Lords Sitting of 18 June 1891

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a to-morrow: (The Marquess of Salisbury). (No. 183.)
ALLOTMENTS RATING EXEMPTION BILL. (No. 184.)
  MARKETS AND FAIRS (WEIGHING OF CATTLE) BILL.—(NO. 185.)
  Brought from the Commons: Read 1a, and to be printed.
MORTMAIN AND CHARITABLE USES AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]—(No. 140.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, this Bill proposes to amend the law which I may say came into force in 1736, and which has remained practically unaltered down to the present time. Although there have been on various occasions endeavours to bring about alterations by the introduction of Bills (those endeavours having been at a somewhat distant date) they have never passed into law. The matter was considered by a Select Committee of the other House in 1844, and again in 1852, and the Committee of 1844 particularly urged very large alterations of the then existing law. The Committee of 1852 dealt with matters of somewhat wider scope than the question with which the present Bill proposes to deal, namely, the general question of the extent to which corporations should be empowered to hold land. The present Bill deals only with the question of mortmain so far as it relates to the disposition of property for the benefit of charities. The Act of 1736 appears to have had two objects—one to prevent the accumulation of land in the hands of corporations, and especially religious corporations; and the other to some extent, probably, to prevent the disinheriting of heirs. It is not easy to discover the exact circumstances which led to the Act of 1736. In 1844 the Committee which then considered the matter, the Chairman of
  714
  which was the present Duke of Rutland, then Lord John Manners, expressed themselves unable to discover the exact purpose and object of the Act of 1736, or, at all events, the circumstances which led to its being passed. In a pamphlet which has been lately written on the subject, in which the writer states the Debates as far as they could be obtained, the endeavours to ascertain the causes which led to the Bill, and the constant references in the speeches of that time to Queen Anne's Bounty seem to suggest that a fear then existed, which has proved to be unfounded, lest Queen Anne's Bounty might absorb enormous gifts and benefactions, and ultimately become possessed of large quantities of land. But, however that may be, the Act was passed, as I have mentioned, in 1736. The Act of 1736 not only dealt with charitable gifts of land, but also with charitable gifts of any interest in land, and that is the first matter to which I propose to call your Lordships' attention, because the first Amendment which the present Bill proposes to make is that, so far as that Act relates to any interests in land, it should cease to have operation. I speak of that Act, because the Act which was passed last year, or the year before, was merely a Consolidating Act, and only, in fact, reproduced the Act of 1736. Now, the introduction of these Acts making an interest in land subject to mortmain has led to an enormous amount of litigation, and to distinctions being drawn which I do not think anybody could call other than absurd, and which often rest on the mere accident of the mode or form which a security takes. For instance, it has been held that a mortgage of poor rates is an interest in land, and therefore would come within the Act, while, on the other hand, a mortgage of police rates, or a charge on a general district rate is not an interest in land; though what difference there is between a poor rate and a general district rate I confess I am unable to see. In later times the distinctions have become still more embarrassing. For example, a testator may give to a charity Bonds of the Corporations of Dewsbury and Wakefield, because they are not interests in land, but he may not give Bonds of the Corporations of Salford and Oldham, because they are

  715
  interests in land. The securities of one Corporation stand in a position of still greater difficulty—that is Leicester. The Leicester Corporation's Bonds can be given to a charity, but their Three and a Half per Cent. Redeemable Stock cannot, because it is an interest in land. Except to afford food for lawyers, it was difficult to see what advantage there is in retaining distinctions such as these. In truth, none of the reasons, whatever one may determine them to be, which led to the passing of the Act of 1736, can be at all served by keeping up distinctions of that kind, which now apply to what are simply methods of investing money. No useful purpose, it seems to me, can be served by keeping within these Acts under these distinctions as an interest in land a mere investment of money. For example, I may give another illustration. If a testator bequeaths East India Stock to a charity that may be valid, but if he changes the investment of his money and puts it into Metropolitan Board of Works Consolidated Stock that is an interest in land, and his bequest to the charity would be void in consequence. That is a state of things which it seems to me ought not to continue, and that is the first alteration which is proposed to be made by this Bill. But that proposed alteration in the law, of course, leaves open one or two questions, one of them of great importance—namely, whether it is expedient to maintain in any manner the provision which makes void a gift of land to a charity. As I have said, so far as the Act is directed to preventing the accumulation of land in great quantities in the hands of Corporations, I do not propose to meddle with the object of the Act, because that is an object which, I think, many would desire to preserve. Many people at the present day think it inexpedient for charities to become large holders of land, but as regards the power of disposition by a testator, there does not seem now-a-days to be any reason for limiting it as to land any more than as to any other form of property. There is no corresponding provision in our law compelling him to leave it to members of his family; he may leave it to whom he pleases. The way in which the law operates, and had operated in several well-known cases,
  716
  was brought before the Committee in 1844, and one knows very well that the law, as it stands at present, does not prevent an individual who is desirous of benefitting a charity from leaving his property to some person in whom he has confidence, leaving it to his honour to apply it as he knows the testator intended it to be applied. The law of Mortmain is peculiar to this country. There is no such law in Scotland, and I believe there is none in Ireland. The Act of 1736 applies only to this part of the United Kingdom, and I have heard of no inconvenience or abuse which has arisen from the want of a similar law in Scotland or Ireland to that which was passed for the rest of the United Kingdom in 1736. A number of exceptions have been made from it, however, from time to time, because some charities have obtained private Acts by which they are exempted from the Mortmain provisions and are enabled to hold land, and the consequence is, that there are now, for instance, some London hospitals which could take bequests of land, while such gifts to other hospitals would be absolutely void. I propose by this Bill to provide that a bequest of land to a charity should no longer be void, but that the land must be sold within a year from the time of its vesting in the charity, or within such extended time as the Court may allow; then, if it is not sold within the time limited or extended, I propose it should vest in the official trustee of charities, that it should be his duty to sell it, and then hand over the proceeds, after deducting the costs of sale, to the charity. There is one other case dealt with by the Bill, and that is where money is left to be expended in land. That also has been held void under the Mortmain Acts. Where money is left with that condition annexed, the Bill provides that the condition in such a case should not attach, but that the bequest shall be perfectly valid. Since I introduced the Bill I have felt some doubt upon the matter, and I am not sure whether it would not be advisable to introduce an Amendment of that description, because I think where a testator leaves money to be invested in land for the purpose of the charity, and the charity has power to make that investment—because, as your Lordships

  717
  are aware, there is already power for them to hold a small amount of land—it is desirable that the condition should not be void to the extent to which the charity have the power, but to give effect to it according to law. I should propose, therefore, later on to make that alteration. Those are substantially the provisions of the Bill. Its details, of course, may well be for the consideration of your Lordships hereafter, but I do not think I need detain your Lordships further now, and I ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships by any long observations upon this Bill. I desire chiefly to thank the noble and learned Lord for having taken this matter up, and to express my concurrence in all he has said. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading. There can be no doubt that the law upon the subject places restrictions, which are unreasonable, upon charitable gifts, except in the view of one or other of two purposes. If the object were to discourage charitable gifts generally, the manner in which it is done would certainly be arbitrary and capricious, without any appreciable principle. The other purpose, which I think you Lordships will agree is a good one, is to prevent land accumulating in Mortmain. The noble and learned Lord has fully provided against that second consequence, by the manner in which he has prepared the Bill; and with regard to the first I have no sympathy with the idea. The noble and learned Lord has referred to one particular portion of the subject as to which I should like to suggest to him whether a little more may not be worth doing than he has proposed in the way of qualification, I mean when money is given to be laid out in land. My noble and learned Friend proposes to except certain cases upon grounds in which I concur, but I cannot help thinking that it might be worth his consideration whether there may not be other cases, where the laying out of money on land is so much of the essence of the gift, that it would be more reasonable to make such gifts invalid than to apply them to some different purpose. There is a matter which probably could not be dealt with in this Bill, but it is one as to
  718
  which I have always felt that our law in regard to charities has sometimes, at all events, been administered in a most unreasonable manner. Where the purpose of a gift to a charity is specific, so that there can be no doubt at all as to the object, whether the gift be money or not, the Courts have sometimes, as in a celebrated case, proceeded in a very arbitrary manner. They have held, that there is a general intention to give to charity, even when the particular object is impossible, and so the family of the testator has been deprived of the property. In the case to which I have referred there was a gift to a charity for Jewish purposes which the Court held could not take effect in point of law, but on the doctrine of approximation applied it to Christian education. I cannot help thinking that if such a case were to occur again, the common sense of everybody would say that the family should have the property if the particular purpose or object could not be fulfilled. So far as that matter can be considered in the present Bill, I hope the noble and learned Lord will consider it. I should not be sorry if the law were that the family, who are the natural heirs, should never lose the property unless the specific purposes for which it is given by the testator can receive effect. Perhaps, also, though I am not sure that it would be easy to carry it out, something might be done to enable the Attorney General or the Charity Commissioners to renounce in the case of bequests to foolish or mischievous charities, for as your Lordships know such things do exist, instead of saying that they shall always take effect.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): May I ask the noble and learned Lord one question. It is whether, in the case of a will leaving land for the purpose of a site for a building, it would be necessary to sell it; because, if so, it seems to me that a provision of that kind would do away with the very object which the testator had had in view, and I would point out that there is no exception made here at all?
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think there might be an exception in that case similar to that which I say would be required in the case of money to be laid out in land.
  *LORD COLCHESTER: My Lords, having been concerned in the administration of charities, I should wish to point out one or two matters in which I think this Bill might operate injuriously unless amended. I should welcome the facilitating gifts to charities, but I think the very probable effect of this Bill would be that land which is now conveyed by deed would be conveyed by the much simpler form of a will, and the consequence would be that the land would be obliged to be sold, whereas now there is no such compulsion. I should look with great apprehension on the latter clauses of this Bill, which would lead to charities being obliged at once to part with land which comes into the it-hands, though it might be of such a description that its value would in the future enormously increase. In the case of agricultural land, which, unfortunately, as your Lordships know, is not always very profitable property to hold, it might be as well, perhaps, that it should he sold as early as possible, but lands and houses might come into the hands of charities which would within the next generation be worth double or treble their present value. Some of your Lordships are, no doubt, familiar with the case of charities which have had land granted to them several hundred years back, land which though worth but a few pounds then is now worth thousands. If land has to be sold at once the future value will be lost, and the charity would only possess a small income in the future from its proceeds, instead of an increasing one from the future increment which would as time went on make it very valuable. One hears a great deal about the unearned increment and to whom it should go, but I think in this case it is better that this unearned increment should pass to the charity and be applied to useful purposes, than that it should be allowed to pass to any chance purchaser to whom the land may have been sold in the first instance if it has under such a provision as this to be sold at once. I think this difficulty might be met if the noble and learned Lord were willing to accept an Amendment, that this provision should only be carried out where the Charity Commissioners are of opinion that it will not be injurious to the charity. I may say in passing
  720
  that there is one peculiarity which I observe in this Bill. It ignores the present administrative machinery altogether. It makes no allusion to the Charity Commissioners of England and Wales who would be acquainted with the administration of the charity, but puts it in the hands of persons who have no means of being acquainted with any particular charity, while, on the other haud, it imposes a peculiar responsibility upon one of the officers, because it puts him in a totally different position, giving him administrative functions, whereas he now has no such functions whatever. I remember a Bill being introduced some time ago which proposed to vest charitable property in the Official Trustee; and some of those who opposed the Bill did so because they imagined they were going to be deprived of the administration. The fact is that the functions of the Official Trustee are not administrative, and by this Bill, for the first time, you are to give him administrative functions, an innovation for which no reason has been assigned. If the noble and learned Lord would be willing to amend the Bill in respect of sales under the later clause, that they should take place or not, according to whether or not the Charity Commissioners are willing to assent to them, I should welcome the change in the interest of charities. I cannot help thinking that the Bill in its present state might have disastrous consequences, and I would, therefore, propose that it should be amended, as I have pointed out. I really think it is a matter worthy of consideration whether it would not be for the benefit of charities that the Bill should not in its present form pass into law.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I think your Lordships will generally agree with the object which the noble and learned Lord proposes in this Bill. In the first place, it will prevent litigation. But I think there are some objections to the Bill. In the first instance, I may remind your Lordships that it was only delivered on Tuesday, and I think that is rather a short time to give your Lordships for consultation. I think it would be very desirable, before proceeding with this Bill, if Her Majesty's Government would lay before the House a Return of how many charity farms or

  721
  land held in charity in Great Britain have been sold under the powers of the Charity Commissioners. This land is constantly changing hands, and charity gains by the large price paid for it, so that the number of charitable trusts is not so great as might be supposed. The noble and learned Lord referred to Queen Anne's Bounty. Queen Anne's Bounty holds a great deal of the land which it possesses in trust only for the benefit of the clergy, and the real owners are the rectors and vicars. If the noble and learned Lord is going to amend the Act of 1888, I think he ought to make another amendment to this effect. The Act of 1888, following the old Acts, lays down that if a landowner makes a gift of land, even for a museum, or for whatever purpose it may be, or for whatever reason, that gift of land shall not take effect if he dies within 12 months of making that bequest. This should be amended by an exception in case of death by accident. A person may die suddenly from an accident, or he may be shot, and there is no reason for invalidating his will made under proper circumstances, when he was of perfectly sound mind, and perhaps in perfect health. This precaution need no longer be taken, though it might have been all very well in the Middle Ages, and might be necessary if we were still under the influence of priests who might be present at deathbeds.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, with reference to what the noble Lord has just said, of course I am quite willing to consider that or any other suggestions that may be made. I think the noble Lord opposite (Lord Colchester) somewhat misapprehends the object of insisting upon these sales. I believe there would be great Opposition to this Bill if that provision were not retained, because there is certainly a general objection in many quarters to any alteration of the law which would be calculated to lead to the accumulation of large quantities of land in the hands of bodies such as those who hold charity lands.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of): My Lords, I think it is important in this matter to understand the distinction, which the noble Lord does not retain,
  722
  between land held for the purpose of investment and land used for the immediate purposes of a charity—such as dwelling houses. Charities must have land of that kind, and it is unreasonable to refuse them that power; but the general principle on which the law has gone, of preventing charities which have money left to them investing it in land seems to be a very sound one.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday the 26th instant.

FISHERIES BILL.—(No. 17.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, this Bill is to provide means for carrying out a Declaration which has been agreed upon between the Queen and the King of the Belgians. The text of the Declaration is scheduled to the Bill, and the object with which it has been arranged is to remove the difficulties which have arisen between British and Belgian fishermen fishing in the seas off the Eastern Coasts of this Island: such difficulties, for example, as this—where damage has been done by the fishermen of one nationality to the gear and nets of fishermen belonging to the other country. For a series of years this is a matter which has led to a great many disputes, to a great many difficulties, and, I am sorry to say, in some eases, to disturbances resulting in actual physical violence. To take a case which is by no means of uncommon occurrence: a trawler belonging to a Belgian port has, perhaps, done damage to the nets of British fishermen, and, owing to technical objections raised in the Belgian Courts to the proofs of ownership of the fishing gear, it has been found to be very difficult indeed to get the compensation which in equity it was obviously desirable should be obtained by those who had been injured. Now, the procedure by which this agreement has been reached has been this: in 1886 the Board of Trade appointed a Committee, who reported upon the subject, and in that Report they advised that the trawlers should be required to take steps for reducing the damage that they might

  723
  do to a minimum, which, I may mention, as many of your Lordships may know who are familiar with these matters, can be done by uniting the ends of a line when it has been cut by the action of the trawl. And the Report of the Board of Trade Committee also recommended that a Local Commission should be appointed to assess the damages that might be done, so that an authoritative report might be sent in reference to those damages to the Supreme Court. This Report was communicated to the Belgian Government, and in 1888 the Belgian Government appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter, and the Report of that Commission and of the Committee of the Board of Trade which I have mentioned, have led to the negotiations which have happily resulted in the agreement which is scheduled to this Bill. I now ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time, for the purpose of providing means for carrying the argument into effect. Now, the means which it is proposed to use as between the two countries are these:—That in the case of any complaint, the Commission upon the spot shall inquire into the matter, and if the case is good shall assess the damages. That Commission is to be appointed by the Board of Trade. It will consist of two experts, who will hear evidence, and come to a decision. They will also deal with such matters as the certificates of ownership of the boats and the gear, and of the money value of the injury sustained; and their certificate it is provided, will be admitted as evidence in the Belgian Courts. Secondly, and this is very important, the Public Prosecutor in Belgium undertakes to take the necessary steps for recovering compensation. Formerly it was left to the individual fishermen of this country themselves to go over to Belgium and bring actions for this purpose. It is also provided in the agreement between the two countries, as I have told your Lordships, that the fishermen of whichever nationality who do damage, shall do all in their power to repair it. The obligations between the two countries are, I need scarcely say, entirely mutual; what has been obtained from the Belgian Government, Her Majesty's Government, of course, concede to them. The obligations of the agreement are mutual,
  724
  and the advantages of it, if your Lordships agree to the Second Reading of the Bill and it passes Parliament, will be mutual also. I must explain that the Declaration has not been actually ratified, but we have every reason to hope it will be ratified without undue delay. In asking your Lordships to provide means for carrying the agreement into effect, the Board of Trade are following the precedent of 1883, when there was a Declaration come to for similar purposes, an International agreement having been made in 1882. That was scheduled to a Bill which passed through Parliament in 1883, before the actual ratifications had been exchanged. One reason for the course proposed is this: that by the Belgian Constitution their Legislature must approve of the legislation before it is ratified, and on our side the reasons for the course is this, that if the ratifications are not exchanged until after this Session of Parliament has expired, there is no possibility of providing means for enforcing the Declaration upon British subjects until next Session of Parliament, and a season would be lost; but there is a provision in the Bill that that part of it which deals with the confirmation of the Declaration shall not come into effect until it is declared to be right that it should do so under the provisions of the Bill. That is all I have to say as regards the first and more important part of the Bill. There are other parts of it which deal with minor matters by Amendments of our domestic law. One of them is of importance, as it provides means for facilitating the protection of mussel-beds. Any of your Lordships who are acquainted with the importance of the mussel-beds to many of our fishermen will recognise this as a right and wise policy to pursue. At the present time it is true the mussel-beds can be protected, but only through the cumbrous and expensive machinery of Regulation Orders. It takes 10 or 12 weeks to get a Regulation Order passed, and it can only be done at an expense of about £300 to £400. That acts as a great deterrent, and the proposal in the Bill is that the Fishery Boards appointed round our coasts shall be able to make bye-laws for the protection of any mussel-beds they wish to protect, and then those bye-laws

  725
  will have full force and effect when they have been confirmed by certain Orders. Another provision in the Bill enables offences committed on the sea adjoining any county below low-water mark, but not committed by persons in boats, to be the subject of prosecution. Much damage can be done to oyster and mussel-beds by such acts as taking a cart through the shallow water or by the acts of shrimpers. If persons commit such offences at the present time below low-water mark there is no means of prosecuting them, and this Bill provides means for that purpose. By the 10th clause of the Bill, County Councils are empowered, if they see fit, to contribute towards the expense of managing the fisheries within their districts. There is no compulsion on the County Councils to contribute in any case unless they desire it. Some persons have raised a doubt whether under the present law the County Councils have power to do that oven if they desire; and Clause 10 has been introduced to remove those doubts. Then there are one or two minor matters in the Bill, but I believe there is no opposition to them. They are entirely matters which can be dealt with in Committee, and, therefore, I propose to say no more about them on the present occasion. I will now ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  *THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE: Doubtless your Lordships will be surprised to see a Member of your House rising from these Benches to take part in the discussion upon a Bill of this kind, and I need scarcely say I do not intend to touch upon that portion of it referring to the International matters to which the noble Lord has referred; but there is a matter which so nearly affects fishing interests in the part of the country in which I live that I cannot refrain from offering a few observations upon that portion of the Bill. In the memorandum which precedes the Bill, in a notice concerning Clause 12, it is stated that in the present state of the law it has been found impossible to reconcile the provisions of the Norfolk and Suffolk Fisheries Act, 1877, which are in force on the Suffolk side of the river Stour with those of the general Acts in force on the Essex side. Something parallel with the difficulty stated there—but, perhaps,
  726
  on a larger scale—exists in the part of the county I am referring to. We have different laws regulating the salmon fishing on the opposite sides of the Solway, and the amount of discomfort, dissatisfaction, and discontent to which that state of the law gives rise it is quite impossible for me to describe. I very seldom visit the shores of the Solway without hearing complaints from the poor fishermen who live on the English side. I quite thought I should have had a Petition to your Lordships from those fishermen, on which I had intended to found some observations; but it has not come to hand, and I therefore gladly avail myself of the opportunity presented by this Bill for the purpose of putting before your Lordships what I consider to be a genuine and very considerable grievance of a poor but respectable body of men, a set of men who have it not in their power to combine as can our omnibus men, our railway men, and our dockers, but who nevertheless can feel what they conceive to be a deep injustice, who grumble among themselves, and who complain when they have any ear like mine into which to pour their complaints. Now, the fundamental point of their grievance is this: that restrictions which do not exist on one side are enforced on the other side of the Solway, which I need not remind your Lordships is quite a narrow arm of the sea; you cannot quite throw a biscuit across it, but you can walk across it in certain states of the tide in a short time, and you can get across it in a few minutes by the Solway Railway. Although the people living on both sides are equally Her Majesty's subjects, and are, I believe, equally loyal, entirely opposite laws exist. On the Scotch side they have what are called "fixed engines" for salmon catching, but on the English side they may not have anything of the kind. My poor fishermen use what are called "haaf-nets." The haaf-net is a very difficult implement for catching fish, and it requires that the man using it shall wade up to his waist in the sea water, using his net there simply by hand. It appears to be a very inefficient and cumbrous method of taking salmon, and yet my poor fishermen are compelled to use this net, while their Scotch brethren in sight of them on the other side can be comfortably

  727
  in their beds and wait for the fish to be caught in their fixed engines. Your Lordships may remember that the trouble with regard to these fixed engines existed a long time ago, and that some of the stirring incidents in Sir Walter Scott's novel Red Gauntlet depend upon them. It was said, I think, by no less a person than the Baillie of Dumfries that they were not, in his opinion, "over and above lawful;" but they have been brought to the test of law since that time, and now it has been determined that they are lawful. There is now no manner of doubt that on the Scotch side of the Solway this method of taking salmon is lawful, and it is equally certain that on the English side the same method of taking salmon is not lawful. I have in my hand a very interesting Report of an investigation which took place 10 years ago by Mr. Walpole, then Inspector of Fisheries for England and Wales, and Mr. Archibald Young, who was Scotch Commissioner for the Salmon Fisheries. They wont into the matter, and made a recommendation which was intended evidently to get rid of these fixed engines. They took a great deal of evidence, which your Lordships will find in this Paper, upon the points I have already mentioned, and setting forth complaints from one fisherman after another of the cruelty and injustice of the present condition of things. I know perfectly well the difficulty in this case. I know that there are certain vested rights on the Scotch side, that the fisheries, many of them, are private property, and that on the English side a different condition of things prevails. Therefore, I do not at all wish to blink the fact that there is a difficulty in getting over the injustice to which I refer; but I do most emphatically wish to impress on your Lordships' minds that there is an injustice, as was admitted by the gentlemen whose names I have mentioned 10 years ago, and they made recommendations which were intended to get rid of it. But the difficulty still remains; and, as I said just now, I never go down to the banks of the Solway, to the little fishing village or town of Bowness-on-Solway, without having poured into my ears the complaints of these unfortunate fishermen. I do not know what can be done
  728
  for them. I rather put them in formâ pauperis before Her Majesty's Government; and I do most strongly urge that if Her Majesty's Government can see their way to relieve these fishermen of this cruelty and injustice it will be a very right thing for them to do; and I am quite certain, whatever may be said with regard to the legal position of the matter, that the whole combined wisdom of both Houses of Parliament will never persuade my poor fishermen on the banks of the Solway that they are not at this present time suffering from a very cruel injustice.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of): My Lords, I am very glad the right rev. Prelate has intervened before your Lordships give a Second Reading to the Bill of my noble Friend. I was not, of course, in the least aware that the right rev. Prelate intended to introduce this subject at all, but it has given me great pleasure to hear what he has had to say from his point of view describing the injustice done to the English fishermen, because I have naturally heard a good deal upon the other side of the question, and it is of course always well to hear both sides. Now, from the way in which the matter has been put before me, I had supposed until this time that it was the Scotch fishermen who had cause to complain, for I have had many complaints that the unfortunate Scotchmen are utterly unable to obtain a livelihood in consequence of the depredations on their side of the Solway by the English fishermen. I have had communications with the Treasury with a view to the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the difficulties which undoubtedly exist, and one of the chief objections to the appointment of that Commission has been that they might possibly find that in consequence of the depredations on the Scotch side large compensation would have to be paid to the Englishmen for the loss of any rights they may claim to exercise on the Scotch side. But as far as the general question goes, I am quite with the light rev. Prelate. There is no doubt a state of matters on the Solway Estuary which is extremely unfortunate for the fishermen on both the Scotch and English sides. They prosecute their fisheries under absolutely different laws. Another

  729
  difficulty in the matter is that the boundary between the Scotch and English sides is a constantly varying one, owing to the constant changes occurring from the operation of the tides. Then there is another source of difficulty from the Scotch point of view, on account of the licences to fish which are given to the English fishermen by the English Fishery Board of the district. Anyone who applies for a licence from that Board has a right to obtain it, and it appears the Scotchmen go over to the English side and obtain licences, and then go over to the Scotch side and fish under the English law. The difficulty is this: That under the English law a net may be of a certain length only, but they go over and add a considerable length to that net on the Scotch side. When the Scotchmen go and complain to the English Board and ask for protection against the net, the English Board say they have nothing to do with it, because the net is on the Scotch side; and on the Scotch side also they say they have nothing to do with it because the licence has been obtained from the English Board. However, I will not say anything now beyond this: that there are difficulties in the way of dealing with the question, but, in my opinion, it is very desirable that a termination should be put to this unfortunate state of affairs, and I thank the right rev. Prelate for having brought the matter before your Lordships' House. The right rev. Prelate said something, I think, about proprietors' rights. With regard to that I can only say that, as far as my knowledge of the Scotch proprietors goes, every single Scotch proprietor would be glad to see an end put to the existing condition of things, even if it occasioned some loss to themselves, and to have the law altered with that view.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

BRINE PUMPING (COMPENSATION FOR SUBSIDENCE) BILL (No. 131.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *THE DUKES OF WESTMINSTER: My Lords, I have to draw your attention for a few moments, in moving the Second
  730
  Reading of this Bill, to the very peculiar condition of things which exists in the salt district in the County of Cheshire, a county with which I am myself connected, caused by the pumping of brine in that district. I will preface my remarks by stating first that a ton of rock salt is equivalent to a ton of white salt, and that the salt in suspension amounts to between 25 and 26 percent. of the whole amount of brine; that no less than 1,200,000 tons of salt were made last year, which, I believe, represents more or less the amount which has been taken annually for some years past. Your Lordships can well understand that so very large an abstraction of brine from a certain depth below the surface of the soil must have a great effect in lowering that surface, and of increasing considerably subsidences in that district. This has now been going on for very many years, but the evil has been increased on account of the increase of pumping during late years; frequent subsidences have occurred, and, therefore, there has been much more damage occurring lately in the district. Now, my Lords, the results of those subsidences are most remarkable, and I have no doubt that those of your Lordships who are acquainted with the salt districts have seen the results of those subsidences. You have many places throughout the entire district converted into lakes; what was once valuable property in the locality has become worth-less from the inflow of water, the houses are tottering and tumbling down, the streets are out of the perpendicular, what were first-floor windows are on a level with the street; and, altogether, the locality presents not only a very remarkable, but an extremely unfavourable and melancholy appearance. Only the other day, on the 11th June, a Wesleyan chapel collapsed; several persons were employed in seeing what could be done to save it, but the whole thing collapsed. One man was killed, and another was injured. That, as I have told your Lordships, only happened the other day. This state of things is, of course, an inconvenience, and even more. It means, in a great many cases, ruin to small proprietors, who are unable to help themselves, for these operations have been carried out, and of late years

  731
  especially, without any redress whatever to those who have sustained damage, and without any compensation being received from those who derive benefit from the brine pumping by the owners of property which has been injured in the district. The owners of the brine go on pumping to get the salt, and they are under no liability to compensate owners of property which may be affected, or to afford any redress for the grievance which is so justly complained of in this ease. Now, my Lords, there have been many inquiries made into this subject on the part of the Home Office and on the part of the Local Government Board. There have been deputations—I have had the honour of accompanying one myself—to the Local Government Board, asking for a Royal Commission to be appointed to inquire into the subject, but nothing had been done in the way of attempting legislation until eight or nine years ago, in 1881, when an attempt was made by legislation to deal with this grievance. A Committee was appointed, which went into the case most thoroughly, and there is a very thick volume of evidence printed, and of course published, which was then taken. So far as I understand, the reason why the Bill which was introduced at that time was thrown out was, according to the statement of one of the members of the Committee, owing to the fact of the difficulty of defining the compensation districts in the first place, and, secondly, there was this objection, that such a Private Bill as that affected the General Statute law with regard to the abstraction of underground water. On those two grounds that unfortunate Bill of 1881 was thrown out. From that time to this, as I have said, these inquiries have been going on without any practical result. There are two very large firms at present connected with the salt industry in that district. One is the Salt Union, which was established about two-and-a-half years ago with an enormous capital, and which has a very large business; and the other is the firm of Messrs. Brunner, Mond, & Co., who are large alkali manufacturers in the district, and therefore large pumpers of brine, who conduct also a very large business employing thousands of hands, people living in the town of Northwich.
  732
  Approaches were made to those two firms to endeavour to get them to come to some agreement with regard to this matter of compensation. The Salt Union were not able to see their way to affect any arrangement. Messrs. Brunner & Co. were favourable to such an arrangement being arrived at. Mr. Brunner himself is a supporter of this Bill, which I have now to ask your Lordships to read a second time. There has been a little technical difficulty with regard to the Bill on account of a clause at the end referring to a private trust; that clause brought it within the category of a Private Bill. I do not know what the proper course is for striking out that clause, but it is to be considered as struck out in order to enable this Bill to be in fact what it is essentially, that is, a Public Bill, affecting not only the County of Cheshire, but the other districts in the country where salt is now obtained, or may be found hereafter. It is, therefore, essentially a Public Bill, and I hope your Lordships will deal with it as a Public Bill. The Bill provides that there shall be compensation districts formed, after inquiry by the Local Government Board, on application by the ratepayers, or by Sanitary Authorities under Provisional Orders to be confirmed by Parliament. Then Compensation Boards are to be elected for each district. Those Compensation Boards are to be elected, as described in the Bill, by various electing bodies, and their object is to strike a rate which has been settled by the Bill at 3d. on 1,000 gallons of brine, which is equivalent to one ton of salt. It also prescribes damage for which compensation is to be made limited to pecuniary loss and expenditure for repairs; and it is confined to private property owners. Larger owners are taken care of almost entirely by the rents and royalties they receive from those who pump brine on their own property; but it must be remembered that their profits from those rents and royalties are really as nothing compared with the profits of those two large firms to whom I have alluded. To show the extent of the business that those large firms carry on, I may just mention—Lord Thurlow will correct me if I am not right—that the profits were last year no less than £366,447 for the Salt Union, and the

  733
  profits of Messrs. Brunner and Company were no less than £284,000. Under Clause 50 the following bodies are excepted from the right to compensation:—Railway or Canal Companies, Gas or Water Companies, County Councils, Municipal Corporations, Sanitary, Highway, or Local Authorities, brine pumpers, owners of brine rents or royalties for salt, owners of salt and alkali works, and the trustees of a navigation called the River Weaver Navigation. Those exceptions are made mainly on this ground and on this principle, that all those bodies do derive or have derived very direct benefit from the salt trade of the district. The case of the Railway Companies was thoroughly gone into the other day, before the Committee of the other House, and it was shown that it would not be right that the London and North-Western Railway Company and the Cheshire lines, who came into the district knowing perfectly well the danger from subsidence which they were liable to, should have claim to compensation. They derive very large profits from the salt trade in carrying salt, and in various directions, and it seems altogether unjust that, under a scheme of compensation which in the main is to be directed to compensating small owners who have no power to help themselves, those great companies should come in and claim compensation for damage done to their works. What might be claimed would be sufficient to maintain the railway—that is to say, such a provision in their favour would amount almost to maintaining the permanent way of the London and North-Western. I understand their expenses during the last 15 years have not exceeded £7,000; but, of course, they are liable at any time to further subsidences. For instance, they have a magnificent viaduct which crosses the River Weaver at a place in the Northwich District. I believe that viaduct cost something like £300,000. I understand there are to be some workings commenced a quarter of a mile off, and the vagaries of salt are so peculiar that I imagine it is quite on the cards that considerable damage may be done to this viaduct; and it is not altogether out of the question that the whole viaduct may come down. Your Lordships will see how impossible it would
  734
  be, in such a case as that, that the comparatively small rate of compensation, amounting to only 3d. in the ton, could pay for a thing of that sort where the damage done might be so great as to break up the whole structure. It could not be done. The Gas and Water Companies again have taken their powers and started their undertakings with full knowledge of the risks they are liable to from subsidence in this district, and the breakage of their gas and water pipes and mains, and they have accordingly compelled the consumers of their gas and water to pay a very high rate to compensate themselves for any damage that may be caused by subsidences. I think, therefore, your Lordships will see that those companies also are rather out of court. I need not refer to the other cases, because they are cases of bodies who have derived, or who will derive in future if they are not at this moment doing so, benefit from this salt trade. They will, of course, derive greater benefit as time goes on. I understand that the opposition of the Salt Union rests on several grounds. One of their objections is to the Statute Law being altered, because, in their opinion, brine is to be classed with water for that purpose. They put brine in the same category as water, which I do not think your Lordships will admit for a moment, because, in point of fact, it is a mineral. The makers of salt, wherever they draw their water from, do not want the water a bit. They want the mineral, and, it being a mineral, payment ought to be exacted for the damage caused by the abstraction of the mineral. The proportion in the brine amounts to 25 or 26 per cent. The amount is taken in the water, and therefore it can hardly be considered in the light of water merely, and coming, therefore, under the statutory category of water. Then again, they say these subsidences are owing to natural causes. The scientific evidence upon that point was not gone into very fully before the Committee of the other House because, as the Chairman very fairly remarked, if you have abstraction of the brine beneath the surface, it is a natural consequence that subsidences must occur. The two things are pari passu; the abstraction of the brine and the subsidence of the ground go together. If the pumping of the

  735
  brine stops, the subsidence ceases and the ground remains quiescent. In fact, the two things go together; you cannot separate them. Then I submit that the proposed toll or rate of 3d. a ton cannot be considered a very heavy one to impose upon these very well-to-do bodies. I understand the Salt Union have raised their prices during the time they have been established very considerably. Their prospectus affirms that there can be no harm in raising their prices upon what they term a moderate scale, and we have the evidence of their own manager at Northwich upon that point, who, in one passage of his examination, states that the salt trade must be in a very bad way if a rate of 3d. a ton would kill it. That seems to me to be very strong evidence against the Salt Union on that point. It is evidence given by their own manager, who thinks that the proposed toll of 3d. would be infinitesimal; and I think that it would certainly be difficult to kill the Salt Union by the imposition of a toll of that amount. Then it is not to be forgotten that all parties are interested in the maintenance of the trade. No small property owner, nor anybody else, would dream of doing anything which would injure the trade of that district, and which, of course, would hurt themselves. The object of the Bill, therefore, is, though coming rather late, to redress a very serious grievance and repair a very heavy wrong which has been done to a number of comparatively small proprietors, who now come to Parliament seeking redress by means of imposing a moderate rate upon those who inflict the wrong for their own profit, and I hope your Lordships will allow the Bill to be read a second time. With regard to the motion of my noble Friend, who proposes, if your Lordships think right to give a second reading to the Bill, to refer it to a Select Committee, I think it should be remembered that the small property owners are not a very wealthy body of men, and that really the expenses which are incurred in proceedings before a Select Committee are very heavy. A suggestion has been thrown out—I do not know whether it can be acted upon—that the evidence taken before the other House should be received, and that the inquiry should be limited especially with regard to the
  736
  scientific portion of it, because the facts are so patent, as I said before, that the two things go together—where you have brine pumping going on you must have subsidence, and the evidence shows, as I have said, that when the brine pumping ceases the subsidence ceases also. The Chairman of the Committee of the other House took that view, and accordingly cut the evidence very short. I therefore think that some Instruction might be given, if this Bill is to go before a Select Committee—which I am not at all anxious for on account of its expense—with regard to taking the evidence which has been given before the other House, and limiting the scientific evidence to very small dimensions. I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Duke of Westminster.)
  *LORD DE TABLEY: My Lords, as a local man and a proprietor of salt, I have been asked to make a few observations in support of the Bill. After the very able and exhaustive speech which your Lordships have just heard, I need not say much for my own part; but I want to emphasise what you have already heard, that this Bill is promoted by poor men with very slender purses, against two great corporations with very long purses. It is therefore a great object with them that they should be spared the expenses of a reference to a Select Committee, more especially as the matter has been very exhaustively discussed during seven days before the Committee of the other House. As your Lordships have heard from the noble Duke, it has been maintained by the chief opponent of this Bill, the Salt Union, that the brine pumping is not the cause of subsidence. But no one, I think, who has ever lived in that neighbourhood, or who has any knowledge of it, can for a moment maintain any such theory as that. The area of subsidence follows the area of brine pumping, as, I think, anyone will be convinced who knows the neighbourhood, and who does not shut his eyes, and it appears certain that if the brine pumping ceases the subsidence would cease also. No one can pity the case of a landowner like, I may say, myself, who had sold or leased land to one of those large corporations, and who have received money value for what we have

  737
  given in the way of rents and royalties, but the case of the small man is very different indeed. It is a great hardship to, say, a small tailor or shoemaker, who owns his little freehold shop in the High-street of Northwich, when he wakes up one morning to suddenly find his house cracked from rooftree to basement, and sometimes with the lower storeys sunk into the ground, so that he has to have his kitchen on the upper floor, or in the attic, with no compensation obtainable for the damage done to him. In such a condition of things a remedy ought to be pressed forward with all reasonable speed, and there can be no doubt that this Bill is a matter of urgency. I trust, therefore, that the House will allow the Bill to proceed to Second Reading, and that your Lordships will not insist upon a reference to a Select Committee.
  *LORD EGERTON OF TATTON: My Lords, speaking upon this matter without having any direct interest either as a salt proprietor or as holding shares in the Salt Union, I desire to confirm the facts which have been so well and clearly stated by the noble Duke opposite. It certainly seems a great anomaly that for so many years, under the Common Law, a man should have been able to pump water as brine from under his own property though he may cause damage to others—that he should, in doing so, be at liberty to let his neighbour's house down, or break all the gas and water pipes in a large district, and even though one of the effects may be, as I know has been the case, of causing the county bridges to be repaired every five or six years. I remember that the town-hall at Winsford had to be screwed up six feet in order to keep it going at all. Obviously, my Lords, that is a great anomaly. There is now an opportunity of remedying these complaints. Formerly, when the pumping was in a number of hands, it was impossible to fix the responsibility upon one person, and the consequence was that no successful action could be brought against any one for doing damage to his neighbour. But now that the whole trade is practically in the hands of two great companies, who make very large profits out of this monopoly, which is, in itself, a thing that is very questionable in the
  738
  public interest, because, undoubtedly, the price of salt has been very largely raised, not only for eating purposes, but for chemical and agricultural requirements, it is possible to fix the responsibility. Evidence was given before the Committee of the other House, as the noble Duke has stated, that 3d. a ton would not in any way materially affect their profits, and I think now that the responsibility can be fairly put upon those great firms, it is high time that Parliament should affirm the principle that those who cause damage should pay for it, even though to so limited an extent. I may perhaps add, as some reference has been made to the character of the Committee, that if it is desired to refer the Bill to a Committee I quite agree in what has been said that this is not a Bill for large landowners, but for small property owners and shop-keepers who would be greatly prejudiced if any expense had to be incurred by them in putting their case before a Select Committee. Inquiry after inquiry has been made before Committees since 1881, and it is therefore desirable, I think, that the evidence should now be limited, and that no scientific evidence should be taken such as was taken in 1881. Anyone who knows that district knows perfectly well that it is impossible that these subsidences should have taken place unless they were caused by the brine pumping, and I therefore cordially support the second reading of this Bill.
  *LORD HENNIKER: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to make a few-remarks upon this subject, as I represent the Local Government Board in your Lordships' House. This Bill, as I think your Lordships know, is confined to a very small district. It is confined merely to the district of Northwich and Winsford.
  *THE DUKES OF WESTMINSTER: And Droitwich and other places.
  *LORD HENNIKER: That particular district, at all events, is only ten miles long and five miles broad. Complaints have been received by the Local Government Board for some years past with regard to the subsidence of land, both from owners and from Local Bodies at Northwich and Winsford, and there can be no doubt that legislation has become necessary to deal with the state of things that has arisen. This

  739
  Bill, the Second Reading of which the noble Duke has moved, passed in the other House with the concurrence of the President of the Local Government Board and his advisers. As the noble Duke has stated, the opponents of the Bill object on the ground of interference with the Statutory Law, as they are of opinion that brine comes under the same category as underground water, that it belongs to the person who occupies the land, and that he has the same power of pumping it as he has of pumping out water. Where this has been done at more than one station in the district there is great difficulty in tracing any particular subsidence of the land to the action of any particular person in pumping up the brine. It is practically impossible to say from how great a distance or in what direction the brine flows when it is pumped up in any particular place, and in consequence of those difficulties it has been almost impossible—it is, in fact, quite impossible,—to obtain any compensation from the brine pumpers for subsidence. Owners not only have to bear the loss of the abstracted salt from beneath the land without payment, but they also have to bear the damage which is done on the surface by such abstraction of the brine. In ordinary mining that is not the case. As your Lordships, no doubt, quite understand—and many of your Lordships know much more about the matter than I can profess to do—that is not so in coal mining, for instance. There it is comparatively easy to trace to what particular action of any particular coal mining company, or coal proprietor, the damage is attributable. It is contended by some that if there were no pumping of brine, by the the operation of natural causes—the continual overflowing of the brine into the water courses and natural springs of water—these subsidences would be equally caused without pumping of any kind. But the consensus of opinion of those who have gone into the question very carefully seems to point most particularly to this, that the subsidence is chiefly, if not wholly, due to the continual pumping of brine in this particular district. Your Lordships may know, and perhaps the noble Duke is aware of the fact, that there was a report in 1873
  740
  by a Commission, and a memorandum in 1879 by Colonel Cox, of the Royal Engineers, an inspector of the Local Government Board, who took this point of view, that the subsidence was, as a matter of fact, entirely caused by the continual pumping of the brine, but in those two reports the view was not excluded that it was possible that some damage might occur by natural causes. It is not necessary for me to go into the details of this Bill, except to point out that by it a landowner or a number of landowners holding not less than £2,000 worth of land can send a memorial to the Local Government Board to establish a Compensation Board, and this can also be done by a rural sanitary authority. As I have said, they must apply to the Local Government Board by a memorial, and if the Local Government Board think there is a primâ facie case for establishing a compensation district under Clause 4, they can establish it. Then they are to make an inquiry in the district, and they have then to bring in a Provisional Order, and a Provisional Order Bill to confirm that Provisional Order. Then, again, if the Local Government Board at any future time thinks that a compensation district ought not to be kept up, they can dissolve it. There are many other safeguards provided, but I have mentioned the principal ones, and I think surely they are sufficient to make this Bill one that it is desirable to pass. I have thought it necessary to trouble your Lordships with these few remarks so as to justify what I have said, that the Local Government Board fully concur in the provisions of the Bill, and that Mr. Ritchie, the President of the Local Government Board, is anxious that it should pass. As I am addressing your Lordships, I should like to say a few words with regard to the proposal of my noble Friend as to referring the Bill to a Select Committee. The Bill has been before a Committee of the House of Commons, and it was very carefully considered by that Committee. It was gone into with the greatest possible care, and received the fullest consideration. I believe the inquiry was limited to a certain extent, as far as was considered right and proper. That is to say, it was fully gone into as far as was necessary. That Com-

  741
  mittee came, I believe, to an almost unanimous conclusion in favour of the Bill, and Mr. Ritchie and his advisers think that after that inquiry it would perhaps satisfy everybody concerned in he matter if it were to go before the Standing Committee to be investigated there. Of course, as far as this Bill is concerned, there is one Clause which is a very important one, Clause 50, which introduces a novel procedure, and it may be worth while that this Bill should be sent on that account to a Select Committee; but as far as the Local Government Board are concerned, they are fully of opinion that sending it to a Standing Committee would satisfy all demands. As far as the Local Government Board are concerned, I have no objection to offer, if your Lordships wish that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee; but I hope that if it is sent to a Select Committee, your Lordships will limit the reference most distinctly, as has been pointed out by the noble Duke, so that no time may be wasted, but that the Bill may pass without delay.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.
  *LORD THURLOW: My Lords, I rise, in accordance with the notice of Motion that appears on the Paper in my name, to move that this Bill, which has just been read by your Lordships a second time, be now referred to a Select Committee. In doing so, I am afraid I shall have to trouble your Lordships to some extent by going over some of the ground that has been gone over already; and I should like to preface my remarks by disclaiming one or two suggestions which have, I think, been thrown out. In the first place, I would beg to assure your Lordships that I myself, and, as far as I know, all those with whom I am acting on this occasion, certainly entertain the fullest feelings of sympathy for those who have been suffering hardships from subsidences in these districts in precisely the same degree as that sympathy is naturally entertained for them by others. It is also my duty to say that, although this has been laid before your Lordships as a poor man's Bill, I come here also before your Lordships as the advocate of poor men. I represent if I may venture to say so, perhaps 30,000 people who are dependent upon the salt
  742
  trade. Before the formation of the Salt Union these men were not earning good wages. They were working four days in the week, and very often only seven hours a day, and their wages had become reduced to a pittance which was inconsistent with the proper support of themselves and their families. You are aware that this limited district which has been referred to, the salt district of Cheshire, and which the Noble Lord just now described, I think, as being only seven miles long and a few miles wide, at any rate a very small area, comprises practically the valley of the Weaver and the surrounding lands. There can be no doubt that within that district, and it is a populous district, there are many tens of thousands of poor people, or comparatively poor people, working men and their wives and families, who owe everything they have in the world to this industry of salt making. And I say there can be equally no doubt that before the formation of the Salt Union their lot had become a very hard one, and the whole industry was threatened practically with bankruptcy. The actual legality of the formation of the Salt Union was questioned at the time. The matter was submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, and the Law Officers of the Crown slated, after due deliberation, that the Salt Union was a legal combination, and could not be interfered with. It is in no sense a monopoly, and it is perhaps less so now than when it was first formed. As might have been foreseen, and was indeed predicted, there has been an actual rise in the price of salt, which has been already referred to, resulting from the formation of the Salt Union. The Salt Union was established indubitably to raise the price of salt, and to improve the lot of these hard-working men and their families, who are engaged in the salt manufacture. It would be perhaps difficult to give figures, but I have no hesitation in affirming that there are a greater number of really poor, hard-working, industrious men who would benefit by what I am about to propose, than would be benefited by this Bill passing through your Lordships' House without being referred to a Select Committee. Your Lordships have heard of the Bill which was introduced

  743
  in 1881. When the Bill of 1881 was brought in, it was referred to a Select Committee, before which scientific evidence was taken at great length. Now, the scientific evidence which was taken before that Committee was of a very remarkable character. As has been mentioned, the Committee of the other House of Parliament to which this Bill was referred in the present year, did not think it necessary to receive, and declined to receive, any scientific evidence. They rested satisfied with the evidence that had been taken in 1881, but they omitted, it appears, one very important fact, and that is that it was owing to the taking of the scientific evidence in 1881 that the Bill introduced at that time was thrown out. It was really on account of the scientific evidence which was then taken, and nothing else. I have the evidence which was then taken, which has been referred to by the noble Duke. I am entirely in sympathy with him that a Bill of this kind is absolutely essential; but while I feel the fullest sympathy, as do others, with the object which the noble Duke has in view, I think we should not let our symathies for a certain number of people run away with us altogether, to the detriment of a still larger body of persons. One portion of this remarkable evidence to which I have referred was given by Mr. De Rance, the noted geologist and expert, and it was part of the evidence given on that occasion, and he says conclusively that—
  "There is no question about the operation of natural causes; there is no doubt but that brine finds natural outlets when it is not pumped, and that in many cases the damage caused by the natural outlets which it will find may very reasonably be greater than the damage which is the result of pumping."
  Now I will give one reason for that. We have all heard of the case of the boy who stopped the little hole in the Haarlem Dyke with his finger, because he knew that if the water had been allowed to percolate through the little hole it would soon have become a very large gap, through which the water would have rushed, and the whole country would have been ruined. In the same way, if brine is allowed to store itself up and then finds a natural outlet, that natural outlet has a tendency to grow larger and larger; the result is that the
  744
  rock salt will become brine more rapidly, that brine will escape more rapidly, and the subsidence of the surface will occur more rapidly than it would with any reasonable pumping. Now, there is one fact with regard to the Salt Union to which I will call your Lordships' attention. You know that the Salt Union has a great many brine shafts. Before the formation of the Salt Union the shafts and pits were mostly pumped separately, and they were pumped very often at a very low point of saturation. The result of that was that they were often pumped practically dry. Then they were shut up for a certain time and allowed to re-fill by the operation of the natural causes. The rainfall was allowed to percolate into the salt bed, and then the pits were re-opened, and they were pumped dry again. Now the course of pumping is very different. The whole of our brine shafts are connected by pipes, large 8 or 10 inch pipes, and they are pumped from central stations. We pump so as to preserve as nearly as possible full saturation all over these brine shafts, and I maintain that it is scientifically provable, and would come out if scientific evidence were allowed to be taken, that the pumping system of to-day is much less detrimental to the surrounding country, and much less pregnant with the risk of causing subsidence, than the mode of pumping which existed before the formation of the Salt Union. A great deal has been said about the poor man, the industrious man who has saved money, and perhaps invested the fruits of his labour during a long life of toil in the purchase of his own dwelling. Suppose he buys his own house for £200 or £300. I know many such cases in Northwich and in Winsford—cases of industrious men who are living in their own freehold houses. But that man would not have had the £200 or £300 to invest in purchasing this dwelling if it had not been for this industry which has now been set upon its legs again by the formation of the Salt Union; and what is more, supposing this poor man had had £200 or £300 with which to buy his dwelling, had it not been for the subsidences, or the fear of subsidences, or the possible danger of injury occurring to the structure, and his knowledge of the necessity of having, perhaps,

  745
  to prop it up again, or to spend money in repairs upon it, it would not have been in his power to buy the house for less than £400 or £500, and he might not have been able to buy it at all. There are a great many things to consider in this matter. For my own part, I do object to this Bill being laid before your Lordships as a poor man's Bill. I say that really the Salt Union are endeavouring to do what is for the benefit of these poor, hardworking men. Then, again, this Bill, as I have said, comes before your Lordships in rather a curious shape. It professes to be a public Bill. We are told that it extends to all England and Wales—not, of course, to Scotland or Ireland. At the same time we have heard from the lips of the representative of the Local Government Board that it really is only to take effect on two very small areas: the small area of the Valley of the Weaver, and the small Droitwich area. As to its applying to Middlesbrough, that is quite out of the question. If your Lordships will allow me for a few minutes, I should like to explain the position of these salt-beds. The rock-salt in Cheshire is comparatively near the surface, that is to say not more than 400 or 500 ft. below, whereas at Middlesbrough the rock salt is at a much greater distance below. Not Only is it from 1,000 to 2,000 ft. below the surface, but there are intervening strata of very strong beds of rock through which the surface water cannot percolate, and which also, it is supposed by scientific men, will remove all possible danger of subsidence in the future. Let me refer to what the practice is at Middlesbrough. At Middlesbrough they bore a hole and insert a pipe or tube; it is practically a double pipe, and they pour water artificially down the outer rim of this pipe, and then pump up the brine after it is sufficiently saturated from the same pipe. In Cheshire there is nothing of the kind. In Cheshire there is no intervening bed of strong rock to hold up the land. There is nothing but an intervening stratum of marl or clay, and that naturally gives way from time to time, and the rain water, the natural rainfall, percolates through that subsidence, and thus gets into contact with the salt, and dissolves it as a
  746
  natural consequence. Therefore the two things are quite distinct. I say that the solution of the rock-salt in Cheshire has been caused by the agency of natural consequences, and has not been caused by the hand of man; whereas, in Middlesbrough, if ever there are any subsidences, it will be a far more serious matter, because they will be due distinctly to what has been done by the hand of man, because there it is necessary to make holes, insert pipes, and pour down water. I am ashamed, really, to have taken up so much of your Lordships' time, but I am anxious to dispel the erroneous impression which I think may have been produced upon your Lordships' minds by the speeches of the noble Duke and those noble Lords who followed him. Those speeches, though strictly accurate in statement, may have produced a wrong impression. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lothian) was anxious to show that there were two sides to the question of the mussel beds, and I say that there are two sides to this question, and that the other side cannot be brought out into prominence without scientific evidence in connection with this matter being taken which up to the present, time has not received any consideration from the Committee of the other House of Parliament. I think that is almost a sufficient reason for the action I have taken on this occasion in venturing to come forward and suggest that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. There are one or two other points to which I should like to refer. The argument has been used, and I have seen it in some of the papers which have been sent to me upon this subject, that one of the actual results of salt making and the salt industry has been to prevent other industries from planting themselves in Cheshire, because of the liability to subsidence, for it is argued that nobody would build factories upon lands which may subside at any time, and which in fact have subsided. Well, that is not accurate, because there is no difficulty in finding, even within the limits of the Weaver Valley, bits of land which do not subside. I know of old churches which are intact in Northwich and in other places. I know of railway viaducts besides the one to which the noble Duke

  747
  has referred. I know of private houses built of stone, and which have stood for 200 years, though within half a mile of the Weaver in which there has never appeared a crack or signs of subsidence, and probably never will. The course of the brine is perfectly well known, and if anyone wanted a spot of ground upon which to erect a factory in the Weaver Valley, there is not the slightest difficulty in finding a suitable site. Then there is one clause in the Bill, Clause 44, to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention. Clause 44 is to provide for the creation of a Reserve Fund. That strikes me as being a very peculiar Clause, and one which would require very careful consideration. As far as I have been able to ascertain it is without precedent in a Bill of this description. It proposes to raise a certain sum of money before the money can be wanted, and in the meantime local bodies are to be appointed to deal with the question of compensation. I do not entirely agree with the composition of those bodies as the Bill is at present framed. The members of those bodies are to be allowed to fix their own salaries and to do a good many other things, and I think it is only human to suppose that they will be tempted to do something to justify their existence; they cannot draw high salaries and receive money from time to time without justifying their existence by perhaps doing a good deal which they ought not to do. Then there is one other circumstance to which I will allude. It has been mentioned to your Lordships that this Bill has been brought up here by poor men. That is not strictly accurate. This Bill has been brought up here by rich local bodies and prosperous bodies in Cheshire who are defraying the expenses out of subscriptions. I believe the Salt Union, as ratepayers, has largely contributed to the expenses of promoting this Bill, and therefore the Salt Union must be held blameless, I think, in this respect. I am not opposing the Bill, or intending to say anything against it. I should be delighted to see it pass; but I do not think that it ought to be passed by your Lordships without it being considered before a Select Committee. Then there is another point which I ought to mention. Last year there was a suggestion, which came from
  748
  Messrs. Brunner, Mond, & Co., and which is very creditable to them, that they and the Salt Union should join together to raise a fund for paying compensation for subsidence. Messrs. Brunner, Mond, & Co., were willing to do this, and to tax their shareholders to a certain extent, whether large or small, as the case might be, for that purpose. Well, we took the advice of counsel upon the matter, and were advised by counsel that it was not in our power to do so; that the application of the shareholders' money to such a purpose would be ultra vires, and that the directors would be entirely responsible for it. That was the sole reason which prevented the Salt Union from joining Messrs. Brunner, Mond, & Co. last year. Therefore I hope your Lordships will not leave the matter in dealing with this Bill with too hard an opinion as to the want of generosity shown on this occasion by the Salt Union. I really do not know that I have anything further to say. I might trouble your Lordships with many more details, but I think they are probably superfluous, and I will now, with your Lordships' permission, move, on the terms of my motion, that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
  Moved, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee."—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: My Lords, I should have been glad, especially at this time of the evening, to leave this matter to those noble Lords who are interested in the district or districts affected by this Bill; but having some knowledge of it, I think it right to say a few words. Let me, before I go on, at once correct several noble Lords on both sides of the House, who seem to be under the impression that this Bill will only apply to the Cheshire salt district. It so happens that the first personal experience which I had of these drunken-looking buildings and these subsidences was in Worcestershire, where I was staying with the late Lord Justice Amphlett.
  *LORD THURLOW: I mentioned Droitwich.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: Yes, I believe you did. They lived in daily fear of the house coming down, and I remember Lord Justice Amphlett showing me

  749
  large holes in his garden and cracks in his drawing-room, and yet he was five miles from any pumping place. I do not agree with all the remarks which were made by the noble Lord (Thurlow) with regard to the Middlesbrough district, but what your Lordships have to consider is only whether this is a matter which ought to be dealt with in a Select Committee rather than in the Standing Committee. The first thing that occurs to me is this—having read all these papers at the request of both parties, and the reason, I may say, why I was requested to do so was that I was counsel against the Bill of 1881—that the only questions now involved are questions of principle, and not of detail at all: namely, first, whether the Common Law should be altered, and next, which is a question relating mainly to the 50th clause of the Bill, whether it is right to exempt—if that is the right word—all kinds of public bodies, municipal corporations, gas companies, water companies, railway companies, with such viaducts as that which the noble Duke spoke of from having any claims to compensation. That is a question of principle which is too large to be determined by the five Members or any other number who may constitute a Select Committee. That is a question which it would be for this House to deal with in full Committee according to its own views, with such assistance from our own lawyers as the Select Committee would not have. Then, my Lords, I desire to say a word or two about the Salt Union, who are practically the only opponents of this Bill, because, as has been already mentioned to your Lordships, their colleagues in the salt trade, Messrs. Brunner & Company, are actually supporters of the Bill, whether from a sense of justice or not I do not know. The noble Duke, in making the statement he did about the profits of these two Companies, did not mention what is necessary to complete the story—that is to say, the capital of both these concerns. The capital of both together is £5,000,000, and the profits of the two together are £650,450 a year. I think it will be admitted by your Lordships that this is not a bad profit, being exactly 13 per cent., and when my noble Friend says he represents a great number of poor men I am
  750
  almost inclined to wish I was one of them. That being the case with regard to the Salt Union, I must now ask your Lordships' attention to the course they have taken in this matter throughout. First of all I may say it was they who specially applied to me to look into the question, taking it for granted that, as I opposed the Bill introduced in 1881, I should be inclined to join them now, and I was obliged to give them this answer—I will first say in the hearing of some noble and learned Lords that one does not always become quite convinced of one's brief in the course of a case—and I was obliged to tell these good people that after the lapse of so many years I did not remember all the details of the Bill of 1881; but I did remember that, as the case went on, the scientific opposition to it became utterly and totally hopeless, and I recollect wondering what on earth I was to say, when, very luckily for me, the matter came to an end before the time arrived for me to deliver my speech. That was the first thing I said to them when they wrote to me, and the second thing is this: From the Minutes of what took place before the Committee on this Bill, it appears the clauses were discussed at very considerable length, and it is hardly an exaggeration to say that they were agreed upon by everybody except the Salt Union, except as to the 50th, which I said involves an important question of principle. I do not say the parties were all quite agreed, but they were all so nearly agreed that I am sure any Select Committee which might take them in hand would be slow to re-open questions which were settled with such an approach to unanimity as happened in the House of Commons' Committee. I go further, and say there is a special reason for not sending the Bill in this case, having regard to the course which the Salt Union took. They were represented by the most able counsel, who I am sure knew the most judicious way to manage his case, and I find from the minutes that he said this just before the Committee went into the material clauses—he said "there was something which he wanted to get upon the Notes in order to show what was the position of the Salt Union and others for whom he appeared. I am not quite sure whether the others

  751
  were Messrs. Brunner or not. Of course in the ordinary way one does not appear on Clauses. In other words, the whole course here he thought would be open, and he would not prejudice himself in the least by calling witnesses." All the legal members of your Lordships' House, and anyone who is experienced in Committees, knows, I think, that we do not call witnesses if we think the case is clear without doing so, and if we want to avoid a reply from the promoters of the Bill; but that did not apply here. On the contrary, they complained of the remarks of the Committee being unduly against them. Besides that, they had this very Mr. De Rance, whom the noble Lord has referred to, sitting in the room prompting the counsel, having presented a Report which was sent to me, and having been their leading witness in 1881, stating that all this notion about the Salt Union pumping down the surface of the district was nonsense. All that being so, in the exercise of their discretion, they said they would reserve themselves for the second stage of the Bill in this House. What business had they to reserve themselves for the second stage? What business had they to expose people to all that expense merely because they thought it a good piece of tactics? I will go further and say that if I were sitting upon the Select Committee on this Bill I should say, although we are bound to inquire into this we are at liberty to limit the scope of the inquiry, and we are not bound to waste our time in throwing out what has been thrown out before when you refused to call your witnesses. Whether this House should think proper to give instructions to the Select Committee if the Bill be sent before a Select Committee or not, I should hope that any Select Committee would do that, because I do not think it is fair in any case, always excepting those cases where counsel thought they had no need to call witnesses, but found they had been mistaken. But here it was not so. The very witnesses whom they are parading as scientific witnesses were there for the purpose of explaining what was always referred to in the House of Commons' Committee as "Mr. De Rance's theory," not facts. They had no facts, as I know from my experience of what occurred in 1881,
  752
  but they had an excellent theory, and three experts to swear to it, and I have no doubt they could have got thirty if the poor people of the Salt Union could have afforded it. Therefore, on that ground, I do not think they have any claim to re-open that discussion. Then my noble Friend said they were rather frightened by the Committee saying, "What is the use of inflicting all this upon us over again? We have heard every word that has been said upon the matter; we have heard the scientific evidence, so far as it was stating facts and not theories; there you are, are you going to give us your evidence? But we intimate to yon beforehand that it will take very strong evidence to convince us; still, we are open to hear you." On that ground, I say again I do not think the people who are promoting this Bill ought to be put to the unnecessary expense of this matter being sent to a Select Committee, when everything that is wanted can be done just as well without it, and a great deal better. I merely desire to say that upon the question of principle, and there I leave it to be discussed if necessary. I do not think, my Lords, that there is anything I need say more, but I should be sorry if it were thought I had omitted anything intentionally. There is, however, one thing more which may be said. The noble Lord opposite said that the Committee in 1881 threw out the Bill on account of the very valuable scientific evidence which was given then by the parties, or by whoever was in the position of the Salt Union at the time; but by good luck, and of course by arrangement, the only survivor of the Committee of 1881 was put upon the Committee of the House of Commons this year; and at an important period of the proceedings he said this, which, I think, the noble Lord could hardly have read when he made his speech—I will not read the preliminary parts of it—"the Committee came to its conclusion, not upon the grounds supposed, but solely upon two grounds as far as my memory carries me. One was that we did not consider we could divide the districts in the manner suggested; and the other ground was that the Bill brought in then was a Bill applying to a special district, and we did not consider it right

  753
  that the common law of England should be subverted when prescriptive rights are recognised all over the country." There is not a word, therefore, about my noble Friend's scientific evidence, but you see what is implied by that. Their scientific evidence evidently made worse than no impression upon the Committee, as it did upon me when I was counsel against the Bill. Now, one word about the common law point. What is the common law of England about this underground water question? You cannot trace such water, you cannot do anything with regard to it, and by the common law all this may be done, you may pump the wells of a whole district dry. You may draw the water from under a man's ground and sell it to him back again. The power seems so outrageous and unjust that in several cases I could mention the water companies have been put under various restrictions from doing so, and it is quite right they should be put under restrictions. The common law of England is the law that had grown up to the time of Richard II., and I imagine there were not many water companies in existence then or brine pumping companies either. If the ground was solid and I went down and dug under it I should immediately have to pay; but because modern science has enabled me to do it in an untraceable way I am to be at liberty, and the Salt Union coming here in formâ pauperis, as it were, are to be allowed to go on causing unlimited damage, because that is what they distinctly say in their documents they are to be at liberty to do; that is, to go on pumping, and then boldly stating, in the face of all evidence and common-sense, that the subsidences are not caused by the pumping. If so there is an end of the Bill, you know; and yet my noble Friend comes here and says he is not against the Bill. Yet this circular, which I suppose they have sent to all your Lordships, says directly the contrary. He knows a great deal too much on this subject to avow complete opposition. He knows there are photographs enough to decorate the walls of your Lordships' House of fallen and falling buildings. I said in my letter to the Salt Union Company, "If your object is to hamper this Bill you need not look to me to help you." That
  754
  is the conclusion I have come to, and that is the conclusion which I take the liberty of expressing now, having not the smallest interest myself in the matter, unless, perhaps, a very remote one through the Railway Companies.
  *LORD HENNIKER: I should like, my Lords, to say one word by way of explanation. I think I may have been misunderstood, and that I may not have expressed myself plainly when I was speaking of the area of the salt district, and stated that it was 10 miles by five in extent. When I said that I was speaking of the Northwich and Winsford District, and I find that the subsidences were confined in that district to that area. That is; what I am informed, but I have not been there to see for myself. I thought it right to explain this, as I am anxious to be correct.
  *THE EARL OF MORLEY: Perhaps your Lordships would think it right that I should say a few words upon the subject which is dealt with by this Bill. Though a public Bill in form, it is in some respects rather of the character of a Private Bill. It refers to several districts throughout the country. The noble Duke has mentioned the 51st clause, which deals with a private Trust. I felt bound when that Clause was in the Bill to refer the Bill to the examiners, and the Clause was then omitted. The Bill is now a public one, pure and simple, and it rests entirely with your Lordships' House whether it shall go to a Select Committee or not. I have on more than one occasion seen the promoters of the Bill, but I reserved my own opinion upon the question whether it should be referred to a Select Committee, as this question rests entirely with the House. The reason alleged for referring it to a Select Committee is that scientific evidence should be taken as to whether subsidences are the result of brine pumping. The opinion has already been expressed in your Lordships' House, and I must say I think it will be endorsed by the common sense of all your Lordships, that where this pumping of brine goes on there has been, and always will be, subsidences. Therefore I think it would be putting the promoters of the Bill to an unnecesary expense to refer it without any limitation of the inquiry

  755
  to a Select Committee. If the Bill is referred to a Select Committee, I should hope the House would at least indicate clearly that the causes of the subsidences should not form a portion of the inquiry. The only point which appears to me to require the consideration of a Select Committee is Clause 50, which restricts the compensation which is given by the Bill, and does not allow certain public companies, whether they be railway companies, or gas or water companies, or pumping firms, or local authorities, to participate in that compensation. I confess it seems to me that if they desire it those bodies ought to have the opportunity of fully stating their case. I am not aware whether any petition has been presented by any of those bodies against the Bill. The question has boon already before the Committee of the House of Commons, and I am also inclined to think that there is no necessity, according to the forms of the House, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. It would, in the regular course, be referred to the Standing Committee, or be dealt with by a smaller sub-Committee if it were thought desirable at that stage of the Bill.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I do not rise to offer any remarks upon the question of referring the Bill to a Select Committee, but only to point out that I think the noble Lord who is now on the Woolsack is in error in saying that none of these companies who are mentioned have presented petitions. The London and North-Western Railway certainly have a petition; it was forwarded to me to present, and I presented it.
  On Question, resolved in the negative.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

RUSSIAN DUTCH LOAN BILL.—(No. 177.)
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  *THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY, in rising to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether any cattle from England and
  756
  Scotland were exhibited last March at the show of the Royal Dublin Society, which was held within or in close proximity to a district scheduled under a pleuro-pneumonia order; whether these cattle were allowed to return home from the show; and, if so, what steps were taken as in other districts to slaughter or isolate the cattle, said: My Lords, the question I have to ask the Lord Privy Seal is for the purpose of eliciting some information upon a matter which has created some considerable stir in the minds of persons connected with the agricultural interest. The facts are, I believe that from 30 to 35 cattle from England, Scotland, and the Channel Islands were exhibited at the Dublin Show at the end of last March, and were, therefore, in an area scheduled under a Pleuro-Pneumonia Order, or in close proximity to one of those districts, and it is believed that those cattle were allowed to return home to England and elsewhere without any precautions having been taken as have been taken in other districts under special orders, and given with regard to cattle when removed from a scheduled district. To such an extent has this feeling been excited that the Royal Agricultural Society of England, and the Highland Agricultural Society of Scotland have taken steps to protect other cattle by prohibiting all those animals from being exhibited at their shows, and the feeling which exists in other districts throughout the country, where most stringent regulations have been placed upon cattle being moved from farms in a scheduled district, ought, I think, to be allayed in the interests of agriculture itself. Since I put this Question on the Paper I regret to find that the matter has assumed an even more serious aspect than I thought. I hold in my hand an extract from a report to the secretary of the Highland Agricultural Society, from which it appears that, from information given to the Board of Agriculture by the Irish Government, a Jersey cow exhibited by Mr. Tucker of Southampton, at the Dublin Show, and purchased by a gentleman living near Dublin, died about a week afterwards from contagious pleuro-pneumonia. This is a very serious state of things, if it be really the fact that cattle which were exhibited at the Dublin Show have since died of pleuro. I would ask

  757
  what is being done with the whole of this mass of cattle, which were not only disseminated through Ireland but all over England—spread without isolation throughout the country. I only hope the answer which the noble Lord will give me will clear up this very vexed matter, because I can assure him these recent occurrences have created a great deal of alarm among agriculturists, and especially among those who exhibit cattle.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): I can understand the natural anxiety of the noble Marquess, and those whom he represents, in the circumstances to which he has referred, and I am obliged to admit the general truth of what he has stated. It is the case that cattle from England were exhibited at the show of the Royal Dublin Society, which was held on March 31st and following days; that the show was held within a scheduled district, and that some of the animals exhibited did return to this country. No steps appear to have been taken for their isolation or slaughter, for the reason that the Board have no jurisdiction in Ireland, and they had at the time no information as to the animals which it was intended to show there. The noble Marquess is probably aware that there is no power to prevent the landing of cattle from Ireland, unless the very extreme step were taken of scheduling the various ports at which those cattle might land on the shores of England. That is a step which the noble Marquess will see the great inconvenience of. The Board of Agriculture has since received from the Irish Government, on May 30th, a list of the animals, 15 in number, and belonging to five different owners, which went for exhibition from England, and which have returned to this country, and they are now engaged in the endeavour to trace the locality of each of these animals. One of them has been found in the neighbourhood of Southampton, and the further movement of all of them, as soon as they are traced, will be prohibited without the sanction of the Board. I may add that the Board of Agriculture are now in communication with the Irish Government with the view of securing that no animal shall be permitted to come to this country from a scheduled district excepting those
  758
  which come from the port of Dublin and pass through the Dublin unions, which, as the noble Marquess no doubt knows, take care that cattle are dealt with under proper restrictions.
  EARL SPENCER: Before the noble Marquess replies, I should like to know, as the noble Earl, the Lord Privy Seal, has alluded to the steps taken after the show, whether the Government of Ireland were aware before the show took place that it was to be held in a scheduled district. I think it is just possible that they may have inquired into all the arrangements for the admission of the animals, and that they were satisfied the arrangements were such that the show could be held without danger, though I think that is extremely unlikely. Evidently in this case the only really safe course to follow was that which I have indicated, that unless the Government were persuaded that it was absolutely safe to allow the show to be held in Dublin within the scheduled district, they should not have sanctioned it.
  *VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT: As I am a member of the Council of the Royal Dublin Society, and also Chairman of the Board of the district on the borders of which the Society's show was held, I should like to say a word on this subject. Of course I am not aware of what steps the Government of Ireland may have taken in the matter, but what I understand, and probably the noble Earl will know whether I am right or not, is this, though the show was held in a scheduled district, the yard where it took place was specially exempted during the time of the show, and was taken under the special care of the Dublin Privy Council. That is what I am told, and I can only speak, of course, of what I know; but I do know that the show-yard was put under the management of the most skilled veterinary surgeons we could find, and the cattle exhibited were examined, not only on entering and leaving the yard, but also periodically during the show. There was certainly no case of outbreak during the show, nor did we hear of any case occurring after the show was over. As to the Rathdown Union—as the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal has referred to the action of that union—of which I know something, the cattle regulations have been carried out for several years since

  759
  I have been chairman with the greatest possible stringency. We have never neglected a case which has been reported to us by the inspector, and we have always ordered the slaughter, not only of every animal returned as infected, but of all animals which have been in contact with those found to be infected. Every suspected animal has been slaughtered, and, though there were many cases in the Dublin unions some years ago, for the last 15 or 18 months we have hardly had a case of pleuro-pneumonia. The only case of disease we had reported to us turned out to be a case of mad-staggers, and not pleuro at all. I can only say that all the precautions possible were taken in the show; but, of course, you can never guard against a case of pleuro, where it may be dormant in the animals, breaking out. Still, there was no outbreak of pleuro, or anything approaching to it, in the show.
  *THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH: My Lords, the question of the Exhibition of Cattle in scheduled districts has occupied the very anxious attention of the Royal Agricultural Society quite recently. Perhaps the House will allow me for a moment to state, as this is a question which seriously affects agriculturists, in view of the Royal Agricultural Society's Show, which will open on Monday next; and it may be interesting to your Lordships to know the steps which the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society of England have taken to prevent by every possible means the importation of cattle from scheduled districts, whether in England or Ireland. I dare say your Lordships are aware that pleuro-pneumonia is a very real danger at this moment. Many of your Lordships may know that within a few days the whole of the cattle depastured upon the Knaves mire at York have by a very proper order of the Agricultural Department been directed to be slaughtered. That order will apply to no less than 170 cattle. It is a very serious consideration to all of us that science has not yet acquired any such efficient knowledge of this most insidious and dangerous disorder as to suggest remedial treatment, and that whole hecatombs of cattle have to be condemned to be slaughtered in order to avoid spreading it. Some steps should
  760
  be taken, if possible, to obtain further knowledge of this peculiar disease. It is not merely my own opinion, but I am speaking of the opinion of experts throughout the kingdom that there is no other preventive step which can be taken except the wholesale slaughter of all cattle which have been associated with infected beasts, and I think it maybe for the satisfaction of the House if I very shortly refer to the terms of a circular which has been issued by the Royal Agricultural Society within the last few days, in view of the show which will open on Monday next. The secretary says:—
  "I am instructed to explain to you that it is the intention of the society not to allow any cattle to be exhibited at Doncaster which are at present within districts scheduled for pleuro-pneumonia, or have been exhibited at shows within such districts."
  The danger is from the spreading of the disorder from those shows. I have consulted eminent veterinary authorities on the subject, and they are themselves unable to say how long the disease may remain dormant. Therefore I think your Lordships will say we have taken the best precautions we can with regard to cattle being exhibited at our great show which come from any distance. Intending exhibitors are directed not to send animals from infected neighbourhoods, and the entrance fees will be at once returned for all cattle which are prohibited from being sent in. It may be to your Lordships' convenience and for the satisfaction of the public that I should state that the Royal Agricultural Society have done their best to prevent the danger of spreading the disease; but I must say, speaking on behalf of the agriculturists of this country, as I am bound to do, that it is incomprehensible how such laxity and want of care should have been shown by the Dublin Society and also by the Privy Council in Ireland as to allow cattle to be exhibited at their show on the recent occasion under the circumstances to which allusion has been made. I am afraid great want of care has been shown by those who were responsible.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I only wish to add that we are very sensitive indeed in England as to the proceedings in Dublin. In the

  761
  County of Norfolk, to which I belong, we have for a long time been under the impression that the pleuro-pneumonia of which we are so much afraid has been imported from Ireland. Owing to the measures which have been carried out by Her Majesty's Government, I have not the least doubt that the Irish Government has been brought to see the necessity of enforcing the law. On a former occasion, when I made some remarks on this subject, I pointed out that nothing could exceed the different mode in which the law was enforced in Ireland; and it is a very singular thing, it may be a mere coincidence, it may be a mere accident, but it certainly has struck us very forcibly in England that the first time for years that we have not had pleuro-pneumonia brought among us is since the Irish Government have found themselves obliged to enforce the law strictly. From the experience I had with regard to taking measures for dealing with cattle disease, I freely admit that it not so easy to enforce regulations there as it is in this country; but from the great importance of the Irish cattle trade to England, I do hope that Her Majesty's Government will see that the Irish Government most strictly enforce their rules. The illustration which the noble Earl has given of what can be done as regards safety is most instructive, and really this seems to me to be one of the most obvious instances of laxity I over heard of on the part of any Government.
  *VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT: As the noble Earl who has just spoken has thrown some doubt on the propriety of the action taken by the Irish Government in this matter, I can only say, as Chairman of the Board of Guardians, that in Ireland we are most vigilant in having reported to us any case of pleuro-pneumonia, and I am surprised to hear what the noble Lord has said with regard to outbreaks of the disease having been heard of since the Dublin Show. I have no doubt he is well informed on the matter, but I would point out that it is to our own interest to take every precaution, for these shows are of far greater consequence to Irish cattle-owners, who send larger numbers of cattle to them than anybody else. Certainly I was not aware until the noble Marquess stated the fact that there
  762
  had been such a case since the Dublin Show.
  *THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: It is a fact.
  EARL CADOGAN: If I am to answer the statement which has been made by the noble Lord, I can only say that the show was not held within the limited district, and therefore there was no means of limiting the export of cattle.
  *THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: I think the noble Lord will find he is in error in saying that only fifteen cattle from England were shown.
  EARL CADOGAN: I beg my noble Lord's pardon. I did not say that fifteen were shown. There were thirty-five, I believe, exhibited, but only about fifteen were brought back to England.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.