Lords Sitting of 25 February 1892

NEW PEER.
Sir William Thomsonknight, having been created Baron Kelvin of Largs in the County of Ayr—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLMy Lords, I give notice that on Thursday, the 4th of March, I shall move the Second Reading of the Bill for the Abatement of Smoke in the Metropolis.
SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL.

  TRUSTS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to declare and amend certain provisions or the law relating to trusts—Was
  presented by The Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 20.)

EAST INDIA OFFICERS BILL [H.L.] (No. 18.)

  COMMITTEE
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order).
  Schedule.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKMy Lords, I beg to move that the words "The Governor General of India" be omitted from the Schedule of the Bill. I have not made any remarks upon the clauses of the Bill, although I cannot say that I altogether agree with those clauses, because I thought that it would save your Lordships' time and trouble if I simply went to the two points which I desire to press upon your Lordships, namely, that it is not desirable to allow the Secretary of State to call the Governor General of India back upon business to England, or that the Governor General should absent himself from India for six months upon a medical certificate; and the same thing with respect to the Commander-in-Chief. My Lords, when the Bill was read a second time I gave to those of your Lordships who were then present the reasons which I had for wishing
  1190
  those alterations to be made in the Bill. They are very simple. I believe that all your Lordships will agree that India is a country where great and sudden dangers not unfrequently occur; and I suppose your Lordships would also agree that it might be very serious indeed if, when such a sudden danger occurred, the Governor General of India should be absent from India, and his place should be filled temporarily by some one who, however able, could not possibly carry the same weight as one who had been the Head of the Administration. I believe that the provisions of the Bill would require, when the Governor General was called home by the Secretary of State, or went home on sick leave, that the senior of the Governors of the two other Presidencies should take his place; and it does not always occur that either of the distinguished men who fill those places could have the same acquaintance with the affairs of India, or carry the same weight in the country, as one who had been selected for the office of Governor General. My Lords, for that reason I think it is very unadvisable to give the powers conferred by this Bill. When the Secretary of State for India moved the Second Reading of the Bill he gave some indication that the Governor General might be omitted from the Bill, upon further consideration; and when the Prime Minister, in answering the few remarks which I made the other night, gave the reasons which he thought made the Bill desirable, he rested his argument upon quite a different matter; he rested his argument upon the possibility that it might be very desirable that one of the Members of the Governor General's Council could be summoned home to England to confer with the Home Authorities. My Lords, I think that the observation made by the noble Marquess was very pertinent. I do not at all dispute that in certain circumstances it might be desirable to summon home on business one of the Members of the Governor General's Council in order to confer with the Secretary of State; and, therefore, I do not propose to move the omission of the power to call home on business from India the Members of the Governor General's Council. But the

  1191
  noble Marquess did not give any reasons, if my recollection serves me rightly, for the necessity of summoning home the Governor General of India. The Secretary of State did not give, either this Session or last Session, when the Bill was introduced, any reason, upon public grounds, why he thought it was desirable to summon the Governor General from India to this country; and the other day I asked him whether he could produce any correspondence which would show that this proposal (which is one of considerable importance, as I think all your Lordships will admit) had been communicated to the Government of India, and that the Government of India had had any opportunity of expressing an opinion upon changes which may very seriously affect the administration of affairs in that country. My Lords, in my opinion—I speak, perhaps, somewhat from the Indian point of view—but still, in my opinion, such legislation as this should not be introduced into this House, or in the other House of Parliament, excepting in very peculiar circumstances, unless the Government of India have had an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it. There can be no reason at all in this case why the matter should not have been communicated to the Government of India, and an answer might well have been received between last Session and this. And, indeed, no urgency whatever has been alleged by the Secretary of State for introducing this Bill. Therefore, my Lords, I should very much prefer that the Secretary of State would drop this Bill altogether; but, as I do not suppose he will be prepared to take that course, I beg to move that the Governor General of India be omitted from the Schedule.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 16, omit "The Governor General of India."—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Viscount CROSS)My Lords, I think your Lordships will see at once that, since this Bill was read a second time, the provisions in the first clause have been made rather stronger than they were in the original Bill. The Bill was never intended to enable the Government to call home any
  1192
  one of these persons except for special reasons; and, in order to show that it must be a very special reason, you have the safeguard of the approval of the Secretary of State in Council to begin with, and that of the Governor General in Council as well; and then you have the further safeguard, that these persons are only to be allowed to come home on public grounds, or upon a medical certificate, for a short time. But, my Lords, although the Government are of opinion that it is quite right that there should be some power that these persons may be allowed to come home in case of necessity; and although they are of opinion that the original provision in the old Act was perfectly right when the journey to and from India was so long; yet the fact of the journey being now so very much shortened materially alters the case as to the question of these great personages being allowed to come home. Because, not only would they come home in a very much shorter time, but, if anything should happen in India to require their immediate presence there, their return to India would, of course, be equally shortened. But, my Lords, I am, as Secretary of State, and I am quite sure all my colleagues are, always most anxious to listen to anything which falls from the noble Earl, considering the great position he has himself held in India, and the interest he has always taken in any matter relating to India since his return to your Lordships' House sitting here; and, therefore, I am quite willing to take into consideration what he has said. My Lords, when the Bill was before your Lordships' House the other day the noble Earl said what was perfectly true—that the Viceroy of India stood upon a sort of pinnacle that no one else could stand upon; that he was in a position totally different from that of any other officer in India. It is equally true that, if you want to consult on matters of very great importance with regard to general questions in India, it is possible to make use of one of the Members of the Governor General's Council, who would come home perfectly prepared to give you all the intelligence that the Viceroy could give. Therefore, my Lords, upon that particular point I am

  1193
  anxious to meet the noble Earl so far as I can; and, considering that the Viceroy stands entirely alone and quite distinct from all the other officers mentioned in the Bill, Her Majesty's Government will assent to the Amendment of the noble Earl. I cannot give him any hope that we will assent to the other Amendment which stands in his name, because I think the Commander-in-Chief stands on a totally different footing; but, considering the supreme importance of the Viceroy of India, and how he does stand out on a pinnacle above everybody else, we will agree to the Amendment of the noble Earl in this matter. I may say, perhaps, that the second clause will want amending in consequence, but that can be done by the Standing Committee; and so will the Schedule in another way; but, so far as this particular Amendment of the noble Earl is concerned, I am willing to agree to it. In order to make the Schedule sense, it will be necessary to say "The Members of the Council of the Governor General of India."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKMy Lords, I now beg to move that the words "The Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in India," be omitted from the Schedule. The observations which I have made upon the subject of the Governor General seem to me to apply, with almost equal force, to the office of Commander-in-Chief of the Forces. My Lords, India is a country in which, as I said before, dangers occur suddenly, and military dangers occur with the greatest suddenness. I suppose many of your Lordships are old enough to recollect the time of the Mutiny. How long before the Mutiny took place was it thought possible that such a thing could occur? And, my Lords, even of late we have had, within the last two or three years, constant outbreaks of hostilities of one kind or the other in India. So lately as last year we had that very sad event in Manipur, and it was not more than a week ago that we saw from the papers that some hostilities had occured in Burmah. Now, my Lords. I, myself, think that the Commander-in-Chief is an officer whose responsibility is so
  1194
  great in that country that he ought to take his five years' appointment for good or for bad, and not to return from India to this country during those five years. In case of the Commander-in-Chief being attacked with illness, if the illness was not very severe indeed, India possesses climates of every description; there is no difficulty in his obtaining change of climate in India at all; and I cannot conceive that, in the case of an illness so grave as to require his absence in England for six months, it would not be, in the public interest, desirable that the Commander-in-Chief should receive a successor to his appointment; and, being an officer of high military position, it does not seem to me that it would be likely in any way to interfere with his future career—other offices would be open to him which he could fill. That is with respect to his coming home on sick leave. It has not always been that the next senior officer (who, I suppose, is the person who would be appointed), would be an officer who would command the confidence of the Government here, or in India, to the same extent as would the Commander-in-Chief. In point of fact, if I were to ask the Secretary of State whether he could say that there is any officer now in India whom he would be inclined to appoint to be Commander-in-Chief in India, in the event of a vacancy, I doubt very much whether he would be able at this moment to name such an officer. That is a reason why I think that this officer also ought to retain his appointment, and not to leave India. Now, my Lords, as respects summoning home the Commander-in-Chief in India on business, I think there are considerable objections to it. If the Commander-in-Chief has to come home on business connected with the Army in England, by the provisions of the Bill the whole expense of his substitute and everything else would fall upon the revenues of India. Surely that is not fair! If the Secretary of State proposes to introduce clauses in the other House, putting that expense upon the Imperial revenues, well and good; but there is no such provision now in the Bill. My Lords, if the Commander-in-Chief is to come home on Indian business connected

  1195
  with Indian military affairs, I think it is not fair upon the Governor General in Council. There is no military business, in my opinion, in India—no military question in India—which is not essentially affected by political considerations; and the effect of the Commander-in-Chief being summoned home on Indian military business to confer with the Government in this country (apart from the Governor General and the members of his Council) would be that the Governor General and the members of his Council would not be able, if they disagreed with the Commander-in-Chief, to represent to the Home Authorities the political views which they might hold, and which, if they could represent them, might very much modify the opinion of the Government upon important questions. I hold, therefore, that the Commander-in-Chief coming home to be consulted upon an Indian military question, apart from the Governor General, when the Governor General could not be represented, would not be fair or right to the Government in India. On those grounds therefore, my Lords, I beg to move that the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in India be omitted from the schedule.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 18, omit "The Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in India."—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)My Lords, I should be loth to sacrifice the discretion which we desire to obtain for the Secretary of State and the Viceroy in respect to this matter of the Commander-in-Chief coming home. The noble Lord seems to deal with the matter chiefly as an individual question as to what was fair to the Commander-in-Chief, and what was fair to the Viceroy. Those are important considerations; but there are public considerations of very much greater value. I do not base this provision chiefly, though I should to some extent, upon the question of a medical certificate. There is something to be said for the view of the noble Lord that, if the Commander-in-Chief is not well enough to continue in his work, he may be required to re-
  1196
  sign—though I think it is rather an inconvenient doctrine, and at variance with what is accepted in all other parts of the Indian Service at the present time. But I would venture to remind the noble Lord that the existing law in no way protects India from being left without her Commander-in-Chief. He may, at this moment, go to the Cape, and, for all I know, he may go up to Mashonaland; that is within Indian limits; and there is nothing to prevent his doing so. Therefore the protection is illusory, and I hardly think it is worth while to maintain it in this matter of medical certificate. But I acknowledge that it is not the question of medical certificate that is uppermost in my own mind. The noble Lord, at an earlier part of this conversation, freely admitted that consultation with the members of the Governor General's Council might be a matter of considerable value to the Government in England. But the Commander-in-Chief is one of the most important members of the Governor General's Council; and the matters on which the English Government would wish to consult him are matters more deeply affecting the welfare and maintenance of the Empire than any other matters that could be conceived. The noble Lord speaks as though military questions were divided by a sharp line into two categories: those which concern the Army in England, and those which concern the Army in India. Does it not occur to him that there is a class of military questions which concern both Armies very closely—and those military questions in which not only the Army in India, but the whole strength of the Empire may be involved—with respect to which the main decisions have to be taken in India, though they must be taken in consonance with the views that are held at home? Those questions have become much more important since the noble Lord was practically familiar with Indian Government. Since the year 1876 those questions have grown into vast importance. I will venture to say that no one who is familiar with the military questions of the day could put out of view the class of occasions on which it might be necessary for the English Army and the Indian Army to co-

  1197
  operate. My Lords, I can conceive of no question, or set of questions, upon which mature, and circumspect, and careful decision, taken in time before danger comes, by the English and by the Indian Government, is more vital to the interests of the Empire. I can conceive of no set of questions upon which all the light that can be thrown by the military knowledge and experience, both of those who rule in India and those who rule in England, is more required for guiding us into a right and wholesome path; and I will venture to say, speaking from my own personal experience,—for in these days these matters are not often absent from our consideration,—that, within no very great distance of time, it would have been a matter of the greatest possible satisfaction to myself, and to those with whom I act, if we could have had oral communication with the Commander-in-Chief in India. My Lords, I hope you will not ask me to develop that thesis. I think that most who hear me will see that it is capable of wide development, and that interests of a very considerable magnitude may hang upon the decision at which you arrive. I earnestly ask you not to take away this power, that we seek to obtain, from the Secretary of State and the Viceroy of India. There is no probability that they will use it lightly, use it without cause, use it for any frivolous reason. And, with respect to the last observations made by the noble Lord as to who is to pay the steamer fare of the Commander-in-Chief when coming home, if these matters are really important in the highest interests of the Empire, do not let us quarrel about which Treasury is to bear the cost of the travelling expenses. I think we are capable of coming to some arrangement upon that point. My Lords, I should, of course, repel at once the idea that the Commander-in-Chief would be often sent for. I believe it must necessarily be an occasion of very great rarity; but I can imagine, as I have said, cases in which it would be a matter of enormous value to our highest interests that we should send for him; and I cannot conceive that any real danger would arise from it. You have always two
  1198
  Commanders-in-Chief, chosen specially for their powers of governing large Armies in vast districts—the Commanders-in-Chief of Bombay and Madras; and either of those could surely hold, for the few necessary weeks, the office of acting Commander-in-Chief, while the actual tenant of the post was in England on consultation. If anything happened to him; if he was disabled; if he was killed; such a remedy would have to be taken; and nobody has ever yet suggested that any great danger lurked in that contingency. My Lords, without for a moment pretending (I desire to guard myself on that point) that such power would often be used, I say that the discretion of using it ought to be with the Government, and I hope your Lordships will not refuse it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYMy Lords, no doubt the mode in which the noble Marquess has approached this question is one which may make one hesitate upon this Amendment; because he has indicated that there are some tremendous occasions, to which he does not think it right, no doubt for public reasons, to allude, on which the presence of the Commander-in-Chief in this country is, in his opinion, of the very highest moment and importance. My Lords, not knowing what the circumstances are to which the noble Marquess refers, I cannot give my opinion upon them; but I have had myself some experience in the Office of Secretary of State for India, and certainly the military questions, which arose during the time I held that Office, were of so grave a nature that I can scarcely conceive that anything so grave can have arisen during the tenure of Office of the present Government. It never occurred to me, or to any of my Colleagues, that, in the circumstances in which we were then placed, it would for a moment have been desirable to have asked the Commander-in-Chief to come over to this country. I cannot allude further, any more than the noble Marquess could, to all the circumstances of the time; because, of course, one's opinion depends upon confidential information to which I had access, and to which it would be highly improper that I should allude in this House. But I still feel that,

  1199
  although it would be impossible to deny the weight of the arguments used by the noble Marquess on the one side, there is very great weight indeed in what has been said by my noble Friend (Lord Northbrook) upon the other. The circumstances of India, as my noble Friend has pointed out, are wholly different from those to which we are accustomed in this country. Everyone knows that a small cloud in the distance will suddenly spread into a hurricane, and, before your Commander-in-Chief could get back from this country to India, his absence from the Indian Empire might be the cause of very serious disasters. My Lords, if I felt perfectly satisfied that it was only upon some extraordinary occasion that such a power as this would be used, I might regard it with more indifference; but your Lordships must remember what the working of clauses of this kind is. It is all very well to say that the consent of the Governor General in Council is required; but I do not believe that, if the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief in India both desired that this power should be used, it would be possible for the Viceroy in Council to resist the demand; and what I should be afraid of is that this power would come to be used upon occasions not so grave as those which the noble Marquess has in his mind. Of course it is a balance of advantages and disadvantages. As I said the other night, I do not for a moment undervalue in the slightest degree—it would be childish to do so—the advantages of consultation with high officers. The whole question turns upon this: is it, upon the whole, more likely that the Public Service will suffer seriously by the Government not being able to bring over the Commander-in-Chief, or that the Empire of India may be endangered by the possible absence of the Commander-in-Chief at a crisis when his presence is greatly required? That is a matter upon which each person must form his own opinion. I, myself, for my own part, would greatly prefer that the law should rest as it is. With regard to sick leave, I think the natural conclusion from the noble Marquess's argument would be that the power of the Commander-in-Chief to go to the Cape ought to be abro-
  1200
  gated. That, however, is a matter which I will not press further. Upon the whole, I must say that I remain of the same opinion as my noble Friend (Lord Northbrook).
  On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Schedule?
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 21.)
  Their Lordships divided: Contents 27; Not-Contents 20.

BETTING AND LOANS (INFANTS) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 13.)
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]—(No. 4.)
Third Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Monday next.

LONDON FOG.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONMy Lords, since my noble Friend the Prime Minister expressed his willingness to support the appointment of a Committee to inquire into this question, I have carefully considered the matter, and have taken counsel with those upon whose opinion I could rely; and I have come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that no good or useful purpose is likely to be served if the Committee is to be restricted simply to Members of your Lordships' House. I say this for three reasons. In the first place, a Committee of your Lordships' House has already sat to inquire into this question, or into the kindred matter of the prevention of smoke, in the year 1887. Several distinguished Members of your Lordships' House served upon it; a Bill, founded upon the recommendations of the Committee, was subsequently introduced into the House: has been annually introduced for five years: and is still in the stage of being set down for Second Reading. That is not encouraging as to the results of the outcome of a Committee of your Lordships' House. But, in the second place, since the year 1887,

1201
not only do we know a good deal more about the subject-matter, but science has considerably advanced, and various methods for dealing with the subject have now been suggested, which were not known at the time when that Committee was appointed. But, in order that these methods should be properly tested and appreciated, they should be tested by those who are experts, and the number of those experts in a matter of this kind on the Benches of your Lordships' House is, and must always remain, limited. It is true that, within the last 24 hours, we have received a very distinguished addition to that number, in the person of the noble Lord who has taken his seat for the first time to-day. But that does not alter the fact that there are but very few of your Lordships' House, and those some of the busiest, and consequently most occupied, who could be appealed to to serve upon a Committee for this purpose. But there is a third, and a still more practical reason, which, after an experience (which has not been a short one now) of legislation, both in another place and in your Lordships' House, I think I am entitled to urge: and that is that, with hardly one single exception, no measure dealing with subjects of this kind, which has emanated from a Committee of your Lordships' House simply, and which has not been pressed in another place with all the force that the Government of the day have at its command, has had any chance whatsoever of passing into law. And in the case of a measure, founded upon the deliberations of a Committee of your Lordships' House in a matter of this kind, there would be a peculiar difficulty; because there are upon the Benches in another place many Members who are specially qualified by professional training to form their opinion upon a subject of this kind, and who are quite certain to tear in pieces any Bill that comes down from your Lordships' House, I am afraid in some cases because they have not been previously consulted in the matter. Now, my Lords, Her Majesty's Government have decided that it would not be desirable to issue a Royal Commission (which is the course I should have preferred) upon this subject, and, of course, I bow
1202
to that decision; but I do venture to submit that a Joint Committee of both Houses might meet these particular difficulties to which I have already referred. In the first place, they would have before them all the printed evidence taken before the Committee of your Lordships' House. In the second place, it would be possible to re-inforce any Committee appointed by your Lordships' House by an equal number, at least, of men specially qualified to deal with the subject from the Benches in another place. And, thirdly, I think that the recommendations of such a Joint Committee would come with much greater force, and with a much greater chance of having practical legislation founded upon them, than any recommendations which were arrived at by a Committee composed simply of Members of your Lordships' House. Now, my Lords, I should not for a moment think of asking a Committee of that kind to embark upon what the noble Marquess seemed to be afraid I was touching upon—namely, a hopeless crusade against the vapours of the North Sea and the Essex Marshes. No, my Lords, the London fog is, I think, just one of those things of which it may be said, as is said with regard to vice, that it loses more than half its evils when it loses all its grossness; and, if you could take away from the London fog the elements introduced into it by Londoners themselves, you would have done much to render it less injurious to human life, certainly more innocuous as regards sapping the vital energy, and incomparably less expensive than London fogs at present are. It may be in the recollection of your Lordships that a single foggy day means an extra expenditure of £4,000 in gas alone; and that, by the best computation, every year the combustic products which are sent up the chimneys to poison the air, instead of being used to warm our rooms and dwellings, amount to a tax upon the community of somewhat upwards of £1,000,000 per annum. Those are established facts, and those facts can be proved. My Lords, it has also been suggested that my object was to point out particular remedies. My Lords, that is exactly the point I wish to avoid. I think it is most essential

1203
that a burden of that kind should be left for the decision of a Committee, and that further inquiry should precede any legislation. As regards anthracite coal, I merely mentioned that as one of many methods which might be adopted for dealing with the question; and I think scant justice was done to it in the answer of the noble Marquess. If any of your Lordships wish to ascertain what may be done in that respect, I am given to understand that there is a fire burning at the present moment in the Prince's Chamber, which was lighted this morning, entirely composed of anthracite coal, which I have just been looking at myself. I found that there was a very wholesome flame proceeding from it; and certainly much more heat was given out than from the fireplace at the other end of the room. That, however, is only one branch of the subject. My Lords, since I first brought this subject before your Lordships' House, I have been inundated with suggestions, practical and un-practical, of all sorts and kinds. I have seen articles in almost every paper in the daily Press on the subject—many of them, I confess, not very encouraging to anyone who wishes to act as a reformer in this matter; but some pointing out that science has defined various remedies, any one or more of which might be adopted. And there is one remedy, at all events, within our reach. If we only agreed, by legislation, to say that all future grates should be so constructed as to consume their own smoke, and that all future ovens should be rendered smokeless, you would, at once, have done a great deal to cope with the increase of the evil which is daily going on. Had such a measure been adopted, which the Smoke Prevention Act suggested, and put into force 30 years ago, the air of London would now be comparatively pure. The great mischief has been done, not so much by the ordinary chimney as by the kitchen chimney, which must be in every house; and a very slight alteration indeed in many cases would entirely prevent the smoke and the deleterious action issuing therefrom. I merely mention these facts to prove that there is a distinct case to inquire into; and
1204
I believe that such an inquiry, if there is not to be a Royal Commission, might effectually and efficiently be carried on by a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. Those are the views I venture to submit to your Lordships. I gave the Home Office private notice of the question I was about to put three or four days ago; and I hope no objection will be placed in the way if it be possible to form a Joint Committee of both Houses to, inquire into this important matter. I do not say that such a Committee, would be entirely, or perhaps even partly, successful; but I do say that the subject is one which touches the comfort and health of so large a portion of the community that we ought not to sit down with hands folded, and say that nothing can be done, until it has been proved, beyond all manner of doubt, that the evil is one which is irremediable, and with which it is impossible for us to deal.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, in the first place, I must be allowed to congratulate my noble Friend upon the valuable auxiliary that he, obtained this morning to the arguments which he desires to press upon the House and upon the public. Not all the eloquence of my noble Friend was equal to that very dirty fog which we found upon coming into London this morning, and which made me feel a wish that it were possible by any means, Royal Commission or other, to further my noble Friend's desires. But I am afraid the facts are too strong for us. I am not going through the arguments that my noble Friend repeated, with great force, upon the evils or the remediability of the London fog. I am afraid lest I should be considered to be an advocate and friend of the fog—anything more near an advocatus diaboli I cannot imagine. But, on the present occasion, I have, not to argue the larger question. My noble Friend has gone off the safe field of Committees of this House and Royal Commissions into an unknown country—into the question of Joint Committees. He is touching the mysterious parts of the Constitution. I do not exactly know what the principles are

1205
upon which Joint Committees are appointed, but I know that the suggestion of them is very apt to be ill received on the other side of the Central Hall. I remember some years ago, when the noble Lords opposite were in power and had a large majority in the House of Commons, they proposed that the Indian Budget should be referred to a Joint Committee; it was a very reasonable proposal; but all the authority of Mr. Gladstone's Government of that day could not induce the House of Commons to accept it. And I am told that it is exceedingly unlikely that the House of Commons would accept a Joint Committee on this subject. Hitherto Joint Committees, with I think only one exception, have been confined to questions concerning the Private Business of the two Houses. I will not undertake, on behalf of the House of Commons, that they would consent to a Joint Committee; I should be giving an undertaking which I should be wholly incapable of fulfilling; but I will undertake this: that if anyone moves in the House of Commons for a Joint Committee, and that House accepts it, I will do my best to persuade your Lordships' House to join with the House of Commons in entering upon it. I cannot do more than that. My Lords, much of my noble Friend's remarks were addressed to the point that the House of Commons would not accept any measure that did not initiate with them. If that is the case, the proper course is clearly for my noble Friend to induce one of his many adherents in the other House to move for a Committee in that House, and I daresay he would move it with success. But I do not quite understand the modesty which induces my noble Friend to abstain from going forward in that path of investigation he has here selected. After all, the main point is to collect information, and that information will be good enough whichever House it comes from; it will not matter which House has put it into the Blue Book; and, if my noble Friend can get together, by examination in Committee, an amount of evidence which shows that there is an effective remedy for this evil, and that that remedy can be applied by
1206
Parliament, I will venture to say that the House of Commons will attach just as much importance to that evidence as if it were gathered by themselves.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock.