Lords Sitting of 19 March 1891

PUBLIC BODIES (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 74.)
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1.) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be read 2a to-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed; and to be read 2a tomorrow; and Standing Orders No. XXXIX. and XLV. to be considered in order to their being dispensed with.—(The Earl Brownlow.) (No. 75.)
BORROWING (INFANTS) BILL [H.L.] (No. 44.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I need not trouble your Lordships with any observations upon its general object, or about the provisions contained in the first clause of it, because those are matters which were considered when I moved some days ago the Second Reading of the Bill relating to the sending of circulars to persons under age inciting to betting. The first clause of this Bill is framed on the same lines as the Bill to which your Lordships have already given a Second Reading, and I apprehend I need say nothing further upon it. But, my Lords, the Bill contains two clauses to which I ought to call your attention. Experience has shown that one of the means which those who encourage and induce borrowing by those under age have adopted in order to get their victims as completely as possible within their power is this, that they suggest to the youth that he should make a statutory declaration, or make an
  1350
  affidavit stating that he is of age. The object of getting this done is not really to afford any assurance to the lender; he of course has ample means by which he could satisfy himself if he so desired whether the youth was of age or not before he entered upon the transaction; the purpose for which he obtains the statutory declaration or affidavit is quite different; he represents it commonly as a mere form. It is not regarded by the infant who makes the declaration as in the slightest degree deceiving the person to whom he gives it, for he is told it is a mere matter of form, and for no object. But when it is obtained it is used by the lender in this way—that if he cannot obtain payment of the money which he has lent from the borrowing infant himself, or from his relations, he at once indulges in threats; points out that a statutory declaration has been made which is false, and that unless some settlement is come to, the youth will find himself in the Police Court charged with a criminal offence. Now, I am not speaking of an imaginary case, I am merely referring to cases of which many have come before the Courts, and I have every reason to believe that the cases are very numerous in which this device has been resorted to. I have, therefore, thought it expedient to meet this device in some way or other, which will prevent its being resorted to in future; to prevent its being taken advantage of in the way it has been in the past as a most tremendous engine for extorting money from the relatives of the person to whom the loans have been made. It was a matter of considerable difficulty, because as your Lordships will see, there is no doubt in such cases as those that an offence has been committed against the law; but a suggestion has been made, which I think will meet the case. As I have said, the application for a statutory declaration is not made for any legitimate purpose, and I think, having regard to one's experience as to the mode in. which this engine has been used, that it is perfectly legitimate to make it an offence in a person to induce the giving of a statutory declaration or the making of an affidavit in connection with or for the purpose of a loan by an infant. If this clause should pass into law it will operate in this way, that if the money lender is in the position to say to his

  1351
  victim, "You will find yourself in the Criminal Court unless the money is paid to me," if such a provision as this passes into law there will be a most effective answer to such a statement or threat as that, namely, that the money lender may find himself in the very difficulty in which he wishes to place his victim. And I cannot but think that a provision of this sort, whilst it is a perfectly legitimate one, will afford infants protection against statutory declaration and affidavits being obtained under such circumstances as I have stated to your Lordships. It seems to me it would prevent their being obtained and used as a means of extortion by money lenders. The other provision is one in which I have endeavoured to carry out a suggestion which was made by the noble Marquess opposite. It deals with a matter of great difficulty. There is, of course, no difficulty in declaring that a loan which, when contracted by the infant, is void, shall not be made valid merely by an acknowledgment or promise to pay after the infant becomes of age; but the difficulty arises from this, that the transaction would not under ordinary circumstances be carried out in that way at all, even if you were to prohibit and render ineffective such an acknowledgment or promise, because it would always be connected with some new transaction. We will suppose that a debt had been contracted by an infant which had run up to a large sum and which was void and could not be validated really by any subsequent acknowledgment or promise; there would be a new transaction of this description—the money lender would advance another sum, smaller or greater (a small sum would be quite sufficient), and then he would obtain from the person who had been an infant, when he came of age, a promissory note or negotiable instrument, including both the former debt and the new advance; and, of course, as there would have been a consideration for that new agreement, that consideration would make the whole thing valid, even though the consideration for the new agreement was extremely small. If, for example, there had been a debt of, say £900, contracted by the infant, and there were a new advance of £10 only, that would be a perfectly valid and binding agreement to pay; or if a promissory
  1352
  note were given for £910 that promissory note would be valid, even although the new consideration given after the infant obtained majority only amounted to that small sum. This difficulty can only be met by making any negotiable instrument, after the infant comes of age, void to any extent in respect to which it is given for an old loan, and valid only to the extent to which it is given for the new advance. I do not think there is anything which would run counter to principle in making that provision; so that although the agreement on the face of it is a single one, and for a single sum, you would be allowed to inquire into the consideration given for it, and so get rid of the promissory note or agreement, in so far as the sum covered by it represented merely a loan made during the time of infancy, which was void in point of law. So far I do not suppose there could be much question or controversy. But then this difficulty arises. Supposing a promissory note to be given which you make void to the extent to which it represents what I will call the infant loan, but not for the new advance, against whom are you to make it so void? Of course there is no difficulty in making it void as against the person who has lent the money, but if you were to leave it valid if in the hands of what is called "a bonâ fide holder for value" it is obvious that the effect of this provision could be easily and would be evaded because you would find these notes or negotiable instruments in the hands of a so-called "bonâ fide holder for value" who would be the person appearing to sue upon them, and to enforce payment of them. I say "so-called" for this reason: that it is so very easy on the one hand for a person to be put forward as a bonâ fide holder for value, and on the other so difficult to prove that it is not so; and if you were to allow these transactions to be valid, if an instrument is in the hands of a so-called bonâ fide holder for value, I think the effect of the clause would be likely to be very small indeed. Now, the question is, can those transactions be made legitimately and properly void, even when the notes are in the hands of third persons? As far as I can learn, there would be no danger in such an enactment. These Bills do not pass current; they do not get into

  1353
  the hands of persons who ordinarily take commercial negotiable instruments at all; and I do not believe there is any case in which a person would take a note of this description, really relying upon the name which he finds attached to the promissory note, which is that of an impecunious person who has recently been an infant; and, besides, he can always, of course, look to the person from whom he takes it—he has that security. No one need take it unless he pleases. If payment is not made, he has his remedy against the person from whom he took it, and the only effect, I believe, against a person of that description, if such a measure as this were to be passed, would be that he would be more likely to be careful in the credit he gives. The circumstances are peculiar, and the course to be taken is an exceptional one; but I believe, in a matter of this description, that steps might be taken, and that no harm would be done, while a great deal of good would be likely to be done if, in these transactions, securities of that kind, so far as they represented loans made during infancy, were made void. There is one point in connection with this clause to which I should advert. Some have thought that instead of making a note or agreement void altogether to the extent of the debt which has been contracted during infancy, it would be better to allow the person holding the security to claim the amount of any actual advance and 5 per cent. interest. I think, probably, the result of suchan enactment would be much the same thing, because I think that if lenders could not in any case recover more than the amount of the actual advance and 5 per cent interest, these transactions would cease to become profitable; while, on the other hand, it is necessary to prevent them because if these amounts could be recovered—if the money lenders could get them in only one or two out of a number of cases—that would make it worth their while to make advances in future; but, of course, if they cannot get more than the amount advanced and 5 per cent. interest, such transactions would cease to be profitable and would not be so likely to be entered into. Of course these are more matters for Committee than for discussion on Second Reading; but I have made this explanation because I have thought it the
  1354
  wisest and best course in the first instance, whatever may be done afterwards, to make the clause extensive and absolute, as I have made it in the Bill which I put before your Lordships. I do not think there is any other observation I need make, but I think if this measure, or any such measure as this, be passed into law it will go a long way in checking practices that have been most mischievous and most disastrous. I should like to add this, to remove a misconception which has been found to exist. From various letters which I have received from correspondents, it has been thought that these Bills refer only to youths who are at the public schools or universities, and I have been reproached rather with taking under my care what are called "swells," and with leaving out of sight infants who are not, being in different circumstances, in that happy position. That is an entire misapprehension. The Bill I have introduced to your Lordships applies to persons under age, whatever their position or rank in life may be; there is no distinction made, and it will equally apply to all persons under age, whether at public schools or at institutions of a more humble description. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Herschell.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I have only to make my acknowledgments to the noble and learned Lord for his adoption of the suggestion which I made at an early period of this discussion. I have no doubt that the experiment he has made will be of a valuable character, and that some advantage will result from its adoption. I wish, however, to ask him whether the 2nd clause is really any very large advance on the existing law. Would not complicity in obtaining a false affidavit be punishable now? I believe the making of a false affidavit is only a misdemeanour, but still complicity on the part of the man who solicits the infant to make it, would be complicity with perjury, and, I presume, would be punishable as such. It may not be so severely punishable as under the clause

  1355
  in this Bill which is now introduced by the noble and learned Lord, but I should have thought that it would, at all events, be punishable under the existing law.
  LORD HERSCHELL: The object of inserting it is this. Of course, if you could prove that the person had been a party to making a false affidavit or statutory declaration he would be liable, but you have affirmatively to prove that he knew it was false, and that he knew the infant was of age. That is not always so easy a thing to prove. It would be open to the person to show that the infant told him he was of age, that he did really believe that to be the fact, and that he had no reason to know that the declaration or affidavit was false; and though you might have a very strong suspicion that he was not deceived at all in the matter it is not necessarily certain that that would be provable. Under this Bill, whether he knows it or does not know it, the inciting of infant persons under age to make these affidavits or declarations is made a criminal offence. With regard to the noble Marquess's suggestion, I am not sure whether one ought not to provide that there should be reasonable grounds in the person obtaining the document for his belief, and I should propose to alter it in Committee by inserting words to provide that there must be reasonable grounds for believing that the person was of age. I quite think that the criticism of the noble Marquess is justified, and that it suggests the expediency of making an alteration in the wording of the section.
  *LORD NORTON: I merely wish to express the thanks which I, and I am sure all your Lordships will feel are due to the noble and learned Lord for introducing this important Bill. Its first part was received, when introduced, with perfect unanimity, making penal inciting to betting transactions by agents with lads under age. It is one of the most dangerous practices in this country at the present moment, demoralising young men and sowing a future misery among families. The addition of this second Bill, which of course will be consolidated with the other in Committee, and the two dealt with as one Bill in this House, is received with equal applause, making penal lending money to lads under age. I am very glad, as the noble and learned
  1356
  Lord pointed out just now, this Bill will apply not only to those in our great public schools and universities, but throughout the kingdom. By examination in one of the great prisons in this country it was found that a large proportion of men imprisoned for thefts had begun their vicious course of life by gambling on a small scale when they were young. It is exactly that danger of the taste for gambling being sown among young men of all classes in this country that we ought to provide against. I would only add, with regard to the idea prevalent in the minds of some people that gambling is not so extensive as it was formerly, there is not the slightest doubt that at the present moment the vice of gambling is pervading all classes in this country from the lowest to the highest, and I trust that the Bill of the noble and learned Lord may have the good effect intended.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee I shall move that this and the other Bill be consolidated.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 17.)
  Amendment reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a tomorrow.

  CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 68.)
  On Report of Amendments,
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have an Amendment to propose in Clause 10. The Amendment arose during the discussion on Second Reading. It is to insert, in page 5, line 23, after the word "Chancellor," the words—
  "Is not or has not been for at least five years the holder of a judicial appointment or."
  It will then read—
  "Where the Chancellor is not or has not been for at least five years the holder of a judicial appointment, or has not been a barrister who is in actual practice for not less than 10 years."
  In this and in the other cases mentioned, then a Deputy Chancellor shall be appointed.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I am not quite sure whether this entirely carries out what was intended. It was intended only to include Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, and it was intended in that case to provide that the Chairman should be a barrister of not less than 10 years' actual practice. I think it might give rise to some criticism if all Chairmen of Quarter Sessions were necessarily brought within the clause, and I would suggest that it should read thus: "Is not a barrister who has been less than five years holding a judicial appointment."
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: I may say that was quite my understanding of what was agreed to during the discussion in Committee on the clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is it not rather an invidious distinction to distinguish other barristers from those who are in actual practice? I do not know whether there is any distinction made in Courts of Law. Does it involve having held briefs?
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should be sorry to attempt to draw the line between barristers who are in actual practice and barristers who are not, though in some cases the line would be easily enough drawn, no doubt; but I may point out that it is an expression which is frequently used in Acts of Parliament.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: So that it must have a meaning.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think it must have a meaning, and, as I have said, the meaning may be perfectly easy to give to it in particular cases. I quite admit there may be some cases on the border line which would make it difficult to say whether a barrister was in actual practice, but I think nobody would say that a barrister who had never held a brief was in actual practice.
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Then in Clause 26 I have an Amendment in order to define the words "judicial appointment," and to limit it thus. It is at page 13, line 31, at the end of the line, to insert—
  "The expression judicial appointment shall include a Chairmanship of Quarter Sessions and a Police or Stipendiary Magistrateship."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

  POLLEN FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 69.)
  Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a tomorrow.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL. (No. 62.)
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: My Lords, before the House resolves itself into Committee I should like to ask my noble and learned Friend to tell us why it is necessary to push this Bill on with such haste. It involves several questions which are of interest to County Councils which are not very clear, and which they have not had the opportunity of considering. This Bill was read a second time in the House last Monday. I am not at all sure that the Bill was in print when it was read a second time; but if it was, it certainly was only to be had in the House. It was not circulated among Members until Tuesday, and my noble and learned Friend proposed its passing through Committee on that day; but in deference to the representations made to him, he acceded to the request to postpone the Bill until today. On looking into the Bill I must say I think we ought to have further time for considering it, unless the noble Lord is prepared to say that there is some very urgent reason why the Bill should be passed now. The Bill as introduced in the House of Commons consisted only of the 1st clause—I may say the Bill consisted only of subsections A and B of the 1st clause. I do not think there would be any objection to passing it now were that all. Sub-section 2 of Section 1, however, appears to raise one very difficult question. As regards Section 2, part of it is unnecessary and the other part is objectionable; the second paragraph of Section 2 also is difficult to construe, but it is, as far as I can understand it, an objectionable provision. There are several other matters to which I might refer, but I will not say anything more on these different provisions, because, if we are to go into Committee on the Bill, the particular points which may be objected to had best be raised in

  1359
  Committee; but I would ask my noble and learned Friend, unless there is some very special and urgent reason for pushing this Bill on with such haste, whether he would consent to postpone it so as to give your Lordships in this House, and members of County Councils, an opportunity of considering its provisions?
  *LORD THRING: My Lords, the fact that this Bill was likely to be opposed in this House came upon me, and upon the supporters of the Bill, as an entire surprise. The Bill was passed unanimously in the House of Commons. No objection whatever was raised to it. The Bill was approved by the Local Government Board, and, in fact, the 2nd clause of the Bill was drawn by the authorities at the Local Government Board. I understand that both sides in the House of Commons were unanimous in assenting to the Bill. With respect to the necessity for hurry in the matter, there really is very great necessity for it. A question has been raised whether, if this Bill is not passed before the close of the present financial year, it would be lawful for the County Councils to carry over the sums which were appropriated for the purpose of technical education—whether it would be necessary to carry them over to a general account. There are very few County Councils in England who have decided yet how they will apply this money. The whole object of this clause is to provide that where the question of the application of the sums for purposes of technical education is under consideration, it shall not be necessary to carry them over to a general account. If this Bill does not pass before the Vacation, it will be supposed to be necessary that these moneys should be so carried over, and therefore the whole purpose of the provisions relating to technical education will be absolutely frustrated.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I can bear my testimony to the accuracy of what has fallen from the noble Lord with regard to the necessity of passing this Bill at once, because if it be not passed, it is, I understand, the view of the Government that these moneys will be carried over and will be distributed under Section 23 of the Act of 1888, and the effect will be that the use of them for the purpose of technical education in the
  1360
  present year will be in the main lost. But it is not only important to pass this Bill as speedily as may be for that purpose. The 1st clause is of great importance, and, though I do not mean to say there is the same absolute urgency with regard to that clause as in respect to the others, I do say that the power there given to establish scholarships, and especially in institutions which are not within the administrative district of the particular County Council, is one of great importance. It is certainly of great importance in Yorkshire. No doubt the noble Lord opposite will confirm me in saying that it is of equal importance in Lancashire. It seems to me that these scholarships are the best mode of dealing with a large portion of these funds, and County Councils can do nothing until they know whether Parliament will give them power to establish them.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, the reason for passing this Bill has been so clearly explained by the noble Marquess who has just sat down that I do not think it is necessary for me to trouble your Lordships further than to say that those risks have been considered by Her Majesty's Government, and they are unanimously of opinion that this Bill ought to pass at once, as proposed by the noble and learned Lord.
  (House in Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  *LORD LINGEN: I think, my Lords, the declaratory part of paragraph 2 here enunciates a somewhat new principle, and a rather dangerous one, that in considering the eligibility of a school for support, you ought to consider its needs independently and separately, or at any rate in addition to the question of efficiency. I am afraid this clause very often will be read as meaning that although a school is not efficient, yet, that being needy, it is entitled to assistance. That hitherto has not been the view taken of the meaning of public aid being given, and I do not think it should be suddenly adopted as the principle on which public aid should be given to schools. At present the discretion of the County Councils is quite unlimited. If they see fit to give assistance on the ground of need they can do so, but I

  1361
  think the suggestion of such a ground of assistance in an Act of Parliament is likely to lead to results which will not be altogether favourable to technical education. I would therefore venture to submit to your Lordships that Sub-section 2 of Section 1 in the Bill be omitted.
  *LORD THRING: My Lords, I admit that at first sight this clause does appear to give rise to some observation; but it is, in fact, a necessary clause, and I think your Lordships will see why it is inserted. The Technical Education Act provides that the aid is to be given precisely and exactly in proportion to the merits of the schools themselves. In the case of these county schools, your Lordships will easily understand that what the counties want is to have schools in different parts of the counties. They cannot be content with a school at one corner only, but they want to distribute the aid as far as possible. The whole meaning of this clause is that where the County Authority see that they want a school in a particular part of the county, if that school cannot exist without the aid of a grant, and by the aid of a grant might be made an efficient school for the purpose of technical education, they may give a grant to that school, although it is not quite so good a one as other schools in other parts of the county. It is, in fact, a provision to give the Councils a freer hand in the selection of the schools to which they may give aid.
  LORD MONK-BRETTON: The explanation which the noble Lord has given is very good; but there is no limit in the section. The aid may be given, as the section now reads, to a school in any part of England.
  *LORD BASING: My objection to this clause is that it seems to limit the power of the County Council Authority to what they can already do. Why should they be limited in regard to the poverty or wealth of a particular school? It does not follow that they should distribute money through agency of the schools at all, and they might consider it preferable to do something else with it. I do not see how the noble Lord can say that this section is necessary, or that such application of the
  1362
  money is not within the competency of the County Councils.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I should venture to ask the noble Lord whether this discussion does not show that it would be very desirable to adopt another word instead of "needs." The two noble Lords who have spoken have construed that word as meaning neediness, and my noble Friend himself contends for the necessity of aiding a school in the particular locality where the school may happen to exist. If that reading be the right one, I think some wording should be adopted to show that pecuniary neediness is not a ground for obtaining the larger grant.
  *LORD LINGEN: The noble Earl has adverted to a point which contains the principle to be kept in view. It is one thing to say that a school is needy, and another that a school is needed. A school that is needed ought to be created or assisted, but a school ought not to be assisted simply because it is needy. I would point out here that the word is "needs," not "need;" if it was in the singular there would be no objection.
  LORD HERSCHELL: This is not a compulsory clause at all. It is a power given to the County Councils. If you cannot trust your County Councils to that extent, that is to say that they cannot be trusted not to give the money simply because the school needs it, though there may be no need for the school, then it is necessary no doubt to impose some restriction upon them. But what I would point out is, that this clause imposes no obligation upon them at all. They are to do the best they can for carrying out technical education. All it says is that they may take certain things into consideration, and in the case of a school which down to that time has not been an efficient school, but which may be made an efficient school by the grant of aid, and which will be for the benefit of the county, I cannot see any reason why the County Council should not be allowed to do something for that school.
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: I do not see any objection to the clause as it stands. The practice seems to be nowadays to create a Local Authority, and immediately afterwards to distrust it. But my impression is that having created the Local Authority, you ought to give them power

  1363
  to deal with the matters which come before them. This is simply a permissive power, and I think we ought to trust them to exercise that power properly, believing that they will do so to the best of their judgment.
  *LORD MONK BRETTON: I entirely agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down that we ought to trust the County Councils, and for that reason I object to the sub-section. I wish to see it left out. There is nothing as the law stands to prevent the County Council from making a grant under circumstances in which they consider a grant is required; but to introduce a clause of this kind, expressly stating that the Local Authority may consider, not the efficiency of the school, or the requirements of the pupils, but the necessities of the school—that is to say, the necessities of some bankrupt managers, is simply an invitation to jobbery.
  *LORD NORTON: I cannot see how it adds in the slightest degree to the power of the County Councils to give the discretion which is given in the language of this paragraph. In whichever way the words are taken, if they are read as they stand, there is no doubt that their meaning is, as the noble Lord supposes, that these grants are to be given according to the needs of the school. If, on the other hand, the word "needs" were put in the singular instead of the plural, it would be considered that they were to judge whether the school was needed or not, but then the word "relatively" would have no sense at all. What an extraordinary direction to give the County Councils, that they are not to give money unless it is needed. We must suppose the County Councils to be absolute fools if we suppose that they want to distribute their money where it is not needed. It is impossible to suppose that is the meaning of the paragraph. If, therefore, it is meant to stand as we have it, relative to the neediness of the school, it then introduces, as the noble Lord has said, a new principle in the distribution of public education grants money, that the money is to be given according to the worthless-ness of the school. It is wholly inconsistent with the later paragraph, by which money is to be given according to the wealth of the school. There is a
  1364
  contradictory calculation, which would be as absurd one way as the other.
  LORD HERSCHELL: There is another consideration. Under the Technical Instruction Act of 1889 the Local Authority may give a grant for technical education, and shall restrict the provision so made in proportion to the nature and amount of efficient technical instruction supplied by these schools respectively. So that at present the hands of the County Councils are tied in this way, that they can only distribute the money according to the nature and amount of the technical instruction given in the public schools. The object of this is to give them a freer hand, and to enable them not necessarily to give the money according to the amount of instruction given in the school, but because there may be a school, in a particular part of the county, which it is necessary to support and keep up, and that that can only be done by giving it more than its proportion would be.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Would it not be simpler to repeal these words? I confess I think this clause has a very ugly look.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I wish my noble Friend would not only repeal these, but a good many other words in the clause, which render, in my opinion, the working of the Act almost impossible.
  *LORD HOBHOUSE: I wish to point out that there are two funds over which the County Councils have jurisdiction in applying them to secular education. One is the 1d. rate which they are empowered to raise by the terms of the Technical Instruction Act, the terms of which have been just mentioned by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell), and which seem to tie down the County Councils to distribute the fund according to the efficiency of the school. If the policy of the Technical Instruction Act is to be reviewed, it may be necessary to relax that restriction in some measure. But there is another fund over which the County Councils have absolute discretion at the present moment, and that is the fund which arises from the Beer and Spirit Duties. The share of the County Councils is to be dealt with as the Probate Duties are dealt with—that is to say, it is to be

  1365
  carried to the Exchequer Contribution Account, and when it is there the County Councils have a discretion given to them to apply it to technical education. They may apply it or not apply it, and if they determine to apply it there is nothing in the Statute to limit their discretion as to what will determine the application of the funds. It seems to me that if too little liberty has been left them this is not a convenient opportunity of considering it, and I think we have been hurried rather into the discussion. I think this is not a convenient opportunity for revising or altering the policy, which was no doubt very well considered, of the Technical Instruction Act. I think your Lordships will find, if this clause is wholly omitted, the County Councils will have as much discretion as they possibly can desire in assisting a poor school which may exist in a particular part of the county which is very much in need of a technical school. They will have as much power as they can possibly want, having a free hand with respect to the Beer and Spirit Duties, and I think your Lordships will consider that it is not desirable now to repeal a policy which was very well considered a year ago, when the Technical Instruction Act was passed.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I am sorry to trouble your Lordships again. I cannot agree that the policy of this scheme was well considered, because your Lordships had no sort of opportunity of considering it at all, and we are of course not bound by considerations which have taken place elsewhere. I think that it would carry out what has been suggested by the noble Marquess in effect, if the clause were made to read in this way—
  "That the Local Authority shall consider all the circumstances, and shall not be bound to distribute the provision so made, exclusively in proportion to the nature and amount of the technical instruction supplied by the schools."
  That, it seems to me, would free their hands, whilst pointing out what should be the ordinary rule. It would say that they should not be bound exclusively to do so, though they would be empowered to do it.
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: Would the noble Lord consent to the sub-section being now struck out, and give notice to introduce the Amendment on the Third Reading?
  *LORD THRING: No; I could not consent to that.
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: Then I must say that I should certainly use my best endeavours to prevent the Bill being read a third time with that sub-section in it.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: I hope the noble Lord will not strike out the sub-section as it stands at present. It seems to me it is intended to meet a very serious difficulty. We are looking about to find good centres for technical education all over our counties. In many cases we find there are old endowed schools which are poverty stricken, and which have been revived by schemes of the Charity Commissioners, but which are certainly not able to go in for technical education unless they have funds provided. I think it would be better if we were allowed to subsidise those schools instead of starting new institutions all over the counties. My attention has been specially called to this by the Charity Commissioners themselves, and they said they thought it would be well worth while that special attention should be paid to the many endowed schools in various parts of the country which were capable of doing the work, but which were now starved for want of a little assistance.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think we had better, under the stress of circumstances, as we are bound to pass the Bill by the 31st if possible, pass it through Committee without amendment, and then any Amendment can be taken on the Third Reading.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have read the words which I propose.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  *LORD BASING: My Lords, I find a great deal of difficulty with regard to the word "appropriated" in this clause. The Act of last Session, the Customs and Excise Act, seems to have contemplated, and the County Councils seem to think it necessary that they must appropriate the whole of this money for the purpose of technical education, not only that they have received it, but that they must apply it for that purpose or else leave it alone. I think, if your Lordships will allow the addition of the words of which I have given notice, it would

  1367
  be advisable. The words are after "appropriated" to insert "or to be set aside for." Those words will include that they may set it aside and appropriate it as they find convenient from year to year. Recollect, my Lords, that the money assigned to the County Councils last July has not yet been received, and will not be received until the commencement of the next financial year. It must be many months before any scheme can be devised in many of the counties for appropriating the money, and even then great difficulty will be found, I daresay, in appropriating the whole of it. I move, therefore, that after the word "appropriated" the words" or to be set aside for" be inserted.
  *LORD THRING: I have no objection to those words, on the understanding that they are not to be inserted till the Third Reading.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I hope the noble Lord will consent to put it off until the Third Reading.
  *LORD BASING: I really fail to appreciate the necessity of passing this Bill in such a hurry; because, as I have said before, the money is not really payable to the County Councils until after the 31st of March. It is a delusion to suppose that that is a fixed point for dealing with this money. The money will not be passed or merged into the Contribution Account until that other account is closed. There are two years in question now, the year in which the money is received and the year in which it is spent, and it so happens that another year is the time referred to here. It seems to me not necessary to refer to the 31st of March, when we know that not one sixpence of the money will be received until after that date.
  *LORD NORTON: It is not clear what the money is that is talked of here. It refers to the most extraordinary misappropriation of money that has ever been made in this country, and I do not wonder at the delicately veiled term of "any sum of money." One thing does not seem to be understood at all, and that is whether it is an annual sum or a sum down. The noble Lord who spoke last treated it apparently as an annual sum. The Probate Duties in Scotland, likewise given, are an annual revenue—an annual sum, whereas this was a definite sum which
  1368
  had been voted by Parliament for the redemption of beer licences, but that scheme having failed Parliament did not know what to do with the voted money, and it was handed over to the County Councils. It really seems absurd to say that the County Councils are to be enabled to spend this money before they have actually got it, and before they know whether it is to be an annual sum or only a sum down. It is talked of in this Bill by no description whatever, except the vague term "any sum."
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: I do not understand whether the noble Lord moves his Amendment or not.
  *LORD BASING: I have moved it.
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: As regards the appeal made by the noble Marquess as to the stress of time, and without agreeing to anything, it may be considered that it should go out on Third Reading, and an Amendment like that proposed by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) substituted for it. With regard to the Amendment now before us, I should like to know from the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill, and from the Government, whether they accept the Amendment of Lord Basing or not?
  *LORD THRING: I will accept the Amendment.
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: If it is to be inserted on Third Reading, I, for one, will not object.
  *LORD THRING: I have said that I accept the Amendment of my noble Friend (Lord Basing) on condition that he does not insist upon it now, but I undertake to put it in on the Third Reading.
  *LORD BASING: If the noble Lord's observation applies to all three of my Amendments I am content.
  *LORD LINGEN: Then on Clause 2 I withdraw my Amendment, seeing the way in which Lord Basing has disposed of his Amendment.
  *LORD BASING: I can only withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that it should be considered on the Third Reading.
  *LORD THRING: I have said that I accept the Amendment of Lord Basing. I intend to put it in on the Third Reading.
  *LORD BASING: Then I certainly must propose the second Amendment also.
  *LORD THRING: I have no objection to that on the same condition.
  *LORD BASING: Then I propose, at the end of the clause, to add these words: "Until the County Council shall have made an order for such application." That is to say, that the County Council shall have it in its power, when satisfied that it had done all in its power for the special appropriation of the money, to deal with it according to the language of the Local Government Act.
  *LORD THRING: I cannot accept that Amendment, because it would have the effect of enabling the County Council at the end of next year to rescind the resolutions of the County Council come to this year. There is no objection to a County Council rescinding its resolutions passed during the present year, but it is not intended that a power should be given to a County Council to rescind next year resolutions which they may have passed upon the subject of technical education this year.
  *LORD BASING: The question is not of rescinding the resolution, but of recognising that the time has arrived when all has been done that need be done, and, therefore, that the balance may be paid over to take its place in the Exchequer Contribution Account according to the intention of the Bill.
  *LORD LINGEN: I must say, unless the Amendment of my noble Friend is accepted, the County Council will be placed in a very unpleasant position. This is a clause saying that if you have once passed a resolution appropriating a sum of money you shall have parted with it for ever, and cannot rescind the resolution; or, as my noble Friend has pointed out, if you find you have made a mistake, and there is more money than is wanted, apply the balance to the other purposes which the Act of Parliament gives you power to do. Noble Lords have talked a great deal of decentralisation in this House, and entrusting powers to Local Authorities, and now the first thing you do is to propose to pass an Act of Parliament saying that, having placed these moneys under the control of the County Council, they shall not go back from any resolution which they may have come to respecting them, under any circumstances whatever.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I should be the last person in the world to wish to restrict the freedom of County Councils, and my objection to the Act of 1889 is that it does most unwisely, I think, restrict that freedom in many respects, but in this particular instance the noble Lord who has just sat down ought to remember that there are two parties concerned—the County Councils and the Institutions. If the County Councils promise the Institutions that they will pay certain sums of money to them, and then the Institutions perform certain duties in respect of it, I say the County Councils are bound to carry out their promise, and that they are not to have the power of rescinding their resolutions. That is, as I understand it, the light in which we may regard the matter in respect of this particular point.
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: My noble Friend misunderstands altogether my meaning, and the effect of the clause. Of course, if County Councils have engaged with certain schools or Institutions that they will give certain sums of money they would be bound in honour to do so; but according to this, if a County Council have resolved that a certain sum of money shall be appropriated to, or set apart for, purposes of technical education generally, and if after that they find they have appropriated more than is wanted to be spent in that way, they shall not be at liberty to rescind that as they should be. As the noble Lord has said, if they have once passed the resolution, they are not to go back from it.
  *LORD BASING: I would venture to submit to your Lordships the consideration that if the County Councils can never undo grants which they have made that converts the grants into endowments. But let me ask what is to happen if a school becomes thoroughly inefficient? Is the County Council still to go on appropriating money to it?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it would be very desirable, before we get to the Third Reading, if the noble and learned Lords would apply their minds to this clause, and tell us whether it really bears the interpretation that has been put upon it. I think it is really too much to say that resolutions of the County Councils are to be like the laws of the Medes and Persians, that as

  1371
  long as the trees grow and the waters run they shall continue—and that the resolutions of County Councils are to go on for ever.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Looking at it by the light of nature, I do not see any objection to the noble Lord's proposal. I think that the objection is a tangible objection. A strong objection was made to this provision, and those who may be supposed to know something about the matter had, no doubt, some good reason for inserting it.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: What is their reason?
  *LORD BASING: The Local Government Board have no objection to my Amendment. It is not for the purpose of limiting the Act in any way, but merely for the purpose of giving County Councils an opportunity of considering what they will do. It is not at all that this money is to be appropriated to such schools, because there are no such schools in many of the counties. There are proposals made that the money shall be peremptorily applied, and that the County Councils may be permitted to give them up if they find the schools to be inefficient. It is not of necessity that the money should be applied in support of existing schools.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Would not your Lordships be satisfied to do this? On one side it is said that the County Councils object to it; and my noble Friend says, on the other hand, that they do not object. I think many of us do not quite see what the effect of the noble Lord's words would be. If he were willing to move them on Third Reading of the Bill that would be a more convenient opportunity for considering the matter and saying what ought to be done.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Local Government Board, like many other powerful authorities, veils its proceedings in mystery. It is so at the present moment; but, as far as I have been able to ascertain, they have no objection whatever to the clause.
  *LORD THRING: Of course, I accept the Amendment most readily. The reason that I proposed the clause was, in fact, because I was ordered to do so. I was told it was opposed by the Local Government Board. If there is any
  1372
  objection it goes at once, of course; and I most readily accept the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not now.
  *LORD THRING: It will be for consideration on Third Reading.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: May I ask my noble Friend whether, in future, if County Councils have allotted so much money for the purpose of technical education they are never to draw back, whatever the circumstances may be? I understand that to be the meaning.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: No; it is the other way.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: Then they can draw back?
  *LORD THRING: Yes.
  LORD HOBHOUSE: I think the Bill will be improved by the omission of the portion of this paragraph beginning at the words "Where a Council shall have referred to a Committee the question of appropriating" money. The effect of it would be this: that where a Council, before deciding to appropriate money for the purpose of technical education desires to be informed by a committee, which is a very common and reasonable state of mind for Councils to be in, and calls upon that committee to inquire and report whether any, and what, part of the fund in question shall be appropriated to the purposes of technical education, that is to be considered as if the Council had passed a resolution appropriating the sum. I think that can hardly be intended; but as at present advised as this section is drawn, it seems to me to be very injurious as regards the County Councils. If it merely means that where a County Council, having decided to appropriate something, refers the question to a committee to consider the mode in which that something can be best applied for the purposes of technical education, that would not be so objectionable; but I cannot help thinking it is a very undesirable thing for this Bill, not by a direct Resolution, but by a side wind, as it were, in regard to this one particular fund, to interfere in the mode of business as transacted between Councils and their committees. I do not see that any good is to be got out of this which is commensurate with the amount of inconvenience from the interference

  1373
  with the business which has to be done in the County Councils. I therefore move the omission of the clause.
  *LORD THRING: This is a clause in which I am deeply interested as a Surrey County Councillor. My noble Friend's objections, I think, are really due to his imagination. All the clause does is this: The 1st clause declares that where money has been appropriated by a County Council it may then be carried bodily to a suspense account. What is it that the County of Surrey and various other counties have done? They have not decided that the money should be appropriated, but they have decided to refer the question to a committee to report to them whether or not the whole or any part of that money shall be appropriated, Now, the whole meaning of this clause, which is supposed to be so injurious and to interfere between County Councils and their committees, is simply this: I will take one example with which I am acquainted. The County Council of Surrey has referred to a committee the question as to whether that county shall or shall not appropriate the money for the purpose of technical education. If this clause is carried that money would not be carried over to general purposes until the committee have reported upon it; in other words, it simply gives a county that has referred the question to a committee exactly the same benefit which the previous part of the clause gives in the case of a county which has appropriated the money. I cannot conceive a more innocent clause; and if it were rejected, the effect would be that wherever a County Council has not determined that the money shall be appropriated, but has most wisely, as many of them have done, referred the matter to a committee, the whole intention of the Act would be frustrated, and the whole of the money would have to be carried over to a general account, although everybody is anxious that it should not be so carried over.
  *LORD HOBHOUSE: The noble Lord has given a very innocent interpretation to his draft, but see what it does. It says—
  "Where a Council shall have referred to a Committee the question of appropriating to purposes of technical or manual instruction
  1374
  any sum consisting of the whole or any part of such moneys."
  The former part of the section is to apply. Then what is to be done with that sum? It is not merely that it shall not be carried over to a general account, but that it shall remain applicable to such purposes, and shall not be applied in manner provided by Subsection 2 and the following sub-section—that is to say, that it shall remain applicable to the purposes of technical education, and shall not be carried over for the purposes of general account until an event which may never happen.
  *LORD THRING: That is so; it is not to be carried over to the account for general purposes until the committee has given its decision. In other words, you preserve the money in a suspense account until the committee has given its decision; and when they have done so, the County Council will determine what is to be done with the money. Therefore, it will either go over to the general account or be applied for the purposes of technical education. It will simply keep the money to suspense account during the time the committee are considering, and in order to give the Council time for deliberation as to whether the money shall or shall not go over for technical education.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think the difficulty might be got rid of by putting in the few words which probably the House might think desirable should be put in. This would suspend the money until the Committee had made their Report, which, of course, under ordinary circumstances is the proper thing to do; that is to say, that where a matter has been referred by the County Council to a Committee the effect would be to keep the whole of the money in the hands of the Council for application to those purposes in case the Committee should report in its favour, and the Council should decide to so adopt it. But, of course, there is this consideration, the Committee might never Report at all, and it strikes me it would be well to put in after the word "thereon" the words "or until the appointment of the Committee be rescinded." If the Council has referred the matter to a Committee and the Committee have not reported, the money will be kept over until the Committee has made its

  1375
  Report; but, of course, if they should rescind the appointment of the Committee, with the view of not doing anything further, then I presume that would not be the intention.
  *LORD THRING: Quite so.
  *LORD BASING: A Council may see their way to appropriating some of the money at one time and some at another, and the consequence may be that the County Council may be a year in deciding how to use the money. I should think it is not the intention to press them to do it at the particular moment, they having the power to dispose of what they do not want at the close of the year.
  *LORD LINGEN: I should like to call attention to a case which I think it is not impossible might occur. The Committee may have under consideration a Report, either original or upon reference back to them, which the majority of the Council do not agree to, and any clause which gives the Committee, or which may seem to give them, a locus standi of their own, as against the Council, is certainly interfering to a very considerable extent with the principle of Local Government. The Committee is a creature of the Council, appointed, as the Statute says, by the Council for business which may be more conveniently transacted in Committee, but the relations of the Council to the Committee, I think, ought not to be interfered with, and I cannot help thinking, from what I have myself observed in the working of the County Councils, that this clause as it stands would not conduce to the smooth transaction of their business.
  *LORD THRING: I am sorry to trouble your Lordships again upon this subject. This clause does not affect in one iota or in any shape whatever the relations of the County Councils with their Committees. I shall certainly accept the words which have been suggested by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) in order to remove the effect of the possibility that the Committee may not have reported; but the whole effect of this clause is to prevent the money being carried over to general purposes when the Council and its Committee and everybody else in the county may want it to be carried over to techni-
  1376
  cal education purposes. All the clause says is, that during the time the Committee and the Council are deliberating, the money shall not be necessarily carried over to general purposes. The meaning is exactly the same as in the first part of the clause, with this difference, that in the one case the money has been appropriated by the Council, and in the other, the Council before appropriating it have sent the question to a Committee to ascertain their opinion, and that opinion has not been delivered. All I want is to wait until the opinion of the Committee has been delivered before we tyranically direct that the money shall go to a purpose for which it was not intended to be applied. I trust your Lordships will not omit the clause, because I think it would be absolutely ruinous to my scheme from top to bottom.
  LORD HENNIKER: I hope my noble Friend who is in charge of this Bill will not take out this clause. It may be amended, perhaps, in the way proposed, but there is no objection to it on the part of the Local Government Board. It has been carefully considered in the way it is now drawn up, and I think the noble and learned Lord should stick to his opinion, to allow it to remain in the Bill.
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: As the matter stands I think it is not desirable, but the Amendment which has been suggested by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) in some way mitigates it. The words which Lord Thring agreed to accept from my noble Friend opposite at the end of the first sub-section of the 2nd clause will likewise apply to this 2nd sub-section, and in that way it is mitigated. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I should be willing, on the understanding that the Amendment of Lord Herschell is accepted, and considering that the Amendments of Lord Basing have been already agreed to, to let the Bill pass this stage, but reserving of course full freedom to consider it to-morrow when we shall have the Third Reading. I should like to ask if the Bill passes now, subject to these Amendments, when we shall see the Amendments in print, so that we may have an opportunity of considering them?
  *LORD THRING: The Amendments will be in print to-morrow morning.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

  REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN WRITS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]—(No. 61.)
  Read 3a (according to order) and passed and sent to the Commons.
NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS AND THE CIVIL SERVICE.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNDONALD, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government if they will consider the expediency of reserving a certain number of places annually in the Civil Service for bestowal, without public competition, on eligible and deserving warrant and non-commissioned officers of the Army at the expiration of their period of service with the colours, said: My Lords, before going over the reasons which make it desirable, in my opinion, that Her Majesty's Government should favourably consider the question which I have placed on the Notice Paper, I will, with your Lordships' permission, make a few observations on the Return which last July, at my instance, your Lordships agreed should be furnished. This Return was to give the average age and service of non-commissioned officers of each rank doing duty with the colours. I regret that I asked for the average age and service and that I did not have the Return made out in categories of rank as corporals and sergeants, as the form of the Return has, I fear, to some extent obscured the real point. What I should have asked for was the proportion of sergeants and corporals in various categories of age and service under 24 years of age and 22 years of age respectively. This would have been clearer than the Return I obtained, and would have been more useful in opening the eyes of the public. As showing the short service of the sergeants in many regiments, I hold in my hand a Return of the age of the sergeants of the 92nd Highlanders—now the 2nd Battalion of the Gordon Higlanders—a regiment taken quite at random. Of the 24 duty
  1378
  sergeants, no less than 10 were under five years service on January 1, 1890, the average, however, being brought up by a few old non-commissioned officers, who, it must be remembered, are now fast dying out of the Service. I will give another instance: Staff-sergeant M'Donald, of the 2nd Life Guards, was included in the return of average age and service of his rank. There were 17 other non-commissioned officers in the same rank with him; but M'Donald's service was 48¾ years, so that he had enough service to give himself and 16 other non-commissioned officers nearly three years' service apiece. These are instances of how an average in some cases works out and makes the Return, I regret to say, to this extent a misleading picture of the state of matters. In support of my views as to the danger of extreme youth in the non-commissioned officers' ranks I will quote some few short extracts from the proceedings of the Committee on Army Organisation, presided over by Lord Airlie, which began its sittings in June, 1879, and took much evidence as to the youth of the non-commissioned officers and men of many of the regiments which had then lately been on active service in South Africa. Sir Evelyn Wood, who then commanded the troops in South Africa, in answer to the question,
  "What is the result of your observation as to the steadiness in the performance of their duties of the young soldiers who came out with the reinforcements?"
  said—
  "I think they were wanting in steadiness."
  Asked then,
  "Do you attribute that in any way to the want of old non-commissioned officers among them? "
  he said,
  "Yes, certainly to the want of good noncommissioned officers, and to their not knowing their officers."
  Sir Evelyn Wood proceeded—
  "I go further and say that I think that the young soldier is like a boy who has never had a fall out hunting until he gets a shake. I think that they would fight very well going forward, but it is when you want them to come back steadily or after they have had a shake that the difficulty arises. I should not mind taking the youngest boys into fight, but when they have received a momentary check and the men begin to tumble down around them, it is then when you find the difficulty with young soldiers. It is when you want them to

  1379
  turn tail on and come back steadily that you want old soldiers, and especially old non-commissioned officers."
  Sir Evelyn Wood made these criticisms on the force in South Africa, as it was, in the year 1878. Now, it is necessary, and will, I think, be very interesting, to compare the ages of the Army in 1878 with the ages of the Army in 1890 in order to see whether the elements of success in war in accordance with Sir Evelyn Wood's criticism exist in the Army now to a greater or lesser extent than in 1878. I find by the Army Returns that in 1878, during the war in South Africa, there were serving with the colours 528 non-commissioned officers and men above 25 years of age in every 1,000, whereas in 1890 there were serving with the colours only 351 noncommissioned officers and men above 25 years of age, thus showing a great decrease in the class of men of 25 years and upwards from which the non-commissioned officers and steady old soldiers must necessarily be drawn. There was a meeting last January of officers at the Royal United Service Institution to hear a lecture on the recruiting question, and there was a unanimity of opinion amongst those present that something should be done for the non-commissioned officers in the way of improving their position and prospects. One colonel, commanding a cavalry regiment, said—
  "I have got some 324 recruits of under a year's service at this moment. I remember the days of the old, tried non-commissioned officers—reliable, experienced, trustworthy men. I am not in a position any more than you to draw upon the quartermaster's stores for an old head to screw to young shoulders, and I look forward with a certain degree of apprehension to the future."
  Now, I would ask, do not these criticisms and the large further increase of young soldiers justify an appeal to Her Majesty's Government to improve the position of the non-commissioned officers? Officers are easily obtainable. Recruits for that rank came in shoals to compete at the examinations which were held by the Civil Service Commissioners for commissions in Her Majesty's Army. But that is not the case with noncommissioned officers. Where the candidates for commissions as officers number tens for one place vacant, there is a dearth in many regiments of good men who are either willing to accept or who
  1380
  are in any way fitted for the position of a non-commissioned officer. Why is this so? It is because the position of non-commissioned officers is not sufficiently attractive. It entails far harder work than used to be the case in the days of long service, on account of the number of men passing through the ranks who require almost unremitting drill and attention, and also, it must be remembered, on account of the increase in the duties which an Army now has to perform. In order to be efficient in modern warfare far more is required of non-commissioned officers than formerly. Now, I will refer your Lordships to what is done by other countries. We have adopted their short service system, by which the men soon retire from the ranks. Continental Armies have recognised that it is necessary to offer special attraction to induce this deserving body of men to continue on in the Service; but this country, though having adopted the short service system of Continental countries, stands alone in offering few or no attractions to the non-commissioned officer by making service in that rank a means of obtaining civil employment, as is done in France and Germany. Though I am strongly of opinion that the best plan in this country, and the cheapest way in the long run, would be to offer increased pensions to the non-commissioned officers to induce them to stay on in the Service and devote themselves to it, to act not only as an incentive to those who are doing their best in the Service but, by a possible forfeiture of their pensions, as a deterrent to those who might otherwise get into trouble with light heart—though I think that a liberal pension is the best means in this country to reward non-commissioned officers, still I cannot conceive that any large measure of increase in pension, even to a body so necessary as this middle-class is to the welfare of the Army, can be proposed without receiving the most strenuous opposition from many short-sighted persons. This being the case, I have confined my question to the point of asking Her Majesty's Government if they will grant a certain number of nominations to the lower division of the Civil Service, to be distributed annually to deserving non-commissioned officers in the Army who have shown themselves

  1381
  reliable and qualified for the duties to which they might be appointed. I can not think that the taking away of a limited number of appointments from those which are competed for yearly would be opposed by the patriotic youth of the country when they know that it is only by inducements such as these that our Army can be made as efficient as it ought to be by procuring a sufficient number of experienced non-commissioned officers. In this manner the public would be persuaded to consider the profession of the soldier as being an advantageous as well as an honourable one. Persons may say—Why should not non-commissioned officers compete with civilians at the examinations that are held? The answer to this is that as a matter of fact they cannot compete with young men who have made the few subjects in which the examinations take place the object of unremitting study from their earliest boyhood. Men who have been about the world, serving their country in various climates, though practically able to undertake the duties of an office, are mostly unable to compete at an examination with boys fresh from grammar schools or crammers. If a certain number of nominations to the Civil Service were granted to the Army at large, without public competition, there is no reason why they should not be given through colonels of regiments, who are best able to select the best man for a post. As colonels commanding regiments are entrusted with large powers of punishment, they should also, when possible, be given large powers of reward. On this point let me draw your Lordships' attention to the evidence of Colonel now Sir Edmund Du Cane, given as head of Her Majesty's prisons. His evidence was given before the Select Committee on the Civil employment of soldiers, sailors, and marines, which sat in 1876. He said he was desirous of obtaining the services of two good ex-non-commissioned officers. He knew them both, and that they were excellent men, but when they went up to be examined they failed before the Civil Service Commissioners. One of them was ex-Sergeant-Major Brodie, of the Royal Engineers, whose qualifications for employment in the Clerks' Department I will enumerate to your Lordships. Sergeant-Major Brodie, R.E.,
  1382
  after the examination required by the War Office, was appointed a third-class military staff-clerk in the office of the Deputy Adjutant-General of the Royal Engineers. He was then promoted, and went to Melbourne with Colonel Waugh, where he was employed in the Mint, and in the Accounts Department. He was entrusted with a duplicate key of the cash box, and was employed to countersign and pay cheques, performing his responsible duties with the greatest satisfaction to his superior officer, who sent to Colonel Du Cane the highest testimonials as to his conduct and capabilities. But Sergeant-Major Brodie, with his practical experience, and with such testimony from his official superior as to his capacity for undertaking the duties of the office which he was desirous of filling, was prevented continuing his service to the State because he was not fit to compete with youths fresh from the crammers. If the Government favourably consider this proposal I trust that the nominations will, as I have said, be placed at the disposal of officers commanding regiments, who are best qualified to make the selections. With regard to this, Mr. Ramsey, in his evidence before Lord Randolph Churchill's Committee, in 1888, stated that he wished to obtain the services of 10 good ex-non-commissioned officers. He sent round to 10 officers commanding regiments, and got 10 most excellent men; but he goes on to state that the system was changed, that a roster was kept of these men that he required, and that from the roster he did not get such good men as he got when the personal responsibility of the officers commanding the regiments was brought into play. Now, if Her Majesty's Government wish a precedent for dealing in any special manner with any particular class, I would refer them to the privileges enjoyed by the Indian cadets, Queen's cadets, and University candidates at Army examinations, and I would ask them to extend some such similar privileges to the non-commissioned officers of the Army. I will conclude by reading to your Lordships an extract from the Report of the Select Committee on Army Organisation, a Report which was joined in by two late distinguished Members of your Lordships' House—Lord Napier of Magdala

  1383
  and Lord Airlie. In this Report there is the following short but weighty passage:—
  "We have taken a great deal of evidence from staff and regimental officers, in all of which there is a general consensus of opinion that under the present system there is great difficulty in obtaining non-commissioned officers of the same type as those which have been created under the old long-service system and who are rapidly dying out of the Army. There has been a necessity for promoting very young soldiers who have not sufficient knowledge and experience to command the respect of those under them, and there is a general apprehension, which we fully share, that unless effective measures are taken without delay to remedy this evil, the discipline and efficiency of the Army will be most seriously affected, not only as regards the performance of its duties in peace, but also with regard to its steadiness in action. The evidence of officers who have served in the late campaigns, especially those who have observed the con-duct of the young regiments sent out to South Africa last year, is conclusive on this point. We consider, therefore, experience has proved that evidence, that even with the increase of pay and advantages lately given to non-commissioned officers, enough has not yet been done to secure an ample supply of such men as are essential to the efficiency of the Army."
  I feel, my Lords, that anything I can say will not strengthen those words. I trust Her Majesty's Government will view this question on its merits, bearing in mind those precedents I have mentioned for allowing privileges to certain classes of men in the State in limitation of the rights of the public to open competition. The privileges possessed by University candidates, Indian cadets, and Queen's cadets, are all in favour of certain bodies, and against open competition, and I see no reason why such a deserving body of men as non-commissioned officers, who are so essential to the State, should not be treated in a similar manner. I will only remark, in conclusion, that the evidence which I have quoted, given before the Committee on Army Organisation, is as true now as on the day when it was given before that Committee.
  LORD DORCHESTER: My Lords, when I look at the state of the clock, and the condition of your Lordships' Benches, I feel it would be impracticable for me to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes upon this paramount and most important subject, a subject that when England is slumbering at peace, reposing with her money bags under her,
  1384
  may not seem of so much importance but which, if war broke out to-morrow—and war in these days is not a question of months, but of days—would be very quickly brought to her knowledge. I think the noble Earl has rendered a vast service in bringing this question before your Lordships' notice. 'It is a question that, compared with one which arose earlier in the evening, I venture to think, is as a mountain to a mole-hill. It is a question which, in a country where voluntary enlistment takes place, and the opinion of discharged soldiers is spread abroad among their countrymen as they return to their pauper's homes, ought to strengthen the minds of all those noble and gallant Lords that I see around me; it ought to strike those who, having held high office, may not perhaps have thought it worth while to give it very great attention. I myself remember, not only the Battles of Ulundi and Tel-el-Kebir, at which I was almost too old to serve. I remember the Indian catastrophies in which I was not too old. I also remember the disturbance with the only European Power with which we have been brought into contest since the great war. The question of old soldiers against young soldiers has never been half considered. The noble Earl who has just sat down has put it very forcibly—young soldiers will fight-There is not a butcher's boy in London who will not fight; but how long will he stand up to fight? He will stand about as long against an experienced prize fighter as I think a young soldier will stand in the present day against an old soldier of the Crimean War. I had intended to have alluded to an illustrous and gallant Duke who sits on the back Bench, and to call for his testimony as to the way in which the soldiers acted in those days; but I see a noble and gallant Friend of mine, who is distinguished with the Victoria Cross, on the back Benches, who can support me in that opinion. I saw three War Ministers here early in the evening, but they, although not young soldiers, have fled from the field. There is now one gallant officer who holds the post of Under Secretary of War, and who, I think, notwithstanding that official description which it is his duty to preserve, testifies to the feelings which I am giving expression to. But there is

  1385
  one very serious point, and one that has occurred to me for 30 or 40 years, which is, that the English soldier's position is one of pains and penalties without any adequate reward—I will not say even without an adequate reward, but without any reward at all. It is true there is something equivalent to the old Chelsea Pensioners' Retreat which has been done away with. But what happens in foreign countries? We all know how well the messengers in this House discharge their duties. We all know how well other messengers, with medals on their breasts, discharge their duties; but I would ask, why are no such appointments given to old soldiers or sailors? Those of your Lordships who have read this morning's papers must have been struck most forcibly with the gallantry and devotion shown by our British sailors in the catastrophy off Gibraltar. The same thing may be said of the British soldier. I have seen instances, and I could, if I thought it fitting, detain your Lordships perhaps too long on this subject; but why are no places ever given to them as the noble and gallant Earl has asked? No proportion of places under civil patronage are ever given to the soldiers and sailors who have deserved well of their country by long service, or otherwise. I would not attempt to answer that question—I cannot answer it; I feel I may challenge your Lordships to give me an answer in vain. It is Parliamentary patronage that has interfered with this matter, and I think it is a pity we do not see the same thing among ourselves as when you go and knock at an Ambassador's door in this country when the first thing you will see is a soldier whose coat is covered with military medals wearing the livery of his master. The same thing is never seen in this country. I know of but two instances. One of them is employed, I may say, in the National Gallery. It is true, the illustrious Duke at the head of Her Majesty's Army distributes as many places as he can among the soldiers; but I do trust that your Lordships' consideration, and the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, will be given in their own interests, and in the interests of the country, to the consideration of this point.
  *LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, the question which my noble and gallant Friend has raised is a very important one, but I would venture to suggest to the noble Earl that he has forgotten one important branch of Her Majesty's Forces; that is, the Navy. This question has been brought before your Lordships and the other House on several occasions, and your Lordships may remember that in the year 1877 a Committee sat in the other House and went very fully into the whole subject of civil employment. That Committee made a Report, and in that Report they specially refer to the point to which the noble Earl has alluded, namely, the great difficulty which old sailors and old soldiers have in competing for open competition places. In the Report that Committee suggested that the Government should take into their consideration very strongly whether in questions of open competition especial attention ought not to be paid to those matters which old sailors and old soldiers are more especially able to deal with; in fact, that the rigid dicta of the open competition should be amended, and that openings should be given, so that old soldiers and old sailors should have a fair chance. On that Committee I think my noble Friend Lord Wantage served with Lord Wemyss, and a great many Members of the other House. The evidence which they took was extremely important, and I should like to ask my noble Friend, when he answers to this question, to state what has been done towards carrying out the recommendations contained in that Report. I think I am right in saying that in the following year a great effort was made in the matter by the Government that was then in power; but what the result was I am not at all clear. I remember in that Report they specially recommended that the regulations as to age in open competitions ought to be amended as far as old soldiers and sailors were concerned, and also that the question should be taken into consideration whether a man was married or not. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the noble Lord has done very good service in bringing this forward, and I sincerely trust the noble Lord will be able to give us a satisfactory answer.
  *LORD CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I trust if Her Majesty's Government consider favourably what I may describe as the very modest request of my noble and gallant Friend, that the scope of the inquiry may be increased, so as to see how it may be possible to increase the inducements of non - commissioned officers to remain with the colours. I am afraid—though, no doubt, if this proposal be acceded to it would be a real inducement to men to remain—it would be hardly right that they should be entitled to receive the advantage of this concession when they retire into the Reserve after merely seven years' service. So long as the deferred pay remains as an inducement to the men to leave the Service after seven years by the bribe of the £21 they are then entitled to, I am afraid we must expect to lose from year to year large numbers of valuable men who under other conditions would be only too glad to remain with the colours. That is the weak point of the present system. There is no doubt about that, and I was very glad to see that the Secretary of State for War, in another place, has promised to enter into that question. The non-commissioned officers of the Army are the backbone of the Service, and it is impossible that the efficiency of the regiments can be maintained unless you have a reliable and efficient body of men as non-commissioned officers of such an age as will carry weight and support them in the difficult task they have to perform of enforcing discipline. If this is done, and such inducements as my noble Friend asked for are accorded to them, I am certain the Army would find itself with a body of non-commissioned officers of much the same character as formerly was the case before the short service system was introduced. Commanding officers are satisfied with the stamp of non - commissioned officers they get; the only complaint is that they are too young, and that just as they are becoming efficient they leave the colours. I trust this may only be a step in advance, and that Her Majesty's Government will favourably consider the question, so that Her Majesty's regiments may obtain what they are now wanting, that is a sufficient complement
  1388
  of old and trusty non-commissioned officers.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Earl BROWNLOW): My Lords, I need hardly say that I most entirely sympathise with the noble and gallant Earl who has brought this question forward in his anxiety that some suitable employment should be found for retired warrant officers and non-commissioned officers. The question which he has put to Her Majesty's Government is part of a very much larger matter, namely, the whole question of finding employment for reserve and retired soldiers of all ranks; but as his question specially refers to warrant officers and noncommissioned officers I shall endeavour entirely to confine myself to speaking of those ranks only. The noble and gallant Earl is anxious that they should have advantages in competing in Civil Service examinations, or, rather, that certain posts should be thrown open to them without their having to go through the same competitive examinations as men who have not served in the Army or Navy. I have made it my business to find out from the Civil Service Commissioners what are the posts which are open to competition, and, as far as I gather, the posts that are open to competition are second-class clerkships. I will quote a letter that I have received from the Civil Service Commissioners upon this subject? I find that the clerkships are competed for by very young men, from 17 to 20 years of age, and this is what the Commissioners say—
  "The limits of age for open competition appointments are, as a rule, low. Thus, in 1890, only 12 situations were filled to which persons over 20 were admitted; and for all of these technical qualifications were needed. In the same year 130 clerkships of the second division were competed for by youths between 17 and 20."
  Further on they say—
  "Members of the Military or Naval Services can deduct from their actual age any time they have served for pension. But the number of them who avail themselves of this extension is inconsiderable."
  I think that answers one of the questions which were put by the noble Lord opposite.
  "While the places generally are such as should be filled by youths, and are in one way or another scarcely suitable for retired soldiers, it does not appear that much could be done

  1389
  in this direction to help the soldier's cause. More might, perhaps, be done with the large numbers of subordinate situations filled by nomination with a simple qualifying examination."
  Certainly one must admit that in the case of retired warrant officers most of them are men who have reached a certain age; and I must say I feel some doubt myself as to whether there would be any great anxiety on their part to obtain second-class clerkships, and to begin life in an office with very young men about 20 years old, which is the age at which these examinations are held. But this does not so strongly apply to non-commissioned officers, but still, even with regard to non-commissioned officers, I doubt whether there would be any very great scramble for the posts of second-division clerkships. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that there might be some further relaxation of the rules, to enable those who are well qualified for clerkships to have some further opportunity of obtaining them. I think that what we must look to with some hope is to any station where, as the Civil Service Commissioners say, a simple qualifying examination is required. I hold in my hand a letter, and I think it is an encouraging one, from the secretary to the National Gallery, in which that gentleman says—
  "Our present head porter was a quartermaster-sergeant in the Coldstream Guards. Among the assistant porters we have two ex-corporals in the Coldstreams, one ex-private in the Hussars, one in the Army Service Corps, one from the East Surrey Regiment, and one from the Royal Engineers."
  He then says—
  "Speaking generally, they have turned out well, and the men thus selected are, as a rule, far better disciplined than civilians. There have, however, been one or two exceptions among the short service men."
  He further says—
  "All male attendants on the Staff of this Department are qualified by certificates from the Civil Service Commission."
  Those are posts which are not open to competitive examination, but which can be obtained simply by a qualifying examination. This is a small Department which is able to employ, as I may inform your Lordships, an old quartermaster-sergeant and two other non-commissioned officers, besides other old soldiers.
  LORD DORCHESTER: May I ask whether those appointments are under the Trustees of the National Gallery or under the Government? I rather think myself they are under the Trustees of the National Gallery.
  *EARL BROWNLOW: Those appointments are made by the Treasury on the suggestion of the Trustees. I cannot help thinking that if other larger Departments, perhaps, where there are more posts open, would follow the example of this small Department and ask for old non-commissioned officers and privates of the Army to be appointed, the same happy result would be found. I must point out, as I said before, that the questions put by the noble and gallant Earl are part of a very large question, namely, that of the employment of the Reserve men and retired non-commissioned officers and privates of the army. This question again is most intimately connected with the question of recruiting; that question of recruiting has been lately brought, prominently to the notice of Her Majesty's Government, and a Committee-has been appointed to consider the whole question, of which Committee my noble Friend (Lord Wantage) is the Chairman. The Secretary of State, knowing perfectly well that this question of the employment of old soldiers is intimately mixed up with the question of recruiting, has resolved to extend the Reference to this Committee in order that they may make a full inquiry into the whole question of the employment of soldiers, I think, therefore, we may safely leave this question in the hands of my noble Friend and the Committee over which he is to preside. I can only say that Her Majesty's Government will give every possible consideration to any Report that they may make in the form of practical suggestions for the employment of warrant officers and non-commissioned officers and privates retired from Her Majesty's Army and Reserve men.
  THE EARAL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, with your permission I should like to put myself right with regard to the Navy in reference to the remark of my noble Friend as to my having left out that Service. The Report of the Select Committee on the civil employment of soldiers, sailors, and marines, in

  1391
  1871, specially referred to the Navy, and they stated as sailors entered as boys no inducement was necessary to obtain their services by holding out the prospect of civil employment. As I have brought forward this question partly in the interests of recruiting for the Army, for the obtaining of a better class of non-commissioned officers, and partly in the interests of the non-commissioned officers at present in the Service, I thought it better not to refer to the Navy, though, of course, nothing would please me more than to see every eligible non-commissioned officer of the Navy receiving civil employment. With regard to the statement of the noble Earl the Under Secretary for War about noncommissioned officers, if I understood him rightly, or rather from the letter he quoted, he said that the non-commissioned officers might not be suitable for Lower Division clerkships. I should like to say that Mr. Ramsay, in his evidence before the Select Committee on the Civil Employment of Soldiers and Sailors, in 1888, stated—
  "I took the trouble to write to commanding officers who were friends of mine; I told them exactly the sort of clerk I wanted, and I got first-class men; in fact, out of the men now serving, one came in as a soldier clerk at 5s. a day and is now my store-keeper at £500 a year; and another, who came in at 5s. a day, is now principal clerk at £425."
  What I want to see is that good non-commissioned officers should not have to take a back seat in Civil Service employment, but should take their position among clerks, and if they are good men they should be advanced. With regard to the assurance of the noble Earl that this matter will be referred to the Committee, over which my noble Friend Lord Wantage will preside as Chairman, I should like to inform your Lordships and the noble Earl what the views of that noble Lord are on this matter. In presiding at the meeting of the Military Society at Aldershot on the employment of soldiers in civil life, held on the 12th of December, 1889, he is reported to have said—
  "I think it is the act of a good statesman to discover the right moment when the habits of people are so shaped, and perhaps changed, that he may safely introduce his legislative measures. Every body is agreed that it would be greatly to the advantage of everyone if soldiers were more employed in civil life. Commissions and Committees have recommended it, and now is the
  1392
  time when these recommendations should bear fruit."
  I think, therefore, the task of my noble Friend will be a very simple one, because he will be able to refer to the Blue Books, and see exactly what has been done on the subject.
  *EARL BROWNLOW: In speaking of the difficulty with regard to old soldiers serving as Lower Division clerks I did not mean to imply that retired non-commissioned officers would make bad clerks. There are now 136 of these clerks serving in the War Office, and very good clerks they are; but what I said was that I doubted whether men of somewhat advanced age would care to enter an office side by side with mere boys who had just passed their examination.

NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES BILL— [H.L.]

  FIRST READING.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD), in rising to call attention to the Newfoundland Papers laid before Parliament, and to present
  "A Bill to revive certain sections of an Act of the fifth year of the reign of King George the Fourth, chapter fifty-one, for the purpose of carrying into effect engagements with France respecting fisheries in Newfoundland,"
  said: My Lords, if in dealing with this subject to-night I am pursuing a somewhat unusual course, I trust that its importance will justify in your Lordships' opinion the action I am taking. The additional Papers with regard to Newfoundland have been but a very short time in your Lordships' hands, and I need hardly say, therefore, that I do not desire in any way to anticipate a full discussion upon these Papers, either upon the Second Reading of the Bill which I am now going to ask you to read a first time or on any other fitting opportunity. But we have thought it very desirable that a full statement of the action and conduct of Her Majesty's Government during the past year and up to the present time in respect to these Newfoundland affairs should be made at the earliest opportunity that presented itself, with a view of removing, if we can do so, some misapprehension which still appears to exist in the colony with regard to the action of Her Majesty's Government, and also

  1393
  in the hope of lessening, by full explanation, the irritation which, I regret to say, undoubtedly exists in the colony against Her Majesty's Government. The object of the Bill which I am now asking your Lordships to read a first time is to revive certain powers which were vested in the Crown of giving instructions to the naval officers of this country with a view of securing the performance of certain Treaties which this country had contracted with France. The Act of 28 George III., c. 35, recites the three Treaties of Utrecht, Versailles, and Paris, by which certain fishery rights were reserved and continued to France along part of the coast of Newfoundland, and certain Royal Declarations, made in 1783, and then, to quote the words of the Act—
  "In order to enable His Majesty to carry the said several Treaties and Declarations into faithful and punctual execution,"
  empowers His Majesty by Order in Council to give such orders and instructions to the Governor or officers on the Station as shall be deemed necessary to fulfil the purposes of the Treaty. These provisions were re-enacted by 5 George IV., c. 51, and these powers will be found in the Schedule of the Bill which I am now introducing to your Lordships. The latter Act was continued by 2 & 3 William IV., c. 79, until the year 1834, "and no longer." These Acts, therefore, and the powers which were given by them, have now lapsed. The object, therefore, of this Bill is not new, but the novelty—if I may say so—consists in the introduction of legislation of this kind affecting one individual colony which has been granted a representative Legislature and responsible Government. It cannot be disputed, and certainly will not be disputed by your Lordships, that the Imperial Parliament is within its rights if it legislates mero motu for any part of Her Majesty's dominions. That power has been recognised by eminent statesmen in both Houses of Parliament and on many occasions. But it is equally certain that such power ought to be, and is, very rarely exercised, and in the case of colonies having responsible Governments never exercised in matters of what I may call local interest or internal organisation or administration, but only in mat-
  1394
  ters which have an Imperial bearing and character, as, for instance, Merchant Shipping. As your Lordships are aware, by the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 large parts of that Statute are expressly declared to apply to all British ships and to all Her Majesty's dominions. But in recent years, at all events, very great care has been taken to preserve, as far as possible, the independent powers of Colonial Legislatures. For instance, in the Merchant Shipping Act of last year (53 & 54 Victoria, c. 9), which provided a special load-line for British vessels, there was the express reservation in Section 3 that if a Colonial Legislature adopted for its own vessels a load-line on the same principles as those laid down by the Imperial Act, then the Imperial Act should be, as it were, suspended, and the load-line fixed by the Colonial Legislature should be adopted as if fixed by the Imperial Act. Your Lordships will find that equal care has been taken in this Bill with regard to the Colonial Legislature. By the 2nd section of the Bill it is provided that if at any time before the passing of this Bill, or after it has become an Act, the Colonial Legislature will grant the necessary powers for securing the performance of these Treaties, and of any international arrangement that may be made applicable to the coast of Newfoundland, then the Imperial Act shall, so long as that colonial legislation is in force, be suspended. I admit, my Lords, that a strong case must be made out for Imperial legislation in the case of a colony which has a representative Legislature and responsible Government; but before I sit down I trust that I shall satisfy your Lordships that there is a very strong case in this instance, and that, in fact, Her Majesty's Government had no option but to take the course they have taken, and to introduce this Bill. I would begin with a proposition which again your Lordships will not dispute, and which is, indeed, universally recognised, that if a country has made a Treaty or arrangement with a foreign Power, the country is bound to secure the performance of that Treaty or arrangement by its own subjects. This was the consideration which justified the earlier Acts which I have mentioned, and this is the consideration which

  1395
  justifies the Bill of which. I am now asking your Lordships to grant a First Reading. It is true, as I have said, that since the passing of the earlier Imperial Acts a representative Legislature has been granted to Newfoundland; but when your Lordships come to consider the point, you will see that such a grant can in no way relieve this country from its responsibility in respect of its obligations to secure the performance of Treaties or international arrangements affecting that colony. It may be, and probably is, the case that the grant of a representative Legislature imposes upon a colony to which such grant is made the duty, in the first instance, of passing such legislation as may be necessary to secure the performance of Treaties and arrangements with a foreign. Power which affect that colony; but it is equally clear that if that colony fails in its duty and declines to legislate to secure the observance of those Treaties and arrangements, the responsibility of this country remains in full force. I shall show your Lordships that in the present case the colony of Newfoundland has failed in its duty, and that we are therefore bound to act; and I will, with your Lordships' indulgence, state as shortly as I can how this necessity has arisen. As your Lordships are well aware, questions of great difficulty and complexity have for many years past arisen upon the construction of the Treaties which we have made with France relating to Newfoundland, and as to the nature and extent of French fishery rights under those Treaties; and I may say that very few Secretaries of State, either at the Foreign or the Colonial Office, have not at one time or another had to deal with those questions. It is not necessary, on this occasion, to deal with those points of difference, and, looking at the time of the evening, I will not trouble your Lordships with them, but they are very concisely stated at page 4 of the Newfoundland Paper [C. 6044]. But there can be no doubt that, owing to those differences and to the divergence of opinion as to the extent of the French fishery rights along the Coast of Newfoundland, there has been from time to time imminent danger of collision between the French and colonial fishermen; collision which has only been averted by the friendly action and the good sense,
  1396
  tact, and judgment of the Naval officers of both countries; and I am happy to say that those qualities have never been more conspicuously displayed than within the last few years, when the relations, owing to various causes, have become more strained, and, therefore, the probability of collision has greatly increased. Several causes have led to this state of things. I will content myself with mentioning very briefly three. In the the first place, the feeling of antagonism has been much intensified owing to the passing by the Colonial Legislature of an Act by which the French were prevented from obtaining free purchase of bait, a privilege which up to the time of the passing of that Act they had enjoyed. No doubt that Act was passed with the view of diminishing and checking the losses which had been sustained by the colonial fishermen and merchants owing to the high system of bounties granted by the French Government, a system, which has largely closed European markets to colonial-caught fish. I will not stop to inquire if the Act has worked beneficially or otherwise to the colony, but it is undoubtedly the case that the result of passing that Act has been that, the French have insisted more strenuously on their alleged rights under the Treaties. The second cause of the in creased hostile feeling has arisen from the fact that every year the effect of the Treaties is felt to be more burdensome to the inhabitants of the colony. At the time of the concession of fishery rights to the French fishermen the state of affairs was very different to what it is now, and the concession was not incompatible with the circumstances of the time when it was made. The coast along which those rights were granted was, I may say, almost uninhabited, and both contracting parties looked upon Newfoundland mainly as a fishing ground for the fishermen of the two countries, and there was very little, if any, fishing, by the colonists. But the population has now very largely increased all along that coast, and, therefore, there can be no doubt that to enforce that arrangement must necessarily cause considerable hardship, inconvenience, and suffering on a growing colony with the regular organisation and institutions of civil life; and it is needless to point out that as the population on the coast increases the evil

  1397
  is naturally intensified. In another point also the colonists have been suffering for some years. They have been desirous of developing the mineral and other resources and industries of the colony, but owing to the construction which has been put upon the Treaties by the French Government, and which we dispute up to a certain point, but not altogether, the development of the colony on that part of the Coast of Newfoundland where the French enjoy Treaty rights has been practically at a standstill, although rich mines are known to exist there. In these circumstances, I think we shall all concur in the following words of Lord Salisbury, which will be found in one of his Despatches:—
  "It is impossible not to sympathise with the colonists in their impatience at the burden of stipulations which seriously interfere both with the economical development of the Island and with the prosecution of their most important industry."
  And I may observe, in passing, that successive Governments both Liberal and Conservative, have from time to time endeavoured to arrive at some compromise—some working arrangement by which the burdens of the colonists might be lightened. Lord Derby, in his Despatch of June 12, 1884, which will be found in the Parliamentary Paper [C. 6044, page 4], pointed out the fact that the Commission which sat for that purpose in 1884 was the eighth which had sat since 1846. Those previous attempts to arrive at a working arrangement are all recapitulated in that Despatch, and I need not refer to them; but I may, perhaps, be allowed to point out the fate of the last attempt. The arrangement made in 1884 contained a clause giving the French power to purchase bait freely. That arrangement was sent over for the consideration of the Newfoundland Government, and was returned by that Government with certain modifications which were proposed to the French Government, were accepted by them, and embodied in the arrangement of 1885. In the meantime the General Election of 1885 took place in Newfoundland, and I believe a new Ministry came into power; the arrangement of 1885 was rejected by the Newfoundland Government on the ground mainly that it contained the clause giving the French
  1398
  power of purchasing bait, although that clause was not objected to when the arrangement of 1884 was under consideration. The third and, perhaps, one of the most important causes which have led to the increased antagonism between the French and colonial fishermen along the coast, is the lobster fishery, which has acquired considerable importance within the last few years. In 1884 the export of lobsters was valued at 60,000 dols., while in 1888 it had increased to 385,000 dols. There can be no doubt that the lobster factories established along the coast are of very great benefit to the inhabitants. The Report of Sir B. Walker in December, 1889, upon that point says—
  "The lobster factories are undoubtedly a great benefit to the coast population, and are-raising them gradually out of the destitution in which they existed. The land is in itself too poor to entirely support the population, but with the employment given by the factories prevents the actual starvation which in bad fishing seasons was by no means unusual. They provide employment with good wages for men, women, and even young girls, and give a great deal of winter employment to caretakers and others."
  It is no wonder, then, that the French claims to catch lobsters and erect factories have been hotly contested. The practical difficulty and danger of collision arise from the desire of both parties to" occupy the same fishing ground and have lobster factories at the same places. Sir B. Walker reported, in November, 1889, that it would be almost impossible to prevent collisions occurring in the fishing season of 1890 unless some special provision was made. He further reported that there was an increasing feeling of resentment against the French, and an increasing risk of this feeling showing itself in acts of an aggressive nature. Her Majesty's Government recognised the serious position of affairs at the end of that year—1889—and being "anxious to meet the wishes and learn the views of the Newfoundland Government, they telegraphed in December their desire to consult the Premier of the colony, Sir William Whiteway—
  "Generally on matters connected with Newfoundland fisheries, and especially with the object of determining whether it would be possible to submit to arbitration the French, claims connected with the lobster fisheries, and to consult with him as to the terms of reference."

  1399
  We were informed that Sir William White way would come over, but could not get away before the end of March at the earliest; and, as a matter of fact, he and the delegates did not arrive until the end of June 1890. In the meantime, looking to the serious nature of the Report of Sir B. Walker, it was clearly necessary for us to make some working arrangement for the fishing season of 1890. After communication with the Newfoundland Government, and the proposal to the French Government of certain modifications suggested by the Newfoundland Government, which, however, the French Government refused, the terms of a modus vivendi for the 1890 season were agreed to here, and communicated to the Newfoundland Government by the telegram of March 12th, 1890. Those terms, with which I will not now trouble your Lordships, are to be found in Parliamentary Paper C. 6044, page 363. We received, I may say immediately, protests against the terms of the modus vivendi from the Colonial Ministers and Legislature, and also a protest by a Petition of inhabitants very numerously signed. But I think it will be seen upon examination that those protests were based on a misapprehension of the effect of the modus vivendi, which the colonists considered to be a concession of the French claims and an interference with colonial rights of fishing. Her Majesty's Government, in a Despatch on March 31st, 1890, and subsequently in another Despatch on June 24th, dealtfully with those two points; and as this arrangement must be carried on in the fishing season of 1891, I will venture, with your Lordships' permission, to read a short passage in the reply which we gave to the Petition against the modus vivendi. It is to be found at page 7 of the Paper [C. 6256] which has just been presented, and is as follows—
  "The petitioners do not here notice the fact that the modus vivendi referred to is of a strictly temporary character, its operation being expressly limited to the current fishing season only, neither is any notice taken of the fact that the Colonial Government was consulted as to the terms, which ware to some extent modified in order to meet their views. It was, however, necessary to conclude this merely temporary arrangement without referring it to the Colonial Government in its final shape. This act on the part of Her Majesty's Government does not appear to them to have
  1400
  involved any departure from the principles laid down in the Despatch from the Secretary of State (the late Lord Taunton, then Mr. Labouchere) of the 26th of March, 1857, referred to by the petitioners, of which the following is the actual wording, namely, 'that the rights enjoyed by the community in Newfoundland are not to be ceded or exchanged without their consent, and that the constitutional mode of submitting measures for that consent is by laying them before the Colonial Legislature; and that the consent of the community of Newfoundland is regarded by Her Majesty's Government as the essential preliminary to any modification of their territorial and maritime rights.' "
  Then it goes on to answer that point—
  "The modus vivendi does not cede or exchange any right enjoyed by the inhabitants of Newfoundland, neither does it involve any modification of their territorial or maritime rights. Any right which British subjects have to erect lobster factories on the shores affected by the Treaties and Declarations concerning the fisheries, although its exercise may be temporarily suspended, is not surrendered or prejudiced by the modus vivendi, the first sentence of which contains a statement to the effect that the questions of principle and of respective rights are entirely reserved on both sides."
  My Lords, instructions were given by the Admiralty to Sir Baldwin Walker, and, in accordance with those instructions, Sir B. Walker issued orders to the officers in the colony to secure the observance of the modus vivendi. In the course of the season it became necesssary for Sir B. Walker to give orders for the closing of a lobster factory; and after full notice, when those orders had been disobeyed, the officers were desired to close it by force. It had become known in the colony at that time that the earlier Acts to which I have before referred had lapsed, and it was contended that these proceedings of Sir Baldwin Walker and of the naval officers were illegal. The question of their legality was raised in an action against Sir B. Walker, and I have seen in the papers of this morning that a decision, not upon the facts of the case, but upon the legal points, has just been given by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland in favour of the plaintiff and against Sir B. Walker. As, however, the action is still pending, I should not think it right to make any further observation upon these proceedings. But your Lordships will see that the state of things had now become very serious, and it appeared to Her Majesty's Government absolutely

  1401
  necessary to arrive at some solution of the difficulty. We considered that an arbitration to define the rights of the respective parties upon the lobster fishery questions was the only course to be pursued. The Newfoundland Government was consulted, but we were met by an absolute refusal, couched in very concise terms, which will be found at page 19 of the last Parliamentary Paper. This is the answer of the Newfoundland Government to us:—
  "The Secretary of State for the Colonies asks if we are prepared to submit the question of the lobster fishery to arbitration? After a careful perusal of the Treaties bearing on this matter, we find that there is certainly no question for arbitration. A similar proposition applied to Great Britain would be for the French to claim a right to take salmon in the Tees or the Tay, and for your Majesty to submit such claim to arbitration."
  With reference to this last sentence I think it is sufficient to say that at present there is no Treaty giving French fishing rights either in the Tees or the Tay, and in the absence of such Treaty there is clearly no similarity in the cases. The reply goes on—
  "With respect to the lobster industry, this colony will be satisfied with nothing short of the immediate removal of every French lobster factory from the shores of Newfoundland; and all our efforts will be directed to the accomplishment of this object."
  What does this refusal amount to? It amounts to this in effect: "Our rights are so clear that there is no ground for referring them to arbitration and they must be enforced." It is needless to point out to your Lordships that as the French entertain an equally strong view of their claims, the enforcement of our rights must of course lead to collisions and to war. That is a position which Her Majesty's Government were not for a moment prepared to accept, and if they had accepted it the country would not have sustained them in their view. We had, as I have said, invited the Premier of Newfoundland to come over to discuss the subject and to consult as to the best mode of proceeding, and he and two delegates, his colleagues in the Colonial Government, Mr. Harvey and Mr. Bond, came over at the end of June. After repeated discussions with them and fully ascertaining their views and wishes, we finally submitted to the French Government
  1402
  their proposals as to how the arbitration should be conducted, what should be the terms of it, and what the conditions. The nature of the proposals and the refusal of the French Government to accept them are clearly stated at page 37 of the Paper last presented [C. 6256]. Writing on October 29th, 1890, M. Ribot says—
  "In his Despatch Lord Salisbury is good enough to recall that, in the pursuit of this work of conciliation, both Governments had, in a spirit of mutual confidence, contemplated the eventuality of a resort to arbitration. But, whilst recognising the advantages of this mode of settlement, the Prime Minister informs us, in the Note to which I have the honour to reply, that it does not appear that this solution would be in conformity with the wishes expressed by Sir W. Whiteway and by the Newfoundland delegates; and he adds that, in order to satisfy the wishes of the colony, France should consent to surrender the rights secured to her by the Treaties; while in return the colony would be disposed either to offer facilities for the purchase of bait, or to make a reasonable money payment proportionate to the value of the advantages surrendered, and as compensation for the interests affected."
  M. Ribot further says—
  "But the Government of the Republic do not hesitate to declare that the proposals emanating from the Representatives of the colony appear to rest on a wholly inaccurate appreciation of the nature of the rights and of the importance of the interests of France, as well as on a manifest exaggeration of the evils of which the colony complains."
  And he concludes as follows:—
  "In view of these various considerations, and notwithstanding the sincere desire of the French Government to prevent difficulties, always regrettable in themselves, they do not feel justified in acceding to the proposals made to them to exchange their rights either for a money payment or for certain facilities with regard to the purchase of bait. The Government of the Republic are, however, quite prepared to consider such other conditions of an agreement as may be submitted to them, whether they approximate to the bases of the scheme drawn up in 1885, or whether they contemplate an eventual resort to arbitration, in conformity with the preliminary opinions already exchanged on the subject between the two Governments."
  I may add that again with the view of meeting the wishes of the Newfoundland Government we submitted to the French Government the further proposals which are mentioned at page 40, and they were also declined, as is shown by reference to page 63. The delegates returned to

  1403
  Newfoundland in the November following. I must now refer your Lordships to page 62, in which there is a telegram from myself to the Governor, Sir T. O'Brien. In this telegram, dated November 27, I drew attention to the state of the case—
  "In pursuance of the wish of the delegates from Newfoundland who were lately in England, Her Majesty's Government have proposed to the French Government to accept a pecuniary indemnity and a statutory permission to purchase bait as a consideration for renouncing their alleged rights upon the coast and territorial waters of Newfoundland, and abolishing the bounty upon all fish not consumed in French dominions. These proposals have not been accepted."
  The words which I want to call your Lordships' particular attention to are the next:—
  "The Government of France intimate that for the settlement of the question they are willing to proceed either by agreement on the lines of the Convention of 1885, or by arbitration. Her Majesty's Government are willing to take whichever of these courses may be preferred by the colony,"
  thus showing, my Lords, our desire to meet the wishes of the Colonial Government.
  "But either course will probably occupy a considerable time. An agreement requires lengthened negotiation, and unless a very large discretion indeed is given to the arbitrator, the preparations for submission to arbitration must be lengthy. A renewal of the modus vivendi so as to give time for further action is therefore indispensable. But after what has taken place,"
  that is to say, after the doubts which had been raised as to the powers of the naval officers—
  "to renew it would be useless, unless statutory force is given to its provisions. I very earnestly press upon your Government to procure the necessary legislation; the power of Her Majesty's Government to bring this controversy to a satisfactory conclusion will be seriously diminished by a refusal."
  Then, on page 64, will be found what I may call the ultimatum of the Newfoundland Government, which we received by telegraph on December 5th, and which runs as follows:—
  "Ministers desire to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the rejection by the colony of the arrangement of 1885 as constituting a reply to the second proposal of the French Government for a settlement based upon that arrangement. With respect to the proposal for a settlement by arbitration, if it is upon the basis proposed by delegates in July
  1404
  last, my Ministers assent; if otherwise they wish for information as to the meaning of the phrase 'settlement by arbitration.' My Government cannot assent to any arbitration which does not include withdrawal of the French from the coast; that the granting of facilities for procuring bait be considered only with the modification of bounties. Whilst my Ministers recognise the necessity for sufficient time being allowed for complete negotiations after they take definite form, they beg to" remind Her Majesty's Government of the emphatic protests made by them, the Legislature, and the public, as well as by the delegates, against the modus vivendi, as being most hostile to interests of colony, and they are not, therefore, prepared to give legislative; sanction to the modus vivendi,"
  Your Lordships will see that there are two' distinct points raised in that ultimatum.. The first is, that the Newfoundland Government will consent to no arbitration unless it is coupled with the condition; of the withdrawal of the French from that coast. That condition, as I have already stated, was submitted to the French Government and refused by them. So that practically the colonists refused any arbitration at all. In the second place, the Colonial Government distinctly declined to give legislative sanction to the modus vivendi for the fishing season of 1891. The position of Her Majesty's Government, therefore, was very embarrassing, because it was clear that the Colonial Government was not in any way prepared to meet our proposals or to assist us, and yet it seemed to us necessary that some steps should be at once taken, not only to ascertain the extent of our international engagements, but to provide for effect being given to them. There is one more extract I should like to read to your Lordships, because it states shortly the view which Her Majesty's Government took of the position. It is contained in a letter sent from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office on January 16th last, and afterwards communicated to the Newfoundland Government. After recapitulating the facts of the case; the refusal of the French Government to accept the proposals of the Delegates; and the grounds upon which the Colonial Government decline to agree to arbitration, the letter proceeds—
  "The existence of some French rights, whatever their exact interpretation may be, is. a matter of absolute certainty. The signature of England has been pledged again and again to their acknowledgment. They cannot be re-

  1405
  pudiated so long as the binding force of any Treaty obligations made in the past is admitted. The honour of England is committed to the acceptance of them, and the nation certainly would never consent to a breach with France incurred in the support of what would be a plain infraction of Treaty right. It is quite conceivable that the Colonial Ministers should dislike to incur any responsibility in support of Treaty rights which they have no interest in upholding, and the cogency of which may be imperfectly understood by the population of Newfoundland. But their refusal to give us their co-operation in the matter does not relieve this country from the obligations which it has incurred. Lord Salisbury considers that Her Majesty's Government must take the shortest and plainest method of ascertaining what out international engagements in this matter are, and of carrying those engagements into effect. It appears to him that no time should now be lost in making proposals to the French Government which may lead to arbitration upon, at all events, the most urgent of the matters which are in contest between them. It is hardly to be hoped that this process can be complete before the ensuing fishing season commences. It may be therefore necessary to conclude some intermediate arrangement, which probably would follow the lines of the arrangement made last year, omitting those portions of it which have become inapplicable through the lapse of time. It will be necessary to apply to Parliament to obtain the powers for giving effect to any such arrangement; as it appears from the course of legal proceedings that there is at least doubt whether our officers, in taking steps for that purpose, would be adequately protected against an action at law. The Statute of the fifth year of George IV.'s Reign, which unfortunately was allowed to lapse, will probably furnish the best model for legislation upon this point, as it only aims at securing the performance of international obligations, and does not interfere with the international affairs of the island."
  My Lords, I have at some length, bat I hope at not too great length considering the importance and gravity of the subject, endeavoured to state the position of Her Majesty's Government, and I trust I have established three points to your satisfaction; the first is, that we have endeavoured in every way to ascertain the views and to meet the wishes of the Newfoundland Government, and to lighten their burdens as far as we could, consistently with the responsibility and obligations which have been imposed upon them and upon us for many years by these Treaties. Their views were fully ascertained; all their proposals were submitted to the French Government; and it was not until after the French Government refused to accept those proposals, and until after the
  1406
  Colonial Government and Legislature had refused to assist us, that we felt that we must take the matter into our own hands. In the second place, I trust I have satisfied your Lordships that it has now become necessary to settle and define the rights of the respective parties by arbitration, with the double advantage—first, that when the rights are clearly and distinctly defined, there is no danger, or very little danger, of collision. It is in the uncertainty of the extent and nature of rights that the danger of collision lies: neither party, when those rights have been defined, will desire to infringe them or refuse to recognise the obligation to perform them. And, secondly, the great advantage will result that when once the rights have been defined, the possibility of arriving at some compromise or settlement is largely increased. The third ground upon which I trust I have satisfied your Lordships is that, as the Newfoundland Government have declined to legislate to secure a modus vivendi for next fishing season, we have no alternative in the interests of peace and order, and in the performance of our obligations, but to revive the powers which were given by the earlier Acts In truth, if we consider the case, we are in a worse position as regards the fishing season of 1891 than we were in with regard to the season of 1890, because, in the first place, those doubts to which I have referred have been raised as to the powers of naval officers; in the second place, the Colonial Government have now absolutely declined to assist us to secure the performance of the modus vivendi; and, finally, the situation has been lamentably aggravated by the inflammatory notice which has been circulated at three or four of the chief fishing places in Newfoundland, and the terms of which will be found in page 92 of C. 6256. I submit with confidence that the Government, therefore, had no option but to introduce this Bill, in which I have pointed out to your Lordships we have as far as possible preserved the independence of the Colonial Legislature by providing that should they now or or after the passing of this Act pass the necessary measures for giving due powers to the naval officers and securing the performance of the modus vivendi, and of our fishery engagements with France,

  1407
  then, the Imperial Act will be suspended. I have to apologise to your Lordships for having occupied so much of your time, but I must again express my hope that, in consideration of the importance and the difficulty of the subject, you will not think that I have unduly trespassed upon your patience.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am sure my noble Friend need have made no apology for the speech he has addressed to the House, both on account of the serious nature of the question, and also because he has very clearly and fully explained the situation to your Lordships. As my noble Friend is well aware, I being one of those who have had the honour of holding the seals of the Colonial Office, have myself not escaped from the necessity which every Colonial Minister has had of confronting the very serious difficulty there has always been in dealing with these rights of the French on the Newfoundland coast, and I need scarcely say that in common, I have no doubt, with my noble Friend and with all your Lordships, I feel great sympathy with the people of Newfoundland in the position in which they find themselves. These Treaties were made at a time when the condition of Newfoundland was wholly different. I will not attempt, especially at this time of the evening, to go into the various points which have been so well explained by my noble Friend, but perhaps the most important question of all, except the immediate difficulty of the lobster fisheries, is the fact that this portion of the coast which contains, as my noble Friend has said, valuable minerals, has been lately settled, and that a state of things has arisen which has really become almost intolerable. I think, speaking from memory, I was the Minister who advised the appointment of Magistrates on that coast, and I remember that that was not agreed to without very considerable difficulty and hesitation. Up to that time there was, in fact, no authority to enforce order or law among the inhabitants on the coast. That jurisdiction has, however, since been exercised and has been a very great benefit. But everybody must see that the state of things existing on that coast, with the growing population, cannot possibly be allowed to continue. On the other hand, to find a solu-
  1408
  tion of the difficulty has puzzled Minister after Minister. As long ago as when I was Under Secretary at the Foreign Office we were engaged in negotiations with the French on this subject, and Commission after Commission has been issued, and inquiry after inquiry has taken place—I myself negotiated personally with a representative sent over with the French Government—but all has been in vain. We have now arrived at a point at which I agree with my noble Friend—unfortunate as it is—some decided action on the part of Her Majesty's Government has become-unavoidable; and I cannot help feeling at the same time, as I am sure he feels, extreme regret that it has become necessary to use the undoubted power of the Imperial Parliament for the purpose of enforcing the law by an Imperial Act in a colony which is possessed of Representative Institutions, and has itself the power of passing the necessary laws for carrying into effect the Treaties which have been entered into by the Crown. There are two remarks which may be made in defence of such a step as regards the colony—lam not speaking now of our relations with France. In the first place these Treaties are all of very old date; they were all in existence at the time when responsible government was given to the colony, and the colony has exercised its rights subject to those Treaties. It cannot, therefore, be said that we are now using the power of the Imperial Parliament to interfere with the rights of the colony, because rights of the colony as against those Treaties never did and never could exist. It is perfectly manifest that as long as the colony forms a part of the Empire, and' as long as the right to conclude Treaties-is vested in the Crown, so long must there rest on the part of the colony the responsibility of passing laws to enforce those Treaties which are as binding upon the colony as upon us at home. But when there is a state of feeling like this existing in the colony, there is no alternative if we are bound by Treaty obligations to a foreign Power but for the Imperial Parliament to take care that as we have entered into those; Treaty obligations they shall be observed. And that, I apprehend, is the defence upon which Her Majesty's Government rest. I need not enter into the par-

  1409
  ticulars of the agreement. I quite think it will be a wise step to decide in the first place the question of the lobster fisheries, and in the next to open a door to the settlement by arbitration of all possible questions which may arise under those Treaties. This I feel bound to say: that my noble Friend has not spoken too strongly of the extraordinary tact and good sense displayed by the naval commanders on both sides for a long series of years in avoiding a collision which might have occurred at any time, and it seems to me almost incredible that there should be no naval officer, either French or English, guilty of any indiscretion by which a collision might have been brought about. That must be said in full recognition of the friendly disposition of the French nation and Government, because without that feeling and, of course, instructions due to it, their officers out in Newfoundland would not have been able to deal as they have with so delicate a situation. It is only just to the French Government to say that in the Papers which have been laid before your Lordships' House it appears plainly that the spirit in which they have met Her Majesty's Government has been of an essentially friendly nature, and that, being the case, there ought, I think, to be no difficulty now in arriving at a friendly solution. I feel confident that the Newfoundlanders, when they look at the circumstances, and reflect upon the whole situation, will see, as everyone in this country must see, that we cannot set aside our plain Treaty obligations with another Power, and they will, I believe, now, at the last moment, recognise that it is their duty calmly to wait until the issue of these negotiations is fully seen. I earnestly trust that will be the case. At present they certainly have given a very strong refusal to the appeal made to them by Her Majesty's Government; but I think they will see that any action on their part which would aggravate the situation, cannot redound to their own interests or to the benefit of the colony. I should be very sorry indeed to appear to utter, even as a private individual, any threat towards the colony, but I do not feel it altogether wrong to point out to them what the position of affairs would have been if we had not the power or disposition to en-
  1410
  force a Treaty between the Imperial Government and a friendly Power. Might not the French Government then have said:—"If the English Government refuse to enforce their obligation, are not we ourselves justified in enforcing the obligations under the Treaty?" And apart from the extremely serious questions which would arise, and which it would be for Her Majesty's Government to deal with, I would ask whether the Newfoundlanders would not be placed in a position which would involve great hardship upon them and injury to the colony. Upon every ground, therefore, I think they ought fairly to await the issue of the negotiations in the full confidence that Her Majesty's Government will, as I am sure they will, do their best to preserve all the rights which the colony can really claim under the Treaty, and afterwards, when those rights are ascertained, to arrive at a friendly compromise with the French Government, which will relieve the colony from the difficulties in which they are placed. I agree with my noble Friend that it is first important to ascertain what those rights are. They have been constantly disputed. The French have held one view, we have held another, and it is impossible to find any solution of the difficulty until they are ascertained. I, therefore, for these reasons, welcome this reference; I welcome it because I think it is a proper and friendly mode of dealing with a question of this kind between two friendly Powers; and I welcome it as a means to a settlement of the meaning of the Treaties. This is not, as I apprehend it, an arbitration for the purpose of taking away from Newfoundland, or for their giving up any rights they may possess. Arbitrations very often take the form of questions what, on one side or other, is to be given up; sometimes each side gives up something if the arbitrator so decides to the other; sometimes the decision is that a portion of the rights belonging to, or claimed by, one party shall be given up to the other party. But this arbitration—and I think the Newfoundlanders ought to weigh that well—is not of that nature; it is for the purpose of ascertaining by an impartial examination what is the true interpretation to be given to the Treaty obligations which we have en-

  1411
  tered into. That having been ascertained there will remain, of course, the further question which may be left to be considered afterwards—what solution can be found for the whole difficulty. As a preliminary step nothing could be better than arbitration to ascertain the meaning of the Treaty. With regard to the modus vivendi, after the explanation which has been given by the noble Lord, it is not necessary at present to say anything further; it is sufficient to say that there must be a modus vivendi, and that there must be power to enforce it during the negotiations. That seems to me to be the justification for this Bill. I should be most ready to find fault with it in the interests of the colony if I thought there was reason for it, but I do not. I have not yet seen the particular stipulations in it, nor do I know what the precise provisions of the Act of George IV. may have been; but, speaking generally, I have no hesitation in saying that deeply as I regret that the necessity should have arisen, I cannot see how it was possible to avoid interference by the Imperial Legislature for this particular and most important purpose.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has, in responding, dealt with this question in so candid and patriotic a spirit that it is quite unnecessary for me to add any words further than to say that I am glad, not only that he generally approves of the policy we have pursued, but that he spoke in the most sympathetic manner of the position of the colonists. I feel that they deserve every sympathy we can give them. They have been the sport of historic errors. It is an illustration of the continuity of the history of this country that we are now embarrassed and are paying the penalty of the deeds of Lord Bolingbroke, whom it did not suit to exact as strong terms as he might have exacted in the Treaty of Utrecht as against the French. The consequence was that these fishery rights were allowed to survive, with all the embarrassments they have brought with them. Once or twice in our subsequent history there was an opportunity when, without difficulty or strain, diplomacy might have removed this embarrassing chapter of our International Law. But it was not done. I believe that somebody appealed to Lord Castlereagh to
  1412
  make more satisfactory arrangements in 1815, but he replied that it would be inconsistent with the position of the French Government. It is impossible not to deeply pity these people, whose daily life and prospects of developing their industry in an inclement climate are subject to such difficult conditions, and who have been the sport of the errors of former statesmen. But of late years, ever since Lord Palmerston began these negotiations in 1834, statesmen of all schools and Parties have given their utmost efforts to bring about a satisfactory solution. Unfortunately, though it is impossible to speak otherwise than in terms of high appreciation of the tone and temper in which the French Government have dealt with the whole of this matter, still there is a strong feeling in France, not unconnected, I suspect, with their recollections of the past history of these countries, which makes it very difficult for any Government to obtain the slightest relaxation even of the more extreme and unreasonable claims which from time to time have been put forward by France. Therefore the negotiations have struggled on, what with the feeling of the colonists on the one hand and the claims of France on the other, under quite insuperable difficulties. In 1878, when the present French Ambassador was the Prime Minister of France, and I was holding the office which I hold at present, we sketched out what we hoped might be a reasonable compromise, selecting particular parts of the colony in which the French might enjoy freer rights, and releasing from those rights with entire freedom to the inhabitants all those parts of the coast in which it was thought that mineral or other sources of improvement might lie. We did not pursue it, we merely sketched out the idea; but it was taken up by our successors. Lord Granville pursued it—I do not know the details of the negotiation—for five years; and in 1885, when I succeeded him again, I found that he had succeeded in effecting a most equitable and satisfactory arrangement. It fell to my lot to give the signature to it, but it was a Treaty negotiated by him. Most unfortunately, I think, the Colonial Government were persuaded in apolitical crisis, under the influence of electors new to political power and scarcely cognisant of the responsibility attached to their

  1413
  action, not to avail themselves of that opportunity, and they rejected that Treaty. It was a golden opportunity lost, and I am afraid for ever. Since that time we have struggled on as best we could, and I think if that unfortunate animal, the lobster, had not interposed its claws between us we might still have got on; but with the lobster industry sprang up a pile of insoluble questions, bringing together sharply opposed interests, exposing us every year and every day of the fishing season to the risk of dangerous collisions. Because, my Lords, though the tact of our naval officers has been very great—they deserve every word that has been said of them—and though we can rely upon them to the utmost, still it was impossible not to feel but that at any time an ugly blow might have been given, or that something might have been done on one side or on the other by which the honour of the flag might have been imperilled. We know how easily the feelings of nations are aroused, and it was difficult to look without grave apprehension at the future such eventualities might involve. I think the colonists have lost sight of some of the most important considerations which should guide them, but it is fair to say that they have been very much pressed by material suffering; their fishing seasons have been unfortunate; their climate has been unusually severe; and they have shared in that depression of trade which has for some years affected the world. Therefore, I think they have judged too hardly and hastily of the existing situation. Judging from some utterances that I have seen of—I am sorry to say—responsible people, they seem to imagine that the embarrassments with which they are struggling are part of the result of their loyalty to the Queen and of their connection with this country. That is a great mistake. I do not for a moment suggest that there is the slightest probability or chance of a realisation of those utterances by which their political position would be modified; but I only say it is a great mistake to imagine that this difficulty with France would be in the slightest degree affected if they were now at liberty to tender their allegiance to any Sovereign or State in the world. The rights of the French would attach to that part of the
  1414
  coast under whatever allegiance they might rest. I think it right to say this, because of the wild language which I have seen has been used by some persons in the colony. I do not, however, believe that from the mass of the colonists any unreasonable conduct is to be apprehended. I think that when they see the question discussed, as it must be in this and the other House of Parliament, and when they see that their rights are subjected to the judgment of an impartial Commission, and that all we desire to do is not to modify or alter their status in any degree but merely to ascertain what that status really is before a tribunal of International Law, I feel certain that they will recognise the sympathy and the sincere desire which animates every school and Party of English politicians, and that they will co-operate with us in solving one of the most difficult international problems that has ever perplexed succeeding Governments, and will aid us in restoring to the utmost extent we can—and we have shown that we are ready to make considerable sacrifices for that purpose—that prosperity and plenty which no one desires more earnestly for them than the statesmen and the Legislature of this country.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: If I may be allowed to speak again I would ask the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies one question—I have no doubt he will answer it in the affirmative—that is, whether the colonists will have full opportunity of representing their views before the Commission? No doubt that is intended, but it would be more satisfactory to hear the statement from his lips.
  *LORD KNUTSFORD: Not only will they have full opportunity of bringing their views before the Arbitrators, but we have telegraphed out to know whether they desire to have as one of the delegates some one who has the confidence of the Colonial Ministry. We have not yet received an answer.
  Bill presented; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 76.)

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 77.)
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed: The Lord Foxford (E. Limerick)—chosen Speaker.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.