Lords Sitting of 4 May 1891

THE VICTORIA EMBANKMENT.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THR EARL OF MEATH: London, my Lords, cannot, I fear, take high rank amongst the beautiful cities of the earth, but she possesses in the Victoria Embankment a boulevard which she owes to the foresight and public spirit of the London Metropolitan Board of Works, and of which any Londoner may be proud. It unites in a remarkable degree the life of the great city and the spirit which is attached to the shipping moving up and down in the river, and that which is attached to ancient buildings and fine palaces—a combination which I think cannot be shown in any other capital of the world. We have there a wide thoroughfare replete with life: we have fine trees, green grass, bright parterres
  2
  of flowers, fountains, monuments to the illustrious dead. We have ancient buildings and we have interest on all sides. Now, unfortunately, some portion of the public gardens which abut upon this thoroughfare are not open to the public. There are about eight or nine or ten houses which possess the right of enjoying some of these gardens. I understand that these gardens to which I allude are in the possession of the Crown. The noble Lord who answers me has better means of obtaining information than I have, and he will correct me if I am wrong; but I understand that these gardens form part of the Crown lands, and are vested in the Commissioners of Woods and Forests under the Thames Embankment Act of 1862. I am told that the gardens have been leased by the Crown to the lessees of the adjoining houses, and that the leases expire as follows: the lease of Montague (otherwise Beaufort) House in 1904, the lease of No. 1 Whitehall Gardens in 1954, those of Nos. 4, 5, and 6 in 1923, and of Nos. 7 and 8 in 1892. Unfortunately Nos. 7

  3
  and 8 abut on the public gardens at present open, and if those are built upon, or if any lease is given to the owners of the houses, Nos. 7 and 8, of those gardens, your Lordships will see it will be impossible later on to continue the public gardens down to what are at present the new Scotland Yard buildings; and the continuity of such gardens would therefore be destroyed. I may as well at once state that I hold no brief for the London County Council in this matter. Indeed, I have been very careful not to consult any of my colleagues upon it, because I do not wish to be bound one way or the other, but simply as a citizen of London I bring this subject to your Lordships' notice in the hope that Her Majesty's Government may do what they can to add to the beauty of this thoroughfare, to make it still more beautiful and more worthy, than it is at present, of the greatest Metropolis in the world. I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government whether the lands at present leased as gardens to private owners, situated between the New Scotland Yard Buildings and the Victoria Embankment Public Gardens, will revert to the Crown in 1892; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will undertake not to renew the leases, sell, relet or otherwise dispose of the land, until the citizens of London, through their representatives on the London County Council, have had an opportunity of declining to purchase or rent these lands for the purpose of enlarging the area of the gardens at present open to the public?
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (Lord WINDSOR): My Lords, I think I may say that Her Majesty's Government will not be likely to minimise the importance of retaining open spaces in London for the public use. There is only a small portion of these gardens at present leased to private owners, situate between the New Scotland Yard Buildings and the Victoria Embankment, which will revert to the Crown in 1892. The noble Earl has correctly stated, I believe, the dates at which the rest of the gardens will revert to the Crown. The gardens which do revert next year, that is in 1892, are those of No. 4, Whitehall Yard, and Nos. 7 and 8, Whitehall Gardens, at present in the occupation of the Board of Trade. A new road is going to be made opposite the Horse
  4
  Guards from Whitehall to the Embankment, and nearly the whole of the gardens of No. 4, Whitehall Yard will be required for this purpose, and for the exchange of land necessary with the London County Council, respectively authorised by the Horse Guards Avenue Act of 1888. I may explain that this exchange affects only two very small pieces of land, and was made for the purpose of making the new road conveniently straight. No determination has yet been arrived at as to the future appropriation of the gardens of Nos. 7 and 8, Whitehall Gardens, but it clearly could not be made an addition to the present existing gardens on the Embankment, because the new road which will be made between the present public gardens and the gardens of Nos. 7 and 8, Whitehall Gardens, would prevent this. Under the circumstances, it is impossible for the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to give any undertaking which will fetter such future appropriation.

POTATO DISEASE IN FRANCE AND BELGIUM.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether inductions can be issued to the Consular Agents in France and Belgium to transmit to the Foreign Office Reports (if any) made to the Governments of those countries, or such other information as may be procurable, respecting experiments recently made with the object of curing the disease in potatoes, said: I understand that Reports have been presented, and I believe that some answer has been given on the subject by the Minister of Agriculture in the House of Commons, which I have not yet seen; but if the noble Marquess will give those instructions, no doubt it would be more satisfactory to have them from official sources in the full Reports which have been presented from the various ports in France and Belgium.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I will see what information is to be procured on the subject, and I shall have great pleasure in giving orders that it shall be procured through Her Majesty's Consuls as the noble Lord desires.

NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]—(No. 76.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I have given notice of a Resolution asking the House not to proceed with this Bill until a reasonable time has been given to the Legislature of the colony to pass the necessary legislation; and, in the first place, I wish entirely to disclaim the slightest desire to embarrass the Government in the conduct of this difficult question. I am quite certain that I speak for those who act with me when I say that we all recognise the absolute necessity of legislation either by the Imperial Parliament or by the Colonial Legislature to enable this country fully to discharge the obligations which it has towards France both in regard to the old Treaties and Obligations, and in regard to the Convention which has recently been concluded for the purpose of determining the lobster question. My reason for moving this Motion is my strong feeling that it is most important that the undoubted power of this country to override the Legislature of a colony, enjoying legislative power as regards its own affairs, should only be exercised in the very last extremity and as a last resort. This question should not be considered simply with reference to the Colony of Newfoundland. The matter is one, in point of fact, of principle. I hold, as I suppose every one of your Lordships does, that no one can call in question the power and the right of the Imperial Parliament to legislate for all our colonies. We have done so on various occasions, and our colonies have always recognised, and will continue, I hope, to do so as long as their connection with this country remains, that that power must rest in the last resort with the Imperial Parliament. But although that power is absolutely necessary for the welfare of the Empire, it still remains that such a power, which overrides the rights which we have conceded to them for the management of their own affairs, is a power which
  6
  should never be exercised, if possible, against the wish of the colony itself, and certainly should never be exercised at all if it be possible to attain the object of any power by other means. In the present instance we have a distinct proposal from the delegates acting on behalf of, and with authority from, the Colony of Newfoundland, in which they have distinctly intimated their willingness to pass, in the first place, a Bill which embraces all the points at issue. I will read the words, because I think it is very important there should be no mistake as to what their proposal was. Their proposal was made in these words—
  "The Newfoundland Legislature to pass immediately an Act, authorising the execution for this year of the modus vivendi, the Award of the Arbitration Commission regarding the lobster question, and the Treaties and Declarations under instructions from Her Majesty in Council."
  Your Lordships will observe that that embraces every one of the points. It states distinctly that the Newfoundland Legislature will pass an Act to authorise for this year the execution of the modus vivendi. It also proposes to pass an Act which will enable the Award to be carried into effect; and, last, which it is very important to remark, that an Act should be passed, good for one year, enabling the Treaties and Obligations—that is to say, the old Treaties, as I understand it, and the Declarations in connection with those Treaties — to be carried into effect by instructions from Her Majesty in Council. Therefore, the delegates have carefully embraced every one of the points which it is necessary to deal with. Then, as regards the future, they propose, too, that there shall be a consideration of what will be the most convenient permanent arrangements, and when those permanent arrangements are settled with Her Majesty's Government, they express their willingness to pass the necessary Act. Now, it seems to me a fairer offer could not be made. It is distinct, unequivocal; it embraces every one of the points at issue; it embraces all necessary present legislation for present purposes, and whatever future legislation is necessary in order to safeguard the execution of the Treaties. This being so—of course I am not cognisant of what may be the precise com-

  7
  munications which Her Majesty's Government may have had since our last discussion of the subject with Newfoundland—I can scarcely conceive that unless the Legislature of Newfoundland is likely—which I am told it is most unlikely to do—to repudiate the action of their delegates, that anything can have occurred, or is likely to occur, which will necessitate so much haste in the matter as that we should necessarily go forward with the Bill before us to-day. And, my Lords, it is quite obvious that the feelings of the Newfoundlanders would be best consulted by our not proceeding to-night in this matter, and, as I said the other night—and I do not want to elaborate all that matter over again—it is really of vital importance that the whole matter should be so conducted as, if possible, to allay irritation in the colony, and to ensure the hearty co-operation of the colonists in future in carrying into effect these very difficult Treaties. Therefore, on that ground alone, from mere considerations of policy, it seems to me, unless there is some paramount reason, some insuperable objection to postponing the further proceeding with this Bill, a very strong case is made out for not going further with it now, and I cannot imagine that there can be any very serious risk run, or any risk run, of any complication arising from a postponement because your Lordships have already read the Bill a second time, and if unfortunately (which I do not anticipate) it should be found that the Newfoundland Legislature is not prepared either to pass the necessary legislation satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government, or to pass it in sufficient time for the fishing season, then the Government will have, it seems to me, ample power and ample opportunity of proceeding with this Bill and carrying it through Parliament; and although it is possible, when it gets to the other House, knowing that they are not very speedy in their proceedings, there may be some delay, yet in the case of this Bill, I cannot conceive there can be any fear that there could be any serious delay there, Her Majesty's Government are able, at all events, to ensure that the legislation which they desire shall be passed rapidly through this House. If the necessary legislation is not passed in sufficient time or in a proper manner
  8
  by the Newfoundland Legislature, then I am quite certain that, independently of the power which Her Majesty's Government possess in this House to pass any Bill, there would be entire concurrence on the part of the House in passing the legislation necessary. The questions which would arise in Committee cannot be serious or long, more especially because an Amendment is already on the Paper proposed by the noble Lord opposite, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, which certainly meets entirely some objections which I expressed to the details of the Bill on the former occasion. Well, my Lords, if there is any haste necessary, who can doubt that the Bill would in a single evening go through Committee, and if necessary pass the Third Reading, so that the risk of any delay is exceedingly small? I do not now propose, after having addressed your Lordships at considerable length the other night, to trouble you with any long observations on the present occasion. The matter lies really in a nutshell. The question is, are we prepared to exercise the power possessed by Parliament, a most seldom exercised power, a power which has scarcely been exercised against a colony since it was last necessary to deal with Canada? Are we prepared to exercise this great and supreme power possessed by Parliament in this instance, when, if I am not entirely wrong, the Bill may be delayed, without any detriment to the matter in hand, that may be done, and there is a fair chance that it will not be necessary eventually to proceed with the Bill at all? Another point which has been alluded to is the effect of this elsewhere. It is possible that the Debates which have taken place in this House will attract considerable attention elsewhere, and I should be extremely sorry if there should be any misunderstanding on the part of the French Government that any action taken by us in this House implies the slightest desire to throw any impediment whatever in the way of duly carrying into effect the Treaty which has been entered into by this country with France. The point is not at all a question between us and France; it is a domestic matter which we have to settle with our colonies, and we on this side, I am certain, admitting in the fullest degree our

  9
  obligations to France, have not the slightest intention of throwing obstacles in the way of this Convention being rigidly and fully carried into effect. My Lords, I have no more to say, but to earnestly ask the House to agree to the Resolution which I have placed on the Paper not to proceed further with the Bill to-night.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out from ("that") to the end of the Motion, and insert the following Resolution, namely, ("in view of the assurance given by the Newfoundland Delegates that provision will be made by immediate legislation in the Colony for the due enforcement of the treaty obligations of this country, and of the modus vivendi agreed upon with the French Government, it is not expedient that this House should go into Committee on the Bill until a reasonable time has been given for such Colonial legislation.")—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): Since this question was put down on the Paper Her Majesty's Government have given it full consideration, but I regret to say that we are not able to accede to the Motion. I agree entirely with much that has been said by the noble Earl as to the desirability, I might almost say necessity, of interfering as rarely as possible with the Legislature of a colony by Imperial legislation; but when he says we are interfering with a Colonial Legislature upon this occasion in the management of their own affairs, I cannot agree with him. As I have said before more than once, this Bill is of an Imperial character. It involves the performance of Treaties, the performance of which is an obligation upon us, along the coast of Newfoundland, and it is therefore not a question purely of local management of local affairs. The noble Earl says it is very desirable not to proceed with this Bill, because if we do we shall increase the feeling of irritation which now exists in the colony. I admit that the introduction of the Bill was distasteful to the colonists, and I know that the Bill was much resented. I do not dispute that, but, at the same time, I must again point out that no one in the colony, who had studied the subject, who was well informed of what had really taken place, and who recognised the obligations of a country to perform the Treaties into which it has entered, could really
  10
  have been surprised, or could have expected any other course to be taken than the one which Her Majesty's Government have felt themselves compelled to take. I cannot help thinking that much of the irritation felt in the colony has proceeded from those who have not been well informed of the position of affairs; and after the full explanation that has been given of the position of Her Majesty's Government at the time this Bill was introduced, we may reasonably expect that that feeling of irritation will be considerably lessened. I would again ask your Lordships to remember the position of affairs when this Bill was introduced. At that time the Colonial Government had expressly refused to legislate for securing the observance of the modus vivendi for 1891, and had expressly declined to be bound by the arbitration to which we had agreed. That refusal was tantamount to a refusal to legislate to secure the execution of the decision of the arbitrators. They were also aware of the doubts which had been raised as regards the powers of naval officers, and that those doubts extended to the power of naval officers to enforce the observance of Treaties, and yet until the delegates arrived in this country there had been no offer made to us of legislation to secure the observance and performance of those Treaties. But, my Lords, if, on the one hand, the feeling of irritation will not be softened by these considerations, I think, on the other hand, there is very little fear of its being increased by our passing this Bill through this House, when it is understood that we have agreed that it shall not have a Second Reading in the House of Commons until after Whitsuntide, and that then, if the Colonial Legislature have performed their duty and have passed an Act satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government, we shall drop this Bill, and proceed with it no further. Now I will, with your Lordships' leave, state the two reasons for the decision at which Her Majesty's Government have arrived. The first is this: We had to ascertain about what time we might expect the fishing season to begin. It varies according to the state of the ice every year; but taking an average of the last few years, and looking to the Naval Reports as well as to the Colonial Official Reports,

  11
  we found that cod-fishing might be expected to begin about the middle of May, and that the lobster factories might be expected to get to work about the end of May or early in June. That calculation, based upon an average of years, will show, I think, that we were justified in stating that the fishing season was close upon us; but since that time we have received a telegram from the Governor, dated the 1st of May, stating that he had just heard that, owing to the absence of ice, lobster-catching and cod-fishing had been already commenced in St. George's Bay. Now, my Lords, what is the position of affairs? The necessity has arisen, as the fishing season has begun, for us to see, on the one hand, that the French do not go beyond the rights given them by Treaty, and, on the other hand, to secure that they shall have the full enjoyment of the rights secured to them by Treaty. Questions of difficulty will arise, as they have arisen in the last few years, between the two countries as to the construction of the Treaties. Those questions have hitherto been settled by the tact, judgment, and friendly action of both French and British naval officers; but can we expect that these difficult questions will be settled in an amicable spirit when our naval officers have no power to act? And that is their position at present. It will in these circumstances be admitted that Her Majesty's Government must be placed in a position to pass this Bill rapidly through all the stages should any unfortunate hitch in the Colonial Legislature take place. The second reason for adhering to the proposals we made on the Second Reading is this. I will remind your Lordships that with the desire of meeting the Colonial Government half-way, we had practically and substantially agreed to the first proposal brought to your Lordships' notice by Sir W. Whiteway at the Bar of this House. We agreed to postpone the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons until after Whitsuntide, and then to drop it if the Colonial Legislature had in the meantime passed a proper measure. We had also agreed that we would at once consider how far the initiative as to proceedings on land, and how far the adjudication of claims, should be secured
  12
  to the Colonial Courts; but while we expressed our readiness to consider these questions, we distinctly stated that it would be impossible that the first Bill, the Bill mentioned in the first proposal of the colonial delegates should be postponed until the terms of the second Bill had been settled. We expected after what passed on the Second Reading, and I think we had a right to expect, that the draft of a Bill which would be very simple in its terms would be at once prepared and submitted to us for approval, and passed by the legislature of Newfoundland. But my Lords, I will ask you to consider how we have been met. Instead of a Bill being presented to us for our approval and consideration, we received a letter from the delegates, dated May 1, the substance of which I think it is only fair to the delegates that I should read. It is of a very important character inasmuch as it modifies the proposals which were made, and presents conditions to us in a new form. The letter from the Newfoundland delegates says—
  "My Lord, in acknowledging the receipt of your communication of the 29th inst—"
  that communication, I may observe, was one in which I asked them what steps, if any, they had taken towards preparing the Bill, and when I might expect it—
  "We beg to say that, having very carefully considered the speeches made in the House of Lords on Monday, the 27th inst., we desire to lay before Her Majesty's Government the following propositions:—
  'If the Sill now before the Lords be not further proceeded with, and if Her Majesty's Government admit the principle of a measure for the creation of Courts to adjudicate upon complaints arising in the course of the enforcement of the Treaties and declarations relative to French Treaty rights, and engage to discuss and arrange with us as rapidly as possible the terms of a Bill embodying that principle, we will, with all possible speed, procure the enactment by the Colonial Legislature of a measure giving power to Her Majesty in Council during the current year to enforce in the same manner as heretofore Her Rules and Regulations for the observance of the modus vivendi, the award of the arbitration, and the Treaties and declarations with France, which temporary Act the Colonial Legislature will replace by a permanent measure for securing the enforcement of the Treaties under the Orders of the special Courts referred to above, provided that if, as the result of the enforcement of the award of the arbitration, the property of Her Majesty's subjects is disturbed they shall be entitled to compensation.
  'If a temporary Act by the Colonial Legislature is to supersede the Bill now before Par-

  13
  liament Her Majesty's Government will perceive how wise it will be to prevent greater irritation in the colony by refraining from proceeding further with the Bill now before the House of Lords, and will not hesitate, we hope, to accede to our requests in this respect. The burdens under which the colonists suffer are great, the causes of irritation many, and they feel that, as the claims of the French are being unduly pressed for the purpose, apparently, of affecting the policy of Great Britain in other parts of the world, they may be said to be suffering for the benefit of the Empire at large. A proper recognition of their unfortunate position would induce Her Majesty's Government, we think, to be extremely considerate, and not to press forward the pending Bill in a manner which may be regarded by our fellow-colonists as indicating a want of confidence in us and them.
  'The temporary Act suggested should be extremely simple in its provisions, and delay in framing it would neither be desirable nor necessary. If our propositions can be accepted the terms of such an Act may be telegraphed to the Legislature and enacted in a few days, thus relieving Her Majesty's Government of all anxiety as to the enforcement of the Treaties and engagements during the present year?'"
  They then proceed to state their views in favour of the jurisdiction of the Colonial Courts in cases of complaint; but it is not necessary to read that argument now. That is a question which will have to be considered, and Her Majesty's Government have agreed to consider it. Then the letter goes on—
  "In reference to the present Arbitration Commission, we have to make the following proposal:—
  'If it be possible to abandon arbitration upon the lobster question, we strongly urge that it be done, for we fear grave complications as its result. But if it be not possible now to withhold that question, we ask an assurance—

  '(1) That no further questions shall be submitted to the Arbitration Commission without prior consultation with the Government of the colony,

  '(2) That the opinion of the Colonial Government will not be disregarded in the absence of some paramount consideration involving the welfare of the Empire; and

  '(3) That compensation will be given to those persons, if any, whose property may be disturbed by the award of the arbitration.'"

  And they then proceed to state the grounds for supporting those proposals. My Lords, I think that the reading of that letter shows you that there is a very considerable difference between the present proposals and conditions of the delegates and the first proposals which the made, and which we accepted, at
  14
  the Bar of the House. This letter has been carefully considered, and I think your Lordships will now allow me to read certain portions of the reply which has been sent to that letter, and which was delivered this morning to the delegates. After acknowledging the receipt of that letter, the reply goes on—
  "Her Majesty's Government regret to observe that the proposals now presented differ in form from those made on your behalf at the Bar of the House of Lords.
  "You are aware from the statement made by Lord Knutsford in moving the Second Reading of the Imperial Bill on the 27th ult. that Her Majesty's Government agreed not to move the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons until after Whitsuntide, and then not to proceed with it any further if in the meantime an Act had been passed by the Colonial Legislature authorising the execution of the modus vivendi, the award of the Arbitration Commission regarding the lobster question, and the Treaties and Declarations under instructions from Her Majesty in Council.
  "Her Majesty's Government were under the impression that you clearly understood that the Colonial Act, while providing for the execution of the modus vivendi for 1891, was also to secure permanently both the execution of the award of the Arbitration Commission on the lobster question and the fulfilment of the Treaties and Declarations. Her Majesty's Government at the same time recognised the objections raised by you against continuing powers to the naval officers to act on land, and expressed their readiness to consider at once, but as a separate matter, 'the terms of an Act to empower Courts and provide for regulations to enforce the Treaties and Declarations,' upon the understanding that the passing of the Colonial Act referred to in the first part of the proposal would not be delayed, but that if, as they anticipated, the terms of such a measure could be agreed upon, another Colonial Act would be brought in to amend the former Act.
  "It appears, however, from your letter under reply that it is now made a condition precedent to Colonial Legislation that the Imperial Bill should not be further proceeded with; and it is also stated that the Colonial Act is to be altogether temporary.
  "Her Majesty's Government regret that they cannot assent to this altered proposal."
  The reply then states the substance of the Governor's telegram, which I have read to the House, showing that the fishing season has already begun, and then proceeds—
  "In these circumstances, and bearing in mind their obligations to the French Government and the decision of the Supreme Court of the colony against the powers of the naval officers to secure observance of the Treaties or of the modus vivendi for 1891, Her Majesty's Government are confirmed by your present letter in the opinion that the Imperial Bill must be so far advanced that in case of any unfortunate failure on the part of the Colonial

  15
  Legislature to pass the necessary legislation, it may be rapidly proceeded with through the remaining stages and become law.
  "As regards the further proposals made in your letter, Her Majesty's Government desire me to state that the arbitration upon the sole question now to be submitted to the Commission cannot be abandoned, but they are willing to give an assurance that no further questions shall be submitted to the arbitrators without full consultation with the Colonial Government, and that the opinion of the Colonial Government will not be disregarded in the absence of pressing considerations affecting the interests of the Empire.
  "They will also carefully consider the question whether compensation should properly be given to those persons whose property may be disturbed by the award of the arbitrators, although they see no ground for admitting any liability on the part of the Imperial Government to pay such compensation.
  "Her Majesty's Government still entertain a hope that the Colonial Government will assent to the proposal that the colony should be represented by a delegate at the approaching arbitration, and they heartily join in the hope expressed by you that the relations between France and Newfoundland may speedily be placed upon a more satisfactory basis. They cannot, however, pass without notice the sentence in which it is said that 'the claims of the French are being unduly pressed for the purpose, apparently, of affecting the policy of Great Britain in other parts of the world.' There is no foundation whatever for the suggestions contained in these words."
  My Lords, I think that the portions of the letter I have read from the Newfoundland delegates show a very considerable difference between their present position and the propositions which were made previously, and which we accepted on the part of the House. I cannot but consider that this step taken by the delegates is an unfortunate one, and one which may tend materially to delay the colonial legislation, and thus to defeat the object which we all have at heart, that is that the colonists should take the matter into their own hands, and that Her Majesty's Government should be enabled to withdraw the Bill now before the House. Our two reasons, then, and I trust sufficient reasons, for proceeding with the Bill are (1) that the fishing season has begun at St. George's Bay, and will soon begin at other places along the coast; and (2) that we cannot but fear that delay may take place in legislating in the colony. The noble Earl, when urging the importance of postponing the further proceeding with this Bill, has referred to the Amendments which I have put down on
  16
  the Paper; with a view of meeting objections raised to the form and scope of the Bill. The main objection to the Bill as it was originally framed, was that it included within its scope "permanent arrangements," and the power to enforce them. It was argued as a principal objection to our taking powers to enforce permanent arrangements that they might involve perhaps a cession of rights, and thus be contrary to Mr. Labouchere's assurances given in 1857. I have already pointed out that no additional powers beyond those now possessed are given by the Bill to the Imperial Government; that any Government, if it thought right to do so, if it thought it was required by Imperial necessities to do so, might enter into a permanent arrangement which would be binding on the colony, and even without their consent; though I added, and still am of opinion, that that course is not likely to be taken except under pressure of grave and weighty reasons of Imperial necessity. It was further argued that the Bill as it stood provided for such permanent arrangements being made and carried into force without giving an opportunity to Parliament of expressing their opinion upon them, and that if powers are given to enforce such an arrangement the Government of the day would be in a position to act without the submission of the arrangement to the Imperial Parliament. This objection might have been met by an Amendment, but after full consideration Her Majesty's Government have decided to omit all reference to "permanent arrangements," and to limit the Bill to "temporary arrangements," pending negotiations. The Bill as it stands provides for the carrying out of the modus vivendi; the decision of the arbitrators on the question now submitted to them; and the obligations we are under to France. I believe that these concessions, which were frankly offered by Her Majesty's Government, will commend themselves to this House, to Parliament, and to the country. I feel sure that they will show that Her Majesty's Government have approached this question, and have desired to act, in a friendly and sympathetic spirit, and that they have made every endeavour to secure, if

  17
  possible, the loyal co-operation of the colony.
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I do not suppose your Lordships will care to have a prolonged Debate upon this occasion, and I only wish to call your attention to the very small magnitude of the point which is before us. We are all agreed that legislation is necessary and is urgent, and from what we have heard to-night I think we must agree it is a great deal more urgent than we thought it was when we discussed the subject last. We are all agreed that there should be some provisional legislation on the part of the Imperial Legislature to be ready in case the Colonial Legislature fails from any accident; and the only question before us raised by the noble Earl opposite at this moment is whether this provisional legislation which has been begun in this House should be suspended at the present moment or at a later time before it goes to the other House. We have at this moment simply to choose the point of suspension of the Imperial provisional legislation. It is asked whether the Imperial Parliament should pass an Act which the Colonial Parliament, being the party primarily concerned, is able and willing to pass; but that is not the question. We do not in any way propose to supersede the colonial action. All that we have in hand is provisional legislation which will be absolutely necessary within a few weeks from this time, in case the colonial legislation, either from any accident or from any obstruction, has failed to legislate. It is impossible to say that that may not be the case, but if colonial legislation, by any accident, be not passed, and the Imperial legislation were not ready, bloodshed and colonial disruption must necessarily issue. It is, therefore, a trifling matter that we are discussing, the simple question being the point at which the Imperial legislation should be suspended, merely to gratify colonial susceptibilities. But it would be no trifling matter if we should run the risk in a few weeks time, of calamitous conflict and colonial disruption. It is proposed, in postponing this Bill, that we should consider colonial susceptibilities at the expense of vital colonial interests which are acknowledged on all sides. But the noble Earl who has
  18
  moved this Amendment gives as his reason for proposing this little postponement of the Imperial Act, that Imperial Acts should not override a self-governing colony. There is nobody who takes that principle more to heart than I do, for I may say that I spent the first years of my life in Parliament in maintaining that the self-government of colonies was the wisest principle to adopt both in the interests of the colonies themselves and of the Empire. But what is this over-riding by the Imperial Parliament of colonial legislation. The Treaty power is in the Crown, only supported by Parliament, either the Local or Central Legislature, as the case may require. If we were quite sure of the Colonial Legislature doing what it has been urged to do, to support the Crown in dealing with this Treaty, so far from wishing to override them, we are simply asking them so to act, and all we are doing is to take care, in case anything should prevent their so acting, that there shall be power to carry out the objects they have in view. The Colony of Newfoundland has pleaded a simple fallacy in their case for their opposition to the progress of the Bill. It is said that the Imperial action has interfered with their self-governing colonial rights. They entirely mistake what their rights have ever been. It is only about 30 years since that Newfoundland became a colony instead of simply a fishing station, and Newfoundlanders were given self-government. But they were given that self-government distinctly subject to our obligations by Treaty towards a foreign Power. And now that we all agree that those obligations are obnoxious and ought to be removed in the interests of the colony, we are ready to do it, we are eager to do it, and we have called upon them to take their part in supporting the Crown by local legislation. It is only upon their having refused to take their part that this Bill was introduced. I can hardly conceive anything more entirely contrary to the allegation made the other day that we were retracting what was called Mr. Labouchere's engagement, that the rights of the colony should not be diminished without their consent. We have tried in every possible way to get them to do it, and it is

  19
  only at the last moment, when the danger is extreme and urgent, that we have interfered to assist them in carrying out their object in the way we now propose. The delegates propose to pass a Bill by which that shall be done, and that this Bill shall be withdrawn; the noble Earl proposes that this Bill shall be suspended at the present point; while the Government propose that it shall be suspended at a somewhat later period. Those are the three propositions. As to the colonial proposition, which is supported by the noble Lord behind me (the Earl of Dunraven), I can hardly conceive for what object the Bill should be withdrawn, and not brought to a Second Reading here, ready for use if wanted. Surely if the object was to be ready in case of the colonial legislation failing, there not being a moment to lose, it would be an advantage to have this Bill advanced as forward as might be required. If it is not advanced, the matter being one of emergency, what could be done? I think the noble Lord (the Earl of Dunraven) actually suggested that if it was run to the last moment the Bill could be passed through both Houses of Parliament in 24 hours by suspending the Orders. That is certainly a somewhat wild proposal, and I can scarcely conceive it in the interest of anybody. In the interest of whom can it be?—of the colony, or of England, or of both? The best thing to do is to get this Provisional Bill placed in a position to be brought into action, if ever necessary, at the critical moment. I maintain, under these circumstances, there really has been no reason whatever adduced for the proposal to withdraw this Bill, and I merely rose to ask your Lordships to consider how very small is the magnitude of the point with which we are now dealing, it being simply whether to suspend the Bill at this point or a little later.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I was perfectly horrified at hearing the noble Lord (Lord Norton) get up in your Lordships' House and say that the feelings of the colonists were not to be considered in this matter—
  LORD NORTON: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I did not say that.
  LORD CARRINGTON: I so understood the noble Lord.
  LORD NORTON: I beg leave to state that I said the point of suspension of the Bill was only a matter of susceptibility.
  LORD CARRINGTON: Then would the noble Lord repeat what he did say? I certainly understood the noble Lord, with great respect, to say that the susceptibilities of the colonists were not to be considered.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That they were to be considered as of less importance than their interests.
  LORD CARRINGTON: On the contrary, my Lords, I consider that it is only by consulting the susceptibilities of our colonies that this great Empire of ours can be held together. I do not presume to detain your Lordships for many moments; but I should like to call attention to one great danger, which it seems to me is contained in this Bill; that is, the power which is given to the naval officers in what I may call the naval officers' clause. The popularity of the Royal Navy all over the colonies is worth going out there to see. In Australia the officers are treated as if they were Princes. They are given free passes all over the colonies, and everything possible is done for them. For the men the same thing is done. A large sum of money was subscribed by the New South Wales Government for the Naval Home. Then £5,000 was put down in the Estimates, and a plot of land worth £10,000 was given by the Government, and £13,000 was subscribed by the inhabitants of the City of Sydney to establish a Naval Home for the sailors. Now, the Royal Navy is the representative of the fighting power and strength of England; arid if you give the power to naval officers to coerce British subjects, the popularity of the Royal Navy will be shaken to its foundation. The feelings of the Newfoundlanders as regards the Royal Navy are very well shown by the fact that the Newfoundland Chamber of Commerce—and I should think it is the first time such a thing has occurred in British history—refused to give an address of welcome to the British Admiral at St. John's last year; and at a ball given on the naval station a great many of the Newfoundland ladies and gentlemen abstained from being present. Now, if this power is given to the Royal Navy, as I

  21
  said before, the popularity of the Naval Service will be shaken to the foundation, and it will go like wildfire all over the British dominions. Therefore, with great respect, I feel bound to get up in my place in the House of Lords and express my regret that Her Majesty's Government feel themselves unable to shelve, if not altogether to knock on the head, this most hateful Bill.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I merely rise to say that I have heard with very great regret that Her Majesty's Government are unable to agree to the Resolution of the noble Earl opposite, because I fail to understand what real practical objection there can be to the slight delay that might possibly be caused by not proceeding further with this Bill in your Lordships' House at present. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies has told us that the fishing season has already commenced, and he is also of opinion it seems that it is, at any rate, doubtful whether the Newfoundland Legislature will carry out the proposals that were made by the delegates at the Bar of your Lordships' House the other day.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I beg leave to say that I did not express any doubt upon that point. I only said I thought the proceedings now taken might tend to delay.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I understood the noble Lord to say there was some difference between the proposals now formulated by the Newfoundland delegates and those formulated the other day.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: Certainly.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: Then if, on account of the approach of the fishing season and because there was some difference between the present and the previous proposals, if for those two reasons Her Majesty's Government thought it necessary to press this Bill through all its stages in this House and through all its stages in the other House as quickly as possible in order that it might prevent collision and danger—
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I am really very sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but I did not say it would be necessary to pass this Bill in this House and in the House of Commons through all its stages as quickly as possible.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I think the noble Lord has misunderstood me. What I said was that if the noble Lord states that, for those two reasons, because of the approach of the fishing season and because the proposition of the Newfoundland delegates has been altered, therefore Her Majesty's Government consider it necessary to pass the Bill into law as speedily as possible, I should not have a single word to say. My position is this: I cannot see that by not pressing the Bill any further at present in this House any practical inconvenience can possibly arise. The Second Reading of the Bill is not to be taken in the other House of Parliament until after Whitsuntide. If the Committee stage of the Bill was postponed in your Lordships' House until after Whitsuntide that would delay the Second Reading in the House of Commons at the utmost only two days. If the Committee stage was left over until just before your Lordships rise for Whitsuntide, it could not make a delay of one single moment in taking the Second Reading in the House of Commons. It is impossible to deny that the passing of this Bill through your Lordships' House will—whether rightly or wrongly I will not discuss—have an irritating effect upon the feelings of the people in Newfoundland. I do not think it is possible to over-estimate the importance of as far as possible consulting the feelings of the colonists in the matter. I am not going to repeat again anything that was said on the Second Reading as to the very peculiar nature of the circumstances in this case. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is advisable to consult the feelings of the people in the colony as far as possible. If I could understand that by postponing the Committee stage of this Bill in your Lordships' House until, at any rate, just before your Lordships rise for Whitsuntide that would delay the matter, and that very possibly danger would arise in the event of the Newfoundlanders not legislating, I should have nothing to say about it; but as I cannot understand that, and I venture to think it has not been pointed out, I shall, if the noble Earl opposite goes to a Division, certainly vote with him.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I think your Lordships will generally, whatever view you may take of this

  23
  matter, differ entirely from the view expressed by the noble Lord opposite, who, whatever may have been the exact terms he used, obviously intended to convey the idea, and did convey to me the idea, that it is a matter of minor importance that the susceptibilities of the colonists should be considered. Now, that seems to me to be a matter of primary importance. We never have contended that under all circumstances you must yield to considerations founded on the susceptibilities of the colonists. But that you should, founded upon the views which they take, endeavour as far as you possibly can to show them consideration, appears to me to be a course prescribed by the most elementary dictates of common sense and prudence if you wish to maintain and preserve your Colonial Empire and to avoid difficulties with your colonies. This is not a question which can be regarded as only affecting this country and Newfoundland, for we may be perfectly sure of this, that the other colonies which belong to and form part of this great Empire will watch with anxious eye, and keenly scan the observations made in your Lordships' House, and the action taken by this House; and the action taken with regard to this measure may have an influence, far-reaching and extending widely beyond the limits of Newfoundland. Now, I would call to your Lordships' attention what the proposal of my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) is, and the objections which have been made to it by the Government; and I would implore them even yet to re-consider their determination, because it does not appear to me that the reasons they have put before your Lordships are conclusive even from their own point of view. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies put forward two reasons; the one that the fishing season was beginning earlier that he had anticipated; the other arising out of the proposals of the delegates. Those are matters which are quite distinct, and I therefore propose to deal with them separately. As the noble Lord opposite has pointed out, if the first reason comes to anything, if it be in any sense valid it should, of course, be a reason for at once proceeding with this Bill here and in the other House. If delay is a matter which will cause such paramount mischief, why
  24
  wait until after Whitsuntide, as I understand the Government still propose to do, before proceeding with this matter in the other House? But if they can afford to wait until after Whitsuntide, and that they tell your Lordships' House they are able to do, the question you have to consider is whether there would be substantially any greater delay if the proposal of the noble Lord behind me were carried into effect. Now, just consider for a moment how the matter stands. The Bill is not to be proceeded with in the House of Commons until after Whitsuntide. It has been read a second time here. Two days here will at any time suffice to send this Bill to the other House, and under those circumstances how is it possible to contend that postponing those two days until some later date than the present, would really have any substantial effect upon the date at which the measure will pass through the House of Commons, and so become in a position to be passed into law? While upon that point allow me to urge also that if whilst proceeding upon this measure here you increase, as I fear you will, the feeling of irritation in Newfoundland; if by proceeding now with this measure you render it more difficult to be passed through the Newfoundland Legislature, if a position be taken up hero which many think to be an unwise and injudicious and mischievous one, do your Lordships think that will be likely to accelerate the passing of a measure when it goes down to the other House? It has to be considered there, and has to pass through all its other stages there, and if it came before them when they had been satisfied that full opportunity. had been given to Newfoundland to legislate, and the colony has declined to legislate when everybody admits that legislation is necessary, it would pass readily enough in the other House; but if when it goes down to the other House it can be shown that the position of the Newfoundland Legislature has been altered owing to the course taken by Her Majesty's Government, do your Lordships suppose that would not be made the subject of comment and vigorous attack upon the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to this Bill, all of which would be open upon the various stages of the Bill in the other House. It seems to me, if the

  25
  object be to pass this Bill into law after Whitsuntide, the chances of passing it rapidly into law will be infinitely more increased by meeting the susceptibilities of the colony than by forcing the measure through, now, in order to save just a couple of days, for that is all it means. So much with regard to that point. But the noble Lord had another point, which was that the colonists had withdrawn from the position which they at first took up, and from the offer which they made at your Lordships' Bar. I confess I heard that passage read in the noble Lord's answer to the delegates with absolute astonishment. It is not the Newfoundland delegates who have departed from the position, but Her Majesty's Government who have departed, and are distinctly departing, from the position taken up in the Debate on the Second Reading. In the Debate on the Second Reading no suggestion was made by the Government that any permanent measure was to be passed at once in Newfoundland. Let me call your Lordships' attention to what the proposal of the delegates at the Bar was, which, standing by itself, Her Majesty's Government said they were prepared to agree to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We never said anything of the kind.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I certainly am distinctly under the impression that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies said he did not know whether all those conditions were to be read together, but that the first proposal taken by itself was that to which Her Majesty's Government was to be taken as being willing to assent. I will venture to say no such distinction was ever drawn by the noble Marquess or by the noble Lord as that in the noble Lord's letter. Now what was that proposal? The letter states—
  "That Her Majesty's Government agreed not to move the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons until after Whitsuntide, and then not to proceed with it any further if in the meantime an Act had been passed by the Colonial Legislature authorising the execution of the modus vivendi, the award of the Arbitration Commission regarding the lobster question, and the Treaties and Declarations under instructions from Her Majesty in Council."
  Now, nothing can be more clear, or distinct, or unequivocal, than that. There
  26
  was no suggestion by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or by the noble Marquess, that any permanent measure was to be passed. It was on the contrary admitted that the character of any permanent measure must be a matter for negociation. Now what was the language of the Secretary of State for the Colonies? In this letter he says—
  "Her Majesty's Government were under the impression that you clearly understood that the Colonial Act, while providing for the execution of the modus vivendi for 1891, was also to secure permanently both the execution of the award of the Arbitration Commission on, the lobster question and the fulfilment of the Treaties and Declarations."
  Now, all I can say is if that was the impression of the noble Lord it was the impression of no other Peer in this House who had attended to the discussion, or listened to what had passed. I listened to every word that was said by the noble Lord and by the noble Marquess, and I understood throughout that the proposal as to this matter of legislation had reference only to a temporary measure.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the noble Lord, instead of citing from vague recollections, cite from Hansard what we did say?
  LORD HERSCHELL: It is not easy to cite from Hansard at once, and I doubt even whether the number containing the Debate has yet come out. I did not know of this Despatch stating the new position taken up by the Secretary of State for the Colonies until a quarter of an hour ago, so that it has been quite impossible for me to study the pages of Hansard within that time; but certainly all the observations made by myself, and by my noble Friend behind me, were made under the impression that what Her Majesty's Government were disposed to assent to were temporary arrangements, temporary legislation for one year. If that was not the case it appears to me that the attitude taken by Her Majesty's Government is utterly unreasonable and would justify the rejection of this Bill, because it appears to me if the colonies are willing to legislate in such a way as to tide over the difficulty, which is all that is necessary, for a year, once they undertake to discuss the terms of a permanent measure and to place that permanent measure on the Statute Book, what is the use of asking them to pass permanent legisla-

  27
  tion hurriedly? And, my Lords, I will tell you why I am astonished that this permanent legislation is suggested. I am astonished at it for this reason, and the noble Marquess will not question this: We were disposed to accede to the arguments urged with reference to the desirability of not enforcing the Treaties in the present fashion; and he said that the necessity of enforcing them by Acts would be considered at another time.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said it would be in another Bill.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Quite so; but that is a reason, I say, for dealing with it in another Bill, and for making this a merely temporary measure. At all events is not that the view which Her Majesty's Government ought to be willing to accede to? If they get a temporary measure passed covering a sufficient time, say one year after this Session of Parliament, that will afford ample time for the framing of a permanent measure in which this question will be satisfactorily dealt with. There will be no difficulty within that time in framing a measure and passing it into law; and if the Newfoundland Government have not within that time passed that measure into law, then Her Majesty's Government will be perfectly within their rights in introducing here in the Imperial Parliament such permanent measure as will be rendered necessary by the approximate expiry of the temporary Bill. Surely it is not expedient to enter into a controversy with the colony upon such a question as that. Do let us consider, in view of that peaceful settlement, what the divergence is. They have admittedly—because the noble Marquess admitted it—an objection to legislation which would merely enforce in the old fashion the Treaty rights. You cannot expect the Newfoundland Legislature to enact a new system within a few days. That is obviously impossible; the new system would have to be elaborated in a permanent measure. Then why should not you be content with a temporary measure which would cover a year's time, giving ample opportunity in the meantime for the passing of a suitable permanent measure? Is it really wise to enter into a controversy with the Government or people of Newfoundland with regard to such a question as that? What difference does it make? Looking
  28
  at the matter practically, I am sure your Lordships will find there will be serious objections on the part of many to dealing with the matter in this way. I have myself put down notice of Amendments on this matter guided by the consideration that if this measure be passed it should be temporary only; because it appears to me the method adopted is an utterly wrong one for a permanent measure, although it may be suitable for a merely temporary one. Now, if Her Majesty's Government understand this, and it is put in unequivocal terms, I do not see what objection there can be. As quotations from Hansard are appealed to, we shall probably be able to refer to them before the Debate closes, and I should like the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies to find the passage in which he called attention to the fact that he had no objection to the delegates' proposal of legislation for a year.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: My answer to that is, that, as I understood it, the words "for the year" covered the modus vivendi which is for the year, and is, therefore, temporary in character, but that the rest of the legislation was to be permanent.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not doubt for a moment that the noble Lord thought so at the time.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I think so now.
  LORD HERSCHELL: The noble Lord states that was his understanding of it, although I should have doubted, with the great respect which I have for his legal acumen, that he could have thought so; but, of course, the fact that he has stated he did so understand it is sufficient. However, as I read the words, I cannot understand in the least how that construction was ever put upon them. It certainly never occurred to me until I heard the words read just now that there could be any doubt that the Newfoundland Legislature was to pass immediately an Act authorising the execution for this year of the modus vivendi, the award of the Arbitration Commission and of the Treaties.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: Not of the award—the execution of the modus vivendi.
  LORD HERSCHELL: It is not "authorising the award;" the words "the execution of" must govern the

  29
  word "award." Everybody will admit that, or else it is nonsense—it is not grammar. Then if the words "the execution of" govern the word "award," the words "the execution for this year" must equally govern it. That is how I understand it, and I am not surprised to find that the delegates also understood it in the same way. I take no objection at the moment to the expression that Her Majesty's Government "were willing to assent." Now, I want to get away from the past and come to the present condition of things, as to its not being a departure from what was intended. I think, considering the interpretation which many of us put upon it, it cannot be suggested that the delegates are unreasonably departing from what they said. Is it worth while contending with them upon these proposals according to the modification of the noble Lord? If, as I say, a temporary measure is passed for a sufficient length of time—which a year would be—until the end of the then Session of Parliament, is not that enough for the present purpose, especially when we have an undertaking that they will confer as to the permanent measure, and a better method of carrying this out for the future. I would earnestly implore Her Majesty's Government not to enter into a controversy of that description, which I cannot but feel will not aid the ultimate passing of such a measure if it should become necessary, and which is not likely to render it more certain or more probable that the Bill will not have to be proceeded with in the other House. If that is the only point, cannot Her Majesty's Government make this concession to the Newfoundland Legislature and colony—that when they are asked not to pass the measure in so great a hurry, and if it is to pass, that it should only be a temporary measure, that sufficient time should be given for the elaboration of a more satisfactory measure? Whatever may have been the interpretation of Her Majesty's Government previously, now that they see what was the view and the proposal of the delegates, may I ask them to re-consider the determination which they have expressed not to agree to this, because it would be departing from the proposal of the delegates? Is it not a matter which Her Majesty's
  30
  Government may reasonably accede to, even if the proposal be made for the first time? If not, will not the situation be made more difficult? There is no desire which I have greater than this: that we may have a settlement of these questions which may leave as little bitter feeling as possible, and as little as possible make necessary the interference of Parliament with these matters affecting Newfoundland and affecting the people of Newfoundland. If we can secure legislation by that means, even if it be not all that Her Majesty's Government might desire, if it be effectual for the purpose and will cover a time of difficulty, may we not appeal to the Government in that respect to make a concession which I am quite sure in the end will not put any real impediment in the way of the enforcement of these Treaties? It is likely to put a weapon in the hands of the Government, which sooner or later may be required by the necessities of the case, and the withdrawal of which power is likely, as far as one can see, to create considerable difficulty. The only other reason, as far as one can see, which is now put forward, is that the delegates have made a condition that the Bill be not proceeded with, but be delayed, at any rate, till after Whitsuntide. The noble Lord is not quite accurate with regard to that. The original proposal of the delegates was that the Bill should be withdrawn. That they do not press now; they only urge that it should not be proceeded with further, and the difference between that and the proposal of Her Majesty's Government is the very small delay involved. As the total delay can be for two days only, is it wise for the sake of that to depart from the tone of conciliation and to cease our endeavours to bring to a peaceable settlement this troublesome matter which is the subject of controversy? I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will not be disposed to allow any false pride to stand in the way of making the concession that is asked for, and I would earnestly beg them to re-consider the conclusion at which they have arrived.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The proposal of Her Majesty's Government is that the Bill should pass in the ordinary way through this House, and that it should not stand for Second Read-

  31
  ing in the House of Commons—as indeed it could not well—until the meeting of that House after Whitsuntide, and that then it should not be proceeded with if the Newfoundland Legislature has by that time passed a measure to make its adoption unnecessary. I say, my Lords, it could not in any case be taken much earlier than the time when the House of Commons comes back after Whitsuntide, because after to-day we have only four more days for sitting; there will be the Committee to-day, the Standing Committee on another day, the Report on another day, and the Third Reading on a fourth day. Thursday is a dies non. Therefore, we are only following the ordinary course in sending the Bill forward to the House of Commons. The noble Lords opposite have seemed to put themselves forward as the representatives of the colony in asking for a delay which they say would amount to merely four days in order to soothe the susceptibilities of the colonists. Susceptibilities have played a great part in this Debate. The noble Lord who has recently returned home, after a distinguished career in Australia, has drawn for us a touching picture of the terrible position of British officers if they are not invited to colonial balls in the future. I hope our legislation will be such that their invitations to balls shall go on unchecked; but we have business to do, and must deal with it on business principles. We have very serious interests in charge—we have great international obligations to fulfil — international obligations contracted with a Power which has also its own susceptibilities—obligations which we are bound in honour to perform in a scrupulous spirit and with consideration for the peace and harmony of the world. As matters stand now, since the decisions of the Courts of Newfoundland, the hands of our naval officers are paralysed, and they cannot exercise that jurisdiction which appears to have been irregular, but which they have exercised up to this time. They cannot deal with any infraction of the Treaties that may be committed on the shores of Newfoundland without exposing themselves to an action at law—that is to say, they cannot deal with such infraction at all. The time is rapidly approaching when
  32
  the performance of this duty will become a matter of great moment. The lobsters are bound to be caught, though of course the lobster fishery is not in full swing yet, but each day that passes adds undoubtedly a certain amount to our risk, because if in the present excited state of feeling on the part of the colonists on the coast on the one side, and of the French on the other, there are acts performed which one side believes to be legal and the other side believes to be a breach of international law, there being no authority to decide between them, and prevent collisions, collisions may happen, not between the highest authorities, but collisions it may be between inferior officers, yet which may have the most deplorable effects. For this reason, finding that we have not the authority that is necessary to enforce international obligations, we come to Parliament to ask them to give us that authority, and we are met by resistance—resistance which carefully says that it does not object to the principle, but, of course, objects to the machinery by which we intend to carry the principle into effect. And what is the ground on which we are asked to delay the Bill for a few days? I think it is fair when we are talking thus of susceptibilities not to impute to the colonists so grotesque a sense of susceptibility as is suggested—that they would be satisfied with a measure passed four days later, but feel wounded in their feelings by a measure passed four days earlier. The colonists have said nothing of the kind. It is their advocates on the other side of the House who have said it because they know that it is the only plea they can put forward, and that the plea which the colonists themselves put forward is not one which they can urge. I have here the letter of May 1 of the Newfoundland delegates, and the words with which it begins (they have been already read) are—
  "We desire to lay before Her Majesty's Government the following proposals, if the Bill now before the Lords is not further proceeded with," &c., &c.
  So that it is not a question of four days—it is that the delegates want the Bill to be dropped altogether. The Bill is not to be proceeded with: that is a condition precedent to their doing any of the things which they afterwards pro-

  33
  pose. Now, my Lords, of course, we should be very glad not to proceed with the Bill if we were certain that the legislation that is necessary in this matter would be adopted by the colonists themselves. There are many advantages in that plan, and we would gladly entertain it. But what assurance or even probability have we? The delegates tell us that they will propose it to the legislature of Newfoundland. Well, of the sincerity and good faith of the delegates I have never had the very slightest doubt, but what power have they of insuring that the Newfoundland Legislature shall pass this measure? And what is the authority for assuming that the Newfoundland Legislature will pass the measure? Is it naturally inclined to such a measure? Why, we know that the modus vivendi only two or three months ago was the subject of a most bitter attack on the part of the Legislature as a whole. Are they inclined to co-operate with us in obtaining an arbiter's decision upon the meaning of these disputed Treaties? Why, only so far back as the 5th of December last we were informed, in reply to a proposal on our part for arbitration—
  "My Government cannot consent to any arbitration which does not include the withdrawal of the French from the coast."
  That was the state of opinion in Newfoundland in December last. Are you sure that it is not the state of opinion in Newfoundland now? What ground have you for thinking that the great change of opinion which has come over the delegates since they entered this country extends to all their countrymen whom they have left behind them? And what security have we that they will pass the Bill they propose, or that the Bill they propose will, in its details, be a Bill which is necessary to meet this emergency? We have seen no Bill, we have had no detailed proposals even from the delegates. My Lords, if there had been this great conversion on the part of the Newfoundland Legislature I should have expected some action would have been taken by that Legislature already. The delegates have been in this country between a fortnight and three weeks. Some step towards passing one of these measures might have been very easily taken by the Newfoundland Legislature if they
  34
  were so minded. But they have observed an absolute inaction. Surely we are justified in saying that, though we have an absolute belief in the sincerity of the promises made to us by the delegates, still we have no security that they so carry with them the opinion of their friends and colleagues, whom they have left behind, that those friends and colleagues will undergo the same change of opinion that they have undergone, and will pass this measure to which hitherto they have been so averse. Therefore, my Lords, the proposals of the delegates do not satisfy us because they are promises; they are not actual legislation, nor an attempt at legislation; and I venture to say, in answer to the noble and learned Lord opposite, that neither my noble Friend nor myself has ever at this Table intimated an intention on our part to withdraw this Bill in consequence of the receipt of mere promises by the delegates here.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I did not suggest anything of the kind.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What we insisted upon was that they should proceed to actual legislation — actual legislation suited to the emergency with which we are dealing, and in that case we should gladly withdraw the Bill. There is another objection, and that is that the Bill for carrying out the award of the arbitrator is only to last for one year. Now it is almost a derisory proposition. My experience of the movements of arbitrators leads me to believe that it is exceedingly improbable that the arbiters' sentence will be delivered very much before the expiry of that one year. But you tell me that the powers can be renewed by the Newfoundland Legislature, and that if they are not then renewed the Imperial Parliament can interfere. Yes, but Parliaments are not beings of that unbroken existence that you can rely upon their being always there, in order to carry any legislation that may be desired. They are subject to temporary suspensions of animation, they are subject, like mortal beings, to permanent suspensions of animation, and you can never be certain that at the time when the Newfoundland Legislature might indicate clearly its intention not to renew those powers, Parliament will be in a position to give you the Imperial

  35
  powers that you require. There will be delay. There may be weeks, months, intervening. Those weeks and months will be a period during which your officers will be powerless and disarmed upon the Treaty coast, unable to carry out any international obligation; and we may have to deal with a state of diplomatic circumstances different from what we have now to deal with. Now it seems absurd, with the enlightened Government which France happily possesses, to suppose that such a question as this could ever be pushed to any extreme arbitrament. But suppose there should be a change? It is easy, without going into them, to conceive many circumstances under which it would not only be most inconvenient, but even dangerous, that the power of carrying out the award should cease to exist at a moment when, from some circumstance or other, the British Parliament was unable to give a renewal of those powers to its Government. Why should the Bill be only for one year? I understand it is urged because the noble and learned Lord and the colony think there is a preferable procedure to that of the Act which we propose to renew. The same end without any of the dangers can be attained by passing an Act which shall repeal or supersede this Act; the result attained will be the same entirely, and none of the dangers will arise. The Newfoundland Government no doubt desire to put a certain pressure upon us to pass the amended law by holding before us the threat that this Act will not be renewed unless we do. But, my Lords, consider how many chances there are of our agreement falling through if such is the temper of mind of the two principal parties towards each other. Do they distrust us so much as that—that they will not assent to a permanent Act, lest they should lose a lever to get certain amendments of the law which they desire? They desire two things—they desire that a system of Courts should be set up, and that compensation should be given. I cannot imagine two subjects more likely to create debate, discussion, disputes, differences, and hopeless disagreement, and if these results, or either of them, should arise, your Act will not be renewed; your officers will be without
  36
  powers on the coast, and it will entirely depend upon its being within the power of the British Parliament at the moment to give the necessary powers to the officers, whether you escape serious and dangerous international complications. I have only one thing more to say with respect to the general assumption that has governed this Debate. It seems to be thought that we are inflicting some new thing, some great hardship, on the Newfoundlanders by interfering in this matter at all, and that, not only they, but, as I understood the statement, all the colonists throughout the Empire would resent such an interference. I demur entirely to that doctrine. We are not interfering with anything we have not a right to interfere with. We are dealing with that which is our proper province—our Imperial province—the fulfilment of international obligations. These international obligations govern every right the Newfoundlanders have. We did not put the Treaty upon them; they went to a place where the Treaty already existed and was law; and it is as much our right and our power to deal with international and outside relations as it is their right and their power to deal with matters that concern themselves alone. And why should it not be so? Is not that the natural result of the reasons which have always guided us in dealing with these subjects? We gave to them unlimited power with respect to their own internal affairs because they would be the people to suffer if we made a mistake. Therefore it is right that they should in such matters be independent, and that we should not interfere with their discretion. But, if they make a dangerous mistake in this matter, it is not they who will suffer. It is we who run the whole risk, and they hardly run at all, for I do not suppose that in case of a war with France the French would take the trouble to invade Newfoundland. And, this being our risk, the whole burden and responsibility falling upon us, it is a matter of primary and vital necessity that we should have the necessary powers to defend our interests and our fellow-subjects, and also to comply with international duties, to fulfil international obligations and to enforce the observance of the pledge given by the country.

  37
  That is the power that we now ask of you, and I hope, if you are not resolved to give it to us, you will not cover and disguise and mask your refusal by these petty proposals for delay.
  On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 113; Not-Contents 30.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1.
  Verbal Amendments made.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I have an Amendment to propose in line 14, to leave out from the word "also" to the end of subhead I., and insert the words—
  ("A temporary arrangement made with France for the fishing season of 1891, set out in the second Schedule to this Act, and any continuation of the same pending the arbitration agreed upon in the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, and seventh Articles of an Agreement between Great Britain and France, signed on the 11th March, 1891, and shall also include any provision for giving effect to the decision in such arbitration.")
  The only object of this Amendment is that it was thought desirable to insert the temporary arrangement with regard to the modus vivendi in a second Schedule and to limit any continuation of it pending the arbitration which has been agreed upon, and which is referred to in this Amendment as having been signed on the 11th of March. It also includes a provision for giving effect to the arbitration.
  Amendment moved,
  In line 14, to leave out from the word ("also") to the end of sub-head I., and insert the words ("A temporary arrangement made with France for the fishing season of 1891, set out in the second Schedule to this Act, and any continuation of the same pending the arbitration agreed upon in the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, and seventh Articles of an Agreement between Great Britain and France, signed on the 11th March, 1891, and shall also include any provision for giving effect to the decision in such arbitration.")—(The Lord Knutsford.)
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: Are we to understand by the arbitration that it is arbitration upon the fishery point or the lobster point, or upon all the subsidiary questions which may be raised? I might point out that this section provides that the temporary arrangement with regard to the modus vivendi may be continued
  38
  during the pending arbitration agreed upon. If that is merely as regards the arbitration in reference to the lobster question, I think it would be a much shorter way of doing it to say so.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: That is so. The modus vivendi only refers to the lobster question, and the only question referred to the arbitrators is the lobster question.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: Then at line 17, I move to leave out the sub-heads 2 and 3 of Clause 1. That is, in effect, to leave out of this Bill any reference to permanent arrangements, and to confine the scope of it to the temporary arrangements, the decision of the arbitrators, and the modus vivendi.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  Verbal Amendments made.
  LORD HERSCHELL: After Clause 2 I have to request your Lordships to accept a new clause which I propose, making this Act a temporary one. I cannot help thinking that the light in which it will be regarded will be somewhat different whether it is a temporary or a permanent measure, and in the next place I have a very strong feeling that as a matter of principle it ought to be made only temporary, because it is, to my mind, a very unsatisfactory piece of legislation for the purpose for which it is intended. It contravenes, I think, sound constitutional principles; and although that might not be a sufficient reason for not passing the measure under urgency, it is not less a reason for not making such a measure a part of the permanent Statute Law. With regard to the question of the view of the delegates as to passing a temporary measure and dealing with the matter more satisfactorily as a permanent measure, I would call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies to a passage in the address of the delegates at the Bar of your Lordships' House, which I think he has overlooked as throwing light on the meaning of their proposal. It is on page 9—
  "We regret that up to the present moment these propositions have not been accepted, nor has any hope been held out that they will be.

  39
  The temporary legislation, which we have proposed to procure the enactment of, would be immediately adopted by the Legislature of the colony, and present needs thereby amply met. I may here observe, my Lords, that we represent before you to-night all shades of political opinions in the island of Newfoundland, and, therefore, our promise to do this may be relied upon as though the Act were passed. The details of a permanent and thoroughly satisfactory measure would be arranged and enacted without delay by the Legislature of the colony."
  That seems to me to clearly indicate that the legislation was temporary and not merely, as the noble Lord states, for one year.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: To which we did not agree.
  LORD HERSCHELL: What I am calling attention to is what the noble Lord said, that the Government were prepared to accept the 1st Sub-section A as standing alone, and, certainly, as interpreted by them in the following passage, it appears to me to indicate that they only intended temporary legislation.
  Amendment moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following clause:—
  "This Act shall continue in force only for one year and until the end of the then Session, if Parliament be then sitting, or if Parliament be not then sitting, until the end of the then next Session of Parliament." — (The Lord Herschell.)
  LORD KNUTSFORD: The noble Lord asked me, a short time ago, to state what my words were on the occasion to which he referred. I have the passage here, and I find I said—
  "If at the time the Colonial Legislature has passed an Act which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, sufficiently secures the observance and execution, first, of the modus vivendi of 1891;"—
  I kept that quite separate—
  "secondly, the decision of the arbitrators upon the lobster question"—
  for which I certainly did not consider legislation for one year would be any use—
  "and, thirdly, the observance of the Treaty and Declarations."
  which again would not be met by legislation for one year.
  LORD HERSCHELL: That does not seem to me to affect the duty of enforcing it. It never was proposed that you should enforce it for one year, and then stop — nobody supposed that. That
  40
  would have been absurd. It was admitted by the delegates that you must always have some means of enforcing it, but whether a particular measure should be for one year, and then that you should enact a more satisfactory method, was the question. That is the first point which arose on the Bill. I make no objection to this as a temporary measure, but let me call attention to what it proposes. It proposes to revive, at a time when they are utterly unsuitable, powers which might have been very well exercised in the middle of the last century.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hardly the middle of last century—1834 was the date when the Act expired.
  LORD HERSCHELL: That is quite true, but the first Act was passed in 1718, and I do not regard an Act which is continued merely from time to time as being in the same category with an Act which is then enacted for the first time. Parliament very often continues, as a matter of convenience of State policy and so on, Acts of a description which it would never have enacted at the time it continues them. However that may be, even if it was in the year 1834, I hope that in some respects we are wiser than they were in that year. We have passed a good many Acts since 1834 correcting a good many things which were done then and previously. But what I want to ask your Lordships is this. Do you desire to assert that it is a proper means of enforcing a Treaty, to give naval officers within the limits of one of our colonies, powers which are absolutely to be determined by the Government of the day, so that naval officers, on the instructions of the Government of the day, may go on shore in one of our colonies and may deal with individuals and with their property on the arbitrary instructions of Her Majesty's Government, without any means of questioning their propriety before any tribunal? That is what this Bill proposes. I do not care whether it was enacted in 1834 or in the middle of the last century; it is not a thing which we ought to enact in 1891. It may be difficult for the noble Marquess to concede so much, but he said he felt the force of the argument that the administration of these disputed rights through

  41
  the Courts would be a superior mode of enforcing them.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said there is a better way.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Then if the noble Marquess is conscious that there is a better way, he ought not to enact a way which is worse. You are obliged to do it now, but make the Bill temporary, giving yourselves time to work out the proper legislation afterwards. But in this matter you are saying to the colony: "We are legislating for you as Her Majesty's Government have the right and power, no doubt, to do, on a system which we admit not to be the best, and which we believe to be open to objection; but we are not content to make it on that account a temporary measure, but we will make it permanent." Now, is that wise—is it desirable? I have heard the objection which the noble Marquess opposite has made to temporary legislation. He said that Parliament may not be always sitting, and that you may not be able always to legislate; but I propose that the legislation should continue for one year, and then if Parliament is not sitting, until the next Session, and if not then sitting until the end of the next. Therefore I have provided, I think, for every case which can arise before there is a possibility of this Act expiring. Surely it would be better, if your Lordships can, to fall in with the desires and wishes of the Newfoundlanders; the more so, as I have pointed out, when we are re-enacting legislation to which grave exception may be taken. I should myself have preferred, if it had not been necessary for this measure to be pressed on, to have elaborated a substituted scheme for this, which seems to me to be most objectionable; but I am willing that this legislation should go on for a year, giving that time for the elaboration of a better scheme; but I see no such difficulty, as the noble Marquess suggests, in passing this as a merely temporary measure in the meantime, until we can devise a more satisfactory arrangement.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think the noble and learned Lord is giving an accurate representation of what the Bill enacts. It does not enact that the Orders in Council shall have effect without any power of approval by
  42
  Parliament. It enacts that before they are made effectual they shall be laid before Parliament.
  LORD HERSCHELL: No doubt that was the proposal with regard to an Order in Council providing for a permanent arrangement; but for the purpose of the 1st section, there is no Order in Council necessary. These Orders come into force ipso facto, and at once revive the powers.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have not the least objection to putting that clause in again if that is what the noble and learned Lord means.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It never did apply to Section 1.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it did; but we have always differed as to the meaning of that. However, I will not raise a discussion upon it now. I am perfectly willing that we should re-introduce it. We can do it in the Standing Committee to-morrow. The third, I see, ought to have been kept in, and we will put that in too. But with regard to this question of the temporary measure, the criticism which I venture to pass upon it, like that which I passed on the last Amendment moved from that Bench, is that it is very trivial, carries with it very little importance, and rather gives a grotesque air to what we are doing. If we were passing a law of the Medes and Persians, which afterwards could not be altered, there would be great force in the noble and learned Lord's contention that we should not enact a less perfect process until we had had the opportunity of considering a better process. But we are doing nothing of the kind; we are passing a law which we can alter with as much facility as we make it. The only difference between the procedure I propose and that proposed by the noble and learned Lord is, that I propose that we shall keep the old process, the inferior process, until we have got the new one, while the noble and learned Lord proposes that the old process shall disappear whether you have got the new one or not, and that you shall run all the risks which the blank may cause. I do not say the risk is very great. I daresay Parliament will always take care to renew the Bill; bat there is no possible reason for running such a risk. It is a risk absolutely and gratuitously run for

  43
  the sake of a mere piece of legislative pedantry. Just consider what these renewed Bills are, and what the result is of having Bills constantly renewed. They have become a perfect scandal. We had a very celebrated instance, which has now happily disappeared. For nearly 130 years the Dissenters were admitted to the House of Commons by a Bill which was renewed annually. I believe that now the people are exempted from rates in respect of personal property by a Bill which has been renewed for some century and a half. Some 20 years ago we passed, after much discussion, a Ballot Bill in this House, and it was thought we got a good security against any evil because we limited its duration to 10 years. We thought it might then be re-considered. The 10 years went by, and the Ballot Bill found its place, with some 20 other Bills, in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which passes every year through Parliament without discussion; and it has continued since then as it was in the first instance. It is a mere form adopted according to the ordinary practice of Parliament, but if any accident should happen, it is a dangerous and inconvenient form. It will leave a gap which will produce evil. No present evil will be caused by passing the Act in this shape, because it is always in your power to substitute for your present procedure a procedure which will be elaborated and be probably a superior one. All the advantages are therefore on the side of making the law permanent; no possible harm can be caused by passing the Act in this shape, and there is nothing but foolish formality in making it temporary.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I almost feel alarmed at addressing the House; the noble Marquess has used such terrible language and employed such dreadful epithets against those who do not agree with him. He has twice told us that our propositions are grotesque, he has told my noble and learned Friend that he is guilty of pedantry, and the last expression which he used was, I think, that we were urging a "foolish formality." But I am not deterred by those epithets at all, because it seems to me that we have some substance on our side. The noble Marquess says these Acts are apt to be renewed from time to time without dis-
  44
  cussion. If that is so I do not see what the difficulty of the noble Marquess is, because if he is right the Bill will certainly go on being renewed by Parliament year by year, and it will practically come to the same thing as if it was a permanent Bill. But I do not quite take that view. If it is not made permanent the Newfoundland Government and Legislature will take great care to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the fact that the Act has expired, and that they protest against its being renewed. But is this mere pedantry? Mere tu quoques are not valuable, and I shall not attempt to use them. Is it grotesque? I think it is most grotesque to pass this Act, simply because if you do not pass it you may not have time or opportunity to pass a good Act. I should think the common sense of the matter is this: If you are obliged under the circumstances of the case, and I contend that if we are obliged here to pass an Act which contains a method of procedure of which no one approves, you should pass it for such a time only as will enable you to fully consider and frame a better Act, and then to pass that better Act.
  LORD THRING: My Lords, I really feel very strongly upon this question. I will ask your Lordships to consider this—can there be any greater hardship inflicted upon a colony than to give the naval officers absolute power to legislate within its territory without any appeal whatever, that is the first point. Then we are told that it is grotesque and pedantic to object to this measure. I would ask, is it a fitting reward for what the colony has done that they should have such epithets applied to them.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never said it of the colony. I have never called the colony grotesque or pedantic.
  LORD THRING: Is it then grotesque on the part of noble Lords on this side of the House who object to this cruel tyranny? Your Lordships' attention has never been called to the facts. You have had this Treaty of Utrecht, this oppressive and galling Treaty, carried out for 200 years. Your Lordships have not been told that this Act which we have now revived was only in force for 10 years, and was then dropped, and

  45
  that its predecessor was only in force for 10 years. Then how was the Treaty of Utrecht carried out? It was carried out by the concurrence and goodwill of the colony, because they gave the naval officers a commission, a colonial commission, and under that colonial commission the naval officers acted, and had full power to act. We are now told that a new Act is absolutely requisite. Why? Because of the case of Sir Baldwin Walker. But the case of Sir Baldwin Walker has not been fully brought before this House. I have been told that he was not exercising his proper jurisdiction under the colonial commission, but that he was acting under direct instruction from the State; which, of course, he had no power to execute. But, my Lords, the Treaty of Utrecht there has always been ample power to execute. And what is the object of this Bill which has been brought forward? It says in its very Preamble that it is going beyond the Treaty of Utrecht. It says it is imposing fresh obligations on the colony, because it says the clauses of the Bill are to extend and to apply as if they were enacted in the Treaty. If it were a Bill to carry into effect only the Treaty of Utrecht we should not complain of it; but it is to carry into effect something beyond, and out of the Treaty of Utrecht. And then we are told that the colony which has suffered this grievous wrong of having the provision of the Treaty of Utrecht enforced by Act of Parliament is not to complain of it. I think it is a Bill which above all deserves the reprobation of your Lordships in its present form, and that the least you can do is to make it temporary.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, as I understand the noble Marquess, in his view, any one who objects to enact in a permanent form a measure by which the law is administered by the arbitrary determination of the Executive and not through the Courts is grotesque and a pedant. All I can say is if in the noble Marquess' view that is his definition of what is grotesque and pedantic, I trust most sincerely I shall even be a pedant and grotesque. But I rise chiefly in order to call attention to a matter which I confess I do not altogether understand. What I was pointing out was this, that under the Bill an absolute
  46
  arbitrary uncontrolled power is given to naval officers to go ashore on British territory and to deal with the property of British subjects.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That depends upon the Orders in Council.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not see how it depends upon the Orders in Council. The noble Marquess seems to be under that impression; but let us see what the enactment is. The enactment set out in this Schedule shall be revived and be of full effect, and shall include the Newfoundland fishery and any temporary arrangements. Now what are the powers revived?—
  "It shall and may be lawful for His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, by advice of His or their Council, from Time to Time to give such Orders and Instructions to the Governor of Newfoundland, or to any Officer or Officers on that Station, as He or they shall deem proper and necessary to fulfil the Purposes of any Treaty or Treaties now in force between His Majesty and any Foreign State or Power; and in case it shall be necessary to that end, to give Orders and Instructions to the Governor or other Officer or Officers aforesaid, to remove or cause to be removed any Stages, Hakes, Train fats, or other Works whatever, for the Purpose of carrying on the Fishery, erected by His Majesty's Subjects on that Part of the Coast of Newfoundland;"
  and so on. That will be as soon as this Act passes into law; there is no provision as to Orders in Council.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: The noble Lord forgets the words, "His Majesty, his heirs, and successors, by advice of His or their Council."
  LORD HERSCHELL: "With the advice of His Council," means the Government of the day. Does the noble Lord mean to say that that refers to anything but the Act of the Executive?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There must be an Order in Council.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Whether they do it in that way or in any other, there is no control of Parliament over it.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: You propose that we should give it; and the point shall be considered.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I say there is no control of Parliament over it whatever. Is it suggested that Instructions to the naval officers are to be embodied in the Order in Council? I should doubt whether that could be done. It is certainly not provided in the Act, and

  47
  I would suggest for the noble Lord to consider well before he embodies all that in an Order in Council to be laid before Parliament. There is certainly great danger in doing it in that way. I do not understand the provision in the Bill as it stands. It seems to me in any event to give the Executive power to exercise that arbitrary authority untouched by any Courts whatever. However, I feel the force of circumstances, and I do not urge that now; but I would suggest to the noble Lord whether, if he puts in such a provision as that, it might not, at any rate for the present year, endanger the success of its working. But all that only points to the expediency of not meeting the objection I have made by an expedient which may do more harm, I think, even from the point of view of the framers of the measure, but of enacting it merely as a temporary measure, giving in that way an assurance that a better scheme will be enacted in the future.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I be permitted to explain, in reference to what the noble and learned Lord has just said? The noble and learned Lord has stated that I applied the word grotesque; but I applied it to something quite different, and not to this Motion at all. I do think, however, it is pedantic, not because it is a proposal to pass for a limited time a provision for power to be given to the Executive, but because it is passing for a limited time a power which it is absolutely necessary for international purposes should exist' continuously. To do that in deference to some species of constitutional prepossession does seem to me to justify the epithet that I used.
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 21; Not-Contents 61.
  First Schedule.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, on the first Schedule I should like to call the attention of the noble Lord to the point to which the noble Earl called attention on the Second Reading of the Bill. I have every desire certainly that if this Bill is passed it should do as much good and as little mischief as ma be. Now, one of the objects of this Bill is to enable the modus vivendi to be carried out. The modus vivendi affects the
  48
  lobster fishery. We contend, as I understand, and always have contended, that the establishment of this factory for canning lobsters is not exercising fishing rights within the Treaty. That is the essence of our position. That, of course, is so as regards the French, and if it is not so as regards the French it cannot be as regards the inhabitants of Newfoundland. Now, to enforce the modus vivendi the very object is to give power to deal with the lobster canning factories. This Bill, when it is passed, will only give power to remove stages and so on, and other works erected by Her Majesty's subjects for the purpose of carrying on the fishery. Now, in order to contend that under that there was power to deal with the lobster factories for the purpose of carrying out the modus vivendi in that respect, we should have to contend, and it will be an argument used against us: "Why you have actually passed a Bill to deal with the modus vivendi, the only mode of dealing with which is to treat these things as having been erected for the purpose of the fisheries, while you contend that they have nothing to do with the fisheries whatever." That seems to me to be most dangerous, first, because it would not give the powers desired, and next because it would prove a most cogent argument against us when we come to deal with these things in arbitration. I would therefore beg Her Majesty's Government to reconsider this point, and, as the wording of the Schedule may lead to ambiguity on the question of lobster fishing, and as that might be used to our prejudice in the arbitration, not to pass the Bill as it stands.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree generally with what the noble and learned Lord says, but I find that all of his profession are not of the same opinion. Of course that always creates some difficulty, but I hope to-morrow we shall, in Standing Committee, be able to introduce some words to meet the point which the noble and learned Lord suggests. It may or may not be true that that will give us the necessary powers, but we shall be able to deal with that in Standing Committee.
  LORD HERSCHELL: That is what I was going to point out, that my opinion might be shared by those concerned in

  49
  the arbitration, and it might be found ambiguous.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I was going to point out that it is admitted that the term "fishery" under the old Act does not include the lobster catching for the reasons the noble Marquess has stated, and therefore it became necessary by special terms to make the Act extend to the modus vivendi and to the decision of the arbitrators, and this was done by the first clause.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Of course it may not be so, but I was looking rather to how it might be used against us in the arbitration. It was merely as a matter of precaution that I urged it.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I hope this Bill will not be referred to Standing Committee, but to a Committee of the Whole House. I trust we shall not be obliged to send it to two Committees instead of one.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 114.)

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.] (No. 77.)
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.