Lords Sitting of 17 March 1891

FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]—(No. 17.)
Reported from the Standing Committee without further amendment: The Report of the amendment made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.
CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 59.)
Reported from the Standing Committee with further amendments: The Report of the amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 68.)
POLLEN FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 51.)
Reported from the Standing Committee, with amendments: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 69.)
SALE OF GOODS BILL [H.L.]—(No. 48)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which has for its object to bring into a single Code the law relating to the sale of goods, I do not intend to detain your Lordships with any observations upon the subject of codification generally. I think that whilst at one time there was a disposition, perhaps, to exaggerate the effect and advantage of bringing the law on any particular subject into a Code, and to suggest that if you could only codify the law the necessity for lawyers and litigation would be at an end; on the other hand, there was, perhaps, a disposition to depreciate the advantage of codification, which I think are very real. There can be no doubt that at if the law can be put into such a shape that by reference to a single Act
  1182
  of Parliament containing, perliaps, not a great many sections, you may ascertain what the law is on particular points where otherwise you would have to consult the text books and verify all the authorities cited. Great advantages are likely to result, and it would be likely to diminish the amount of litigation. But the experience which has been derived from the passing of the Bills of Exchange Act, which codified the law relating to mercantile instruments, has shown that there is another and unexpected advantage to be derived from codification. It may be that your Lordships know that the Bills of Exchange Act which was passed in 1882 in this country was adopted by the Colony of New Zealand in 1883, by the Colony of Victoria in the same year, by the Colonies of South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania in the following year, by New South Wales in 1887, and by the Dominion of Canada in 1890; and thus the consequence has been that upon an important branch of Mercantile Law—and it is one of very pressing importance—we have obtained now a uniform law in the Mother Country and in the greater proportion of self-governing colonies. I think your Lordships will feel that is an advantage derived from codification of no small importance; and that if we could have a similar Mercantile Law for all parts of Her Majesty's dominions where English laws prevail, and where there is not some special system, it would undoubtedly be very much for the benefit of commerce. In this connection I would venture to suggest whether some communication might not be made to the Crown Colonies, where the adoption of this Code would be appropriate—I mean those not having a special system, to which it would be inapplicable—with the view of seeing whether in those colonies the Code could not be adopted in the same way as it has been in the whole of the Australasian Colonies and in Canada. Obviously there would be an advantage in extending the area of such a system as that. The present Code which I have to submit to your Lordships deals with the law of the sale of goods, a branch of the Commercial Law, which is of great importance and interest. I do not intend to trouble your Lordships for a moment upon the general details of the Bill. I will only say that the Bill was

  1183
  drawn by Judge Chalmers, of the Birmingham County Court, the draftsman of the Bills of Exchange Act, which will afford your Lordships a guarantee of its being a faithful representation of the law on the subject. It was considered after the first draft was prepared by my noble and learned Friend Lord Bramwell, who made various suggestions upon it. With the like assistance I went with the draftsman carefully through all its provisions, and, therefore, I am in a position to make myself responsible for the Bill. I do not suppose, of course, that it is without some imperfections; probably it would be impossible for anybody to produce any Code of which that could be said; but I can say that it has been made as perfect as was possible, and in recommending it for Second Reading I can assure your Lordships it has received no small amount of pains and care.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Herschell.)
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): I understand the noble and learned Lord to suggest that when the Bill is passed and has become law I should recommend it for the consideration of the Crown Colonies.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Seeing that the Bills of Exchange Act has been adopted by the Australian Colonies and by the Dominion of Canada, I suggested whether some communication might not be made with Crown Colonies where the adoption of this Code would be appropriate—where, of course, a different system of law does not prevail.
  *LORD KNUTSFORD: Certainly; I will take immediate steps to that effect.
  *LORD BRAMWELL: I entirely agree with everything the noble and learned Lord has said about this Bill in particular and about codification in general; but I should like to ask him what he proposes should be done with this Bill if your Lordships read it, as doubtless you will, a second time; whether he proposes that it should go before your Lordships in Grand Committee? I cannot help thinking that, however carefully the Bill may have been drawn, and it certainly, in my judgment, is uncommonly well drawn, it is exceedingly desirable that it should go before a Select Com-
  1184
  mittee to be considered, as in the case of the Partnership Bill.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I quite agree. It certainly was my intention, when it went in the ordinary course to Committee, to move that it should be at once-referred to a Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.—(No. 60)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD BRABOURNE: I have too much respect for your Lordships' House and for myself to waste time in further delaying the Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill, which I have all along regarded, and still regard, as a foolish, unnecessary, and mischievous measure; but I must enter a last protest against it. It has been defended on the ground that it will diminish friction; but I do not think that the Government are aware of the amount of friction that will be caused in many parts of the country, especially in the Western and Southern Counties, by this measure which they have introduced. I think, probably, it will be found that about the time of the next General Election the friction will have come to a head. By that time the agriculturists will have discovered what this Bill means, and I wish the Government, then, joy of the result. I only wish to point out to-night the maximum of injustice that is going to be done by it. You are not content with interfering with all the arrangements that have gone on perfectly satisfactorily for a great number of years; you are not content with telling the poorer occupiers throughout the counties of England that they are henceforth to break their contracts with the landowners, but you are going to invite them to do so just in the middle of the period which would be covered by their contracts. You will not even give sufficient time for new contracts to be made to carry

  1185
  out your own views. I have never known a Bill that was so little called for, so little supported by Petitions, or so little considered by a large proportion of those who have to bear the burden of these charges. It is a measure with which the Government have proceeded simply and solely without considering them. My Lords, I will say no more, but leave the Bill with that parting benediction.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Verbal Amendments made.
  Amendment moved, in line 19, leave out ("owner of the rent-charge") and insert ("person entitled to the sum ordered to be recovered.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  *LORD BRAMWELL: Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to call his attention to his third Amendment. I think the expression proposed to be substituted for the words in the clause is a very awkward one. The words which I refer to are "the sum ordered to be recovered." I would suggest to the noble Marquess it should be "ordered to be paid."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have no objection.
  *LORD BRAMWELL: I think the clause would then be better English. That is my only reason for suggesting it.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not think that will do, because it is not the fact; it is not "ordered to be paid" under this scheme. The Courts do not order it to be paid. They only order it to be recovered in a particular way.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: From a literary point of view, I think the language of all Acts of Parliament is a matter of despair; but I am in the hands of the noble and learned Law Lords as to what those words are likely to be held to mean when they are considered in a Court of Law. If they can agree upon the subject I am very willing to be guided by them.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: For my own part, I must confess I take the same view as my noble and learned Friend Lord Herschell, that in order to be consistent with the language of the principal Act, which certainly is peculiar language, the words should stand as the noble Marquess has put them on the Paper.
  1186
  In the 1st sub-section the words are that "the Court may order that such sum may be recovered," and these are the very words.
  *LORD BRAMWELL: May I call attention to Sub-section 2, which provides "the like powers of distraint for the recovery of the sum ordered to be paid?" If there is no order to pay, that section is wrong; if there is an order to pay, I think it is better the language should be consistent.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid my humble lay mind would rather agree with the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, but I think I must leave the clause as it is.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think here the draftsman has intended to cover both processes of recovery, and I am not certain if you strike out "to be recovered" and put in "to be paid," you may not get into some difficulty.
  THE MARQUESS of SALISBURY: The difficulty is that in the previous section there are the words "the sum ordered to be paid." As it is hopeless to reconcile them, I beg to move the insertion of the words.
  *LORD BRAMWELL: I do not press my objection if the noble Marquess does not desire to adopt it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Verbal Amendments made.
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: There are some words on page 3, line 20, relating to service, that the County Court may direct what service is to be good service for the purpose of this Act "on the owner of any lands or tithe rent-charge." In the preceding sub-section and in Clause 4 we have also service "on the occupier" mentioned. Here it should be—
  "Shall be good service under this Act on the owner or occupier of any land, or on the owner of the tithe rent-charge."
  I therefore, move to insert after "on the owner" the words "or occupier."
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think there can be no objection to this. Although, beyond all doubt, it is for the purpose of service on the owner that the rule is extended, still the words can do no harm.
  THE MARQUESS of SALISBURY: I have no objection under those circum-

  1187
  stances, though I do not quite know what service you have to make upon the occupier.
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: In the preceding sub-section it is provided that there shall be service upon the occupier in addition to the owner in certain cases.
  THE EARL OF KIMBBRLEY: I think it is quite right.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think there can be no harm in it. I imagine the owner must be a person who can be found, and you can as well find him as the occupier.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  *LORD BRAMWELL: At line 21, page 5, I have an Amendment to leave out the words "or equity," which are needless. There are no suits in equity now. The word "law" is quite enough, and, therefore, these words had better be out.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I had put down this same Amendment for the Standing Committee, but I abandoned it for this reason: Though I quite agree with my noble and learned Friend, I am told this is copied exactly from the clause in the County Courts Act. It is quite true that in one sense, no doubt, it may be said because a mistake was made there, that is not reason for repeating it here; but the words having been used there, and this being a question of appealing from the County Court, it might give rise to some question if you omit the words here.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid if the noble and learned Lord strikes out words simply because they are useless, he will establish a very bad precedent. There is usually a wealth of language in Acts of Parliament, which seems surprising to the ordinary lay mind.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The object of it, it strikes me, is this: The County Courts are Courts of Law, and they have a jurisdiction peculiar to themselves. The framers of the County Courts Act had that in view in using those two words, and, therefore, there might be soma difficulty caused if they were struck out here.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD HERSCHELL: On page 6, line 2, with reference to what I called attention to when the Bill was before the House at the last stage, I propose to insert the words "liability of the tithe rent-charge owner;" because it is quite possible that he may have appealed against his rating, and his rating might have been reduced on account of his liability to such remission as is mentioned. That is the way in which the question would ordinarily arise, though it could not be urged strictly if the remission had been taken into consideration.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am bound to say this has alarmed some of the authorities very much. My mind is not quite subtle enough to see the absolute necessity for it; but I certainly cannot see the danger of it in any respect. I will admit it for the present, without, however, desiring at all to be understood as giving a guarantee that I shall be able to bind myself to it.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think the words as they stand will come to the same thing. It is impossible that the remission as an actual fact can have been taken into account, and, therefore, the "remission" there means remission to an equivalent amount.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Then I may perhaps propose it in a slightly different form which may get rid of the objection, and make it perfectly clear, if the Court is satisfied that neither the remission nor the amount of liability have been taken into account. I think that would include all the points.
  Moved, to insert after "that," the words "neither the remission," and after "liability thereto" to leave out the word "not."—(Lord Herschell.)
  On Question, agreed to
  *LORD BRAMWELL: I think the Amendment I am now going to move is perfectly accurate and free from any objection. It is on page 6. The 5th sub-section says that "any clerk of the Commissioners of Taxes shall, &c." That is really a most original proposition. It is not right to impose a duty upon clerks of a Public Body, and, therefore, my proposal is to leave out the words "any clerk to," leaving it to the Commissioners, and they will appoint the way in which it is to be done.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I certainly will not oppose that.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not know whether the noble Marquess has anything to suggest with regard to the form of Clause 13; but I wish to make a suggestion upon it which I may tell your Lordships I have reason to know the noble Marquess will not object to. It is in the Reference to the Act, that the short title should be the "Tithe Rent-Charge Act, 1891," and not as in line 28, page 6, "Tithe Rent Act." The proper term is tithe rent-charge, as tithes have ceased to exist as tithes since 1836, and I think the noble Marquess shares my feeling for calling things by their proper names.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I share it when the names are not too long; but I think in this case it is a very reasonable insertion to make.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Now, my Lords, I have to move the addition of a new clause, which, I am afraid, is subject to what my noble Friend Lord Brabourne said was his benediction—the parting benediction he bestowed upon the Bill. I have only inserted it because I thought it more convenient that the Bill should come into operation at once, and I have had no information of a different kind. But it is quite obvious that the Bill cannot come into operation on the 31st March unless it has been passed by that time, which would not be the case if by any accident the Bill is delayed in another place. If so, it is obviously necessary that those words would require alteration; but unless they are inserted now in the Bill, it would not be competent to the House of Commons afterwards to alter it, and it is absolutely necessary to put in some date or another.
  Amendment moved, to add the following new Clause after Clause 13—
  "This Act shall come into operation on the thirty-first of March, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD BRABOURNE: It seems to me rather an unnecessary thing to add to this mischievous Bill. It is bad
  1190
  enough to say that you will allow people to break their contracts in future, but why they should be allowed also to do so in the middle of the annual contract period I cannot understand. It seems to me an unnecessary addition to its injustice, and I think it would be much better to postpone the date until the end of the time for paying the charge, which is in October, and allow the start to be made then. But, I suppose, it will be-quite unavailing to make that or any other suggestion in face of the unholy alliance between the two Front Benches in this House; and as it has only occurred in this House, it is an alliance which astounds me. In another place the Bill was the subject of considerable opposition on the part of a mournful array of 162 men—Tories and Unionists—who devoted themselves to-fighting against it; but when the Bill comes to this House we find all as sweet as sugar, the two Front Benches vieing with each other in paying mutual compliments. I can only say, after the observations which the noble Marquess has made with regard to the date of the Bill, that we poor agriculturists who are going to have this unnecessary measure forced upon us are still able to say, "Thank heaven we have a House of Commons!"
  LORD HERSCHELL: I must entirely repudiate having been, in the noble Lord's phraseology—I do not know whether I should say, guilty of paying compliments to the noble Marquess, and I am not aware that from the Front Bench on which the noble Marquess sits, complaints have been addressed to this side of the House. Those are, I think, altogether creatures of the imagination of the noble Lord. But for myself, if I may be allowed to explain the position I have taken up with regard to the Bill, it is this: so far as it is designed to relieve the occupier of this payment, and to cast the burden which has always fallen ultimately on the owner, it may be directly, and in the first instance, on him entirely, I approve of the object of the Bill; and I do not know that the Party to which the noble Lord has alluded, to which I belong, has ever objected to the Bill so far as it embodies that principle. Some may have thought it does not go far enough, or that this, that, or the other provision ought to

  1191
  have been contained in it; but in so far as it carries out that principle, I cannot acknowledge for a moment that I have been guilty of the slightest inconsistency as a Member of the Liberal Party in desiring to see a Bill having that as its main object passed into law. As to the provisions contained in it, as far as they are consistent with that object and carry it out, I have done my best undoubtedly, as far as was in my power, to make the Bill which I believe to be a sound one, as good a working Bill as I can. I am not conscious of having done anything in that respect inconsistent with the full performance of the duties of a Member of the Party to which I belong, about which, the noble Lord opposite seems so anxious. It is very evident that he feels it is a serious matter that there should be a falling away of any Liberal Lord from the principles which he has avowed, but, at the same time, I must confess I am not conscious of having laid myself open to such a charge. If we had been desirous of making this Bill, in any respect from our point of view, stronger or more extensive, or more practical, we are perfectly aware that we should have been wholly and entirely powerless in the matter. All that we could do, and all that both my noble Friends on this Bench, and others have endeavoured to do is this: that approving of the principle of the Bill to which I have alluded, we have endeavoured to so assist in framing the measure that it shall, containing that principle, be most effectually carried into law.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only wish to say that I am not aware that in bringing forward this Bill, either in regard to the form of it or in conducting it through the various stages, there has been either on this side of the Table or the other any abandonment of the principles ordinarily followed in conducting public affairs. Certainly in this House it has always been the maxim of otiose who are the Opposition at the time undoubtedly to give effect to their principles, and, undoubtedly, to insist that those principles shall receive a fair hearing; but, at the same time, to do their best as Members of the Legislature in order to ensure that whatever Statute is put upon the Statute Book shall be as
  1192
  workmanlike an enactment as possible, and shall be so constructed as to be beneficial to the people. I also beg to say that the noble Lords opposite, who have, I think, never paid me any compliment at all, have not usually failed as regards avoidance of compliments which we on this side observed when in Opposition in trying to follow that very elementary rule. I do not think that this Bill is, or need be, a Party question; its first object is to relieve the tithe owner under circumstances of great trial, especially in one particular part of the country, but its more general, more prominent, and wider object is to give a true rendering in practice of the intention of the Act of 1836, to remove an abuse which has grown up insensibly and without being observed, and to place on the owner of the land that burden which Parliament intended he should bear, and which Parliament did not intend he should place upon the shoulders of the occupier.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons; and to be printed as amended (No. 70.)

  REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 53.)
  House in Committee (according to order): Amendments made: and Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN WRITS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 61.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  SEED POTATOES SUPPLY (IRELAND) ACT, 1890, AMENDMENT BILL. (No 58.)
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  EVIDENCE BILL [H.L.]—(No. 71.)
  A Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to evidence: And
  TRUSTEE BILL [H.L.]—(No. 72.)
  A Bill to consolidate enactments relating to trustees—Were presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed.
DOCK ACCOMMODATION AT GIBRALTAR.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  *VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the next Navy Estimates, a Vote will be proposed for the commencement of a Government dock at Gibraltar, said: My Lords, in a Paper which was recently published by the First Lord of the Admiralty an allusion was made to the subject of my question, and I, therefore, may conclude that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any provision for the commencement of the dock at Gibraltar; but I trust the noble Lord who represents the Admiralty, who, for reasons which I think have so misled the Government, have departed from the Resolution which they have announced, not once, but three times, during the course of last Session, will be able to give your Lordships some assurance in the matter. I invite the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, as well as the noble Lord who represents the Department, to give his personal attention to this question, because if he will consult the opinion of the Naval Service in general he will find, as the House and the public, I am sure, will feel its importance and urgency. It is not a question which is to be put off, but is one to which attention is urgently demanded. At the commencement of last Session the noble Lord told me the Government were still hesitating, but in the month of April that they had made up their minds that the dock should be constructed. The noble Lord then laid before the House particulars showing exactly the manner in which it was to be made, and he announced improvements, which met with the general approbation of the naval profession. Finding that nothing was being done, in August, before Parliament was prorogued, I ventured once again to ask whether the Government intended to proceed with the dock. My noble Friend was not then in the country; but the answer I received from the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government was that a Committee had been investigating the matter, and had decided that it was desirable the work should be commenced, but that
  1194
  their Report had not then been laid before the Admiralty. I presume that by this time, all parties being agreed as to the desirability of our having such a dock—a desirability which has been recognised over and over again by the Admiralty—there can be now no obstacle in the way, excepting that of expense, which can possibly delay the commencement of this dock. I will not attempt to weary the House by recapitulating all that may be said as to the importance of this matter. I can only say that I have over and over again referred to naval authorities—I do not urge my own opinion the least in the matter—but I have inquired very closely, and from all I have been able to ascertain from a large number of men in the Navy, and those who are most acquainted with the Naval Service, I have only found one officer who is opposed to it, and my late noble Friend Lord Carnarvon, I believe, stated that in his opinion it was undesirable. The reason why it was ever considered on the part of Lord Carnarvon, and perhaps one or two others, undesirable was that the harbour of Gibraltar is a bad anchorage. There is no question about that, but the improvements which my noble Friend announced will go a long way towards meeting that difficulty; and whether it be bad or good, there is no question that a dock can be constructed there. Without that dock your Lordships must remember that we have really, in this respect, got all our eggs, as far as the Mediterranean is concerned, in one basket. The only prospect of a large fleet manœuvring in the Mediterranean has, in the event of accidents in case of war, or receiving damage at the present time, is of being able to lay up in one of those very fine docks (there are four of them) which we have at Malta. But your Lordships will remember we have other countries to consider, and what they are doing. Although we are now, happily, on excellent terms with our neighbours, yet we do not know what circumstances may arise, and France at this moment has two excellent dockyards, one at Toulon, which is a first-rate harbour, and she has a naval establishment at Marseilles. Both of those places are capable of supplying the wants of a Navy, which is, be it remembered, only by one vessel inferior to our own upon that

  1195
  station. And another tiling must be borne in mind. Although I do not know what the engagements of that country with ourselves were with regard to Tunis, there is no question whatever that France is establishing herself very firmly on the North African coast, and if, as Napoleon said, "Antwerp was a pistol-shot directed at the head of England," so in future we may come to regard the establishment of any foreign naval station at Tunis as a pistol-shot aimed at Malta. That is a very important matter. We have lost our former excellent positions. We were in possession at one time, I think for 70 years, of the best harbour in the Mediterranean, Port Mahon, but we foolishly surrendered that position, contrary to the advice of Lord St. Vincent. We subsequently surrendered Corfu, and now we are reduced entirely, as far as regards the safety we may say of our vessels in time of war and the safety of our naval equipment, to that one place which I have mentioned—Malta—with its four docks. As your Lordships know, we have another establishment; but one which I think Her Majesty's present Government, no more than any other Government which may succeed them, will ever succeed in improving, that is Cyprus. We certainly have Cyprus. But there is really only one other alternative, which I shall be happy to communicate at some other time to the noble Marquess on that station besides Gibraltar. I do hope the Government will give their attention to this matter. I can assure the noble Marquess and the Government that it is one which is looked upon by the Navy as absolutely essential to the safety of our Naval Forces in the Mediterranean in the event of war; and I am surprised to find that the matter has been deferred so long, the necessity for it having been so often admitted, and merely, as I fear, upon the question of a paltry expense of s£400,000. Your Lordships will recollect that although difficulties may arise and events may take place within the space of a few months, or even weeks, yet the construction of a dock at Gibraltar is a matter the necessity of which having once been admitted cannot possibly with any safety be deferred. It will take at least four years before
  1196
  your dock can be in working order; and, therefore, that being the case, I would venture most respectfully to urge upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity of at once proceeding with this work, and I also hope the noble Lord will be able to give some very good reason why it has been so long postponed.
  LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, knowing the very great interest which my noble Friend takes in this matter, I am not the least surprised at his repeating the question which he has put to me on three or four former occasions. As I told him last time, there had been some opposition to the scheme proposed, and a Committee had been appointed to inquire into our position at Gibraltar in reference to the matter. That Committee was appointed in April last, and Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett was Chairman of it. They examined a large number of witnesses, naval, military, and civilians, and reported in September last. They were opposed to the idea of the dock being constructed and managed by a private company as had been suggested, and recommended that it should be built with Imperial funds, and wholly and solely managed by the naval authorities. They also recommended that the New Mole should be prolonged, and that another Mole should be made for commercial purposes The Report was only received in September last, as I have said, and the estimated cost of the work was so large, and so many Departments and interests had to be considered and consulted in the matter, that no action has yet been taken by the Admiralty. No Vote, therefore, was proposed in the Navy Estimates for this year, there being so many more pressing, and, as the Admiralty think, more important matters to be considered. As regards next year, we cannot at present forecast what provision should be made for a dock at Gibraltar.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.