Lords Sitting of 11 May 1891

BERKELEY PEERAGE.
Report from the Committee for Privileges, That it is the opinion of this Committee that the Superintendent Registrar of the District of Staines, Middlesex, should be ordered to attend the next meeting of the Committee, and that he should bring with him the original register of deaths in the district of Staines, Middlesex, showing the death on the 27th August 1882 of Thomas Moreton Fitzhardinge Berkeley; made, and agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Petition of the Right Hon. Francis William Fitzhardinge, Baron Fitzhardinge, for leave, on the consideration of his Petition to Her Majesty by the Committee for Privileges, to use the evidence adduced in the case of the claim of William Fitzhardinge Berkeley to the Earldom of Berkeley in 1811, and upon the reference in 1799 of the Earl of Berkeley's pedigree to the Committee for Privileges, and that he may be relieved from the expense of reprinting such evidence; read, and referred to the Committee for Privileges.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

1.Registration of Certain Writs (Scotland).

2. Middlesex Registry.

3. Electoral Disabilities Removal.

4. Public Bodies (Provisional Orders).

5. Taxes (Regulation of Remuneration).

6. Army Schools.

7. Merchandise Marks.

8. London (City) Trial of Civil Causes.

9. Charities (Recovery).

REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 95.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
THE MANIPUR DISASTER.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, seeing the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India in his place, I am anxious to put a question to him in regard to the recent occurrences at Manipur. I find a statement in the St. James's Gazette this evening, which is headed "Blood Money offered," and which in some of the placards which have appeared in the streets is referred to as "a disgraceful proclamation," the statement being that
  "The Chief Commissioner"—
  meaning, of course, the Chief Commissioner of Assam—
  "Has issued a proclamation putting heavy sums on the heads of the Regent, the Senaputty, and those of the Councillors and Generals who were concerned in the outbreak."
  It is, I think, very desirable that that sort of statement should not go forth to the public uncontradicted if it is not correct, and I should be glad if the noble Viscount will state whether he has any information upon the subject?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): I have no information on the subject, and have not even seen the paragraph mentioned by the noble Marquess. I am not aware whether a proclamation has been issued offering certain sums for taking these people alive, but I am quite sure the Viceroy would never have countenanced for a single moment such a proclamation as has been hinted at in the statement quoted by the noble Marquess. As this question has been asked on the matter I should like to state that full Papers on the subject of the Manipur occurrences will be laid on the Table as soon as they are printed. They would have been produced already, and I hope they will be ready to-morrow, but a long Despatch has just come in by this mail which ought, I think, to be added to them, which has caused a delay of 24 hours. That is the only reason why they have not been already produced to the House.

THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: May I ask the noble Marquess opposite if he

  431
  can inform us when he proposes the House should adjourn for the Whitsuntide Vacation, and for how long?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): That is a matter which generally interests nobody less than Her Majesty's Ministers; but to-morrow would, I imagine, be in accordance with precedent, and unless there is a great anxiety to return to our labours, I think the following Tuesday fortnight would be a sufficiently early day for our reassembling.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Then we adjourn to-morrow?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Tomorrow.

THE EGYPTIAN EXILES IN CEYLON.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARR,in rising to call attention to the Correspondence which bad been laid on the Table of the House relating to the Egyptian exiles in Ceylon, said: My Lords, in asking your attention for a few moments to the Correspondence mentioned in the Notice which stands in my name, I must ask your Lordships to refer for a moment to a statement made by the noble Marquess at the head of Her Majesty's Government a short time ago relative to this subject in answer to a question which I had put with regard to the production of Papers. The noble Marquess said, as reported, that—
  "The crime for which Arabi Pacha was tried, and for which he was condemned to death, was not that for fighting for the independence of his country, but for rebelling—he being a soldier—against his Sovereign; he was condemned for military mutiny, and if he had been a less distinguished person he would most undoubtedly have been shot."
  Now, it so happens that I was at Alexandria not very long after the bombardment of the forts there, and I cannot but think that the noble Marquess must be aware of the fact, which was then well known, that Arabi Pacha was in the Government of the Khedive at that time, that he had received orders relating to firing upon the British ships from the Khedive, and also that he was acting under instructions from the Sultan of Turkey. I believe I am right in saying that at the time
  432
  of the bombardment of the forts of Alexandria Arabi Pacha was Minister of War in Egypt. I do not wish to enter further upon the question of the justice of the sentence which was passed upon Arabi and his companions, but I cannot suppose for a moment that it was intended that he and his companions should be sent to a place which in all probability would involve a lingering death. I believe that they would have much preferred the honourable death of a soldier endeavouring to protect the interests and liberty of his country, inspired with the noble sentiment of the Roman poet—
  "Dulce et decorum est pro patriâ mori."
  But, my Lords, I think I can show, by the Correspondence which is in your Lordships' hands, that the carrying out of this sentence has resulted, and in all probability will still further result, in causing the lingering death of those who are now suffering from the effects of the climate. When I called your Lordships' attention a short time ago to the case of Arabi Pacha and his companions, and asked for information respecting them, the noble Marquess at the head of Her Majesty's Government said that a Medical Board had been appointed last autumn, and had inquired into the state of health of the exiles, and their Report was that—
  "The climate of Ceylon had exercised no injurious effect upon the health of the banished persons."
  It appears that this Board sat on the 4th of October, 1890, and after an examination of the exiles gave their opinion that the climate of Ceylon has had no injurious effect upon them: but previous to this a Memorial had been forwarded by the exiles themselves to the noble Marquess, which reached the Foreign Office on the 26th of June, 1890, in which they said
  "The Memorialists have now been seven years in exile in Ceylon, and though they have been invariably treated with kindness during that period, yet the health of all of them, as proved by the following certificates from medical men of well-known position in Ceylon, has suffered very severely from the dampness of the climate."
  I wish to point out to your Lordships that the certificates are signed by medical men in Ceylon, though not in any way connected with the Government, yet men who, it appears, are well known and in large practice. The gentlemen who signed

  433
  the certificates to which I wish to refer your Lordships had been several years, when they gave those certificates—one, I think, for four years, and another for a longer time—in attendance upon the exiles and their families. They had, therefore, full opportunity during a considerable time of knowing what effects the climate of Ceylon had produced upon the health of these exiles. These certificates being in your Lordships' hands, you will be able to refer to the documents themselves better than I can explain them. You will find on page 2, Dr. Dort, I believe an English physician, says—
  "For the last four years, during which I have been engaged as medical attendant on the family of Arabi Pacha, I have observed, and it has always been noticeable in the case of several other patients of mine among the Egyptian exiles, a marked deterioration in health clearly traceable to the effects of the climate of Ceylon, and quite independent of all other conditions or individual predisposition."
  In conclusion, he says—
  "I am firmly convinced that the climate of Ceylon is prejudicial to his health and that of his family, and I cannot but think that a prolonged residence in such an unsuitable climate in his present state of health must undermine his constitution, and affect his chances of life most seriously."
  This is dated "Colombo, March 1st, 1890." Dr. Dort again, on page 3, speaking of the family of another of the exiles, Mahmood Sami Pacha, says—
  "I have no hesitation in declaring that I consider the climate of Ceylon, with its great divisional variations of temperature, its dampness, its very frequent changes of weather, its excessive humidity and trying winds, has had a most exhausting and enervating effect on the family, and has rendered it necessary to change their residence frequently at great inconvenience and expense." (Dated Colombo, March 10, 1890.)
  Dr. Dort again says he has attended the family of Yacoob Sami Pacha—
  "I certify that I have attended him and some of the members of his family since his arrival in Ceylon, and have been frequently consulted by them for general debility and fever, neuralgic pains and rheumatism, due less to constitutional and accidental causes than to the ill effects of the climate of Ceylon on their health, especially on that of the ladies of the family." (Dated March 12, 1890.)
  Then Dr. Geysell, a physician of Edinburgh, certifies that Toulba Ismet Pacha, another of the exiles, has been suffering from frequent attacks of catarrhal asthma and neuralgia during
  434
  the last few years, and that he has been under his treatment. He says—
  "I am of opinion that the climate of Ceylon is too damp for him to reside in permanently. The last attack of neuralgia lasted nearly a month; he is left sallow and weak, and his predisposition to colds is marked. His family, too, are victims to climatic influences; his wife was brought to death's door, and his only child suffers frequently from malarial fever." (Dated Ceylon, March 3, 1890.)
  I come now to a certificate as regards Abdul-al-Helmi Pacha, about whom I shall have a few words to say. This, again, is from Dr. Geysell, certifying that—
  "Abdul-al-Helmi Pacha has been under my treatment off and on for the last two years for rheumatism and bronchial asthma. I am of opinion that the climate of Ceylon does not agree with him, and that the humidity of the atmosphere, which is a marked feature of the climate of Ceylon, is to blame for these attacks. I have noticed with much concern the effect of the climate upon Abdul Pacha's health, owing to recurring attacks of torpidity of the liver, asthma, and rheumatism. I had advised him to change his residence to the seaside, and I found that even the climate of the seaside has not prevented a recurrence of the asthma. I fear that in a year or so Abdul-al-Helmi Pacha will he a confirmed asthmatic, and his life in danger if he continues to reside in Ceylon." (Dated March 3, 1890.)
  These, my Lords, are some of the certificates of medical men who have attended the Egyptian exiles and their families in Ceylon for some years. I will not trouble you further. I think I have said enough to establish, what I endeavoured to show on a former occasion, and which I feel now quite as strongly as before—that is, that the climate of Ceylon has had the effect of seriously damaging the health of the exiles who were sent to the Island, and who have been kept there against the strong testimony of medical men. I will only refer once more to the certificate with regard to one of them, Abdul-al-Helmi Pacha, in which it is said, in a year or so, unless he changes his residence, death will probably ensue. He fears that in a comparatively short time his patient will be a confirmed asthmatic, and that his life is endangered if he continues to reside in Ceylon. I regret to state that it is now known to the Colonial Department that this effect, so truly forseen, has taken place. The unfortunate exile Abdul Pacha died of fever a short time ago. I cannot give your Lordships

  435
  the exact date, but the information which has reached me is to the effect that he died a little more than one year from the time that the medical certificate which I have read was given. The information which reached me was to this effect—
  "The Pacha has passed away peacefully, but under specially sad circumstances, for only two months ago his wife and family started on a visit to Egypt."
  This, I think, speaks for itself, and I need not trouble your Lordships further in calling attention to the Correspondence on this subject.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, in reference to this case I have to speak of matters which were decided not by the Government with which I am connected, but my predecessors, and I must necessarily rely on the information which was then given by authorised bodies who are above suspicion. My noble Friend has gone into the character of Arabi Pacha and his history, and he appears to be convinced that Arabi was throughout a loyal and devoted soldier of the Khedive. I hardly think this is an occasion on which it is desirable to discuss that question in detail, and I do not know that I am precisely the person whose business it is to enter upon it; but I can only say to my noble Friend that, as far as the history of that time came to me, I believe that Arabi Pacha, being a soldier, broke his military oath and exposed himself to the punishment of soldier who is in mutiny, that he was condemned by an impartial tribunal, and that he was treated at the instance of the Government of Her Majesty of that day with great leniency by the Khedive. I think, therefore, that in respect to what is past we have, as a nation, nothing to reproach ourselves with, and nothing to retract. With respect to the present, I again must take my stand upon authorised testimony—the only testimony which we can safely follow. The question of the health of Arabi Pacha was submitted to a board of medical officers, consisting of Mr. Kinsey, the Principal Civil Medical Officer and Inspector General of Hospitals in Ceylon; Brigade Surgeon W. C. Robinson, of the Army Medical Staff, and Senior Military
  436
  Medical Officer; and Dr. Macdonald, Medical Superintendent of the General Hospital of Colombo, and Professor of Medicine in the Ceylon Medical College. That Board having assembled and carefully examined Arabi Pacha, and having perused the documents relating to his case, found that he was 50 years old, of which eight years had been spent in Ceylon; and they were of opinion that the climate of Ceylon had had no injurious effect upon his health. A like certificate was signed on the same day by the members of the Board with regard to the other persons detained. My noble Friend tells us, however, that there are other doctors who are of a different opinion. Well, my Lords, that is not an entirely novel fact in human experience. I remember the late Sir G. Cornewall Lewis saying that if you got an expert in any department of knowledge to depose to any fact, you could always find another expert who would depose exactly the contrary. I do not know whether that is a pessimist view of expert nature or not, but certainly the fact that doctors differ is not a sufficiently strange thing to induce me to withhold my faith from this very authoritative and strongly-supported statement. At the same time, an offer has been made, I believe, to change the place of these gentlemen's detention—they have been offered Zeila, but I am informed that they see no advantage in the change. But however that may be, the question arises—Is there any necessity for their remaining in Ceylon? There, again, it is not a question exactly of what they wish or what they think, it is a question of what ought to be done in the interest of the Egyptian Government, with whose action we interfered when we rescued these men from a military sentence; and I find that the Government of the Khedive have very distinctly stated that they do not approve of the return of these men to Egypt. A Memorandum by Riaz Pacha, written from the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Cairo, runs as follows:—
  "His Highness the Khedive, after having read Sir William Gregory's Memorandum relating to the transfer to Egypt of the Ceylon exiles, has declared that it is impossible for him to consent to such transfer in view of the very bad effect which their presence in the country would produce."
  I agree in that opinion myself, but even

  437
  if I did not agree with it, yet, considering the position of Egypt and our position in respect to it, I should hesitate very much before going against the deliberate opinion formed by the authorities who are responsible for the peace of Egypt. I am afraid, therefore, I can hold out no hope to my noble Friend at present that any change will be made.

COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]-(No. 7.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD MONKS WELL: My Lords, the House will readily believe that I feel myself very unequal to the task imposed upon me of moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I am, however, sustained by two convictions—first of all, that there is no body of men in the Kingdom towards whom your Lordships entertain a more friendly feeling than towards those who are eminent in literature and art whom this Bill seeks to benefit; and, secondly, I am sustained by the conviction that whatever errors I may make, whether of omission or of commission, will be set right by subsequent speakers. This Bill is brought up by the Society of Authors. This Society of Authors is a society which any man may well be proud to serve. It has for its President Lord Tennyson, and for its Chairman. Mr. Walter Besant, and among its members are a large number of persons very eminent in literature. I wish to say, on behalf of the Society of Authors, that this is not an authors' Bill (although it is fathered by the society) in the sense that it seeks to set up what may be called the extreme rights. Nor, my Lords, is it an authors' Bill in another sense. It is not an authors' Bill as being confined to literary copyright. The Bill deals with every kind of copyright—literary, artistic, and musical. If I were not informed to the contrary, I should have thought this Bill had been put forward rather by a Society of Artists than by a Society of Authors, for whereas the literary part of the Bill strays very little beyond the recommendations of the Commission, it is perfectly true that, as regards the artistic part, there are conditions in this Bill which are not authorised by the Report of the Royal Commission which
438
sat in 1876 and 1877, and of which the Duke of Rutland was Chairman, and upon which Lord Knutsford and Lord Herschell had seats. I hope to be able to persuade you that the artistic part of the Bill is right. I only allude to the matter now for the purpose of showing that the Society of Authors are not subject to the reproach of seeking to legislate only in their own interests. This Bill is supported by the most eminent names in literature and art, including, of course, Sir Frederick Leighton, and by publishers. In point of form, this Bill has been drafted under the immediate supervision of Sir Frederic Pollock, than whom I may say there is no better draftsman in England, and no one more intimately conversant with the puzzling details of the Law of Copyright. I had hoped that my task, though it could not have been easy, would, at all events, have been short. I had hoped that all I should have been called upon to do would have been to explain the main features of this Bill; but the opposition of Her Majesty's Government to this Bill, of which I have been warned, but for which, I confess, I cannot find a reason, necessitates my taking a somewhat different course. That opposition necessitates that I should dwell with some persistency on the shockingly discreditable state of the present Law of Copyright. Since the first Statute on the subject of copyright was passed in the time of Queen Anne, the Law of Copyright seems to have been the sport of some malignant demon as it were, and we find that at present the Law of Copyright is contained in 18 Acts of Parliament, and in some ill-defined Common Law principles. Well, I think it will be admitted that here are all the materials for a glorious muddle, and as Statute after Statute was passed the confusion grew worse confounded. All the usual artifices which are employed by draftsmen to make Acts of Parliament unintelligible have, it appears to me, been made use of in this case, and some artifices which fortunately are not usual. Statutes have been incorporated by reference; some of them have been drawn in the most slovenly possible manner, some of them contain enormously long rigmarole sentences, in the middle of which, as Sir James Stephen has remarked of one of

439
them "the draftsman seems to have lost his way." This subject of copyright has been dealt with at different times piecemeal in different stages and in different conditions of public opinion; and the result is that there are arbitrary distinctions in the law which it is impossible to defend. To crown all, some of these Acts have been drafted by persons who have shown an absolutely astounding ignorance of the law which they sought to modify. Now, I have said that the muddle began with the Statute of Anne. One would have thought it was not very easy to begin with a muddle, because that was the first Statute passed, but the muddle began in this way, that the Statute of Anne was apparently passed by a Legislature who had evidently not the slightest idea'that there was any Law of Copyright in existence at all, and it so happens that it was more than 60 years before the lawyers could decide whether the Common Law of Copyright was superseded by the Statute of Anne, or whether the Statute of Anne was in addition to the Common Law rights. At least this question was finally settled by the House of Lords, when it was settled, on the opinion of six Judges against five, in favour of the former view; but Lord Mansfield, who was one of the Judges, being a Member of your Lordships' House, did not give his opinion with the other Judges; if he had, the opinion of the Bench would have been absolutely equally divided, as he agreed with the minority. One would have thought that the Legislature would have taken warning by that, and that after an episode of that sort, draftsmen would have been employed, who at all events, knew something of the law which they sought to modify by Statute. But we find that the draftsmen in the time of Queen Victoria show absolutely and precisely the same ignorance as the draftsmen of the time of Queen Anne, and that they fell into precisely the same error as the draftsmen of the former reign. In 1842 an Act of Parliament was passed which is still the law, and is still the principal Act with regard to copyright. That Act dealt with, among other matters, dramatic copyright. It is not decided to this day whether the Act takes away the Common Law right previously subsisting in a dramatic
440
author to prevent in perpetuity the publication of a play acted in public but not printed. It is perfectly clear that the draftsman was absolutely ignorant of the Common Law, because the Act recites the intention of the Legislature to extend dramatic copyright; but if the Common Law is taken into consideration, at all events in one particular direction, the Act of Parliament, instead of extending the then Law of Copyright, actually cut it down. There is another matter about the Act of 1842, which is this: the draftsman actually misunderstood the terms of an Act of Parliament which he purported to amend; of course the draftsmen in the time of Queen Anne could not do that, because there was no Statute in existence then on the subject to amend. Now, my Lords, I come to the Act of 1862. That was the first Act giving statutory copyright to works of Fine Art, and here we find the draftsman again falling into exactly the same error as his predecessors. The Preamble of the Act recites as follows:—" Whereas authors of paintings, &c, have no copyright." Now, that Preamble has given rise to a good deal of trouble, because, as a matter of fact, "authors of paintings," &c., had by the Common Law a perpetual copyright to prevent anybody copying their pictures and drawings before publication, and, at all events, two of the learned Judges, Sir James Stephen and Mr. Justice Day, have expressed doubts as to whether or not the Common Law right is, to some extent, cut down by that Statute. Now I come to the Copyright Commission, which sat to take evidence for just a year, from May 1876 to May 1877. The Report of that Commission commented in 1878 in scathing terms on the chaotic and unsatisfactory state of the Law of Copyright. The Commissioners, after observing that
"The Common Law principles which lie at the root of the law have never been settled,"
proceed in paragraph 9 to fall foul of the Statute Law in the following terms:—
"The 14 Acts of Parliament which deal with the subject were passed at different times between 1735 and 1875. They are drawn in different styles, and some are drawn so as to be hardly intelligible. Obscurity of style, however, is only one of the defects of these Acts. Their arrangement is often worse than their style. Of this the Copyright Act of 1842 is a conspicuous instance."

441
This Report is studded with examples of the uncertainty of the law. Take paragraph 31. There the Commissioners complain that it is uncertain what constitutes publication, and they observe, in paragraph 71—
"We have carefully considered the Statute Law now in force with reference to music and the drama; but from the way in which certain Acts of Parliament have been framed and incorporated by reference, considerable doubt arises in our minds on various important points connected with these subjects."
But the uncertainty of the law is not its only defect; it is also full of arbitrary distinctions. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Report are as follows:—
"10. The piecemeal way in which the subject has been dealt with affords the only possible explanation of a number of apparently arbitrary distinctions between the provisions made upon matters which would seem to be of the same nature. Thus—(a) The term of copyright in books, and in printed and published dramatic pieces and music, is the life of the author and seven years after his death, or 42 years from the date of publication, whichever is the longer. (b) The term of copyright in music not printed and published but publicly performed is doubtful, and may perhaps be perpetual. (c) The term of copyright in a lecture not printed and published but publicly delivered is wholly uncertain. The term of copyright in a lecture printed and published is the longer of the two periods of 28 years and the life of the author. It may, perhaps, be doubted whether the term of copyright in a book consisting of a collection of lectures would differ from the term of copyright in other books. (d) The term of copyright in engravings, &c., is 28 years from publication; in paintings, &c., the artist's life and seven years; in sculpture, 14 years from the first 'putting forth or publishing' of the work (an indefinite phrase), 14 years more being given to the sculptor if he is living at the end of the first term."
"11. Other singular distinctions exist as to the law relating to registration of copyrights. No system of registration is provided for dramatic copyright, or for copyright in lectures or engravings. Such a system is provided for copyright in books and paintings, but its effect varies. Registration must in either case precede the taking of legal proceedings for an infringement of copyright, but after registration the owner of copyright in a book may, while the owner of copyright in a painting may not, sue the persons who infringed his copyright before registration."
Those are only selections from a mass of defects mentioned by the Commissioners. For instance, in paragraph 102, the Commissioners observe that the effect of a proviso in the Fine Arts Act of 1862 is, that if an artist sells a picture without a written agreement as to the copyright, the copyright is altogether lost—the
442
artist loses it and the buyer does not get it. This proviso, the Commissioners observed,
"Was apparently added to the Bill without sufficient consideration during its passage through Parliament."
One of the Commissioners, Sir James Stephen, took upon himself the arduous task of codifying the law of copyright, and his Code is published at the end of the Report. The notes to the Code are, perhaps, more instructive than the Code itself in regard to the disgraceful state of the law. As to two Acts dealing with penalties for pirating prints and engravings, Sir James Stephen complains that they are "inexpressibly puzzling," and he adds—
"I have compared the two Acts line by line, and I am by no means sure that I have got the result correctly. The sense escapes in a cloud of words."
One sentence of 55 lines in one Act qualifies in two minute particulars a sentence of 61 lines in the other Act. In addition to these remarks of the Commissioners, I should like to add to what they have said one word as to the present deadlock in the case of the law dealing with the drama, and I would give, as an illustration, the Little Lord Fauntleroy case. Anybody may dramatise anybody else's novel, and having dramatised that novel the law does not object to his getting that drama acted, but though he may dramatise the novel he may not publish the drama, because if he does, that is an infringement of the novelists' copyright. But here the difficulty comes in: the law says before you can act a drama you must give a copy to the Lord Chamberlain, but you cannot give a copy to the Lord Chamberlain, because that would be to infringe the copyright in the novelist. I venture to think this is a most discreditable state of the law. It reminds me of the story which Lord Eldon used to tell of an Act of Parliament. He said that an Act of Parliament had once been passed to build a new prison out of the remains of an old prison, but it contained a clause "that the old prison was not to be touched until the new prison was built." That is the sort of way in which we legislate. Now, my Lords, copyright may be roughly divided into literary copyright and artistic copyright. First of all, as there are several noble Lords

443
here who are not learned in the law, I may perhaps tell them, which will no doubt surprise them very much, that ever since this Report of 1878 was issued, nothing has been done to amend the Law of Copyright except in two particulars. International copyright has been dealt with under the International Convention of Berne; and, thanks to the exertions of a gentleman known as the "Musical Hawk," to twist a monstrous law to his own advantage, the most intolerable features in the law of musical copyright have been set right. But with those exceptions nothing has been done, though abortive Bills have been from time to time introduced, and upon those Bills the Bill which is now before the House is to a great extent based. As regards literary copyright, the principal Amendment in this Bill is to abolish the necessity, in the case of an alien, of residence in this country in order to get copyright. That is a point which has always been doubtful, and the consequence is that when an American wishes to get English copyright he has to undertake a journey to Canada, a journey which I think he might well be spared. It is necessary, whatever happens to this Bill, that the law should be altered in this respect, because if the law is not altered in this respect the American copyright possibly will not apply to England. Therefore, whatever may be done by your Lordships with regard to this Bill, I would urge that if we want to get for certain the benefit of American copyright, that the law should be amended in this particular as to residence before the 1st of July, when the American Copyright Act comes into operation. It is necessary that the Bill should be passed before then with regard to residence on English soil, in order to get copyright, for unless that is done English authors may not be enabled to take advantage of that Act. Whatever happens to this Bill it is eminently desirable that a Bill dealing with this point should he passed with all convenient speed. I may observe with regard to residence that that is one of the recommendations of the Commissioners. With regard to the duration of copyright the recommendations of the Commissioners are adhered to. It now endures for 42 years from publica-
444
tion, or for the author's life, and seven years after his death, whichever is the longer period. The Commissioners suggest, and this Bill proposes, to substitute the life of the author, and in every case a term of 30 years after his death. There are two advantages in that, one of which is that it is not very easy sometimes to tell when a work is published, but it is usually easy enough to know when an author is dead. And there is, another thing, the copyrights of an author's works keep dropping in one after another under present conditions; but if the law is altered in accordance with the suggestion of the Commissioners, the whole of a man's works will cease to be copyright at the same time, and a complete edition of his works might then be published. At present it might be 42 years from the death of the author before a complete non-copyright edition of his works can be published. There are only three countries where the term is shorter — Belgium, Holland, and Greece; it is the same as that which obtains in Germany, and there are many other European countries where the term is a great deal longer. Novelists are to have the exclusive right to dramatise their novels, and conversely the authors of dramas will have the exclusive right to convert their dramas into novels. Abridgment is recognised; for the first time as part of copyright, and the period after which the author of an article or essay in a collective work (other than an Encyclopaedia) is to be entitled to the right of separate publication is reduced—it will be after three years instead of 28 years, as at present. So far we march with the Report of the Commission, but in one important respect, no doubt, the Report of the Commission with regard to literary copyright has been departed from. The Report of the Commission recommends that non-registration within a certain time shall entail an absolute forfeiture of the right to sue. We suggest that there shall be no absolute forfeiture, but that on payment of a penalty the right to sue shall revive. In one respect, no doubt, the Bill fails altogether to carry into effect the recommendations of the Commission, and that is as regards setting up a system of licensing in the colonies. No doubt this is an exceedingly difficult question. There is a system of licensing, similar to

445
that which the Commission suggests, now in existence in Canada under a Canadian Act passed in 1875, and ratified by the Imperial Legislature. But by that Act the Canadians were only given the power of re - publishing copyright works of English authors with the consent of the authors. That is a vital reservation and apparently it will not satisfy the colonists. There is another mode of obtaining English copyright works besides by re-publication. The other means open to the colonists of obtaining English copyright books at less than copyright prices is for them to obtain an Order in Council empowering them, on certain conditions, to import into the colony American reprints of English books, or the Tauchnitz Editions, or what not. The Commissioners were not altogether satisfied with the conditions laid down in the Foreign Reprints Act, and they suggested that it should be re-enacted with more stringent conditions. They suggest that some system of licensing should be set up in the colonies. We do not propose to interfere in any way with the Canadian Act of 1875, and only to a very slight extent with the Foreign Reprints Act; but the Society of Authors have found themselves unable to follow the recommendations of the Commissioners in favour of licensing. As to Fine Art copyright, the Bill does not compel registration either of paintings or of sculptures at any time. The Commissioners suggested that registration should be compulsory after the painter or sculptor had parted with the copyright in his works, and not before. But we find that the painter and the sculptor very strongly object to any system of registration at all, because they say it is so much the custom to keep touching up their works that none of them can tell when they are finished. Again, the Bill resolves a very moot point in favour of the artists—a point which the Commission acknowledge they had the greatest difficulty in determining, namely, whether the copyright in a painting or sculpture should, on such painting or sculpture being sold, remain with the artist in the absence of any agreement, or pass to the buyer. I hope that the strong and unanimous desire of the artists will be allowed to outweigh the very hesitating expression of opinion
446
on the part of the Commission which was, I believe, only the opinion of a bare majority, and that the law may be altered in favour of the artists, particularly as the Bill introduces two important modifications in the copyright it proposes to confer upon the artists. A painter is not allowed, without the consent of the owner of the picture, to reproduce, by any art or in any size, a portrait painted on commission, nor may the painter, without the like consent, make a replica—that is, a copy of the same size and by the same art—of any picture he has sold. As to the rest of the Bill, the provisions as to Fine Art copyright follow the recommendations of the Commission by making it an infringement of copyright to copy any design in one art—say painting — by any design in another art — say sculpture. Artistic copyright is made to endure for the same term as literary copyright, and stringent provisions are inserted for the protection of the copyright owner. As to prints and photographs, copyright is only given for 30 years, and the registration of all prints is required. It is expressly provided that no photograph ordered on commission is to be exhibited without the leave of the person ordering the photograph. A Fine Arts Copyright Bill, almost identical with this Bill, passed a Second Reading in the Commons in 1882, but it failed to pass 'through Committee, principally owing to the opposition of Sir H. D. Wolff, one of the Copyright Commissioners, who took the objection, since removed by the conclusion of the Berne Convention in 1886, that there should be no legislation on copyright in this country until some arrangement had been made with foreign countries on the subject. The Bill of 1882 was both a consolidating and amending measure, so also was a Bill brought in by Lord Herschell in 1878, and another by the present Duke of Rutland in 1879. I may add that this Bill proposes, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission, to set up new registration offices. This proposal is, however, merely tentative, and it is believed that the present offices in Stationers' Hall will be sufficient for all the requirements of the Bill. I should like to make one observation with regard to the American Copyright Act which has

447
just been passed. That Act contains, as your Lordships are aware, a provision that every book, to obtain American copyright, must have two copies printed from type set in the United States. This provision has greatly alarmed our printers here, who seem afraid that English books copyrighted in America will have to be printed there exclusively. I think, although their alarm is not altogether unfounded, it is very much exaggerated. As Sir Frederick Pollock pointed out in an article in the Contemporary Review for April, the loss of time and difficulties in the way of absolutely simultaneous publication will lead to printing in both countries. Sir Frederick writes—
"Time and risk would clearly be saved by printing in England first, and sending; out corrected sheets to be reprinted in America."
If this be so, there can be no reason for resorting to the retaliatory legislation which has been suggested. It is gratifying to find that the most scathing criticism of the printing provisions of the American Act come from the Americans themselves. The New York Nation, a paper that, I believe, enjoys a very enviable reputation, objects to the printing clause as—
"A piece of tariff barbarism no more respectable than an Act obliging foreigners on landing here to provide themselves with a suit of American-made clothes, in order to entitle them to the services of the police, or to access to our Courts of Justice … to put any condition on a man's right to the protection of the law for his person or property beyond honesty and peaceable behaviour, is unworthy of a civilised Government."
It is, however, only fair to the Americans to add, as the Times observed on the 17th of March, that—
"In some respects, at least, the Act is better than had been expected… In future, etchings and engravings may be copyrighted and imported on payment of the existing duty."
This change in the law, the Times thought—
"Ought to make a very great difference, indeed, in the value of artistic copyrights and in that of the engraver's skill."
Upon that, I may observe that it would seem that the clause as to printing does not apply to musical copyright. My Lords, I have now taken the House through the main provisions of this Bill. There are many provisions in it which time does not allow me to touch upon. I now propose to say a few words, in con-
448
clusion, by way of answer in anticipation to some of the objections that may possibly be urged against this Bill. Your Lordships may possibly be told by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the Law of Copyright bristles with points of difficulty. I am not concerned to deny that this is so. But surely the difficulty of a question is not to be urged as a reason why your Lordships should not attempt to deal with it. Your Lordships have plenty of time and leisure to take up this question, and I do not see why you should not do so. A Judge cannot refuse to decide a cause on the ground that it bristles with points of difficulty, and surely, if I can make out a strong case for legislation, your Lordships are not absolved from the duties of legislation on account of the difficulties involved. I may, perhaps, be told that this Bill attempts too much—that the law ought first to be consolidated, and then amended by a separate measure. In some cases that may be the most convenient plan to adopt, but we must remember that the law down to 1878 has already been codified by Sir James Stephen. But, my Lords, I do not stand upon that Code. I say that the present law is so cram full of utterly indefensible arbitrary distinctions, that to put all of them side by side within the four corners of a consolidating Statute would be to produce an Act that would be the laughing-stock of the youngest law student. The law is in such a state that we cannot for very shame consolidate without amending it, and that has been the opinion of every copyright reformer who has introduced Bills since the Report of the Commission, including the Duke of Rutland and the noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell). Then, I may be told by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Knutsford) that he is unable to make up his mind what to do as to a licensing system for the colonies. On this point the Society of Authors sympathises deeply with Lord Knutsford. They also have found themselves unable to formulate any system of licensing. But if we are to wait till we can get a complete and perfect measure that satisfies every one, reform of the Copyright Law must, indeed, be relegated to a dim and remote future. With regard to the licensing question, there are, after all, only two

449
courses open to the noble Lord (Lord Knutsford); he must either do something or nothing. If he does something he can incorporate his plan in this Bill; if he does nothing this Bill would not interfere with him, for the measure does not propose to do anything. The passing of the Bill would leave the noble Lord with as ample an opportunity of making up his mind, or delaying to make up his mind, as he now possesses. Why, my Lords, should not this Bill be passed through your Lordships' House now? What is there to wait for? International copyright, under the Convention of Berne, has now been in force for five years, and that much-expected Statute, the American Act, has been passed. I think I have given strong reasons why this House should promptly take in hand the great question of copyright reform. This House is, I venture to say, peculiarly fitted to deal with the question. Your Lordships were in thorough sympathy with the just claims of literature and art, and are perfectly capable—much more capable than is the House of Commons—of elaborating a just and useful measure. It is true that the old-fashioned modes of patronage are at an end. Authors are no longer driven to earn a livelihood by dedicating their works to your Lordships; they now appeal for patronage and support, not to the few, but to the many. If your Lordships go to the theatre you are no longer accorded special places on the stage. But your Lordships, as a Legislative Body, can do inestimable service to the cause of literature and art. In your capacity of legislators you can still exert your influence to see that justice is done to persons to whom the community are deeply indebted for instruction and entertainment. There are noble and learned Lords in this House who are peculiarly fitted to criticise and amend such a Bill as this. It is not a question on which there can be any jealousy between the two Houses. I believe the House of Commons would willingly accept any measure that had been well thought out and discussed in your Lordships' House. But whether I am right in that or not, let us, at all events, leave to the other House the grave responsibility of refusing to amend a law which is positively grotesque in its absurdity and injustice. I ask your Lordships to do
450
what in you lies to secure to literature and art their just reward, and to make the Law of Copyright an ornament instead of a disgrace to the Statute Book. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Monkswell.)
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I am able to go some distance with the noble Lord who has just spoken, and some distance, at any rate, in his criticism, I might almost say denunciation, of the existing state of the law on the subject of copyright. I am quite willing to admit that it needs consolidation, and that it needs amendment. The noble Lord has stated that the Acts which deal with the subject are many in number, that they are not always consistent with honour, that in some respects they are unsatisfactory, and that in other respects they are ineffective; and he has told your Lordships there are Common Law principles which can only be ascertained by laborious search through the Law Reports. Also it is the case that the law as it stands contains many arbitrary distinctions. The copyright in books may either be for the life of the author, and seven years afterwards, or for 42 years from the date of publication. There are differences in the duration of copyright as regards lectures, engravings, and sculpture; and musical copyright, as the noble Lord has said, is in a most unsatisfactory and uncertain condition. There are differences in the law, as he has told you, as regards the necessity of registration in the case of books, of paintings, and of dramatic works. But I am not able to go much further in agreement with the noble Lord. I think the very fact which he mentioned—that, in spite of a very large and influential Commission having sat upon the subject for more than two years some 12 years ago, and in spite of a demand from many quarters, nothing has been done, even on the lines of that Commission—is in itself a proof, if any proof were needed, that these matters are highly contentious and very difficult of arrangement. Bills have been introduced in 1881, and many subsequent proposals have been made, for the amendment of the law, but nothing

451
has been done up to the present time. I join issue with the noble Lord upon the matter of procedure. He has anticipated an objection that may be urged against him that this Bill is not only a consolidating but an amending Bill: and I understood him to suggest as an alternative course that Parliament should be asked first to consolidate and then to amend.
LORD MONKSWELL: No. I said it would be impossible to do so, because the law, as it stands, is so absurd that you cannot consolidate it without amending it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: To consolidate the law and then to amend it would be to get rid of confusion in one year, only to find it re-introduced immediately afterwards. I do not think a Bill on so highly contentious a subject could be got through Parliament within the limits of one Session if it attempts both consolidation and amendment; and I would suggest that the preferable course would be that a Bill should be brought in dealing with those points which are contentious and of the greatest importance, and that thereafter the law should be consolidated. There would be no difficulty in arranging that the amending Bill and the consolidating Bill, once the principles were agreed upon, should come into force at the same time. I think there are great disadvantages in attempting simultaneously to consolidate and to amend the law on a subject of this magnitude, because by so doing you greatly widen the subject of controversy, and it would be far better to deal with those matters, which are matters of controversy, in the first instance, and then afterwards to embody them in a consolidating Bill. I am sure that your Lordships, who have listened to the speech of the noble Lord, must have arrived at the conclusion that these matters are not only highly contentious, but are most complicated, and that they raise many difficult questions of policy. I venture to say that so much is that the case that it is quite impossible for a private Member, certainly of the other House of Parliament, and, I venture to think, for one possessing the knowledge which the noble Lord has shown in this House, to deal with the representations and memorials, and even, I might say, the probable deputations which would come upon him
452
if it were known that this Bill was really being pressed forward. It touches so many interests that I cannot suppose that the resources of a private Member would be adequate to cope with them. And not only are there questions of law and private policy, but matters of Imperial and colonial policy come into the field. Then, my Lords, even if these objections which I have put before the House do not prevail, I would venture to add another objection, and to suggest that the time at which this Bill is brought forward is not opportune. The noble Lord opposite referred to the American law which has recently passed through their Legislature. But we do not know now the effect of that Act upon our trade. It may be as little as the noble Lord hopes, and I sincerely join with him in the expression of that hope; but certainly the law has not yet come into operation, and we cannot tell what the effect of it will be. I said just now that matters of Imperial policy were also concerned. I believe I am correct in stating that Canada is not satisfied with her position in connection with the provisions of the Berne Convention, and that requests have been made for an alteration on that point. If we begin amending or consolidating the law at the present time when subjects of that kind are under discussion with our colonies, we shall add greatly to the friction existing and to the difficulty of passing such a Bill at the present time. In the Bill itself there are many things of which the Department I have the honour to represent cannot possibly approve. There is one part of the Bill to which I do not think the noble Lord referred in his speech, that is to say, the part which deals with the matter of registration. He himself seems to have-some doubts and misgivings as to whether it is wise to put it forward. I venture to think there can be no doubt whatever that if the provisions in the Bill as they now stand were to be; enacted, they would cast a serious charge upon the public funds of this country, which should not, I think, be proposed at the instance of a private Member, and which perhaps ought not to be brought forward at all, in the first instance, in this House. Something of this kind seems to have been in the minds of the framers of the Bill, because in the pre-

453
liminary Memorandum attached to the Bill I find this sentence—
"With regard to registration, the Bill (as was recommended by the Royal Commission) provides for the establishment of a Copyright Registration Office under the control of Government in lieu of the present office at Stationers' Hall, established under 5 and 6 Vict. c. 45. It is felt, however, that the details and formalities of any scheme of registration can only be satisfactorily settled by Government officials, and the provisions of Part V. of the Bill are put forward rather by way of suggestion than as a definitely settled scheme. It may be found desirable, either now or hereafter, to combine the Copyright Registration Office with the Registry of Designs and Trade Marks, and this part of the Bill has, therefore, as far as possible, been modelled on the corresponding provisions of the Patents Designs and Trade Marks Act, 1883."
I am quite certain that a very great deal of discussion and consideration would be required before anything of the nature of a change such as is suggested in this part of the Bill could possibly be accepted. My Lords, I am far from saying that there are not some valuable proposals in the Bill; but I am not able to share in the praise which the noble Lord gives to the draughtsman. We have been told at an earlier period of this evening that doctors differ. I am afraid that differences between men of a trade or profession are not confined to doctors. I have heard draughtsmen differ very seriously, and I have been informed by the comments which I have seen upon this Bill that of the 96 clauses which it contains there are serious objections taken to more than 50 of them, in substance as well as in form. So much is that the case that we believe it would be far easier to draft a new Bill altogether than to endeavour to amend the provisions of this Bill and to bring it into conformity with anything which is likely to be accepted. Under these circumstances, I venture to suggest that it would not be wise to hold out any hopes that this Bill can possibly become law in the present Session, or that in fact it is worth your Lordships' while to proceed further on this occasion. I am inclined to think that to do so would be to lay a very great deal of work upon the House and the Standing Committee —work which the House and the Standing Committee would probably not object to if it were to serve any useful purpose; but work which I believe would be almost entirely thrown away.
454
Under these circumstances, without going into the details of the Bill, I venture to suggest to the noble Lord opposite that he should be satisfied with having explained the principles of the Bill, and should not seek to press it further during the present Session.
LORD HERSCHELL: The noble Lord who has just sat down has urged my noble Friend to be very easily satisfied; I think he might as well have urged him to be satisfied with nothing. I shall make no apology for taking part in this discussion, because it is a subject in which I have been long interested, and in which I have the natural interest of one who gave a considerable amount of time to the consideration of the question as a member of the Royal Commission some fourteen years ago, and who is, therefore, naturally anxious to see some fruits at least of the labour that was then bestowed. I have never lost sight of this question from that time, and I have always been anxious to see some effect given to the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners. It certainly is not very gratifying to one's national pride to find that when a Royal Commission pointed out that the law was grotesque and mischievous, and urgently required amendment, we should, 13 years afterwards, when it is sought to come to a conclusion upon the matter, be invited to sit with our hands quietly folded, and not attempt to make the law any better than it is. Surely the Legislature exists for the purpose of remedying imperfect and mischievous legislation. For what are we assembled here from Session to Session except to make the law, in our judgment, better than it is? I am, therefore, a little mortified to find that the speech of the noble Lord the Representative of the Board of Trade is one of a character which is perfectly well understood. I do not want to represent for a moment that the Department to which I belong has any objection to legislation, or that it does not recognise that the law is at present in an imperfect condition; we rather think it should be amended; but we would rather see this Bill stifled and put an end to, and at some future time, in some unsuggested way, in some undefined manner, the law may come to be better than it is. I should have thought, at least, we should have

455
been told that Her Majesty's Government would have felt themselves prepared to deal with it. I quite agree with what the noble Lord has said, that if the Government should take it up and deal with it they would be in a much better position to do it than any private Member of Parliament, and I am quite certain that, upon such an assurance being given, my noble Friend would be prepared to stand out of the way and leave the Government to act in his stead. I have been expecting certainly to hear for a long time of the introduction of a Copyright Bill by the Government, and especially by that Department to which the noble Lord belongs. I may say that I have been in communication with those who are interested in the subject, and I was prepared myself, a year after I came into your Lordships' House, to take up the matter; but I was told that those with whom I was dealing were themselves in communication with the Board of Trade, and under those circumstances I said I should be only too happy to leave the matter in their hands, and not touch it myself. Every Session since then I have had some faint hope that at last such a Bill as that would see the light; but the noble Lord does not give any such hope to-night even in what I may call the distant future. As every one admits that the law ought not to be allowed to stand as it now stands, can any good reason be given why an effort should not be made to alter it? As far as public announcements go, it would strike one that the programme of Her Majesty's Government is approaching its end; there is not very much ahead that we have had any intimation of; why should not the Government, upon such a subject as this law, be ready. to endeavour to put it in a satisfactory fashion upon the Statute Book? It is a matter of interest to authors, who certainly, on account of the great advantages which we derive from their work, deserve consideration at the hands of the Legislature, and it is for the advantage of the public, too, that this matter should be settled and the law amended. I quite admit there are difficulties, although I do not think those difficulties are so formidable as they are represented to be by the noble Lord. A great many would, I think, vanish if it were
456
known that there was a resolute earnest endeavour to grapple with and conquer them. And, as regards the thorny questions to which my noble Friend has alluded, they are not really so very enormous. He stated that 50 out of the 96 clauses of the Bill were open to objection. I do not know what are the particular points of objection alluded to; but, knowing something of the subject, I think the really difficult ones come to no more than three or four. I cannot agree with the noble Lord either that it would be impossible to deal at once with a Bill which was an amending and a consolidating Bill. No doubt there have been some controversies, but if your Lordships could settle those controversies there would be no difficulty about a Bill which was both consolidating and amending. Then there is some force in what the noble Lord said also upon the other point—that such a Bill could be better dealt with by Her Majesty's Government than by a private Member of either this or the other House of Parliament, and that, as this Bill has colonial and international aspects, and there is always a difficulty and delicacy in dealing with those questions, the Government are always in a better position to deal with them, and they would be more satisfactorily dealt with, I quite admit, in their hands than in the manner in which it would be necessary to deal with them if they were left in the hands of a private Member. Probably that part of the Bill might be left entirely to the control of the Government, the other part being taken up by a private Member. But the matter cannot be left much longer in the condition in which it now is. It would be, of course, impossible to put forward a promise of immediate legislation; such promises ought, of course, not to be lightly given; but I would press upon Her Majesty's Government, seeing the urgency of this question—as there must come under their consideration, if not at present, very shortly, the international and colonial aspect of these questions—it would be a matter of very great satisfaction if they could give the public an assurance that in taking these matters into their consideration they would be prepared to deal with the whole subject in a comprehensive fashion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I recognise the candour of my noble and learned Friend in the closing observations which he made. I do not deny that there is a great deal to be said in respect of the delay of 13 years—for which, however, I think Her Majesty's present Administration are not entirely responsible—in attempting to carry into effect the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I a little regret the somewhat aggressive tone of the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill to your Lordships' notice. I believe we are all, on both sides of the House, entirely impressed with the importance of the subject and with the necessity of dealing with it, but the noble Lord must know that a great many questions arise in a Bill of this sort, on which there is great divergence of opinion. I am myself disposed to think that it would be rash for any Government to attempt to deal with the question without endeavouring to ascertain the views of many of those who are interested in it. After the lapse of 13 years, it by no means follows that those who entertained certain views at that time entertain them now. A great deal has happened since 13 years ago, and, as the noble and learned Lord knows, many very different theories have been now started with regard to the usefulness of various provisions in the Bill, and, as I have said, it by no means follows that because certain views were entertained 13 years ago they would be found to be entertained now. I am not going to take the responsibility of moving the rejection of this Bill on the Second Reading, and I think the trouble the noble Lord has taken, and the amount of labour he has bestowed in bringing a Bill of this sort before your Lordships, would be very ill-requited if it were summarily rejected without some recognition. I cannot help saying that there are some provisions in it which I should myself oppose if it were a question of agreeing upon clauses; and I will state the reasons why I think it would be very desirable for the noble Lord not to insist upon proceeding further than the Second Reading of his Bill, which in a great measure deals with contentious matters. As has been said by the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade, the Bill contains undoubtedly a great many matters of considerable difficulty
458
and importance. The Standing Committee would, I have no doubt, faithfully do its duty in that respect, and the probability is that there would be a great many Divisions in that Committee upon the various provisions in this Bill, and a great deal of trouble taken in respect of it. There would be controversies, and I am quite sure those controversies would be renewed in this House afterwards, and the notion of passing such a Bill as this now introduced, a Bill so complex, and comprehending so many subjects of difficulty and importance, is, I think, hopeless. Its being brought forward now, in the middle of May, renders it absolutely impossible it could pass into law; and I do not think, until those questions which are the subject of controversy have been solved in some way or other, that the sending of the Bill to the Standing Committee would facilitate its passing in the future. Let me call attention to two matters which the noble Lord himself referred to—the international aspect of the Bill and the inter-colonial relations affected by it. The noble Lord has himself pointed out that by the American Bill international copyright is not to exist unless similar provisions are made in an English Act; and the noble Lord invites us to pass this Bill before the 1st July, because, unless we do so, we shall lose the benefit of the international copyright law as regards the United States. That is one matter. Then the colonies themselves may resent not being consulted upon the difficulties which arise under the Copyright Law. That I grant is not a reason why the difficulties should not be solved. I think they ought to be solved; and, in going so far with the noble and learned Lord, I will assure him that the matter has not been lost sight of. I will go so far as to say, in answer to Lord Herschell, that the matter is occupying the attention of some of the Members of Her Majesty's Government, with the strongest desire to put the matter in shape for legislation; but I think I ought not to be called upon to give a pledge to introduce a Bill on the subject. All I can say is that the subject is occupying the attention of the Government, and that such measures as are possible will be adopted. If it be possible, legislation will be proposed, but in view of the difficulties of the case, I would invite

459
the noble Lord, for his own sake and for the sake of the subject, not to insist on going forward with the Bill through the Standing Committee, because the discussions there would be certain to arise afterwards in the House, and altogether such a course would be more likely to delay and prevent than to facilitate legislation. For the reasons I have mentioned and on account of the difficulties and anomalies to which he has called attention now existing in the law, and which I think throw great doubt upon the advisability of Her Majesty's Government or any other Administration attempting hastily to deal with it, I am unable to give any pledge. I can do no more at present than say it is occupying their attention, and again invite the noble Lord not to insist upon going further with the Bill.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I quite agree as to the difficulty of dealing with this subject, but I do not concur with the noble and learned Lord's remarks as to sending it to the Standing Committee. I do not think this is a Bill which could be effectively dealt with in Standing Committee. I believe if a Bill is to be brought in upon this subject, even if it were a Bill emanating from Her Majesty's Government, it should go to a Select Committee, and that Select Committee should take evidence upon it. As the noble and learned Lord has just said, it would be impossible for anybody to proceed in the matter without having first ascertained clearly, as far as they Could be ascertained, what were the wishes of the various classes of people who are affected by the Bill, and I do not think that could be effectively done unless by a Select Committee. Probably it would be too late in the present Session to proceed in such a manner as that; but I hope Her Majesty's Government will consider whether next Session a Bill might not be introduced by themselves on the subject, or, if not, that a Bill might be allowed to be introduced by a private Member, and then sent to a Select Committee. I may, perhaps, mention that some years ago a Bill was introduced by Lord Westbury, and was sent to a Select Committee; but there were great objections to that Bill, and, in consequence of the objections which I myself made in the Select Committee, the Bill was eventually withdrawn. But
460
that is a long time ago, and, as the noble and learned Lord has said, the law has now taken quite a different shape. I was rather alarmed at first at the way in which the noble and learned Lord alluded to the very important question of the American law. I now understand that that matter is under the immediate consideration of Her Majesty's Government; but I am quite certain that, whatever may be the proper course to be taken with regard to the amendment of the law—and I express no opinion upon the subject—it is, at all events, not a matter which can be left long without being dealt with. It is quite clear that there is a strong expectation on the part of authors in this country that they will obtain the benefit of that Act, and it is quite obvious that any decision Her Majesty's Government may come to ought to be announced at as early a period as possible, for if not, there would certainly be found Members in one or other of the Houses of Parliament to bring the subject under the notice of the Legislature. I hope, therefore, we may anticipate that before a very long time has elapsed we] shall hear what are the views of Her Majesty's Government upon the matter, and. whether or not they intend to legislate upon it.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I exceedingly regret that anything in the tone of my remarks should have had the very unintentional effect of giving umbrage to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Such, certainly, was not my intention. With regard to the suggestion he has made, I am willing to avail myself of the condition he desires I should accept, namely, to give a pledge that I will not ask your Lordships to proceed further with the Bill this Session if it is now read a second time.
On Question, agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly.

VACCINATION.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,in rising to call the attention of the House to certain portions of the evidence printed with the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Vaccination; and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will provide debtors'

  461
  treatment instead of criminal treatment for persons imprisoned under the Vaccination Acts; and also to ask how so many illegal sentences of hard labour came to be passed and carried out without interference by the Home Office, said: My Lords, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence, as I am suffering from the prevailing epidemic. The respect which I feel for the noble Lord who was Chairman of the Vaccination Commission would not allow me to put down this notice without first ascertaining that he had no objection to it, and if he will allow me to say so, the reading of this Report has only increased my respect for him, owing to the skilful and impartial way in which the noble Lord conducted the investigation. I believe in vaccination if it is properly carried out with calf lymph, and I do not wish in the least to strengthen the hands of the anti-vaccinationists. I do not propose to go into medical details, but will confine myself strictly to the administrative question, that is, the treatment of those who, unfortunately, have been imprisoned for infringement of the Vaccination Acts. It cannot be denied that those parents who, either from what they have seen or heard, or perhaps have themselves experienced, refuse to have their children vaccinated, are better parents than those who insure their children in several Insurance Offices, or who hand them over for adoption for a lump sum without asking any further questions, and with whom up to the present time the Legislature has not interfered. Without going into the evidence, and without any medical knowledge, it might be assumed that after vaccination became compulsory it had to be cheap, and it must have the proverbial accompaniment of cheapness, and that neither the skill of the practitioners nor the quality of the lymph would be as good as it was at the time that vaccination was voluntary. Dr. Richard, Thorne's answers to Questions 702 and 703 of the first Report point to this defective method of vaccination. He says you know what to expect from some of the sixpenny doctors in London. I wish to refer to Question 6268 and the answer, which quotes the Bishop of Manchester, speaking in 1881 as to the bad effects of making vaccination compulsory within 12 weeks of birth; and in
  462
  order to show what some medical men are capable of I will read the answer of a doctor, No. 1738, in which he states that he had vaccinated five of his own children within 24 hours of birth: he added, "It will stagger the Commission when I mention it." I wonder one of the Commissioners did not say to him that he appeared to be risking committing manslaughter gratuitously. In order to show, from the evidence given before the Commission as appearing by the Report, that parents refusing to obey the Vaccination Laws have such grounds for their conduct as should exempt them from treatment as criminals when imprisoned, it may be stated that of the 28 witnesses examined by the Commission who had stood out against the Vaccination Laws, 16 said they refused to allow their children to be vaccinated because they knew of 24 cases of children dead or injured by vaccination. These 28 witnesses had been subjected to 413 prosecutions, and had paid amongst them £385 16s. 2d. in fines and costs. Eight of these witnesses had been imprisoned and treated as criminals, that is to say, fed on bread and water, they picked, oakum, wore prison clothes, and slept on a plank bed. In short, they received the-treatment which some persons think too. severe for inciting to crimes of outrage-and violence. One of the witnesses at. Question 6568 mentions Owen Coom, who was imprisoned in March and starved, and who died in August of the same year; and he adds—
  "I mean to say that under this Act some of the best and most excellent parents have been most cruelly treated in prison."
  Joseph Harrison, at Question 6202, says that when imprisoned in Wandsworth Gaol he was first put in the criminal ward, he was then removed by the Governor to the debtors' ward, and after the Governor had communicated with the Home Office, he was again replaced in the criminal ward, and treated as a criminal, and then, in answer to the next, question, he describes the treatment he received. It would appear from this uncertainty of the Governor of Wandsworth Gaol that there is nothing in the Act which prescribes such treatment. Besides the injustice of treating these careful parents as criminals, an injury is done to the bonâfide criminals, and the salutary effect of their sentences

  463
  must be diminished by leading them to think from the equality and similarity of their treatment that their offences are no worse than that of those parents who objected to vaccination. With regard to the illegal sentences of hard labour of which I have given instances, I would cite the case of one man, Joseph Abel, who was committed with hard labour, but the sentence was not carried out, as his brother paid the fine. Then at Question 5606 it appears that Mr. William Guest was imprisoned with hard labour, and eight days of his sentence were remitted on account of the sentence being illegal. Then at Question 6690 the evidence states that Mr. George Bainborough was also imprisoned with hard labour, and in consequence the Magistrates paid to him £40 compensation, after a writ had been issued. It is probable that other illegal sentences of hard labour have been passed besides these 'three cases which were brought before the Royal Commission, and some explanation is wanted as to why the Home Office did not check such sentences by a circular or public notification. I will conclude by moving for a Return of the number of cases of hard labour, with the names of the Magistrates who passed the sentences, and of the clerks who advised them. As I was not able to give notice of this question before, and the noble Lord who answers for the Home Office may not be able to give me an answer offhand, I must possibly be satisfied with having now formally brought the matter forward, and I will repeat the Motion after the Recess.
  LORD DE RAMSEY: I hope the noble Lord will do as he proposes, and give notice of this Return for which he asks. If I understand him rightly, he asks for the names of the Magistrates and Justices clerks who have unintentionally imprisoned such persons as he mentions with hard labour. I am aware that in one or two instances that has occurred, but, of course, the noble Lord will not expect me to assent to that Return without consultation with the Secretary of State. I will ask the noble Lord to excuse me from following him into the pros and cons of the vaccination question, and I will on the present occasion confine myself to answering his question. I think the noble Lord rather takes it for granted that the cases
  464
  of sentences referred to in the Report were illegal. In all the cases but one they were strictly legal. The one case which was exceptional was George Bainborough, who was, withoutdoubt, illegally sentenced to 14 days' hard labour. The noble Lord has very properly quoted that case; but as regards the others, I have not been able at all to agree with his remarks. In that case George Bainborough appealed to the Magistrates, and the noble Lord is perfectly correct in saying that £40 was paid in compensation. In the 5th section of the Summary Jurisdiction Act it is laid down that where imprisonment is adjudged in default of payment of a fine such imprisonment shall be inflicted without hard labour, except where the hard labour is authorised by the Act on which the conviction is founded. The Vaccination Acts do not contain any provision as to hard labour, and prisoners, therefore, cannot be legally subjected to that treatment. Special rules have been made by Parliament in the Prison Acts as to the employment of prisoners; but no prisoner who is sentenced under the Vaccination Acts can be compelled to undergo any labour of this sort. Such a prisoner is treated under the ordinary rules for regulating the treatment of prisoners who are sentenced to simple imprisonment. Simple imprisonment, as the noble Lord knows, means imprisonment without hard labour. Under the Prison Act of 1855, such a prisoner may be compelled to work, and may be punished by alteration of diet for neglect of work, but the Prison Commissioners are empowered also to make rules as to the nature and amount of the employment, and such a thing, for instance, as oakum picking is an authorised employment. I hope the noble Lord follows the difference between imprisonment with hard labour and simple imprisonment. Prisoners who are not convicted of offences, but merely committed to prison for noncompliance with an order of the Judge to pay a sum of money, are now treated as debtors under the rules framed by the Secretary of State, and are subject to the special rules applying to debtors' prisons. I hope I have answered most of the points raised by the noble Lord in his question, but. if he will give notice, on a future occasion I shall be glad to give him any further answer he requires.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I only desire to say that I am very glad to hear the statement which the noble Lord has just made as to the regulation under which persons so committed are now committed as debtors. I think that even those who are of opinion that vaccination ought to be made compulsory, and obedience enforced by fine, or, in default of payment of the fines, by imprisonment, may well consider that in dealing with persons so committed it is in the highest degree expedient in the interest even of compulsory vaccination not to impose upon them the code of degrading prison punishment which was prescribed and considered necessary in times gone by. The statement of the noble Lord, showing that this is no longer done, is to my mind very satisfactory. I do not know whether he is able to state from what date that has been the case.
  LORD DE RAMSEY: The noble and learned Lord is aware that part of these regulations are by Act of Parliament, and that the Secretary of State has the power of passing other rules, which have to be laid on the Table for 40 days and are confirmed by Act of Parliament.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I mean the date from which these persons have been treated as debtors?
  LORD DE RAMSEY: I think it will be found that it has been so since 1877. I will hand the noble Lord the document which I think he wants.

WATER SUPPLY AT PORT OF SPAIN.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, in the absence of my noble Friend (the Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham) he has asked me to put the question which stands in his name. I will not detain your Lordships by adding any remarks of my own, but simply ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a statement in the Evening News and Post of the 29th ultimo, and to a letter in the Globe of the same date, relative to an alleged water famine at Port of Spain; whether it is a fact that the existing water supply was condemned by Dr. de Montbrun, as causing dysentery and other infectious diseases, as far back as 24th July, 1887; whether the water, in consequence of its insufficiency,
  466
  has now to be shut off at the mains all night; and if the fires of the 11th and 15th February this year were not attended with great loss of life and property owing to want of water to extin-tinguish them; whether the Director of Public Works for Trinidad, Mr. Tanner, did not on 1st December, 1890, lay on the Table of the Legislative Assembly plans for ensuring a full supply of pure water to Port of Spain; whether anything further has been done in the matter; and if the Secretary of State will avail himself of Mr. Tanner's presence in England to take, in concert with him, such steps as may be necessary to have Port of Spain provided with water?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My attention has been called to the statements in question. I have to state that I am informed that Dr. de Montbrun, a medical practitioner in Port of Spain, Trinidad, in a letter of the 24th of July, 1889 (not 1887, as stated in the question) did express an opinion that the quality of the water supplied was the cause of dysentery. I am informed by the Director of Public Works in Trinidad that in 1889, during an abnormally dry season, it was necessary to shut off the water at the main during the night, but that this was not done in 1890, nor has it been done in the present year, as far as my informant knows. I have no official information as to the alleged want of water for extinguishing the recent fires at Port of Spain alluded to in the question. A statement to that effect was made in the newspapers, but it was immediately contradicted by the Acting Director of Public Works in the colony. It is true that a Report of the Director of Public Works was laid upon the Table of the Legislative Council on the 1st of December, 1890, submitting a scheme for an additional water supply to Port of Spain at an estimated cost of £106,000, but I am not aware whether any action was taken on that Report. I will call for information on the subject, but I need not tell your Lordships that it is for the Legislature and Government of Trinidad to take such steps as they may think right in the matter.

SLANDER OF WOMEN BILL.—(No. III.)
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read, and discharged.
PRESUMPTION OF LIFE LIMITATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 104.)
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.
LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 97.)
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
EVIDENCE BILL [H.L.]—(No. 119.)
Read 3a (according to order); Amendments made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES BILL.(No. 122.)
THIRD READING.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, there is one matter to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention. I find that the delegates sent over here from Newfoundland not unnaturally feel somewhat aggrieved at the view which has found expression in many newspapers in this country, that in the proposals which they made, and which were referred to in the last stage but one of the Bill before the House, they were withdrawing from the proposals which they had made in the first instance. Entertaining, as I do, a very strong view that any such charge against the delegates is unfounded, I think it is only right that I should publicly express that view. I am not going into the controversy as to what was the meaning or the true interpretation of the expression which they used in the offer originally made by the delegates—as to whether they indicated the passing of permanent or temporary measures. On the last occasion I expressed my opinion upon that subject. I did not, of course, intend for a moment to suggest that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies did not understand the proposal in a different sense, but of this I am quite certain: that there is no ground whatever for the conclusion that the delegates are not stating what is perfectly correct when they say that they intend in that proposal to refer to temporary legislation, and that they
468
certainly so understood the proposal they made; and I do not think any candid person can dispute that they may well and reasonably have so understood that proposal, inasmuch as it was so understood by myself and those of my noble Friends with whom I have been in communication on the subject. If we so understood it—if that was the interpretation which we put upon it, coming to the question without preconceived opinions, it certainly cannot for a moment be justifiably suggested that the delegates did not mean and intend that which by many was understood to be the true meaning and construction of the language they used. I am not on the present occasion proposing to reopen the question as to which interpretation is correct, but whatever view is taken upon that point it cannot be suggested that the delegates are not now adhering to the proposals which they intended to make, and believed that they did make, using language which might reasonably be understood to mean what they wished to express when they were first heard at the Bar of your Lordships' House. I think it is only right, inasmuch as they naturally feel sore at the statements which have appeared in many newspapers that they are departing from their word, that I should publicly make that statement. I do not propose to enter further into the controversy upon this question, because if I understand aright, the situation has been materially changed in one respect since the matter was last before your Lordships' House. At the time of the last discussion the noble Marquess suggested that there was no-warrant for our taking the view that the delegates were the absolute representatives of the Legislature of Newfoundland and that even such proposals as they might have accepted might none the less not be accepted by the Legislature of Newfoundland. As I say, the situation is materially changed since then, because, as I understand it, the Legislature of Newfoundland have indicated by a vote-that they are prepared to carry out such legislation as the delegates propose. But I understand that a communication from the delegates to the Colonial Office either has been sent in the course of this afternoon or is now on its way—I am not sure which, and in either case it obviously would be unreasonable that I

469
should press Her Majesty's Government for any expression of opinion upon this proposal on the present occasion. If they have not seen it, it would be impossible for them to make any communication, and if it had only recently come to their hands it would be equally unreasonable that they should be asked to give an expression of opinion upon a matter which they might quite properly say required some careful consideration. Therefore I do not press Her Majesty's Government, even if they have received these proposals, for an expression of opinion upon them. All I urge upon the noble Lord and upon Her Majesty's Government is this. Let me say, in the first instance, that I do not know what these proposals are. It would be the greatest possible satisfaction to me, and I believe to all your Lordships, if these proposals were such as Her Majesty's Government might find themselves able to accept; but even if they should not be such as they could accept in all respects, as to which I express no opinion, I do most seriously and earnestly impress upon Her Majesty's Government not to put them aside as unacceptable, and so put an end to any attempt to arrive at an understanding. I hope even if they are not considered acceptable that, at all events, the Government may make an endeavour as far as possible to meet the wishes and views of the delegates, and to arrive at a settlement which will secure legislation in Newfoundland instead of the legislation proposed by this Bill. I do so, not only in the interest of our relations with the colony, but in the interest of a satisfactory settlement of this question in all respects, because I am quite certain that even if Her Majesty's Government do not get all they might think should be accorded by the Newfoundland Legislature, yet on the other hand they must see that if they can secure the means of enforcing the Treaty at present existing by legislation in Newfoundland they are much more likely to be able to effect the object they have in view by acting in that way in harmony with the Newfoundland Legislature and Government than by acting in opposition to them, and by forcing this legislation through in this country, even if they might think that in some respects such legislation would be more
470
satisfactory than the legislation proposed by the colonists. It is eminently a case in which every possible consideration and regard should be shown to the colony, consistently with the duties imposed upon Her Majesty's Government. I have no reason to suppose that they will not be willing to show that consideration and regard for those who represent the colony of Newfoundland, and I think that every endeavour should be made to come to an understanding which will bring about a harmonious rather than a hostile settlement.
LORD KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I need scarcely say I regret that any misapprehension should have arisen with regard to the proposal of the delegates, and I should feel especial regret if the misapprehension had arisen from any failure on my part to make clear the decision and views of Her Majesty's Government. I will not dwell upon the point any longer, except to accept the statement which the noble and learned Lord has made, that the delegates from the first only intended to propose that a temporary Act should be passed. The delegates are now, however, aware of the position and views of Her Majesty's Government. I have not seen any proposals that have been sent in to-day, nor am I aware whether any have yet been received at the Colonial Office, but of course every consideration will be given to those proposals. I confess that I have spoken somewhat in vain in this House, and that others who represent Her Majesty's Government have spoken in vain, if we have not succeeded in assuring your Lordships and in convincing the noble and learned Lord that we have every desire to meet the wishes of the colonists, that we have made every effort to do so, and that we are not, therefore, liable to the kind of lecture which the noble and learned Lord has just given us. He has assumed, on the part of the colonists, that we have endeavoured to keep them at arm's length, whereas the very reverse is the case. We have endeavoured at every stage to meet them; all their proposals have been carefully considered; and we most heartily desire that they should pass legislation, and free us from the necessity of proceeding with this Imperial Bill. As regards this special measure, I must observe that throughout all the attacks that have

471
been made upon Her Majesty's Government in this respect no reference has been made to the clause now standing as Section 3, which is a protection to the independence of the Colonial Legislature. That has never been sufficiently recognised. We have earnestly desired to keep that independence secure by giving the colonists, at any time, power to suspend the Imperial legislation by passing themselves a measure sufficient to secure the performance of those international obligations by which they, as well as this country, are bound.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I had not the slightest wish to make any further remarks upon this subject, but I cannot pass over in silence the remarks of the noble Lord opposite, which I confess I have heard with some pain. The noble Lord talks about my noble and learned Friend having administered a lecture, which, I am sure, was not in the least his intention, and he spoke—which I cannot concur in—of the thoroughly conciliatory attitude of the Government. I had no wish to say a word more on the subject, but as he challenges us upon it I feel bound to say that I think the attitude of the Government has been the reverse of conciliatory. I do not say it in regard to this country, but to the colony; and for this reason: The colony propose legislation which would have met, in my opinion, the whole difficulty; the Government, however, replied peremptorily to that, and demanded permanent legislation. I cannot for a moment see how it can be claimed, on behalf of the Government, that that is a conciliatory attitude. It may be a wise attitude; it may be a prudent attitude; it may be that they are right in the arguments that they have used, but that they have adopted a conciliatory attitude I cannot agree. What we complain of on the part of Her Majesty's Government is that while they have quite rightly intimated to the colony that it is impossible there should not be legislation for the purpose of carrying into effect the Treaty, they have not, since the delegates have put their proposals before them, shown the desire, which I should have thought they would have shown, to come to some agreement with the colony. I must say they have shown, what I ventured on a former occasion to deprecate, that is, a certain
472
amount of ill-temper. I say it deliberately—a certain amount of ill-humour on account of the persistent refusal of the Newfoundland Legislature to meet Her Majesty's Government on former occasions. I do not agree with the position which the Newfoundlanders took up. I think it would have been wiser on their part if they had met Her Majesty's Government at the time in a more conciliatory spirit. All that I quite concur in, but I believe we all admit they have very strong grounds of irritation, not against Her Majesty's Government, but on account of the Treaty to the provisions of which they are subject, and although they may have shown a want of conciliatory feeling in the past, that is no reason why we should visit them with punishment in regard to what ought now to be looked upon as by-gones. I will repeat, even though I may be said to be lecturing, which is not at all my intention, that it is in the interests of this country, and of our relations with France, and that it is also in the interest of Her Majesty's Government themselves, that, if possible by any means, this legislation should not be forced upon the colonists. The result, it is quite clear, will be that if the colonists are to have this legislation—and I am not saying that this is yet decided — forced upon them, we shall have to enforce the Treaty against the colonists when they are in a state of great irritation, and I am sure the noble Lord must see that will be a real disadvantage to us; and it is for that reason, and not merely as an advocate of the Newfoundland colonists, which is not a part which I wish to play, but in the interests of Her Majesty's Government itself, that I and those who are with me urge that the Government might have shown a more conciliatory attitude towards the colonists.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think it necessary to say a few words after—what shall I call it?—the exhortation from the noble Lord opposite. I will not call it a lecture, though he has told us of our hostility and our ill-temper.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I did not use the word "hostility."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether, if the noble and learned Lord was invested with the right of lec-

473
turing us on Sundays, he could have spoken much more frankly than he has done. But it is not the question whether the noble and learned Lord's rhetorical compositions are to be classed an lectures or not: the question is, whether Her Majesty's Government have deserved any such blame as that which both the noble Lords have imputed to them?
LORD HERSCHELL: I beg the noble Marquess's pardon. I imputed, in the whole of my observations, no blame as to the past; I only expressed a strong hope that something might be done in the future.
LORD KNUTSFORD: If you did not impute, you assumed it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should have thought that the noble Lord's language would hardly have been relevant unless there was some presumption that we needed a repetition of the very obvious moral maxims which he has used. When you repeat the Ten Commandments in an emphatic tone to anybody you rather impute that the Ten Commandments have not been observed by that person, and that, I think, was rather the tone in which the noble Lord spoke to us, though there was nothing at all novel presented to us, or beyond the power of the most limited capacity, which would prevent our discovering such moral guidance for ourselves. I repeat that the two noble Lords, by presumption or by direct statement, have imputed to us that we have not acted in a conciliatory spirit towards the Newfoundland colonists. I am not aware of any action on our part to which that language can be applied. I am sure that it would not be wrong to say that our patience through years of negotiation has been exemplary. We tried every device of negotiation we could conceive in order to bring about an arrangement between the colonists and the French Government. At their request we laid proposals before the French Government, which we knew it was perfectly impossible the French Government could accept. We did all we could to give full expression to their wishes, and to convince them that the difficulty in which they found themselves, and which we always recognised very heartily, was one which it was not in our power to get rid of. Then, when
474
it came to the necessity for a Bill, we had to choose, to find a path, to consider how we should combine what we believed would be the utmost possible consideration for the colony with the observance of our plain international obligations, and the avoidance of the dangers and hazards which nobody in this or the other House of Parliament would be anxious we should incur. What we have said is that legislation must be passed by a certain time, and we have already strained that time to the utmost. At this very moment acts are going on upon the coast of Newfoundland which France challenges as illegal and a breach of Treaties. I do not suppose that the French Government will make any exaggerated or extravagant representations on that head, but that is the fact at the present moment. Our officers have been deprived of all power of interfering for the protection of the Treaties; they are under instructions to report, but, so far as interference with British subjects goes, not to act. It is impossible that we can allow that state of things to go on for an unlimited time. We feel it is absolutely necessary to bring it to a close. If the Newfoundland Legislature will give us the powers we desire, I quite recognise that would be a much more satisfactory mode of doing it than by our taking the powers here at Westminster; but a pressure for a permanent Act is due not to the motives which the noble and learned Lord was kind enough to suggest, not to any anger, provocation, or ill-temper, to which he was pleased to say it was due, but to our feeling of the international hazard involved in the contrary course. Anyone who knows the ways of the British Parliament, the difficulty of getting Bills through the House of Commons, and the way some sudden storm of political disturbance will sweep across the country and prevent the attention of Parliament, even to pressing matters of foreign interest, will know that it is not a safe plan to put ourselves in such a position that for a considerable number of months it would be entirely out of our power to fulfil our international obligations. Again, I say, if the French Government remains what the French Government now is, I do not apprehend that we shall have to look for any unfriendly construc-

475
tion of difficulties which may arise on that account. But a consideration which I cannot put aside, and which I entreat noble Lords to reflect upon for themselves, is that we cannot assume that any of these conditions around us are permanent, and that circumstances may not place us in a position of difficulty and even of peril, if we have not always the power of observing what we have acknowledged to be our international obligations. Therefore it does seem to me that we require something more than a temporary Act, an Act which is only to be renewed on the condition that an agreement is come to in the meantime on some very difficult questions regarding compensation and tribunals which the Newfoundland Legislature has placed before us. We shall be exceedingly glad to consider the suggestions which the delegates have made, and we shall make great efforts to come to an agreement with them upon those two subjects. What we do not like is to make our power of fulfilling our international obligations contingent on any accidents which may arise, and upon our obtaining power upon those two points. That is our desire, and against that we must guard. I utterly repudiate the construction put upon our conduct by noble Lords who say that it was influenced by any spirit of ill-temper or (hostility towards the colonists. We are anxious by every means in our power to make their position, which we admit to be difficult and disagreeable, as tolerable as possible. We are anxious to consult their feelings and sympathies as far as we can, but we do claim from Parliament the power of fulfilling our international obligations.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, it has often been my duty to point out the inconvenience of Resolutions interfering with legislation, and on this question arbitration is extremely inconvenient, because all arbitrations are necessarily lengthy. For 12 years it was my duty to arrange for conducting all arbitrations from the Court of Queen's Bench, and I may mention, perhaps, my method of procedure. My first step was to get together the counsel engaged, and see that they were exactly agreed upon what was the subject of reference. However, though the delays of arbitration
476
may be objectionable, I think a little delay would be a good thing on this occasion, and upon the Motion that the Bill do pass, I propose to move that the Bill do pass this day month.
LORD NORTON: My Lords, I must express my own opinion that it is most unpatriotic of the two noble Lords opposite to make this accusation of the want of conciliatory spirit on the part of the Government towards the delegates from Newfoundland. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell) made the accusation by way of insinuation—by way of giving advice to the Government to act in a friendly spirit. The noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) made his attack more directly, and said there had been an unfriendly spirit shown. If it had been true it was unpatriotic to say so. What object could the noble Lords opposite have had in throwing out that insinuation here publicly except to impress the delegates in the first place with the idea that there had been something unconciliatory in the action of the Government towards them; and, in the second place, which is still more dangerous and unpatriotic, to create that impression in the minds of the colonists at the critical moment of a most difficult and delicate question—a question of the greatest possible importance for the interests of the colony, and as regards the foreign relations of this country. But I deny that there is any ground whatever for this insinuation. The Legislature of the colony was called upon from time to time to legislate themselves in the matter, and it was not until they absolutely refused to legislate that the Government came forward with the necessary Bill—for an empowering Act must be passed by one or the other. I repeat that it was not until the colony had refused to act that the Government came forward with their Bill, and then only presenting it as a provisional measure while still pressing them to act, and stating that the Imperial Act was only brought forward as an absolute necessity, telling them—" If you will not yourselves act within a certain time there must be action on the part of the Imperial Government." I have no doubt that there may have been irritation felt on the part of the colonists from the galling annoyance

477
caused them by the provisions of the Treaty. But that was not irritation against this country. It arose, as I say, from the difficulties arising from the observance of a Treaty more than a century old, which had become obsolete, and some of the provisions of which were very galling to them. They knew that we were doing all we could on our part, and that we were as anxious as they were to remove that difficulty. They could feel no irritation against us, though they felt a natural irritation at the Treaty which we were doing our utmost to alter, and which they knew we were doing our utmost to modify, in their interests. But, after all, how could it possibly have been the object of Her Majesty's Government, or of anybody else in this country, to act in an unconciliatory spirit while trying to co-operate with the colonists in removing the difficulties arising out of the Treaty? It was our object as much as theirs to remove them; we have acted together for that purpose; and it is quite as much to our interest as to theirs that they should be removed. I do sincerely hope that it will not go out to the delegates or to the colonists that there is any foundation whatever for the insinuation which I think has been most unpatriotically thrown out against the Government on this occasion.
On Question, agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.] (No. 77.)
Read 3a (according to order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
TRUSTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 108.)
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
HERRING BRANDING (NORTHUMBERLAND) BILL.—(No. 92.)
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered, That the Evening Sitting of the House to-morrow do commence at half-past Four o'clock.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.