Lords Sitting of 17 March 1890

Preamble
Viscount Lifford—Petition of James Wilfred Hewitt Viscount Lifford in the Peerage of Ireland claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
LUNACY (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.— (No. 24.)
Order of Thursday last for printing as amended, discharged.
LUNACY (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.— (No. 24.)
  OPEN SPACES BILL.
  A Bill to amend the Open Spaces Acts—Was presented by the Lord Chaworth (E. Meath); read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday, the 27th instant. (No. 41.)
TRUST COMPANIES BILL.—(No. 21.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have an Amendment to offer to your Lordships. It raises an important question, whether or not the Trust Companies, which are to be permitted to carry out this business under the sanction of Parliament are to be allowed to go outside Trust Companies' business, and to engage in any speculations which the directors of those companies may think would be profitable for the share-holders. At the time this alteration of the law was first proposed it was suggested to your Lordships, as I think upon very substantial and reasonable grounds, that there was a great want of Trustees, and that it was often very hard on people to be called upon by Friendly Societies, or otherwise, to undertake the burdensome, difficult, and responsible duties of Trustees, when, as a matter of fact, they had no interest whatever in carrying them out beyond care for relations and friends, and yet were frequently made liable for losses, and often incurred severe pecuniary expense. That want is admitted, and the Government has endeavoured to supply that want by the Bill by which it is
  962
  intended to create a public Trustee. But apparently the ground has, to some extent shifted, and the idea now is, that these companies may turn out to be preferred by many people, and that they will do so large a business as to become very profitable. I am told that some of the companies who now do business in this way, though restricted to their proper Trust business, actually divide as much as 40 per cent., which, I think, ought to be enough to satisfy any reasonable persons. But if this perfectly unlimited ambit of speculation is permitted, I cannot help fearing that one of these days a great crash may happen. It cannot but be within the knowledge of many of your Lordships that companies are sometimes brought out under such circumstances as that commercial success is not likely to follow, and it is the fact that many of them do undoubtedly engage in very speculative business. My noble and learned Friend has pointed out that people are not compelled to appoint these companies, and that the Bill only gives them the option of doing so. That is true of all companies; you do not force people to take shares in them; but I think the Government would, by legislation of this kind, be rather inviting people to take shares in companies of this description; and that, at all events, it ought not to allow this. Bill to pass without some kind of protest and provision being made against such companies going outside their proper functions, and engaging in every kind of speculation. I would put it to your Lordships that if you were selecting a Private Trustee you would not choose a person who was likely to go into all kinds of speculation; and if there is no limit placed to the speculations in which these Trust Companies may engage, it appears to me that you would be holding out a premium to every kind of company of this description, good and bad, sound and unsound, engaging in rash speculation; and they may, in that way, get many dupes to trust them. I, therefore, think it undesirable to alter the law in the way in which this Bill would alter it, without some safeguard; and the particular Amendment now proposed to your Lordships is, first, to leave out the word "include." If your Lordships negative that, I do not propose to go further with these Amendments, in

  963
  order to prevent the decision which the House may arrive at being final. I, therefore, ask your Lordships' judgment in the first place on the omission of the word "include," and if that is carried I shall then move the consequential Amendments which stand in my name.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 2, page 1, line 11, to leave out the word "include," and insert the word "are."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: I hope your Lordships will not accede to the Amendment which has been proposed by my noble and learned Friend, because, in my judgment, it would go far to render the Bill altogether useless. I do not put this, of course, as in any way binding the House; but I would suggest that the matter was fully discussed before the Grand Committee the other day, and the Amendment proposed by my noble and learned Friend was rejected by a majority of 15 to 8, and I need hardly say that that large majority was not composed of noble Lords on the political side to which I belong, but of the Party to which my noble and learned Friend belongs. It was, therefore, as your Lordships see, in no way treated as a Party question in the Committee of this House, and I trust it may be treated as entirely distinct from Party feeling here as it was there. Now, my noble Friend has suggested, I think, that this proposal was a kind of afterthought, put forward to oust his proposal for the appointment of a public Trustee. Well, I think there is a little chronological defect in that argument, namely, that this Bill was before the House before my noble and learned Friend made any proposal about a public Trustee; and it was only when this Bill had been introduced, and as bearing upon the subject of this Bill, that he for the first time proposed to deal with this question, and satisfy the want to which he alludes by the appointment of a public Trustee. I am not indicating the slightest hostility to the proposal for a public Trustee. I said when my noble and learned Friend first proposed it that I should render him every assistance in endeavouring to pass it into law. There is no necessary rivalry that I can see between the two schemes. Some people would, perhaps, prefer to appoint a public Trustee, and there are others who have great dislike to and
  964
  distrust of what they call officialism, and of the delay and red-tapeism which is supposed to be characteristic of a public office. Those people will very likely prefer a Trust Company to a public Trustee, and my suggestion is simply to leave people perfect freedom in the matter. Why we should treat people as children or idiots, and incapable of managing their own affairs, I am entirely unable to understand. At the present time a man may choose whom he pleases as his Trustee. He may, if he pleases, choose the most speculative person in the world, the most worthless person in the world, or the most impecunious person in the world—it rests with himself. Why if a person desires to appoint a Trust Company as his Trustee are you to say to him, "You are only to appoint a company which does that kind of business, and nothing else," and why you are not to leave him to his choice, and if he thinks it best appoint a company which does not limit its business to undertaking the duties of Trusteeship, I cannot see. It is assumed that a company which limits its operations to Trusteeship will be a better and a safer company than others, but it does not follow at all that that will be the case. It is likely that there will be many strong companies which do not limit themselves to this kind of business, who would be much safer Trustees than the companies to which my noble and learned Friend proposes to limit the Bill. It seems to me it will not do at all to say that if you are going to have Trust Companies you must only have those to which my noble and learned Friend chooses to limit this measure, instead of leaving it open to probably much stronger companies, with much larger paid up and unpaid capital. What is the reason for it? Why should not you leave men to choose for themselves the companies which they think they can trust best? Where is the risk in doing that? My noble and learned Friend talks about companies speculating with their Trust Funds, but the truth really is that as they have not the right neither will they have the opportunity of speculating with the money entrusted to them. They are bound, just as any other Trustee is bound, and they would simply be going beyond their powers and duties as Trustees in so dealing with Trust money. Of course, a

  965
  Trust Company may be dishonest, as an individual Trustee may be dishonest, but I do not know why there should be any more reason for supposing dishonesty in the one case than in the other. Indeed, the contrary may be expected. One has had experience in numbers of cases in which Trustees have unfortunately proved to be dishonest, and you cannot prevent dishonesty do what you will. That is no ground of objection therefore, and if persons prefer a Trust Company of this description, I do not see why the Legislature should stand between them and their wish. It is not as though people were to be compelled to adopt one course. This Bill proposes that Trust Companies may be appointed in two ways; in one case it is left to the person's choice, just as now, and in the other case there may be a selection made among these companies. That is the selection the consequences of which my noble Friend so much fears. But is it the province of this House to teach people their business, and to prescribe for them whom they are to trust and whom they shall not? I am entirely against any interference which would prevent them from managing that matter for themselves. Then, there is one other great objection which I have to this proposed limitation, and it is this: If you limit the operation of this measure to companies which carry on the business of Trusteeship alone, it appears to me that they will be likely to make much heavier charges for the work they do than companies which do not limit their business in that way, because companies of that kind would be' able to distribute their charges over their general business, and they would have much less cause to charge heavily for this work than companies whose work is limited to Trust work only. This is one of my objections to this limitation: That you not only limit a man's choice, but you drive him to a company which may be undesirable for his beneficiaries and for the Trust Fund. My noble Friend says that some of these companies have divided 40 per cent. I should very much like to know where they are to be found, and how it can be done except by making tremendous charges for the work performed I am at a loss to understand. Suppose a company only does the work of Trusteeship, and that it divides the 40 per cent, profits. I will tell my noble
  966
  and learned Friend what I think the nature of that company will probably be. I believe that would be a company which invests a great deal of its money in land in one of the colonies, and that the profits are made by what I will call land speculation: that is to say, it invests its reserve funds, which are to stand against any of its liabilities under the Trust, upon land in situations where the company thinks it will improve in value, and will yield large profits, But that is a sort of speculative company which may one day invest its capital in land which may turn out to involve a loss, or to be unprosperous, and the company's dividends may disappear. I do not think a company which pays 40 per cent. in that way is a specially safe company. That tremendous percentage of profit cannot be made without risk in some way or other, and it would very soon cease if it were made, for it would probably be driven out of the field by rivals competing for such profitable business. I am, therefore, a little sceptical with regard to companies which make 40 per Cent, in this business. I ask your Lordships to pass this Bill, which was passed by the House last year, and sent down to the House of Commons without this limitation in it. If it was unobjectionable then without that limitation, it is surely unobjectionable now, and I cannot think there is sufficient reason for preventing people from applying to companies which deal with their funds in other ways, if they choose.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to say one word, because one part of my noble and learned Friend's argument is a little technical, and, without explanation, may be liable to be misunderstood. He says that the guarantee can only be against actual breaches of trust. That is quite true; but assuming that shareholders have paid up all their liability upon shares, there will be no further capital available for speculation, or to meet losses made in that way, because those would not be companies with unlimited liability. But if there is a liability, and if there is uncalled-up capital, the result will be that the shareholders' liability may not be available, and the power of the company to pay or make good breaches of trust will be impaired upon the failure of any portion of this speculative business. If the company

  967
  should be dealing with shares, for instance, and by some sudden change in the market the company were called upon to supply some £200,000 or £300,000, although that would have nothing to do with the particular investments which the company had been making, the ability of the company to pay, which is all the cestui que trusts have to rely upon, is gone in face of another liability to perhaps the full extent of all their property and business. Then it seems to me there is no guarantee in those circumstances. The hypothesis in all these cases must be that Trustees shall be able to produce at any time the property entrusted to them, and if the property has not been misapplied there will be no doubt about it. But the property may, on the other hand, have been misapplied, and the company may have used the Trust Funds in a way they should not, and in that case all the unfortunate cestui que trusts have to look to is the unlucky shareholders, who are just as liable to be called upon in regard to outside speculations as for making good their Trust Funds.
  LOED HERSCHELL: No doubt such cases might arise, but that is true also of private Trustees, and in their case you do not provide for keeping a reserve fund. You would, therefore, certainly be no safer with a private Trustee than with a company. Suppose you have a Trust Company which is doing none but Trust business, you will naturally have but a very small capital called up and duly invested. My noble and learned Friend would leave the company to speculate with its reserve fund, which is all the cestui que trusts have to look to, just as it pleases. It may invest that in order to get its 40 per cent, in the most speculative schemes in the world, and it will be sure to do so, because that is the only way in which to make its business pay.
  LORD BRABOURNE: It is, I am afraid, very presumptuous in me to interfere in a discussion between a Lord Chancellor and ex-Lord Chancellor, but there are two points upon which I should desire to say a few words. One is, that I would invoke the interference of the head of the Government in favour of our Standing Committees; otherwise I fear that if the Government come down and ask your Lordships to reverse the decision of a Standing Com-
  968
  mittee after it has met and considered and taken a particular view, the attendance at Committee meetings will become rather scanty. We did consider this question fully, and decided by a majority of 15 against 8 in favour of the Bill as it stands; and I think to reverse such an opinion would weaken the authority of Standing Committees. I do not think the argument put forward by the Lord Chancellor is at all valid, because the greater the share capital which might be possessed by a company doing such other business as has been referred to the better security for the stability of the Trust Company. I may mention that I am acquainted with a Trust Company which is incorporated principally for that object, but which does a very extensive business, in another direction; and I would humbly submit that the stability and fitness of that company to be a Trust Company is increased by the fact of its carrying that other business, and that it is more likely therefore to be a solvent Trustee than if it had only the limited business appertaining to trusteeship. I sincerely hope, therefore, that this Amendment, put forward, no doubt, with the best possible motives, will be regarded as a direct restriction upon commercial enterprise, and that people may be supposed to be sufficiently wide-awake to their own interests not to choose an undesirable Trustee, I hope, therefore, this limitation will not be made.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CEANBROOK): I rather protest against the noble Lord's, view that nothing is to be reviewed in this House which has been decided in one of the Standing Committees. A Standing Committee may happen to have a majority one way or the other according to the attendance of noble Lords upon it; and to say that there should be no revision would be to reduce the House to an impotence which I am quite sure the noble Lord would not wish. I was one of those, I may say, who voted with the Lord Chancellor in the Committee, and I myself do feel strongly that a Bill of this description should guard the public in every possible way in reference to the operations of these Trust Companies. I cannot imagine that this is so simple a matter

  969
  as the noble and learned Lord opposite would submit to the House. We have such considerable experience of companies in these latter days, and of so many of them coming to grief, that we cannot be too careful. If it be, as it will be, supposed that they have received special Parliamentary authority to take up private Trusts for individuals, we may easily imagine, though that in itself is not any real security, yet it may tempt people to so appoint them, and to invest in them as in the case of Friendly Societies in which without any guarantee on the part of the State people have been induced to invest their funds, and often invest them in that which is not a good security. Here we have a Bill before us of a great many clauses, and I am quite sure my noble and learned Friend would not wish to bring in a Bill which would not offer every security. At the same time, the very fact that you require some provision of the sort for this purpose shows that you must deal with companies much more strictly than with individuals. In the case of these companies there will be supposed to be a Parliamentary security; and I can only say that if there be a Division, I shall be obliged to repeat the vote I gave in Committee.
  LORD THRING: As your Lordships know, the object of this Bill is to enable Trust Companies to occupy the place of Trustees and Executors. There are certain technical regulations imposed by law relating to Probate and executory dispositions, and no doubt it has been found necessary that safeguards should be introduced. But I do trust your Lordships will not accede to the proposal of the Lord Chancellor. Joint Stock Companies have now for more than 60 years been struggling to emancipate themselves from the fears of capitalists and the quibbles of lawyers; and now what is proposed to be done is that we shall introduced the thin edge of the wedge. It is proposed to limit the operation of these companies, and that would be, I think, merely a prelude to putting fetters on companies in general. I believe no greater benefit has been derived by mankind from anything than from the freedom which has been accorded to companies. Your Lordships are aware that many banks have become Limited Companies, like many other large commercial undertakings, and I trust your
  970
  Lordships will not accede in this particular case to a proposition to put companies in fetters, which will not only disable them from making money for their shareholders, but will diminish, instead of increasing, their security. Besides all that, what possible ground can there be for dry-nursing people? People select their own bank, which is rather an important matter, and surely they can be left to select a Trustee as well as a bank. In appointing an executor, they may just as well appoint a particular company as a particular man. In neither case can there be absolutely security against dishonesty, and I hope your Lordships will not sanction this most retrograde piece of legislation for the purpose of limiting the operations and business of companies, a provision which would reverse the whole policy of our legislation in these matters for the last 60 years.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, it seems to me the argument has been very nearly on one side, and that the matter is viewed by the House in the same way as it appeared to the Committee after a great deal of discussion. But the point which I wish to draw to your Lordships' attention is this: I entirely agree with the Lord President of the Council that there can be no question as to the House abdicating its right to discuss and amend any arrangements made in the Committee. On the other hand, I think it is very much to be deprecated that when a legal detail of this sort has to be fairly considered the House should not be left entirely open to vote as it may think right, and that the Government should not be invited to use pressure or in any way assist in a particular course being taken. And I think so the more strongly here, for I believe I am rightly informed that in the large majority of 15 to 8 there were, except Members of the Government, only four of the noble Lords on the Committee who took the same view as the Lord Chancellor.
  LORD SUDELEY: There is one point in this Bill which your Lordships ought, I think, to bear in mind. It may be a good or a bad thing that Trustee Companies should exist, but I think your Lordships ought to remember the exact position in which we are placed as the law stands at present. I think the Lord Chancellor will agree with me that

  971
  you can have Trustee Companies to any extent. In fact, it is very well known that a large, number of Trust Companies do exist, and that Trustees' work is very much undertaken, especially for large Debenture issues. But what does this Bill do? The whole object of it was that if people are to be allowed to place funds in the care of Trustee Companies, they should be companies which are responsible concerns. Care should be taken that they are companies which have large reserves, that the Board of Trade shall occasionally look into their accounts and see that there is a proper reserve, and that the whole thing is properly done. Undoubtedly there are further conveniences afforded by this Bill which will enable existing Trusts to be undertaken by these companies; but as the law stands at present, there is nothing to prevent new trusts being created and put in charge of these Trustee Companies. As I believe, the great security is to make Trustee Companies as strong as possible, to allow them to do legitimate finance work and then establish large reserves. To limit their powers as proposed by the Lord Chancellor seems to me to cripple them and render them weak. You have no guarantee whatever at present that these Trustee Companies shall have proper reserves or that they are properly looked after. I apprehend, therefore, that if the view of the Lord Chancellor is right in this matter in not letting this Bill pass without such safeguards he ought to see that they are imposed by further legislation, and that companies engaging in business of that character shall possess large reserves, and are properly looked after.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: One word in answer to what the noble Lord the leader of the Opposition has said. I hope nobody will vote for the Amendment simply because it is moved on the part of the Government, and that everybody will exercise his own discretion in the matter. Entertaining the strong view which I hold in this matter, I think it right to take the opinion of the House upon it.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," the House divided:—Contents 23; Not-Contents 38
  EARL GRANVILLE: I would only say that it is extremely kind of the Lord Chancellor to announce that the Government do not wish to influence the House, but leave them to exercise their individual judgment. I would point out however, that it is hardly consistent with that announcement that the Tellers opposed to my noble and learned Friend should both be Government Tellers.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are some Consequential Amendments. I need not say anything about them.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Of course, I shall not oppose the Consequential Amendments; but I desire to say that as regards the Bill, now so absolutely worthless after the decision to which the House has come, I should not proceed further with it but for the hope that, the view now taken by a comparatively small majority may not be taken elsewhere. That is my only reason for proceeding with it.
  Other Amendments made.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I propose to omit Clause 17 in order to insert a new clause in consequence of a decision that was recently come to turning upon an old doctrine of law that a Corporation and an individual could not be as Trustees joint tenants, as there would be no question of survivorship between them. The proposed new clause enacts that they may be registered together, and are to be treated as joint tenants. I suppose the noble and learned Lord will have no objection to that. It is a somewhat elaborate clause, but that is the purport and intention of it.
  Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended.—(No. 42.)

  INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.—(No. 40.)
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, in moving that this Report be now received I wish to state that, as a matter of course, I telegraphed the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl Lord Northbrook, and which I accepted the other day, to the Viceroy. The Viceroy desires me to state to your Lordships that he entirely approves the Amendment which I then accepted.
  Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

DOCK ACCOMMODATION AT BOMBAY.

  QUESTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: My Lords, I hardly know whether the question which I am about to ask should be addressed to my noble Friend on the part of the Admiralty or to the Secretary of State for India; but I believe that the Government have made up their minds as to the necessity for a dock at Bombay, and therefore I will put the question to the Secretary of State for India, especially as he answered a similar question in a somewhat hopeful manner two years ago. The question was then put to him by my noble Friend Viscount Midleton, and he then intimated that the wishes of the country would be complied with. I suppose there must be some great reason for the delay, which the noble Viscount will state to us from the correspondence on the subject with the Bombay Government, for I understand that all persons who have considered the question are of opinion that a dock at Bombay is absolutely necessary. I do not wish to weary the House with any platitudes or remarks which have been made on several occasions with regard to our vast interests in the East, but it really does seem to me that the Government have scarcely estimated the very great importance to us of having a dock on the East Indian station. May I remind the House that that station is of very great extent. It comprises an expanse of water upwards of 5,000 miles from east to west, and almost of equal extent from north to south; and in the whole of the vast area of water there is not a single dock which would afford the means of repairing the first-class vessels of our Navy. And let me also remind your Lordships that the necessity for this dock accommodation has greatly increased since my noble Friend Viscount Midleton addressed his question to the Government. We have now great interests in the East of Africa, and during those two years the importance of Zanzibar has very considerably increased. As time goes on we shall no doubt have—in view of the increased interests which will come into play in the East Indian Station—to meet further demands for furnishing the means of repairing our ships out there. From Bombay, in the direction of the Isthmus of Suez,
  974
  there is a stretch of water upwards of 2,000 miles in extent; it is upwards of 2,000 miles again to Singapore, where there is only a very inferior dock, and it is about as much to the Mauritius, where there is another dock. There was one place where we formerly had a dock in one of the finest situations in the East for repairing vessels, Trincomalee, hut that no longer exists; or, if it does exist, it is now quite unadapted for repairing such vessels as we have at present on that station. Let mo remind my noble Friend, too, that our interests are increasing in the direction of the Persian Gulf, and it is quite possible that before many years pass we may see a Foreign Power in that neighbourhood. There are harbours there which are available for this purpose, and I think something ought to be done; for, as the noble Lord knows, a dock cannot be constructed in a very short time. Even supposing—which I believe is the case—that the Government could construct it much more rapidly than any private company could do it, it would be at least five or six years before a dock could be constructed. At this moment, I believe, there is not a single dock out there on which the Government could lay its hand for the purpose of repairing our first-class ironclads. Last year I pointed out to the House that it had actually happened that when two of our ships wanted repair they had to be taken to Nagasaki and Yeddo, simply because there was no dock on the China station capable of taking them for repairing purposes. These are very serious considerations for us, and I will remind the noble Lord that at the time of the French war, 50 or 60 years ago, the country was in a much better position for the protection of its commerce than it is now. In those days we actually were-able to build some of the finest line-of-battleships in the Navy at Bombay, and all our vessels could then be repaired without the slightest difficulty on the spot. Now, the ordinary docks are not only incapable of taking in our vessels, but we have not the staff or the means for repairing them, as could formerly be done in the case of the wooden ships of old. I hope the Government and my noble Friend will take some steps to push this matter forward, for I can assure them that all naval men are of one

  975
  opinion as to the absolute necessity of having docks there, and I would, if I may be allowed, add my own humble opinion that, on every large station, the Government ought to possess docks capable of taking for repairs our largest men-of-war. I beg to move for any Papers which are available.
  Moved,
  "That there be laid before this House any correspondence with the Bombay Government as to whether any progress has been made in the construction of Government docks at Bombay."—(The Viscount Sidmouth.)
  VISCOUNT CROSS: This matter has been before your Lordships for some time, I am sorry to say. Speaking for the Indian Government, they are very anxious that this dock should be made; but at the same time it must be remembered that this dock is not required for Indian, but for Imperial purposes. Correspondence has gone on for some time in the matter between the Admiralty, the Indian Office, and the Treasury, and I am afraid the result has not been very satisfactory. The Admiralty have sent me this answer—
  "The Admiralty are strongly of opinion that a first class naval dock is required at Bombay, but under the pressure of other claims upon the Government, it is not possible at present to allot Imperial funds to cover the share of the cost of a dock of this nature, and they also think it undoubtedly inexpedient at the present time to lay any Papers on the subject before Parliament."
  With regard to what has been going on in India itself, for the information of the noble Viscount and that of the House, I may state that the Port Trust Dock at Bombay is rapidly proceeding, and although that is not a dock of the description required, its length is considerable. Its length is 500 feet, the floor is 62 feet across, the depth at ordinary spring tides is 27¼ feet, and the width at the coping 90 feet. I am told that this dock will be ready in the early part of 1891, if the present rate of progress goes on. So that, at all events, we may see that the people and Government of India are doing something themselves in the matter. I wish I could give an answer with regard to the construction of a larger dock, but I am afraid that is all I can do at present.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: I should like to ask whether the Government will have the power of using that dock—can
  976
  the Government lay hands upon it at any time?
  VISCOUNT CROSS: Inever like to answer questions finally without notice, but I think I may say that I have not the slightest doubt that would be so. The Government could obtain the absolute power of using that dock, if wanted.
  The Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

STARVATION AT SUAKIN.

  QUESTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNDONALD,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government if they can give any information as to the alleged state of starvation of the natives about Suakin; and, if it is as stated, whether they purpose taking steps to relieve the sufferers, said: I will only occupy a very few moments of your Lordships' time while I amplify the question which is put down on the notice Paper of your Lordships' House in my name. It appears that information has been received from Suakin stating that the natives at that place are in a state of semi-starvation. I cannot do better than read to your Lordships an extract from a letter written by Mr. Bennett Burleigh, whose name will be well-known to your Lordships as a war-correspondent, which appeared in the Daily Telegraph a few days ago. He writes on the 10th March—
  "I have to-day received communications from official and private friends at Suakin, which, in the interests of humanity and for the sake of our country, cannot be ignored."
  Mr. Naggia writes that—
  "There being a dearth of food in the country, the Arabs are seeking refuge in Suakin. By an Order issued by the Governor General there, 'no Arabs from the outside' are allowed to pass the night within the walls. The weather has recently been unusually inclement, and the Arabs prefer to lie still and die outright rather than venture back to wander over the plains or hills to die of cold or starvation."
  Mr. Burleigh also gives a short extract from a letter written by a naval officer at Suakin, who says—
  "We are in a miserable state of starvation; mothers are discarding their children—children killed and eaten here in the town. I hear that a man buried yesterday afternoon was dug up and eaten during the night."
  Now I do not quote those extracts for the purpose of finding fault with any regulations which may have been made by the Governor of Suakin. He is res-

  977
  ponsible, of course, for the regulations which lie thinks it right to make, and it rests with him to say whether he will allow natives from outside to sleep within the town or not, but I do think that, as this country by abandoning the Soudan has made it a sanguinary playground, I may call it, for savage tribes, it should take steps to avert the famine which generally follows upon bloodshed in such countries, and I hope Her Majesty's Government—for, if my information is correct, it is greatly needed—will place at the disposal of the Governor of Suakin supplies of grain for the unfortunate Hadendowahs, and also that they will, during the inclement weather, place at his disposal fuel so that they may make fires and warm themselves during the cold nights. Then, if we are not to have a recurrence of this state of things during next winter, grain ought to be provided for seeding purposes. I feel certain that the noble Marquess at the head of the Government will, at all events, lend his sympathy to the object of my question. I think all who are acquainted with Africa will endorse my statement that his administration has inaugurated measures which, I trust, will be of immense future advantage to the natives of a large portion of Africa, and I, therefore, feel that the noble Marquess will sympathise with me when I say that it would be a sad thing if our noble and gallant adversaries, the Hadendowahs, should, after escaping from our bullets, at length die of starvation in the desert.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY): My Lords, I am sure that everyone will sympathise deeply with the sufferings of the unhappy natives of the Eastern Soudan. At the present moment, I do not think, from all the intelligence which we have received, that their sufferings have been exaggerated by the noble Lord. The famine is very severe, and the sufferings are very acute. That we all feel deeply, and when he appeals to those who listen to him for sympathy I am sure he will not appeal in vain. But when the noble Lord goes further and proposes, as I understand him, that we should put a Vote on the Estimates for the purpose of succouring those inhabi-
  978
  tants of the Eastern Soudan, I think he is proposing to us to take a perfectly new departure, and to take measures which have no precedent in our recent history, at all events, and which might lead us very far as a precedent in the future. The Egyptian Government, of course, feels a certain responsibility. A subscription has been opened, and I believe the Egyptian Government has largely subscribed to it, for the purpose of assisting these poor people, but the English Government, so far as I can remember, has never yet within recent times advanced the public money, that is to say the money of the taxpayer, for the purpose of relieving foreign distress of this kind, and feeding a foreign population. No doubt enormous contributions have been made by the private munificence and good feeling of Englishmen, but so far the unwillingness of the Government and the House of Commons has been very great in regard to sanctioning any gift for the relief of a foreign population. If my memory serves me right, even in the terrible misery of the Indian famine, which was far more terrible in its area and its magnitude, and its fearful consequences, than the famine to which the noble Lord has called attention—even in that crisis, all the public money spent was the public money belonging to India itself. Of course, I must guard myself in saying that, by adding that I do not forget the enormous supplies which the private munificence of Englishmen brought forward. The noble Lord will not imagine that I am depreciating the great suffering which prevails in the Eastern Soudan; but on the grounds I have stated, because the step he invites us to take would impose upon us a heavy and severe responsibility, which we have no right to impose on the British taxpayer, I cannot hold out any hope that his suggestion will be entertained.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL.—(No. 9.)
House in Committee (on re-commitment) (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Amendments made: Bill re-committed to Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.: and to be printed as amended. (No. 43.)
LUNACY CONSOLIDATION BILL.— (No. 24.)
Read 3a (according to order); amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
WELSH COLLIERY REGULATIONS.

  QUESTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN,in rising to call attention to the statement of Thomas Jones Rowlands, an engineman, who, on 5th March, was charged at the Pontypridd Police Court, and fined £2 for a breach of the special rules of the National Colliery, Rhondda Each Valley; and to ask Her Majesty's Government what rules, if any, are observed in coal mines regulating the number of hours allowed to be worked by men in charge of steam machinery, said: My Lords, this matter to which I wish to allude is, in itself, a very small one, although the consequences might have been serious, but it involves considerations which may be of much danger to the population working underground. It appears that a man named Rowlands was, on the 5th March, charged at the Police Court at Pontypridd with a breach of his duty, and of the special rules of the National Colliery in the Rhondda Each Valley. This man was in charge of the engine which pumps air into the mine, and the ventilation of the mine, therefore, was in his hands. The charge was that he was found asleep at his post late on Sunday night. Owing to the neglect of his duty the strokes of the engine had naturally diminished, and the quantity of fresh air pumped into the mine had, in fact, very considerably decreased. Of course, your Lordships will understand the danger to the mine or to the men working in the mine if the supply of fresh air were allowed to fall off. The charge was proved, and the man was fined the full amount of £2, the Stipendiary Magistrate remarking that he had by his neglect imperilled the lives of 117 men, and that if it had not been for the casual visit of the manager to the engine-house the ventilation would have become still lower and weaker, and terrible disaster to the men in the colliery might have ensued. The excuse which Rowlands gave was that he was exhausted by overwork. He said that on that very day, the Sunday, he had worked 14½
  980
  hours; he said he had been on duty since 8 o'clock in the morning, and that during the day he had been assisting with the machinery, which required vary careful attention and manipulation. He also said he had worked very long hours during the week—all day during Wednesday, then on at night, and all day on Thursday; that he had been at the engine all day on Friday and looking after the machinery; then he was employed at the engine all day on Saturday and again on the Sunday, as I have told your Lordships, and that, being exhausted, he had gone to sleep. These facts I cannot guarantee as accurate. I merely quote them as they were given in the local journal. The only observation apparently made in the matter by the officials of the colliery was that the man was not compelled to work overtime, and that it was entirely his own doing. Without going into contentious matters, it will be obvious to your Lordships that whether the man exhausted himself by working overtime from his own wish, or not, and was incapable of exercising proper vigilance in his duties, makes no difference to the men in the mine in the event of an accident occurring. I think your Lordships will agree that where the safety of a number of persons is entrusted to a man in charge of machinery of that kind steps should be taken to ascertain that he is physically competent to exorcise the important duties entrusted to him, and that he is not in a state of physical exhaustion from overwork, even if that overwork was of his own seeking. Whether any rule of the kind exists at collieries I do not know, and therefore I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government what rules, if any, are observed in coal mines regulating the number of hour's work for men in charge of steam machinery.
  LORD DE RAMSEY: In answer to the noble Earl I have to state that neither by the general rules laid down in the Mines' Regulation Act of 1887, nor by the special rules established in the South Wales District, has any attempt been made to regulate the number of hours allowed to be worked by men in charge of steam machinery. I would only add, that without further information, we are not inclined to attach any blame to the managers of the colliery; but at

  981
  the same time there is sufficient evidence to make us consider whether some better arrangement could not be made than seems to have been followed in this case, when a man, after long hours of labour, voluntarily undertaken by himself, should at night be left in charge of machinery controlling 117 lives.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock till to-morrow at a quarter past Ten o'clock.