Lords Sitting of 17 July 1893

TOOK THE OATH.
Several Lords.

MARRIAGE OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF YORK.
THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN (Lord CARRINGTON): I am commanded, my Lords, to read to the House Her Majesty's gracious reply to the Address from your Lordships:—
"I sincerely thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address. It is particularly gratifying to Me to be assured that you participate in My feelings on the marriage of My beloved grandson The Duke of York with the Princess Victoria Mary of Teck, and in the confidence that, by God's blessing, this event will conduce to the happiness of My family and the welfare of My people."
Address and Answer to be printed and published. (No. 201.)

FRANCE AND SIAM.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTONasked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (having given him private notice of the question) whether he could give the House any fresh news respecting the unhappy differences between France and Siam; and whether he could give any explanation of the reason why two French warships proceeded up the River Menam, he believed, contrary to the orders of the French Government? But there was one matter in particular with regard to those two French ships—that M. Pavie, the French Minister at Bangkok, had apparently orders given to him to assure the Siamese Government that no warships would proceed up that river; and yet M. Pavie, who would be probably in telegraphic communication with the captains of those ships at the mouth of the Menam, apparently did not hand over those orders to the captains of the two vessels. He would also ask whether the noble Earl could give any ex-
  1638
  planation with regard to the breach of faith on the part of the French Government in not giving a notification to the British Government in this matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Earl of ROSEBERY): I do not wish to stop the noble Lord, but he has no right to make a speech at this time in asking a question by leave of the House. My Lords, my noble Friend very kindly gave me notice of this question. I think it would be for the convenience of the House, as this is a matter of some delicacy and importance, that I should read a written answer on the subject—
  "In order to consider justly and dispassionately the present position of affairs between France and Siam, it is necessary to keep distinct several questions which from the course of events have become intermingled. But it is right to premise that perhaps the main difficulty in forming any conclusion on those questions lies in obtaining clear and definite information, and in the absence of such information Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to offer any decided opinion as to the merits of the various points at issue. There are, first of all, certain claims by the French Government for compensation for losses suffered by some French merchants and travellers in consequence of the action of the Siamese officials. These are not of large amount; but the French Government appear to have laid stress on these being satisfied as a preliminary to negotiation on more important matters, while the Siamese Government have made difficulties and objections which have not yet been withdrawn. There is, secondly, the question of frontier between France and Siam in or adjacent to the Mekong Valley. This is a question of a complicated character, on which Her Majesty's Government have not sufficient information to pronounce a definite opinion, and in which—provided it be kept within certain limits, and do not assume such proportions as to affect the independence and integrity of the Siamese Kingdom—Great Britain is not directly interested. There is, thirdly, the question of the capture of a French officer, Captain Thoreux, and the alleged murder of another with some Annamite soldiers. It is reported in the papers this morning that Captain Thoreux, whose liberation was promised by the Siamese Government some time ago, has now been actually conveyed into French territory and surrendered. In regard to the other incident, the facts are contested, and it is not known what the demands of the French Government may be. Fourthly, there is the forcible ascent of the Menam by two French gun vessels against the opposition of the Siamese Authorities. In regard to this act we are not at present in possession of all the facts, the information received by Her Majesty's Government being little, if at all, more than that which has appeared in the public Press. But there is reason to believe that it was contrary to the directions of the French Government and to

  1639
  the expressed wish of the French Representative at Bangkok. It is absolutely necessary to await more detailed information before an opinion can be pronounced on the merits of the question. Our last advices from Paris, however, state that the French Commanders positively assert that they were subjected to an unprovoked fire in the exercise of their undoubted right to ascend as far as Paknam. Fifthly, there is the question of the protection of British subjects and property and those of other European Powers at Bangkok. Her Majesty's Government have for some time past been making provision for this, and they are assured by the Naval Authorities that the arrangements are complete and the force sufficient. Should more ships be required they will be immediately available. Finally, there is the question of the independence and integrity of Siam. Her Majesty's Government are fully sensible that this is a subject of grave importance to the British, and more especially to the British Indian Empire; but the French Government declare themselves to be not less anxious than ourselves to maintain and respect that independence and integrity. Her Majesty's Government are fully alive to their responsibilities in this matter, and they will not lose any opportunity which may present itself of facilitating a satisfactory solution."

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
  LORD HOBHOUSEsaid, he had to move the Amendment which stood in his name, and he must explain it at some length, because the matter was not generally understood. He hoped their Lordships would not think it inappropriate that it should be moved by one who, until recently, had been an Alderman appointed by the Body which was promoting the Bill. The object of the Amendment was to restore to the Bill a provision that was inserted in the House of Commons, but which their Lordships' Committee had rejected. He would first impress upon their Lordships that this Motion was not made by the members of the London County Council out of their own heads, or to please themselves, but on behalf of the vast body of Londoners whose chosen servants and agents they were. It was not a new proposal by any means. It had been mooted for a quarter of a century and upwards, first through the imperfect representation of the Board of Works, and now through the more perfect representation of an elected Council. The desire of Londoners to act as a common body for their common interests and to
  1640
  have a voice in the local affairs which concerned those interests—very feeble, if they went back for a few years—had now grown very strong, and it increased in strength year by year. It was shown in the first Council elections in 1889, and it was shown still more emphatically in the second election of 1892, when those candidates were returned most decisively who held most clearly the doctrine that Londoners should have the main voice in those local affairs that were peculiar to themselves, and should have a voice in local affairs which concerned them, though they might not be peculiar to themselves. He was told that, sharply accentuated as were the differences in the London County Council on some points, there had been no dissentient voice heard on this point; and that was because the members knew that their constituents-wished the thing to be done, and would support them in their efforts to get it done. Then, he asked, was the Thames Conservancy a local matter affecting the interests of London? They had only to see what the functions of the Conservators were. They had power to make regulations about docks, piers, vessels discharging cargo and ballast or taking them in, and such matters as dredging the river, scouring it, cleansing it, and keeping it clean, embanking, and so forth. To put it briefly, they had large powers of regulation over the access to the river, the flow and volume of the river, the purity of the river, and its use for navigation and recreation. The River Thames flowed through London for 20 miles; and as London lay upon both banks, there were 40 miles of bank on which vast masses of Londoners dwelt. But London had interests far beyond the 20 or 4.0 miles. It was calculated that the basin of the Thames contained 6,500,000 inhabitants; and of these,. 4,500,000, or more than two-thirds, were Londoners. It was calculated again that of those 4,500,000 Londoners, 2,500,000 drank the water of the Thames and used it for all their domestic purposes; whereas of the outsiders who did the same they did not know the number, but they were stated not to amount to 1,000,000 people. The flow and the volume of the river deeply concerned the low-lying lands that were exposed to inundation. The purity of the river affected the health of the whole community; the

  1641
  access to it and the use of it affected the convenience and the business of the whole community. Now Londoners could, through their various Local Authorities, of whom the London County Council was the principal, execute various works having a bearing upon the Thames. They could embank and bay back floods so as to affect the volume and flow of the river; they could make bridges for which they must use the bed and also affect the flow of the river; they could make ferries, for which they would use the surface of the river; and as for its purity and the health of the population, which was dependent upon it, there was no subject which now so constantly engaged the attention of the Local Authorities of London. Thus he could show that Londoners had power relating to access to the river, its use, its quantity, and its quality, and the Thames Conservators had the very same. Therefore it was that Londoners asked to be a part of the Thames Conservancy. What request could be more reasonable? What request was likely to conduce more to the public welfare? It was so reasonable that he should not have made these remarks at length if he did not see in the voluminous evidence, which it had been his fate to read, the most persistent attempts to minimise and disparage the interest of London in this great matter, and to make out that it was a mere trivial interest, or even none at all. He would not labour it more now; but he would only anticipate a general assent to this proposition—that when they had a public administrative Body framed on the principle of representing a diversity of interests, it was a reasonable thing that the largest of all interests should be represented on that Body. That the Thames Conservancy was a Body framed on that principle was apparent from a very short review of its history. Before the year 1857 the only authorities were the Crown and the City of London. Quarrels arose, litigation, compromise, and in 1857 a body of Conservators was established. They were 12—seven from the City of London, two from the Trinity House, two from the Admiralty, and one named by the Privy Council. That was not found satisfactory, and in 1864 other interests were represented; six were added representing four private interests—the owners of ships, of tugs, of
  1642
  lighters, of river steamers, and of docks and wharves. That was done with respect to the Lower Thames—that was the river from Staines to Yantlet Creek mouth. But two years later it was thought right to combine the Conservancy of the Upper Thames with that of the Lower, and five more Conservators were added—one appointed by the Board of Trade and four appointed by a body which he should not describe inaccurately if he called them the riparian owners. So that they had a Body framed to represent those interests—the City of London, which he trusted their Lordships would not confuse with London, for the City was not London, and did not represent London, and its interests were very frequently adverse to those of London, but it was represented there, and riparian owners were represented, and public authorities concerned with navigation and with trade, and various private proprietors who were in the habit of using the river. Now they asked that a greater interest than any of these might be represented too. Then, he would ask, by what amount of authority was their proposal backed? Their Lordships would find it to be very considerable. As long ago as 1867 the Board of Trade addressed a letter to the Thames Conservancy, begging them to make arrangements to find room on their Body for nominees of the Metropolitan Board of Works. But nothing was done. Time ran on. The Board of Works did not forget the matter, but they did not prevail; and when they quitted office, and the County Council took their place, they handed on a strong and elaborate Memorandum which they had prepared for the purpose of agitating the question again. The County Council lost no time. He thought it was the first Bill they introduced in which they made the proposal for having seven nominees. He supposed they asked for seven because the City had seven; but he really did not know. So the matter stood. He was told that that Bill was considered a very ambitious Bill by the Treasury Authorities, and they pruned it severely; but they did not prune away this clause, and this clause went to the Committee of the House of Commons, of whom Sir Joseph Bailey was Chairman. That Committee recommended that the County Council should have five nominees upon the

  1643
  Thames Conservancy. Then the matter came into the House, and what was done in the House was very remarkable. Two Ministers of the Crown spoke—Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, who was at the Board of Trade, and Mr. Ritchie, who was at the Local Government Board. Neither of them objected to the proposal in principle. Both of them approved the proposal in principle; but they urged that there was a wider question—there were other interests, and they suggested that the matter should be put aside now, and that there should be a general inquiry next year, where all interests might be represented. He would now read a passage or two from what those right hon. Gentlemen said. Mr. Ritchie said that he was in favour of the Council being represented on the Conservancy Board; but he did not commit himself to the proposal in the Bill. Then he made the suggestion which he (Lord Hobhouse) had mentioned—that the whole question should be gone into upon a general inquiry. Mr. Ritchie said—
  "As the noble Lord (Lord Compton) has referred to me, I feel bound to say just one word upon the subject. The noble Lord is perfectly accurate in saying that I am distinctly in favour of the London County Council being represented on the Thames Conservancy Board. Having constituted a great Body like the London County Council, it ought to have something to say with regard to a river which runs through so large a portion of its district; but as to whether or not the representation proposed in this Bill is too large, whether it is adequate or inadequate, I do not express any opinion, and on that question I desire to withhold my opinion. I think the course suggested by my right hon. Friend (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) is the right and proper course. It is quite clear that if the London County Council are to be represented on the Board there will be claims for representation on the part of other County Councils through whose district the river runs, and that they also should have representation given to them. That, I take it, would be the view of the London County Council also."
  And he (Lord Hobhouse) said it was the view, and always had been the view, of the London County Council—
  "And, that being so, I should deprecate the London County Council proceeding with these clauses this year."
  That was in 1890. The hope that was held out of an inquiry had not been realised at that moment—three years later—and so, in the present year, the Bill was renewed. The County Council again asked for seven nominees. The matter went to a Hybrid Committee of the
  1644
  House of Commons, nine in number, who proposed that they should have four nominees. That Committee made a Special Report; and the Report bore so strongly upon what he thought was the strongest objection urged against the proposal that, as it was short, he would take the liberty of reading it to their Lordships. The Committee said—
  "We are of opinion that reasons exist which make it desirable that the London County Council should be represented on the Thames Conservancy, and that they should have increased representation on the Lea Conservancy."
  Their Lordships would see that this Amendment did not relate to the Lea; but the two things were mixed up in the Report of the Committee. Then they said they wished to guard themselves against giving any opinion as to what should be the adequate representation to be given to other County Councils in the event of a general reconstruction, on the principle of giving representation to riparian owners by some future Parliamentary action. Then they went on to say they did not wish it to be supposed that the abstract claim of the London County Council to have a representation on the Thames Conservancy was not weaker than it was in 1890, when a Committee of that House, on which they were represented, agreed to a clause giving them five seats on that Board, and that they had thought it desirable to exercise caution with regard to the number of seats now allowed them by the Board, in order that nothing should be done now to make it difficult in case of future reconstruction to give, within limits, a total number of Conservators in either case. That seemed to him a very careful, well-balanced judgment. The Commissioners were impressed with the expediency of remodelling the Thames Conservancy, and with the likelihood of its being done before long; but they considered that there were preponderating reasons why they should not now hesitate to give the County Council its nominees. Those reasons were not stated, and he could only guess at them; but he assumed them to be the reasons which he had been assigning to their Lordships. Now he reached the last division of his case, and he asked what objections there were to the proposal? A great many Petitions

  1645
  were filed in opposition; there had been speeches made in the Council, and, of course, every conceivable objection had been made, besides some that were not so conceivable. He would pass over most of them, but there were two or three to which he must advert. First, he said the proceedings bristled with the suggestion that the Londoners had no grievances to complain of, and that, unless the Thames Conservancy Board had committed some fault, it ought not to be interfered with. He was glad to say that he had no such topic to bring forward. Those who had paid attention to the subject thought that the Conservancy would gain in power by the new element, and that they would display more energy of action, particularly with regard to the purity of the Thames, and they were confident that friction would be avoided in all those cases in which the two Bodies had to take action on the same object matters. It stood to reason that if two Bodies had to act upon the same object-matter it was better they should have a common link between them, and better that they should discuss arrangements before taking public action, and before committing themselves in public to particular views and to particular sides of a controversy, instead of doing it afterwards. With great deference to those who were constantly insisting upon this topic, he (Lord Hobhouse) protested against being told that a body like the Londoners must make charges of neglect and misconduct before they could ask to be represented on the Thames Conservancy Board. He denied that if they had a Body framed upon the principle of representing a diversity of interests, that when the greatest of those interests came forward to be represented they should be put to the invidious task of making and proving accusations. He would also make this remark—if that objection was good against their proposal, it was equally good against all proposals to interfere with the present constitution of the Thames Conservancy Board. And yet he had referred to what had been said from time to time by officials in Parliament; and he did not know a single official or a single section of Parliament which had been charged with the duty of specially attending to that matter who had expressed an opinion that the Thames Conservancy Board did not require recon-
  1646
  struction, or, indeed, which had not expressed an opinion to the contrary. He did not know how far their Lordships' Committee had attributed weight to that particular reason, for he had not had the advantage of seeing their reasons; but he did know that at every turn of the controversy it had been urged upon them, and he said that if they had attributed weight to it, it was a new objection in the mouth of such a Body, and that it would not stand the brunt of public discussion. There were other Bodies who came forward, whom he would treat together, because their objections ran upon the same ground. The riparian proprietors came and said they were in a minority of 4 in 23, and they did not wish to be in a minority of 4 in 27, and they accused the London County Council of trying to control the affairs of the Thames; and the riparian County Councils came and said that they were not represented at all, that they had as good a right to be represented as the Londoners had, and they also accused the London County Council of aiming to control the affairs of the Thames, and to exclude other people. His answer was this: As regarded control and exclusion, there was not the smallest pretence for saying that the County Council or any of their advocates had at any time set up any such claim. They excluded nobody; they only asked to have a voice or a few voices, if their Lordships liked to put it so, among a great many in that affair which so much concerned them. And as to representation, what might be the case with the riparian owners—whether they had too little or not—he did not know. They had four members, which were all that the Londoners were asking for; and he really could not tell whether they ought to have more. But as to the riparian owners, he said that they had a good claim—and the London Council had always said that they had a good claim. But it was a claim they had never put forward except for the purpose of excluding the London Council. The moment they put forward their claim in a positive shape, he thought he might say he would undertake—at all events he felt perfectly confident—that they would meet, not with opposition, but with support from any body of Londoners, including the London County Council. But when they opposed

  1647
  the County Council, not because they were injured by the Bill, but because it did not give them what they had never asked for, he thought that it was not a worthy objection, and he trusted that the House would attribute no weight to it. Of course, the Londoners could not put forward the claim of the other counties, and the House of Commons' Committee-dealt with that matter specially in their Report. They could not deal with that claim until it was made; but the moment that it was made the matter would stand upon a different footing. Well, really those objections led up to one of greater weight, which was this: that that was not the time or occasion for making alterations in the Thames Conservancy; that it should be done in a Thames Conservancy Bill, where all interests might be better represented, though it seemed to him they had been very fully represented before the Committee of that House. That was the objection which prevailed in the year 1890, and which pressed very much upon the House of Commons this year; and possibly—he did not know that—but possibly it was the ground of the decision of their Lordships' Committee. He would be uncandid if he did not confess that the objection had a great deal of reason in it, so much that it might guide the judgment of a reasonable man. But their Lordships would remember that the House of Commons had it all before them, that they dealt with it specially in their Report, and that they thought it was overborne by other considerations. He agreed with them, and he urged upon their Lordships that, notwithstanding that fairly good reason against their proposal, there were far stronger and better reasons in favour of it. Those were the reasons which he had been endeavouring to explain, and he would briefly summarise them thus:—The Thames Conservancy was a composite Representative Body for representing a diversity of interests; Londoners were far the vastest and densest mass of persons who had an interest in the matter. The local affairs of the two touched one another at various points; therefore it was desirable that the Governing Bodies should be in touch with one another. Londoners desired it; they had asked it for 25 years and more. It was a reasonable desire and a healthy desire; it had been favourably received
  1648
  by officials of all sections of the Legislature, and had never been unfavourably received. In 1890 it was put off for the reason that he was dealing with now; but the hope then held out of its comprehensive treatment had proved futile to that day. Every year that passed did not weaken the reasons for representing the County Council, but strengthened them; and their strength was now so fully felt that this year, at last, they had the House of Commons with them. He hoped that they would not again be put off by this prospect of a perfect reconstruction of the Thames Conservancy Board—a reconstruction which he admitted to be reasonable, which he admitted to be desirable, but which they could not bring about, and which, he believed, was more likely to be brought about by the infusion into the Body of a new and energetic element than by any other means.
  Moved, in Preamble, page 1, after line 3, to insert—
  (20 & 21 VICT. c. CXLVII.)
  "And whereas the Council have various duties and obligations with regard to the banks of the River Thames and the prevention of floods, and are otherwise interested in the flow of the river and purity of the water and the conservancy thereof."
  "And whereas the inhabitants of London have no direct representation on the Thames Conservancy Board, constituted under the Thames Conservancy Act, 1857, and the Acts amending the same, and it is expedient that the Council should be empowered to appoint members of the Thames Conservancy Board as hereinafter provided:
  And in page 5, after Clause 2, to insert the following clauses:—
  (REPRESENTATION OF COUNCIL ON THAMES CONSERVANCY BOARD.)
  "(2A.) From and after the passing of this Act the number of the Conservators of the River Thames shall be 27 instead of 23, and the additional Conservators may be elected as hereinafter provided:—

  (1.) It shall be lawful for the Council to elect four persons out of their own body to be Conservators, and the several persons so elected shall hold office as Conservators only so long as they continue to be members of the Council;

  (2.) The first, Conservators to be elected by the Council may be elected at any time after the passing of this Act, and such Conservators and any other persons appointed in their place shall, if they continue to be Members of the Council, remain in office until the second meeting of the Council in the month of November,

  1649
  one thousand eight hundred and ninety-four, when they shall retire and a fresh election shall take place, but such retiring members shall, if they continue members of the Council, be re-eligible;

  (3.) The Conservators to be subsequently elected by the Council shall be elected triennially at the second meeting of the Council in November of every third year, and shall remain in office until the next triennial day of election, if they shall so long continue members of the Council;

  (4.) Any Conservator so elected retiring from office at any triennial day of election and continuing to be a member of the Council shall be re-eligible;

  (5.) Any vacancy in the office of Conservator occasioned by the death, resignation, removal, or disqualification of any member so elected shall be filled up with all convenient speed by the election of a new Conservator by the Council, who shall retire at the same date as the Conservator in whose place he is appointed would have retired.

  "The additional Conservators elected by the Council shall (subject to the provisions of this Act and as from the passing thereof) severally have the same powers, functions, duties, privileges, and obligations as other Conservators under the Acts relating to the conservancy of the River Thames, and shall form part of the corporate body of the Conservators of the River Thames.
  (THAMES CONSERVANCY ACTS, &C. TO REMAIN UNAFFECTED.)
  "(2B.) All the provisions of the Thames Conservancy Acts or of any other Act relative to the powers, functions, duties, privileges, obligations, or proceedings of the Thames Conservators as a body, and all acts and proceedings done, taken, or pending by, against, or in relation to the Conservators as a body, shall remain unaffected by the addition to and incorporation with that body of the four Conservators added by this Act, and (except only as is in this Act expressly otherwise provided) shall in all respects continue and be as if this Act had not been passed."—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, after the very lengthened statement to which their Lordships had listened, and with the knowledge that there was a subject of great importance to be discussed later on that evening, he would be as brief as possible in replying to the point which had been raised by the noble Lord opposite, and in asking their Lordships to affirm the decision which their Committee came to upon this Bill. He was somewhat at a loss to know whom the noble Lord represented—whether he represented himself alone. He supposed he did, because he (the Duke of Richmond) did not imagine that he had any commission from the County Council to act on their behalf.
  LORD HOBHOUSEsaid, he was instructed by them, and asked by them, to move the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the noble Lord would be kind enough to explain to him—because to him it was a perfect mystery—what had taken place in the County Council within a very short time on that very matter. He found, upon the adjourned Report of the Parliamentary Committee of the County Council which sat upon the 27th June, paragraph 4 of the Report, which raised objection to the proceedings of the Committee to which he had the honour to be Chairman, and went into the various points, was withdrawn. It said that of the only three matters upon which there was serious objection were the representation sought by the County Council on the Thames Conservancy Board, and the additional representation on the Lea Conservancy—he need not go into the other, because that was abandoned—the proposal for the representation on the Thames Conservancy Board was opposed on behalf of the Thames Conservators. Then it went on to say that, in the event of their Lordships making important Amendments in the General Powers Bill, the Representatives of the Council in the House of Commons should be requested to oppose the Amendments when the Bill returned to that House. Then there was an Amendment to that Report; but the Amendment was lost and the Motion was carried, and it was resolved accordingly, and then—and this was the point which he should like the noble Lord to explain, because he did not understand it—it went on and said—
  "The Vice Chairman of the Committee who brought up the Report withdrew, by leave of the Council, paragraph 4."
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, he could tell the noble Duke how that was.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was dealing with the noble Lord opposite at present.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, he was a member of the Council, and he knew all about it.
  LORD HOBHOUSEsaid, that he knew nothing whatever about it.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he might take it to be the fact that the noble Lord was moving the rejection of the conclusion which they arrived at knowing nothing about it. He told him

  1651
  (the Duke of Richmond) that he was acting on behalf of the County Council; and now, when he pointed out to him that the Vice Chairman of the Committee of the County Council had withdrawn that very clause which he was now advocating, he said that he knew nothing whatever about it. He did not think that was a proper way of dealing with the decision of the Committee of their Lordships' House. In the first place, he should, in a very few words, ask their Lordships to reject the Amendment of the noble Lord, and to adhere to the decision of the Committee. In the first place, the Committee were unanimous; in the second place, they heard everybody who desired to be heard with the greatest possible attention, and he might say patience; they refused no evidence whatever; they allowed the parties to bring forward everything on either side that could strengthen their case and could put before them the information which they desired to have before they came to a conclusion, and, as he said before, the decision of the Committee was unanimous. He thought it would be a bad thing for the House to reject the decision of a Committee unless there could be shown to be some ground for rejecting their decision—unless it could be shown that they had excluded evidence, that they had not allowed the counsel to explain the different points to them at so much length as they desired, and that the Committee had acted, he might really say, not with bona fides, and without giving the best of their attention to the subject-matter before them. He thought their Lordships ought to uphold the decision of the Committee, or it would not be very easy to find noble Lords to serve on Committees if, after they had worked hard and done their best, a Motion was to be made by a noble Lord who said he knew nothing about it to upset the decision of that Committee. That was why, upon general grounds, he thought their Lordships ought to uphold the decision of the Committee. What was asked by the noble Lord? In the first place, it was a point, though he did not seem to think so, that the Thames Conservancy had done its work admirably. He would not go into the history of it, because the noble Lord went into it at some length, but in 1864, 1866, and 1867, Acts of Parliament were passed, out of which the
  1652
  Thames Conservancy resulted; 200 miles of the Thames were under the Thames Conservancy, and that touched no less than nine County Councils. The London County Council had, by the Act of 1888, power to initiate Private Bills; and they were the only County Council who had that power. The noble Lord said that no other County Councils had come forward in the matter. For the best possible reason, that they had not the power to do so. The County Councils, other than the County Council of London, could not initiate private legislation. He desired to call their Lordships' attention to the style of legislation and the manner in which this was dealt with. The proposal was to entirely alter the constitution of the Thames Conservancy, a constitution which, after public inquiry, was agreed to. The number of members of the Board was decided after considerable inquiry was made; the last time, he thought, was in 1866. The noble Lord said that this matter had been frequently before Parliament; but he thought that rather weakened his case, because it showed that each time they came before Parliament, Parliament rejected their proposals. He concluded they would think that was unanswerable, and that they did not think that was the mode in which the constitution of the Thames Conservancy ought to be dealt with. The proposal was to alter the constitution of the Thames Conservancy by a clause in a Private Bill. As he had said before, there was no other County Council in England which had power to initiate legislation; and he asked their Lordships to listen for a moment to the sort of Bill in which the revolutionising of the constitution of the Thames Conservancy was attempted. First of all, it was to provide for representation, then—
  "To empower the Council to prohibit or regulate the creation of dwelling-houses on lowlands subject to floods; to confer powers on the Council with respect to their procedure, prevention of epidemic diseases, the requiring of Returns, the re-arrangement of wards, compensation to workmen, and electric lighting, and leasing of lands";
  and then, though one would hardly expect to find it in a proposed re-constitution of the Thames Conservancy Board, it provided—
  "Against the giving of false alarms of fire, to extend and explain the powers of the Council

  1653
  with respect to sky signs, and with respect to bands, and to confer certain powers on Vestries and District Boards."
  His point was that that was not the style of Bill out of which a re-constitution ought to come. The noble Lord thought it not very reasonable that one should take up the point that the Thames Conservancy had done a remarkably good work, and that, in fact, no fault could be found with the manner in which the Thames Conservancy had done the work allotted to it. Therefore, he said, of the Thames Conservancy—that if no fault could be found with the Thames Conservancy on account of the manner in which they had carried on their duties—if nothing could be urged against them that they had neglected their duties, that they had not taken every possible care of the conservancy of the river, then he said they had no right to alter that constitution by a clause in a Private Bill, which was not the mode of dealing with the question. The late Deputy Chairman of the London County Council stated before the Committee of the House of Commons that he had no charge to make against the Conservancy, and could not lay his finger on a single action on which the Conservators had not done their duty. In 1891, before Sir Matthew White Ridley's Committee, Lord Farrer stated he gave the Conservators every credit for taking all the pains in their power, and that from his knowledge of the Conservators he was satisfied they had done whatever was in their power. The engineer of the London County Council stated that he was often surprised the Conservators had been able to do as much as they had; and, in addition to that, the counsel who was advocating the Bill said he had no allegations to make against the Conservators. Then, he said, when they found a Public Body who was doing work in the manner which all parties agreed the Thames Conservancy had done theirs, that was not the sort of Bill in which they ought to alter their constitution. If there was a necessity for any alteration in the constitution of the Thames Conservancy Board—and he was not there to say, one way or the other, whether it was desirable or not—he said the re-constitution of that Board ought to be done after full public inquiry by some Government Department in
  1654
  which every person interested would have the opportunity of being heard, and of stating his views upon the matter. The noble Lord had gone into the various duties which devolved on the London County Council. He thought, he said, they were interested in the banks of the river, in the prevention of floods, in the various bridges crossing the river, that a large population derived their supply of water from the Thames; but all that was not peculiar to the London County Council, because the Surrey County Council might have said exactly the same thing. The Surrey County Council constituents had a large supply of water from the Thames. That County Council owned bridges across the river, they had a large and increasing population, and they were interested in the prevention of floods. They had, therefore, an equal right to be represented; but they could not bring forward their case, because they had no right to initiate Private Bills, He said, therefore, if they were going to alter the constitution of the Thames Conservancy Board, they should do it by a public inquiry, where everybody interested would be represented, and where justice would be done, and that they should not alter the balance of representation on the Thames Conservancy Board by means of a Private Bill to add four members which would alter the representation entirely which was come to in 1866. He would, therefore, ask their Lordships, for the reasons which he had advanced, and which he thought it wiser not to set out at greater length, to reject the proposal of the noble Lord opposite.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, he intended to leave the task of answering the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) to his noble Friend Lord Farrer. The only reason he rose was to allay the apprehension in the mind of the noble Duke with regard to the resolution of the London County Council as regarded Clause 4 of that Report. He was present at the Council, and it was withdrawn at his suggestion. For this reason, because he thought it would be more respectful to their Lordships' House if they heard the noble Duke's reasons why his Committee disagreed with the unanimous votes of the Commons Committee of nine before they instructed their repre-

  1655
  sentatives to move in this matter. He would only say one word more. The noble Duke said the Committee in that House was unanimous. Considering the very high reputation and high standing of the noble Duke in that House he was not at all surprised that the Report was unanimous; for if the noble Duke was very strongly of any particular opinion he could hardly imagine that it was likely noble Lords of far less experience and standing would care to differ from the opinion of the noble Duke, whose experience and position in that House were so high. He hoped he had made the matter clear that the London County Council, instead of wishing to show disrespect to their Lordships' House, was induced at his request, out of respect to their Lordships' House, to forego the consideration of that clause to which he had alluded.
  LORD TURINGsaid, he wished to say a few words on behalf of Surrey, though the case had been put so extremely well by the noble Duke opposite. He would detain their Lordships but a very few minutes. The County of Surrey, as the noble Duke had said, was quite as much, even more, interested in the Thames than the County of London. It had 28 miles of shore. And then, beyond that, there were other counties which were all interested in the river, and all for the same reasons. Kent, Essex, Middlesex, Berks, Bucks, Oxfordshire, and Gloucestershire—all these counties were desirous of being represented, and he thought justly so, on the Thames Conservancy Board. Then they were told by the noble Lord that the County of London did not wish to oppose the other counties; but the noble Duke had explained why the County of Surrey had not been able to bring forward their case, because they were not allowed, while the London County Council was allowed, to initiate a Private Bill. If the County of London was really so zealous a champion of the rights of other counties, why had not they included them in the Bill? Then they would have really shown themselves to be the champions of county interests. What had the County of London done? They had endeavoured to get a clause for their county only into a General Powers Bill. And why was it opposed by the other counties? Not in the least because they did not wish London to be properly represented, but because
  1656
  they knew very well that, if the County of London was represented, that county would, on the principle of quieta non movere—having got all they wished for, be glad enough to let things remain quiet. That was why the other counties did not wish such a clause introduced into a Bill of this description. Then besides that, the circumstances had been entirely changed since the constitution of the Thames Conservancy Board. They made noallegation against that Board—they did not blame it; they did not say it had done wrong or was in fault. But they said this: that if at the time that Act was passed County Councils had been established, as a matter of course Riparian Councils would have been represented on the Board; and they asked that in case any change were made in this Board all Riparian Councils should be represented. And how did they ask that that should be done? They asked that it should be done by a Committee of Inquiry next Session—as he supposed it was too late to appoint it now this Session—with the view of re-constituting the Thames Conservancy Board, in order that the London County Council and all the other Riparian Councils might be justly and fairly represented.
  LORD FARRERsaid, he could assure his noble Friend who had just sat down, that as a Surrey man, as well as a London Alderman—that if Surrey came forward another year, or if there was another opportunity, which there certainly would be after the Report of the present Water Commission, of altering the constitution of the Thames Conservancy Board, that the London County Council would give them every assistance in procuring adequate representation. The Surrey County Council were endeavouring to purify the River Wey, as he knew to his cost, and not very satisfactorily as far as things had gone; but at present they were doing their best, though their best had not come to much. He should not have ventured to speak upon this subject if it had not been that it was one he was conversant with during the whole period which he passed at the Board of Trade—a period on which he looked back with much pleasure—when he served under the noble Duke opposite; and it was a curious fate that—he should have kept silence if there were no other obligations to the contrary—his first duty in that

  1657
  House should have been to oppose him. When the Thames Conservancy was first established it was not only a movement in London, but it was a movement which pervaded the country to take the management of the great harbours out of the hands of the Municipalities and to place them in the hands of persons who should represent the trade. He was glad to say that in order that he might dissociate himself from certain wild schemes that the County Council or Bodies of that sort should undertake the management of the Lower River. Everything pointed to a very different solution entirely—namely, a separate Board which should manage the Lower Thames navigation, and a Board which should control the Upper Thames, in which the interests were quite different. He remembered well the Upper Thames being placed in the hands of the Thames Conservancy. The circumstances were these. The Upper Thames was in the hands of Commissioners, a helpless, numerous body, who, in consequence of the claims of mill owners and claims of railroads, had become hopelessly insolvent. They applied to the Conservators of the Lower River to undertake their task, and he had no complaint to make of the way in which they discharged their duty; but he had no hesitation in saying that if the London County Council had existed at that time, and if the other County Councils had existed, the Upper River would not have been placed in the hands of the Thames Conservators. When the Thames Conservators got hold of this Upper River what did they find? They found a hopelessly insolvent concern. The navigation did not pay; the tolls would not pay for its maintenance, and they looked about them and made an arrangement with the Water Companies. The Water Companies paid them certain sums, not for the purchase of water, which the Conservators had no right to sell, but in consideration of the sums paid them, which, of course, came out of the pockets of the consumers, the ratepayers of London, that sum amounting now to about £80,000 a year. He should like to know how much of it had been spent on purifying the water of the Thames?—for that was the consideration for the large sum which they were to receive. He did not say that they had misused that sum, but he said that it had
  1658
  not gone exactly as it might have done for the benefit of the water consumers of London. He made no charge against the Thames Conservancy. Their accounts did not enable them to pull them to pieces. He merely asked what had been done really for the purification of the Thames? He should say a very small amount. What were the interests of the Upper Thames? First of all, there were the riparian owners; secondly, there was the navigation, which had become so small as to be almost neglected; thirdly, there was the fact that the Thames was the great play place for those living in the Valley of the Thames, and for Londoners especially—that was a very large London interest; fourthly—and by far the largest interest—the fact that the Thames afforded the largest part of the water which the inhabitants of London consumed and paid for—that was out and out the largest interest. It was to the interest of the Thames Conservancy to keep that water pure. It was a curious fact that on the Thames Conservancy there was not one person who represented the water consumers of London. There were the persons who represented the navigation of the Lower Thames, and very properly represented them. There were the nominees of the Government Department, who no doubt did their duty, but, as he testified, were originally appointed with a view to navigation and trade. Thirdly, there was the City. Now, that might be said to represent London, but it did not represent the County of London or the inhabitants of London. The inhabitants of the City of London—the permanent inhabitants who used the water—were 37,000 as against upwards of 4,000,000. A curious thing was that the City itself did not consume the water of the Thames. It consumed the Now River water, which did not come from the Thames at all. Therefore this greatest interest—far and away the greatest interest in the Upper Thames—was totally unrepresented on the Thames Conservancy; and he defied his noble Friend to say that there was any interest at all comparable to that of the water consumers of London. Consider what the interests were. What were the interests of riparian proprietors? The interest of a person who lived below him was that the water should be pure. He knew very well

  1659
  that on the Wey the Surrey County Council were endeavouring to purify the stream. They were all glad to put their own drains into the river, but they wished to prevent those above them from putting their drains into the river. That was, on a great scale, the case with London. London was at the foot of this great river, and the riparian proprietors had the natural desire to act in a selfish way and to drain into the river; and the natural interest of the water consumers of London was to prevent those drains going into the river. But then they were told that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander; the London County Council turned their sewage into the Thames, and, therefore, the Essex and the Kent people had the same claim as against the riparian proprietors above. That was true, he thought, to this extent—that the Thames Conservancy had done good service by protecting the navigation of the river in connection with the old Metropolitan Board of Works; and he wished to see the Thames Conservancy so re-constructed as to make a powerful body representing navigation able to hold their own against the City or Councils, whatever they might be. But there was this enormous difference between the river below and the river above—Essex and Kent did not drink the water of the Lower Thames as London drank the water of the Thames which came from the upper part. Surrey did not drink any of the water which London polluted with its sewage. All the water that Surrey drank came from above London. That was, upon the grounds of the purity of the water alone, a most important consideration. But then, it was said, what would putting four persons upon the Thames Conservancy Board do to protect the purity of the water? There were many things that they could not do. They could not give them money for the purpose; they could not extend the jurisdiction. If the Thames Conservators were ever so willing to do their duty, their jurisdiction was limited—their money was limited. Their jurisdiction did not extend more than 10 miles from the place where any effluent entered the Thames, and a great many of the effluents were very different 10 miles out. Their jurisdiction did not extend above Guild-
  1660
  ford, and the water below Guildford was like dirty soap-suds. That could not be cured. What could be done was to put members of the County Council on the Thames Conservancy, and to see that the Thames Conservancy should do all they could to consult them and to help to prepare the necessary measures which the new Board might propose. There must be a new Board constituted, after Lord Balfour's Commission had reported, to inquire and prepare the measures for that purpose. He felt very strongly upon this point, because he knew that in the London County Council and amongst the members of the London Council there was a very strong feeling indeed about it. Nothing would give cause for deeper regret than any feeling on the part of the London County Council or of their constituents that their interests or their feelings did not receive full consideration in that House. He should regret that most deeply as a member of both; and he should regret it the more because he knew very well, from his personal knowledge of some of the Members of the Committee that had decided this point, that such an impression would be entirely unfounded.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MOTLEY)said, he would detain the House but a very short time. They had listened to two interesting and somewhat lengthy speeches which appeared to him to make a very strong case for an inquiry into the constitution of the Thames Conservancy. But the point which was really before the House did not seem to be much affected by them—indeed, if he might take for example the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Hobhouse), it seemed to him that the noble Lord's own argument was very much stronger in favour of the conclusion at which the Committee had arrived than of the Amendment which he had moved. The question was whether the House was prepared to cancel the decision at which the Committee had arrived. He believed their Lordships very rarely took that course, and then only when it was quite clear that the evidence which could be adduced had not been adduced, or that by some accident a decision had been given contrary to the evidence. Nothing of the kind had occurred in the present case. The Committee had been most

  1661
  patient; it had listened to the whole of the evidence; it had had the whole case before it; and he ventured to think it would be a mistake if their Lordships, having only an ex parte statement, should reverse the decision of the Committee, arrived at after a full consideration of the question, and having heard the arguments for and against the representation of the London County Council on the Thames Conservancy Board. Of course, there might be other grounds for modifying a decision which had been arrived at by the Private Bill Committee. There might be public rights and private interests which might override the decision which the Committee might rightly arrive at. He did not himself think—and he thought the House would agree with him—that any such case had been made out on the present occasion. He was inclined to think the London County Council ought to be represented on the Thames Conservancy Board, and he thought it was highly probable that other Bodies should be represented upon it; but for one of the Bodies, which asked representation upon that Body by a Bill of its own, to introduce representatives upon that large and important Body, and so to upset the equilibrium of that Body, seemed to him to be altogether a wrong principle. It seemed to him, as the noble Lord who moved the Amendment had stated, that it was a case which called for public inquiry. The whole of the constitution of the Thames Conservancy might fairly be inquired into; and then the case of the London County Council, and of other Bodies which required representation upon it, would be fairly considered. He might add one further argument in this direction, and it was that since 1867, when the Thames Conservancy was created, the constitution of that Body had been altered by Public and not by Private Acts. He would only venture to urge upon the House the extreme undesirability of disturbing a decision of its Committee deliberately arrived at in a case like the present, which was clearly a matter which ought to be dealt with by public and not by private legislation.
  LORD HOBHOUSEsaid, that after what had fallen from his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, and having regard to the evident feeling of the House, he should not think it right to put
  1662
  the House to the trouble of dividing; but if he might, he would strongly urge the noble Earl the Leader of the House (the Earl of Kimberley) to move the Government to speedy action, or at least to speedy consideration of the subject, with a view to that general inquiry which he gathered from the noble Duke was the most adequate mode of dealing with this case.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYcalled attention to the Administration of Justice in Ireland, and particularly to the proceedings during the present Assizes in Clare and other counties. He said it would be in their Lordships' recollection that some 10 days ago the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) moved the Adjournment of the House of Commons in order to discuss the Charge of the learned Judge of Assize at the recent Assizes for the County of Clare. He himself considered that the Adjournment was most important and necessary; but the Debate that ensued was by no means of a satisfactory character. He must confess that he viewed with no surprise the action of Her Majesty's Government. On that occasion they pursued that policy for which they had been remarkable during the year they had been responsible for the government of Ireland. They pursued a policy of evasion and concealment. He ventured to think that the Chief Secretary must have known that when a Charge of such importance as that delivered by the learned Judge at the Clare Assizes was published the Unionist Members in the House of Commons and the Unionist Members of their Lordships' House would lose no time whatever in raising a discussion on a Charge of so important and serious a character. But when the hon. Member for South Tyrone raised the discussion on this Charge the Chief Secretary declared that, having had no notice, he was not in a position to discuss the question fully, and, if the expression might be used, he virtually de-

1663
clared that a mine had been sprung upon him. For one moment he would diverge, and would point to the contrast between the conduct of Mr. Morley and that of his predecessor, the present Leader of the Opposition. Time after time the Adjournment of the House was moved at a moment's notice in order to attack Her Majesty's then Government; but Mr. Balfour never failed to repel the attack made upon him, and to repel it in a manner that gave satisfaction to his friends and dire and litter discomfort to his opponents. But Mr. Balfour had one advantage which Mr. Morley had not: he was able to quote as his motto, "Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just;" and he ventured to say that not even Mr. Morley would dare to say that, with regard to his administration, he could erect such a motto. He knew that during the administration of the late Unionist Government there were many incidents that occurred of a regrettable character; but there was not one single action of the Government or of the Irish Executive 6f which they were ashamed, or the discussion of which they tried to evade as Mr. Morley had done. As to concealment, they carried that even further. The other day the late Solicitor General attempted to carry on the Debate on the County of Clare; but with the sanction, he presumed, of Mr. Morley, who wished to throw dust in the eyes of the English people, the discussion raised by Mr. Carson was closured. Under these circumstances, he thought he owed no apology to their Lordships for bringing before them the condition of the County of Clare and the prostitution of the law there as shown by the Judge of Assize. The recent Charge of Mr. Justice Gibson was of a most extraordinary and peculiar character, because it bore out almost to the letter the Charge of his predecessor at the Assizes in March last. He had the honour and privilege of knowing Mr. Justice Gibson, and he could say from his own knowledge—and he defied contradiction from any of the many Members of the House of Commons who knew Mr. Justice Gibson when he was a Law Officer, Solicitor General and afterwards Attorney General—that it would be impossible to find a Judge of more moderate and temperate sentiments than that Judge. In his opening address to the Grand Jury
1664
of the County of Clare Mr. Justice Gibson said—
"It was impossible to escape the conclusion from reading the Returns that there was a widespread system of intimidation and of crime which led up to terror. His Lordship was afraid that intimidation was not only the intimidation of prosecutors and witnesses, but it might be found to infect and invade the jury-boxes; but, whether this was so or not, it reached a very formidable situation where prosecutions would be rendered abortive, because of the hardihood of criminals. It tended to relax—his Lordship did not say it did relax—the efforts of the police, and in those few cases in which prosecutors would be willing to come forward prosecution would be made impossible, for who would prosecute where he knew that instead of bringing his oppressor or attempted assassin to justice he would only infuriate the passion of the parties, and that his prosecution of them would make it certain that he would be attacked again? They were sometimes told that nothing' could be done where prosecutors would not prosecute; but when he knew that the prosecution could not succeed, it was a sad and scandalous state of society where the law could not be enforced. It might be better that there should be no law than a semblance of law."
The forecast of the learned Judge was singularly accurate. The Assizes showed that there was no want of conviction in cases of an ordinary character, but that there was a want of conviction in cases of agrarian crime. There were two of such cases; the first was a case of resisting the Sub-Sheriff, in which six men were charged. There was no evidence for the defence. The jury found a verdict of "Not Guilty," upon which the learned Judge said—
"I am afraid that verdict is a great scandal in the administration of justice."
If that case had been tried in another county before a jury who had not been intimidated and terrorised there could be no doubt that these men would have been convicted and brought to justice. In the other case five men were prosecuted for alleged unlawful assembly. Again, Mr. Justice Gibson, in his Charge, said there was a conclusive case against the defendants in respect of unlawful assembly. The jury retired, and another case was taken. They returned into Court with a verdict of "Not Guilty." Mr. Justice Gibson asked—
"Is the present case the same as the last?" Mr. Adams (the clerk).—"Yes, my Lord." Mr. Justice Gibson thereupon said—"What is the use of going on with it? There is no use, as far as I can see, in continuing this. We are engaged in a solemn comedy at present. What is the use of wasting time with them if they are all the same? Mr. Murphy said—"Perhaps this is

1665
a better jury"; but Mr. Justice Gibson said—"Such a travesty of justice is perfectly melancholy. I will take a full note of this case. I will only say that a great responsibility rests on someone for this."
The responsibility rested with Her Majesty's Government, and with no one else. They had been warned time after time, and they had at last found out that the law was absolutely prostituted in the County of Clare; but they had gone out of their way to disregard those warnings. He himself had, at the opening of the Session, drawn attention to the fact that the Lord Lieutenant, supported by a vast majority of Magistrates, had passed a resolution calling upon the Government to revive the clauses of the Crimes Act which they had relaxed without consulting anybody, and especially the people living in the County of Clare, although they had consulted their present allies who were keeping them in Office. The learned Judge, at the last March Assizes, said that he was constrained to arrive at the conclusion that a certain system of intimidation was degenerating the whole framework of society in the County of Clare. It had reached the jury-box and it had reached the witness-box, and he concluded—
"In mercy to the jurymen themselves, in mercy to those men who, as I have seen in this Court, stand between terrorism and their own consciences, and for the sake of security to life and property in this county, some means must be found, and I trust will be found, to remove the administration of the Criminal Law altogether out of the county."
A more solemn warning was never given to any Government. But Her Majesty's Government had had more recent warnings than that. On June 13 last, at Quarter Sessions, Judge Kelly said he did not think such a state of things existed in any other country in the world. It was the fault of someone; but who was to blame he did not know. Trial by jury was a farce. Mr. Morley in the House of Commons treated the remarks of the Judges in a manner almost insulting. Judge Kelly was thought very highly of in the South of Ireland, and, knowing the condition of County Clare, was stating his experience when he spoke, and if Mr. Morley continued to denounce and insult the Judges in Ireland, then he would be doing everything in his power to render assistance to criminals. He would go further, and say that if Her
1666
Majesty's Ministers had half the courage of Her Majesty's Judges in Ireland there would not be this disgraceful state of things in that country. He did not think anyone, after these statements of the Judges, and after this prostituting of the law, could have any doubt that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to revive the clauses which they suspended at the dictation of their Irish allies, and certainly that clause which enabled them to change the venue of a trial. How much longer were the Government going to carry on this farce, for farce it was? They had set the most pernicious example; they allowed jurymen to utterly to ignore their oaths in open Court; they allowed crime proved and detected to go unpunished, and through their action criminals of the worst class might rely upon committing crime with impunity. It would be far better that the Government should cease to prosecute than allow the present state of things to continue, for they were only stultifying the law and incurring an absolutely useless, expenditure. It was no answer to say that crime was no worse in County Clare now than it was when they took Office. If the Government knew the county to be in an unsatisfactory condition when they undertook the government of the country they should not have relaxed any of the powers that would have enabled them to bring criminals to justice. He admitted that the county was never in a perfectly satisfactory condition, but it never was in such a bad condition as it was at the present time. He gathered from Mr. Justice Gibson's Charge at the last Assizes that very serious moonlighting outrages had been classed under the head of intimidation; and that was confirmed by a resolution of the Grand Jury entering a most emphatic protest against the way in which crimes were entered and classified. In that resolution the Grand Jury said—
"We are of opinion that many crimes of a serious character have been minimised by being entered under the head of intimidation."
He wanted to know why these White-boy offences should be described in a misleading manner as intimidation? Answering a question as to that, the Chief Secretary said—
"I wish, once for all, to state that the classification of offences in Ireland is performed by

1667
the same persons who have performed the duty for many years past, and precisely on the same principle."
But in a letter he had received from Colonel Turner, late Divisional Magistrate, it was said—
"In spite of what Mr. Morley stated, there has been a grave departure from the practice which prevailed under the late Government as to the designation of serious crimes, firing at the person, and into houses. Those were never put under the head of intimidation."
It was the duty of the noble Earl opposite either to deny the statement of the Judge and the Grand Jury, or to defend the action of the Government in concealing serious crime under the head of intimidation. Dealing with the state of Kerry, he maintained that when the Government took Office they found that county in a peaceful and law-abiding condition, and in support of that statement he would quote the Charge of Mr. Justice O'Brien at the Summer Assizes of 1892. Therefore, upon the Government must rest the responsibility for the moonlighting which now existed in Kerry. The same might be said of Limerick. Absolutely peaceful when the Government entered on the administration of Irish affairs, that county had degenerated into a lawless and disgraceful condition. The Charge of the learned Judge showed that while the cases returned for trial were only 4 as against 10 in the last corresponding period, the number of cases specially reported had increased from 36 to 53; and he went on to say he was much struck by the fact that in a very large proportion of those cases, some of them of a most serious character, no persons had been made amenable, and he concluded by saying "whatever be the cause the result is lamentable." He had shown that the law was prostituted in these three counties, because juries would not dare to convict. What steps did the Government propose to take? Were they going to permit this scandalous state of affairs to continue, with the result that crime inevitably must increase, because every criminal knew that he could commit crime with impunity? The Chief Secretary had stated the other day in the House of Commons that if he were persuaded of the necessity, no matter what the mortification might be to himself, he would not hesitate to revive the clause with regard to change of venue. What further persuasion did
1668
the right hon. Gentleman want? The country was crying out to the Government to take steps to bring about a change in the lawless condition of these three counties. The Government had the power, and he would give them credit for having the will, but they had not the courage to put an end to the present state of things. They knew that if they offended in the slightest degree that body of men who kept them in power their termination of Office would speedily arrive. Ministers were now truckling to the men whom they once imprisoned without trial, and who had denounced them more violently than they did the Members of the late Government. He declared honestly, solemnly, and conscientiously that he would rather beg his bread in the streets of London from that moment to his dying day than hold Office under conditions so contemptible, so hateful, and so degrading. But the day was not far distant when the Government would have to appeal to a tribunal far higher than Parliament—that of public opinion, when they would find that the cause of those wretched people who had always stood by them would appeal to the English electorate, and he believed the English electorate would show that they regarded the victims of the boycotters and the moonlighters as the victims of the Government, who would not raise a finger to save them. He had been accused of using violent language in their Lordships' House; but he declared he had never done so in a Debate of a political and controversial character, for he was not so narrow-minded as not to give every one of his fellow-men credit for the principles he held; but this was not a political or controversial matter. It was the prostitution of law and the encouragement of crime in Ireland. There was no man with a spark of manliness or human kindness in his breast, no matter to what Party he belonged, who did not look with horror at the outrages perpetrated in the County of Clare, with disgust at the prostitution of the law, and with contempt on the Government for not endeavouring to stop such a state of things by reviving those clauses which, in a moment of temporary aberration he would call it, they had determined to drop. On behalf of his noble Friends

1669
from Ireland, and of himself, he endorsed every word said by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons in his appeal to the Government on this subject. He promised, if the Government revived the power of change of venue, that he would never taunt them with being tardy or inconsistent. On the contrary, he would recognise the fact that they were attempting to shed light on those black spots that existed in Ireland, and doing their utmost to restore law and order in a part of the country which had been described only recently by the Chief Secretary as a disgrace to civilisation.
LORD INCHIQUINentirely endorsed every word the noble Marquess had said. As a landlord resident in Clare he was familiar with what was going on, and he declared that serious outrages were rapidly increasing. The official Return for the month of June contained 28 cases, half of which were serious outrages, although they were placed under the head of "intimidation." In one case one of his own tenants was fired at in the road when driving with a relative to a fair. It was broad daylight at the time, and there were 30 or 40 people on the road. Yet not a single person had been arrested, and when the men fired at got to the fair, they denied that any shots had been fired at them, because they were afraid of what might happen if they told the truth. This case was described in the Return as "intimidation by firing." Some of the most serious cases which were occurring were outrages upon dumb animals. Last month there were three cases where hair was cut off the tails of cattle. Mr. J. Morley appeared to think that a very small matter so long as the tails were not cut off altogether; but, as farmers knew, to cut hair off the tail meant a serious loss to the small farmer. In several cases the cattle had been actually mutilated. He also complained of the inactivity of the police, which he thought might be due to the uncertainty existing as to their future position. An eviction took place on his own estate, where a tenant owed over six years' rent. The police knew that threatening notices would be posted in the district, but took no means to watch, and by 6 o'clock the next morning hundreds of such notices as he held in his hand had been posted all over the neighbourhood. The
1670
police tore them down, but within half-an-hour they were re-posted, the police knowing nothing about them. If the present system of official classification of crime was to go on, it would be a charge of attempted murder if a man behind a hedge fired at another and hit him, while if he fired at and unfortunately missed him it would simply be a case of "intimidation." He spoke feelingly on this subject, because he and others had to travel about the County Clare at all times, and they never knew when they might be fired at. He appealed, therefore, to noble Lords opposite, on behalf of those who had to go about the county, and ask them to give consideration to the request of the noble Marquess.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, this is by no means the first Debate we have had on this subject. I have had the task of answering the noble Marquess on more than one occasion upon the condition of Clare, Limerick, and Kerry, and I shall endeavour to do so now precisely and clearly. He says that the action of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, when the recent Motion was made for the Adjournment of the House of Commons in order to discuss Mr. Justice Gibson's Charge, was merely a continuation of the policy of evasion and concealment on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I must entirely repudiate that charge, and tell him that we have no desire to evade or conceal anything. Our sole desire is to get at the truth, and if we have to admit, as we do, that there is a serious state of affairs existing, we hope by the measures which we are taking that that serious state of things may be put an end to. My right hon. Friend had no notice of the Motion for Adjournment, and I think he was justified in refusing to go at length into the subject. Not only had he not received all the Reports connected with the Assizes, but some of the Assizes had not even taken place; and, therefore, it was not a policy of evasion and concealment—it was the policy of getting the fullest possible information—which induced him to refuse to go at length into the subject. The noble Marquess has alluded to various Judges in Ireland, many of whom, like him, I know; and he has referred to an

1671
old acquaintance of mine, Mr. Charles Kelly, the County Court Judge for the County of Clare. I am ignorant of what my right hon. Friend said which made the noble Marquess state that the Chief Secretary had insulted the Judges. I am sure my right hon. Friend had no intention to insult the Judges, and I should be extremely surprised if anyone can prove that he has insulted them. When, however, Judges' Charges to Grand Juries are taken up and made the subject of political attacks in this place or in the other, it is very difficult in all cases to avoid criticising those Charges. That may be the reason which has given a foundation to the very serious charge made by the noble Marquess; but I maintain that whatever may have been done has not been done with a view to insult Her Majesty's Judges in Ireland, but to elicit the exact facts of the case, and to combat some statements made in those Charges, all of which have not been accurately reported. The noble Marquess, towards the end of his speech, drew what I should call a fancy picture of the position of Her Majesty's Government. He said that in all these cases the Government were at the beck and call of a certain class of Irishmen who have been guilty of crime, and were truckling to them. I entirely repudiate anything of that sort; we do not truckle to anybody. We are as anxious as the noble Marquess himself to restore peace and order in these counties of Ireland. My noble Friend, Her Majesty's Lieutenant in the County of Clare, for whose position I have the greatest respect, and with whom I sympathise in his relations to that county, has made to-night some statements to which I will briefly refer; but not having the actual cases before me as to those statements, I cannot at present deal with them very fully. He referred to outrages on dumb animals, and he attacks my right hon. Friend for, as he seems to think, disregarding them. But anyone who is acquainted with my right hon. Friend as I am will know and will understand that he dislikes and loathes these outrages, and holds them in as great condemnation as any noble Lord opposite.
LORD INCHIQUIN: I was referring to instances of cutting off the hair from animals' tails, not to the outrages.
EARL SPENCER: I certainly understood my noble Friend's statement to go further than that, and to impute carelessness in this matter to my right hon. Friend. My noble Friend goes on to make a very serious charge. He says that the police are not doing their duty in County Clare. From what I have seen of the Reports from that county my belief is that they are doing their duty as faithfully and loyally now as they ever did before. They are not, as it has been suggested, under the delusion that Her Majesty's Government wish to tolerate crime, and they are doing their utmost to put down crime now, just as much as hitherto. One of the characteristics of the Royal Irish Constabulary is that they have always done their duty under the most difficult circumstances. My noble Friend illustrates his point by pointing to notices which have unfortunately been posted up, I imagine, upon his estate, and he asks, Where were the police at the time those notices were put up? Any one who has had to do with the administration of justice in Ireland will know that there is the greatest possible difficulty in dealing with these cases. The ruffians who are engaged in this class of offence know probably more of the movements of the police than the police know about the movements of those persons. They watch till the police have got to a safe distance and then put up the notices complained of. It is much to be regretted that the police cannot be omnipresent; but I think they have been doing their duty with great vigour in the county. I now come to the general question and, for a moment, I should like to refer to the terms of the noble Marquess's notice, which are, indeed, considerably wider than the speech which he has made—
"To call attention to the administration of justice in Ireland, and particularly to the proceedings during the present Assizes in Clare and other counties."
I am not blaming the noble Marquess, because I think he wished to spare your Lordships' time. I will follow that notice more faithfully than the noble Marquess. It was well said by the Lord J President upon a former occasion that it is necessary in judging of a policy not to confine your view to small districts but

1673
to look at what is going on in different parts of the country. Taking the Charges of the Judges in other parts of Ireland they are by no means unsatisfactory. In Queen's County and Roscommon, for instance, there were no cases of importance; in Cavan the learned Judge congratulated the Grand Jury on the satisfactory state of the district; and in King's County, Longford, Leitrim, and other parts very much the same expressions were used by the Judges in charging the Grand Juries. Now, if I go farther South, I admit that in Tipperary the Reports are not so satisfactory; but, at the same time, there is nothing extremely alarming in the Charges of the Judges at those Assizes. When we come to Limerick there are, I frankly admit, more serious cases; but even there it does not appear that the Judges found fault with the juries, though there are, no doubt, a certain number of cases there which have not been made amenable. We hope, however, that these are in the category of those spasmodic outbursts of crime to which reference was made upon the last occasion, inasmuch as there have been no agrarian moonlighting outrages in those parts since April 23. I think that is very satisfactory. Coming to County Kerry, I find that the greater part of that county is in a satisfactory condition, as the learned Judge of Assize himself stated. No doubt there are some districts in the county—more particularly those adjoining Limerick—where the state of affairs is not so satisfactory. The Assizes have now concluded, and in one very important case of moonlighting with firing, near Castleisland, the jury convicted two of the most noted men in that part of the country. That is a satisfactory sign, and we may hope that the wave of crime which has of late years passed over Kerry has now subsided, and that we may once more see that county in a state of peace and order. That conviction is all the more important, because the part where it was obtained was, at the time when I had the honour to represent Her Majesty in Ireland, and always has been, one of the most disturbed districts in the whole of Ireland. With regard to Clare, I merely repeat what I have said more than once in this House, that Her Majesty's Government are not satisfied with the
1674
state of that county. Its condition is not satisfactory, and the Government wish a great change to be made in that county, and the way in which justice is carried out there. I quite admit that Mr. Justice Gibson, at the late Assizes, condemned very severely the action of some of the juries. I would, however, venture to point out that there were three cases of special significance. They were of an agrarian nature. One of them was a very bad case, in which the jury acquitted the prisoner apparently upon the very plainest evidence. I admit that, and I consider it points to a serious condition of things. Of the other two cases, one was in connection with a very notorious estate as to which, unfortunately, a strong feeling prevailed in various parts of the country; and those who are responsible for the administration of justice in Ireland are of opinion that in almost any part of Ireland—even if the venue had been changed—there would have been a difficulty in obtaining a conviction in a case about which so much popular feeling prevailed throughout the country. The third case was tried before at the Winter Assizes at Cork, where the jury had disagreed. I admit it is worse now, because the jury acquitted; but I learn on the authority of the Crown Solicitor that the identification of the prisoner in this case was by no means clear. Those are the three principal cases, and, while we admit that the state of the county is not satisfactory, we maintain that the Irish Government would have gained nothing in two out of these three cases by a change of venue. Unfortunately, in that county, and in a small portion of the County of Limerick, there has been a great reluctance on the part of many persons to give evidence. That affects the inquiry before the Magistrates, which, in every case, whether you change the venue or not, must be held in the particular county; and the unwillingness to give evidence prevents the case being brought to trial. Change of venue would have no effect whatever upon this. Now, my Lords, I will state the position in which the Government stand in regard to this question of change of venue. The noble Marquess quoted some words from memory, with respect to what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said in

1675
another place, but what my right hon. Friend told the House of Commons was that the Government were watching the crime in this black area, including parts of Limerick, Kerry, and Clare, with the most vigilant and solicitous eye, and that if he were persuaded that the power of change of venue and for securing special juries would put an end to this state of things, which he, in common with all, deplored, he declared that no amount of things which he had said in the past, and no sense of mortification at having to unsay them, would prevent him from taking the steps which certain opponents of the Government were pressing upon him to adopt. Now, my Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I repeat that, and I say that in all cases where Her Majesty's Government consider that by changing the venue they will succeed in restoring law and order in any particular district they will take the necessary steps to enforce that exceptional process of law. We, however, have not been encouraged in enforcing special provisions in this direction by past experience from the results that followed the action of the late Government. I have been twitted before by the noble Marquess for raising questions of tu quoque. I am saying this not for the purpose of attacking the late Government, but in order to show that with all their experience, with all their power, and their desire to avail themselves of the exceptional powers which the law gave them, the late Government were not able to restore peace and order in the County of Clare, and that, in fact, the condition of that county was worse under the administration of the noble Marquess's Government than it has been since the present Government came into Office. I desire to say that we think exceptional powers of law should only be resorted to when the absolute necessity for putting them into force has been shown upon the clearest and most precise evidence. What we desire to do is to restore the confidence of the people of Ireland in the law and to obtain support for the law from all classes of the community, because it is only by that means that we can hope to secure the good government of the country, and until that is done we consider that good government is not established in any part of the Queen's
1676
dominions. We admit—I do clearly and distinctly—that there are cases which can only be met by exceptional laws, but, at the same time, we maintain that the necessity for those exceptional laws must be clearly established before they are resorted to. If you adopt exceptional laws you only increase the opposition and irritation which, unfortunately, exist in many parts of Ireland against the laws of the country. That is our deliberate opinion, and we do not desire to change from the attitude which we have taken with regard to the adoption of exceptional laws, unless it is shown to be absolutely necessary, and unless, by doing so, we are sure of success. Now, I should like to refer for a moment to the condition of Ireland generally, because I submit that in discussions of this sort relating to particular districts we ought not to shut our eyes to what is going on in the country generally. If we take all Ireland from the 23rd January to the 30th June, 1893, the total number of agrarian outrages was 316, or 153 excluding 163 cases of threatening letters; but from August, 1891, for the last year of the noble Marquess's administration, there were 368. That is to say, there were more agrarian outrages then in all Ireland than there are at the present time, the cases of threatening letters being 192. That shows that the position of Her Majesty's Government with regard to law and order in the whole of Ireland is by no means unsatisfactory. Coming to Clare from the 23rd April, 1892, to 30th June, 1893, the agrarian outrages were 68, excluding threatening letters and notices, 33; non-agrarian outrages 117, excluding threatening letters 77. From the 23rd August, 1891, to 30th August, 1832, the total agrarian outrages, including threatening letters, were 78, excluding them 39. Therefore the number of agrarian outrages in Clare during the last year of the noble Marquess's administration was larger than those in the first year of our administration. I do not wish to lay great stress upon it, but that was the case. I only wish to say, in conclusion, in reference to the statement that has been made that this subject has not been brought under the notice of the House for the purpose of making a political attack upon Her Majesty's Government, that this question with regard to the condition of County

1677
Clare has been brought forward over and over again since Her Majesty's present Government have been in Office by those who had not a word to say with regard to the still worse condition of the county when the late Government were answerable for the administration of Ireland.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: We always have raised the question, but you would not.
EARL SPENCER: Certainly I would not raise them, because I did not wish to embarrass Her Majesty's Government with regard to the administration of the law; but there might have been other Peers and right hon. Gentlemen elsewhere who had no feeling of that sort, and why should not they have raised the question as to the state of Clare then just as much as the noble Marquess is raising it now?
LORD ASHBOURNE: We were doing our best to improve the condition of the country.
EARL SPENCER: I say, therefore, that the object of continually raising this question at the present time is, undoubtedly, to a great extent a political one. I am, moreover, afraid that these constant Debates upon the state of County Clare will most seriously affect the administration of the law in Ireland. These Debates will certainly not encourage Irish juries to do their duty and to find verdicts according to their consciences or Irish witnesses to speak the truth, when they are told that their lives will be endangered or threatened and their property destroyed. Your Lordships must remember that the reports of the Debates in this House are not confined to English or Dublin newspapers, but that they find their way into the most distant parts of Ireland, and that they become well known to all those who are, unfortunately, connected with agrarian crime in Ireland, or with the administration of justice in that country. They excite those who take unlawful means to prevent justice being properly administered, and they deter honest men from doing their duty. I cannot help lamenting that the effect of these discussions is to weaken the arm of the law in Ireland. Before I sit down I should wish to point out that the classification of crime in Ireland has undergone no change since the present Government came into Office, and therefore that, if
1678
the present classification is defective, it was equally defective under the noble Marquess's administration. In classifying offences the police have followed the rules and principles laid down for many years past; and, notwithstanding the authoritative dictum of my old friend Colonel Turner, I assort that no change in reference to classifying cases of intimidation has taken place in this system. I do not mean to say that in some of these cases you might not argue that crimes should be classified in a different way; but it is a very serious thing to alter the form of Returns unless you find some grievous error in them. Unless that is the case you destroy the value of all statistical calculations if you alter the form of Returns. That crimes have been classified as intimidation when the offence was intent to murder or to do bodily harm I do not believe for a moment. I can only repeat what Her Majesty's Government's intentions are with regard to crimes in Ireland. They are of opinion that up to the present time they could not with any advantage change the venue in any particular county. They are doing all they can to keep down crime in these unfortunate black spots, and the latest reports, even from Clare, express some hopes that the worst is over and that already there are signs of improvement.
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, the noble Earl had promised to answer fully the statements and facts brought forward by the noble Marquess, but he would ask their Lordships to decide whether the noble Earl had given the full, clear, and satisfactory answer he had promised. The noble Earl had hardly referred to the Judge's Charge at the late Assizes, though that had been strongly put forward by his noble Friend who raised the question. The noble Earl asked why Members of the present Opposition did not raise these questions when the late Government was in power. It was very clear why they did not. Because there was no necessity. The country was at that time improving every day.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: No, it was not—not in the least.
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that if Clare was in an unsatisfactory condition then, which they denied, the Government of Lord Salisbury

1679
did everything in their power to alter that state of things. That was the reason why no member of the present Opposition rose to ask such a question as this. The noble Earl said that these discussions discouraged juries. It discouraged them a great deal more to get no sort of protection from the Government. But this discussion was raised after the fact. The juries had already given their decisions, and had therefore shown that they had been intimidated. The noble Earl said that the Government was prepared to take measures, and to change the venue if it became necessary, and that all they wanted to do was to get at the truth. What steps were they taking to that end? They were simply letting things slide in the hope that they would improve; and they did not improve. He maintained that it was necessary to change the venue. At the recent Assizes at Clare the Judge made the most serious Charge to the Grand Jury. He said that the proceedings were a perfect farce because the juries were so intimidated. That being so, was it not time that some steps should be taken by Her Majesty's Government? The Chief Secretary said in another place that Clare was at present a disgrace to civilisation. If that were so, surely some steps should be taken to enforce the law. The real fact was that" the Government were tied and bound at the heels of Mr. Sexton's Party, and dare not use the powers in their hands. No one knew better than the noble Earl how beneficial a change of venue would be in Clare. The Government talked a great deal about their sympathy with the law-abiding classes, but they did nothing to show that sympathy in a satisfactory manner. Though the Chief Secretary had declared that Clare—a county for the government of which he was responsible—was a disgrace to civilisation, he made no single proposition for remedying that state of things; and, as a member of the Cabinet, the noble Earl was as much responsible for it as the Chief Secretary. What form of crime or terrorism, what kind of Charge from a Judge, would make the noble Earl think that it was necessary to do something for the law-abiding people of the country? As at present administered in Clare, the law was distinctly against
1680
the law-abiding. If they took the law into their own hands and administered lynch law, as was sometimes done in the wild Western States, they would certainly be tried and convicted, while the criminals enjoyed immunity. Even if men were caught red-handed, the juries would return them not guilty. Why did the Government throw away the powers which they found ready to their hands? Though the noble Earl expressed great doubt of the value of the change of venue, two of his Colleagues—Mr. Campbell-Bannerman and Sir G. Trevelyan—had in times past expressed a very contrary opinion. If the noble Earl thought there would be any use in changing the venue so that these criminals might be brought to justice, why did he not do so? The noble Earl had indignantly repudiated the idea of truckling to anybody, and had said that the Government were taking measures. He should like to know what those measures were, for they had not heard of any. It appeared to him that the reason why the Government were not prepared to take measures to change the venue and to enforce the Crimes Act in Clare was that such a course was objectionable to the Irish Party who supported them in the House of Commons, and at whose dictation they were prepared only last week to destroy the splendid Constitution of this Empire. It was not to be wondered at that they would not take measures to change the venue or enforce the Crimes Act in Clare when they knew that Mr. Sexton and his Party would object to their doing so. He believed that Party would spare Her Majesty's Government no degradation to which they could possibly subject them to in the present, and that in the future, if they took such measures, the so-called union of hearts would be turned into deadly antagonism against the present Treasury Bench, which, if any Home Rule Bill were to pass—which God forbid—would be made more dangerous, because power would be given to Ireland to assist any attacks that might be made upon the shores of England, and to inflict the most vital injury in the very heart of her Parliament itself.
LORD SHANDassured the noble Earl that nothing in the way of political interests was in his mind in the few observations he would make. Having

1681
been long connected with the administration of justice in Scotland, he would point out that the power of changing the venue was constantly used there, and had for at least a century been part of the Common Law of that country. The change of venue operated not only to procure convictions, but it was also very often favourable to the accused. He sympathised very much with a learned Judge entering a circuit with the knowledge that he was merely playing a part. It could easily be imagined what his feelings would be. He could not understand why the power of changing the venue should not be exercised in Ireland, for as it was constantly exercised in Scotland it could not be considered to cast any stigma upon Ireland. The Government were bound to respect the views of the learned Judge who went on circuit in the County of Clare, and ought to take into their serious consideration his opinion as to the necessity of the change of venue in that county. As to the statistics showing that crime in the rest of Ireland was decreasing, he thought that was not an answer to people living in Clare, Kerry, and Limerick. The simple question the Government had to consider was what was necessary to be done in those particular counties. It ought to be sufficient for Her Majesty's Government that a large number of the community considered that the adoption of this course would alter the discreditable fact that juries were acquitting prisoners when their guilt had been made absolutely clear.

COMPANIES (CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 178.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, this Bill was introduced to your Lordships' House on a previous occasion. It is a very simple one. There was a recent decision of the Courts which has rather taken the public by surprise, to the effect that although a company might have been apparently incorporated with due regularity, yet if it were afterwards shown that any mistake had been made, the company did not
  1682
  come under the Companies Acts, and the ordinary proceedings in relation to it could not be taken. The object of this Bill is to provide that a certificate of incorporation shall be conclusive that the company is duly and properly incorporated, I have submitted this Bill to the learned Judges who decided the case to which I have alluded, and they consider that the proposed change in the law is advisable. I therefore ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a,—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

WEAVER NAVIGATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Amendments made by the Commons, agreed to.
METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 190.)
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 176.)
Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) (No. 3) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read la; and to be printed. (No. 202.)

STATUTE LAW REVISION (NO. 2) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next. (No. 203.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Five o'clock