immediate annexation would take place. There were various parties to consider, and the Imperial Government could not force territory on the Cape Colony against its will. He need not point out to their Lordships the great inconvenience which would arise if they were required to station a considerable military force in that country. He trusted that before long an organized police would be sufficient for the requirements of the case. He quite agreed with the noble Lord that the affairs of Bechuanaland were a very proper subject for discussion in that House; but it was impossible to discuss them without further information than they now possessed.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONtrusted that the Papers which were promised would contain all that information which it was so desirable their Lordships should have upon the subject. It was a serious matter that the cable should be broken at this time; and he would be glad to know whether it would be repaired within a short period of time? His noble Friend (Lord Harris) had referred to another point which the
  1282
  noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had not alluded to—the difference of opinion that unfortunately was stated to exist between Sir Charles Warren and the High Commissioner at the Cape. He regretted extremely that there should be any difficulty whatever between two high officers of such character and position, who were discharging functions of so delicate, not to say critical, a nature. He hoped that the Papers would show what the differences were, and how all matters stood.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

WATER COMPANIES (REGULATION OF POWERS) BILL.— (No. 21.)
(The Earl of Camperdown.)
WATER COMPANIES (REGULATION OF POWERS) BILL.— (No. 21.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill."—[The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the Bill had been very fully considered by the Select Committee to which it had been referred, and he had to thank the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) and the other Members of the Committee for their assistance during the seven days that the Committee sat. He might shortly sketch the effect of the Bill. In future, every Water Company would be obliged to furnish to its consumers a claim or demand note, before the delivery of which it would not be able to enforce its demands. Within 21 days after this note had been delivered it would be in the power of every consumer to object to the whole or any part of the details, and he would be bound to specify what his objections were, and to state the sum he thought he ought to be charged. The amount admitted by the consumer was deemed to be the minimum, and this the consumer was liable to pay forthwith. If he failed, the Company would be entitled to serve a 14 days' notice, after which the supply might be stopped. In regard to the disputed portion of the claim the Company would have to take the case for decision by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. These provisions would apply to the ordinary supply of water, and not to water supplied under some agreement.

  1283
  A new clause had been placed in the Bill which was of great importance, and which provided that where the owner, and not the occupier, was liable by law or by agreement to the Water Company for the payment of the water rate, it should not be competent to the Company to cut off the supply on any ground whatever. On the other hand, the rate would be made a charge upon the premises, or, as an alternative, the Company might receive it from the occupier, who would be entitled to deduct it from his rent. This would provide against what was a very serious inconvenience now suffered by many poor tenants whose landlord undertook to pay the water rate, but who failed to do so. At present the unfortunate tenants suffered in such cases, and were deprived of the first necessary of life because their landlord and the Company fell out with one another. This would no longer be the case. He believed the views of the Water Companies with regard to the Bill had been very much modified during its passage through Committee, and that they were now convinced the measure was not so unjust or revolutionary as they had supposed.
  Motion agreed, to: House in Committee.
  Amendments (proposed by the Select Committee) made: The Report thereof to be received on Monday next.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—RESOLUTION.
LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN moved—
"That this House sits on Mondays at Five o'clock in lieu of a quarter past Four o'clock."
He had, he said, sat in the House for 27 years under the old system, and had a preference for the old arrangement under which the House never sat until 5 o'clock, rather than for the three years during which, besides, he had seen the present system tried. In the debate on the Motion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) the Leader of the House had said that if the House rose before 5 o'clock, noble Lords would be able to go into the country by the train. He (Lord Denman), before the change, had heard the Motion for the adjournment of the House more often than any other Peer not a Minister, so did not wish the House to rise early. In regard to Mondays, in particular,
1284
there were objections to meeting before that hour; but the Law Lords, who on other week-days had, in consequence of the Motion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown), sat earlier in the morning, since the change had agreed not to sit till half-an-hour later on Mondays. His own position was this. He had two places in the Midlands, and, whichever of them he happened to be at, he had to sleep five miles from home overnight in order to get to town in time; and he did not like to arrive only to find that the House had adjourned, which often happened.
Moved, "That this House sits on Mondays at Five o'clock, in lieu of a quarter past Four o'clock."—(The Lord Denman.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he thought that before anything further was said they ought to have some further reasons laid before them for the change. He hoped there were not many of their Lordships in a similar predicament to that of the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The reasons will be found in the Railway Time Tables.
On Question? resolved in the negative.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL

  (NO. 92.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  LORD DENMAN,who had the following Notice upon the Paper:—After Clause 12, add:—
  "No person convicted under this section shall be entitled to vote at any parliamentary or municipal election, and no lodger in his or her house shall qualify under a lodger franchise so long as he keeps the house; and this disqualification shall apply to every lodger therein,"
  said, that he could hardly hope to introduce a disfranchisement clause in this Bill; but the Act of 1869 had not sufficiently guarded against the votes of such householders as were proved to exist on the inquest upon the Burton Crescent murder.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he hoped the Government would take the opinion of the other House on this Bill, which had been passed by their Lordships on three separate occasions without being sub-

  1285
  mitted to the judgment of the other House. When a Bill containing such clauses as this contained passed their Lordships' House, it would be at least respectful to their Lordships that the opinion of the other House should be taken upon it. Some of the clauses would never have passed their House except on the demand of the Government of the day. He held the opinion, which he thought was shared by many noble Lords, that to pass a Bill like this, year after year, and not take the opinion of the other House, was reducing their Lordships' House to the position of a mere debating society, and placing it altogether in a very ridiculous position. No doubt they would be told that this was on account of the press of Business in the other House; but when their Lordships had passed a Bill once or twice, he thought they should not he asked to do it again until at least the opinion of the other House had been taken upon it. He was strongly of opinion that if the earlier clauses of the Bill stood alone they would have passed without the slightest difference of opinion; and he protested against their being kept back from what he believed to be beneficent operation because of the other clauses which were totally foreign to them, and as to which there were great differences of opinion. For himself, he wished to say that if no decision of the other House of Parliament were challenged on this Bill, and if it was presented again to this House another year, he should do his best to prevent it passing until that was done, and he knew that other noble Lords shared that view with him.
  Motion agreed to; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Select Committee on: The Lords following were named of the Committee:

E. Mar and Kellie.

L. Ker.

E. Minto.

L. Ramsay.

L. Balfour of Burley.

L. Tweeddale.

L. Sundridge.

The Committee to meet on Tuesday next at Three o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.