Lords Sitting of 25 July 1890

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

Consolidated Fund (No. 2).

Open Spaces.

Working Classes Dwellings.

Trustees Appointments.

Orchards Rating Exemption.

Superannuation (War Department).

Education Code (1890).

Deeds of Arrangement.

Inland Revenue Regulation.

Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, Amendment.

Court of Chancery of Lancaster.

Barracks.

Western Australia Constitution.

Colonial Courts of Admiralty.

Intestates Estates.

Registration of Voters (Borough of Belfast).

And a number of Private Bills.

METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AND BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 168.)
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Aylesford be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Marquess of Abercorn (D. Abercorn); read, and agreed to.
ALDERSHOT ROADS BILL.—(No. 219.)
The order made yesterday for the commitment of the Bill to a Committee of the whole House, discharged.
CHILDREN'S LIFE INSURANCE BILL. (No. 97.)
Report from the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee, and Appendices) made, and to be printed. (No. 225.) Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.
CENSUS (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.—(No. 226.)
CENSUS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.—(No. 227.)
REMOVAL TERMS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1886, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 206.)
Reported a from the Standing Committee for General Bills, with Amendments; the Report thereof received; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
MERCHANT SHIPPING—SUNDAY LABOUR AT HONG KONG AND SINGAPORE.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MEATH,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the following remarks made by Admiral His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, at the annual meeting of "Missions to Seamen" Society, held at the Mansion House, on 28th April:—
  "The Report also complains that in some ports abroad, and in Crown Colonies, especially Hong Kong and Singapore, the crews are compelled to do unnecessary work in transhipping cargoes on Sundays, which causes much discontent and discomfort to the men, and puts a stop to all religious observances, whereas in the Australian and self-governing Colonies such unnecessary working of cargoes is rigidly forbidden.
  "I understand that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has called the attention of some Colonial Governors to this grievance of seamen."
  And whether the practice complained of has been prohibited, so that seamen may enjoy their Sunday rest in port in common with other of Her Majesty's subjects, Slid: My Lords, I hold in my hand a paper which contains the names of certain steamers, together with the names of the owners, which were wharfed at a single wharf at Hong Kong on the Sundays between March the 17th, 1889, and March the 25th, 1890, and all those steamers, I am informed, worked cargo without exception on those Sundays. The firms to which the vessels belonged were Macgregor, Gaw, and Co., of the Glen Line, who worked 13 ships on 13 Sundays; D. Jenkins and Co., eight ships on eight Sundays; The Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company, 13 ships on 13 Sundays; The China Mutual Shippers' Steam Navigation Company, five ships on five Sundays; The Union Line, Sandi-lands, four ships on four Sundays; Gellatley, Sewell, and Co., four ships on four Sundays; the British India Steam

  843
  Navigation Company, six ships on six Sundays: the Ben Line, four ships on four Sundays; miscellaneous, five ships on five Sundays; making a total altogether of 62 ships on which cargo was worked at one wharf in the Crown colony of Hong Kong during that period. Of course, there were other wharves occupied, and, no doubt, a similar number of vessels were engaged there in transhipping to those which I have mentioned as being employed at this particular wharf. I understand that the same thing is going on in other Crown colonies. I am informed that there are 120,000 seamen in the year who pass through the port of Hong Kong; consequently, it would appear as if a large proportion of those 120,000 seamen were not permitted to have the Sunday's rest which most working men in this country claim a right to. Now, I am not going to argue this question upon moral and religious grounds, although a great deal might be said upon those grounds, but I am going to argue this question upon the right of every working man to have one day in seven of rest, the right which he has asserted in this country for a long time, and which is almost universally accorded to him. I cannot see why, because a man is a seaman, and because he goes to a foreign port, or a port in one of our Crown colonies, that he should be deprived of the rest which he would have if he went to Australia. For instance, in Australia Sunday labour is forbidden, and why is it forbidden? It is because there the working men themselves have a vote, and they accordingly make their influence felt. But in a Crown colony that is not the case. The Governor, of course, if he desires to obtain support from anybody, goes naturally to the Chamber of Commerce; but the Chamber of Commerce is composed of employers, and employers are not so anxious as they ought to be in many cases that workmen should have a day's rest. I hold that Her Majesty's Government cannot say that they are not responsible for this state of things. If this were a self-governing colony, they might say that in a self-governing colony, of course, the vote of the working people—of the mass of the population—has to be considered there is no working population in this Crown colony which has a vote;
  844
  and, therefore, I hold it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to see that no injustice is put upon the working classes in these colonies, which are under their care. I am not one of those Sabbatarians who think that under no-circumstances should work be performed upon a Sunday; but I do say this, that there should be shown some great necessity before work is carried out on a Sunday, and I cannot understand why this should be done by these steamship companies, some of whom send their vessels to Australia, because when their vessels get to Australia they manage to carry on their work during the working days of the week, and yet when they go to a Crown colony like Hong Kong they profess to be unable to do that, and allege that they are obliged to work their men on Sundays. The actual state of the case is this: that in the Treaty Ports of China work is forbidden on Sundays, but in our own ports it is permitted. Now, I consider that is a scandal; and the result is that if a shipowner desires to give his seamen rest upon a Sunday at Hong Kong he finds himself at a great disadvantage. But there are some shipowners who are courageous enough to do it. Mr. Laing, of Sunderland, a steam ship owner, when one of his vessels was at Hong Kong last refused to allow his men to work on Sunday, and he thus put himself to-great disadvantage. I do not think it is fair that those shipowners who do their duty towards their men should be put at a disadvantage because other shipowners work their men upon every day in the week. My Lords, I do not intend to ask now for Papers, but unless some satisfactory reply is given me, I intend next Session to move again in this matter, and to ask for a Return of Papers, giving the names of the companies and employers who work their men on Sundays, the names of the ships, and the number of Sundays upon which the men are employed in Sunday labour.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, my attention has been called to the remarks of his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh to which the noble Earl has referred, but the question was brought under my notice last year when I received a letter from the Rev. Mr. Bowyer, who has taken great interest

  845
  in this subject, and I at once communicated the contents of that letter to the Governors of Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements at Singapore, and asked them to report upon the matter. The Governor of Hong Kong expressed his desire to see Sunday labour diminished at the docks and wharves of that port, but, after full inquiry into the subject and consideration of the difficulties of compulsory legislation, he came to the conclusion that such compulsory legislation on the Sunday labour question was not desirable, and, although I am not prepared to assent to all the Governor's reasons which he advanced in support of that decision, I regret to say that I am obliged to concur in the decision myself. The same decision was arrived at by the Governor of the Straits Settlements, who expressed himself very warmly in sympathy with the desire of those who wished to see Sunday labour diminished. He has himself taken steps towards diminishing Sunday labour, because in all Government contracts a provision is now inserted that work under those contracts shall not be carried on on Sunday, except in very urgent cases and under special authority. But after communicating with the Chambers of Commerce, the leading merchants, and the unofficial members of the Council, who represent the communities in these Crown colonies, the Governor of the Straits Settlements came to the same conclusion as that arrived at by the Governor of Hong Kong, that compulsory legislation was not desirable. The answers that were received by him from the Chambers of Commerce and the leading merchants were certainly not of an encouraging nature. I took the opportunity of consulting both these Governors when they were in England on leave, in order to ascertain whether any compromise could be effected, whether there was any kind of legislation which could be introduced which would diminish this Sunday labour, but I regret to say that I found no compromise was possible. I am distinctly opposed to compulsory legislation on this point, that is to say, forcing against the views of the unofficial members legislation by an official vote. The case of Australia, which has been referred to, is very different. In the first place, as in other colonies where there is a Custom-
  846
  house, Sunday labour can be prevented indirectly by closing the Custom-house, but in Hong Kong and Singapore Customhouses do not exist. I am not aware—though I may be wrong in this—that in Australia any Act prohibiting Sunday labour is in force. The working men themselves have declined to work on Sunday, and have thereby indirectly secured for themselves freedom from work on that day, but I am not aware that there is any compulsory or direct legislation on the point. The Colonial Governors will do all they can to discourage Sunday labour, but I do not think anything can be done in this particular branch of labour unless it can be obtained by the voluntary unanimity upon the subject of the members of the Chambers of Commerce and the leading merchants in the colonies, and also of the leading merchants here who have partners or agents in the colonies. In that way pressure may be put upon the Local Legislatures, and ultimately some measure may be introduced which will put an end to Sunday labour at the docks and wharves in these colonies. But at present I am bound to say I do not think there is that feeling in the colonies which would justify compulsory legislation.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, I think we are greatly obliged to the noble Earl for calling attention to this matter, which I think your Lordships will agree is one of no slight importance. I think we all agree that in cases of emergency we should not stand in the way of Sunday labour, but this is a matter which we are told affects 120,000 seamen at Hong Kong, and a very large number also at Singapore. I must confess I do not think the answer of the noble Lord is quite conclusive as to why a thing should be impossible in Hong Kong which is possible in Australia. As a matter of fact, work in connection with shipping is carried on upon Sundays in the Crown colonies alone. I cannot help thinking that we require more information upon this subject in order to get at the actual facts, and I would suggest to the noble Earl whether during the next few months he could not address questions to the Governors of all the colonies inquiring of them what are the regulations and practice upon this matter

  847
  in those colonies. We shall then be better able to talk about this matter. It cannot be left in its present position. The feeling of seamen is rising very strongly upon this question of Sunday labour, and the question will have to be pursued further, but before anything more is said, I think it is very desirable that we should get accurate information from each of the colonies, and I have no doubt that the noble Earl will see no objection to sending out Circulars for the purpose I have mentioned, so that we may be in possession of the actual facts in regard to both Crown and self-governing colonies.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I need only add that it will afford me very great pleasure to adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl, and that I will direct a Circular to be sent out as he suggests.

COMPANIES (WINDINGUP) BILL. (No. 217.)
House in Committee (on re-commitment) (according to order).
Clause 1.
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): The Amendment in the 2nd subsection of Clause 1 is one which it was indicated to the Standing Committee would be necessary. The Amendment has now been agreed upon, and the words proposed to be inserted in my name are the words which have been agreed. They are words which bring the phraseology of this Bill into harmony with the County Palatine of Lancaster Act which was passed during this Session.
Amendment moved, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the words "unless the registered office of the," and insert the words, "or in the case of a."—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
Agreed to.
Clause 3.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment here is also one which was indicated as being desirable in the Standing Committee, and is really for the purpose of improving the phraseology. It is suggested that this will remove objections which were then taken to the large powers of transfer from one Court to another, which might be exercised by an individual Court. I call the attention of the noble and learned Lord
848
opposite to the phraseology of this Amendment, and I hope it will meet all the objections which were taken in Standing Committee. I move, in the first place, in this Clause, at page 2, line 33, leave out ("any proceedings in") and after ("company") insert ("or any proceedings therein"); also leave out from ("by any Judge") in line 35, to ("conditions") in line 38, both inclusive; lines 38 and 39, leave out ("by the like authority.")
Amendments agreed to.
Another Amendment moved, after line 41, to insert—
"The powers of transfer given by the foregoing provisions of this section may subject to, and in accordance with, general rules, be exercised in accordance by the Lord Chancellor or by any Judge of the High Conrt having jurisdiction under this Act, or as regards any case within the jurisdiction of any other Court by the Judge of that Court."—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Before the noble Lord puts that, I would call his attention to the fact that he has hardly carried out what I have no doubt he intended. The effect of that is that if a County Court Judge does not like to carry on a proceeding he may order it to be transferred to the next County Court. I am quite sure the noble Lord does not mean that.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It is to be "in accordance with general rules." It is subject to that. The intention is to bring them all within the rules.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But it does not do so. It is not only—
"By the Lord Chancellor, or any Judge having jurisdiction under this Act;"
but
"As regards any case within the jurisdiction of any other Court, by the Judge of that Court."
That may be the County Court. I only call attention to it that at the next stage of the Bill we may frame words that will do.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Then I will withdraw that Amendment at the present time.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 7.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment on this clause is at

849
page 4, line 37, after "company" to leave out "by the Court." This is the first of a series of Amendments to leave out the words in various clauses, "by the Court" and "by the order of the Court." These Amendments are rendered necessary if the decision which was come to in the Standing Committee be adhered to, to strike out Sub-section 2 of what was then Section 29. The Amendment of the noble and learned Lord opposite raises a question whether that sub-section should not be put in in a different form. In fact, it proposes to put it in in a form in which it was introduced into the other House of Parliament. If the House accept that Amendment then all the series of Amendments standing in my name to leave out the words "by the Court" and "by the order of the Court," in the various clauses of the Bill, will become unnecessary. But the position of matters, as noble Lords who were on the Committee are aware, is that in the House of Commons it was altered very materially by inserting a negative which governed the whole sub-section. Those words "by the Court" and "by the order of the Court" were devised to cover both the case of companies which are wound up under the supervision of the Court and those definitely wound up by order of the Court. The Bill, as brought into the other House of Parliament, proposed to make the procedure subject to those provisions, both in cases under the actual order of the Court and under supervision. The effect of the decision of the Standing Committee the other day was to leave it doubtful whether companies which were being wound up only under the supervision of the Court were intended to be included in certain provisions of this Bill. The Amendment of the noble and learned Lord opposite would put that beyond all doubt, and would include for this purpose companies being wound up under the supervision of the Court as well as those being wound up directly by order of the Court. If his Amendment is not accepted then there would be an ambiguity by leaving in, in other clauses of the Bill, those words. Under these circumstances, I think it would be desirable that my noble and learned friend should state the reasons which had induced him to put down the Amendment which stands in his name, and then, from
850
the feeling of the House, we shall be able to judge whether it is advisable or not that I should press these Amendments.
Amendment moved, in page 4, line 37, after the word "company," to leave out the words "by the Court."—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am ready to take that course; and I will state my reasons very briefly for moving the Amendment of which I have given notice. But before doing so, I may, perhaps, mention that if the House should look favourably upon the Amendment, I should be quite disposed to make a little alteration in the phraseology of it. Perhaps it may be thought the words here are a little too wide, because I find in the Act some provisions which are not applicable where there are liquidators of a Company; and if it should come to my moving the Amendment, therefore, I would propose to move it in this form—
"For the purpose of such provisions of this Act as are applicable to a Company of which liquidators have been duly appointed and subject to general rules."
My reason for moving the Amendment is this: I think there are valuable provisions in this Bill which would be as applicable when the Company is being wound up under the supervision of the Court as to any other case. Perhaps I ought to explain to those who may not know exactly what is meant by the company being wound up under the supervision of the Court. There are three modes in which a company may be wound up. One is a purely voluntary liquidation which, upon proper application to the Court, may be superseded or controlled by the Court, but while it is going on the Court does not interfere at all. The other ordinary form is to wind up compulsorily, in which case the Court regulates the whole operation. But between those two comes the particular case which this Amendment is intended to meet. An application may be made to the Court that a liquidation which is voluntary may be changed into one under the authority of the Court. If the Court thinks fit upon that application, it may make an order in either of two forms, either to take over the

851
matter itself (a case with which we are not at present concerned), or that the voluntary winding-up shall continue under the supervision of the Court. Now, it is necessary to understand the effect of that as defined by the 151st section of the Companies' Act of 1862. That section is to this effect: That the liquidator of such a company, when that order is made, may subject to any restrictions which may be imposed by the Court exercise the same powers as if it were altogether voluntary. But the section goes on thus—
"But save, as aforesaid, the order shall for all purposes be deemed to be an order of the Court for winding up the company by the Court and shall confer full authority on the Court to exercise all power which it might have exercised if an order had been made for winding up the company altogether by the Court."
In substance, therefore, the Court has full control over that class of cases, but except as far as the Court may think fit to intervene, they may be conducted in the same manner as if they were voluntary. Now, bearing in mind that scheme of the Act of 1862, I cannot help thinking that the clauses of this Bill which are applicable to that state of things may with great advantage be applied to it. To give reasons at length is not necessary, but I will only mention shortly three clauses which I think the House will at once perceive may be quite as usefully applied in these cases of supervision as in cases of winding up under the Act. The 8th clause of this Bill requires as soon as may be a Report to be made to the Court of the Capital, assets and liabilities of the company being wound up, and if it has failed, the cause of its failure; and it contains consequential provisions as to proceedings which may be taken against promoters, directors, or others, if it appears to the Court that there has been misconduct. Then to take another clause of this Bill, the 11th clause, that requires that subject to certain authority balances in the hands of liquidators shall be paid into the Bank of England. I cannot help thinking that such a provision is equally applicable to companies under supervision. Then to take one more; the 15th Clause requires that when the winding-up has not been completed within one year, yearly Reports of the proceedings and position of the winding-up shall be made to the
852
Court. If possible, that seems to me to be a provision which is even more necessary in the case of supervision than in the case of winding-up by the Court itself; because in the latter case the authority of the Court would have been invoked from time to time in the ordinary course of things, and the Court may be taken to have a knowledge of the state of the proceedings; whereas in these cases of supervision, except so far as the Court does exercise its power and authority, the thing goes on out of Court, and that is a case in which I think it is eminently important there should be forthcoming periodical reports. I cannot help thinking it is possible that one reason why in the other House this change was made in the Bill, which I wish should be re-considered, may have been that on the face of the Bill there are some few provisions which would not be applicable to the case; and, in order to meet that, I propose to alter the words of the Amendment in the manner which I mentioned at the beginning. I do not know what course my noble Friend thinks it best should be taken, but I cannot, in point of form, move my Amendment on Clause 30 until all his which come before it has been disposed of. If my noble Friend thinks the House will approve of the principle of my Amendment, perhaps he will propose not to move his now, reserving to himself, of course, power to do so if he should think it necessary at a later stage of the Bill.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I shall be glad to accept the principle of the Amendment indicated by the noble Earl. In fact, it was in the Bill, as originally introduced in another place. It was, however, there altered contrary to the wish of the Government, and the clause, struck out in Standing Committee of this House, inserted. But, as I pointed out before, that has caused an ambiguity, which must be met in some way or other. If the legal Members of the House approve of the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, especially as now altered by him, I, on behalf of the Government, should be glad to accept it, and to see that it is replaced in the Bill, subject, of course, to any objections which may be brought forward hereafter. Under those circumstances, I propose not to move

853
these Amendments which stand in my name.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 8.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This sub-section I propose not to put in as Sob-section 9, but as Sub-section 10, after the present Sub-section 9. The object of it is that it shall take the place of a sub-section which has been struck out in Standing Committee, it having been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord opposite that that subsection gave too general powers of delegation which were generally objected to in Standing Committee. It was agreed, therefore, that that sub-section should be struck out and a sub section inserted specifying to whom the powers to be delegated should be granted. This, I hope, will be the view of the noble and learned Lord, but if not, I should be glad to accept any amendment of it on the same lines that he can suggest. I propose to move it, putting the Judges of County Courts before the Official References and other officers of the Supreme Court.
Amendment moved in page 7, at the end, to insert—
"(9.) The powers of the court under this section may, subject to and in accordance with general rules, be exercised by any officer of the Supreme Court being an official referee, master, registrar, or chief clerk, or by any judge of county courts, or by any district registrar of the High Court named for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor, or by any registrar of a palatine court."—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh).
LORD HERSCHELL: This is undoubtedly a great improvement from my point of view in comparison with previous proposals, but there are one or two points here which I do not feel quite sure about. I do not know why the noble Lord has not inserted the Registrars of the Bankruptcy Court, who are in the habit of taking examinations in strictly analogous cases. If it is because they are too busy, my noble Friend has, it seems to me, inserted a class of officials who are far more busy still, that is the chief clerks. I have great doubts about the expediency of inserting the chief clerks, having regard to the ordinary character of their duties, and in addition to that, I think it is likely to cause serious delays in the Court of
854
Chancery, because they are the officers belonging to the different Chancery Courts who have to deal with the details of matters pending in those Courts. If you occupy them in duties of this description, their time may be so much occupied that it would be difficult for them to perform their ordinary duties. There is no class of officers, interference with whose ordinary duties may delay or put a stop to so many proceedings as the chief clerks, because they have before them a number of suits at different stages, and if you take them away from their ordinary duties you may interfere to a greater extent with business than by taking other officers. I should have preferred very much that the Registrars of the Bankruptcy Court should have been inserted rather than the chief clerks.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think my noble and learned Friend is in error in supposing that the Registrars in Bankruptcy are not included. The Officers of the Supreme Court named are "an Official Referee, Master, Registrar, or Chief Clerk," and the word "registrar" would, therefore, include those in Bankruptcy.
LORD HERSCHELL: But there are Registrars in Chancery also, and having regard to the fact that they perform very different duties, I doubt whether they would be proper persons. I thought they might be the Registrars intended.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: All I meant to point out was that Registrars in Bankruptcy would be included, because they are not only "officers of the Court," but actually "Registrars."
LORD HERSCHELL: I think it had better be made clear that Registrars in Bankruptcy are intended. I certainly do not think that Registrars in Chancery would be suitable for this purpose. Then with regard to District Registrars. Many of the District Registrars are solicitors practising in their Districts, and I think they would in general, certainly, be very unsuitable persons for this work. I see it is to be confined to such District Registrars only as are designated by the Lord Chancellor; and probably if that limitation were always to be borne in mind, that objection might be obviated.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I certainly believe that the Registrars in Bankruptcy would be included under this definition; but if not, we are willing to make it clear. And if, as the noble and learned Lord thinks the Chief Clerks are too much occupied, I shall be willing to accept an Amendment deleting that class of officials.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I cannot help thinking that of the London Registrars the only Registrars who ought to be placed in this position are the Registrars of the Bankruptcy Court. To use those words would be a very simple way of amending that. Then with regard to the Chief Clerks. I hesitate to agree with my noble and learned Friend for this reason; that the Bill provides that the Judges in the Chancery Division may have a portion of this jurisdiction assigned to them; and if they have they will naturally discharge it with that assistance from their Chief Clerks which they now have. I cannot help thinking that the Chief Clerks would be perfectly competent persons to do this duty; and that in some circumstances, in regard to proceedings in the Chancery Division it might be inconvenient not to be able to do the work with their assistance. The whole matter will be subject to general rules, and I should myself incline to the opinion that you had better leave the Chief Clerks in.
LORD HERSCHELL: I would move after the word "Registrar" to insert the words "in Bankruptcy."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I think the grammar of this Amendment will require a little alteration, otherwise it would primarily mean that the District Registrars are to be named by the Lord Chancellor or by any Registrar of the County Palatine Court. I think that will have to be looked into.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That will be put right at a later stage.
LORD HERSCHELL: If you put in the words "Registrar of a Palatine Court" before "District Registrar of the High Court" that would do, and they would naturally come there, as he is a higher functionary.
Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment after the word "Registrar,"
856
in line 4, to insert the words "in Bankruptcy."—(The Lord Herschell.)
Agreed to.
Amended, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The purport of this Amendment was indicated to the Standing Committee, and it was approved of. The words have been subsequently agreed upon by the Lord Chancellor and by the authorities of the County Palatine Court of Lancaster; and I move accordingly, at page 15, at the end of the clause, to insert—
"(5.) All rules made and directions given by the Lord Chancellor under the foregoing provisions of this section shall he adopted by the authority for the time being empowered to make rules for regulating the practice or procedure in the chancery court of the County Palatine of Lancaster, but as so adopted shall have effect with the substitution of the words. 'vice-chancellor' for the word 'judge,' and the word 'registrar' for the words' chief clerk."
Agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: After Clause 29 there is a new clause in, my name, which tells its own tale. It is necessary to have a new clause of this kind, because there is no clause which covers the ground, and it is necessary to have a ready means of dealing with certificates or documents issued by the Board of Trade.
Moved to insert after Clause 29—

"(1.) All documents purporting to be orders or certificates made or issued by the Board of Trade, and to be sealed with the seal of the Board, or to be signed by a secretary or assistant secretary of the board, or any person authorised in that behalf by the president of the board, shall be received in evidence and deemed to be such orders or certificates without further proof unless the contrary is shown.

(2.) A certificate signed by the President of the Board of Trade that any order made, certificate issued, or act done, is the order, certificate, or act of the Board of Trade, shall be conclusive evidence of the fact so certified."

Agreed to.
Clause 30.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will now move the clause of which I have already spoken, as altered in the way proposed.
Moved, after Sub-section 1, to add as a new sub-section—
"(2.) For the purposes of such provisions of this Act as are applicable to a company of which

857
liquidators have been duly appointed and subject to general rules, a company shall be deemed to be wound up by order of the Court, if the order is to continue a winding up under the supervision of the court."
Agreed to.
Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 229.)

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL.—(No. 220.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, it is not my intention to take up very much of their Lordships' time in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, because the subject must be quite familiar to all your Lordships. In order to show what the necessity for this Bill is it may be useful, perhaps, just shortly to touch upon the history of the legislation upon this subject. Many years ago the late Lord Shaftesbury, who was the pioneer in this branch of legislation, succeeded in passing the Labouring Classes Dwellings Act, under which not much was done for a long period. More recently, in 1868, the late Mr. Torrens brought forward a measure to enable Vestries and District Boards to deal with healthy houses in their different localities, the provisions of which have been recently very strongly put in force, to the great advantage of the country and of the Metropolis itself. It was my duty in 1875 to re-consider this question. The former Acts, both Mr. Torrens's and Lord Shaftesbury's, only applied to small localities and to individual houses. Shortly before 1875 I had had an opportunity of seeing what had been done in the City of Glasgow, and I was very much struck with the Act which they had there, and which enabled them to deal not simply with individual houses, but with large unhealthy areas; and coming back to London, and finding that such areas existing very extensively in this country I introduced the Act of 1875, which eventually became law, and which enabled the Metropolitan Board of Works to take possession of large areas, if they were found to be in a certain condition, for the purpose of pulling
  858
  down houses which were unfit for human habitation, and of building suitable working class dwellings upon their sites. At the time that measure was, I remember, described in two words by a noble friend of mine as "communism and confiscation." I certainly am not in the least ashamed of that Act, nor do I think it deserved the character which those two words attributed to it, because its object was to get rid of those unhealthy areas covered with insanitary houses, incourts, and alleys, which by reason of the want of light, air, ventilation, proper conveniences, or from other causes were unfit for human habitation, and where fevers and diseases were constantly generated, causing loss of health not only to the inhabitants of the courts and alleys themselves, but also to the other parts of the cities or boroughs in which they were found. There was another fact which pressed very strongly upon me and the Government of the day at the time; and that was, that it was not in the power of owners or of occupiers who lived in those courts and alleys to remedy the defects existing, because there were so many owners and so many people concerned that it was absolutely not in the power of any them acting individually to put matters straight. The result was, that that Act was passed, and all those Acts have been considerably amended from time to time. It was found necessary to pass another Act in 1879 in order to defeat the mischievous practice which had grown up among the owners of those unhealthy, insanitary houses. The moment they found they were scheduled, and that the matter was coming before Parliament, they immediately put them in the best repair they could, not for the purpose of making them more healthy, but for the purpose of extracting larger compensation from the public than they would otherwise have been able to get. A Committee of the House of Commons sat in 1881–2, of which I happened to be Chairman, which re-considered those Acts, and further Amendments were made; and the House will remember that later on, in 1885, a Royal Commission sat to consider the whole subject, upon which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales sat as a member and took the greatest interest in its proceedings. That was done at the instance of my noble Friend the present Prime

  859
  Minister. The result has been that there have been a great number of Acts passed; and we think the time has come when those Acts ought to be consolidated, so that they may be made intelligible to the ordinary reader, who will not be obliged to hunt up a dozen Acts of Parliament in order to find out what the law is upon the subject, but that the law shall be placed in one single plain Act of Parliament. Perhaps, before I point out a few Amendments which have been made in the law and allude to the Bill at present lying on your Lordships' Table, I might be allowed, as a matter of interest, to state a few figures to show what has been done under the Act at present existing, because they have been by no means allowed to lie dormant. A great deal has been done under a great many of them. I will take Mr. Torrens's Act first. There was a Return moved for last year, 1889, to show how much had been done under this Act; and be it remembered that this Act of Mr. Torrens related to such houses as were dangerous to health so as to be unfit for human habitation. That was a very good description of them; and when we look at the number of houses which have been put in order, we find they amount to no less than 1,633. So that, as far as one can see, these Acts of Mr. Torrens's have done very good work, when we find there were 1,633 houses dealt with under them which were absolutely unfit for human habitation at the time they were taken in hand by the Local Authorities. Under the Act which I had the honour of passing afterwards a good deal has been done also. This measure, as I have stated, embraced large areas, and no less than 23 areas in London have been dealt with under these Acts. The persons displaced numbered 28,850, and the persons who can be rehoused on the ground which has been re-built upon number 30,715. The areas dealt with by the Metropolitan Board—there have been one or two schemes since, but during the period that the Metropolitan Board was in existence the areas dealt with included over 4,000 houses, and, besides that, there were 16 acres of land also dealt with, but the uumber of houses on those 16 acres I am not acquainted with. Those figures show that those Acts have done a considerable amount of good.
  860
  There is no doubt whatever that the proceedings under these Acts have been taken at a considerable cost to the ratepayers. The net cost, I believe, of the 22 schemes which were passed by the Metropolitan Board of Works after the sale of the land which they were obliged to take has amounted to very nearly £1,500,000. But you have had 30,000 people properly housed for that money, and you have done a great deal more than that—you have stamped out the sources of fever and disease which were polluting many parts of this Metropolis, both in Westminster and in East London, in almost every one of the large districts which were the sources of disease, and from which disease spread into other parts of the City to the enormous disadvantage and danger of the inhabitants. I should not like to weary your Lordships with any lengthened extracts to show the effect of what has been done by taking these large areas; but perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read a few short sentences from one of the Reports which have been made to me by several Medical Officers of Health. I do not propose to refer to them all, though I have them all here. I am now going to read from the Report made to me the other day by the Medical Officer of Health for the St. Giles's district. Tour Lordships probably know well that St. Giles's district was one of the most unhealthy places in the whole of London. I will take one block which was dealt with, called Great Wild Street, and the adjoining streets and courts in the neighbourhood of Drury Lane. The condition of that area when taken in hand by the authorities is thus described by the Medical Officer—
  "When I inspected the houses in this area in 1875 the squalor of the neighbourhood was plainly visible. The courts and passages were very narrow and close together; the houses built back to back with very small yards, and in many no yards at all; consequently, the sanitary arrangements were in the basement or under the stairs; the ventilation was most defective, and rendered the air impure and noxious."
  The Report states that the death rate, which, of course, is one of the greatest tests of the health of a district, was between 50 and 60 per 1,000, being double the rate for the whole of the St. Giles's district. That is an enormous death rate to exist in any portion of any City.—

  861
  "The infantile mortality was very great. It was a veritable fever den, for typhus, the most malignant and fatal form of fever, was scarcely ever absent from the locality. As a proof of the improved condition of the health of the people in the buildings now erected on the same area, the death rate for 1889, instead of being between 50 and 60 per 1,000, fell to 17·7 per 1,000, and no case of typhus fever has been reported since the old houses were demolished."
  That is a result, at all events, worth attaining, and shows that yon must not measure the matter simply by the cost to the ratepayers of the removal of the old houses on such an area, and the building of new dwellings. The only other scheme to which I will call the attention of your Lordships is also in St. Giles's district, close to Drury Lane, the Shelton Street area. The Report states that—
  "If anything, the houses in this neighbourhood were more faulty and worn out than those described in the two other areas; the rooms, passages, staircases, were small and dark, and the impure air which did reach them came from well-like back yards, where the water-closets and other arrangements were situated. The fatality in this area was alarming, the death-rate of one street (Shelton Street) being more than 60·0 per 1,000 and a birth-rate of 29 per 1,000. The infantile mortality was 30·4 per 1,000, and the zymotic death-rate equalled 12·9 per 1,000, against 4·3 per 1,000 for the whole of St. Giles's district."
  That has also been reduced to about 17 per 1,000. Then be goes on to say—
  "I have no hesitation in stating that, in my opinion, the clearing away of these insanitary houses and the re-housing of the people in improved model dwellings have been of the greatest possible benefit not only to this district but to London generally. In conclusion, I will refer you to the Lancet of March 26, 1887, which states, in reference to the clearing away of fever dens under the operations of the Artisans' Dwellings Act, 1875—'To the steps already taken by the Medical Officer of Health and the St. Giles Board of Works is greatly due the freedom from typhus fever which London now enjoys. In past years St. Giles was again and again the centre from which this disease spread to other parts of the Metropolis, and the money spent in improvements of the districts has already made ample return in leading to the disappearance of this serious cause of mortality.'"
  That means, of course, the disappearance of a serious cause of mortality for the whole of London. Now, that is only a sample of what has occurred in other districts as well; but I think I have said enough to show that it is worth while for Parliament to see how they can improve these Acts which have already done so much
  862
  good, and how, by consolidating them, we can simplify proceedings under them so as to make everything more plain and open than before. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board has given great and unceasing attention to this subject, and I think the course he has pursued in the other House of Parliament was a very wise one. He brought forward an Amending Bill to amend all the defects which the Government thought existed in the Acts as he found them, and then he brought forward also a Consolidation Bill. Those two Bills were referred to the Standing Committee; and after they had approved of the Amendments, or had altered them as they thought best, they were then incorporated in the Consolidation Bill, which is the only one that comes up before your Lordships' House. If I persuade your Lordships to read this Bill a second time, as I hope I shall do, I shall then propose to refer the Consolidation Bill to the Standing Committee on Law, and I will present to them the Amending Bill. It was presented to the House of Commons in the first instance so that they might see what Amendments were proposed in the Consolidation Bill instead of having to wade through a mass of pages to hunt them up for themselves. The Amendments proposed are not very numerous; and the first Amendment to which I would allude is the Amendment in those Acts which bear my own name. There has always been great difficulty in persuading the arbitrators not to give too much compensation, and I will only take one instance. If you find a place which is absolutely unfit for human habitation, and which cannot be made fit for human habitation, what is the value of the houses for that purpose to the owner, and what compensation ought to be given to him for it? Of course, it cannot be allowed to stay as it is. The houses would be immediately shut up under the existing law. They could not be used by the owner for the purpose of habitation, and the value of that property, therefore, seems to be the value of the land—very valuable, no doubt, because of its situation, and the owners seem to me entitled to get that—and the value of the materials which are upon the place at

  863
  what they would realise to sell. That, I think, is about the only Amendment of the Acts of 1875. As to Torrens's Acts, they are several. In the first place, it is made distinctly the duty of the Local Authority and officials to at once close all dwellings which are found unfit for human habitation. That seems to me to be a step quite in the right direction. An order may also be made for the demolition of houses if they are found to be absolutely dangerous and unfit for human habitation, or if they are found to be so obstructive to the light and air that the neighbouring courts and alleys cannot possibly get that light and air and ventilation which they ought to have, without the removal of the obstructive building, on payment of due compensation, but not otherwise. Then I think it is quite right that such buildings should be removed, for the public safety, upon full compensation, of course, being paid to the owners of the houses. It was found there was considerable difficulty, as there were two sets of Acts, in saying under which set of Acts a particular area ought to be dealt with. The Metropolitan Board of Works was always saying that areas in question were too small to be dealt with under the Acts bearing my name, and the Local Bodies were always saying that the areas were too large to be dealt with under Mr. Torrens's Acts—and, therefore, between the two stools a suggested improvement fell to the ground, and was not carried out. I think in the last amendment of the law, made in 1885, a clause was introduced giving power to the Home Secretary to receive evidence upon the point, and to decide which Authority should proceed in order to make the improvement required. But it has appeared to my right hon. Friend, and, as I think, wisely, that there ought to be an intermediate proceeding as regards those places which are too large to be dealt with as individual houses, and too small to be dealt with as an unhealthy area; and, therefore, he has proposed a scheme by which, under a more economical system, larger areas can be dealt with, and the health of the district preserved as it ought to be. I do not think I ought to take up more of your Lordships' time in asking you to give a second reading to this Bill. I am quite certain your Lordships will agree with me that you cannot have a more impor-
  864
  tant subject to deal with than that, seeing that you ensure the means of housing properly the working classes of this country. If you were to propose that the State should provide dwellings for them, that, I agree, would be subject to the charge of Communism; but there is no Communism in the State, saying that places shall not continue to exist which are let for human habitation, and which are unfit for human habitation; there is no Communism in saying that these unhealthy areas which produce disease, not only in the districts where they exist, but elsewhere, shall not be allowed to continue; there is no Communism in saying that the working man has yet to be, not provided with a wholesome dwelling for himself and his family, but placed in a position in which he can provide himself and family with decent and wholesome accommodation. It is simply then for the purpose of enabling such dwellings with proper sanitary arrangements to be obtained, not only in London, but throughout the country, that I am so anxious this Bill should go forward. When I had the honour of introducing my former Bill in 1875, I ventured to call the attention of the House of Commons to one of the earliest of God's laws—"Let there be light." Light has been let in upon many of these places; light has been let in for thousands of people who could not get it before, and I have to appeal now to your Lordships' House, as I appealed then to the House of Commons—let there be more light. I hope your Lordships will read this Bill a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

  WOMAN'S SUFFRAGE (LOCAL GOVERNMENT).
  "Return showing the number of women in Ireland who are qualified to vote for Councillors in Municipal Boroughs; indicating what is the qualification which entitles a Woman to be placed on the register: Ordered to be laid before the House."—(The Viscount Oxenbridge.)

ARMY (GRENADIER GUARDS).
LORD SANDHURST(In rising to call attention to the late occurrences in connection with the 2nd Battalion, Grenadier Guards; and to move for papers) said: My Lords, I should not have been so anxious to call attention to

865
the deplorable cases which are referred to in my notice had we been able to get from those who are in office, more information upon the subject. I am well aware that, up to this time, no question has been asked in your Lordships' House, but I think it would have been of public advantage if, in another place, where questions have been asked, some statements on the general circumstances had been made. The only source of information that we have is an article in the Times newspaper of July 22nd, and various statements in, other newspapers, more or less vague in their character, and, apparently, without authority, but uncontradicted. There are, however, three points which are tolerably clear, and upon which we may be quite certain. One is that, lamentably enough, there has been an émeute of some description, though of what description is not quite clear, in the 2nd Battalion Grenadier Guards; the second point, on which we are quite certain, is that the regiment has been banished—sent to the Bermudas; and the third point, upon which there is equally no doubt, I fear, is that Courts Martials have taken place, at which sentences have been given ranging between two years' imprisonment, with hard labour, and 18 months', with hard labour. Now, as to the first of these points. What I want to know is what was the description of this mutiny, and whether the whole of the battalion was concerned in it, or whether it was limited to a very small number of the men of that regiment? What was this mutiny which has involved these heavy consequences? I cannot see why there should be any mystery about it. The circumstance was known all over Europe by noon, with the exception of one individual, the Secretary of State for War, who answered about 6 p.m. in the Commons that he had no information. I pass from that, however; he might have been overwhelmed with business. There has been a Court of Inquiry, we are led to believe, formed of distinguished officers, and I should like to be told what course that Court of Inquiry pursued; whether the full statement of the case of the Commanding Officer was gone into or not, and whether the Commanding Officer had every opportunity of being heard before that Court of Inquiry? I should also like to know
866
whether the non-commissioned officers' case was also thoroughly gone into, and whether there remains no shadow of doubt that the non-commissioned officers of that battalion are free from suspicion which might have brought them to trial before a Court Martial? Because it seems almost impossible to believe that the men of this battalion could be in a state bordering on mutiny, and finally breaking out into open mutiny, and that the non-commission officers who live with them, and who in the Guards are to a great extent responsible for them, could be absolutely ignorant of these occurrences. Did they know nothing of the intended action of the men? Besides, if the noncommissioned officers did not know anything about it, there were plenty of other people who did, for I am informed it was the common rumour in the streets, and that there were no less than five reporters endeavouring to fight their way into the barracks half-an-hour before the meeting commenced. As I said before, unless the Board of Inquiry was satisfied beyond the shadow of doubt that there was no ground for suspicion against these non-commissioned officers I think some of those men ought to be arraigned to take their trial. I want to know whether a survey of their conduct was included in the deliberations of the Court of Inquiry, and whether it was considered so satisfactory as to allow them to escape suspicion and Court Martial. Then the next thing I want to know is whether the case of the Commanding Officer was thoroughly gone into. I will say at once that I hold no brief for Colonel Maitland. I have not seen him for months, and I have not communicated with him. But there is one particular point upon which I should be glad to be allowed to say one word, and to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is correct, as is commonly rumoured, that this gallant officer, when the Court of Inquiry was sitting, or after it had sat, either wrote or spoke to the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief, or to the General commanding, to the effect that if his battalion was either not dragged before the public or was spared from being banished, he was willing to resign his command and be the scapegoat—that he would enter into no correspondence or take any steps whatever with the view

867
of putting himself right before the public, and that he would sacrifice himself. Well, I do not say whether it was a right course that was pursued—whether it was right to refuse to accept such a resignation, or to accept it; but I do think that when an officer has been for 31 years in a regiment, and has ended by commanding it, that it was a noble proposition to sacrifice himself entirely, so that the reputation of his regiment may be spared; and I hope that, if the facts are as I state them, the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War will inform us that such is the case. Before leaving Colonel Maitland, I would ask why he has been forced to resign? I may be told it is owing to the fact that his regiment mutinied. Well, let us follow that a little to the logical conclusion. Every time that men mutiny in a battalion or in a regiment, is the commanding officer to be forced to resign? Because, if that is so, I do not think that the office of commanding officer of any regiment would be worth one day's purchase under such conditions. But, then, again, if this mutiny is not the cause of Colonel Maitland's resigning, there must be some charge against Colonel Maitland of which we at present are ignorant, and I should like definitely to ask the Under Secretary for War whether he, as the head of the administrative part of the Army in this House, has any charges to make against Colonel Maitland; and I would further ask the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief whether he has any charges to make against him. If not—if Colonel Maitland's character, beyond the circumstance of the mutiny, is as clear as I believe it to be—I hope, with that sense of candour and honesty which the case demands, it will be so stated by the high officials who represent the War Office and the Army. There is one thing which I should like to remark with regard to Colonel Maitland and this mutinous battalion. Five days before the mutiny occurred the battalion was inspected by the General Officer Commanding, and I am told that he highly complimented Colonel Maitland on the appearance and condition of his men, and that when, as is customary, the men were asked whether they had any complaints to make, they shouted with one voice that they had no complaints at all
868
Well, then, how does the story go on?. We can presume that the Authorities at this Court of Inquiry came to the conclusion that the Commanding Officer must resign or be superseded; that the battalion must leave this country, and that there must be courts-martial held. I have dealt very briefly, and in perhaps rather a lame way, with the Commanding Officer, and I would now call attention for one moment to the sending of the regiment abroad. But, apart from that, I am told that between the time when the mutiny took place and the time the regiment left the country, this regiment of actual mutineers went on guard for what are termed "the West End duties," that is, at the Royal palaces, Government buildings, and elsewhere. But I have always understood that employing a man or a regiment on a duty is condoning the offence. I only mention that fact to show that these proceedings have not been as regular from one end to the other as one could have wished them to be. Well, then, the whole battalion is sent away. But only a portion of this battalion was in the barracks where this mutiny took place. At Wellington Barracks there were only four companies, and two more companies were at Kensington Barracks, two miles off. I should like to know very much whether, in the opinion of the Authorities, those other two companies are implicated in this mutiny, and why, if they were not implicated in this mutiny, they have been banished with the rest of the battalion? Were any men from them tried by Court Martial? Then the next point is that you are sending this battalion abroad as a punishment, you are practically only sending them on a routine duty which has to be performed by every other regiment in the Service, except the Guards, in turn; so that any other regiment, when told off for foreign duty, might very well retort that, "after all said and done, it is rather hard to be sent abroad on what is called 'punishment duty' for another regiment, though it is considered quite good enough for us as ordinary duty." That appears to me to be a pretty compliment for the high Authorities of the Army to pay to the regiments of the line and the reft of the Service. I do not know whether there is precedent for this

869
extraordinary step; but this punishment—if punishment foreign service really is—is cheerfully undertaken by the rest of the Army, and, what is more, cheerfully acquiesced in by the men, who will most likely prefer life in the Bermudas to sentry duty in London. Then, as regards the time-expired men. Is that going to lead you into no difficulties? Before very long there will, no doubt, be a certain number of men due on the expiration of their period to be sent home. I believe it is possible to extend their service for a year. We know not how long this punishment is to last, but if these men are due to come home before the expiration of the punishment time, which they will owe to the good luck of having been enlisted a little before their fellows, it does appear to me that will be the most happy-go-lucky kind of justice possible. Such an extraordinary mode of inflicting punishment I never had the misfortune to meet with before. I now come to the Court Martial. You must remember that in these deplorable proceedings you have practically broken your Commanding Officer. We may, therefore, presume that the mutiny is regarded as having been his fault. But what is to happen to the private soldier? Steps must, of course, be taken to vindicate the discipline of the Army; and so you have put back one man from each company, according to the reports we have seen, who are tried by a District Court Martial; and to get at those who are most culpable, I presume you follow the plan of taking the senior soldier from each company. The notion that you can get at the most culpable and guilty men by that process seems to me a species of reasoning which I do not think will bear investigation. And when you have got this man from each company have you really found out that he is guilty? I should like to see the whole proceedings of this Court Martial. I should like to see who the witnesses were, or who it was who got these men condemned to two years' imprisonment. If you have contented yourselves with punishing these men because they were the senior soldiers, another consideration arises. I know it used to be the case that it was always the younger soldiers who were the most insubordinate, and for the obvious reason that they are less accus-
870
tomed to restraint, and less brought under military discipline; but at any rate the men who have suffered in this case apparently are the oldest soldiers, the men who have served longest in the regiment. I cannot commend the idea, and to talk of the justice of the Plan would, to my mind, be waste of time. Then there is one other point, these men were tried by an inferior Court, a District Court Martial, instead of a General Court Martial. The substitution of a District Court Martial may very likely have been looked upon as an act of clemency by the Authorities at the War Office. I have have no doubt that is the case. But there is one great danger in turning these men over to the inferior Court: that the officers who form an inferior Court—I am not now alluding to this particular Court, I will take any Court Martial—are just as likely as not where they have a bad case of insubordination before them to sentence the men to the maximum punishment in the power of that Court. And for this reason, they say to themselves, "It is lucky for the man that he is before us; he might have been tried before a general Court, and then he would have had a much heavier sentence." So that there was danger in it on that head. Well, now, what actually occurred? Four of these men received sentences of two years' imprisonment with hard labour, one of them being sentenced to be discharged with ignoming, and two others received sentences of 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour. Two years is the maximum sentence. And this is after you have declared the Commanding Officer to be guilty by causing him to resign—breaking him—and have punished the whole battalion by sending them abroad That seems to me such a method of procedure as to be almost incredible. Now, as to this sentence of two years' imprisonment. There are a great many eminent legal authorities in this House, and I venture to think there is hardly a Judge upon the Bench in this country, or a noble and learned Lord in this House who would not condemn those sentences as being excessive. But if a very excessive sentence is passed upon anybody in the Courts of this country there is the Press to take notice of it. It is true that in the case of a Court Martial the confirming officer

871
has the option of remitting the sentence or not; but there is none of that great pressure for the protection of men so dealt with brought to bear upon the Military Authorities, which is brought to bear upon the Civil Authorities in the country. Well, I cannot congratulate the Government or the War Office Authorities, or whoever is responsible in this matter for the action which has been taken. You have broken the Commanding Officer, although by passing these very severe sentences of imprisonment you tell us that the men were guilty. On the other hand, you have given very heavy sentences to the men, although you tell us that the Commanding Officer was guilty, and has, therefore, been forced to resign. That leads us to suppose that it is his fault, and that the men were badly used. In addition to that, you have sent the whole battalion away for a certain period of time for a holiday ! I hope very much that if the Royal Commission which was asked for some time ago by my noble and learned Friend behind me (Lord Herschell) into punishments is ever given him, it will include the sentences of Naval and Military Courts Martial. I hope very much I shall be able to extract from Her Majesty's Government some information which will expunge from my mind, at any rate, the idea, and I must say I think it is an idea which affects the public mind, that there has been grievous mismanagement in this case and great injustice done both to the Commanding Officer and to the men.
Moved,
"That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty for Papers relating to the late occurrences in connection with the 2nd Battalion, Grenadier Guards."—(The Lord Sandhurst.)
LORD DORCHESTER: As one of the oldest Guardsmen in this House, I trust your Lordships will bear with me while I say a few words upon this grave question. I do not propose to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken into all the details of the question whether the Civil and Military Administration should be fused together. It rather appears to me that there has been too much of the civilian element mixed up with the Military Administration of the Army. It appears to me that if we had had fewer civilian Secretaries of War and
872
one or two more military officers engaged in the administration, as is customary in Germany, in France, and in every other military nation that I know of, the Service might be better administered, although it might entail a little longer term than at present. England is the only great country which has a voluntarily enlisted Army, and I have it upon the testimony of one of the most illustrious warriors who have lived within the last 50 years, one who is now dead, and who was the head of a princely house, that short periods of service are inconsistent with the voluntary principle of enlistment. In that matter I remember I was scouted at by a noble and gallant Friend of mine who used to adorn the Cross Benches, but who is now seldom seen in this House. I have known the 2nd Battalion of Grenadier Guards for 49 years. I served with them in Canada in 1841. I have known them, when under very gallant commanders, who afterwards became distinguished generals in the Service, and I have never heard one word of complaint of them, whether on board ship, in camp, under great and heavy suffering from starvation, from cold, and from want of necessaries arising from the maladministration of the civilian bodies connected with the Army. I have never heard one word of complaint from them beyond the grumbling of some soldier who had, perhaps, imbibed more freely than he should. I never heard a word of insubordination except from one or two madmen during the long period of my service that could at all compare with what occurred a fortnight ago within a few hundred yards of this House. As I was walking down to this House at 4 o'clock in the afternoon on that day, and saw "Mutiny among the Grenadiers" announced in the evening papers, I could hardly believe my eyes. I would not have believed it could have occurred, nor do I believe it could have occurred under the old system of reliable non-commissioned officers. Under the old system of non-commissioned officers the biggest blackguards were kept under control. I have experienced it. I never heard one word during the 14 months that I served in the Crimea, with General Sir Frederick Stephenson and my noble Friend on the opposite side of the House,

873
lying out in the snow, and living upon two ship's biscuits, three slices of salt pork, and five potatoes a day, for I well remember it, and I am accurate in the particulars. I never heard one word approaching to what happened on this occasion, nor do I believe, as I have said, that anything of the kind could have occurred. But as to what is to be said in defence of the officers. Much has been said about them. In no regiments in Her Majesty's Service is there better touch or a better feeling than I believe always used to exist, and, I believe, does now exist, between the officers and men of the Guards. The officers join with the men in their sports, and entertain them. The noble Viscount on the Ministerial Benches has given us to-day a vivid description of the wretched habitations of the poorer classes in London; but I do not believe that the worst of those tenements were as bad as the lodgings which the married soldier's means alone enabled him to secure for his wife and children. A lodging-house was built 42 years ago by the Brigade of Guards for the married men, to which the illustrious Duke, I believe, contributed. That building was erected by contributions from the officers, and was acquired by Government during the Crimean War. Again, in order to raise the tone and improve the moral condition of the men, the officers of the Brigade of Guards and their friends raised a very large sum to erect a palatial club for the non-commissioned officers and men of the Guards, and it is now the residence of one of the most eminent men in this country—Cardinal Manning. Now, so much in repudiation of the notion of the officers of the Guards not being in touch with their men, of which we have heard a great deal. At rowing, cricket, and athletic sports I have invariably seen the men of the regiment and the officers upon the most friendly terms possible, and quite as friendly as they should be. But we read in every newspaper, and I suppose the newspapers are read by your Lord-ships, statements to the contrary, and suggestions that if some of the officers were as they ought to be housed in barracks that would improve their relations with the men. I fail to see that at all, though I am quite sure that the officers of the Guards would accept it as the
874
very greatest boon possible if they could be lodged in barracks instead of paying for lodgings about St. James Street and other places in the neighbourhood. But what do those gentlemen know about the matter who write so freely in every newspaper without giving their names, and notably in a newspaper which takes its name from a street not very far from St. James Street—I may say that I do not allude to the St. James's Gazette—about officers living in barracks. Have those gentlemen ever travelled abroad? Do they know anything of the armies in foreign countries? I believe they know very little about army matters at all. In no army that I am aware of—I may be wrong, and if so, I speak subject to reproof—do officers live in barracks. They may do so in some regiments in Germany, and in some of the Russian Guard Regiments, but in France, Italy, Spain, and, I believe, generally in Germany, the officers always live in private quarters. They have not even a mess. When the late Emperor Napoleon tried to establish a mess system among the French as English officers have, it was with great difficulty he succeeded, and notably on one point, that was the score of expense. Well, so much for the officers not having been in touch with their men because they live within two or three hundred yards of them, and not actually within the barrack gates. But there are always officers within the barrack gates; there always used to be, and I know there is always a great desire on the part of young officers now, who are much more hardly worked than they used to be, to obtain free quarters, for a reason which affects their pockets, and, as we know, young officers may very well make that a consideration. I only hope we shall hear no more balderdash from the Press about officers not living in barracks. That has nothing at all to do with the matter. All I can say is that I have commanded one of the most, I will use the term, "rowdy" lots possible, and I do not dislike the rowdy soldier. There are, of course, rowdy soldiers in this country, because the men are enlisted from the lowest class; and I believe there is no reformatory equal to the British Army for quieting down some of the blackguards, such as I have had the honour to command, and making decent

875
soldiers of them. They soon begin to act properly for their own sake. I remember on one occasion I was riding round the outposts at Inkermann, and as I passed along I said to one of the greatest blackguards I ever had the honour to command, "Mind, you must keep a good look-out here;" and his reply was, "You may depend upon it, Colonel, we shall do that for our own sake." And I felt we were, perhaps, safer in that quarter than if we had had a better-conducted man. To these few words, and with many apologies to your Lordships for having detained you so long in defence of those with whom I served for so many years, I will only add that I trust justice will be done to the battalion, that due punishment may be meted out, and that the Commanding Officer may not be made the scapegoat for his men.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: May I be permitted to interpose for a moment? I hope this discussion will not be further prolonged. I trust your Lordships will feel that it is utterly impossible for any man to maintain discipline in the Army if such matters as these are to be discussed publicly in Parliament. If my noble Friend or any other noble Lord has not confidence in those who have discipline to maintain in the Service they would have a perfect right to attack their conduct; but as long as they have the perfect confidence they profess in the authorities, I am bound to say they must have that trust in them which will enable the authorities to carry out what they believe to be essential, absolutely essential for the interests and well-being of Her Majesty's Service, and for the well-being of the Army, which they must wish to see efficient in all its details. It is all very well for people to talk about mutiny, but I do not call this occurrence mutiny. It was, no doubt, an act of gross insubordination that was committed by these men, and if that gross act of insubordination was not to be dealt with in the way that we thought best, most just, and most thorough, in order to restore entire discipline and obedience amongst those who had forgotten themselves, I say it would be utterly impossible for either myself or any officer who has the honour to be at the head of the Army to conduct the duties of that position in a
876
manner which would be justifiable to those whom he commanded, or to the country which he was desirous to serve conscientiously and to the best of his ability. My Lords, I trust that this discussion may not be prolonged, and I must say that I do most deeply regret that any noble Lord should have started it. I am sorry for it, because the noble Lord is a friend of mine, and I wish, if he had anything to say in this matter, he had come and said it to me confidentially, in order that if anything was wrong it. might have been put right, instead of bringing the matter before the public in a discussion which I can only think will lead to mischief instead of to good.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Earl BROWNLOW): My Lords, I cannot help expressing my surprise that the noble Lord, who has himself served in the Brigade of Guards and who has had some experience as Under Secretary of State for War, should have thought it desirable to bring this subject forward for discussion in your Lordships' House. Deprecating discussion on the matter, as-I do most strongly, I will reply as briefly as possible to the points the noble Lord has mentioned, and I will take them in order. The first question was whether the case of the non-commissioned officers had been investigated. My answer to that is that their case was investigated; and I would ask the noble Lord to remember that these non-commissioned officers were at the time of the outbreak on parade, they were not with the disaffected men in their rooms. Another point which the noble Lord raises is this. He asks why the six senior soldiers were selected to be tried by Court Martial. My answer is, they were not selected to be tried by Court Martial. The reason that they were tried was that in accordance with the custom well-known in Her Majesty's Army, in the absence of non-commissioned officers the oldest soldier is technically, I may say, in command. These old soldiers were in the barrack-rooms when the non-commissioned officers were where the old soldiers ought to have been—namely, on parade —and therefore they brought upon themselves a trial by Court Martial. Another point raised by the noble Lord was as to whether the case of the commanding officer was gone into. Un-

877
doubtedly it was. Colonel Maitland has had every opportunity of making his defence before the Court of Inquiry, and the result has been that he has been allowed to resign his command, but I cannot admit, for one moment, that the commanding officer has been in any way made the scapegoat for the regiment. Another question asked by the noble Lord is whether the other companies of the regiment stationed at Kensington were implicated in the mutiny. My answer is in the negative. I believe those are all the points which the noble Lord has raised, and I have endeavoured to give him as brief and as concise an answer as possible. The noble Lord, in his Motion, moved for Papers. The only Papers I know of are the proceedings before the Court of Inquiry and the Court Martial, and it is not considered it would be for the good of the Public Service that those Papers should be laid upon the Table.
LORD SANDHURST: Of course, I will not press the Motion for Papers; but I must say I am extremely sorry to hear no word either from the noble Earl or the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief as to whether they have any charge to make against, or can, on the other hand, say anything generous of, Colonel Maitland. I think it is a great pity that something has not been said upon the point, but I will not discuss the matter further.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL. (No. 158.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order): Bill reported without further amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday next.
POOR LAW (IRELAND) RATING BILL. (No. 183.)
  PAUPER LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) BILL.—(No. 209.)
    BIRSTALL WESLEYAN CHAPEL TRUST SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 204.)
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

    COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
    Report from, That the Committee have added to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, the Lord Lyttelton, the Lord Ribblesdale, the Lord Kinnaird, the Lord Rothschild, and the Lord Hillingdon for the consideration of the Directors Liability Bill, and the Lord Balfour for the consideration of the Bankruptcy Bill, read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
    House adjourned at twenty minutes past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.