Lords Sitting of 8 June 1891

SAT FIRST.
The Lord Magheramorne, after the death of his father.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
Moved, "That the Lord Foxford (E. Limerick) do take the chair in Committees of the Whole House in the absence of the Earl of Morley."
Motion agreed to.

SEAL FISHERY (BEHRING'S SEA) BILL.(No. 148.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I have to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which is connected with negotiations which have been in progress for some time, in reference to Behring's Sea, and the differences which have arisen between the United States and our Government upon them. It is a matter which, of course, does not interest this mother country, in the first instance, directly, but mainly interests the Dominion of Canada; and in mentioning the Dominion of Canada I feel that before referring to the provisions of the Bill, I can hardly do otherwise than express the very deep grief with which all parties in this country have heard of the great loss the Dominion has sustained by the death of Sir John Macdonald. Whatever opinions may be entertained—and necessarily, in Party fights, different estimates will be formed —whatever estimate may be made of the views he took upon the various issues that were presented to him, there can be no doubt that he was a great statesman, as great a statesman of the constitutional kind as any our generation has seen, and that to his efforts Canada owes the marvellous progress which, above all the domains of the British Crown, she has exhibited in recent years. The Dominion has deep cause to regret the loss of
1806
a statesman who has so largely contributed to lay the foundation of her great prosperity and progress, and the British Empire has deep cause to regret the death of a statesman who was through life its devoted champion. My Lords, the measure I am now proposing to your Lordships is one for enabling Her Majesty to stop seal hunting on the part of the British subjects in Behring's Sea for periods specified in an Order in Council. The first aim of this provision is to enable Her Majesty's Government to come to an agreement with the United States to suspend the hunting for seals in Behring's Sea, or a great part thereof, during the ensuing season. As your Lordships are aware, there has been for some time a very vigorous discussion proceeding between the United States and this country. The United States have asserted claims over the open sea, and a right to stop the hunting of seals in that sea, which Her Majesty's Government have not admitted and cannot admit. After much discussion we have agreed in principle that our difference shall be referred to arbitration, and we hope that the terms on which that arbitration is to be established are almost agreed upon. I believe that very few points of difference remain, but in the meantime the cause which, according to the statement of the President, has mainly actuated the United States, namely, the desire to prevent the extermination of an animal which sustains a valuable industry—that question remains unsolved, and there are many persons in the United States who are of opinion that if we wait until the work of arbitration is completed, a very serious, if not a fatal, blow may have been struck against that industry. There is no doubt that the catch of seals has increased largely of recent years, and some experts declare that grounds which were formerly covered with them are now almost denuded. I do not at all conceal from myself that that opinion is not universal. The Government of Canada, I think, doubts very much whether the statistics on this point are correct; but, at all events, these apprehensions have this circumstance in their favour—that unrestricted permission to all nations to hunt the seal at all times has resulted in other parts of the world in its entire ex-

1807
termination. Formerly seals were common on the coasts of South America and at the Falkland Islands; now they are hardly to be found there. There is, therefore, a serious danger to be averted, and we can hardly wonder that the United States should be anxious that an industry, which to them is so very valuable, should not incur any danger from neglect. They propose that over that part of the sea which they are authorised by their own Congress to deal with, and on all the islands and coasts belonging to the United States, there shall be no sealing until the month of May, 1892, if Her Majesty's Government will arrest the progress of British seal hunting in the same waters during the same time. It seems to us that on the whole this is a reasonable proposition, and that we should be justly incurring the censure, not only of the United States, but of the civilised world, if by adhering too closely to any technical right we were to run the risk of the destruction of this valuable industry and valuable animal. Of course we are aware that some injury may be done by these arrangements to private interests, the claims of which it will be necessary to meet. The notice has come late in the year, and the seal hunters have made preparations which cannot now be stopped. Ships have been fitted out for sealing in these particular waters which may not be able to find employment elsewhere. On the other hand, there is no doubt that seals which are caught more to the west will very much rise in price, and a certain compensation will to that extent be afforded. It is impossible to say beforehand whether there will be any practical loss or not, or to what extent that loss will go. The consent of the Dominion of Canada to the Bill we propose mainly turns upon two points. First, that the United States should agree with us with respect to arbitration, which I believe they fully intend to do, and, secondly, that compensation should be given whenever there has been a real loss in consequence of the action of the British Government. Who is to pay that compensation is a more abstruse question. We do not deny that, if compensation should be required, a part of it may properly fall on the British Government. We are inclined to dispute that the whole should The Marquess of Salisbury
1808
fall upon the British Government. I do not know whether we shall persuade the Dominion of Canada to take our view upon that point; but time presses, and it would be impossible to defer action until, by the exchange of telegrams, this difficult question should have been solved. Therefore, in the first instance, as stated in the House of Commons, we have assumed the liability for compensation. I do not think that in any case it can be heavy. The provisions of the Bill are few and short, and I do not think they lend themselves much to criticism. There is only one change that I desire to be allowed to make in the Bill; it is not a large matter, and it is in the nature rather of restricting than of extending its action. I wish to be able to alter the sixth line of the first clause. Instead of its reading that—
"Her Majesty the Queen may, by Order in Council, prohibit the catching of seals by British ships in Behring Sea,"
during the period limited by the Order, I would add—
"Or any such part thereof as may be named in the said Order."
It is obviously necessary that our prohibition should be exactly co-terminous with that of the United States, and I do not know how far they will be inclined to go. That is not, however, a question of principle, or a difficult matter. There is no other alteration which I have to make in the Bill, and it would, no doubt, diplomatically, be very convenient if your Lordships, after reading the Bill a second time, are willing to pass it through its remaining stages to-night. Of coarse, if there is any strong objection to that course, I cannot urge it; but time, as I have said, is running out, and every day or two days is of importance. With these observations, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Before I offer any remarks upon the Bill I desire to fully re-echo the Prime Minister's expression of regret, which I am sure is felt by every Member of this House, at the great loss which has been sustained by the Dominion of Canada, and I may say by the Empire at large, in the death of Sir John Macdonald. With

1809
a short exception the reins of Government have been almost entirely in his hands since the formation of the Dominion, and it was certainly a singular good fortune to Canada and the Empire that a statesman of his powers and ability should have been found to conduct the Government of the Dominion during the extremely critical period which followed its formation. I think it is not too much to say that the solidity of the Dominion and the prospect of its permanence are in a great degree owing to the wisdom, foresight, and energy with which he conducted its Government. I need add nothing more with regard to Sir John Macdonald, whose acquaintance I had the honour to psssess. and with whom I have had the pleasure many times to transact business, than to say that he was not only a colonial statesman, who conducted colonial affairs with great wisdom, discretion, and success, but that he was distinguished by a thorough attachment to this country and to the Empire at large, and by a loyalty which he displayed on all occasions. With regard to the Bill itself, I have no criticism to offer, and I should rather con-line myself to an expression of satisfaction at the prospect of this controversy being terminated. I have had the opportunity, as your Lordships have had, of reading the Despatches of the noble Marquess on this subject, which have been published, and for my own part, I most willingly say that I have seen with great pleasure the firmness with which he has maintained the right of this country to use an open sea. At the same time, in a matter of this kind, which involves the relations between two great countries such as Great Britain and the United States, it is clearly for the advantage of both that any disputes or claims arising between the two countries should be settled by arbitration and by peaceful means, and, therefore, I welcome the announcement of the noble Marquess that the terms of arbitration are practically settled, so that we may look forward to a speedy and complete determination of this dispute. I only wish now to ask the noble Marquess, if he can give us any information upon the point, whether it is not also necessary that as Russia has also a considerable interest in these seas, an understanding with Russia should be arrived at. I should
1810
be glad to know whether that has been done. There was one point which I was sorry to hear has not been settled, although I daresay the reason given by the noble Marquess of not delaying the Bill is abundantly sufficient. I am sorry to hear that no agreement has been come to with the Government of the Dominion with regard to the question of compensation. Certainly it appears that, the Dominion having so large and so direct an interest in the question, a portion, at all events, of the compensation should be borne by the Government of Canada. That would be only reasonable. However, that question may be settled hereafter, and I can only say that as no one desires to impede the progress of the Bill, I think the House will assent to the suspension of the Standing Orders, which the noble Marquess desires to obtain.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I think this is an exceedingly useful Bill. At the same time the remark of the noble Earl as to the necessity of a good understanding with Russia is one which affects me very deeply, for in 1860, my brother, who is now a judge, and the late Lord Shaftesbury attended one of the sensational meetings in Guildhall, when the wish was expressed that the British Ambassador should be withdrawn from Russia, and I denounced such conduct in the House at the time. I wish to explain that I was only at the Guildhall meeting a very short time, because I did not think it at all right to interfere with the domestic government of Russia, and I earnestly hope that we shall always consider the difficulties in which the rulers of that country are placed. We must be very careful not to say anything which ill-meaning parties may twist into hatred for their rulers, and I beg to say that I thoroughly disapprove of any attempt to move the Czar of Russia, except by communication through his Ambassador. Coming to the immediate objects of this measure, I believe it is to the interest of all nations that a close time should be reserved for the seals, and it is necessary that there should be facilities afforded between each country for mercantile transactions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: With reference to what the noble Lord (the Earl of Kimberley) said, we have

1811
ascertained that the Russian Government are entirely favourable to our views. We have not an actual agreement with them. There is, I believe, some difficulty as to the form the agreement should take, but I hope we may persuade them simply to state the periods during which sealing shall be unlawful for their subjects, which will be sufficient for the purpose. If I might correct one word which was used by the noble Earl, he said he was glad to hear that we were "practically agreed" upon the terms of our arbitration; I said "nearly" agreed upon the terms of it. That is a shade of difference which I am obliged to take. I have no further observations to make, and I now move that the Bill be read a second time.
On Question, agreed to.
Bill read 2a (according to order): Then Standing Orders No. XXXIX. and XLV. considered (according to Order) and dispensed with; Committee negatived; Bill read 3a: An Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

EPISCOPAL APPOINTMENT FEES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT BARRINGTON,in whose name a notice appeared on the Paper to ask Her Majesty's Government what fees and charges are payable by Archbishops and Bishops on appointment; who receives them; and what services are rendered for them, said: My Lords, with regard to the notice which stands in my name, I have this day received an intimation from the noble Marquess at the head of Her Majesty's Government, that it would be convenient and desirable that I should postpone the question for a week. I can only say I shall be most happy to meet his views, and postpone it to any day he may think convenient.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We are very anxious to afford all the information we can on the subject, but I have some doubt whether the words of the question of the noble Lord will make the case quite so strong for himself as it could be made. Therefore we want to inquire further in order to see what are the real burdens placed upon an in- coming Bishop, which I am inclined to think are very much too severe.

THE WATER FAMINE AT PORT OF SPAIN.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT GALWAY,in rising to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any further information with regard to the water famine at Port of Spain; whether it is-true that the water is only turned on for a few hours daily; and whether he will, in concert with the Director of Public Works, take the necessary steps to have Port of Spain adequately supplied with water in accordance with the plans prepared and recommended last year, said: My Lords, since I last put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies in regard to the water famine at Port of Spain, it has been stated that water has only been turned on for a few hours daily. This is a matter of great importance to the inhabitants of the town, and I beg to ask the question which stands in my name.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, there is no doubt that, unfortunately, there has been a very severe drought in Trinidad, and, as sometimes happens even in this country, it has been found necessary to lessen the regular daily supply of water. I am informed that the water supply in Port of Spain has been shut off during a part of each day; but it is not quite correct to say, as in the question, that it is only turned on for a few hours a day. Since the noble Viscount last asked a question on the subject, I have had no further information from the Governor. It rests with the Colonial Government and the Colonial Legislature to decide what steps, if any, can be taken to improve the water supply, or what course should be adopted for that purpose. I have, however, called upon the Governor to report to me fully upon the subject.

MUSEUMS AND GYMNASIUMS BILL. (No. 57.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL CHILDREN BILL.—(No. 125.)
House in Committee (according to Order)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, at line 17, I propose to omit the words "Scotland or" for the purpose of extending the operation of this Bill to Scotland. I have had several applications made to me by managers of Industrial and Reformatory Schools, who are anxious that the provisions of the Bill should be applied to Scotland; and as, since the Second Reading was taken, I have made such inquiries as I can, and cannot find there is any probability of opposition to the Bill being so extended, I propose to omit those words.
LORD MONKSWELL: I will accept the Amendment with pleasure.
Amendment moved, in page 1, line 17, to leave out the words "Scotland or." —(The Earl of Camperdown.)
Amendment agreed to.
Bill committed to the Standing Committee.

BETTING AND LOANS (INFANTS) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 141.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SAVINGS BANKS BILL.—(No. 142.)
THIRD READING.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I pledged myself to oppose this Bill at every stage. It jumped very quickly through the last stage. I was present last Monday at a meeting of Savings Bank managers, and I found no approbation of the Bill whatever. I attended last Friday at a general half-yearly meeting, and we learned that the opinions of the Trustees were then being submitted. No names were mentioned at that time. I do not know that the small number of names which have been added since will have increased the confidence of the country in such a measure. I conceive that this is the most dangerous measure that ever was presented to Parliament. It is an attempt to get away from the present
1814
Savings Banks all their money, and to draw that money into the Post Office Savings Bank. The first attack upon the Savings Banks was depriving them of the ¼ per cent. interest beyond the Savings Bank rate. The Post Office Savings Bank has a great advantage for persons who travel from place to place, in respect of their being able to withdraw their money at any post office in the Kingdom. The amount to be invested in these Savings Banks was only £30 for each individual, and now it is wished that the amount should be extended, and that the Savings Banks should be obliged to pay all their money into the Treasury—into the hands of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the Public Debt. I know that if they ever want to invest money they are deprived of the power of investing it to the same amount as they were entitled to before. Trustees incur a liability, no doubt. I am myself a Trustee, and I am ready to stand to my responsibility. In my neighbourhood there are a good many Trustees—the Duke of Devonshire, the Duke of Rutland, and others connected with the county—and the managers do their work carefully, without much expense. If you have to dispense with the services of those officers you will be obliged to employ a great number of clerks, and in the Post Office they are already overworked. They are complaining of that. I can only say that the security of having the first men in every county at the head of the Savings Banks is a very great inducement to the people in the neighbourhood to deposit their money there. I have never complained of anything that I had the power of opposing, and I do hope that this Money Bill will not be accepted by your Lordships. We have had one Money Bill lately to enable the County Councils to expend 30 guineas for a particular purpose. We tried to alter it in this House, but without avail. We must not interfere with the privilege of the House of Commons, and I am quite certain if you pass this Bill you will repent it. One noble Lord in my neighbourhood (Earl Cowper) accepted the office of president of a dispensary; and if that noble Lord had put his name down as Trustee of a Savings Bank, I am certain the number of depositors would have been very much increased. We have

1815
property in our care; it is well administered, and we are anxious that every man should feel confidence in us, confidence which they could not entertain in the same way in the Post Office Sayings Bank, because it is subject to a continual paring down by Parliament. The Conservative Party is not strong enough in this House. The agricultural interest is very much depressed in this country, and I earnestly hope it will soon revive. I beg to move that this Bill be read this day 10 months.
Amendment moved to leave out ("now"), and add at the end of Motion ("this day ten months.")—(The Lord Denman.)
On Question, whether ("now") shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read 2a accordingly, with the Amendments.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, on the Motion "That the Bill do pass," I have to move the Amendment of which I have given notice in Clause 10, page 6, in the last sub-section, which prohibits, in effect, any Savings Bank making special investments, unless it has exercised its statutory power before the 20th November, 1890. Now, the Statute which authorises those investments is still in force, and this Act proposes to put certain restrictions upon them. One of those restrictions is, as I understand, to prohibit for ever hereafter the making of any of the investments which that Act authorises, unless the bank has made them before the day named. If it has made them before that day it can continue them, but subject to certain statutory restrictions contained in the earlier part of the clause. I know that at least one important Savings Bank— and I believe of a very high character—has made these special investments subsequently to the 20th November, 1890, and on the last occasion when I called attention to the matter the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade gave no reason why that date had been fixed; he merely said there was a fear lest banks might make such investments in view of the passing of this Act though they had not hitherto made them. But the truth is, these provisions have not, I think, become so widely known as he
1816
supposes; and, in any case, it is difficult to see how anybody can justify drawing an arbitrary line in that way on a particular date, no reason being given why that date has been chosen rather than any other. It seems to be quite arbitrary, because the day so fixed was long before this Bill was introduced; and to say that any bank which has made investments of this kind under existing Statutes and in conformity with its rules shall, by the fixing of an arbitrary date, be prohibited from continuing those investments in future, seems rather unreasonable. I would suggest that if the words "before the passing of this Act" be substituted, they would sufficiently answer the purpose.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I expressed some doubt as to this clause when the Bill was last before the House, and I have inquired of the proper authorities about the matter. It appears that November 20th is the ordinary financial day for these Savings Banks. It is the date to which their assets are made up and from which they start yearly as regards their financial position. There is an obvious convenience, therefore, in accommodating all their financial proceedings to that date. I do not think the matter is of any great importance, but it turns out not to be so unreasonable as it certainly seemed to me when the noble and learned Lord first mentioned it. It is a very natural thing to take the end of the financial year in regard to these banks just as in dealing with matters affecting the Public Purse.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I was rather disappointed to hear the noble Marquess object to the noble and learned Lord's Amendment. I hardly think the reason he gave is an adequate one. Of course, it is convenient that the accounts should be. made up on a particular day, but I do not see that the fact that something will have to be brought into account after that particular day in that particular year will cause any serious inconvenience, and I would submit to the noble Marquess that unless there is some very strong reason for it, retrospective legislation of this kind is not very desirable. It is retrospective legislation to deprive these Savings Banks of a power which they possess at this moment, and which, in ignorance of this

1817
Bill, they have exercised. Of course, if there is a serious abuse of that power, it must be remedied; but if there is not an abuse of that kind to be remedied, it seems to me to be rather out of our usual course to prohibit these banks retrospectively from doing that which was lawful when they had actually done it. That appears to me to be a consideration to which the noble Marquess would perhaps attribute weight, and I hope the noble and learned Lord's Amendment will be agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There seems to be some misapprehension. I do not read the sub-section in the same light as the noble Earl, I think, reads it. I gather that he thinks it may prohibit the making of these investments after the 20th November, 1890. It does not do that. What it does is to prohibit the making of these investments after the passing of this Act unless the bank has exercised the power before this particular date. That is to say, it makes two classes of banks, those which did before the 20th November exercise that power, and those which have not done it; but it does not invalidate anything done between that date and this. I imagine that special investments made under particular circumstances after the 20th November, and before the passing of the Act, would be good.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: But the difficulty is that the bank is not to be allowed to exercise the power after the 20th November, 1890, if it has not previously exercised the power.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Under this Act.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Marquess, I find, is right: it is not to be exercised under this Act. But why is one bank to be placed in a position of disadvantage as regards another bank merely because there has been certain restrictions imposed in this way? If it is a bonâ fide investment, and the bank is a solid bank, I do not see why it is to be placed in a less favourable position than a bank which happens to have exercised the power before that date. That is exactly the point, I think.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid if that be so I must have hopelessly misunderstood it. There is no
1818
disability inflicted upon a bank by reason of its having made these subsequent investments.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: There is the reason of its not having done it before.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am quite willing to add words giving the Treasury a dispensing power in the event of awkward cases arising.
LORD HERSCHELL: That would do, I think; or I might suggest this—as public attention has now been called to the matter, you might fix the 1st June as the date rather than the 20th November.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would rather give a discretion to the Treasury; because, after all, the Banks might say they do not always read the Reports in your Lordships' House. However, my noble Friend prefers the view of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Herschell), so we will make the date the 1st of June.
LORD HERSCHELL: In that case I move to substitute the date "1st June, 1891," for "20th November, 1890."— Agreed.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]—(No. 144.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
HERRING BRANDING (NORTHUMBERLAND) BILL.—(No. 92.)
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BRINE PUMPING (COMPENSATION FOR SUBSIDENCE) BILL—(No. 131.)
Message to the Commons for copy of the Report, &c, of the Select Committee.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.