Lords Sitting of 11 July 1889

BELGRANO (BUENOS AYRES) GAS COMPANY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, this is a Bill to enable alterations to be made in the Memorandum of Association of the Belgrano (Buenos Ayres) Gas Company. It was a Company formed, as its name implies, to supply gas to the town of Belgrano in Buenos Ayres; and the Company desire by this Bill so to alter their Memorandum of Association as to enable them to supply electric light as well as gas. My Lords, my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees thought that, under the circumstances, there were objections to such a Bill, and that I ought not to move it as a matter of form. I may say, my Lords, I entirely concur in that view; and when after his refusal the matter was brought before me, and I was asked to undertake to move the Bill, I said I certainly could not do so under the circumstances which then existed, because all that appeared then was that a large majority of the shareholders supported the Bill, and desired to have this alteration made in the Memorandum of Association. It appeared to me, my Lords, that that was not sufficient, and that considering that the Memorandum of Association is the basis of the Company, determining the undertaking which is to be carried on by the Company, no mere majority of the shareholders should merely, because they were a
62
majority, have the right to alter the Memorandum of Association which is the Charter of the Company settling its rights and its powers, so as to enable a new undertaking to be entered upon which might be distasteful to a minority, even an inconsiderable minority, of the shareholders. But, my Lords, under the special circumstances of this case, it appeared to me that, practically the whole of the shareholders assenting to the alteration of this Memorandum of Association, my difficulty would be removed. In consequence of that, inquiries have since been instituted by those who have charge of the Bill, and the result showed that that is the case—that practically the whole of the shareholders assent to the alteration. There are 220 shareholders holding 14,000 shares. That is the total number of shareholders and shares in the Company. Of those, 220 shareholders, 218, representing 13,964 shares, have expressed their approval, leaving only two shareholders unaccounted for. One of those two shareholders, representing 14 shares, has lately died, and that leaves really only one shareholder unaccounted for. That shareholder has been abroad, and has only just returned to England, and there has consequently been no opportunity of obtaining his assent. So that, my Lords, substantially, we may take it that the whole of the shareholders in this Company desire this alteration in. the Memorandum of Association, and desire that this power should be conferred upon the Company of entering upon this new branch of business as part of their undertaking. My Lords, the circumstances of the case are somewhat peculiar. In an ordinary case it might be said it is unnecessary to apply for an amendment of the Memorandum

63
of Association, because the existing Company can be dissolved, and a new Company formed; and there are cases in which I should have thought that would be the proper course to be pursued. But in the present case the Company has certain concessions from Foreign Governments, and I am assured that if that course were adopted, of dissolving the existing Company and forming a new Company, difficulties would be likely to arise which would not, perhaps, be very intelligible to the Foreign Governments by whom the concessions were granted, and the result of doing so might, therefore, be disastrous to the Company. The alteration is one which will enable a business to be carried on which is cognate to that now being carried on for the purpose of lighting a certain district, a new method of lighting having come into vogue since the Company was formed. Under all these circumstances, it seems to me that I may safely and properly ask your Lordships to read this Bill a second time, and there would be no danger of its creating a precedent which might prove inconvenient hereafter. There are, indeed, precedents for altering by Acts of Parliament Memorandums of Association; but I do not go into them now. Some of them might be said to be stronger cases than that which I am bringing before your Lordships' notice. Those Acts may have passed from want of proper precaution and care being taken when the matter was brought before Parliament. I am satisfied, my Lords, to rest the present case upon its own circumstances; and I am satisfied that there will be, under the circumstances, no danger of creating an inconvenient precedent in asking your Lordships to give your assent to the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2,ª"—(The Lord Herschell.)
THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I merely wish to say a few words in explanation of the position which I have taken up with regard to this Bill, and which has been correctly stated by my noble and learned Friend. This Bill, as my noble and learned Friend has stated, is to enable a Company, which is registered under the Joint Stock Companies' Act, to alter its Memorandum of Association. I need not point out to your
64
Lordships the great importance of a Memorandum of Association as being the Charter of a Company, and the great danger of altering the terms of that Memorandum of Association. My noble and learned Friend has said there are precedents for changes being made by special Acts of Parliament in Memorandums of Association of Joint Stock Companies. My Lords, that is perfectly true; there are many instances of such Acts of Parliament being passed, but they were all justified either by special circumstances over which the Company concerned had no control; or, secondly, by the requirements of concessions from Foreign Governments; or, thirdly, in order to clear up any doubts which might be entertained with regard to the construction of the Memorandum of Association. On the other hand, I may mention that many Bills for altering Memorandums of Association have been refused. I will give your Lordships an instance last Session of the United States and South American Investment Company, the powers of which were limited to America. That Company applied to have its powers extended to this country, and that Bill was refused. Then there was also the case of the Compagnie Générale des Asphaltes which, being a Foreign Company, also applied to have its powers extended to the United Kingdom, and that Bill again was refused by my Predecessor in Office. There was also the case of another Bill of a very similar character to the Bill now before the House in reference to a Company called the Tuscan Gas Company. That Company, precisely as in the present case, had powers for lighting a certain district by gas. My Predecessor refused the application of the Company in general terms, but they were allowed to light by electricity places where they could be forced by the Government, or by the Municipality, to supply electric light, the reason being that if they had not been allowed to do so they would have lost their concession. There was another case of the Telegraph Construction Company in 1883. I have looked at that Bill, and it is not a case at all parallel with the one before the House. It is merely as to the construction of the terms of the Memorandum of Association; and the Bill was for the purpose of clearing up doubts as to what the Company's powers were and

65
what they were not. My Lords, I referred just now to the danger of touching any Memorandum of Association of a Company, though, no doubt, a case might, under special circumstances, be made out for doing so. But I cannot see that this Company has made out any such special case. It is, no doubt, the fact that electric lighting has become more general since the formation of the Company five years ago; and the result appears to be, I am sorry to say, that the profits of the Company are diminishing; but it is not enough to show that, in consequence of the introduction of the electric light, the profits of the Company have been diminished. The noble and learned Lord says that the consent of all the shareholders has been obtained; and I admit at once that that is a great argument in favour of the Bill. There are, indeed, only two shareholders who have not assented, and their absence has been accounted for. But I would ask the House whether that gets over all the difficulties of the case? It seems to me to be a somewhat novel principle that Parliament should be called upon to legislate simply upon the requisition and by the consent of all the parties concerned in the particular Company whose interests it is desired to protect by legislation. My Lords, if that principle is admitted, is there not a danger that you will get beyond the simple position of universal consent by the shareholders, and that in the future you may be asked to consent to powers being given upon the wish of a majority? But, my Lords, there is besides another point to be considered. I am now speaking of this case simply as a precedent for future legislation, and not merely in reference to this particular Company. There are other parties interested besides the shareholders; there may be mortgagees, or other creditors, who are interested in the Memorandum of Association being maintained. There may be other circumstances existing which would require to be considered. I am told, my Lords, that in this particular case there is already an Electric Lighting Company established at Belgrano, which may have been started on the ground that this Gas Company has no power to supply electric light. I admit, my Lords, that the present case is somewhat exceptional; but I confess that I
66
should not recommend the adoption by your Lordships of a measure which may be considered to some extent a precedent. We may have Bills introduced where the circumstances require that such an alteration should be made as is here proposed; but this appears to me to be a new precedent entirely, and I am afraid there are not sufficient grounds existing to justify it, or grounds which would be satisfactory to your Lordships' House. My Lords, I have explained the particular circumstances which, in my opinion, rendered it impossible for me to take the responsibility of moving the Second Reading of the Bill in this case, as in that event it would have come before your Lordships in the ordinary course without any remark being made upon it. However, the noble and learned Lord has moved the Second Reading, and I leave it entirely to the House to state the course which is to be pursued in regard to it. But, as I have said, there have been precedents for passing such a Bill altering a Memorandum of Association, and it only remains for your Lordships to express your opinion upon it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I may say that I have no interest in this Company; but I have inquired into the circumstances of the case, and must support the Second Reading. The noble Lord has stated, in his remarks, that no special case has been made out by the Company. At the time the Company was constituted under the Companies' Act (1862) no question existed of this kind as to the possibility of using electricity for lighting any large or considerable area. As soon as the possibility arose of the electric light being utilized in that way, there was immediately a demand for it. The noble Lord is perfectly correct in saying that, so far, the Gas Company has not been called upon to supply electricity—if that had been the case the House might probably have thought that was a ground for granting the Second Reading; but although that is not the case the Gas Company has been put in the position of being very considerably cut down in its receipts. The noble and learned Lord has also said there is another Electric Lighting Company in existence at Belgrano. I have made inquiries into the matter, and I find there is already one

67
Company established there which is in a very strong position. Arrangements have been made with the Gas Company which I think are desirable for both Companies and also in the interests of the public; because it seems they have arranged to supply electricity in bulk to the Gas Company for the purpose of being delivered to the Gas Company's consumers. I think, my Lords, it is very desirable in the interests of both Companies, and also of the public, that your Lordships should accede to the Bill being read a second time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that no satisfactory reply has been given to the difficulties and objections which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has felt upon this subject. If the Bill were passed it might place a burden upon him which, I think, it is not fair to place upon him. What is the case before the House? The case is simply this It has been shown by the noble Lords who have spoken that this Company desires to enter upon a new business. But what is to be the answer, in this and other cases, of my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees when a request of this kind is made to allow Companies to embark in a different business to that in which they started? What rule, what line, is he to adopt? My Lords, I cannot say that I have heard anything to justify a departure in this case from the ordinary rule, or that anything really has been alleged for it, except this—that, as a commercial matter, this being a commercial undertaking, it is more profitable to this Company to extend its powers. That is very wide. I do not know how far we shall have to go if once that principle is adopted, or how the Chairman of Committees is to act. It is said that this is a Bill asking for a power of a cognate character; and in one sense that is no doubt correct, as it is for lighting purposes; but I cannot say that that is a justification for so important a change in this case. I cannot help thinking that your Lordships should require very strong grounds to be shown before you pass the Second Reading.
LORD FITZGERALD: My Lords, I have no personal interest whatever in this Company, and I know nothing of it beyond what I have read in the Papers, which I received this morning, and which
68
I believe to have been generally distributed. There can be no doubt what the object of the Company is. This, Memorandum speaks of lighting by gas, and the alteration proposed is to enable the Company partially to use lighting by electricity. It is said there is another means of doing this. What is it? By the liquidation and winding-up of this Company, and the formation of a new one with a new Memorandum of Association. The legal consequences of that would be very important to this Company, and very costly, and would possibly be disastrous to it. They say that, in order to carry on their business, they must provide lighting by electricity, and that otherwise they will lose the benefits of their concession. It is not only the Company and its shareholders that are interested in this matter but the local public; and it is to the interest of everybody concerned that the object of the Company should be carried out. No one objects. There are no creditors, and the shareholders as a body desire the alteration. The noble and learned Lord has pointed out that the Company will be enabled to go on by allowing its Memorandum of Association to be extended in this way. In doing so you violate no principle, and I therefore support the Second Reading.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I will only say in reply that the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons, has thought that this was a matter which should be brought forward. If any general rule is to be laid down, it is very desirable that there should be a common understanding between both Houses as to what course should be pursued with regard to these Bills. It is very undesirable that one rule should be followed in the House of Commons and another in this House. At the same time, I may say I am not sure that I can see any great distinction between a private Act of Parliament altering the terms of a Memorandum of Association and a private Act of Parliament altering the constitution of a Company. I confess I do not see any real distinction between the two, and the latter is of everyday occurrence.
On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents 23; Not-Contents 44.
Resolved in the negative.

CHELTENHAM IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 5th day of March last—
"That no private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Friday, the 21st day of June next,"
be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2ª.—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I oppose the Motion on the ground that Bills should not be hurried through the House. I must protest against business being done in a hurried manner. A noble Lord opposite has said that at the end of the Session it is perfectly impossible for any opposition to properly check the progress of measures, and he said, at the same time, he wished some Resolution could have been adopted on the subject. I know that other noble Lords have complained of the same thing, and the difficulties are increasing. On one occasion a Bill was carried in a single day, and though I opposed it, my speech would not have been reported if the reporters had not sent down to me to know what I said.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed.

INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL. (No. 154.)
Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c., with Amendments: the Report thereof received; and Bill recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
MARRIAGES (BASUTOLAND, &C.) BILL. (NO. 155.)
A Bill to remove doubts as to the validity of certain marriages solemnized in Basutoland and in British Bechuanaland; and
WINDWARD ISLANDS APPEAL COURT BILL. (NO. 156.)
A Bill to provide for modifying the constitution of the Court of Appeal for the Windward Islands—were presented by the Lord Knutsford; read 1ª; to be printed; and to be read 2ª on Thursday next.

TEAM WAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I have to move—
"That the Order made on the 5th day of March last, 'That no Bill brought from the
70
House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Friday the 28th day of June next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2ª."
All the requirements of the Tramways Act, 1870, which have to be complied with before a Provisional Order can be introduced into the House of Commons, were complied with in this case, and the Bill was introduced into the other House of Parliament on the 17th May. On one single Order it was opposed, but it did not come before the Committee until the 27th June, that is a month and 10 days after the Bill first came before Parliament. The Committee reported in favour of the Order; but the delay which occurred before the Committee was appointed has made it impossible for us to comply with the Standing Orders and Sessional Orders in regard to this Bill. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will on this occasion suspend the Standing Orders.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2ª accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

WINCHESTER BURGESSES (DISQUALI- FICATION REMOVAL) BILL.
LORD BASING: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I have only to say that the object of the Bill is to remove a disqualification from certain persons who, though they pay borough rates and are included in the borough, are disqualified from voting as burgesses. When the city was laid out in wards a piece of land wasleftout, which has since been built upon, and the Bill proposes to attach it to St. John's Ward.
Bill read 2ª (according to Order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE BILL. (No. 125.)
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships for the Second Reading of this Bill, which has passed without opposition in the House of Commons. The movement in favour of a Minister of Agriculture took its origin in a Resolution carried some years ago in the House of Commons, on the Motion

71
of Mr. Sampson Lloyd, by which it was resolved that it was extremely desirable a Department should be created for Agriculture and Trade. In 1881, the Motion of Sir M. Lopes for the same object was accepted by the then Government, and in order to give effect to that Resolution, the Committee of Agriculture, which now exists, was in 1883 appointed. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was made Vice President of that Committee, and has so continued; but since my noble Friend who holds that office became Duke of Rutland, the duties which had to be discharged in the House of Commons were undertaken by Lord Lewisham, who has since acted for the Department. My Lords, I have heard some remarks made with respect to the Committee so appointed in 1883, and by the present Government both in 1885 and 1886. That Committee has been by no means a nominal one, for it has frequently been called together to consider very important matters. The President is, of course, responsible for everything that is done, and it was not for the purpose of relieving him from that responsibility that the Committee has been on several occasions called together; but the Committee is composed of those who know the wants of the country in connection with agricultural subjects. It has also been of service in regard to the distribution of the money last year assigned to the Department for dairy and agricultural schools. My Lords, I should not be moving this Bill if I thought in doing so I should be understood as condemning the present system. So far as the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council is concerned, I am quite aware that that Department has been approved by all parties and classes in the country. It has done its duty very effectually. Under that Department cattle plague and foot and-mouth disease have been effectually stamped out; and, with regard to pleuro-pneumonia, although it is a much more insidious and difficult disease to deal with, it has been taken in hand with the best powers of the Department, and I hope that, whoever may be the new Minister of Agriculture, he may be as triumphant over that disease as his predecessors have been in dealing with the enemies of agriculture I have alluded to. The Veterinary
72
Department has been served by officers who are recognized not only officially, but in the agricultural world as men of singular capacity, activity, and energy, and the country is indebted to them for the ability with which, when disease appears, they use their best endeavours to stamp it out. It is only just to mention Professor Brown, Mr. Cope, and Major Tennant; but indeed I may say generally that the staff of the Veterinary Department has been all that could be desired. The Statistical Department was transferred from the Board of Trade, and I think I may say that those conversant with those matters will admit that the statistics which have been drawn up in the Privy Council Office have been of a character which deserves the approbation of all those interested in them, and, at the same time, they have been brought out so promptly as to be of the greatest use to the farming interest of the country. That, of course, will go on. The great duties discharged by the Agricultural Departments of foreign countries, at enormous expense, have been carried out in England mainly by the voluntary action of the Agricultural Societies of this country; and I do not-believe that this country would be ready to vote an establishment on the large scale adopted in other countries for the Department now to be created. However, the determination of the agriculturists to have a Department entirely to themselves has been sufficiently made manifest, and I am the last person to stand in the way of their receiving the most thorough attention to their wants. Having regard to the difficulties and troubles they have had to encounter in recent years, I do not wonder that they stretch out their hands in all directions for assistance, and that they may look to anew Board of Agriculture to give them, more advantages than they have hitherto had. With regard to schools of agriculture, a grant of £5,000 was made last year for distribution by the Privy Council, and that grant has resulted in a number of agricultural and dairy schools springing up in England, Wales, and Scotland that are doing useful work, and give us reason to hope that the want of these institutions, hitherto felt in this country, will be supplied without any great drain upon the Treasury. My Lords, I have very little more to say.

73
The Bill, which is a short Bill, speaks for itself. It hands over the work hitherto done by the Privy Council in respect of all questions connected with contagious diseases and agriculture; it hands over the work of the Land Commission, with its officers, to the new Board, and also that of the Ordnance Survey, and it will likewise take charge of agricultural statistics and matters relating to forestry and horticulture, as well as the inspection of agricultural and dairy schools. I hope the Bill will be passed without undue delay, because uncertainties and difficulties naturally occur when a Department has, so to speak, a new one hanging over it, and I hope the Treasury will adequately provide for it, and that it may be put in a position to get to work speedily, when I think there can be no doubt it will do work of a satisfactory kind. I submit the Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª"—(The Viscount Cranbrook.)
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I have listened with great attention to everything that my noble Friend has said. His speech was very much what I anticipated it would be; he eulogized the Agricultural Department; he told us that the Veterinary Department was as good as could be; he alluded to the statistics; and he told us he was far from condemning the present system. Judging from the remarks of the Lord President of the Council, I imagined that he would have concluded by asking your Lordships to read the Bill a second time this day six months. My Lords, I claim as strong an interest and to be as greatly connected with agriculture as any person in the country. I enjoy the confidence and the friendship of numerous farmers, and I can assure your Lordships that nothing would be further from my wishes than to do anything which would, in my opinion, be hostile or adverse to the agricultural interest. It is, however, because I think that this measure is unnecessary and mischievous that I now lift up my voice against it. I am afraid that I cannot ask your Lordships to reject it, because the Bill having passed the other House without a Division, I do not think it probable that your Lordships would by a majority reject it. The
74
measure is unnecessary, because there is nothing provided for in it which is not performed at the present time by the Agricultural Department, presided over by the Lord President. I think it is mischievous, because to my mind it will raise hopes in the minds of the agriculturists of the country which can never be realized. Agriculturists may be led to believe that the mere fact of setting up an Agricultural Department will conduce to their welfare and put an end to that state of depression which has been passing for so many years over the country. In this belief they would be utterly disappointed, and it is on that ground that I consider the measure a mischievous one. The First Lord of the Treasury, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said—
"Having regard to the present condition of affairs, the competition which existed, the reduction of price which has prevailed during the last few years, resulting perhaps in a greater dislocation of employment in the agricultural industry than in any other industry, and having regard also to the fact that in many parts of the country land has been thrown out of cultivation and that those who have been dependent upon it as owners, and cultivators, and employers have suffered most severely, the Government cannot but admit that there exists very considerable ground for the demand which is made by the agricultural classes for the constitution of a department which would make the interests of agriculture its special and peculiar charge. This is not a personal, individual, or sectional question. It is an Imperial question. It is clearly to the interests of the country that the land should be made productive to its utmost capacity, and should be made to contribute to the prosperity of the country as far as possible."
Now, my Lords, I want to know, with regard to competition, which is one of the points referred to, what is there in this Bill which will enable us to meet competition? It does not propose to resuscitate our old friend Protection, though I, for one, should not object to that. Then it is said that parts of the country have been thrown out of cultivation. I do not see how anything that can be done under this new Bill can bring into cultivation any part of the country that is now out of cultivation. He talks about there being a greater dislocation of employment in the agricultural industry than in any other industry. What is this Bill going to do to remedy that? It seems to be—well, I will not say what I think of it. Then he says—

75
"The Bill is an effort to establish a department which will, I hope, be exceedingly useful to the agricultural community. No doubt a great strain has been put upon those who are interested in land during the last few years. Prices have fallen; there has been an absence of profit in almost every important portion of the farmer's industry, and now we have to endeavour by all the means in our power to bring back prosperity to that portion of Her Majesty's subjects, not by any action of Parliament, not by the fostering care of a department, but by bringing home to them that knowledge and power by which they themselves may work out their own deliverance."
How in the name of wonder the passing of this Bill, which is really only transferring these matters to a new Department, is to bring all that about passes my comprehension. I hope that in the course of time all that may be worked out, but at the present time I confess I do not see how it is to be done. I ask again, my Lords, what is there in this Bill which would enable agriculturists to meet competition? As to the parts of the country thrown out of cultivation, how can anything in this Bill bring back to a state of cultivation lands that have gone out of cultivation? Then, again, what is the Bill going to do in order to remedy the dislocation of employment in the agricultural industry? It has been urged that the Bill will be useful to the agricultural community, and that there is an absence of profit in the agricultural industry. I agree with the First Lord of the Treasury in this, and I should like to see that condition of affairs altered; but this Bill will not do it. How this Bill is to bring home to agriculturists that knowledge and power by which they are to work out their own deliverance I absolutely fail to comprehend, seeing that it only provides for the transfer of the present duties of the Department to another Board. Now, my Lords, I take the Bill itself. The whole of the Bill is contained in the second clause, which declares three things—first of all, the powers and duties of the Board of Agriculture; secondly, the powers and duties of the Land Commissioners; and, thirdly, the powers and duties of the Land Survey, are to be transferred to the new Department. It is quite beyond my comprehension to see what benefit will accrue to agriculturists by mere transference of the duties of the existing Department to another Department located in a different place. I am also astonished to find
76
that one of the most important agricultural countries—Ireland—has not been included in the Bill, hut that it is, on the contrary, to be left to the administration of the present Irish Privy Council. I will quote statistics to show how the Veterinary Department has dealt with outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and cattle plague. I should like to give your Lordships a sample of the existing state of things. In 1871 there were 52,164 fresh cases of outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, 691,565 animals being attacked. The United Kingdom has now been free from foot-and-mouth disease for some years. No cattle plague has been imported since the passing of the Act of 1878. As to pleuro-pneumonia, I can show your Lordships that in 1877, the year before the passing of the Act, there were 2,108 farms returned as infected and 5,330 animals attacked. In 1888 there were only 513 farms returned as infected, with 1,813 animals attacked. If the Government would spend only one-half of the money which they intended to spend on the creation of this new Department in taking proper measures they could stamp out pleuro-pneumonia altogether. It must be admitted that the present Department does its work in an admirable manner, and we should hardly be able to find its equal in any other country in the world. In the year 1888 no fewer than 68 different abstracts were compiled by Mr. Whitehead and published by the Agricultural Department. Mr. Whitehead has also published elaborate essays on the subject of moths, flies, and beetles affecting agriculture. That has all been done now, and I doubt whether, under the new system, we should get much more information. I am astonished at the ignorance displayed on this subject. I have heard it said, for instance, that it is perfectly monstrous that a country like this, where agriculture is such an important interest, should not have an Agricultural Department as France has. But we have a Department of Agriculture, although our system is different, because in France everything is done by the Government. Even the expense of shows is borne there by the Government. But in the case of a show, such as that recently held at Windsor, every penny of expenditure comes from voluntary contributions. Those who complain

77
that we have not an Agricultural Department like that existing in France, do not know probably that that Department cost France £1,600,000 last year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, I think, make a very wry face if he were told that he would have to find anything like that amount of money to maintain agriculture in this country. I have heard that the new Minister would be able to stamp out disease; but I cannot imagine how the Minister could do more in that respect than is done now, for he certainly could not go outside the Act of Parliament. My Lords, I have only a very few words more to say; but there is one thing which I must mention. The argument which seems to have weighed most with my noble Friend the Prime Minister was addressed to him by a deputation which waited upon him a few months ago. The deputation suggested to him that there should be a Board of Agriculture. There were several speeches made, and my noble Friend at the end of the meeting stated his views to the deputation. I cannot help believing he must have been thinking of some great diplomatic matter which was weighing upon his mind, or he would not have answered the deputation in the way he did. He said that every advantage to be derived from organisation and concentration of effort should be given by the Government, and that it appeared to him that the arguments in favour of the formation of an Agricultural Department were unanswerable, and that those were the views which Government had for two or three years adopted. I looked to see what the arguments were which my noble Friend considered unanswerable; and I found that in 1865 it was stated that there was the most deplorable chaos in the Public Departments with regard to agricultural affairs. A deputation attempted to approach the Government on the subject of cattle plague which was then ravaging the country, they applied to the then Prime Minister. Lord John Russell told them that he knew nothing at all about the question, and as it had very likely something to do with money he referred them to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gladstone. They all took fright at the proposition. Next they went to the Board of Trade, who said they were not an Agricultural Department, and when the question was
78
put where there was one, the reply was that the only one was the Woods and Forests. That was regarded as a very dubious suggestion. Finally they interviewed the then Home Secretary, who heard what they had to say, and they asked him to pass an order for the compulsory stoppage of the sale and transit of animals. Therefore, the argument which weighed with my noble Friend was that in 1865 a gentleman, who had suffered loss by the cattle plague, came to London with a deputation. He endeavoured to obtain an interview with Lord John Russell, who declined to have anything whatever to say to him, and he went back to his country seat; he returned in 1889, and what had happened in 1865 is given as an argument why a new Department should be now instituted. At the end of the meeting my noble Friend stated his views. He said—
"Every advantage to be derived from organization and concentration of effort should be given to you by the Government under which you live. For those reasons it seems to me that the argument in favour of the establishment of an Agricultural Department is unanswerable, and you have only been repeating and illustrating with fresher details the views which Her Majesty's Government have been induced now for two or three years to adopt."
I am surprised that my noble Friend should have been at all moved by what that deputation told him. Whatever might have been the circumstances existing in 1865 as a reason for this certainly do not, as I have shown/exist in 1889. I do not, however, propose to go to a Division. I trust the measure may do good to the agricultural body. I do not think it will, and I fear they will be very much disappointed; but, at any rate, I hope it will do no harm.
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, although I cannot for a moment assume to hold the position in the agricultural world which my noble Friend has, I think I am entitled to say a few words upon this subject for two reasons—first, that I have filled the post of Lord President of the Council; and, secondly, that I was a member of the Government which made a very considerable change with regard to the management of the Veterinary Department. I venture to think the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council made a slip in his statement as to the time when the Committee of Agriculture was appointed.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I made a mistake—it was in 1881 the Motion was made, and the Committee appointed in 1883.
EARL SPENCER: Yes. In 1881, if my recollection is correct, the House of Commons passed a Resolution in favour of appointing a Committee of Agriculture and Commerce or Trade, and of a Cabinet Minister being appointed to the head of the Department. Mr. Gladstone's Government did not adopt the last recommendation, nor did it think that the Department of Agriculture should be mixed up with the Department of Trade or Commerce; but they thought it reasonable that the House of Commons should have a responsible Minister to represent agriculture, and they constituted the Committee of Agriculture at the Privy Council instead of the Veterinary Department which had previously existed. That was in 1883. That was a considerable change. At that time it was decided that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should represent the Department in the House of Commons. I agree that that arrangement might require some development after experience; but I cannot agree with the Government in thinking that so complete a change as that now proposed should be made. Another course might have been taken. A permanent Secretary or Under Secretary might have been given to the Lord President of the Council to represent that Department in Parliament. That, I think, would be a better arrangement than the arrangement which was made in 1883, and which has been going on ever since. I also feel that great disappointment might arise in consequence of the appointment of the new Minister; and I desire to ask whether the Department would have such wide powers as those of the Agricultural Departments of the United States and France? I agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not encourage a Department reaching the expensive dimensions of the French Department; but there is always a danger, in forming a special Department of this sort, that increased expense will arise. Now I cannot help joining in the praises which the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council and the noble Duke have bestowed on the existing Department. I should deprecate a
80
change which might take away from the influence of the Royal Agricultural Society and other voluntary Associations, which have done such great good in the country. The old Department has conducted some very large transactions with perfect success. They have rooted out the foot-and-mouth disease, and managed the agricultural statistics with great success, and have issued most important documents, giving a vast amount of information to agriculturists on a variety of subjects. All those things are most valuable to agriculturists, and I do not see how the new Agricultural Department can succeed better in regard to all these matters. I should like to refer to the officers of the Department to whom the noble Viscount referred, and give my testimony to the great knowledge, ability, and zeal shown by Professor Browne and the other gentlemen connected with the Department. There could not be a more able, firm, discreet, zealous, and at the same time permanent head of a Department than Mr. Charles Peel, the Clerk of the Council. I am sure the agriculturists of this country owe a great deal to him for the marked ability and judgment with which he has carried on his duties, and the valuable assistance-he has given to the Lord President of the Council and all those with whom he has come in contact. My Lords, I have very little more to add; but having been connected with this Department I have made these few remarks because I wish to caution the agriculturists throughout the country against having too great expectations as to what the new Department will carry out, and also to give my humble testimony to the efficiency of the work done by the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we have heard two speeches delivered by noble Lords who enjoy a high reputation for a knowledge of agriculture, and who usually represent the feeling of the agricultural population of this country. On the present occasion, however, they appear to remember only that they are Past Presidents of the Privy Council. At all events, they do not represent the feeling of the agricultural population on this, occasion. There is no doubt that the farmers want this measure. They

81
have pressed for it very strongly and for many years in every possible form; and I am quite sure that neither of those noble Lords, with their great influence, could go to a public meeting in an agricultural part of the country and carry a resolution embodying the opinions which they have just expressed. They endeavour to explain the prevalent feeling by saying that the farmers are misled into entertaining the most extraordinary and delusive hopes, and that they look forward to an entire cure of the depression under which they have been labouring and to a general rise in prices as the result of this measure. I think that the noble Lords have painted in too dark colours the intelligence of the class whom they so accurately represent. I think the farmers may be given credit for knowing very well that the mere creating of a Department will not alter the economical causes, to which are due the calamities which we all so much deplore. But the farmers naturally wish that their industry, which is one of the most important, if not the most important of the country, should receive that care, that organization, and that consideration which other industries in this country have hitherto received. The noble Earl opposite says it is a great pity to withdraw from the action of the great private Societies the duty of taking care of the interests of agriculture, and that agriculture will be none the better for the change. Then why was that operation performed with respect to trade? Why has a special Ministry existed now for over 100 years for the sake of taking care of trade, if the results of Governmental solicitude were so injurious as the noble Earl represents? The farmers know very well that the Board of Trade has been of great use to the trade of this country, and naturally resent the idea that agriculture should be looked upon as a matter of so little importance that it should not be thought worthy of that administrative machinery and care which the Government have given to rival industry of trade. The two speeches we have heard are not speeches which show that thore can be any harm in this Bill. They are speeches partially lamenting the disappearance of a state of things with which the speakers have them-
82
selves been familiar, and expressing the pious regret which is conveyed in the words quorum pars magna fui. But there is nothing to show that any injury could result from this Bill. On the other hand, this Bill will put the business of the Government, as far as it is concerned with agriculture, in a more reasonable and a more orderly condition than it has ever been put in before. Just detach yourselves from the habit with which you have regarded the present arrangements and imagine that you are looking at them for the first time. Let us suppose the proverbial Japanese to be inquiring into the institutions of this country, and to be asking in what manner the Government provides for the care of agriculture. He would find that we take one of the greatest officers of State, whose historic office has always been concerned with the gravest political matters, and give him in addition the duty of looking after agriculture. With him is associated the officer who appoints the magistrates and clergymen of a distant county, and lest they together should not be able to do the work we add a Vice Chamberlain who takes care of the ceremonies of the Court. However, the machinery works very well, as is shown by the tributes which have been paid to the Departmental officers, and in those tributes I most heartily join. Still, I maintain that we are not doing things decently and in order, and that we ought not to be exposed to all the reproaches of my noble Friend behind me, because we wish agriculture to enter into that regular state of things which we have long had with regard to trade. The only real objection to this Bill is that there is a necessary expense, but at all events the expense is not very large. The House of Commons is not generally very indulgent on that subject. This Bill passed through the other House without any protest on the part of those who make the protection of the public purse the subject of their special care. I suppose the House of Commons thinks it is not an unnecessary expense, and, therefore, we need not trouble our consciences on that subject. After all, the Bill will put matters into a more regular form. We shall gather round the Department to a greater extent than we have hitherto done all that science and practice can give us in respect of the administrative ability which this sub-

83
ject requires. We shall announce and give a pledge to the farmers that we regard agriculture as one of the most important interests of this country, and as being worthy of as much solicitude en the part of the Government as are the interests of trade; and, without expecting any absurd or exaggerated results from a measure which is not in itself a large one, we believe that it will be distinctly to the advantage of this industry in particular, and of the country generally.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I think the proverbial Japanese would be quite as much puzzled by the provisions of this Bill as by the present state of affairs. I also feel a great interest in agriculture, and I think the noble Marquess opposite has stated the only ground on which this Bill can be supported. It is a sentimental affair. There is a certain, though I imagine not a large, number of farmers who think agriculture is slighted because a special Department is not devoted to it. I have had the honour to fill one or two offices in the Government of this country, and my experience has led me to think that the Bill will be an utter delusion. The notion that the great agricultural interest is to be benefited by measures of this kind is absolutely ludicrous. No doubt a Veterinary Department with able clerks to collect statistics might be of service, and I suppose the Ordnance Survey would not be interfered with. A wish has been often expressed for the creation of a new Forestry Department. I heard something of forestry when I was at the India Office, and I found that in this country there was not sufficient woodland for a forestry school, and that we had to obtain instruction from Germans and Frenchmen. The fact is, my Lords, that agriculturists must look to their own exertions, and not to the Government, for improvement in their condition. I do not profess to say that this Bill will do any harm particularly, but I do not think it will do much good. But I so far agree with the noble Marquess that it will tend to satisfy a certain number of persons who are now agitating, and may be induced to cease from agitation by the passing of this Bill.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed to the Standing Committee for General Bills.

ADVERTISEMENT RATING BILL. (No. 124.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD ZOUCHE: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I may state that it has passed the other House of Parliament. In London, and in many Provincial towns also, vacant ground and great numbers of buildings have been used for many years for purposes of advertisement, and large sums have been derived from that use. But in no case has either the owner or licensee of such ground been rated by the Local Authorities. It is considered that property of that description, which brings in such very large sums annually, should bear a proportion of the local burdens, and that it should no longer be exempt, as it has hitherto been. This Bill, my Lords, as I said before, has passed the other House of Parliament; it has received very considerable support in the country, and Her Majesty's Government is not, I believe, unfavourable to it. It only remains for me to ask your Lordships to allow this Bill to be read a second time.
Bill read 2ª (according to order.)
LORD ZOUCHE: I now beg to move that this Bill should be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Marquess of SALISBURY expressed dissent.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: There is very great inconvenience in Standing Committees meeting when your Lordships are sitting. I see no reason whatever why the Committees should not meet on Tuesday afternoons after the rising of the House, and not concurrently. It is quite certain that the Members of your Lordships' House cannot be serving on a Standing Committee, and also doing their duty in the House at the same time. I trust that if the Standing Committees survive another Session, care will be taken not to interfere with the ordinary and proper business of your Lordships.
LORD ZOUCHE: My Lords, I do not know whether I might put this point to the House. This is a Money Bill, and I do not know whether it is competent to the House to make any amendment in the Bill. I think it is well that there

85
should not be any delay in passing the measure, and that is why I proposed that it should be referred to a Committee of the Whole House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is a rating, not a taxing, Bill.
After short discussion, the Bill was committed to the Standing Committee for General Bills.

OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL. (No. 112.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have very few observations to make in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It is one which has passed the other House of Parliament. In recent years we have had very conspicuous examples of the necessity of guarding official secrets, and protecting official documents. It is a duty which every citizen owes to the country, that he should not facilitate the military operations of other countries by giving copies of official documents, and this Bill is intended to remedy existing defects in our law in that respect. It provides for the punishment of those persons who either give information to the enemies of the country, or who act as spies, or make or communicate plans or sketches of fortresses and like places, or disclose official secrets. In such cases the authorities may take such steps as may be thought fit. If any person so communicate to another country adversely to the interests of this country, it is made felony and the subject of a severe penalty. If plans or sketches are not made with so evil a design as that, but merely for the purpose of idle curiosity, provision is made for meeting such a case—that is to say, if the offender does not intend to communicate with the enemy. Another class of offences is the disclosure of official secrets. Where a person who is holding, or has held, office under Her Majesty, or has in his possession or control any official document, should in like manner communicate with those who may become the Queen's enemies, severe penalties are enacted. I hope your Lordships will consider it right that this Bill should be read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, though I entirely approve of the general objects of the Bill I cannot help thinking that in some of its details it goes too far. The first section provides that any person who takes such a sketch as may be useful to the Queen's enemies may be liable to the same severe penalties as are imposed upon an offender who intends to communicate it to them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If he is acting as a spy.
LORD HERSCHELL: It is quite clear that "acting as a spy" does not come in; that is another sub-section. Reference is made to its being made for honest purposes, and of course in that case he does not act as a spy, and he is not therefore liable. I am quite sure that cannot have been intended, and I only call attention to it with the view to its being remedied.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is one of the in conveniences of the present system that a person holding the office which I have the honour at present to hold is supposed to be responsible for looking after a Bill of this sort, and to see that, the details of it are properly arranged.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2ª (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION BILL. (No. 125.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD KNUTSFORD: This Bill contains but few clauses, and is simple in form; but it has an important bearing upon one of our great Australian Colonies, Western Australia, and the progress of the Bill through Parliament will be watched with a deep and lively interest in that colony. The object of the Bill is to enable Her Majesty to assent to a Bill which has been passed by the Legislative Council in Western Australia, and has been reserved for Her Majesty's consent. By that Bill, which is scheduled to the Imperial Bill, a great change is made in the Constitution of the colony, and responsible Government is substituted for representative Government. If this change is

87
made, Western Australia will be placed upon the same Constitutional footing as the other great colonies of Australia. The present Constitution is, as I have said, a representative Government, and consists of a Governor, an Executive Council, and a Legislative Council, 26 in number, nine of whom are nominated and 17 elected. This system is an intermediate stage between the Government which obtains in a Crown colony pure and simple, and responsible Government. In a Crown colony pure and simple the Crown is responsible for the Government of the colony; but it has a majority by which it can secure the passing of such measures as are necessary for the good Government of the colony. On the other hand, in a colony under a responsible Government the Ministers are responsible to the people, and command a majority in the Colonial Parliament. The disadvantage of the intermediate stage of representative Government is that the Crown remains largely responsible for the Government of the colony, but it cannot command a majority. The system places an insuperable power of obstructing and delaying measures in the hands of the Colonial Legislature, which is not responsible for the conduct of affairs. That system may work smoothly enough in smaller colonies and in quiet times; but when burning questions arise, and there are matters of difference between the Executive and Legislature, it leads to complications, and a considerable amount of friction. For this reason it is admitted by those who have had the control of colonial affairs that that system is suitable only for an intermediate stage; and that when a colony is fit for responsible Government the sooner it is given the better. This view is strongly confirmed by what has passed in Western Australia. A representative Government was granted to Western Australia in 1870, and in 1873, only three years later, a movement was made in favour of responsible Government, and the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley), who was then Secretary for the Colonies, replied that, while the Governor himself ought not to take any steps towards disturbing the existing arrangements, Her Majesty's Government would not be disposed to resist any widespread and sustained desire which might prevail in the colony for
88
responsible Government. In 1874 the Governor, at the request of the Council, sent over a draft Constitution Bill; but the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon), then Secretary for the Colonies, rightly decided that the colony was not ripe for the change. There is one passage in his despatch of November 18 which, as it has a direct and important bearing on the case, I will read to your Lordships. Lord Carnarvon wrote—
"I am and can be actuated by no feeling of indisposition towards those principles of responsible Government which have had full play elsewhere on the Australian Continent, and have reproduced the free institutions of the Mother Country in no unworthy form. Those institutions are the proper and desirable end to which the colony tends, at which it must in time arrive, and towards which all those, whether there or at home, who are concerned in the administration of its affairs, ought to direct their measures."
These latter words confirm the view that Representative Government is merely transitional, and express very clearly and concisely the manner in which those who seek for Responsible Government should be approached by the Home Government. I pass on, my Lords, from 1874 to 1883 with only one observation, that the subject of a change to Responsible Government did not make much progress, though from time to time it was revived in the colony. The correspondence in 1883 and up to the present time will be found in the Parliamentary Papers, C. 5743 and C. 5752. and I need only refer very briefly to one or two stages in the case. In 1883 an Address was sent to this country by the Legislative Council asking on what terms Responsible Government would be granted, and Lord Derby, then Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs, wrote a carefully-worded despatch of July 23, 1883, which certainly deserves very careful consideration, as setting out the views of Her Majesty's Government, but which I shall not at present refer to further, though I shall have occasion later on to refer to one passage in it, which bears upon the land question. It is to be found in page 3 of the Parliamentary Papers which have been recently presented to Parliament. In 1884 the present Governor, Sir F. Napier Broome, after he had been 10 months in the colony, reported his opinion on the state of things as follows:—

89
"Though I see no valid reason for with-holding free institutions from this colony after its inhabitants shall have expressed a general and decided wish to take upon themselves the burden and the responsibility of that form of Government, I am strongly of opinion that, until such a wish shall have been expressed, which certainly it has not been as yet, it would be a mistake to make this great and irretrievable change. Furthermore, while I concede that the colony has reached a stage at which a claim to its birthright, if deliberately insisted upon, should not he refused, I nevertheless think that Western Australia would do well to delay its majority for a time until its wealth and population shall have still further increased, and until (what is hardly the case as yet) the community contains within itself a good ballast weight of public opinion and a sufficient complement of qualified public men to govern on the Party system."
He also considered at that time that Western Australia, if the change were made, should be separated into two parts, and that the Northern portion above the 26th degree of latitude should remain for the present a Crown colony. Upon both these points, however, after he had more experience of the working of the Constitution, and after he had ascertained more fully the wishes of the Legislature and of the people, he changed his opinion, and became a strong advocate for granting responsible Government to Western Australia, and placing the whole of the country under a responsible Ministry. In 1887 two Resolutions were passed by the Legislative Council in favour of Responsible Government by a majority of 13 to 4, and sent over to this country. Those Resolutions were accepted in principle by Her Majesty's Government, but with reservation of details, including special provisions for the Northern district and protection for the natives. I will not trouble your Lordships with further reference to my despatch of December 22, 1887, but only allude to it as setting forth the views of Her Majesty's present Government on this important question. In May, 1888, a draft Constitution Bill was sent over, and after careful consideration of its provisions I sent out in the following August a revised Bill to the colony. I will only trouble your Lordships with one passage of my despatch of the 31st of August. I said—
"In conclusion, I have to state that, should the Bill which 1 now send be adopted by the Legislative Council, I shall be prepared to take steps for the introduction into Parliament of the Bill which, as I have already informed you,
90
it will be necessary should be passed before Her Majesty can be advised to assent to the measure. Her Majesty's Government do not, however, desire to preclude the Council from altering any details in the Bill so long as the main principles are maintained, especially the nominated Council, the division of the colony for the purposes of land regulations, and the protection of the native inhabitants of the colony. At the same time, if any material alterations are desired, I should wish you to furnish me with a full explanation of the reasons for such alterations."
Your Lordships will see that three conditions were laid down as essential to any change in the form of Government. Considerable discussion arose upon these three conditions; but Her Majesty's Government adhered to them, and the revised Bill, with some Amendments, has been accepted and passed by the Legislative Council, and is the measure now submitted for Her Majesty's assent. I will now direct the attention of your Lordships to four important questions which arise in connection with, this proposed change. The first question, which lies really at the root of the whole matter, is whether it is expedient to grant the colony Responsible Government; in other words, whether the colony has made sufficient progress and advance in population, wealth, education, and general and material prosperity to justify the change. I submit, without hesitation, that a case has been made out for assenting to the strongly expressed desire of the colonists, which, I may observe in passing, is strongly supported by the other Australian Governments. I would point out that the existing system of Representative Government leads constantly to complications and difficulties, and that the time has arrived when a change is desirable. And on this part of the case I would refer to a passage in a despatch of the 12th of July, 1887, in which the Governor says—
"It is, therefore, enough that I should clearly express my conviction that Responsible Government ought now to be granted to Western Australia, for the reason that the colony has progressed to the stage at which such institutions may be adopted, and has passed the stage at which the Government can be satisfactorily carried on under the existing Constitution, even when that Constitution is administered—as I have always, with the full consent of yourself and your predecessors, tried to administer it—in the most liberal manner consistent with its framework."
I submit also to your Lordships that there is another very important reason

91
why the proposed change should be made in the Government of Western Australia. It is desirable that the colonies on the Australian Continent should be placed as soon as practicable on the same Constitutional footing. Until there is uniformity of Government in the different colonies forming that Continent, there can be little chance of any system of federation, to which I, for one, look forward as a system which will largely tend to an increase of strength and wealth in those colonies. It is urged against the change that the population of Western Australia is small, and that sufficient progress has not been made. I prefer to concur in the view that, with a population of 40,000, with an increasing revenue of upwards of £137,000, with a large development of goldfields and other industries, and increase of construction of railways and telegraphs, and other proofs of progress, it cannot be said that Western Australia is not sufficiently advanced to be capable of managing her own affairs if she be so inclined. We are not without precedent for this course. No one can doubt that the colony of Queensland has greatly flourished under Responsible Government; but when Queensland was separated from New South Wales, and was given Responsible Government, she had only 28,000 inhabitants, as against 40,000 in Western Australia, and it was not until years after Queensland had received Responsible Government that in other points she attained to the present position of Western Australia. The population was not so great; the construction of railways and telegraphic communication was very much less; and it was not, as I have said, until many years after Responsible Government was granted to her that Queensland reached that stage of progress at which Western Australia has already arrived. And, with reference to the progress made by Western Australia, I may mention to your Lordships that in 1883 there were only 53 miles of railway in Western Australia; there are now 422 miles. In 1883 there were only 280 miles of telegraphs; there are now 2,970 miles. Western Australia has three large goldfields, and it is probable that more will be developed. In 1882 the revenue of the colony was £250,000; now it is £357,000, and is increasing. I submit that these figures show that
92
the colony is ripe for the change of Government, and that the first question must be answered in the affirmative. The second question is as to the form of the Constitution which is to be granted. Speaking generally, the new Constitution is on the same lines as the Constitution which has been given to each of the other Australian colonies, and under which these Colonies have so greatly flourished. The main question of difference that arose between Her Majesty's Government and the Colonial Government referred to the constitution of the Legislative Council—that is to say, the Upper House. Looking to the number of the population, Her Majesty's Government were, and still are, of opinion that in the first instance, at all events, the Upper House should be nominated and not elective. I am bound to admit that the existing Legislative Council, by a. majority of 11 out of 14, were in favour of election; and, looking to the fact that already in three Australian colonies—South Australia, Victoria, and Tasmania—the elective principle prevails, Her Majesty's Government were prepared to agree to a compromise—that if, at the end of six years or after the population had increased to 60,000, the Ministers of the day were desirous that a change should be made from nomination to election, we should not oppose it; and that compromise appears in the Bill which is in the Schedule to the Imperial Bill. The third question is, whether the whole area of land shall be left under the control of the responsible Ministers of the colony. The Governor and Legislative Council were of opinion that it might be left safely under that control, but after carefully considering the whole question, Her Majesty's Government concurred in the view expressed by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Derby) in a despatch dated July 23, 1883, to which I have before referred and from which I will quote a single paragraph. Lord Derby writes—
"While I am of opinion that under Responsible Government the control of the Crown lands generally would have to be vested in the colonial Parliament, it appears to me, as at present advised, that it would he necessary to make an exception in respect of those northern Crown lands which would be likely to form a separate colony at an early date."
Adhering to that view I suggested, in

93
December, 1887, a scheme to meet the difficulties of the case, and that scheme is found at page 24 of the Parliamentary Paper. The scheme was as follows:—
"That for the purpose of dealing with all questions as to disposal of waste lands of the Crown the colony shall be taken to he divided at about latitude 26 (or in the neighbourhood of the Murchison River), north of which the population is, you inform me, estimated at not more than 2,000 persons.
"That it shall be lawful for the Legislature of Western Australia to regulate by Act passed in the usual way the sale, letting and other disposal of the waste lands of the Crown south of that line, and the disposal of proceeds arising therefrom.
"That all the regulations affecting the sale, letting, disposal, and occupation of waste lands of the Crown in the territory north of that line shall remain under the control of Her Majesty's Government, the proceeds of all land sales being invested at interest, to form a fund of which the principal would be reserved for the benefit of any colony or colonies which may hereafter be created in such northern territory, except in go far as it may from time to time be expended, with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government, for the special advancement of the districts in which it was raised, either by the settlement of emigrants therein, or in other ways, while the interest of this fund, as well as all rents and other land revenue of an annual character, not being instalments of money paid under a system of conditional purchase, would form part of the general revenue and be subject to the vote of the Legislature of Western Australia."
Those are the main features of the scheme I suggested to meet the difficulties of the case; and that scheme was practically adopted, and I submit it is a fair solution of the difficulties. Of course, there is no doubt that the land north of the 26th degree of latitude is not so favourable for agriculture, and for the settlement of emigrants, as the land south of that degree, where the climate is more temperate. The prosperity of that northern territory will mainly depend on the goldfields, the pearl fishing, and pastoral, industries; but as regards the land south of the 26th degree, I conceive that it must be put under the control of the responsible Ministers, unless in Western Australia a different system is to be adopted to that which has prevailed in the other Australian Colonies, which I should consider very undesirable. As to the objection that we are shutting ourselves out from a large field of emigration, there is not the slightest reason to fear any change of policy after Responsible Government has been granted. The
94
policy hitherto adopted has been very strongly in favour of obtaining a steady flow of emigration, and in the evidence given a few days ago before a Committee of the other House upon State-aided Colonization, Western Australia is mentioned as one of the four Colonies which are doing the most to promote emigration. It is only about three years ago that new rules and regulations for the management of land were examined and submitted by the Legislative Council and approved by Her Majesty, and the principle upon which they were framed was that Crown lands should not be alienated waste fully and at random, but upon fixed rules of occupation and improvement; and that while it was reasonable that a large field should be reserved for large landowners, a distinct preference should be shown to small owners prepared at once to occupy and cultivate. Those regulations will, in all probability, remain in force in the southern part of the colony, and I do not know how I could improve upon them. Looking again to the precedent of Queensland we may confidently expect a largely increased demand for settlers after Responsible Government has been granted. In Queensland the tide of immigrants rapidly increased after the colony had received that form of Government. I would also add that I think we may expect in Western Australia a larger system of public works by which not only will employment be found for labour, but by the increased facility of communication, a new field will be opened up for settlers, as they will be able more readily to dispose of the produce of their farms. The fourth question is as to the protection of the Aborigines in the north. I cannot doubt that in this matter we have carefully guarded the interests of the natives. The Aborigines Protection Board, created in 1886, is to be continued, and a Bill has been passed by the Colonial Legislature to secure that object, and has been reserved for Her Majesty's assent. The members are to be nominated by the Governor, and the Board is to be placed under the control of the Governor, and not of the responsible Ministers of the day. Moreover a sum of £5,000 is permanently secured by Section 70 of the Reserved Bill for the

95
support of that Board and the benefit of the natives. The money is to be appropriated to the welfare of the natives, and expended in providing them with food and clothing, in promoting the education of aboriginal children, and in assisting generally to promote the preservation and well being of the aborigines. It is to be expended by the Board, under the sole control of the Governor; and if there is any excess in one year it is to be reserved for the use of the Board in subsequent years. I admit that the majority of the Legislative Council, and, perhaps, the public opinion of the country, were against us on this point, and I admit also that the existing Legislative Council, as a rule, have been ready to take a liberal and just view of questions connected with the natives, but Her Majesty's Government adhered to the opinion that it is not unreasonable that a Board should be maintained independent of political circumstances and influences, and independent of that pressure from particular districts and particular persons which experience tells us is likely to be brought to bear on the Ministers of the day. I have, my Lords, at some length, but I hope not undue length considering the great importance of the question, stated the questions which arise upon this measure. I have shown that on constitutional grounds it is desirable that the change of the form of Government should be made, and that the colony has made sufficient progress to justify the change; I have shown that the proposed Constitution is framed on the lines of the Constitutions already granted to the other colonies on the Australian Continent; that sufficient protection is made for the northern territory which in course of time may be separated from the southern part of the colony; that every precaution has been taken to prevent any obstacle being raised to emigration and settlement in the southern part, even assuming, which I do not for one moment assume, that any obstacles will be thrown in the way by the Colonial Government—and upon this point I may refer your Lordships to an additional precaution, to which I forgot to allude, which is taken by Section 8 of the Imperial Bill, and by which it is provided that Acts of the Legislature of Western Australia imposing restrictions on the immigration of British sub-
96
jects shall be reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure—and lastly, I have shown that ample protection is made for the aboriginal natives. I now confidently ask your Lordships to grant a Second Reading to this Bill, which will enable Her Majesty to assent to a measure which I believe will tend very materially to secure the prosperity and welfare of this important colony.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª"—(The Lord Knutsford.)
THE EARL OF CARNARVON: The question which this Bill raises is not a new one. When I filled the post which is now occupied by the noble Lord, it was my duty to take a very different view of the subject to that which on this occasion is adopted. My noble Friend stated that in 1874 the Legislative Council of the Colony passed a Resolution in favour of Responsible Government. I considered the question, and it seemed to me that that was a Resolution to be matured in time. I objected to it, and such agitation as there was subsided, and since then the colony has, I believe, advanced in material wealth and in all the conditions that are necessary. Lord Derby in 1883 had to look at the question from a slightly different point of view, but still I apprehend that substantially there was no very wide difference between his view and mine. So matters stood in 1883. Now, in 1889, this Bill comes before us, and the Colonial Secretary is right in saying that the two main questions which the House has to consider are, first of all—is the colony ripe for this great change; and, secondly, is the Constitutional machinery which is adopted in the Bill the right and satisfactory machinery to impose? In many respects the circumstances of the colony seem to me to remain pretty nearly the same as they were in 1874 and 1883. But under this Bill you are going to hand over a tract of territory not so large as was then proposed to a community comparatively very small, and if you give Responsible Government then you must be prepared to give Crown lands with it. I have heard that doctrine sometimes disputed, but I hold it is inevitable that the two should go together. But there is another and more serious question which arises with regard to this change. It is the ques-

97
tion of finance. I have no figures before me of the present revenue and expenditure of the colony, but if I mistake not only two years ago there was a bare surplus of £14,000. That is not a large margin to boast of, and your Lordships will remember that you have now to add the whole of the Governor's salary, and the expenses arising from the creation of two Houses of Parliament, and, above all, the numberless expenses which are incidental to Responsible Government. Deal with it as you will, that expenditure will always grow. The circumstances which exist now are in many respects not far removed from the circumstances which existed in former years, when it was considered necessary to refuse the concession of Responsible Government. What, then, has altered the face of affairs? There are some conditions which have changed. The population when I had to deal with the matter was only 26,000; it is now close upon 40,000. There are coalfields now which have attracted a considerable number of diggers. There is a system of railroads growing up, and there is a certain difficulty of carrying on the Government on the present lines. But, after all, the great reason is perhaps this—that the question has been stirred, and Her Majesty's Government have agreed to carry out this change. A Bill has been introduced, and, like many other questions of a similar nature, when a forward step has been taken there is no practical possibility of return. I agree with my noble Friend in thinking, from all I have heard, that the feeling of the Australian Colonies is in favour of this measure. I do not think, however, that he can flatter himself that there is any great enthusiasm on the point; but still, broadly and on the whole, the general Australian feeling is favourable to any accession of Responsible Government. Therefore, I come to this conclusion, that the responsibility must really rest with Her Majesty's Government to decide when the time has come when responsible institutions should be given to this colony. I hope they have decided wisely in this matter, but if Her Majesty's Government will allow me to give them this one piece of advice, it would be this. Having introduced this measure, it is on every ground expedient that they should pass it this Session.
98
I think the effect there would be very mischievous if by any accident this Bill is now permitted to fall through. It is late in the Session, and it would be unfortunate if any miscarriage took place now. I come now to the second portion of my noble Friend's remarks—the question whether or not this new constitution is carried out in the best possible way? There are one or two points which in frankness I must venture to criticize. On the whole, I admit that the machinery adopted is the right one. It follows in the main the course of the other Australian constitutions, and where it deviates the deviation in many cases is justified by the circumstances. The first point of difference is that power is taken under this Bill for the ultimate separation of the whole of the northern district north of latitude 26 deg. In previous cases no such provision for separation existed. In New South Wales, I think, there was no such provision in the original Act, and it was consequently necessary to introduce it subsequently, and carry it out by other Acts. I think it has been wise, therefore, to make a provision for this purpose. Then I come to the second point. The Bill also gives a power of funding all capital moneys which may be raised from the sale of land in the northern district, holding that capital in fund for the purpose of applying it afterwards to the colony whenever the colony might be constituted. I agree that my noble Friend found himself in a difficulty in dealing with this question. I hope the course that has been adopted will prove successful, but it is impossible not to look at this consideration, that by this arrangement the colonists south of latitude 26 deg. have the administration of the territory whilst they have no power over capital moneys which, under ordinary circumstances, would be raised for capital expenditure. Your Lordships are aware that a very large proportion of the public works in these colonies have been made either with the moneys so raised or in some other form. I do not know whether anything can be done with it at its present stage, but at all events it seems to me that it is somewhat doubtful. Then there comes the further question as to the constitution of the Western Australian Parliament, and I

99
wish to say one word upon this. My noble Friend has described the constitution of the Legislative Council. If I understand him rightly, it is, as he has said, a compromise of principles under which the members of the Legislative Council will be nominated for the first six years, and after that will be elected. Now, there are two very distinct principles that play their part in Colonial Legislative Councils, that of nomination and that of election, and it is rather remarkable that taking the whole of our responsibly governed colonies, the division between nominated and elected Councils is, I believe, exactly equal. In Canada you have the nomination principle, and at the Cape you have that of election. In Australia you have New South Wales, Queensland, and New Zealand, all adhering to the nomination principle; and you have Victoria, South Australia, and Tasmania, adhering to the elective principle. I think, myself, there is a great deal to be said for both. I do not think the elective principle in any way detracts from the weight or the power of those Councils. On the contrary, I am rather inclined to adhere to that than to the nomination principle. But, however that may be, those are the two distinct principles, and I think it would be infinitely wiser to adhere to the one or the other rather than to attempt any combination and mixture of the two. There was a proposal made which I am very glad was never carried further. It was a proposal that issued from Downing Street, for the establishment of separate Councils. I must say, that I read that proposal with some dismay. I am very glad that it was withdrawn, and that my noble Friend has frankly thrown it aside. It is, to my mind, a proposal of an extremely democratic nature; it is a proposal that has no precedent whatever, as far as I know, in anyone of our great self-governed colonies. My noble Friend spoke of Ontario, but Ontario is not a colony; Ontario is a province of a great colony, and that which may be perfectly legitimate there, as it was some time ago in New Zealand, affords no precedent or analogy whatever for a great colony. I say, therefore, again distinctly, that there is no precedent whatever in any one of our colonies. It is not commonly adopted in the United States, and if you want to find a precedent for it,
100
you will have to look to some of the small States in Europe. I congratulate my noble Friend on having thrown that aside, and I sincerely trust that no Government hereafter will ever renew such a proposal. I have only to say now that whilst making these criticisms I agree with the Bill as a whole, and I can only urge my noble Friend to press it forward by every means in his power, and to avoid anything like miscarriage daring the present Session. I wish the new colony all possible success. My noble Friend read a paragraph from one of my despatches, and I cannot conclude better than by repeating the sense of that paragraph—that if in any former time I thought it my duty to stand between this part of our Australian Colonies and Responsible Government, it is with no doubt whatever or no distrust of the free institutions which have been granted to the other great communities of Australia. They have been established and have proved their success in a remarkable way, and those who have the fortune with their own eyes to see the marvellous progress, the stability, the good sense, which on the whole have characterized all their proceedings cannot regret that the gift was ever given. May Western Australia only use that gift as well and as worthily! It is the legitimate end to which all the Colonies of England attain, and I know no reason why Western Australia should not be as happy as they. My Lords, as I said in that paragraph, it is a mere question of time, and now that the moment has arrived for extending Responsible Government to Western Australia, no one can wish success to that colony more heartily than I do.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I wish to add my voice to the general approval which the noble Earl who has just sat down has given to this Bill. He justly said that it must rest with Her Majesty's Government to decide whether the moment has arrived when Responsible Government should be given to this colony. They are far better able to judge than anyone else can be. For my part, I have no doubt they are right in the decision to which they have come. The colony has a larger population than Queensland had when it was placed under Responsible Government; and it has made considerable advances in

101
wealth. The colonists have repeatedly made application to this country to allow them to have this form of Government, and it would have been unwise to have delayed the change further. As regards the particular provisions of this Bill, perhaps the most important is the one which withdraws from the full control of the colony about half the land of the colony—namely, the land above the 26th degree of latitude. On the whole, I think that is a wise provision. You may look forward with certainty to the division hereafter of the colony, and it is far better you should not at this moment hand over the whole of those lands, which will probably at a later period be separated, to the new Responsible Government which you are about to establish. The transition will be much easier when it comes; and I think it will be found that even the finance of the colony will be less complicated than it would have been, supposing that the new Government had exercised the full control over the capital as well as the expenditure of the whole of the land of the colony. With regard to emigration to the colony, which is perhaps the question exciting most interest in this country in connection with this Bill, I cannot help thinking that there is a good deal of misapprehension existing. My noble Friend the Colonial Secretary has just now told us that there is at the present time no indisposition, but the contrary, for emigration to Western Australia. That is perfectly natural. When a colony is young and the population is small there is always a strong desire to promote emigration; but when the population has grown that desire naturally ceases. As the colony gets comparatively filled up with population, that population wishes very naturally to keep the good things to itself as much as possible. In the early stages it is not necessary that you should impose any restriction upon the powers of the colony to deal with the subject, because they are not likely to run counter to your wishes; and in the latter stages if you were to attempt to impose restrictions on the colonists you would find it impossible to enforce them. Take the Colony of Victoria—a colony which now numbers over a million white inhabitants;—does anybody suppose that if you had made a
102
reservation it would have been possible for this country to attempt now to exercise control over that colony with regard to its disposal of Crown lands or with regard to emigration contrary to the wishes of its inhabitants? Practically, therefore, the question solves itself. Lord Carnarvon also touched on the Constitution of the colony, to which I do not think there is any serious objection to be made. I agree with the noble Lord that it is fortunate that the Government gave up the proposal for a single Chamber. Years ago the present Lord Grey was very anxious to introduce a single Chamber system, and it was a subject that I remember involved a prolonged fight in Parliament; and I thought that we had determined against that system, and that, although there may be arguments on both sides, it was our settled policy to adhere to the system of two Chambers, which prevails now in all the colonies properly so called under Responsible Government—for I quite agree that Ontario is a province and not a colony. As to the arrrangement by which the second Chamber is to be elective after a certain period, that, I apprehend, arose from the very natural desire of the noble Lord to come to some compromise between his proposal that the Chamber should be nominated and the elective Chamber, asked for by the colonists. I do not attach any serious importance to that, because the six years will soon pass over, and you will then have an elected Chamber. At the same time, I think it would be better to have an elected Chamber at once, as the colonists clearly thought that a second Chamber would work best. My Lords, I do not think there is much else that I need say upon the subject. I think it is a matter for congratulation that the time has arrived when this part of Australia can be placed on the same footing as the other communities there, as it is, for many reasons, inconvenient that one colony on the Australian Continent should have a different set of institutions from the rest of the Australian Colonies. It is quite true that this handful of people are to be entrusted with an enormous tract of country—for it is enormous, even when the Northern part is subtracted; but, on the other hand, it is fair to remember that the prosperity, such as it is, of this

103
colony, the existence of it as a country growing in civilization and wealth, is the work of the colonists themselves; it is the work of that small handful of people, who had to contend with difficulties in some respects greater than in the other Australian Colonies, and I think you may fairly trust them with the responsibility of developing the resources of what I believe will hereafter become an important part of the British Empire.
THE EARL OF DERBY: This can hardly be called a Debate, for everyone is of one mind. I should not have added one word to my noble Friend's observations but for this—that when a considerable change is being made, which affects an important colonial community, it is well that those on the spot should understand that the change is made, as it is in the present case, with the unanimous assent and approval of all those who have had to do with colonial affairs. There is no one who has been in any way connected with the Australian colonies who can doubt that responsible Government is the natural destiny in the future of this colony. The question was entirely one of time. If there had been any strong and general feeling six years ago, when I was at the Colonial Office, in favour of Responsible Government for West Australia, I certainly should not have stood in the way; but I felt that it was not the business of the Colonial office to force on the colonists a change which at that time they did not seem to particularly care about. It is quite evident they do care about it now; and it is clear that when once the expectation has been held out to them, and when they have been encouraged to look forward to it, the question is practically settled, because to refuse it at this stage would be madness. Even if there are persons (I certainly am not one of them) who think that this change is premature, you must recollect that that is an objection which, in the nature of things, is only a temporary one. I cannot attach any weight to the question sometimes raised in the Press and elsewhere—"Why are you to put such an enormous unoccupied territory into the hands of a very small number of settlers, not enough to make the population of a considerable town?" The answer to that is that it is the only thing
104
that can be done, and that is the way in which the operation of colonizing has hitherto been carried on. It has been eminently successful so far, and I do not exactly see what is the alternative. I quite agree with what my noble Friend has said that there is no danger that the existing population of Western Australia will be hostile to immigration. When a colony reaches a certain stage of development, when the working classes find they cannot get enough employment, except at a lower rate of wages, and when the country is fairly opened out, there will no doubt grow up a feeling in the colony against unlimited immigration. But at present, and for some time to come, every immigrant who enters Western Australia will be regarded as an addition to the wealth, the resources, and the development of the country; and I do not think that for a long time to come there will be any jealousy on the score of excessive competition. With regard to the reservation of territory to the north of the 26th degree, I have no doubt that that is right from two points of view. In the first place, it meets a feeling which undoubtedly exists here—a feeling of natural reluctance to give up all control over those districts; and, secondly—and this is of far more practical importance—it places matters in a better position for what cannot be far distant—namely, the separation of that northern territory. I think that when that separation takes place, it must include more of the northern coast. I have a very strong opinion that the northern districts of that colony, which is rather absurdly called South Australia, ought not to be, and cannot be, permanently administered from a seat of Government in the south, and that it will be a question for the Colonial Office to decide before long whether the whole of the northern coast of Australia ought not to be divided into separate and self-governing communities. That is one point of importance for the future, and another is that which the Secretary of State has just described as the ultimate federation of the Australian colonies. I cannot conceive anything more important; I cannot conceive any thing more in their interests; and if certain local jealousies which now exist were removed, and if the measure were desired by the colonists, I cannot

105
conceive that there would be any objection I to such a step on the part of the Government or the people of this country. I am afraid there will be some disappointment in the minds of those who look forward to the northern part of the colony as suitable for colonization by labourers from this country. From all I have heard I do not believe that the climate and situation are favourable to such emigration, but no obstacle should be thrown in the way of its being attempted if that is the wish of any one here. There is one point in this Bill which is not to my mind satisfactory, and that is no fault of the Secretary of State or any one else. I refer to the provisions made for the protection of the natives. Perhaps they are as good as they can be; but those people take a sanguine view who think we can give seal protection to the aborigines of Australia by any legislation in this country. In conclusion, I will only say that I believe that no piece of colonial legislation had ever come before Parliament which has the more entire and unanimous support from all parties and sections of English public life.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

COUNTY COURT APPEALS (IRELAND) BILL. (No, 104)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, this is a Bill of two clauses, and its object is to give in cases of probate in Ireland a simpler and more effective appeal than now exists; in fact, it assimilates the appeal in such cases in some respects to the appeal which now exists in Common Law matters. I need not trouble your Lordships with the details of the Bill. The general effect of it is to enable the appeal to be male and be heard to a greater extent locally than it is at present, by allowing an appeal to the Judge of Assize. I understand that the measure has the approval of the Irish Government. They only desire some amendments to be made, which will be more formal that anything else, for the purpose of improving the machinery
106
with regard to the making of rules, which I, personally, should not have the least objection to.
Bill read 2ª (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL. (No. 127.)
Read 2ª (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
HERRING FISHERY SCOTLAND BILL. (No. 149.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order); Bill reported without further Amendment, and to be read 3ª on Thursday next.

REGISTRATION OF COUNTY ELECTORS (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL. No. 107.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3ª."—(The Viscount Portman.)
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 3ª (according to order).
Moved, "That the Bill do pass."—(The Viscount Portman.)
LORD DENMAN, although he did not desire to imperil the passing of the Bill into law, wished to know whether it was possible to insert in it a provision allowing three days' additional time for the placing of the lists of voters on church doors?
VISCOUNT PORTMANwas understood to say that this was only a temporary measure, extending over two years, and that it was undesirable to introduce into it the proposition of the noble Lord.
Motion agreed to; Bill passed.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL. (No. 141.)
Read 3ª (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from, That the Committee have added the Lord Privy Seal (Earl Cadogan) to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c., for the

107
consideration of the County Court Appeals (Ireland) Bill, the Lord Zouche of Haryngworth to the Standing Committee for General Bills for the consideration of the Advertisement Eating Bill, and the Lord President (Viscount Cranbrook) and the Lord Monk Bretton to the Standing Committee for General Bills for the consideration of the Board of Agriculture Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.