Lords Sitting of 9 July 1889

COMMISSION.
The following Bill received the Royal Assent:—Coal Duties (London) Abolition.
HERRING FISHERY SCOTLAND BILL (No. 149).
Reported from the Standing Committee on General Bills, with an Amendment; the Report thereof received; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
OFFENCES COMMITTED ABROAD BILL (No. 149.)
A Bill to amend the law respecting the trial of offences committed by British subjects abroad, and the custody of persons committing offences on the high seas:
BILLS OF SALE BILL (No. 150).
A Bill to exempt certain letters of hypothecation from the operation of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882:—Were presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next.
CANADA (ONTARIO BOUNDARY) BILL.
A Bill to declare the boundaries of the Province of Ontario, in the Dominion of Canada—Was presented by the Lord Knutsford; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 151.)
COURT OF SESSION AND BILL CHAMBER (SCOTLAND) CLERKS BILL (No. 152).
  TRUST FUNDS INVESTMENT BILL. (No. 153).
  Brought from the Commons; read a; and to be printed.
  REGISTRATION OF COUNTY ELECTORS (EXTENSION OF TIME)BILL. (No. 107.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 119.)
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL. (No.I41.)
  Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

  INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS BILL. (No. 34.)
  Commons Amendment considered (according to order.)
  THE EARL OF MEATH, in moving "That this House do agree with the Commons Amendment," said that the Amendment was only of a verbal character, and did not alter the principle of the measure.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: At almost the final stage of this Bill I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the very stringent character of the measure. It provides that any person exhibiting a picture of an indecent nature in a shop shall be liable to be convicted by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The fifth clause empowers any policeman to arrest any person whom he may find to be committing an offence against this Act. Therefore, it would seem that any prudish policeman who sees in a shop window a photograph of the statue of the Venus de Medici may arrest the shopkeeper. In the Bill there is no defi-

  1783
  nition whatever of the word "indecent," and I think it right to protest against such stringent legislation.
  On Question, resolved in the affirmative.
  Commons Amendment agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888— COUNTY COUNCIL EXPENDITURE.

  QUESTION-OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD BELPER, in rising to ask the Government whether they had further considered the claim of County Councils for some assistance towards county expenditure during the current financial year, owing to the fact that the last instalment of the Government grant on account of local taxation, licences, and Probate Duty would not be paid to the County Councils within the financial year, said: It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that some two months ago I put a question upon this subject to the noble Lord opposite, in reply to which he distinctly declined to acknowledge any liability in respect of the arrears of payments for main roads; but as I understood the noble Lord intimated that the Government were perfectly willing to consider any suggestion that might be made in consequence of the exceptional position of the County Councils with regard to their finances during their first year. I think that in a very few words I can show that the position is really exceptional, and that the County Councils are entitled to the favourable consideration of the Government in order that they should not be put in a worse position than they will be in future years. In the first place, with regard to the expenditure of the County Councils, it is perfectly clear that their expenditure will be of an abnormal character during this financial year. They will have to pay the half of the expenditure on main roads for the last half year; and although, of course, that is not a point with which the Government can acknowledge that they have anything to do, yet it must be taken into account in considering what the total expenditure of the County Councils will be this year. But beyond that they will undoubtedly have to find money for an expenditure quite as large as, if not larger, than in any preceding year. They will have to pay the whole
  1784
  of the expenditure on main roads during this year, and I understand they will have to provide for the whole of the-grants to Local Authorities which come within the financial year. Moreover, I understand, from the answer given to a question in the other House, that in counties where there are what are called. Quarter Sessional Boroughs (that is, with a population of about 10,000), they will be bound to pay back to the Quarter Sessional Boroughs the expenditure on police from last September to last March. Therefore, not only will they have' to meet the grants to the Local Authorities during one year from the date on which their term of office began, the 25th March, but their liability so far as Quarter Sessional Boroughs are concerned will begin from Michaelmas of last year. That being the case with respect to their expenditure, I would like to direct your Lordships' attention to their position with regard to receipts. As your Lordships are aware, the Government propose to pay the grants which are to be given for local taxation licenses, and the Probate Duty to the counties according to their respective claims as far as possible during the financial year. I understand that the first payment will be made in November, a payment of considerable amount. I conclude that there will probably be another payment made early in next year and before the end of this financial year; but it is clear that the balance of these payments cannot be made until after the end of the financial year, because the amount to be paid depends upon the amount to be received from the Probate Duty and from the local taxation licenses in these counties; and, although I give credit to the Government for being anxious to make their payments as conveniently as possible to the County Councils, it is clear that they cannot give them that which they do not know will be received, and therefore the last payment, whatever it may be, cannot be paid at all events until some time has elapsed, after the accounts of the year have been made out. There has been one answer—which I have heard to that contention. I hardly feel justified in dignifying it by the name of an argument; hut it has been said—"Oh, it will be all right; you will yet your money; you will certainly get it two or

  1785
  three months later, but it will he all the same to you." I do not think it requires any very great force of reasoning to point out that if you have your expenditure running on as usual, and if one of your most important receipts is postponed for two or three months it is not precisely the same thing, so far as your accounts go, as if you had received it at the proper time. So far as the County Councils are concerned, this payment will not only be in arrear this year, but in every year to come; therefore it will clearly be impossible for any Finance Committee with proper regard for good financial principles to treat as an asset within the financial year a payment which will always be made two or three months after the close of the financial year. The result is that at all events for this year the County Councils will be docked of that amount of money which will be paid after the end of the financial year. Now, it is said that this will be a very small sum. It may be a very small sum in regard to the gross amount which the County Council receive, but it may be a very considerable sum relatively to the amount which the County Councils will have to dispose of for their own purposes. It is strictly laid down by Act of Parliament that these payments to Local Authorities shall be made in a certain order, and that every payment to the Boards of Guardians and the other Local Authorities shall be made before a single penny can be devoted to the relief of the County Councils. Therefore although this may only be a quarter of the whole amount, it is very probable that that quarter may be really half of the funds which the County Council may have to devote to its own purposes. Your Lordships will therefore see that this is a matter which enormously affects the financial prospects of the County Councils. I think I have shown that their expenditure this year will not be less, but will be really considerably greater than it will be in years to come, and that during this year the amount to be contributed by Government will be considerably less than it will be in future years. Therefore it is clear that the County Councils will be placed in a very unfavourable position, and that the surplus which is necessary to make up the amount required to meet the expenditure will necessitate an increase in
  1786
  the rates, and make them not only heavier than they will be in the future, but I believe heavier than they have been under the old Quarter Sessions. The County Council of which I have the honour to he Chairman, that of Notts, has already passed a Resolution urging the Government to give the matter consideration, and I believe similar resolutions would have been passed by other County Councils if it were not that many of them have devoted themselves to endeavouring to get from the Government some permanent contribution instead of the proportion of the Van and Wheel Tax which is placed at their disposal. I have not the least intention of going into that matter to-day. I prefer to confine my remarks to what I may call the urgent necessities of the case. I beg to ask the noble Lord the question which I put upon the Paper.
  LORD BALFOUR: In the absence through illness of my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board (Earl Brownlow) it devolves upon me to reply to this question; and I am sorry that the answer I have to give will not be favourable to the noble Lord. I shall endeavour, if the House will permit me, to go somewhat into detail in the matter of figures in order to prove to the best of my ability that the assumption upon which the noble Lord's argument rests—namely, that the County Council has a claim upon the Government—is really without foundation. Supposing the Local Government Bill had not passed, the sum of the grants in aid—taking the case most favourable to the noble Lord—including the extra quarter of a million of a temporary road grant, would have been something less than £3,000,000. But the value of the Licensing Duties handed over to the County Council will, when they are all paid, amount to £4,700,000. The noble Lord said something about the time of payment, and what he said showed that he was not aware that the position of the County Council would be really more favourable than he seems to anticipate. If I understood him rightly, he did not anticipate that there would be any payment during the present financial year until the month of December. I may inform the noble Lord that the first payment will be made during the currency of the present month. If the Local

  1787
  Government Bill had not passed, nothing would have been paid before the month of September, less than half of the grant would have been paid by the end of this year, and more than half between January 1 and March 31. Now, in the present year, under the conditions I have indicated, the first payment will be made during the currency of the present month and the second instalment before the end of November, making together £2,350,000, or half of the whole sum which is devoted to the purposes of the County Council. The remainder will be paid as early next year as possible. Certainly, enough will be paid to make up the total of £3,000,000 which, under the old system, would have been received before the end of the financial year. Under the former arrangement rather less than £1,500,000 would have been received by December 31, but under the present system £2,350,000 will be received by November 30. The noble Lord argued as if this was a question of the County Council. The real way to look at it is to consider the position of the ratepayers. Undoubtedly the County Councils have to discharge some obligations which were not laid upon the Quarter Sessions, and consequently the rate is not levied by Quarter Sessions. Where that is the case, the burdens are really burdens transferred from one Local Authority to another. They are not increased burdens laid upon the ratepayers. If the County Councils say that they have to pay very heavily for other authorities, the reply is that the burdens on the ratepayers are not new. The noble Lord, having concerned himself with County Government, will know that a very large sum, amounting to £600,000, has been given to the Boards of Guardians for the first time under the 6th sub-section of the 121st section of the Local Government Act. That is a burden taken off the constituents of the Boards of Guardians; and, therefore, if the County Council rate seems to be larger, the rate levied by the Boards of Guardians for their purposes will to that extent be smaller. My Lords, I should like further to add that there is really no ground for the suggestion which seemed to run through the remarks of the noble Lord, both on this occasion and on the former one, that something has been withheld from the
  1788
  County Councils which would have been paid to the Quarter Sessions if the Local Government Bill had not passed.
  LORD BELPER: The noble Lord misapprehends me. I do not think I said anything to indicate that I was under that impression.
  LORD BALFOUR: Then I entirely misunderstood what the noble Lord said, and I, of course, accept his disclaimer. I would just like to make this clear—entirely acquitting the noble Lord of having fallen into the error—that it is a necessary consequence of the method upon which grants in aid are calculated that you cannot say what the amount of the grant in aid is until you know what sum it is to be calculated in aid of. Therefore, in former times the grant in aid seemed always to be for one year, when it was really for the previous year. The grant to the County Council cannot be calculated in a different way, and cannot be paid relatively earlier than was the case with the former grants in aid. Now, my Lords, I think I am entitled to make this point. There really has never been any promise on the part of the Government of such a temporary payment as the noble Lord suggests should be made. No promise was held out in the Budget, either of last year or this year; no promise was held out while the Local Government Bill was passing through either House of Parliament, and no such claim was ever made during that time. The present Government have really given a very substantial increase in aid of local burdens from the Imperial Exchequer. In 1887–88 the sum of a quarter of a million was given as a temporary road grant. In 1888–89, as I have already told your Lordships, nearly £600,000 more has been given to the Boards of Guardians. There was a sum of £542,000 paid in the month of March, and a further sum of £46,000 was paid only last week; that is a temporary grant out of the Probate Duties allocated in the financial year 1888-89. This year the Government—that is, outside the Van and Wheel Tax, to which the noble Lord alluded—have given what they estimate to be an increase of £1,700,000 from the Imperial to the Local Revenue. I quite agree that the whole of that sum will not go in aid of the burdens of the County Council; a great part of it—I think not much less

  1789
  than £12,000, probably a little more—will go in respect of the grant for indoor poor and other purposes; but giving that grant in aid to the County Council is still a very substantial relief to the local ratepayer. There is only one other point to which I wish to refer, and that is as to the question of roads. The noble Lord said that a considerably greater burden had been laid upon the County Council for the maintenance of roads than had been the case formerly. Partly that has been in substitution of the relief of payment from the subordinate Local Authority.
  LORD BELPER: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but I did not in the least make any claim on the ground of roads, because I understood that that question was answered specifically in this House some short time ago; but I did, of course, notice the fact that the County Councils would have to bear not only the whole of the maintenance of main roads for this year, but also the last half of the year which is in arrear.
  LORD BALFOUR: I perfectly understood that, and that is the point I was coming to. I do not think there is any ground for the assumption that the County Council will have to pay the whole additional expense of the roads during the present financial year. I know there is diversity of practice in some counties. If the County of Notts has taken the course of keeping up the roads without contracting for their maintenance with the parishes, then, no doubt, the County Council will this year be in an unfortunate position. But I am informed that that is a course taken by an extremely small number of counties. The great majority have contracted with the Local Authorities for the maintenance of the roads. My Lords, I have endeavoured to look at this question from the point of view of perfect fairness, and I think I have made out the case that the burden which the ratepayer, on the whole, will have to pay to all the authorities to whom he has to pay will not be greater than it has been in previous years; and I venture to suggest that that would be a wise and prudent line of argument for the County Councils to take up if they are pressed by their constituents on the ground that the rates which they levy are larger than those which have been in
  1790
  times past levied by the Quarter Sessions.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord rather misconstrued the tone of my noble Friend's question. My noble Friend did not take the view that the Government have not fulfilled their pledge, or that they were in arrear with payments of grants for last year; but the point which he made, and that with great force, was this—that it was of the greatest possible importance to the different County Councils that the Government should advance money on account of the new financial arrangements with regard to county expenditure, and not leave them in a difficult position on account of the new charges put upon them. That is a very important point, and I would remind the noble Lord that there have been a great number of additional charges which the county have to pay, such as those in respect of union officers, and Boards of Guardians will be in great difficulty if the county are not able to meet those charges pretty promptly. Many of these payments, again, can only be made, by the statute, out of the Exchequer Fund, and this fund does not exist at all until the Government makes some contribution to it. Though I agree with what the noble Lord said about the general relief of the taxpayer, and the improved position in which the county taxpayers will be placed, it seems to me that the noble Lord somewhat underrates the importance of prompt payment on the part of Her Majesty's Exchequer. It is satisfactory to hear that the Government propose to make a payment in July as well as in November, and I sincerely trust they will be able to do that, because I feel convinced very considerable difficulty will arise in County Councils if they have not some money from the Exchequer Fund in order to meet their liabilities. It would be a great misfortune if a higher rate had to be imposed this year in counties, because it would disappoint extremely those who expect great benefits will be derived from this Act. There is also the point which was alluded to by the noble Lord as to the change in the financial proposals of Her Majesty's Government. Whether they were too liberal or not is not for me to say; but it will be recollected that a hope

  1791
  was held out that a very much larger rate of subvention would be made, and that something like £800,000, which it was expected would be realized from the Van and Wheel Tax, would go in relief of local taxation. There is a great feeling on the part of many County Councils that the Government ought to have fulfilled their pledge with regard to that matter, but that is a different point from that which my noble Friend raised.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I wish to make one observation only with reference to the last sentence of the noble Earl's speech. I have heard that one or two County Councils have passed resolutions in favour of the Van and Wheel Tax; but I think the noble Earl a little exaggerated when be said that was the opinion of a great many of them. My own impression is exactly the other way.
  EARL SPENCER: I agree with the noble Marquess in reference to the position taken up by many County Councils as to that particular tax. He was perfectly right that many County Councils would not give an opinion in favour of it. What I meant was that the general opinion is that, in some shape or another, the Government should fulfil their promise of a larger contribution towards the relief of local rates.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, the whole complaint in this matter, I think, is that the measure was passed without the advice and almost without the consent of your Lordships' House. The suspension of the Standing Orders in both Houses of Parliament was perfectly in accordance with what has been done on other occasions. I was told that it was not possible to pass and repeal a Bill in the same Session; but that is not the case, because the Jewish Disabilities Bill—one of the best Acts that ever was passed—was passed and repealed in the same Session. In the Bill of Mr. Campbell of 1831 for a general registration there was a clause that the Bill might be repealed at any time in the same Session. That was a most remarkable Session, because it ended on the 17th December, and Parliament was adjourned to the 17th January. My Lords, I voted against the Local Govern-
  1792
  ment Act and tried to repeal it, and the more I see of it the more I dislike it. If Columbus's egg was unboiled, and like Humpty Dumpty fell from a wall, not all the king's horses and all the king's men could place it on that wall again; but if it had been hard-boiled it might have stood upright, whatever Party or Parties had introduced it. I see that everything will have to be done with one quarter of the number of Magistrates, and the duties of rural Local Government Boards and of attending to the roads will be cast upon the County Councils in addition to their former duties. I believe the Earl of Rosebery himself, whose headache is so described by Punch, would wish to see it repealed, and that everyone would prefer legislation to administration with a smaller staff, and that the observations of the noble Lord were not justified.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, I only wish to say a few words in regard to the remarks of the noble Lord. I did not refer to the position of other Local Authorities. I fully admit that they will receive a larger grant in aid in the future than in the past, and I never questioned that the Government had carried out their pledges in this respect; but the point which I intended to draw your Lordships' attention to was that the County Councils will this year have to ask for a much higher rate if the Government payment is not made within the financial year. What has been said by the noble Lord in answer does not, I think, quite deal satisfactorily with the matter. With regard to the remarks of the noble Lord as to main roads if the Council contracts with the Local Authority for their repair, undoubtedly the whole expense will not fall within this financial year; but it only postpones the evil day, for whenever we do take over the management of the main roads into our own hands entirely, we shall have to pay both the amount due for last year and the sum due for the current year, and, therefore, I do not think the noble Lord's suggestion on that point would put us on any better footing. It is not a question of a larger sum being paid to the Local Authorities than has been paid in the past, but the importance of the point as regards the payment to the County Councils during the financial

  1793
  year is one which can hardly admit of doubt.

  DELAGOA BAY.
  LORD CASTLETOWN: My Lords, I rise to move—
  "That in the opinion of this House it is absolutely necessary, in view of the fact that the Portuguese Government has without justification and against the protest of Her Majesty's Government forfeited the railway concession granted to the Delagoa Bay and East African Railway Company, that immediate action should be taken by Her Majesty's Government to obtain from the Portuguese Government adequate compensation for the debenture holders and shareholders of the company, and that such steps be adopted as may seem 'fit and effectual to protect all British interests involved."
  I desire to apologise to the House for having postponed this Motion; but I think I was justified in doing so, having regard to the fact that I was anxious to consult the convenience of the noble Marquess and of other Members of this House. I must apologise also, before I go further, if I happen to be somewhat lengthy in my remarks upon this important question, and also by anticipation for the necessity I may be under of reading somewhat copiously from notes. The question is so involved and so intricate that I must ask the patience of the House while I deal with it in a full and, I trust, exhaustive manner. In submitting this Motion, my intention is to put before the House as clearly as I can, and as rapidly as possible, the history of the Delagoa Bay question, as we at present have it, and then to deal with three or four salient points in the case that were connected with, and implicated in it. The history of the construction of the railway is not a very lengthy one. In 1883 a concession was granted by the Portuguese Government to Colonel E. M'Murdo for the construction of a railway from Port Laurenço Marques, in the Portuguese territory, to the Transvaal frontier; and the intention was, as soon as that railway was constructed to the frontier, to create another line which was to be worked by a Netherlands Company in Amsterdam with capital received from Dutch investors in Amsterdam, and also from the Boers, and to complete a regular line, running from Lourenço Marques, up to Pretoria in the Transvaal. Colonel M'Murdo, the concessionnaire, instead of asking for a cash subvention,
  1794
  which he might have been entitled to ask for, agreed to construct the line without any pecuniary assistance from the Portuguese Government; but he provided, and I think he was wise in doing so, that as a consideration he should receive from the Portuguese Government two guarantees—I would ask your Lordships' special attention to these two guarantees:—first, that the Government should allow no line of railway to be built in competition; and, secondly, that the Company to be formed to carry out the concession should have the absolute and uncontrolled right to fix tariff rates. These demands were conceded by the Portuguese Government, and a special provision, which is very noteworthy, was inserted in the concession to the following effect:—
  "Article 20, paragraph 2.—The Government will not be empowered within the territory of the district of Lourenço Marques, and upon a strip of land of less than 100 kilometres in width, on each side of the line belonging to the Company, to build or allow any other railway which, running from the coast of the district of Lourenço Marques to the Transvaal, may compete with this line"
  The geographical result of this clause was that no competing line could be constructed within Portuguese territory. The absolute right of fixing tariffs was conceded by the Government as a part of the statutes of the Lourenço Marques and Transvaal Railway Company, a Portuguese company, which, under the requirements of the concession, was formed to take such concession over and build the railway. This was authenticated by Statutes passed in 1881, the concession having been granted in 1883, and they were ratified again, as is proved by a letter dated May 4, 1885, from the Minister of Portugal, in answer to a letter from the company, in these words:—
  "With regard to the second point of your letter, I am directed by the said Minister (that is, the Portuguese Minister) to inform you that there cannot be the least doubt that the Lourenço Marques and Transvaal Railway Company has the right of fixing its own tariffs as it may deem fit without the intervention of the Government, as is expressly set forth in the statutes approved by the Government on May 10, 1884."
  Therefore, my Lords, that makes clear the two points, that there was to be no other railway allowed to be built, and that the company should have the absolute right to fix tariff rates. After a

  1795
  lengthened negotiation on other points, the Delagoa Bay Lourenço Marques Company was formed, and began to construct the line in 1887, according to the specifications and authorization of the Portuguese Government. The line to the frontier was shown on the plans which were placed before the company, and the actual line was marked and signed by the engineer of the Portuguese Government. The company began to build, but in the course of construction the Portuguese Government called upon the company to build a further five miles of extension, saying that the frontier had been moved, and that the frontier to which they had already built was not the real one. The Portuguese Government sent to the company—and this was also peculiar—a plan without marking the frontier on it. After certain protests and negotiations with the Portuguese Government, the company agreed to build to the new line of frontier, leaving the question of compensation to be decided as had been arranged by the 40th article of the concession. The line was opened to the originally marked frontier, and was sanctioned by the Portuguese Government as being constructed according to their wishes and plans. But then came the question of the extension. On this question delays occurred and negotiations supervened, and great difficulty was experienced by the company, because they could get no definite point marked to which they were to go. Those negotiations were protracted until October 4, 1888, when suddenly the Portuguese Government indicated a fixed point to which the extension was to go, although they did not say "this is the frontier," saying at the same time that the line had to be constructed by June 24, 1889. Now, my Lords, to do this was actually impossible within the eight months allotted, because during six of those months the season was such that it was absolutely impossible to build in that country owing to the rains, which are at that time abnormally heavy, and on account of the great sacrifice of human life which would result from any railway construction during that period, fever being then especially rife. But the company were determined to do
  1796
  their utmost to meet the views of the, Portuguese Government, and they proceeded to carry out their wishes as rapidly and as far as they could. Rails and other materials were sent, and bridges were put in hand, and a second engineer was specially engaged. The extension was actually begun on May 21, and a telegram dated June 12 said that great progress had been made. A telegram was sent to the engineer to know when he would finish the extension, and he replied about the end of September. But part of the original line had been carried away owing to the heavy rains; and, in order to avoid the floods, a relocation of a portion of the line had been rendered necessary, and it was pushed on as rapidly as possible to meet the views of the Portuguese Government. On June 24th, however, notwithstanding protests from Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States, the line was seized and the concession cancelled; the company's employés were threatened, and damage was done by the line being torn up. My Lords, that is, roughly, the actual history of the case up to the present time. There are now four salient points to which I wish to draw your Lordships attention—the tramway, the tariffs, the frontier, and force majeure. The first point is one of supreme importance. It seems that there was a secret arrangement between the Portuguese Government and. the Transvaal to make a tramway which, was intended to compete with the Delagoa Railway. On this point I must, I am afraid, say, though I do not like to use strong language in a matter of this kind, a great deal is owing to the improper action, to use no more vigorous words, of certain members of the Portuguese Government. In order to vindicate that statement, I must beg your Lordships' patience for a short time, while I put you in possession of certain further dates and facts. There had arisen doubts in the course of the negotiations to which I have referred whether any other concession existed, and the Portuguese Government bad been asked whether any other concession existed for the making of a railway or tramway which might compete with the Delagoa Railway to the frontier. This question, was continually asked, not only by the concessionnaire, but by the company, and it was continually answered in the

  1797
  negative by the Portuguese Government. There did exist, however, a secret undertaking, of which the company were not put in possession. On July 15, 1886, the Portuguese Government stated—
  "That no other concession exists for the construction and working of any sort of means of communication whatever across the Lourenço Marques district."
  Nothing could be plainer than that; yet on May 17, 1884, two years previously, a Memorandum of Concession had been given to the Tranvaal Representative at the Hague, which was not published. The actual official document was as follows —
  "Lisbon, May 17, 1884.
  "The Portuguese Government agrees to concede the construction of a tramway which shall join Lourenço Marques to the frontier of the Transvaal for the conveyance of material for the railway from the Transvaal frontier to Pretoria, should the concessionary company of the railway denominated Lourenço Marques fail to finish its line with the rapidity necessary for insuring the commencement of the works of the Transvaal Railway. The Portuguese Government equally engages that the tramway may be used for the transport of goods and passengers in case the two concessionary companies do not come to settlement in respect to general rates for international traffic. It is distinctly stipulated that the two Governments are at liberty to propose and offer reasonable terms which may serve as a basis for any agreement, and that the mutual consent of the two Governments upon the question of international rates is necessary. It is also laid down that in all matters connected with the concessions, and in the organization of the companies, respect shall be had unto the dispositions of the Portuguese law relating to such matters, as also to the terms of the contract of December 14th, 1883."
  Then, my Lords, we again find that confirmed by a letter of May 4th, 1885; but notwithstanding that, we have the statement on July 15th, 1886, that no such concession exists. My Lords, in face of those facts, I do not think the language I have used in this case is too strong. The terms of the letter of May 4th, 1885, from the Ministry of Portugal are very plain. I ask your Lordships' leave to call attention to the very words of it:—
  "In all the negotiations with the Transvaal on this subject, the rights established in the contract of 14th December, 1883, have always been respected, and in no case could the concession of the Tramway referred to prejudice the Concessionaire."
  And also with reference to the tariff the Minister uses these words—
  1798
  I am directed by the Minister to inform you that there cannot be the least doubt that the Lourenço Marques and Transvaal Railway Company has the right of fixing its own tariffs, as it may deem fit without the intervention of: the Government as is expressly set forth in the Statutes approved by the Government on May 10th, 1884."
  Now, my Lords, to my mind it is perfectly clear that this concession of the tramway was kept in reserve. It is very singular that recently we have had clear evidence of what the object of this agreement with the Transvaal was from a recent speech in the Cortes in Lisbon. Actually at the time the decree was signed by the King of Portugal, at the instance of his responsible Ministers, stating that no other concession existed, that memorandum was in existence, and ready to be utilized when the time arrived. The intention of this secret agreement is made quite clear when we read the speech I refer to, and which was uttered in the Cortes on May 1, 1889, by Senor Fuschini, who summarised the declarations of the Government as follows:—
  "(1) The term for the construction of the Lourenço Marques Railway as far as the Transvaal frontier will expire on June 24th next, and the Government are firmly determined not to extend it; (2) that a promise has been made to the Transvaal of the concession of a tramway from the Transvaal frontier to Lourenço Marques, in the event of the Portuguese and Dutch companies not coming to an agreement with respect to the railway tariff rates."
  In the course of his speech, Senor Fuschini said:—
  "His Excellency the Minister of Marine said that the Government were bound, on account of the declarations made by their predecessors, to acknowledge the right of the company to fix the railway tariff rates independently of the Government, but he felt no apprehension on the subject, because he was in a position to coerce the company in two ways —i.e., by means of the rescission of the contract and by the tramway."
  That is to say, he (the Minister of Marine) was in a position at any moment to spring upon the Company the concession of the tramway or to rescind the contract. Now, my Lords, I come to the next salient point, and that is, the question of fixing the tariffs. The letter from the Ministry of Marine and the other documents which I have referred to, prove clearly that the right of fixing tariffs lies with the Company. But we may be told that as the Company did not come to terms with the

  1799
  other company as rapidly as they ought to have done, the Portuguese Government were right in coercing the Delagoa Bay Company. That company has, however, done all they could to come to an agreement with the Netherlands Company in reference to the tariff, but their Board would not agree even to the tariff which has been formulated by the Portuguese Government. Every effort has been made by the Delagoa Bay Company to come to an agreement for fixing 'the tariffs, but no agreement was arrived at, and we have been pressed into the position which we now occupy. The importance of this question of fixing the tariffs I desire especially to point out to your Lordships, because it is really the salient point of the whole question. In point of fact, when it was discovered that the Delagoa Bay Company were determined to exercise their power of fixing the tariffs, and it was discovered that it would be difficult to coerce the company, or drive them from their position, it was resolved to take that power from them. It should be remembered that that very power and right of fixing tariffs was in all probability the inducement for sending British capital into that country for the purpose of making the railway; a right and power which would in the near future in all probability make this a very advantageous enterprise. My Lords, there can be no doubt that that right to fix tariffs was believed in by all those who invested their money in this railway. That right was certified by Ministerial decrees and solemn pledges. All the pledges which were given have been broken, and broken not by the company which entered into them, but by means of the action of the Netherlands Company, who refused to agree to anything that was proposed, and who eventually contrived to land the Delagoa Railway Company in the position in which they have been placed. My Lords, I would like to quote for one moment from a letter of Lord Derby, dated February 7th, 1884, dealing with questions affecting South Africa. At the end of that letter he uses the significant words that "the Delagoa Railway will absorb all the traffic which the Transvaal can bring upon it." That traffic will undoubtedly pass along it in the future, and will prove how valuable an asset this right of fixing tariffs really was.
  1800
  It is quite clear that the enormous traffic which is now passing over Natal, and which is growing every year in volume, will eventually pass over the Delagoa Railway from the goldfields of the Transvaal, and from the at present almost unexplored land to the North and North-East, and that the line this Company has constructed will, in the near future, be a most valuable property. Now, the question of frontier is one to which the Portuguese Government attach very great importance, and they say the fact that the Delagoa Bay Company has not carried the railway to the frontier has more or less invalidated its contract with the Government. My Lords, I hardly think that is the case. In the first instance the company was instructed under the concession to build up to a point where the word "frontier" was marked on a plan which was official, and which was signed by Engineer Machado, the Portuguese engineer. When the line was built or in process of building, the company was ordered to proceed to build an extension to an undenominated point. This they refused to do so until they received clear instructions where they were to go to and until they knew where the frontier was to be. They might otherwise have been asked to build into the desert. After most tedious negotiations they were informed that such and such a point was to be the limit, but that it was not the frontier. The frontier is not yet fixed, and though the company have built according to their concession to one frontier point, and even under protest have built and are building a further extension to another point, yet, after all, their line has been confiscated, one of the reasons given being that they have not built to the frontier—the frontier which is not yet fixed. Surely a weaker or more childish pretext was never utilized wherewith to do an act of extreme injustice! Having done all they could to meet the views of the Portuguese Government, on the 24th of June, the result is that their line was seized. Now, my Lords, I come to the next question, and then I shall finish—that is the question of force majeure. The Portuguese Government said there was no case for urging what was called force majeure. Now, what are the facts? The company was told to build the line between the 8th October, 1888, and July

  1801
  24th, 1889. They gave the company a limited and impossible time within which to make this extension. They knew that six months of the eight were in the rainy season, when no work could be done. As it happened these were exceptionally rainy months, and they have always naturally been very feverish months. I will call to your Lordships' attention a Report of the Portuguese Engineer himself. He was on the coast surveying for this very railway in the months of November, December and January, during, I think, 1882, and this is what he writes to his own Government, which now tells us in so many words that the time fixed was quite sufficient, and that there was no pretext for not completing the line within the time stipulated. Major Machado said: —
  "I had no choice as to working in the field at a season quite unfit for the sort of survey that was requisite."
  And again—
  "The incessant rain of the months of November and December caused us considerable suffering and prevented the works from proceeding at a rate at all proportionate to the expenses of the staff engaged on it."
  That, my Lords, was merely with reference to the work of surveying, and I will leave it to your Lordships to say what the work would be of turning over new soil in a fever-stricken district. The sacrifice of life would have been enormous, and owing to the rains the task would have been impossible. In January and February much of the line was damaged by abnormally severe floods, and the Portuguese Government knew it would take time to repair those breakages. The company's engineer reported the flood as having risen 17 ft. over the line in places. To make it safe in the future he had had to relocate it. This had been done, and the extension works were in full progress and would have been complete by September. Yet, with all this in view, the Portuguese Government informed the company that they had no other course but to confiscate, notwithstanding what I maintain is a clear case of force majeure. I have given your Lordships a straightforward and common-sense view of the matter, and have avoided, I hope, saying one harsh or unjust word. But it is not
  1802
  only a question of common sense. The Delagoa Bay Company is undoubtedly in the position of having legal right on their side. They have taken the opinion of some of the most eminent English counsel—Sir Horace Davey, Sir Henry James, Sir Charles Russell, Mr. Under-down, and Mr. Kirby, and those gentlemen are unanimously of opinion that
  "All the terms of the concession having been complied with, the Portuguese Government has not the power of forfeiture which it claims to exercise; and even if the company is liable to construct the extension, the question of their liability would be a matter for arbitration within the arbitration clauses in the concession; that the period fixed for the work of extension is unreasonable, and the rainy season and the storms above referred to constitute a case of force majeure."
  My Lords, I will not at this hour and after so lengthy a speech dilate on the larger issues involved in this matter, but I venture to suggest that English capital will cease to flow to foreign countries where it has been enormously invested in numberless companies, if it is to be exposed to the danger of being forfeited as it has been in this case, when the contract under which that capital has been invested has been carried out. My Lords, I do not want to use harsh language in regard to the action of Portugal in this matter, but I would ask your Lordships to remember that England has made enormous sacrifices of life and money for the sake of Portugal. Portugal still owes us a very heavy debt, but whenever we have had dealings, commercial or international, with that country there has been a captiousness shown by Portugal which is most unbecoming. We in England have stuck to our undertakings with Portugal, but the Portuguese have on the other hand very often dealt with English subjects in a discourteous, harsh, and sometimes unjust manner. I will ask your Lordships, ought there not to be some limit to the forbearance of England with a Power which does not carry out fairly their engagements between man and man? If I have brought my case home to your Lordships, I trust I am not too sanguine in hoping that your Lordships will recognize the justice of the cause I am advocating, and will give your assent to the Motion which I have placed on the Paper, and which I now beg to move.
  Moved, That in the opinion of this House it is absolutely necessary, in view of the fact that the Portuguese Government has without justification and against the protest of Her Majesty's Government forfeited the railway concession granted to the Delagoa Bay and East African Railway Company, that immediate action should be taken by Her Majesty's Government to obtain from the Portuguese Government adequate compensation for the debenture holders and shareholders of the company, and that-such steps be adopted as may seem fit and effectual to protect all British interests involved, (The Lord Castletown.)
  LORD FITZGERALD: My Lords, at this late hour I am unwilling to detain your Lordships at any length after the speech in which my noble Friend has so fully gone into, and so thoroughly made clear a subject which otherwise might have appeared complicated. In fact, he has gone into the subject in the completest manner, and has dealt exhaustively with the details of the case. It is a subject of which I have no special knowledge, and I should not have risen to address your Lordships if I had not felt that the honour and the interests of England and the protection of its commerce, and of Her Majesty's subjects are involved in the question now before the House. The question does not relate merely to the money—the £500,000—which the English company has advanced, but it has an interest far beyond. Last week, as your Lordships may have seen, the Times published the decree, which I will call for the present a decree of confiscation, with the reasons which were given for it. But it was not founded on realities. If the right of the Portuguese Government to pronounce this confiscation is not clear, and legal, and just, it becomes an act of spoliation. That decree was signed at the earliest moment at which it could be signed. Even if it had been legal and just, the elaborate reasons given for it by the Portuguese Government must have been prepared long beforehand, because they are so lengthy. Whilst the Portuguese Government complain of delay, they do not for one moment offer a contradiction to the case (amply made out by my noble Friend) that there has been on the part of the Portuguese Government a deliberate violation of some of the main features of the concession granted in 1883, to which this company has succeeded. They do complain of delays, but there was no delay
  1804
  on the part of the English Company, that they could complain of at all. They make a long parade of the benevolence of the Government of Portugal to the original concessionnaire, and to the company which was formed, but which failed to make the railway; but there is no allegation of anything which shows that blame is attributable to the English company, which was not formed unti 1887. On the contrary, one of the statements made is that the Chairman had declared categorically to the Government that the railway should be completed upon the terms, and within the time fixed by the contract, and from that time the works have been continued and there is no complaint. The formation of this railway sprang out of the Treaty of 1875, to which England was to some extent a party. That treaty was made between the Government of the South African Republic, now the Transvaal State, and the Portuguese Government, and it contained stipulations for the construction of a railway connecting the district of Lourenço Marques with the Transvaal State. As the Portuguese Government now complain of the delay which has occurred, one is surprised to find that nine years elapsed from the making of that treaty before any step was really made to carry it out. One portion of the treaty was that the Government was to furnish a subvention equal to one half the amount necessary to construct the railway. From the time when the English Company took up the original concession there has been, as I read the documents, no delay which could fairly be complained of. My noble Friend has called attention to the fact, upon which the question of legality depends, that the contract and concession had been carried out to the point marked out as the limit to which it was to be carried upon the plans accompanying the concession., Upon them there was a line drawn showing what was supposed to be the frontier. On the documents now before us I find that the English Company made the line up to the frontier, and completed it within the enlarged limit beyond the time originally fixed. If this be well founded, I must say I agree with the English lawyers who have expressed an opinion on this subject, that the Portuguese Government

  1805
  in declaring the concession to be forfeited, have acted illegally and unjustly. The foundation of my noble Friend's case is that as the terms of the concession have been complied with, it could not be withdrawn from the Company by imposing the further obligation of carrying the line five or six miles further to a point then undefined. The concession itself, with the documents affixed to it, show why it was granted in this form to Colonel M'Murdo. A document from the Ministry of Marine and the Colonies under the signature of the King, dated the 14th of December, 1883, sets forth that by the treaty of December 11, 1875, and approved by the law of April 20, 1876, the Portuguese Government were authorized to assist the construction of the railway by means of a subvention to the extent of one half the cost of the works, in addition to other concessions in the said treaty contained. Further, it set forth that the Government had received a proposal for the construction of a railway from the port of Lourenço Marques to the Portuguese frontier, which dispensed without any subvention or guaranteed interest, "a point of unquestionable advantage." This was the foundation on which this concession was based, that the railway should be constructed without calling upon the Government for any assistance in money. And then it proceeded to decree approval of the contract made between the Government and John Burney, as the representative of Edward MacMurdo, for the construction of a railway to run from the port of Lourenço Marques to the frontier separating the Portuguese territory from that of the Transvaal Mate. This contract liberated the Portuguese Government from the obligation to grant a subvention of one-half of the whole estimated cost. As to any non-completion of the five or six miles, it could have had no effect if the company had failed by reason of natural difficulties. by reason of the force majeure, by reason of time being necessarily required to arrange for additional capital, and by reason of the other circumstances to which my noble Friend has adverted, to complete that additional portion within the period fixed. Whatever right the Portuguese Government might have had to deal with that five or six miles of line, that in no way affected the
  1806
  validity of what had been done before, and could in no way justify them in seizing the whole of this line. But, in truth, my Lords, it is perfectly plain to me from the character of these documents that there were third parties here who were putting pressure on the Portuguese Government. It is not necessary for me to say, but I can guess who the confederates may be. Documents have been read by my noble Friend which throw considerable light on the matter. So late as June 1888, the Minister for Foreign Affairs sent the following telegram to the Portuguese Legation at the Hague:—
  "Transmit Blokland following Resolution: —Portuguese Government is prepared to exact from the company—(I.) Immediate presentation of surveys and construction last section line to frontier. (II.) And simultaneously agreement tariffs requested by Transvaal, if Transvaal Government on its side undertakes (1) to fix frontier, according proposal and convention already formulated; (2) to establish terms second part memorandum, May 17, 1884, previous agreement with Portuguese Government as to Table International Tariffs which must be adopted by Portuguese company. If latter refuses adoption proposal, Government will then concede tramway, and by preference canal to Transvaal Cocessionaire Company.'"
  Referring to the proposals of this telegram, the representative of the Transvaal, Blokland, in a despatch of July 14, 1888, said that his Government was disposed to assist in the delimitation of the frontier proposed by the engineer Machado, if the Portuguese Government undertook to concede as speedily as possible, and not later than the 1st of December next, either the railway at present conceded to the Portuguese Company, or a steam tramway from the Bay of Lourenço Marques to Komatipoort, if before that time the Portuguese line should not be finished to the frontier, or the agreement should not be made between the two companies as to the junction of their lines and as to the tariffs under the auspices of the two Governments, in conformity with the Memorandum of May 17, 1884. So that if the English company did not agree to regulate its tariffs according to the will of the Transvaal Government, it was to be squeezed out, and the line was to be transferred to the Transvaal; and if this was not done the Transvaal was to be at liberty to make another line. The statement

  1807
  of my noble Friend relieves me from the necessity of making any further statement of the facts of the case. It is impressed upon my mind that there is a combination behind all this, and a desire to squeeze out the English Company, which would seriously affect the interest of the English commercial world. This is a very grave question, far exceeding anything that is at stake in the Delagoa country or in South Africa. My Lords, I never wish to use an expression which would interfere with negociations which maybe going on, but I am satisfied, speaking for myself, that there is a combination behind, and that Portugal herself does not see the dangers which lie before her. The Transvaal wants a port and a railway; and if the Boers get to Delagoa Bay and to Lourenço Marques, and get possession of the line, Portugal will soon be squeezed out of the whole. But, my Lords, that is not the present question. I, for one, am quite satisfied as a general rule to leave the protection of the interests of financiers in their own hands. But there has been a suggestion coming from Lisbon that Portugal means to stick to her rights as claimed by her. What, in these circumstances, I protest against, is the statement that this is a case for arbitration. It is not a case for arbitration or for correspondence; it is a case in which the power of our Government should be put in action. If the Company is wrong, if Portugal is right in law, if it has the right to disturb this Company's possession, to seize its railway and rolling stock, to declare the forfeiture of that upon which the Company has spent half-a-million of money, be it so, notwithstanding the disastrous effect on Portuguese credit, and generally upon foreign securities. But if the English Company has completed the railway in the terms of the concession, and was not bound to carry out the additional line, then there should be complete restitution made, or if that is not to be obtained, there should be ample compensation given, and I trust the Government will do their best to obtain it.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I rise to deprecate the precipitation of the Motion of the noble Lord, and, I might say, its peremptoriness. It is only a week since a state-
  1808
  ment of the Portuguese Government was given to the public. This is not an International affair, but one for the Law Courts of Lisbon, and for Consular rather than diplomatic action. With what has been said about the construction of this line of tramway, it does not appear to me that it was intended to be made with any other intention than that of being an assistance to the railway. It ought not to be forgotten in dealing with this matter that we were the first to discourage Portugal from co-operating with us in South Africa, by deserting her in the matter of the "Charles et George," when Portugal had carried out her treaty obligations with regard to the capture of vessels engaged in the slave trade. I think the noble Lord is crying out before he is hurt, and I cannot vote for this Motion because there are no Papers before the House, and I do not think the time has come for expressing a judgment on these transactions.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think the speech which the noble Lord opposite has delivered is a very interesting and useful statement of the case of the company, and of the view which is taken by a large number of people of this country as to the action of the Portuguese Government. I admire the noble Lord's speech much more than I admire his Motion, which is certainly premature at the present stage of our action, and as to which I hope he will not insist upon taking the opinion of the House. The noble Lord speaks in his Motion of insisting upon compensation to the debenture holders and shareholders of the company, but sufficient time has not elapsed to enable us to know to what extent the proprietors of the line have been damnified. I am fully sensible of the ability and clearness of the statement made by the noble Lord, and I do not wish to appear here as controverting anything which he has said. But I am not able to go with as much fulness and frankness into the affair as he has done, because we have not yet full materials for the determination of all the points which it is necessary should be determined before our opinion can be definitely expressed. As the noble Lord states it, the Portuguese Government imported into the contract a condition which practically did not exist there, a condition which, from the

  1809
  nature of the country, it was impossible to perform, and because it was not performed they have forfeited the railway which has been constructed under their concession. Stated in those terms the act was as indefensible as any act of a Government can be. It is fair, however, to state that I have seen a despatch representing that the Portuguese Government does not at all admit the justice of that representation. They deny, as I understand, the assertions which are made with respect both to the position of the frontier and the difficulty of completing the line. They deny the existence of any force majeure, and they attribute the failure to complete the line entirely to the neglect of the company. I think it fair to state that allegation on their part. I must not be supposed to express the slightest opinion in support of that contention. As far as the facts at present go, they all point, in my judgment, to a different conclusion. I rather bring that forward with a view of impressing upon the noble Lord that the time has hardly yet come when we can adopt so peremptory a Resolution as that which he has placed upon the Paper. There is one circumstance which I think it right also to recommend to the consideration of the House, and which I thought rather disappeared from the speech of the noble and learned Lord opposite. All the agreements of the Portuguese Government were with a Portuguese company, and they have no direct connection or privity with any English company, and the agreements under which this English company have acted were made with this Portuguese company. No doubt it may be true that great injury by the wrongful Act of Portugal had arisen to the Portuguese company, and through them to their English creditors. Still, it is not exactly the same thing as a deprivation by the Act of Portugal of the lawful claims of an English company and of rights conferred upon that English company. There is a distinction to be made between the two cases. I quite accept the doctrine that if British capitalists have been injured in this matter compensation must be exacted, and we have already expressed that view in no ambiguous language to the Government of Portugal. But we must wait to know whether and how far they have been
  1810
  damnified. I have seen it suggested that it is not the business of the English. Government to defend British capitalists who have imprudently risked their money, or to recover British debts in all parts of the world. I quite admit that we cannot do so in all cases. There is always some difficulty in determining whether the claims which British capitalists are constantly raising against Governments by whom they say they have been injured are such as this Government ought to sustain or not. There is a celebrated Circular of Lord Palmerston's on the subject, wherein he lays down very distinctly that while this country will not be bound to recover for British creditors the debts which they may have owing to them, we yet reserve to ourselves the right to judge of the merits of each case and to determine whether it is one in which the power of the Government ought to interfere on, behalf of the subjects of the Queen. The consideration which it seems to me should weigh in that determination is whether the pecuniary injury which has been done to British subjects is the result merely of failure, or mistake, or misfortune, on the part of the foreign Government, or whether it is the result of deliberate wrong. Wherever it is the result of deliberate wrong there is a strong case for the interference of the Government. Certainly in this case, if the representations of the noble Lord are sustained on further examination, there can be no doubt that the injury done to British capitalists has been done by a very wrongful act. I think it is not desirable that I should go farther now than to express again what I have expressed before in this House—that the question before us, the only question with which we can deal, is whether and how far British capitalists have been damnified by this action of the Portuguese Government, and whether the action of the Portuguese Government is as unjust as it has been represented and as the circumstances, so far as we know them, seem to show. If that is the case, undoubtedly we shall hold Portugal responsible for the damage which has been inflicted. The noble and learned Lord alluded to questions of a deeper character—questions of a political and diplomatic kind. They do not arise, as far as I know, on the surface of the case. They may come up hereafter, and

  1811
  if they do we shall have to deal with them. At present we have to deal only with a case of alleged wrong, in which, if the allegations turn out to be correct, British subjects have a right to claim protection from the British Government.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I do not rise to criticize or comment upon what has been said by noble Lords in this Debate, but to express the hope that we may not go to a Division upon this Motion. The speech of my noble Friend was eminently one of an instructive and useful character, and it has given us much information which we had not before, or, at any rate, it has given us, in a connected form, information which we could only have found scattered over many papers. This House and the public ought to feel indebted to my noble Friend for having brought the matter before us as he has done. But I think it would be wise for the interests to which my noble Friend has alluded that we should not come to a Vote on this subject. I say so on two grounds. In the first place, if your Lordships were to come to a Vote it is clear that the decision of the House would not be unanimous, inasmuch as the Government will not support the Motion. As to the facts, we are probably all of one mind. But the effect of going to a Division would be rather to prejudice the case by presenting an appearance of disunion which does not really exist. Then there is another consideration. I confess, even where our own country is on one side and a foreign country on the other, I like to hear both sides of the question. I do not dispute the facts contained in my noble Friend's speech. But, at the same time, we all know that facts may look very different when you hear them stated by counsel on the other side. Therefore, before we come to what, if it be anything at all, is a solemn opinion upon the subject, I think, in common fairness and reason, and following the usual practice, we ought to hear what the other party concerned has to say. My noble and learned Friend who seconded the Motion said it was not at all a case for arbitration. I do not pretend to lay down any general rule, or to determine the precise mode of arbitration which we ought to adopt. But I think a case of alleged injustice affecting individuals is eminently one
  1812
  to be determined by the impartial judgment of some third party, who may be relied upon to hear the whole case and determine upon the merits. I will not go into questions of general policy, or of the Portuguese position in Africa. As to the question how far we ought to intervene for the protection of British capital in foreign countries, the general rule has been undoubtedly not to interfere. Your Lordships will remember cases where foreign loans have been repudiated in a manner not at all consistent with justice, and in fact fraudulent, but there was no interference by Government in those cases. At the same time, I am not at all prepared to say that the general rule laid down by Lord Palmerston does not admit of exceptions. We might find cases of flagrant injustice where Englishmen and English capital were concerned, on a scale so large as that we might be compelled to go beyond our usual practice and take up officially the cause of those injured. But, at all events, we cannot undertake to decide until we have the full facts before us, and until we know what is to be said by the other party, and that in this case we do not know. I hope the noble Marquess will shortly be in a position to lay Papers on the Table; but until then I think we had better postpone coming to a decision.
  LORD CASTLETOWN: My Lords, under the circumstances, after having received the satisfactory answer of the noble Marquess, I think I should be very ill-advised indeed if I were to press the Motion to a Division now. At the same time I was most anxious to bring the matter before your Lordships' House seeing the important interests involved in it, and I hope your Lordships will excuse my using what might be called strong language, though I think the able speech of the noble and learned Lord to whom I am deeply indebted, has shown it was not unjustified. I venture to ask your Lordships' leave under these circumstances to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.