Lords Sitting of 29 July 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Criminal Law (Scotland) Procedure (No. 2) (178).
Committee—Merchandise Marks Law Consolidation and Amendment * (170–201).
Report—Legitimacy Declaration Act (1858) Amendment* (159–202).
Third Reading—Bankruptcy Offices (Sites) * (187); First Offenders * (197); Public Libraries Acts Amendment (No. 2) * (185), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Committee—Report—Local Government (Ireland) (Ballyshannon, &c) * (163).

NEW PEER.
Sir William George Armstrong, K.C.B., having been created Baron Armstrong, of Cragside in the county of Northumberland—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
MALTA—PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE GOVERNMENT.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  EARL DE LA WARRin rising to call attention to the Papers recently laid upon the Table of the He use relative to the proposed changes in the Government of Malta and especially to the Despatch of the Colonial Secretary; also to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for the Correspondence between the Governor of Malta and the late Director of Education; and also a Letter, dated 25th April, 1887, addressed to the Colonial Secretary by Dr. Mizzi, late Member of the Council of Government of Malta,"
  said, that their Lordships had recently been put in possession of Papers relating affairs of Malta, a subject which he had on more than one occasion brought under the notice of the He use. They did not contain all the information that might have been desired, but there was much that was of importance. Great uneasiness, great friction, and, he might add, great discontent had for a considerable time prevailed among all classes of the population of Malta with regard to the existing form of government. He believed he should be borne out in this assertion by noble Lords who had held the Office of Colonial Secretary, and the question which had been for years agitated had now come to a crisis which could not be set at rest by a simple negative. He did not in any way desire to call in question the manner in which many able and distinguished men had discharged the important duties of Governor. From his own knowledge he could bear testimony to the interest which they had taken in the welfare of the population, which had most deservedly gained for them the highest esteem and respect. But it was the form of government which was called in
  488
  question. It was briefly this—that Malta had been governed as a Crown colony, as though it were a conquered or uncivilized country, and not as being a people who voluntarily placed themselves under British protection, believing that their ancient rights and privileges would be confirmed to them as British subjects. He could not express his views more clearly than in the words of the noble Earl below him (the Earl of Onslow) who represented the Colonial Office. The noble Earl said recently in his place—
  "That, inasmuch as the island of Malta was not acquired by this country in the course of conquest, and inasmuch as the Maltese people of their own free will asked to be placed under the protection of the British Crown, this was a reason why they (the Imperial Government) should feel all the more bound to consider their reasonable and legitimate aspirations."
  He entirely agreed with the noble Earl; but He would ask, had those reasonable and legitimate aspirations been considered? It was more than 80 years since the Maltese became British subjects, yet they had been British subjects little more than in name; and now in this year of rejoicing, when the progress, the liberties, and the just rights of the people were being celebrated as the result of Her Majesty's illustrious reign, it was proposed again to place 150,000 British subjects under a military Government, with a shadow of a Constitution, and with a Council of Government of which a man of education and independence might well decline to form apart. In the despatch of the Colonial Secretary to the Governor, dated April 16, 1887, they found, as being a great concession in the direction of self-government, that a Financial Council was to be appointed, to which "will be submitted all votes of public money and all proposals for taxation and for public loans." That had long been one of the chief causes of discontent—that the elected Members of the Council of Government had not practically had control of the public money. It was true it was proposed that the eight elected Members of the Council of Government should be Members of the Financial Council, and its decisions on votes on public expenditure were to be final. But then followed a very important condition:—
  "Unless in any case the rejection of a vote involves in the Opinion of the Governor direct injury to Imperial interests or to the safety of

  489
  the inhabitants of Malta or to the public credit of the island"
  —a very wide field for the exercise of a discretionary power. And then what followed?
  "If the vote was rejected by the Financial Council the question would he referred to the Council of Government, whose decision was to be final."
  Thus the proposal, as stated in the despatch,
  "For the purpose of giving the representatives of the people a fuller and more definite control over the public expenditure and in financial matters generally,"
  commenced with a Financial Council, leaving it in the power of the Governor to refer financial questions, when, in his opinion, it was desirable to do so, to the Council of Government, where the Governor, by means of a casting vote, had an absolute veto. This was certainly a very modified form of self-government in financial matters. Then they found under Clause 16 of the despatch—
  "That the right of the unanimous opinion of the elected Members to prevail in the decision of questions of local interest in the Council of Government will be established by law."
  But here they were again met by a proviso in Clause 13 nullifying almost the supposed boon—namely, that this was—
  "Not to apply to the case of a money vote referred to the Council by the Governor after being rejected by the Financial Council."
  This was the outline of a Constitution under which, as they were told—
  "It cannot be denied that the people of Malta will enjoy a very substantial measure of self-government."
  He regretted that he could not see it in that light. It appeared to him that the substance was entirely wanting, and he should be only too happy if the noble Earl below him would point out where the substance lay. Neither could he agree with what followed:—
  "That the changes thus proposed, though they may not satisfy those who advocate an extreme measure of reform, will fully meet the wishes of all moderate men who have at heart the real interests of the island."
  He very much demurred to that statement. It might, perhaps appear presumptuous in him, not being in possession of official information, to undertake to put before their Lordships what the state of feeling with regard to this question in Malta was, but he had no hesitation in saying, upon reliable authority, that the despatch of the Colonial Secre-
  490
  tary had been received by all classes with the utmost disappointment, and that it would not be regarded as in any way satisfying the reasonable demand which was made for some real and substantial measure of self-government. He was quite aware that the Colonial Office had not a very high opinion of what was described in the despatch from Downing Street as the "political capacity" of the people of Malta; but he was much mistaken if they did not well understand what self-government meant, and that what was now offered was not a reality; but very much of the nature of a delusion. And now he desired to express in the strongest manner, on his own part, and he believed he should not be wrong if he said the same on behalf of the people of Malta, that whatever changes might be made in the representation of the people in the Council of Government, and in the management of local affairs, there was not the slightest wish to interfere with the authority of the Governor in any matters relating to Malta as a fortress and naval station, but rather to place that entirely beyond the control of the Legislative Council for Civil Affairs. The Maltese were a loyal people; they valued their connection with the British Crown, and they relied upon the sympathy of the British Parliament in urging their demand that their just rights and liberties as British subjects should be granted to them. In conclusion, the noble Earl moved for Papers and additional Correspondence since the last Papers were laid upon the Table of the House.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Correspondence between the Governor of Malta and the late Director of Education; and also a Letter, dated 25th April 1887, addressed to the Colonial Secretary by Dr. Mizzi, late Member of the Council of Government of Malta."—(The Earl de la Warr.)
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he had received a number of communications from Malta; but he doubted whether any benefit would accrue to the people of Malta by a discussion of the subject at the present time. For his own part, he should decline to criticize the despatches to which his noble Friend had alluded until the proposals of the Government had been finally settled. There were two considerations which always must prevail with Parliament in dealing with questions relating to Malta. In

  491
  the first place, there would always be a natural disposition to give effect, as far as possible, to the legitimate aspirations of the people for self-government. On the other hand, nothing must be done which in any way imperilled the position of Malta as an Imperial fortress, or the position of the Governor in charge of that fortress. The demands of the Maltese for self-government had been put forward in a moderate spirit, which gave him great hope for the future. Count Strickland had, from the first, taken a very wise, sensible, and moderate view in this matter, and he hoped that gentleman's counsels might have the result of reducing the demand of the Maltese to such a form that the Government might see their way to grant it. He, Count Strickland, had not only Maltese, but British sympathies, and whilst anxious to meet the wishes of his Maltese countrymen, would by no means be a party to anything to weaken the efficiency of British Rule. With regard to the Correspondence which had been moved for, he could not say anything about it until he knew what the view of the Government was. There had been a pamphlet published by the late Director of Education, M. Savona, and an answer to that pamphlet by the Governor, Sir L. Simmonds. He (Lord Brabourne) felt assured that the Government would deal with the question in a wise and generous spirit, and he would only say that if there were to be debates on the subject in that House it was desirable that their Lordships should have all the information and documents relating to the subject. If any further Correspondence were given by the Government, he hoped it would be of a complete character, so as to enable their Lordships to judge of the whole matter fully and justly. If representations were made by the Maltese in a moderate and wise spirit, he hoped the Government would give to them a favourable consideration.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ONSLOW)said, he did not propose to follow the noble Earl (The Earl De La Warr) into the earlier part of his speech, in which the noble Earl had dealt with the history of Malta, further than to say that he adhered entirely and unconditionally to everything he said upon a former occasion as to the desire of Her Majesty's Government to grant to Malta
  492
  such extension of representative government as could be done consistently with the safety of the fortress. The noble Earl said that the despatch to which he had alluded pointed to the consideration of the reasonable aspirations of the Maltese people, and then the noble Earl went on to ask whether those considerations had been taken into account. He thought an earnest desire had been shown in that despatch to moot the wishes of the people of Malta. He quite admitted what the noble Earl had said that the precise form of Constitution proposed by the Government had not been received with great favour in the island of Malta, and he did not wish to pledge the Government to the particular form in which the Constitution had been framed. They were desirous of affording every legitimate opportunity to the representatives of the Malteso people in the Council of Government for the conduct of their own affairs. There was one condition which Her Majesty's Government must insist upon, and that was that they must retain the power of final decision in the hands of the representative of the Queen on certain important matters. Nothing which was likely to cause injury to the Imperial interest, and nothing that was likely to injure the public credit of the island, could be left to the uncontrolled decision of the representatives of the people of Malta; but short of that, Her Majesty's Government were desirous of going as far as they could, to meet the wishes of the Maltese. There had been a large number of schemes put forward by different gentlemen, and all those schemes had been considered by Her Majesty's Government without reference to the character or antecedents of the gentlemen who put them forward. If any scheme had been connected with the names of statesmen and politicians in Malta, that scheme was considered with reference to its own merits, and its own merits alone. Her Majesty's Government thought there was in one of the schemes which had been submitted something which might be shaped to suit both the purposes of Her Majesty's Government and the desires of the people of Malta, and for that reason they proposed that there should be a separate assembly created in the Island of Malta which should have control of the finances of the colony.

  493
  That proposal, he was sorry to say, did not meet with the approval of the noble Earl and his friends. All he could say was that Her Majesty's Government put this forward some time before the elections in order to elicit the opinion of the noble Earl and his friends; but Her Majesty's Government were not wedded to this particular scheme for a financial Council. They were ready to consider any scheme which would attain the objects of the people of Malta. The elections in Malta ought to have taken place within three weeks of the dissolution of the Council, but the Government thought it advisable to issue letters patent in order to postpone them until this scheme or any further scheme should have been considered by the electors of the island. He was sure it would be a matter of satisfaction to their Lordships when he said that those in Malta who had given the greatest attention to this subject had given their approval to the course which he had indicated, and he thought there now appeared to be a disposition on the part of all those gentlemen to meet the views of Her Majesty's Government and to agree on some form of constitution which would be acceptable to all parties. At the present moment the Government were waiting for a despatch from the Governor, in which he promised to forward a scheme which had been submitted to him by friends of the noble Earl, and as soon as they received that scheme with the remarks of the Governor upon it, he hoped to be in a position to satisfy the noble Earl on this point. Meanwhile there was no objection to laying on the Table of the House the Correspondence which had taken place on the subject. He understood from the remarks of the noble Earl that he only wished for that portion of the Correspondence which dealt with the question of the new Constitution. If that was so, there could be no objection to laying it on the Table; but he would ask the noble Earl to withdraw his Motion now, in order that the Papers to be presented should be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament by Her Majesty's command, instead of in compliance with an Address of their Lordships' House alone. He hoped that before next Session the Government would be able to satisfy the noble Earl and his friends by doing that which he assured
  494
  the noble Earl they were most anxious to do—namely, to offer such a representative Government to the people of Malta as might be consistent with the safety of the island.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

WAR OFFICE—CAVALRY REMOUNTS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD RIBBLESDALE,in asking the Under Secretary of State for War whether the necessary instructions permitting the purchase of three-year-old remounts exhibited at the forthcoming Dublin Horse Show would be issued, said that the present regulations did not permit of the purchase of these horses until October 1, while the show was held on August 23. The object of the Royal Dublin Society in instituting this class of three-year-olds was to encourage farmers to breed Cavalry horses, and to bring the Government and the breeders of horses into communication. The course taken by the Royal Dublin Society would probably be followed in England. Under the circumstances, he thought the Government might make these regulations sufficiently elastic to permit the purchase of three-year-old remounts at the show five weeks earlier than the date now fixed.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS)said, that on July 19 last, by direction of His Royal Highness the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, a circular letter was addressed to the commanding officers of Cavalry Regiments at home me, as also to each inspecting general of Cavalry and to Colonel Ravenhill, R.A., the purchaser of horses for the Artillery and Engineers, calling attention to the horses show under the auspices of the Royal Dublin Society, and to the probably favourable opportunity of purchasing remounts if arrangements already made up to October 1 for the supply of horses to regiments would admit. It was not in contemplation to issue any further instructions upon this subject. With regard to the purchase of three-year-olds before the 1st of October, such a proceeding was contrary to the regulations laid down to guide officers in the purchase of remounts, and it would not be fair to give this privilege to the Royal Dublin Society's show without extending

  495
  it to such dealers as had made arrangements for supplying remounts after that date.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that the exhibition in Dublin was a very large affair indeed, and that it was desirable that encouragement should be given to the production of Cavalry remounts. The farmers in the southern counties in Ireland had entered into the business of breeding a hardy type of horses which were peculiarly fitted for military purposes, and which they supplied to the Army at a very moderate profit. It would be a very great advantage if, at the show at Dublin, the military purchasers could be brought into direct communication with the producers, because thereby the exhibition and production of these horses would be very much encouraged.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEexplained that his only object was to benefit the public service, and it was mere red tapeism not to anticipate the date when the remounts might be purchased by a few weeks.
  LORD HARRISstated that a very large proportion of the horses required for the service had been bought in Ireland for a long time under arrangements with a certain number of dealers in Ireland, by which the horses purchased were not taken over by the Government until the 1st of October. If the proposal of the noble Lord were adopted, the result would be that horses purchased by the Government would have to be kept for six weeks longer at the expense of the country. He believed, as he had said, that the requirements of the Service for the coming season had already been met by these purchases; and if the concession was granted, there was not much hope of there being any purchases.

THE MAURITIUS—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN,in rising to call attention to the Despatch upon the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the affairs of the Colony of Mauritius, and to move for Papers, said: The Despatch to which I desire to call the attention of the House has been before your Lordships for a fortnight; and I wish to say that that Despatch is in itself, in many respects, a remarkable
  496
  document. However this may be, there is no question whatever that it relates to a most exceptional, painful, and, I think I may say, almost unprecedented state of things. Under these circumstances, and considering that there are many among your Lordships who have occupied the position of Secretary of State for the Colonies, I fully thought that some one among your Lordships more capable of dealing with the question than I, would have taken it up; but as such is not the case, and it is getting late in the Session, I think it is a duty to call attention myself to the matter of this Despatch. The Despatch purports to give reasons why Sir John Pope Hennessy was reinstated in the Government of the Colony of Mauritius. The Secretary of State says in his Despatch—
  "I am now in a position to state the conclusion at which I have arrived in this painful and difficult case, and the grounds upon which I have decided, though not without considerable hesitation, that sufficient cause has not been shown to justify the removal of Sir John Pope Hennessy from the office of Governor of Mauritius."
  I may say at once that I do not wish to call in question the wisdom or unwisdom of the decision at which the Secretary of State has arrived. You have not sufficient documents before you to arrive at a decision upon that point. What I wish to point out is the entire inadequacy of this Despatch, and I wish to show your Lordships that the Despatch gave no reasons whatever why Sir John Pope Hennessy should be reinstated as Governor; but, on the other hand, it gave a great many reasons why Sir John Pope Hennessy should have been removed from his Governorship. I will point out to your Lordships a significant sentence in which the Secretary of State says that he has arrived at his decision with considerable hesitation. If this were a question of the character of an individual it would be perfectly right that the individual should receive the benefit of the doubt. But this is a question affecting the welfare of one of Her Majesty's Colonies, and I consider that if the Secretary of State only arrived at his decision "after considerable hesitation," that fact is in itself almost sufficient ground for assuming that that decision is not a wise one. I wish your Lordships to consider the exceptional character of this case. Some time ago the Secretary of State for the Colonies—

  497
  not the present Secretary of State—no doubt acting upon sufficient primâ facia evidence, considered it to be his duty to advise Her Majesty to issue a Commission empowering Sir Hercules Robinson, the Governor of the Cape, to proceed to the Mauritius to inquire into the state of affairs in that Colony, and I would also point out that by this Commission the Governor of the Cape was empowered to suspend the Governor of the Mauritius if he thought it necessary. It is impossible to find a man better qualified by his experience and position for such a difficult and complicated task than Sir Hercules Robinson. He has been engaged before in delicate work. He has been employed at the Fiji Islands, and he has also held the position of Governor of New Zealand and New South Wales, and had discharged most delicate duties as Governor of the Cape and South Africa. Wherever, therefore, it requires the exercise of the greatest judgment to enable a man to fulfil his duties with satisfaction, I wish to say that no man could be found more capable to carry out those duties. Sir Hercules Robinson proceeded with his mission to the Mauritius and found the state of affairs there so bad that it was necessary to suspend the Governor, and he did so. That is all that I or the public know about the matter. Under these circumstances considering the exceptional character of the conditions that Sir Hercules Robinson found to exist in the Mauritius, the state of things must have been exceedingly grave for him to take upon himself the very grave step of suspending the Governor of that Colony, and I maintain that if the decision to reinstate the Governor has been arrived at after considerable hesitation, that is almost sufficient to prove that it would have been better had a different decision been arrived at. What I complain of in this Despatch, is the exceedingly contradictory character of it. It says one thing in one paragraph and denies it in the next paragraph, or in another portion of the same paragraph. I will call your Lordships' attention to the fourth and fifth paragraphs. In the fourth the Secretary of State says—
  "It is now apparent that the Royal Commissioner would have done well to insist upon the regular attendance of Sir John Pope Hennessy during the examination of the witnesses, and upon his cross-examining them then and there. Much of the difficulty in deciding this case
  498
  would thus have been removed; and it appears to me that such a course would have been more fair and just to all parties concerned."
  I think that is a sufficient reason for the decision of the Secretary of State has arrived at, that Sir John Pope Hennessy ought to have been examined on the spot; but in the very next paragraph the Secretary of State said—
  "But I am bound to say that, looking to the length of time that was given to the inquiry, to the nature of much of the evidence that was brought forward, largely consisting as it did of hearsay evidence and belief; and, lastly, to the defence which has been stated by Sir John Pope Hennessy in this country, I am satisfied that no material evidence has beeen excluded."
  We have got to do justice and what is right to a very important Colony, and I maintain that if the Secretary of State says that no material evidence was excluded it does not matter whether Sir John Pope Hennessy was examined on the spot or not. But in connection with this I should like to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Royal Commisssioner, Sir Hercules Robinson, should have insisted upon the attendance of Sir John Pope Hennessy during the examination. I do not know whether Sir John Pope Hennessy was there, or never was examined. I do not know whether his evidence was insisted upon; but I should like to have the matter cleared up. In the 5th paragraph a strong point is made of the fact that Sir John Pope Hennessy was not examined on the spot. Clearly, some three months ago, there must have been some mistake made. In the 1st paragraph the Secretary of State declares that no material evidence was excluded. If you look through the Despatch, I think you will see the same contradictory character prevails throughout. I will ask your Lordships to look at the 11th paragraph. The Secretary of State there declares—
  "Thirdly, as to Mr. Cockburn Stewart's case, I concur generally in the conclusions arrived at by Sir Hercules Robinson in his Report, although I feel bound to say that the papers before me do not establish the conclusion which he formed on the spot—viz., that there are grounds for the opinion of the majority of the English officials in the Colony that, as stated by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, the Governor 'showed much malignity in his persecution of this unfortunate officer.'"
  I cannot understand how it is possible to concur generally in the decision arrived at with respect to Mr. Clifford

  499
  Lloyd, and, at the same time, to state—
  "That the papers before me do not sufficiently establish the conclusions which were formed on the spot." The two circumstances appear to me to be absolutely contradictory one of the other. Your Lordships will see the same thing in paragraphs 16 and 17. In paragraph 16 it is stated—
  "Some of those instances Sir John Pope Hennessy has explained away in his defence, and some are, I think, to be attributed more to his desire to promote men who generally supported him in the unhappy differences which undoubtedly existed in the Colony than to the special policy under consideration. Upon the whole, I am of opinion that by his want of judgment Sir John Pope Hennessy injured the cause which he had at heart, and created a not unnatural discontent and hostility, but that there is not such evidence before me of personal injustice in the distribution of patronage as would justify me in concluding that he cannot retain the office of Governor."
  I must ask your Lordships how it is possible that a gentleman receiving support in unhappy differences should at the same time as Governor not be guilty of perpetrating injustice in the distribution of patronage. Turning to the next paragraph, you will see it stated in paragraph 17—
  "Nor, upon the whole, do I think that the charge of 'persecuting' the British officials as a class in the offices which they hold, has been established; but as regards the general charge of undue interference brought against him, I cannot shut my eyes to the cases of Bishop Scarisbrick and of the stipendiary magistrates, where his interference was vexatious and unjustifiable and called down upon him the well-deserved censure of two Secretaries of State."
  It seems to me that here also a contradiction is contained in two portions of the same paragraph. It seems to me hopeless to attempt to arrive at a definite conclusion on what is stated in this paragraph. I would like to see what result is arrived at. I find this stated in the 22nd paragraph, where it is declared—
  "I do not find any overt act of misconduct, such as would render it necessary to remove the Governor from office."
  There the Secretary of State says the Governor has not been guilty of any overt act of misconduct which would render it impossible for him to continue in office. When I look through the Despatch I cannot find a single word in justification of them. I find a great deal which renders it impossible to understand how it is, from the facts mentioned in this Despatch, the Secretary of State
  500
  arrived at the conclusion which I have just read out. The only thing in favour of Sir John Pope Hennessy is that in the 23rd paragraph, in which the Secretary of State says that the charges against him in respect of the condition of the finances of the Colony and the alleged increase of crime owing to his interference have broken down. I would call your attention to some of the facts which are mentioned in the Despatch. I would ask you to look at the 8th paragraph, where the Secretary of State distinctly says, "I cannot acquit Sir John Pope Hennessy of a want of temper and jugdment." Now, if there is one thing more necessary than another for a man who has to exercise the functions of Royalty as Governor of a Colony, it is to hold the balance conscientiously and evenly in the midst of great difficulties—if there is a quality more necessary than another in such a place it is the possession of temper and of judgment, whereas the Secretary of State distinctly says that these great qualities were not possessed by Sir John Pope Hennessy. Your Lordships will find in the 15th paragraph, speaking of the new policy which had been inaugurated in the Mauritius, the Secretary of State said—
  "There was no sufficient ground for proclaiming a now departure in a manner calculated to arouse, as it undoubtedly did arouse, grave and general apprehensions among the civil officers not connected with the island by family ties that they would no longer receive fair and impartial treatment."
  That appears to be rather a serious charge to bring against a Governor that his policy was calculated to arouse grave and general apprehension among civil officers that they would no longer receive fair and impartial treatment. The next paragraph I have already read to your Lordships—the 16th paragraph—in which it states that Sir John Pope Hennessy had promoted men into office because they supported him in his policy and had supported him in the unhappy differences which existed in the Colony. The 17th paragraph I have also read to your Lordships in which it is stated that the interference of the Stipendiary Magistrate was vexatious and unjustifiable. I will only allude to one other paragraph and that is No. 21, and I will ask your Lordships to pay attention to this paragraph, because there the Secretary of State, summing up the whole matter, says—

  501
  "The conclusion in respect of these charges, at which I have arrived, after studying the evidence of which the general character is well described by Sir Hercules Robinson in the 95th and 97th paragraphs of his Report, is that the Governor, in carrying out his policy, which was highly approved of by part of the inhabitants, but viewed with suspicion by another part, including the English and official element, identified himself too much with the party that supported his view, and became a partisan rather than an impartial Governor holding the balance evenly between all parties."
  It is impossible to make a graver charge than that against the Governor of a Colony, that he became a partizan and did not hold the balance evenly between all parties. The Governor, in taking the official oath, said—
  "I … do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria in the office of … and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this colony without fear or favour, affection, or ill-will."
  I maintain, therefore, that if the Secretary of State is correct in bringing these charges against the Governor of being a partizan and not holding the balance evenly between all parties, that the Governor is unfit to retain office. But these are the reasons given for not depriving the Governor of his position and for re-instating him in his office, and I must say that more extraordinary reasons than these I cannot conceive. The Secretary of State said that these things had created a great want of confidence in the government of the Mauritius and materially affected the peace and good government of the Colony. The Governor who should be impartial had become a partizan and his conduct in other respects materially affected the peace and good government of the Colony, and these were the reasons which are stated to justify his going back and being reinstated as Governor of the Mauritius. I can only say that they appear to me to be most extraordinary reasons—even so extraordinary that I am almost forced to believe that this Despatch must have been practically laid upon the Table of the House by mistake. It appears to me as if it was in the nature of a Memorandum giving all the reasons that could be found why Sir John Pope Hennessy should not be sent back to the Mauritius, and that the reason why he was sent back to the Mauritius was that some mistake was made, and the wrong
  502
  opinion has been prepared and given to Parliament. I have nothing to say against the decision. It may be perfectly right. All I can say is that if we have nothing but this Despatch to go on I do not agree in the wisdom or the justice of the decision which the Secretary of State has arrived at. I am bound to say that it is a sort of verdict of "Not Guilty; but do not do it again, because the Despatch gives a sort of advice to Sir John Pope Hennessy that he should go back again, but he must not do these things again or they would not be looked over. The Colonial Office admitted that they had not sufficient primâ facie evidence before them. They had no evidence to show that Sir Hercules Robinson had been mistaken, or to show that they wore just in reinstating Sir John Pope Hennessy without giving any reason at all. But what I object to is the reinstating of him in such a grave state of things for the reasons which are mentioned in the Despatch to which I have ventured to call your Lordships' attention. It must be patent to your Lordships that there is nothing but this Despatch before the country. The reasons which it gives—the dangerous and erroneous reasons—are sure to raise in men's minds very erroneous impressions. Without any prejudice to Sir John Pope Hennessy, I may fairly say that the political views of the Colonial Governor and his antecedents altogether tend themselves to such erroneous impressions. I can imagine nothing more disastrous than that the public should suppose that in a case of this kind affecting the welfare of a colony, that any consideration of Party polities or political convenience at home could possibly influence the Government. If there is no evidence before us but what is contained in this Despatch, they reinstated Sir John Pope Hennessy for political convenience and Party considerations. Under those circumstances, I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will give us some more information on this subject. The Papers which I wish for are the Report of Sir Hercules Robinson, the evidence and the statement that Sir John Pope Hennessy has made over here, and I trust sincerely that those Papers will be laid on the Table of the House, and I hope they are Papers that may throw light upon the subject, and enable us to understand the real reason which induced

  503
  the Government to restore the Governorship in so extraordinary a manner.
  Moved, "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty for Papers relating to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the affairs of the Colony of Mauritius."—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he feared that he might lay himself open to the accusation of vanity; but he could not refrain from saying that he believed the only part of this transaction which was not open to some criticism was that part in which, he had been concerned. He thought that the selection of Mr. Clifford Lloyd for an important post in the Mauritius was unfortunate. Mr. Lloyd was undoubtedly a most able and energetic man, whoso claims upon the Government for an appointment were very strong. But in the conscientious discharge of his duties in Ireland Mr. Lloyd came into accentuated conflict with the Roman Catholics in that country, and afterwards, in Egypt, he came into conflict with the French. The appointment of Mr. Lloyd to a high office in the Mauritius, where the majority of the White inhabitants were Roman Catholics, was therefore, as he had said, unfortunate. When in Office he had received a Memorial upon this subject, suggesting that there should be an inquiry; and he had replied that he must hear the answer of Sir Hercules Robinson before deciding whether an inquiry ought to take place or not. The same view, however, was not taken by his Successor, and an inquiry was ordered. There was no man in whom he would repose more confidence than in Sir Hercules Robinson, an able and experienced man, and one of the best of our Governors. But he was not sure that it was judicious to select one Governor to conduct an inquiry into the practices of an official of equal rank, especially as Sir Hercules Robinson was overwhelmed with work. When the Report of Sir Hercules Robinson reached this country there were four courses open to the Government. The first was to endorse the decision of Sir Hercules Robinson; and the second to reject it. A third course was to decide that Sir John Pope Hennessy had done nothing to justify his suspension; but that there was such irritation and excitement among the different parties that it was undesirable that the Governor should return,
  504
  and that another equal or higher post should be found for him. The fourth and worse course was that which had been followed—namely, to send this Governor back, and, at the same time, to publish a Despatch which was certainly most damaging in character. It was not a transaction carried out with the usual judgment of the Secretary of State.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYrose in opposition to the speech and the Motion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven), on the ground that it was against the welfare of the Colony. Some time ago, before this matter had been decided, he had road a despatch of Sir John Pope Hennessey's, printed in a Calcutta newspaper, which threw some light upon the subject. After reading it, he had gone to one of the Under Secretaries at the Colonial Office, and had mentioned some facts which he had been aware of many years ago, and which it would not be for the public interest for him to mention; and on those grounds he had entreated his friend in the Colonial Office to support Sir John Pope Hennessey. He had no personal interest in Sir John Pope Hennessey, and had never seen him. He thought that a good deal of the noble Earl's speech was literary criticism, and that he had been hypercritical. The noble Earl had said that Sir Hercules Robinson was an official of great importance, and the Secretary of State, or whoever drafted the despatch, had to consult the feelings of Sir Hercules Robinson as well as those of Sir John Pope Hennessey.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that their Lordships were not in a position to form an opinion upon the merits of the case, because they had not the necessary Papers before them. He had known Sir John Pope Hennessy for many years, and believed him to be a man of great ability and energy. He knew that there had been complaints in other Colonies against Sir John Pope Hennessy; but they had boon complaints based upon his alleged great partiality for the Native populations. Those complaints, at any rate, pointed to a fault on the right side, if any fault there were. As to the particular case now before the House, he held that there were two parties who had a right to complain. The one was Sir John Pope Hennessy himself, and the other the Colony of Mauritius. He could

  505
  conceive no greater misfortune for a Colony than, that the reinstatement of a Governor against whom grave charges had been brought should be accompanied by the publication of a document which would increase the dissatisfaction which was already felt, and could not fail to grievously increase the difficulties of his government. It was preposterous to state, as was stated in one paragraph of this Despatch, that Sir John Pope Hennessy had done things "a repetition of which would necessitate his removal from the Governorship," to brand him with having "acted as a partizan," and with other faults, and to parade all this before the public in Great Britain and in Mauritius in the very Despatch which reinstated him in his position as Governor. If the Secretary of State had come to the conclusion that Sir John Pope Hennessy ought to be reinstated, the proper course would have been to address any remarks which he had to make by way of caution to Sir John Pope Hennessy privately. He felt nothing but grief and diappointment that such a despatch should have come from the Secretary of State. The fact was that the Colonial Secretary, being a man of amiable character, tried to please everybody, and, as usual in such eases, bad satisfied nobody. He tried to propitiate the accusers of the Governor and to satisfy Sir Hercules Robinson, and in this attempt he had published a Despatch which he (Lord Brabourne) would in one sentence describe as one which injured Sir John Pope Hennessy, which greatly injured the Colony of Mauritius, and which set a lamentable precedent of the treatment which a Colonial Governor might receive at the hands of the Secretary of the Colonies.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ONSLOW),said, that he was not surprised, considering the interest shown by the public, that the question had been raised. The case was a very peculiar one, for which there was no precedent. The Secretary of State was called upon to pronounce an opinion in a quasi-judicial capacity on a case which had been in part only heard in Mauritius, where the Commissioner had not heard the case of the Lieutenant Governor, the principal official who had brought charges against the Governor, nor the defence of the Governor himself. He
  506
  felt some difficulty in explaining to the House the exact reasons which led the Secretary of State to come to this conclusion, because he had not had the advantage which had been enjoyed by the Secretary of State of hearing Sir John Pope Hennessy in his own defence for seven days. There had been occasions on which Colonial Governors had been recalled on the sole responsibility of the Secretary of State. But this was the first time that an inquiry had been held partly by Commission and partly by the Secretary of State. The point was then this. Certain distinct, specific and grave charges were formally made against Sir John Pope Hennessy by five elected Members of the Council of Government, the most serious of which were what were described as overt acts—namely, (1) mal administration of the finances of the Colony; (2) that his philanthropic ideas had relaxed prison discipline and caused a large increase of crime. These charges were not proved against him by the Commission, nor established to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State. If the Commission had reported, or the Secretary of State had considered that these charges were substantiated, it would have been his duty to advise Her Majesty to remove Sir John Pope Hennessy. The Royal Commission was appointed, and Sir Hercules Robinson, who had had an experience of more than 30 years as a Colonial Governor, consented to add to his already onerous duties of High Commissioner in South Africa, Governor of the Capo of Good Hope and of British Bechuanaland, the duties of Her Majesty's Commissioner to inquire into the affairs of Mauritius. He desired to express the satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government and their gratitude to Sir Hercules Robinson for his consent to undertake this important service, as the question at issue involved personal considerations of a grave and complicated character, with which he was peculiarly well qualified to deal; while his great administrative experience and tried ability could not fail to secure the fullest confidence in the important task which thus devolved upon him. He would also acknowledge the obligation under which the Government lay to Mr. Round, who accepted a temporary appointment of secretary to the Commission at considerable personal inconvenience. The task was a painful and dis-

  507
  agreeable one, and was performed with the greatest impartiality; and in the conclusions arrived at, with the exception of one or two very minor points, the Secretary of State substantially agreed. The noble Earl had contended that, while concurring in the Report, the Secretary of State did not carry out its recommendations. In the second paragraph of his Despatch the Secretary of State expressed his entire agreement in the exercise, by Sir Hercules Robinson, of the authority vested in him at the course best calculated to secure peace and order in the Colony. The Secretary of State then telegraphed to Sir John Pope Hennessy to come to England at once, to give explanations with reference to Sir Hercules Robinson's Report. The object of that was partly that the Secretary of State considered it undesirable that a suspended Governor should remain in the Colony, and partly to hear his verbal defence, which lasted seven days. It might be said that in an inquiry of this kind, partaking as it did of an almost judicial character, the Secretary of State was not justified in acting without legal advice. The Secretary of State influenced by this consideration, had called to his assistance the Solicitor General for Scotland, who arrived at the same conclusion as the Secretary of State, without consultation—namely, that on the evidence the charges were not proved. His noble Friend had objected to the expression that this decision had not been arrived at without "considerable hesitation." It was an important decision, and, considering how voluminous the evidence was and now conflicting it was one which no one ought to have arrived at without "considerable hesitation." The evidence was by no means of the overwhelming character which the noble Lord attributed to it. Of the 80 witnesses, 36 were in favour of the Governor and 36 were against him, while eight were neutral. The noble Earl then attacked the Despatch, which he tore into pieces, and quoted a number of paragraphs which he said would have justified the removal of Sir John Pope Hennessy; but he did not read other passages which justified the decision actually arrived at. The view of the Secretary of State fully agreed with that of the noble Lord (Lord Brabourne). Upon the two serious
  508
  charges the Secretary of State completely acquitted Sir John Pope Hennessy. The charges of maladministration, and the alleged increase of crime, in consequence of the remission of sentences, had entirely broken down. There were no fewer than 662 remissions; but of these cases 601 had been previously recommended for remission. Then the Secretary of State, in Paragraph 17, maintained that the charge of persecuting British officers was not established. Now, having disposed of the serious allegations, what did the others amount to? They amounted to—first, want of temper and judgment; secondly, a neglect to call upon Mr. Ferguson for an explanation before writing to the Secretary of State to censure him; thirdly, ostentatious proclamation of a policy which he had a perfect right to pursue; fourthly, unjustifiable interference with the functions of the Bishop and the stipendiary—this was most serious, and, if repeated, would involve the Governor's recall; and, fifthly, that the Governor identified himself too closely with the party which supported his view. Were these causes sufficient to justify the rare course of advising Her Majesty to recall Sir John Pope Hennessy? In his opinion they were not. The noble Earl said that Sir John Pope Hennessy had been guilty of previous misconduct. That might be true; but decisions of former Secretaries of State should have no more weight than previous convictions against criminals on trial, and the present Secretary of State was not called upon to inquire into anything which occurred previous to Sir John Pope Hennessy's appointment to the Governorship of Mauritius. Then it had been said that there were some political considerations at home which had influenced the Secretary of State. He desired emphatically to deny the correctness of that statement, and to assert that the Secretary of State was not swayed in any way by such political considerations. The mere fact that several Secretaries of State had promoted Sir John Pope Hennessy showed that they did not think him incapable of governing. The noble Earl in his Motion asked that the Government should lay on the Table some further Papers in connection with this matter. There were, however, grave reasons why this should not be done. In the first

  509
  place, there was no imputation whatever cast upon the conduct or the decision of Sir Hercules Robinson. The Secretary of State had completely and entirely exonerated him, and he was glad to hear the remarks which had fallen from every noble Lord who had spoken in this debate as to Sir Hercules Robinson's impartiality and integrity. Were this Otherwise it would be only fair to Sir Hercules, to lay the Papers on the Table. The Papers on this subject were extremely voluminous. If the Government gave the Report of Sir Hercules Robinson it would be necessary also to lay before Parliament all the evidence which was taken before the Commissioner arrived at his conclusions. There was much of that evidence which was very irrelevant; and it would then be necessary that the further explanations to be given upon that evidence should also be laid before Parliament. Again, it would be necessary to lay before Parliament the whole of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's defence, with the charges brought by him against the Governor and the Governor's countercharges against him. Moreover, it would be necessary to lay upon the Table all the minutes of the long seven days which the Secretary of State gave to the vivâ voce hearing of the defence of Sir John Pope Hennessy. The Government hoped in sending Sir John Pope Hennessy back to the Mauritius to restore in some measure peace and good government to the colony, but that would be impossible if this flood of charge and counter-charge, recrimination and retort, was to be let loose in the colony to greet the Governor on his return. Therefore he thought their Lordships would agree with him that it was not advisable to lay all the Papers on the Table. It was impossible to exercise the usual discretion of a Secretary of State to remove a Governor after charges had been made and an inquiry ordered to prove or disprove them. The charges, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, were disproved, and two alternatives alone remained—either to remove Sir John Pope Hennessy to another colony or to let him return to the Mauritius. Governorships such as that of the Mauritius did not fall vacant every day, and Sir John Pope Hennessy might have had to wait a long time. The Government believed that the course which had been adopted was the best. Sir John Pope Hennessy had received
  510
  a warning which no man could disregard. He had been warned of the absolute necessity of maintaining a strict impartiality; of giving a careful consideration to the claims and interests of all persons, whether opposed to his policy or advocating it; of working cordially with those who held office under him, and of subordinating his own personal views, religious or political, to the general good of the Colony. He trusted that Sir John Pope Hennessy would bear carefully in mind those recommendations; but he could not conceal from their Lordships that should he fail to justify the decision of the Secretary of State, and to sustain his own contention that he could and would govern impartially and without bias towards race and creed, a grave question would arise as to whether it would not be expedient, in the interests of the Colony, without the necessity for further inquiry, to substitute some other Governor for Sir John Pope Hennessy. He trusted that no such necessity would ever arise, and that the undoubted energy, ability, and the varied experience of Sir John Pope Hennessy might yet continue to render good and useful service to Her Majesty and to Her Colonial Empire.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he deeply regretted to find that Her Majesty's Government were not going to lay additional Papers on the subject before Parliament.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he did not share in the noble Earl's regret. It appeared to him that the position of Sir John Pope Hennessy on returning to the Mauritius would, in the circumstances, be an extremely difficult one. And if the additional Papers corroborated the passages to which attention had been called in this Despatch, they would increase his difficulty in properly fulfilling his duties in the Colony. There was a phrase which spoke of "damning with faint praise," and any case of damnation with fainter praise than was afforded by this Despatch he thought their Lordships would find it very difficult to discover. Her Majesty's Government had determined to send Sir John Pope Hennessy back with a Despatch hanging round his neck, which placed his conduct before the inhabitants of the Colony in a light which could not be considered otherwise than unfavourable.

  511
  This discussion was a very painful one, and he did not see how further Papers would improve matters. Those which had already been laid on the Table were sufficiently condemnatory, and further Papers would only increase the difficulty.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, it was to be regretted that the evidence taken at the inquiry was taken in English, as very few people in the Island were able to speak or understand English properly. If, as had been stated, Sir John Hennessy's policy was—
  "The Mauritius for the Mauritians, those who were most opposed to him would probably be found among the English-speaking part of the population, while his friends and defenders were practically prevented from giving evidence in his favour."
  It was also much to be regretted that Sir Hercules Robinson had taken the extreme step of suspending the Governor, without waiting to hear his defence, on what was ex parte evidence given in his absence. In conclusion, he called attention to the words of the majority of the unofficial Members of the Council, which there was every reason to believe expressed the views of the great mass of the people of Mauritius—
  "Whatever may have been said to the contrary by a minority actuated by divers motives which it is useless to explain here, our Governor Sir John Pope Hennessy has done much for the good of the Colony during the three past years of his administration; by his kind, just and liberal policy he has gained the sympathy of the vast majority of the inhabitants of this Island, and he has done more than any of our previous Governors to endear to the Mauritians the ties which unite this Colony to the Empire."
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.

ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALAasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government would take any steps towards mediating between the Government of Italy and King John of Abyssinia, in order to prevent, if possible, the loss of life and the misery which a war between Italy and Abyssinia would entail, and also to enable Her Majesty's Government to fulfil the 1st Article of the Treaty with King John of Abyssinia, which guaranteed for him a free transit through Massowah? The noble and gallant Lord said, he was induced to ask the Question by a grateful remembrance of the assistance afforded by King John and the Abyssinian people to the British
  512
  troops in Abyssinia. It was not his desire to enter on the question of the occupation of Massowah by the Italian troops. Although Massowah was really a part of Abyssinia, and ought, by right, to he restored to King John; yet, unfortunately, in the present state of his country, he could not held it against any country possessed of a Fleet. He (Lord Napier, of Magdala) confessed that he viewed with satisfaction the occupation of the African Coast by a highly honourable and enlightened nation such as the Italians, and hoped that close intercourse with Abyssinia would lead to much social improvement of that country. King John had done much to create law and order in Abyssinia. He ruled over a wild and unruly people, including- many feudal Chiefs of considerable power, and therefore had had to exercise some severity. They must not forget that it was not very long since their own Penal Code was very severe; but King John had done much for the improvement of Abyssinia, and for promoting commerce; and it would be a subject of great regret if war should throw back all that progress. The origin of the quarrel was not generally known; but it was supposed that the Italians had advanced on the neutral ground which had been previously maintained between Abyssinia and Massowah. Probably the Commanders on both sides had gone beyond the wishes of their Rulers. It was much to be regretted that Abyssinia did not appeal for the mediation of England before blood had been shed. If they could possibly mediate between the two countries, it would be a benefit to humanity. The Italians were a military nation with a highly disciplined army, and perfect weapons of offence, and there could be no doubt that they must ultimately prevail; but the Abyssinians also were a brave race of hunters, and good marksmen; their country was very difficult. If the advance through the long dangerous passes would he difficult with an enemy thoroughly acquainted with the country, able to travel long distances rapidly, and requiring little commissariat, a retreat might be disastrous, as the passes were liable to sudden floods which came with little warning, and swept away everything in their path. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would endeavour to mediate between the two countries. It would be a great benefit to humanity.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I am not at all surprised, at the interest which the noble and gallant Lord feels in this matter, for, in his case, Abyssinia is connected with the recollection of very brilliant military operations. There is no man who is more entitled to take an interest in that country, and there is no man whose opinions and warnings should be received with greater attention, or should have greater weight attached to them. I quite concur in the view he takes of the relations of this country to the King of Abyssinia. He has been a good friend to us, and we have no cause of complaint against him, but rather we have cause to set value on the friendship he has shown. On the other hand, our friendship with the Italians is of long date—it dates from the origin of their Kingdom—and has, as far as I know, never suffered a cloud, and there has never been a period at which it has been more cordial, I believe, on both sides than it is now. We naturally should look with extreme sorrow on any event that would involve either of the Powers named in a sanguinary war; but I will not permit myself to speculate on the probabilities of such an event, or on the causes that may lead to it. The Italians know perfectly well that if it should over fall within our power in any way to assure the chances of peace, or to give to them any assistance we can legitimately offer, it will be an opportunity that we shall very gladly and heartily welcome. But the offer of mediation, as the noble and gallant Lord knows well, is not an offer which it is open to any Power to make unless the Power making it is certain that the friendly Power to whom it is made will receive it with satisfaction. Therefore, if we have taken no stops the noble and gallant Lord must not infer that we view what is going on with apathy or indifference. He must not infer that we are lukewarm in the cause of peace, or that there is any falling off in the friendship we have always felt for Italy, and also, as the noble and gallant Lord says, for Abyssinia. I will only earnestly hope that the calamities which the noble and gallant Lord anticipates may not happen, and I can assure him that in this, as in every other instance, the most earnest
  514
  efforts of Her Majesty's Government on all opportunities which may legitimately offer themselves will be used in the cause of peace.

  CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND) PROCEDURE (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 178.)
  (The Marquess of Lothian.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN),in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was intended to simplify the proceedings in criminal prosecutions in Scotland. It was proposed to make alterations in various ways, two or three of which he would mention. First, it was proposed to dispense with the present form of indictment, which set forth the offence charged in the most elaborate form. In old days, when the principles of the Criminal Law were developing, these indictments might have had their use; but there was no reason why they should not now be made more intelligible. Another principal point was with respect to the system of trial of prisoners which had been found beneficial in Sheriff Courts in Scotland, and which it was now proposed to extend to all Courts of Justiciary in Scotland. Under the system referred to there were two "Diets" or sittings of the Court, the first of which was called the "Pleading Diet," when the accused person was called upon to plead to the charge made against him. The result was that when a prisoner pleaded guilty the Sheriff decides upon the case at once, and thus all the expense and trouble of the second "Diet," with the attendance of witnesses, were saved, and all necessity for summoning a jury was avoided. A further object of the Bill was to carry out the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and enable the whole of the 13 Judges in Scotland to sit in criminal cases. The Bill provided that a certain amount of increased salary should be given to those Judges whose duties were increased. The Bill made a further alteration in Scottish law with regard to proof of previous convictions. Under the present system no previous conviction could be tendered against an accused person unless it was for the same offence as the charge then being investigated.

  515
  The result was that a criminal who merely changed the nature of his offence could not have previous convictions brought against him. The Bill had been received with universal favour by the various legal bodies in Scotland.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL.—(No. 175.)
  (The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Duke of BUCKINGHAM and CHANDOS)asked the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill to postpone its consideration till Monday, when the evidence on the subject would have been delivered and be in the hands of noble Lords.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLacceded to the request of the noble Duke, and hoped he would use his influence as Chairman of Committees to insure the distribution of the Papers.
  Committee of the Whole House put off to Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.