Lords Sitting of 20 May 1889

COUNTY COUNCILLORS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL. (No 47.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF MEATHMy Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I desire to emphasize the fact that I do not ask your Lordships to endorse any new principle. I only ask you to extend a principle which has been already sanctioned by Parliament—namely, that women are fit to carry on administrative work. Parliament has already given its sanction to the election of women to School Boards and Boards of Poor Law Guardians; and I think it will be allowed that, in many instances, very valuable and excellent work has been performed by the ladies who have served on those bodies. It may be said that if women are permitted to become County Councillors the next thing will be that they will have to be admitted to Parliament. I at once say that, for myself, I should very much deprecate any such step as that. But I do not think there can be any argument founded on that suggestion in reference to the fitness of women to deal with questions of haute politique or questions of political importance. The work of County Councils is very much like that of School Boards and Boards of Guardians. Their work is administrative in the strictest sense of the term. The London County Council, of which I have the honour to be a Member, has
  486
  to look after 23 baby-farms, and women whose administrative powers are so great would be best qualified to look after those farms. In addition to this, we have to look after boarded-out children and industrial schools, in which at least half of the children are girls. Then, in addition to that, we have to look after 10,000 lunatics, half of whom also belong to the weaker sex; and in all these and cognate matters I maintain that women are just as good administrators, if not better, than men. Women have shown their powers in carrying out details of this kind in domestic and social work, and I do not think, my Lords, that, having already admitted them to School Boards and Boards of Guardians, there would be any revolutionary step in asking that they should be admitted to sit in County Councils. In the London County Council we have had some experience of how the three ladies who have been elected to that body have worked; and the Council has expressed an opinion a few days ago in favour of the admission of women to the County Councils by the vote of a majority of 48 to 22, or more than 2 to 1. Most of the work that those ladies are asked to perform is of the kind I have mentioned. I am myself Chairman of one of the Committees, and I must say that the ladies have always given me the very greatest assistance in carrying out our work. It is a subject of deep regret to me that, in consequence of the recent decision in the Courts of Law, the lady members of the London County Council will have to retire, and that that body will be deprived of their valuable assistance. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will permit this Bill to be read a second time, and I think if we consider what

  487
  has been the composition of Municipal Boards in this country in the past, we must acknowledge there is much room for improvement. Certainly, I believe that women would be less open to the temptation of jobbery than are some of the men who often get elected upon these Boards. My Lords, I would ask you to remember what women have done for the social needs of this country and what they are doing in that direction. There are some sad festering social sores in the body politic; and amongst those who are earnestly labouring to cure or mitigate those evils a large majority are women. Lord Shaftesbury once said, after returning from one of his almost daily journeys to the East of London, that he was astonished at the patience of the people, and that if it were not for Christian influences he believed the West would be sacked by the East. My Lords, I believe that what Lord Shaftesbury said in that respect was true; but I venture to assert that it is the women of England who stand between the Government and revolution. I have some knowledge, my Lords, upon the subject of which I am speaking, and I know that, although an immense amount of good work is being done by the missionary efforts of the Church and other religious bodies in our large towns, those who are engaged in that work would be the first to acknowledge that their efforts would be to a great extent ineffectual but for the aid of the thousands of devoted women who co-operate with them. It may be said, my Lords, that women have been tried in public work, and that, occasionally, they have failed; but I do not think that argument can be really urged against the admission of women to the County Councils or any other public body. I would ask, my Lords, whether it can be asserted that the municipal and other administrative bodies in this country, which are composed exclusively of men, are of such exceeding excellence that there is a danger of their being impaired or deteriorated by the devotion of women? And if some women have shown too much enthusiasm and zeal in what they have set to work about, and have done it in an injudicious manner, it has been, perhaps, in no small degree owing to the fact that they have been denied, until recent years, an opportunity of acquiring practical experience in
  488
  connection with such bodies. I believe, my Lords, there is a body of men not very far from this House who might take a lesson, to some extent, from those women. Women should not be encouraged to waste their efforts, but to guide them in a useful direction, and their enthusiasm and zeal would be of invaluable service to them. There can be no question that there has sprung up of late years amongst the leisured class of women an ardent desire to be of some use in the world, to do some good before they pass away, to be something more than mere ornaments of life. Such a laudable desire should be encouraged by the nation. That tendency which we see on all sides should be given a legitimate opening. The amount of unpaid religious, philanthropic, and social remedial work which is being carried on by women is enormous. Witness the labours of such women as Miss Octavia Hill, Miss Robinson, Miss Weston, Miss Davenport Hill, Miss Ellice Hopkins, Miss Potter, Miss Kinnaird, Miss Cobden, Miss Rye, Miss Cons, Miss L. Twining, and a hundred others whom I might mention. We may or may not approve the objects those ladies have in view. We may or may not believe in their discretion or their wisdom; but we cannot but respect the self-sacrifice and the devotion with which, in their different lines, and with the best powers they possess, they are voluntarily labouring for the good of others. Such self-sacrifice, such devotion, such faith, cannot fail to make its influence felt on a selfish and cynical world. If there is much to lament in the present condition of society, if there is alienation of class from class, if the rich man fears the poor and the poor man hates the rich, if the world is out of joint, and we cry in our despair that faith and virtue, honour and love, sympathy and brotherly kindness have vanished from the face of the earth, if in our moments of despondency and of weakness we should be tempted to exclaim that our upper classes care for nothing but sport and the gratification of selfish pleasure, that our middle classes are lost to all higher aims than the pursuit of wealth, and that our working classes are wallowing in the mire of drunkenness and violence, let us but turn to the work of these noble women, and of others who are labouring in similar undertakings, for the spiritual,

  489
  moral, or material welfare of their fellow creatures, and we shall be forced to confess that the women of England refuse to despair of the world, and that, holding aloft in the darkness which surrounds them the beacon light of their own virtue and self-sacrifice, they are setting an example worthy of imitation, and are acting the angel's part in their devoted efforts to guide the footsteps of mankind into higher and nobler paths. Therefore, I say, my Lords, that such women are worthy of the highest honour their country can bestow upon them, and are we to refuse to such women as those the right to share in the management of those social matters in which they take so deep an interest, in which they are so useful, in which they are so well versed, and which form so important a part of municipal government? I hope not. I trust that the House by its vote to-night will express its conviction that women by their great work in social reform have earned the right to a voice in the local government of their country, and to engage for its benefit in this social war.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORput the Question, that the Bill be read al second time, and declared, without challenge,
  "the not contents have it."
  EARL FORTESCUEMy Lords, I rise to move the Amendment of which I have given notice.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORThe Bill has been rejected without a Division.
  EARL FORTESCUEI had not understood that. Is it really so?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORI must call the noble Earl's attention to the fact that I waited for some time before I put the Question. I said the not-contents had it, and my decision was not challenged.
  EARL FORTESCUEI thought I should have been called upon. I have the misfortune of being rather deaf and partially blind, and I was not aware of what was going on.
  EARL GRANVILLEPerhaps, my Lords, you will allow the Question to be put again.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI would suggest that, as the noble Lord was unaware of what was going on, the Question should be allowed to be put again. I understand some of your
  490
  Lordships to say they did challenge the Division.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORI did not hear the challenge.
  Question again put.
  Their Lordships divided: Contents 23; Not-Contents 108.

HORSEFLESH (SALE FOR FOOD) BILL. (No. 41.)
House in Committee, on re-commitment, according to Order.
EARL BEAUCHAMPMy Lords, I have to move an Amendment to the 1st Clause, which provides that no person shall sell, offer, or expose or keep for sale, any horseflesh for human food, elsewhere than in a shop containing a conspicuous notice that horseflesh is sold there, by inserting after "food" the words "cooked or uncooked, alone or accompanied by or mixed with any other substance."
Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMPMy Lords, I have to propose the introduction of a new clause, which was originally part of the Bill, but has been struck out in the Grand Committee. I propose to insert after Clause 1. this clause:" No person shall sell horseflesh for human food, cooked or uncooked, alone or accompanied by or mixed with any other substance, to any purchaser who has not asked to be supplied with horseflesh." I think, my Lords, it is required for the purpose of carrying out the other clause, and will be useful machinery for making that clause more effectual. It is is clearly necessary that care should be taken in this matter in regard to the manufacture of sausages.
LORD THRINGMy Lords, I oppose the introduction of this clause. I think this is a most oppressive Bill, especially to the poor, who, by dealing at a shop labelled as this measure requires, with words four inches in length announcing that horseflesh is sold there, would be subject to the jeers of those who saw them enter. They would be laughed at for going into a cook-shop where sausages of that kind were sold. The poor may object, therefore, to having these places called "Horseflesh-shops." I would suggest to your Lordships that a man cannot go into a shop of that

491
description to eat what is considered to be inferior food without being exposed to the jeering of his companions, because over the shop would be painted in large letters "Horseflesh." The law provides that if deception is practised in the sale of articles of food, a penalty shall be inflicted. Therefore, if a man asks for beef and gets horseflesh, the seller would have to pay a penalty of £20. Does that govern this Bill, or does it not govern this Bill? Why are we, after a most careful Act has been passed to prevent the substitution of one kind of food for another, to pass a Bill of this character, dealing with the food of the poor, simply because we think we are promoting their interests by that interference?
EARL BEAUCHAMPI would point out that the noble Lord's observations applied to the principle of the Bill, whereas we are now in Committee considering a special clause which the promoters of the Bill deem necessary in order to carry out its object— namely, to protect the poor against being supplied with horseflesh, when they pay for ordinary meat. The clause is also required to prevent the honest trader from being undersold. I submit that the Bill is not open to the interpretation which the noble Lord has put upon it. He talks about it being an unjust Bill, but its purpose, a very simple one, is to prevent the poor man being deceived. So far from its being unjust and oppressive, it is a Bill for doing justice to the poor and to the honest trader alike. As regards the Bill not being required, because there is already a measure regulating the sale of food, the noble Lord has had a good deal of experience in the framing of Bills, and I think he will see that this is not at all unjust or oppressive. In 1886, after the passing of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, I received a letter from Manchester complaining of the sale of large quantities of horseflesh, and asking that such restrictions should be placed on the sale of it as would enable purchasers to know whether they were purchasing horseflesh or not. Though the Local Government Board had full cognizance of what was going on, the Inspectors reported that they were unable to act in the matter. Now, my Lords, I venture to think that the Manchester people and the Local Govern-
492
ment Board are at least as likely to know how the existing law is being enforced as the noble Lord. Then they submitted a draft Bill. I need not read now the reasons put forward by the Local Government Board in the matter. I confess I cannot agree with the noble Lord that this Bill is unjust and oppressive, unless it is unjust and oppressive to take care that the poor man only pays the proper price of the food which he obtains. If that be so, it is unjust and oppressive, not otherwise.
LORD HERSCHELLMy Lords, I am not going to say anything against the principle of the clause. I accept the Bill generally as a proper one, but I think the wording of the clause is open to objection. I would call attention to the effect of this section. The first section provides that in no case shall horseflesh be sold, except in a shop which shall have painted over it a notice in letters four inches long that horseflesh is sold there. Persons selling horseflesh in any other place are subject to a penalty. Now, the question which arises upon this proposed clause is this: In such a shop as that ought it to be an offence if a customer goes in and asks for a piece of meat to sell him a piece of horseflesh? I quite agree that except in a shop where it was notified that they were selling horseflesh that ought to be so, but I do not know that that ought to be the case where, if a man asks for meat, he must expect to get horseflesh. If he goes into a horseflesh shop, what he asks for really is horseflesh, and I do not see that any wrong is done. It does not say that if the purchaser intending to buy meat asks for meat and gets horseflesh the penalty will be inflicted. A man might go into a shop labelled as selling horseflesh, might point to some and ask for so much of it, knowing well that it was horseflesh, and yet the vendor would be liable under this clause because the purchaser would not "have asked to be supplied with horseflesh." It ought to be borne in mind that the shop would be labelled as selling horseflesh, so that the customer would be put on his guard against horseflesh if he did not desire it. If a customer intending to buy meat asked for it and was supplied with horse-flesh, that was a case which could be dealt with by the general law.
EARL BEAUCHAMPWith regard to the letters of description four inches long, notifying that the shop is registered for the sale of horseflesh, I do not think that is very unreasonable. The notice must be made conspicuous, otherwise customers entering the shop after dark would not see it. Those who are most conversant with the matter think that would be a great misfortune, and I do ask your Lordships to take care that a purchaser coming in and asking for meat shall not be supplied with horseflesh. Therefore, if he has to go there after dark I do not think there is anything oppressive or too stringent in this new clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I think this clause is necessary to carry out the object of the Bill. It is hardly conceivable that anybody going to such a shop would expect to get meat supplied to him, though, of course, it depends upon what is said at the time by the parties. I think this clause is required.
LORD HERSCHELLMy Lords, I would suggest that the object of the clause would be effected if it constituted the offence, supplying horseflesh where "other than horseflesh" should be asked for. I should like to say that the clause goes rather beyond what my noble Friend has alluded to. If the person who asks for anything other than horseflesh, gets horseflesh, then he is supplied with what he has not asked for. He goes into a horseflesh shop and asks for a joint of meat. He buys it knowing that it is a horseflesh shop, and yet the man who sells it to him is liable to a penalty.
EARL BEAUCHAMPI would point out that though the shop would be labelled, the words announcing the Bale of horseflesh might not be seen at night.
LORD HERSCHELLThat is so; but that is a matter which might be easily met. It might be well to consider whether you should not provide that the notice that horseflesh is sold there shall be so put up as to be legible at all times when the shop is open. I think that would be very reasonable, and certainly would carry out the spirit of the Bill, so that anybody going there after dark might see the notice. I think that would meet any objection to the clause, and would cover the cases where meat
494
or anything else might be asked for where a man might complain that he was supplied with something he had not intended. My objection to the clause is that it punishes the one man for selling that which the other knew perfectly well he was buying.
LORD BALFOURMy Lords, I would put the case of a shop where horseflesh, as well as other things, are sold. It does not rest altogether upon the question whether the joint of meat is that for which the purchaser has asked. It may be that the purchaser asks for "cooked meat," "sausages," or some preparation, the composition of which is not evident from inspection, and unless there is some distinct announcement that it is horseflesh that is being sold, I think there is some danger that those who do not desire to buy horseflesh will be imposed upon. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will agree to the insertion of the clause. I can only say further that it has been brought to my knowledge that a very large number of the population in the district of Manchester and Salford are anxious that this Bill should pass. My Lords, there has been a petition sent in in favour of this Bill signed by 30,000 people. Those who know that district will know that a petition of that description could not have been got up contrary to the wish of the majority of the population. Another petition has also been sent up from that district, asking that the clause now under consideration should be inserted. I sincerely hope that in order to make the Bill efficient, that clause will be inserted. I may also point out that the clause which has been struck out had been carefully adjusted in the House of Commons and the words approved by the Attorney General. The whole scheme of the Bill is almost exactly following that of the Margarine Bill which your Lordships passed two years ago, and I earnestly hope the Bill will pass in a workable and efficient form.
LORD THRINGI suppose the Committee understand that the clause applies to any purchaser who has not asked for horseflesh but something else. After the elaborate way in which this Bill has been framed, it is better to put exactly what it means.
LORD BALFOURNo possible harm can happen to the seller if he sells horse-

495
flesh for what it is. The clause now proposed is that—
"No person shall sell horseflesh for human food, cooked or uncooked, alone or accompanied by, or mixed with any other substance, to any purchaser who has not asked to be supplied with horseflesh."
Surely there can be no hardship in that. Sausages partly made of horseflesh may be so sold, and then there can be no hardship.
EARL BEAUCHAMPI would suggest that the end of the proposed clause should read "to any purchaser who has asked to be supplied with something other than horseflesh."
LORD HERSCHELLI would accept those words as an Amendment of the clause.
Clause as amended added.
EARL BEAUCHAMPI have to move the addition to Clause 5 of these words:
"And if any horseflesh is proved to have been exposed for sale to the public in any shop, store, or place, other than such shop, store or place as in the 2nd Section mentioned, without anything to show that it was not intended for sale for human food, the onus of proving that it was not so intended shall rest upon the person exposing it for ssle."
LORD HERSCHELLI should accept those words except in cases where meat is supplied in a shop or place mentioned in the 1st Section. I think it is quite right to throw the onus on the person selling, of proving that it was not so intended.
Amendment agreed to.

INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS BILL. (No. 34.)
House in Committee on re-commitment; according to order.
THE LORD CHANCELLORUpon Clause 3 I should like to call the attention of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to what I think is a defect in it. I do not propose to move any Amendment now, but only to call attention to the matter. The mode in which these things are distributed is made part of the offence; but one form in which these indecent productions are circulated, by being pushed under doors or otherwise delivered at houses, is not made part of the clause. It seems to me that is one of the most mischievous practices, and
496
one at which no doubt the section was intended to be aimed. I simply call the noble Lord's attention to the defect, and I hope it may be remedied.
LORD KIMBERLEYMy Lords, that point did not escape attention; but the Committee were unable to frame the clause so as to meet the case of throwing down areas. If any form of words can be suggested for that purpose, I quite agree that it is desirable to include this form of distribution.
LORD MILLTOWNThe clause already contains the words "or delivers or attempts to deliver."
LORD KIMBERLEYThat is only with regard to public places.
Clause agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOROn Clause 5, prohibiting advertisements relating to certain diseases, your Lordships will observe that the object with which that clause is obviously framed would in most cases be covered by the provisions of Section 3, which prohibits the fixing of indecent advertisements in public places. The cases outside Clause 3, but which are covered by Clause 5, might, I think, be held to include some which were never in the contemplation of those who framed the Bill; such, for instance, as the bonâ fide exhibition of an advertisement of a medical work in a bookseller's window. It appears to me to be a very serious thing indeed to make that an offence, and so prevent the legitimate sale of medical works. I quite sympathize with the intention of the framers of the clause in preventing these things getting into the hands of young persons, but I think the clause is altogether too wide, and therefore move that it be omitted.
LORD HERSCHELLI may say, as this clause is before the Committee, it might be limited so as to meet the difficulty raised by the noble and learned Lord; but I think that the scheme of the clause is to prevent these advertisements being distributed in the streets or stuck up in public places. To that there can be no reasonable objection. I think that, as regards the matters referred to in this clause, they might well be applied to persons passing along as well as to streets, highways, and public places.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALIS- BURY)I will move to strike the clause out if the noble Lord objects to it.
LORD HERSCHELLIt is not my clause.
Clause omitted.
Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next; Bill to be printed as amended. (NO. 77.)

SALE OF GOODS BILL.(No. 49.)

  SECOND READING.
  LORD HERSCHELLMy Lords, I shall trouble you with very few observations in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It is intended to codify an important branch of the law. The law relating to bills of exchange and commercial instruments has already been codified to the great advantage of the public. I do not think there can be any question but that that legislation has been a success, and it has, since it became law, been imitated by the Legislatures of some of our Colonies adopting the Act, and it is now proposed to introduce a similar measure in the United States. There can be no question but that the general codification of our law would be an immense advantage. That result can only be arrived at by dealing separately with specific branches of the law which are capable of being treated in that manner. I consider that the sale of goods is one of those subjects. The present Bill has been drafted by the learned Gentleman who drew the Bills of Exchange Act, and I have myself spent a considerable time in its construction. Although I cannot profess to tell the House that the Bill contains an absolutely complete and accurate representation of the law, I believe that substantially it does so, and if it be referred to the Standing Committee on Law, and if that Committee thought fit to refer it to a Sub-Committee, its details could be carefully considered and elaborated.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, while I have certainly no intention to do anything which would obstruct the progress of the Bill, I desire to point out that there is nothing so dangerous as a codification of the law which is intended to be exhaustive. No human ingenuity can deal by anticipation with every case which may arise. The value of the Common Law, which consists in the application of principles
  498
  to cases as they arise, lies in it s elasticity; but in the iron framework of legislation it very often happens that an unforeseen question arises, and then it is discovered that, while the Common Law has been excluded, the question which has arisen has not been included. I only point to that as a caution against dealing hastily with the Bill before the House, and not with a view of making any Motion adverse to it.
  LORD HERSCHELLMy Lords, I should like to explain, in reply to my noble and learned Friend, that in the present Bill there is an express provision that the rules of the Common Law should be incorporated with it, save in so far as they were inconsistent with the express provisions of the Bill itself.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee on Bills relating to law, &c.

IRISH FISHERIES.
THE EARL OF HOWTHin rising to direct the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the letter in the Times of the 17th of May from the Chief Secretary for Ireland referring to certain Irish industries, and addressed to Sir Albert Rollit, M.P., and to move that a period has arrived when it is expedient for Her Majesty's Government to declare whether it is their intention to tender any material aid to the Irish fishery industry, said: I am well aware how great the difficulties of a financial nature have been in this matter in the way of Her Majesty's Government. I certainly do not mean at the present time to press for any great liberality on their part, but while I do not desire to suggest any further liberality on the part of the Government, at the same time, in this fourth Session of the present Parliament, I hardly think Her Majesty's Government can take exception to the terms of the Motion which I have made, that they shall declare "whether it is their intention to tender any material aid to the Irish fishery industry. Last Friday, correspondence which had passed between Sir Albert Rollit and Mr. Balfour, the Secretary for Ireland, was published in the Times, and I propose to read to your Lordships the two letters. Sir Albert Rollit wrote:—
"Dear Mr. Balfour,—You were good enough to say, when I saw you yesterday upon the

499
subject of Irish railways, that you would inform me of the present position and prospects of the industrial measures promised for Ireland. I shall be very glad if you will kindly do this, and if you will, so far as possible, expedite the progress of the Irish railway and other remedial Bills. My anxiety that every reasonable wish on the part of Irishmen shall, if possible, be conceded, and that the firm basis of a union of interests should be established between the two countries, is my reason for approaching you on this matter, and I feel sure that it will be accepted as a sufficient one."
The reply of the Chief Secretary was:—
"Dear Sir Albert,—I hope in a few days to re-introduce my Drainage Bills, and at the same time to propose a measure which will facilitate the construction of light railways in those parts of Ireland which most need them, and which, from the nature of the case, are least able to provide such railways for themselves."
"The Drainage Bills have, of course, long been ready. There has been a greater delay than I should have wished in the preparation of the Railway Bills, through reasons which at this moment it is unnecessary to go into; but this will not, I think, in any way imperil the progress of the measures if, as I hope, they are accepted by all Parties in the House in a friendly spirit. I need not say that I quite agree with you as to the extreme desirability of furthering in every possible way the material prosperity of Ireland."
As regards the response to Sir Albert Rollit's letter, the spirit in which it was written by the Chief Secretary is, I need not say, highly satisfactory. But there are one or two matters to which he alluded to which I will refer. One was the allusion to obstruction. I think it only right to say that the obstruction which is most to be feared to the passage of such measures as are referred to in Mr. Balfour's letter is from those Irish Members who object to additional burdens being imposed upon land to provide guarantees for Irish railways. Of course, there are arguments which may be used on both sides in this matter, but I hope some early opportunity may be taken of thoroughly
dealing with it. The next paragraph of that letter to which I will allude is with reference to the light railways. They are, of course, in every sense desirable, and are the subject of recommendation by the Royal Commission. Nearly all the light railways lead down to the seaside, and therefore are to the advantage of the fisheries; but they would be of very little use unless a reduction in the rate of carriage for fish were effected. If the
500
Government had had the question of the Irish industries at heart they might have found many opportunities of placing important measures on the Estimates and of getting them passed without opposition. I venture to say that if Lord Randolph Churchill were still Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of Mr. Goschen, the Government might meet the matter in a more generous spirit. I hope Her Majesty's Government will strongly appreciate the desirability of, at a future period, giving a faithful pledge that the fisheries of the country will be encouraged. The Irish industries have been mentioned in no fewer than three Addresses to the Throne, and the late Government in 1383 passed a Light Railway and Tramway Act, by which they incurred a responsibility of £2,000,000. I desire, my Lords, to endeavour to impress Her Majesty's Government with the responsibilities that are attached to these industries, and therefore I go back as far as the time when Lord Randolph Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He fully recognized those responsibilities, and if he were still filling that office I think, perhaps, the Irish industries might have had a more advanced position in the legislation of Parliament. We have, however, only touched the fringe of the subject, and it is important for us to consider when we come to dwell on the interests of Ireland what amount of financial assistance we may expect from the Government, because it is in reality a question of financial responsibility, and the way in which that is dealt with will clearly prove whether the Government is or is not willing to help those industries. When we consider that the efforts of the late Government did some little good for the Irish industries, we may see to what extent the Imperial Government might have done more. It is, however, perfectly certain that when they appointed the Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of those industries, that was a measure of immense popularity in this country. To this day we see notices and letters from time to time on the subject in the newspapers, and I am quite sure that readers of newspapers must be quite tired of seeing letters written on the subject of these Irish industries. There is not the slightest doubt of their im-

501
portance, but from the interest taken by Her Majesty's Government in them, there has been a very remarkable departure in this matter. It has been very clearly laid down by the Royal Commission that drainage should occupy the first position in legislative interference; the second position must be taken by the fisheries, and the third by the railways. I quite admit the difficulties of Her Majesty's Government, which probably account for the style of the explanations which have been made on the subject, but I sincerely trust that before the labours of the present Session are at an end we may look forward to more liberal treatment. I should like to put before your Lordships the present conditions of the Irish industries, and I may say they are favourable. In 1883, as I have said, the late Government, without very much ostentation, assisted one section of them by making the Exchequer of the country liable for £2,000,000 at 2 per cent, representing £40,000 per annum, under their Light Railway and Tramway Act. Owing to defects in that Act the occupiers have not taken as much advantage of it as might have been expected, but the Royal Commission reported that the flaw was capable of easy amendment. Only £13,000 per annum is, up to the present, being expended on the light railways and tramways, and, therefore, there is actually a sum of at least £27,000 a year, representing a oapital of £1,300,000 at the disposal of the present Government for any step they may take, without any further drain upon the Exchequer. That was a free gift or legacy from the Liberal Government to the present Government. My interpretation of Mr. Balfour's letter is that if it is possible for legislation to take place, the Government will do something more in the matter this year, but I think that the light railways must be placed to the credit of the late Government. I speak strongly on this subject, my Lords, for the purpose of securing liberal support from the Government to the Irish fisheries. They have a free hand in the matter. They are not hampered with the railways, and they have this sum in hand. That is a strong argument in our favour, and I hope we shall have something done by next year. There is another reason for liberality on the part of the Government. It is
502
quite clear they gained great popularity by their promise to bring forward some measure, and it is perfectly clear that they have not earned that popularity. Their conscience must tell them so. I am sure the conscience of the Government must tell them they owe the Irish industries a great deal on account of the popularity they have secured on that account, and I hope under these circumstances, my Lords, Her Majesty's Government will deal liberally in this matter. In conclusion, I venture, with every respect, to impress upon your Lordships again, that references have repeatedly been introduced into the Addresses to Her Gracious Majesty to the subject of these Irish industries. My Lords, as I said before, it is an important question. You are not called upon to do very much, or to show very much liberality; but I sincerely trust we shall hear something very soon to show that we may expect some liberality from the Government in this matter. I may venture to remind your Lordships that it is going to be brought forward in another place.
Moved to resolve—
"That a period has arrived when it is expedient for Her Majesty's Government to declare whether it is their intention to tender any material aid to the Irish fishery industry." (The Lord Howth, E. Howth.)
EARL CADOGANMy Lords, I have endeavoured on several occasions to reply to Motions similar to this one on the part of the noble Earl on the question of Irish industries, and especially of Irish Fisheries. The noble Earl has now moved,
"That a period has arrived when it is expedient for Her Majesty's Government to delare whether it is their intention to tender any material aid to the Irish fishery industry."
And he has founded his speech on the fact that the Chief Secretary for Ireland has addressed a letter to a gentleman lately, in which it is stated that the Government intend, in the course of the present year, to lay on the Table of the other House the Bills for arterial drainage in Ireland, which were brought in but not passed last Session, and that in addition it is in contemplation to introduce a measure for providing light railways in that country. Under those circumstances I had hardly thought that this would be the time chosen by the noble Earl for asking the Government

503
to state what are their intentions as to those measures. When my right hon. Friend introduces the Bills, he will declare at the same time what is the policy of the Government and what are the details of the measures. The noble Earl has referred to the order in which the various recommendations of the Royal Commission were dealt with by the Government, and he appears to think that because the Chief Secretary for Ireland proposes to introduce measures relating to arterial drainage, and also a measure in regard to light railways, therefore the Government are neglecting the question of the fisheries. If he still look at the second Report of the Royal Commission he will find, under the head "Fisheries," that the Commissioners speak of light railways as being calculated to facilitate the carrying fish to market, and thereby to aid and improve the fishing industry in Ireland. Therefore, in introducing a measure as to railways, it cannot be said that they are neglecting the fishing industry. On the other hand, there is little chance of passing a Fisheries Bill in the same Session as the other measures to which I have referred. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will again accept my assurance that the Government are in earnest, and have all along been in earnest, not only in appointing the Royal Commission, but also in the introduction of measures to carry out the recommendations contained in its very able Report. I wish it were in my power to give further information at the present moment, but from what I have been able to say on the matter the intentions of the Government can hardly be doubted.
THE EARL OF HOWTHMy Lords, I accept the statement of the noble Earl. At the same time, I think there ought to be a very distinct and decided declaration made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in reference to the measures to be adopted with regard to the fisheries of the country. My object in speaking as warmly as I have done is to advocate the interests of Ireland by the encouragement of its industries, and not from any desire whatever to make statements which could embarrass the Government. I do hope the noble Earl will impress the necessity of dealing with this matter upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and of making as clear a declara-
504
tion as possible. My Lords, I can only say again, in conclusion, that I have been actuated solely by a desire for the advancement of the Irish industries.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL. (No. 12.)
Committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock till To-morrow at a quarter past Ten o'clock.