Lords Sitting of 12 March 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Coroners * (36); Quarter Sessions * (37); Electric Lighting Act (1882) Amendment (No. 2) * (38); Land Charges Registration and Searches * (40).
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Liability of Trustees * (24).
Committee—Report—Pluralities Acts Amendment Acts, 1885, Amendment * (26).
Report—Pharmacy Acts Amendment * (34–39).

SCIENCE AND ART (METROPOLIS)—CHARTER FOR A TEACHING UNIVERSITY.—QUESTION.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that in the absence of his noble Friend (Earl Granville) he desired to ask the Lord President of the Council, Whether he has made up his mind as to the manner in which he would deal with the application for a charter for a Teaching University in London and other like applications for charters; and whether he has come to a conclusion as to a Royal Commission on the subject?
THE LORD PRESIDENT (Viscount CRANBROOK), in reply, said, that he had come to the determination to recommend the issue of a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject, which was one dealing with a large number of interests. He thought the Commission need not be a large one, and then they would get through the work more speedily, and perhaps in time to report this Session.

AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRESS.—RESOLUTION.
EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to move—
"That, in the opinion of this House, considering the depressed condition of agricultural and other industries in this country, and the consequent distress among the working classes, it is incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government to take into their serious consideration what measures can be adopted to avert the grave consequences which must otherwise ensue,"
said, that the country had long been waiting patiently in the hope that there might be some favourable change in the prospects of agriculture and other industries of the country. There had, indeed, been glimpses of improvement, and of a brighter day; but they had
818
faded almost as soon as they appeared, and though there might be a prospect of well-doing for some industries in the country, the prospects of agriculture at the present time were no better than they had been for some years past. Having quoted the testimony of the Prime Minister at Derby recently as to the depressed condition of agriculture, the noble Earl observed that it was far from his wish to say or do anything which might embarrass Her Majesty's Government; but it seemed to him that on a question of such vital importance to the country some intimation ought to be given of what the intentions of Her Majesty's Government were, especially after the words of Her Majesty's Speech. It might be useless to refer to statistics, as they were well known to most of their Lordships; but he might observe that it had been stated on trustworthy authority that the loss sustained by the owners and occupiers of land during the last 10 years amounted to £600,000,000. Sir James Caird gave evidence before the Agricultural Commission not very long ago to the effect that the average loss to growers of wheat alone in the last few years was £17,000,000 annually. In many places there were 40 or 50 per cent of the landowners not able to live in their houses, and it was further found, according to calculations believed to be as nearly as possible correct, that there were 900,000 of the working population who could not without the greatest difficulty find any employment. The wages in the agricultural districts were getting lower, and there was every prospect of their continuing to do so. We were further informed on trustworthy authority that there were 1,000,000 acres of corn-bearing land which had been either thrown out of cultivation or turned into pasture in England and Scotland, and over 1,000,000 in Ireland, and that 200,000 persons had been in consequence thrown out of employment. The result was a great migration into London and other large towns of persons who there found themselves in a worse condition of distress and destitution. He thought these facts justified him in bringing this question under their Lordships' notice. He did not wish to exaggerate in the least; his only object was that the attention of their Lordships and of Her Majesty's

819
Government should be drawn to the subject. The condition of agriculture was the matter with which he was best acquainted, but the remarks which applied to agriculture applied in a great measure, though, perhaps, not quite as much, to other industries of great importance to this country. What he wanted to bring under their Lordships' notice was that if those industries were failing the consequence must be that a large number of the working population must be thrown out of employment, and brought in many places to a state of great destitution. The question of the depression in the country was one which concerned not only landlords, but manufacturers, capitalists, and all other persons who had anything to do with the great industries of the country, and it was certain that the labouring population, who were already beginning to feel most acutely, would in time feel this distress more almost than any other class. It was impossible to walk through the streets of London without noticing the large number of shops filled with foreign goods. Foreign goods were taking the place in the most prominent manner of English goods. The silk industry was almost at an end. The last sugar manufactory in London was closed only a short time ago, and in the manufacture of hats, gloves, lace, and other such articles the French were driving English goods out of the market. German goods could, also, be seen everywhere. The iron industry had been supplanted by Belgian and German goods, and our swords and bayonets were made abroad, while thousands of Sheffield men were standing idle. While all this went on it must act severely on the labour market of this country, and therefore the question of foreign competition concerned the working classes of this country more, perhaps, than any other question. A man who is dependent upon labour for his very existence now finds foreign workmen doing in another country the work he ought to be doing here. This was no longer a time for theorizing on questions of political economy. Facts were daily brought home to the people of this country which compelled them to turn their attention seriously to the question of their failing industries, and to consider whether some protection ought not to be given to those en-
820
gaged in home industries. It was said that the question of protection of British industries against foreign competition was not within the range of practical politics. He was quite aware of the difficulties which surrounded the question, but he would remind their Lordships that the competition of the present day was quite different from what it was 40 years ago, in the day of Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Cobden. In their day steam and railways were almost in their infancy, but this country was brought into close contact both by land and sea with almost all the countries of the world. This competition was altogether unforeseen by Mr. Cobden, as might be gathered from his own words namely, "I do not anticipate that wheat will be reduced below 45 s. per quarter, even by Free Trade." Surely there was reason why some change on our part should be made. There might be other reasons besides those he had mentioned which had in some measure added to the great depression from which this country suffered, such as the currency question and the vast amount of capital which went abroad to be invested in manufacture, in railways, and also in agriculture. It was calculated that an income of £100,000,000 was produced out of British capital by foreign labour. In The Financier newspaper of the 25th of February there appeared a report of a meeting of the shareholders of the Northern Railway of Canada relative to the fusion of the great Canadian railways, and at which a letter was read from Mr. W. H. Smith, M.P., the largest shareholder of the Company, expressing himself in favour of the scheme. He mentioned this as an instance of what was taking place with regard to foreign investments of English capital, which might probably be added as one of the causes of the present industrial distress. In conclusion, he would add that, even if changes in local government and local taxation were made, he believed they would be found inadequate to afford relief to the working classes or to revive failing industries. The question which for some time past had almost paralyzed the energies of the country could only be solved, as it seemed to him, by adapting our own existing fiscal system to the changed circumstances of the time, and to the altered conditions of the commer-

821
cial relations of different countries of the world.
Moved to resolve,
"That, in the opinion of this House, considering the depressed condition of agricultural and other industries in this country and the consequent distress among the working classes, it is incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government to take into their serious consideration what measures can be adopted to avert the grave consequences which must otherwise ensue."—(The Earl De La Warr.)
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, he would confine himself to that branch of the subject with which he was connected—namely, the condition of agriculture. There could be no doubt as to the existence of agricultural distress; it was almost unparalleled. It had now passed beyond depression. Landlords, tenants, and labourers were all alike suffering. He had within the last few days seen villages in Hunts, Northants, and Cambridgeshire denuded of a mass of young labourers emigrating to Queensland. Why was this? Because neither owners nor tenants could find work for them. Many more would go, but their ago prevented them. Tenants spoke helplessly of their condition, and many were quite bankrupt. Their Lordships were quite aware how the crisis had affected landlords, so that he need not enlarge upon that; but the opinion was evidently held by some of the leaders of the people that the landlords alone were to blame for having exacted high rents, and that any remedial legislation would benefit the oligarchical class of landlords. He would mention one case known to him personally to show the hardships that had fallen on landlords. A gentleman succeeded to an estate 20 years ago. It was heavily burdened with charges and jointures, and the buildings and cottages on it were in a ruinous condition. He paid off half the mortgages, and spent the whole of the income from the estate in repairing the buildings, draining the land, and in other improvements. Up to 1874 things went well, but since then rents had fallen, and the rental was now 50 per cent lower than it was when he succeeded. The consequence was that he was now getting no income whatever out of the estate, although he paid off £30,000 of debt and spent over £40,000 in improvements. The fall in the values of agricultural produce ap-
822
peared to be the reason of the distress. He did not intend to enter into the great social question, and a great social question it was, whether this denudation of capital from the land in these Islands, the breakdown of the agricultural system, and the emigration of the rural population should be arrested or not. He proposed to confine himself entirely to the commercial question, and the point regarding the value of agricultural produce in so far as these Islands were affected by it. Thinking it would be interesting to learn the condition of those countries which competed with Great Britain in the agricultural market, he lately made a tour in India, Australia. New Zealand, Canada, and America, He found everywhere that the universal complaint was—no profit at present prices. As regarded India, there was no doubt the fall in the value of silver had been one of the chief causes—one, he said, because the extension of irrigation works and the bringing of more land into regular cultivation had been the means—of increasing the large exportation of wheat from that country. He should not enter into the silver question, because that subject was being fully inquired into before a Royal Commission; but he might say this—while the rupee went as far, or was taken at its original value, in India, and the merchant bought the wheat in the bazaars with it under the silver standard, he sold it in Europe, receiving payment under the gold standard. The difference in the rate of exchange enabled the merchant to give more money to the grower of corn in India, which, though a very good thing for him perhaps, acted as a bounty against the producer in England and other parts of the world. But even at Delhi and other wheat-growing centres of the North-West he found the fall in values was seriously affecting the position of the farmers, and complaint was universal. In Australia and New Zealand the opinion was unanimous that, with the price of wheat at 30 s. per quarter in England, they could not send it to us at a profit to themselves. In the great wheat-growing districts of the North-West of America and Canada he found rather different conditions existing. He was there just before the commencement of last year's harvest and the appearance of the crops was very good, but these crops could not be

823
relied on; many farmers told him that if they reaped the present crop without its being frosted it would be the first for four years that they had harvested and had not afterwards found half of it, sometimes two-thirds, spoilt by frost. He believed they got it all in good condition last year, but even then, deducting all costs and transport, it did not pay them to grow at 30 s. per quarter. Their Lordships might wonder why, then, they sent it, and continued to grow it. They were obliged to send it at whatever price they could get. The settler in the North-West loaded his waggon with corn and went to the nearest railway station, delivered it over to the elevator; the agent gave current price for it, and back the settler wandered for miles over the prairie with his money in his pocket; he could not pick and choose his market—he was obliged to take what he could get. Some deleterious action had resulted from the operation or management of many of the Mortgage Companies in America and the North-West. Men took blocks of land, borrowed money on them from the Companies on mortgage, farmed as long as they were solvent, then left and throw their lands upon the Companies' hands. These men had nothing to lose but a great deal to gain. Without capital of their own, they traded in the speculation with money advanced at high rates of interest, feeling no personal responsibility if they failed. The effect and the result of this inflated system had been disastrous. He had touched on these points to explain the position of corn and meat producers in other countries, and the result of his conclusions was that low prices were affecting them as much as they were affecting us. If the agriculturist were treated equally with other traders, he could grow cereals and meat in this country to yield him a profit at present prices as well as he could if he were in any other country in the world. He named the present prices of agricultural produce, because he did not think that we could look for any rise in their value. We could not hope for any diminution of supply, and there was no likelihood of prices rising materially. Foreign countries had the commodities and must find mouths to consume them. Low rates charged on large cargoes for long distances had equalized prices, and the earth's increase would come more
824
and more abundantly to us. Corn was being delivered in Liverpool from America at the freight rate of 6d. per quarter, while from Liverpool to most of the consuming centres of England the rate was about 3s. per quarter, The ridiculously low rate at which flour was being delivered in this country precluded all but the largest millers, with a long-established connection, from making any profit by milling, and the flour mills were being closed in all directions. On all sides our farmers said that they could not make both ends meet, that corn crops did not pay them, and that the breeding of stock had become unprofitable. He thought that most farmers omitted the valuation of their straw from their calculations, and did not take into consideration the produce of their farm as a whole. There could, however, be no doubt that the pinch was tremendous, and that the depression was great. Was any remedy to be found, one which would so revive agriculture as to give increased employment to the labouring classes? He did not think that Protection would be a remedy. If one industry were protected others must be protected alto. Some day, perhaps, the necessities of other traders of the country might require duties to be placed on foreign manufactured goods, and, if that day should come, agriculturists would be able to demand, with fairness, that duties should be levied on manufactured produce, such as flour and cheese. But, however hard it was on the one side to see the quartern loaf sold for 4d., to know that the English farmer could not grow the corn to pay him at that price, and on the other side to see hundreds starving from want of employment and unable to buy the quartern loaf, he did not believe in Protection. Agriculture was suffering almost as much from being unequally treated by the State as from low prices. Speaking on September 1, 1887, the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) said that the State might relieve the farmers of some part of the burden of taxation at present imposed upon them. That was the direction in which agriculturists ought to look for relief. The farmer was over-taxed, and not placed, as he ought to be, on the same footing with other traders. The present system of assessment for rateable purposes ought to be changed in accordance with the recommendation of the Select

825
Committee of 1870, and with several Resolutions agreed to in "another place." Other measures which would aid in bringing about an improved state of things were the abolition of preferential railway rates and the establishment of middle class or secondary schools for the teaching of agriculture and dairy farming. He ventured to press these points upon the Government, and cordially supported the Resolution of the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT TORRINGTON: Those who look with a light heart upon the present position of the country or who ignore the pressing difficulties of the industrial classes appear to be blind to two most remarkable features of comparatively recent growth in our national life. On the one hand, there is a prevailing demand among a section of philanthropists—who would improve the condition of the working classes—for national funds to export our unemployed people—a plan known under the name of "State-aided Emigration;" and, on the other hand, we find an increasing exodus of capital, transferred from this country to protected States, to enable our manufacturers to retain their old customers. The fact is notorious that many of our old-established manufacturers are being compelled to establish branches, if not to transfer all their works, to other countries, instead of employing home labour as in the past. These changed conditions of national life must—as Cardinal Manning truly said the other day in his letter to Mr. Wyndham—be faced; and the question for your Lordships, and indeed all the country, to consider is what we have to look to in order to replace the continually contracting markets for our labour. For it must not be lost sight of that, side by side with contracting markets in foreign States for British goods, the home market for the general industries of the country, other than agriculture, is also contracted to an oven greater degree. Before the late Royal Commission the annual decrease in the purchase power of the agricultural community was set down by Sir James Caird at £42,000,000. There is every reason to believe that since then the deficit of two years ago has been enormously aggravated. But consider only what it means for the working classes of the country to be deprived of original
826
customers to the extent of £42,000,000 a-year, these in their turn destroying the earnings, and therefore the purchase power, of hundreds of thousands of others. It seems to me that in these bare facts will be found the primary causes of the scarcity of continuous employment, and that if we are to seek for remedies we must recognize the causes. We, therefore, have to discover fresh markets abroad, and, if it be in our power, to restore vitality to our industrial markets at home. Have we, then, the means within our grasp to accomplish these ends? Few, I think, will deny that an undoubted element of political weakness exists on our reliance to so large an extent upon external food supplies. And it is a grave question whether the low prices of food stuffs of recent years have not been dearly bought at the cost of such weakness. And yet is it not possible that in this element of weakness lie the germs of national safety and renewed vitality to our industrial centres, if we would but turn it to advantage as any private trader would do in his own business? I say boldly that it is in our gigantic food custom alone may be found the solution of the great industrial problem of today. Are all your Lordships aware of the extent of that custom which we now fritter away without thought? Of our total food consumption of—in round numbers—£450,000,000 per annum, we import some £150,000,000. The greater portion of this enormous custom is absolutely withdrawn from our home producers, who, in their turn, would have spent every penny on other labour products, and is to-day given instead to at least to one foreign State, whose return trade in commodities is no more than 7s. in the pound for each sovereign's worth we buy of her—namehy, the United States. But use that enormous lever with wisdom, treat it as a bargaining power—the greatest any nation over possessed—and what great probabilities are before us. Divert, if we can, that national custom to our own land, and to the land of our Possessions scattered over the face of the world—and what must be the result? For such portion as is diverted homeward we have the assurance of the continual turnover and re-turnover of such earnings, and from our own Possessions we have the guarantee of experience that,

827
in spite of their Customs Duties, they take from us of our labour commodities in nearly full exchange of what we buy. Such diversion, indeed, cannot take place without creating an absolute preference in our markets for the products of our Empire, as against those of foreign States. It involved the full reconsideration of our fiscal system. It involved ceasing to give foreign products a preference in our market-places, by freeing them from the taxation which we all have to bear as producers, directly or indirectly. It meant looking to the home market for increased demand, and to our Possessions for such external supplies as our population needs. We shall be told, perhaps, that already the long-promised revival is at hand, and that the Board of Trade Returns show increased vitality. This latter is, of course, a fact, and yet not one on which we ought to rely too greatly. Such Returns are contrasted with two terribly bad years, and, so far as they go, only give evidence of an increased demand from abroad, where the purchase power, after depression, has already recovered. What new vitality is apparent does not, unhappily, arise out of an improved demand from home custom; and until that last feature comes into operation, it were idle to believe in, or to hope for, a return of prosperity.
LORD DENMANsaid, it could hardly be expected that the Government would give an opinion as to "Protection," since there was so strong an antipathy to it; and as the two leading statesmen of the day promised that some duty on corn should be continued, it might be feared that tie Ministry might equally forfeit any pledge that they might give. The great constituency of Sheffield had shown that they wished for Protection all round. He (Lord Denman) showed a cigar case, for which he had given only 1s. 6d.; a silversmith repaired it and charged 1s. 6d. He (Lord Denman) said it had cost that sum. The tradesman said it had cost and was worth much more. On inquiry of the vendor, he found that it had cost that small sum; and he left it with the silversmith, and intended to send him a new one, but, being foreign, no more were to be had, but the contents of it—tobacco—were taxed at least 15 per cent; and if this were better than "Sheffield silver"
828
it ought to handicapped. One noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss) had said he would never tax the food of the people; but if 1s. were taken in taxes, that would buy bread, and thus the food of the people was taxed. In 1814 no wheat could be imported until the price had risen to 80 s. a-quarter. Mr. Baring tried in vain to reduce it to 75 s. A fixed duty was advocated by Sir James Graham in his Corn and Currency; as Free Trade, it admitted corn when cheap abroad, and a sliding scale only admitted it when corn was dear both at home and abroad. Corn might be in bond, but it would have had to pay warehouse room until, from the high price of corn, it could be admitted at a low duty. The father of the late Lord Denman, to whose training he was indebted for his eminence, saw the riots in 1814, and observed that it was a delusion to state that a tax on corn would starve the people, because, if sudden war or foreign famines occurred the people would then be starved. Land had gone out of cultivation in Suffolk and Hertfordshire. A living in Suffolk of £800 a-year had been reduced to £100. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had been reported to have bought land near Bal-dock for £ 10 an acre; and while Hertfordshire white wheat might make as good flour as Austrian, it sold at very much less than Austrian flour. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had lately headed a deputation praying that iron rails might pay market dues. The First Lord of the Treasury said that but for the railways these rails could never have reached the market; but the giving up dues reminded him of two Macaulays, who had two white uncles Tom (himself and Lord Macaulay); one lost his alpenstick in the sea; the other said—"If it will do you any good I will throw mine in after it;" but the offer was declined. When the Paper Duties had been abolished, Lord Brougham, at a Social Science Dinner, speaking of Members of the House of Lords, said they were "not only alive, but kicking." Mr. Huskisson had said—
"That mutual prohibitions were mutual nuisances; but, as between us and Prussia—applicable to all nations—we ought to have mutual facilities."
He (Lord Denman) would wish half the duty levied on all English produce abroad placed on imports. When

829
the Paper Duties were abolished, the late Duke of Rutland would not press the House to a Division, lest the result of it should be to throw the finances of the country into disorder; but we thus sacrificed £500,000 a-year, which was willingly paid by the purchasers of newspapers.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): This debate has taken a somewhat discursive turn, and I hope I shall not be guilty of extreme brevity if I do not add many minutes to a discussion which has already lasted a considerable time. But I confess that, though the discussion concerns a matter on which we all feel as deeply as on any political question, it does not appear to me to be of a practical character, or likely to lead to any practical result. There is no doubt about the distress, and it is not necessary to prove it, as my noble Friend behind me did. We are all aware of it, and we are only too sensible that it exists. There is probably no public body of men in the Kingdom who are more sensible of the existence of agricultural depression than this Assembly. Nor is there any necessity to prove to us the great calamities which that depression has led to. But before we make it the subject of debate we must establish, in our own minds at all events, that there is some measure which it is within the reach of Parliament to adopt which will materially limit or mitigate the evils which we all deplore. There is great depression in a neighbouring country in the great wine-growing industry; but it would be of no use for them to discuss that depression, or bring it up as a matter of complaint against the Government, because it is dependent upon well-known natural causes which no Government or Parliament can remove. I fear that the depression in England, though not dependent upon such simple causes, is dependent equally upon great natural and economical causes, and the power of Parliaments or Governments to cope with it is very limited. Because I say this I shall not be supposed either to ignore its deep gravity, or wish to depreciate its extent. I am bound, however, to say that I cannot concur with one phrase which my noble Friend who introduced the subject brought forward, when he spoke of starving populations.
830
We know, of course, that there is always a certain amount of misery in the country; but my noble Friend could hardly have listened the other night to the interesting speech of my noble Friend (Lord Balfour), who showed from the Poor Law Returns that the country is not, with respect to its most numerous class, in a most miserable condition. If I remember the figures, there is a smaller proportion of pauperism at this moment by nearly a half than there was some 20 years ago. It is impossible, therefore, to speak as though we were in the presence of a calamity deeply affecting the vast masses of the country. On the contrary, speaking of the poorest and most numerous class, in spite of all the calamities we have to face, I think we may congratulate ourselves that it has hit them more lightly than the less numerous classes. When we came to the remedy my noble Friends who have spoken were neither concordant nor very clear. Two of my noble Friends spoke for Protection. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Huntly) disclaimed any sympathy with these doctrines; but he seemed to indicate that some relief might be obtained from measures of a more limited character which it is in the power of the Government to adopt. Well, we have admitted that to a certain extent in the language of the Queen's Speech—we have admitted that there are measures which we can and ought to adopt. I am afraid it will be impossible for me to give a preliminary account of them, and I must ask my noble Friend to wait until the President of the Local Government Board and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have had an opportunity of addressing the other House upon the subject. But I fully admit that to all measures of that smaller and more limited kind it is the bounden duty of the Government to address itself, and to take every opportunity which that restricted field offers of mitigating the depression in the agricultural industry which exists. But my noble Friends are the first to say that it is not in that quarter that anything like a dissipation of the calamity can be looked for. It is a question which is too large, it rests upon bases too broad, it issues from natural laws too imperious, and there remains only one remedy—that which the noble Lord opposite disclaimed, but which my noble Friends behind me

831
(Earl De La Warr and Viscount Torrington) adopted—the remedy of Protection. I have simply to say with respect to the question of Protection that this country has adopted the opposite system after a controversy unexampled in its length, in its earnestness, and in the decision with which the ultimate issue was arrived at. If we are to undertake the re-examination of that question it must not be done incidentally, by insinuation, by allusion, by hints. You must firmly walk up to the fortress that you have to attack and lay siege to it in form. If my noble Friend wishes really to challenge the doctrine of Free Trade, and wishes really this country to retrace its steps, he must bring forward a definite Motion for the purpose of letting us hear the arguments on which he rests his case, and letting us discuss them formally and with a deliberation and care suited to the gravity of the subject. When he does so I shall be quite pre-pared to lay before him, and at length, the arguments which utterly prevent me from agreeing with any such proposition. In my belief, the economical arguments in favour of Free Trade are very strong; but they are not the strongest with which we have to deal. If he will look back upon the debates of 1846 and read the speech of Sir Robert Peel when introducing his great proposal, he will see that the political argument weighed more heavily than even the economical argument in his mind; and I believe that the political argument has lost none of its force. I utterly disbelieve that it is in your power to introduce Protection. If it were, I think it would be introducing a state of division among the classes of this country which, would differ very little from civil war. For such reasons, which on such an occasion as I am foreshadowing I should try to develop at greater length and support with stronger proofs—for reasons of that kind I cannot to any extent accept the remedy which, I am sure, quite sincerely and with an earnest desire for the good of this country, my noble Friend has laid before this House. It is a remedy which I am convinced Parliament will never accede to. If, then, you cannot have a return to Protection, we must look to the ordinary working of the economic laws, to the return to more healthy conditions which in the past have always followed periods of depres-
832
sion, and which we may hope will follow this period of depression again. We must trust also to the combined working of the industry and enterprize of the nation, which has lost in no degree those qualities which have led to its high position, its power, and wealth; we must look to those causes, and we may look to them confidently, to dissipate the calamities to which the noble Earl has referred and which we all deplore.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

METROPOLIS (STREET IMPROVEMENTS)—HYDE PARK CORNER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL FORTESCUE, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, When it is intended to commence the work of adorning the space between Constitution Hill and Hyde Park Corner, of which expectations were held out some time ago; also, whether there was any hope of the roadway being somewhat widened between the south end of Hamilton Place and Gloucester House, so as to diminish the constant block of the traffic in that part of Piccadilly and of Hamilton Place during the months of May, June, and July? said, that the undeniably valuable improvements at Hyde Park Corner were sadly marred by want of taste, and ignorance of the traffic requirements of the place. It would be within the recollection of their Lordships that a number of trees that had stood in the Green Park were thrown outside of it by the work of improving the access to Belgravia. Among those trees there had been a particularly graceful group nearly opposite Apsley House, and these trees had been suddenly and surreptitiously cut down and carted away one day before breakfast. Not only had the appearance of the spot been impaired by this act of Vandalism, but the numerous foot passengers were also deprived of most welcome shade. He could only suppose that Mr. Shaw Lefevre was emulous of his Chief in cutting down trees as well as in attacking institutions and legislating to authorize the breaking of contracts. Then, much inconvenience with regard to communications had resulted from the way in which these improvements had been carried out. The traffic along Hamilton

  833
  Place was peculiar. Practically, the whole of it from the North was to the South and West, and vice versâ any traffic for the East would certainly continue its course down the lower part of Park Lane. No provision was, therefore, necessary for traffic in Hamilton Place that had to go in any direction except South to Belgravia and West to Kensington; and, obviously, the convenient and natural course would have been to insure the continuance of the East and West traffic along Piccadilly uninterrupted, and provide for two lines of traffic up and down to and from Hamilton Place on the north side of Piccadilly from about Northampton House. He had been confirmed in this view by one of the policemen that regulated the traffic at the corner of Hamilton Place with so much good temper and tact, who told him that he and his mates had often talked the matter over, and agreed that that was the right remedy for the frequent obstruction there, as the traffic disentangled itself when it reached a wide Place. As at present arranged, the traffic from Hamilton Place had to come down a slope of wood pavement and cross traffic coming down a corresponding slope in Piccadilly. It was wonderful that more accidents did not happen; as it was, the constant blocking in the summer was notorious. If that part of Piccadilly east of Hamilton Place had been widened 18 feet, great inconvenience would have been saved. He had ventured, before the costly permanent railing was fixed, to make that suggestion to the authorities, and the answer he had got had been that the roadway had been opened so short a time that it was impossible to judge the result. That, in his opinion, was eminently characteristic of that sort of combination of habitual parsimony, with occasional spasms of extravagance, but never real economy, which characterized Mr. Gladstone's administration. The work of fixing the substantial railings was to go on, while experience was to say whether it was in its right place. Every carriage going down Hamilton Place to Knightsbridge had to cross one line of traffic and get to the other side, in order to make its way to Knightsbridge. He hoped that there was still a prospect of something being done.
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, that the question which his noble Friend had
  834
  brought forward afforded another proof of the great mismanagement of the public works of the Metropolis by the Office of Works. It was nearly three years since the open space called Wellington Square was cleared, and it had been left in a most disgraceful state. The Office of Public Works seemed to have no system of management whatever. The only public works which had been creditably carried out were those which had been executed by the Metropolitan Board of Works. Without that body none of our new streets or embankments would have been made. He saw it stated the other day that the condition of Battersea Park was a disgrace to a civilized country, that there were two feet of filth in the water, and that no care had been bestowed upon it by the Office of Works. But now it had been made over to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and he hoped it would be looked after.
  THE EARL OF POWISobserved that it would be very desirable to throw back for three or four yards in width the fence of the Green Park, as from the end of Park Lane to the end of Hamilton Place the road was very much narrower than between Hamilton Place and Hyde Park Corner.
  LORD MAGHERAMORNE (CHAIRMAN of the METROPOLITAN BOARD of WORKS)said, that as to the condition of Battersea Park, he did not wish to say anything disagreeable against another public department, but so far as the state of that Park had been brought under his cognizance it was not at all satisfactory. However, now that the Park was in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works, they would endeavour, as soon as possible, to put it into a proper condition.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he did not think their Lordships would expect him to follow the noble Lord into the state of Battersea Park or the business of the Office of Works. He would confine himself to the Question put by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches. The adornment of Hyde Park Corner or Wellington Square was undertaken two or three years ago by a Committee presided over by the illustrious Prince his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and the funds were provided by private subscription, to which were added £6,000 granted by Parliament. The Committee

  835
  had agreed to a scheme, the main feature of which was that an equestrian statue of the great Duke of Wellington should be erected opposite Apsley House The statue was being executed by Mr. Boehm, R.A., and it was hoped that it would be placed in its position next autumn. The Committee intended to spend any available balance of the fund in improving the surrounding spaces. This balance would not be so great as to allow very elaborate treatment, but his noble Friend would be glad to hear that it was the intention of the Committee to plant some trees around those spaces. He could not undertake to apologize for the cutting down of the large trees which had been referred to, or say anything about them, because his right hon. Friend now at the head of the Department had, he believed, nothing to do with the matter. The intention of the Committee was that the three plots of ground should be laid down with asphalte pavement, and that there should be an ornamental granite pedestal or platform on which the statue would be placed. It was hoped the whole of the improvement would be completed before the 1st of November next. With regard to the other Question, he would refer the noble Earl to the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, because it was not a matter with which the Office of Works had anything to do. He admitted the importance of the question of the traffic, but as far as the Office of Works was concerned, they thought it was entirely for the Metropolitan Board of Works to deal with it, and they did not propose to take any steps in the matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—STANDING ORDERS.—RESOLUTION.
LORD STRATHEDEN and CAMPBELL: My Lords, the experience of last Monday has led me to think that it is not desirable to bring on a further Standing Order at an hour when many noble Lords have left the House who are competent to offer an opinion on it. I will, therefore, with your permission, postpone the Notice, but so as to bring it on before the 19th of March, when we are to have the general debate to which these questions are subordinate.
LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSSsaid, he must protest against the course the noble Lord had pursued in this matter. The noble Lord had already postponed
836
the same Motion on two previous occasions, and now proposed to do so again. He had had considerable experience in the matter of the Private Business of the House, having served many years on the Committee of Selection, and he had come down to the House every night when this proposal had appeared on the Paper, and he thought it was rather hard on noble Lords who took an interest in the subject that it should be postponed night after night.
LORD STRATHEDEN and CAMPBELL: If it is the wish of the House, or Her Majesty's Government, I am as well prepared to explain the further Standing Order now as I shall be at any other moment. It is unnecessary to repeat, except for those who were not here a week ago, that I have only ventured to approach the Standing Orders in view of and in reference to the larger changes by which the House of Lords is threatened. Since I spoke on Monday last, in "another place" 162 Members, including a great part of the late Government, have voted for a Resolution which, if carried out, would exclude from this Assembly every one in it beyond the Right Reverend Bench, those who sit on the Appellate Court, and those who have been made Peers for their extraordinary services. It is, therefore, clearly time to put an end to all unnecessary blemishes. The case I have now to bring before the House is irresistible, and I at once proceed to it in detail. In the absence of a compulsory system, the material we have is not adequate to make up Committees on Private Bills of five in number. I am forced to touch on what occurred to me in order to put that proposition beyond question. When the present Government was formed, after the General Election, I happened to remain in London during August, and was asked to servo on a Private Bill Committee. Having consented, I repaired, on the stated day and at the stated hour, to the House to find it thoroughly deserted. With much difficulty I ascertained from an official who seemed to be the only one upon the premises, that the Committee had broken down, because the number could not be completed. There is no reason to think it ever was completed. The same thing may always happen at that period. It could not be arranged, however, to have three in

837
August and five during the remainder of the Session. The noble Duke the Chairman of Committees (the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos) must, I think, go with me upon this part of the subject. But I contend that three would be a superior tribunal as compared with five, having observed the latter much in both Houses of Parliament. It would be superior from the necessity of greater vigilance and more sustained attention which arises. On that point, however, men may differ, and I will not dwell, although much might be said, upon it. A Committee of three is far more attractive than one of five to those who sit upon it. There is less ennui and fatigue in proportion as more devolves on every individual. According to the late Sir Robert Peel, a Committee is a state of "intramural interment." But it is redeemed in some degree by the necessity of working in it. Setting aside the waste of men in supernumerary Members, there are not wanting noble Lords who would avoid a Committee of five if they could do so, and would be prepared to serve on one of three were it proposed to them. The facility of organizing Private Bill Committees would be thus increased not only because, arithmetically speaking, three is grasped more easily than five, but because a greater number is disposed to join the less than the more numerous tribunal. But there is something more essential. So long as five are requisite, there must be verbal application, as there is now in the House, to noble Lords upon the Benches; either from the Chairman of Committees, or those who manage the Divisions. The inconvenience of that system cannot be exaggerated. I have been witness day by day to the embarrassment it leads to. It is a constant struggle of importunity on one side and evasion on the other. Noble Lords are unable to engage themselves quite suddenly for a given day, and that without a certain limit, while they are unwilling to refuse the faintest service to the public. But there is a graver consequence to be ascribed to it. It is the powerful encouragement to non-attendance it occasions. When an Assembly of 500 habitually numbers about 50, sometimes being above that limit, but not unfrequently beneath it, there must be a cause for the phenomenon. The cause is quite sufficiently revealed if no Peer is able to attend the House
838
without solicitation such as I have mentioned. It is a system framed to multiply the absent as well as harass those who may appear. I recommend this Standing Order, therefore, first as calculated to improve Committees; next, as rendering it much easier to grasp them; and, last, because it takes away, if not the source of non-attendance, at least by far too good a vindication of it. That three would be a proper number is an opinion I have formed by much discussion with an experienced and well-known Chairman of Private Bill Committees in the other House of Parliament. I engage Her Majesty's Government not to oppose this proposition; or if they do, at least not to reason as they did last Monday against one thing, when I have reasoned in favour of another. I appeal also to the noble Lords who concur with me as to the vicious practice of making up Committees in the House, and making them of an unnecessary size, to express themselves this evening. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Standing Order.
Moved, as a now Standing Order,
"That Private Bill Committees shall consist of three Members, and that all applications to Lords to serve upon them shall be addressed in writing to their residences."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSSsaid, that he had been a Member of the Committee of Selection for about 35 years, and believed that the present system of having five Members on Private Bill Committees had worked well. He thought that five Members were quite few enough, and hoped that their Lordships would refuse to alter the number. The noble Lord who brought this proposal forward had, he was informed, never served upon a Select Committee.
LORD STRATHEDEN and CAMPBELLsaid, the noble Lord had been wholly misinformed.
LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSSsaid, that last year the noble Lord very nearly served upon a Select Committee. He thought the suggested number of three was open to many disadvantages, one of which was that if one Member of the Committee was a weak man he would always side with the Chairman, who would be omnipotent. As regards the second part of the noble Lord's Motion, what he suggested was the

839
course which was at present adopted by the Committee of Selection.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Duke of BUCKINGHAM and CHANDOS)said, he had expected that the noble Lord in bringing forward this Motion would have stated some facts to show that the Committees under the present system had failed to discharge their duties satisfactorily; but he had not done so. The number of five Members had now been established for a series of years, during which the decisions of the Committees of that House had been received with respect and satisfaction, and he saw no reason for any change. While occupying the position of Chairman of Committees he had found no difficulty in getting a sufficient number of Peers to constitute the required Committees. There had only been one instance where a Committee could not be got together, and that was at the end of the second Session of 1886, when it had been understood that no Private Bills would be proceeded with. As to the suggestion of the noble Lord, that applications to serve on Select Committees should only be made by letter, and that personal applications prevented Peers coming down to the House, he had to state that, in reply to written applications he often received answers saying that the matter had better be settled in conversation when the noble Lord addressed next visited the House. It would be highly inconvenient to settle these matters entirely by correspondence; for it was often impossible to constitute the Committee until the probable length that a Bill would take was settled, as otherwise it might not suit the noble Lord selected, and until its character was inquired into. For a noble Lord might, owing to the Bill being connected with his district, or for other reasons, be quite unsuitable. Under these circumstances, it was found most convenient to continue the present practice. Written applications would, however, continue to be sent out. He hoped the House would not accept the proposal to alter the Standing Order.
LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Colville of Culross) that three was a very bad number for a Committee which had to decide upon evidence and not merely on points of law, like the Court of Appeal, where
840
it is convenient for the Judges to be able to impart their views to each as the case goes on. He had had occasional experience of Committees accidentally reduced to three, and he had always found exactly the state of things indicated by Lord Colville of Culross—namely, the weakest Member of the Committee in a very short time obviously became a mere cypher to the Chairman. Even with the still larger but worse number of four, which the House of Commons had been led to adopt in 1865, the same thing happened; and as the Chairman has a easting vote, there the result was the Chairman with his cypher was able to overbear the possibly, if not probably, greater amount of sense possessed by the other two Members. That number was adopted by the House of Commons on statements that a sufficient number of Members could not be got for Committees of five. But after the Session a Parliamentary agent amused himself by calculating what number of the Members of the House of Commons had performed the whole Committee work of the Session, and he found that the number was no more than one-fifth of the House, the remaining four-fifths having impressed the Committee of Selection that they were so overburdened with work that they could not possibly serve. He mentioned this as a warning to their Lordships not to be tempted into making any reduction in the number for a Committee which he was sure from very long experience was the best.
LORD STRATHEDEN and CAMPBELL: My Lords, I wish to make a statement in answer to the personal reflection of the noble Earl who taunted me for wishing to postpone the Notice. The three Standing Orders I proposed were all put down for the 5th of March, the day previous to the intended Resolution of Lord Dunraven. The first of them came on, but it was too late to discuss the others. They stood for Thursday the 8th; a large amount of preliminary Business rendered it impossible to move them. They were adjourned until to-day, when I was quite ready to go on with them. There is no ground for any accusation. I shall not make a long reply to arguments adduced against the number of three for Private Bill Committees. I never doubted that Committees of five were able and efficient,

841
but only pointed to the inconveniences they bring upon your Lordships. As Her Majesty's Government have given no opinion to counteract that of the noble Duke the Chairman, I will not divide the House. If the Standing Order was adopted, it would be a gain. If it is not adopted, that circumstance will strengthen the reformers of the House with whom I am far from wholly disagreeing.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—STANDING ORDERS.—RESOLUTION.
  CORONERS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Coroners Act, 1887—Was presented by The Lord Chancellor; read 1a. (No. 36.)
  QUARTER SESSIONS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for amending the law with respect to the times of holding quarter sessions; and for other purposes connected therewith—Was presented by The Lord Chancellor; read 1a. (No. 37.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT (1882) AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Electric Lighting Act, 1882—Was presented by The Lord Wigan (Earl of Crawford); read 1a. (No. 38.)

  LAND CHARGES REGISTRATION AND SEARCHES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for registering certain charges on land, and for facilitating searches for them in the central office—Was presented by The Lord Hobhouse; read 1a. (No. 40.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.