Lords Sitting of 29 June 1893

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

1. Treasury Chest Fund.

2. North Sea Fisheries.

3. Appeals (Formâ Pauperis).

4. Voluntary Conveyances.

5. Weights and Measures.

6. Duchy of Cornwall.

7. Seal Fishery (North Pacific).

8. Public Works Loans.

9. Commons Regulation Provisional Order (West Tilbury).

10. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1).

11. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2).

12. Oyster and Mussel Fishery (Loch Creran) Provisional Order Confirmation.

13. Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1).

14. Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order (Banstead).

15. Local Government Provisional Order.

16. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2).

17. Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3).

18. Local Government Provisional Order (Housing of Working Classes).

19. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Cranbrook and Paddock Wood Railway, &c.)

20. Housing of the Working Classes (Edinburgh) Provisional Order.

21. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4).

22. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).

23. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5).

24. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9).

25. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4).

302

26. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10).

27. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11).

28. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3).

29. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 5).

30. Water Provisional Orders (No. 1).

LORD KINGSALE (CLAIM TO VOTE FOB REPKESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND).
Ordered and Directed, That a Certificate be sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Lord Kingsale to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has ordered such report to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland: And it is hereby also Ordered, That the said Report of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 147.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD MONKSWELL, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, that it was a very short Bill of an absolutely non-contentious character, which passed through the Commons unopposed, and, indeed, without comment. It was rendered necessary by reason of the Legislature having enacted that certain Statutes should be read together, the provisions of which did not harmonise. This enactment had created a state of things which had, as might have been expected, been a puzzle to the Judges and to noble and learned Lords, and had provided the Bar with a good deal of work. The point at issue was this. By the Arbitration Act of 1889 an arbitrator was obliged in certain cases to grant an appeal from his award; but under other Acts, and among them the Friendly Societies Act, 1875, which it was sought to amend by this

  303
  Bill, an arbitrator had the power, if he pleased, to refuse to grant an appeal, and to treat his award as final. By a clause in the Arbitration Act of 1889 the provisions of the Act were to apply to arbitrations under other Acts, except where they were inconsistent with the Act of 1889. Two Judges in the Courts of First Instance held that the provisions of the Act of 1889 were inconsistent with those of an Act similar, as to arbitrations, to the Act of 1875, which this Bill was to amend, and, consequently, did not apply; but on appeal to the Court of Appeal and to this House that decision was reversed, and it was finally decided that the provisions of the Act of 1889 applied to the Act of 1875, and consequently that Friendly Society arbitrations under that Act were, in certain cases, subject to appeal. The Friendly Societies strongly objected to this state of the law, which they wished should be made as short and inexpensive as possible; and this Bill was introduced to restore the law with regard to arbitrations under the Act of 1875 with regard to Friendly Societies to its condition previous to the Act of 1889.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Monkswell.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 54.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF MEATHsaid, in the absence of Lord O'Neill, who had asked him to address the House in his place, he had to move an Amendment which would extend the beneficial operation of Saturday and Sunday closing to the six townships included within the area of the Dublin Metropolitan Police District, but outside the Municipal area of that city. From the operation of the Act of 1878 for the Sunday closing of public-houses throughout Ireland five large towns were exempted, as their Lordships were aware, including Dublin. They were closed even in so large a city as Londonderry, with a population of 33,000, and in other large towns—for instance, Lurgan, with
  304
  11,000; Galway, 16,000; Drogheda, 11,000; Lisburn, 12,000; Wexford, 11,000; and so on. The five towns exempted from the operation of the Act of 1878 were Dublin, Belfast, Waterford, Cork, and Limerick, the area of exemption in the case of the last four being the Municipal boundary, and not as in Dublin, the Metropolitan Police District, which extended much beyond the Municipal boundary, and included six large townships, incorporated and self-governing—Rathmines, with 27,000 population (smaller by 6,000 than Londonderry, which was included in the Bill); Pembroke, 24,000; Blackrock 8,000; Kingston, 17,000; Dalkey, 3,000; and Killiney, 3,600—all quite independent of the Municipality of Dublin, except as regards having the same police. The Act had been in existence 15 years, and had proved a marked success, as had been stated by Irish Chief Secretaries of different Parties, not only throughout the country districts, but in the large towns. A house-to-house canvass in Dublin had resulted in a large majority of the householders signing papers in favour of the extension of the Act in its entirety. Sir George Trevelyan said, in 1884, that the Act had proved a great and unmixed benefit where it had been in operation, and should be extended to the exempted cities. Mr. Balfour in 1889, and Mr. Morley in 1892, expressed similar opinions with regard to Sunday closing in Ireland. In 1882 a sort of plébiscite was taken in the cities on the question of entire Sunday closing. There were then 77,000 for and only 14,000 against—a majority of 63,000. It might be said that people's opinions had meanwhile changed on this subject; but he did not believe it. On the contrary, the cause of temperance had greatly increased of late years, especially in Ireland. In addition to the householders' votes, a canvass of all the ecclesiastical dignitaries had shown that 20 Roman Catholic Prelates and the entire Protestant Episcopate—13—were in favour of the extension of the Act. That was a very strong argument in a country like Ireland, which was so much led by ecclesiastical opinion. Another quite recent canvass of the Dublin clergy of all denominations had shown 2,258 in favour of entire Sunday closing. At a meeting of the inhabitants held in the

  305
  Rotunda, the largest hall in Dublin, a majority of 15,000 against 70 passed a resolution to the same effect. No doubt a majority of the Corporation had decided the other way, desiring that the public-houses should be opened for a certain time on Sundays; but equally, no doubt, a number of its members were interested in the liquor trade. When the Bill was under discussion on the Committee stage, to the great surprise of himself and all who held the same belief in this matter, an Amendment was moved by Lord Rookwood which entirely altered the character of the Bill, declaring that public-houses should be open for three hours on Sunday. He should not have objected to the Amendment if it had been confined to Dublin; but it was not. It included the six surrounding townships. The Municipal Authorities of four of these townships had declared in favour of entire Sunday closing; and the Port of Kingstown had petitioned the House of Lords in the same direction. These townships possessed absolute self-government, and their wishes were entitled to as much consideration as those of the City of Dublin. Would it not be contradictory for the Government, above all others, to deny the rights of local self-government? And with respect to the Opposition, they should remember that the great Unionist victory won in the Southern Division of County Dublin was not due to the publicans, but to the Temperance Party, and that Party would be disappointed if their requests were set aside by Unionist legislators in the interest of the Nationalist publicans. These outside townships were studded with villa residences and were inhabited by merchants, well-to-do tradesmen, and intelligent artisans. He had no wish to bring forward a political discussion on this matter, and would merely ask the House to remember that on the last occasion no public expression of opinion had been made. Sailing, then, with a fair wind and on a smooth sea, noble Lords opposing had little idea that a cyclone would, as now, blow upon their proposals; and he hoped their Lordships would re-consider their decision, and would exempt, at all events, the four townships he had mentioned which had expressed an opinion adversely to Lord Rookwood's Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 1, line 7, to leave out all after ("provisions of") and insert ("section one of the said Act with reference to the places in the said section excepted are hereby amended, and shall be construed as if for seven o'clock five o'clock were substituted, and as if for the said excepted places were substituted the Cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, and Belfast.")—(The Earl of Meath.)
  LORD PLUNKET (Archbishop of DUBLIN)said, that he also would avoid political considerations with which this Bill had nothing to do; and he only wished to emphasise some of the points which the noble Earl had brought forward. A distinction was made in the treatment of Dublin as contrasted with that of the other four cities which were exempted. In those four cities the exempted area was circumscribed by the Municipal boundary. In Dublin it was conterminous with the Metropolitan Police district. The result was that some 80,000 persons, who formed the population of the extra-Municipal district, had been excluded from what the large majority of them believed to be the advantages of this Bill. The Amendment did not propose in any way to disturb the existing boundaries, so far as the duties of the police were concerned; but at present there were some townships not two or three miles from the centre of Dublin which were outside the exempted district, and there were others at least eight miles from the centre of Dublin which were included within it; and he had not as yet found any reason why so anomalous a distinction should be made. This Amendment could not have been brought on at an earlier period, because when the Bill was read a second time it extended to the whole of Ireland; and, therefore, no objection to the boundaries of these cities, which were not exempted by that Bill, could have been raised on that occasion. It was only after the noble Lord had moved his Amendment that these exempted cities came into view, and it became necessary to determine what were their boundaries. The present Amendment, therefore, was not an after-thought. It was a matter which had been borne in mind from the first. Again, this Amendment did not propose in any way to reverse the principle of the Bill either as it was brought forward on the Second Reading or as it

  307
  first came before their Lordships in Committee. That principle was, as it seemed to him, that this Bill was a boon; and that their Lordships, as a body, desired to see something like a Sunday Closing Act ultimately in force throughout Ireland; but that this closing should be reached by gradual steps, so that it might be ascertained from experience how the Bill would work and what amount of consensus of opinion there was in favour of it. He considered that this Amendment fulfilled both conditions, because there had been experience of the way in which the Bill would work in extra-Municipal areas. Queenstown stood in much the same relation to Cork as Kingstown to Dublin, and the Bill had worked well in Queenstown and other districts similar to the Dublin extra-Municipal area. In these extra-Municipal districts there was, moreover, a consensus of opinion in favour of the Bill, the expression of a wish for total Sunday closing having been shown, by the results of a plébiscite, to be in the proportion of seven or eight to one. The Petition signed by 20,000 persons in opposition to the Bill came from a large area extending over the Counties of Dublin, Wicklow, and Kildare, and embracing a population of 555,000. Moreover, it was not altogether trustworthy, He had had an opportunity of examining the signatures to it, and he found throughout it groups of names in the same handwriting, and also names of persons who gave their addresses from Mayo, Wexford, and other places outside the districts from which the petition came, and one even from this Metropolis. He had noticed there the name of a champion of temperance in another place—Mr. T. W. Russell—who would be very much surprised to find himself amongst those who had petitioned against the Bill. On the other hand, the plébiscite of householders to which the noble Earl (the Earl of Meath) had referred was carried out under circumstances which precluded anything like collusion. The townships were almost all in favour of the Bill; and he hoped their Lordships, looking at this matter altogether apart from political considerations, would feel that when expostulations from so large a body of persons had reached them they ought not to turn a deaf ear to their request.
  LORD ROOKWOODsaid, he regretted exceedingly to find himself in opposition to the most rev. Prelate and also to the noble Earl. He was not prepared to look upon this matter as a bribe to the voters, and he had always tried to treat the question as a means of bringing about in the surest possible way that temperance which their Lordships all had at heart. He believed it was safer to deal by degrees, with restrictions of this sort, and to ascertain beforehand that at least a considerable majority of the population were in favour of such restrictions. As to the resolutions of the Municipal Authorities in favour of the Bill to which the noble Earl had referred, they had been passed only by a majority. In one case, where the population was 17,000, the resolution had been passed by seven Municipal Councillors against two, and those two probably represented a large number of that population. He believed that the safest course would be to wait until there was something like unanimity on the question, as in the case of the Corporation of Dublin, before attempting to carry out these restrictions. The police area, as compared with the Municipal area, was the area inserted in the old Act. This area was subject to the same Police Orders and Regulations, and it was also under the same Licensing Authority. It had been for many years exempted from the action of the Act of 1878, and he should be sorry to see it now included without a much stronger expression of opinion in its favour from these townships than had at present appeared. Under these circumstances, he believed it would be best to adhere to the old Act, and to endeavour gradually to win over the people to a general desire for its extension, rather than to force them to adopt it against the wish of a large number of those who would be affected by this proposal which might lead to all the dangers their Lordships had seen arising from too stringent legislation.
  LORD PLUNKETsaid, the noble Lord was under a misapprehension. It was not the case that the Municipal districts were under the same Licensing Authority as the City of Dublin. In Dublin the Licensing Authority was the Recorder; the other districts were under separate jurisdiction. The Recorder had written to him stating that no confusion would be caused by this Amendment.
  LORD ROOKWOODsuggested that, after all, the Recorder, who acted by himself in the City of Dublin, acted as Chairman of the Bench of Magistrates in the other districts.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, I do not propose to enter again into the general principles of the Bill before your Lordships, as we had a considerable discussion upon it on Second Reading. The matter now before us is much simpler; and in a very few words I will state the reasons for the vote which Her Majesty's Government propose to give on this occasion. We consider that, on the whole, we ought to support the Amendment of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches. It seems to me that it would be more symmetrical with the other portions of the Bill to make the area of exemption the Municipal boundary of Dublin, as in the case of the other cities mentioned. Further than this, we notice that though there is not an entirely unanimous expression of opinion on the part of the Local Bodies, the majority of them have expressed very distinctly their desire to come under the general operation of the Bill. For these reasons, I deem it my duty to support the Amendment of the noble Earl.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

FRANCE AND NEWFOUNDLAND.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what provision has been made to secure the execution of Treaty obligations to Newfoundland, and of the modus vivendi, and of the award, if any; whether arbitration is proceeding on the basis agreed to on 11th March 1891; and to move for Papers. He said, he had no intention of going at any length into the merits and demerits of the long controversy which had now been going on with France for more than a century; but it was necessary, in order to make himself intelligible, to shortly recall to their Lordships how matters stood when this subject was brought very prominently before the House in 1891, and what led
  310
  up to the situation which caused so much anxiety here and in Newfoundland. Prior to the granting of responsible government to Newfoundland the Treaties, as then understood, were administered by the officers commanding ships on the Station, under special powers conferred by an Act passed in 1824, and renewable from time to time. That Act was allowed to drop when representative government was granted to Newfoundland. The Colony did not legislate on the subject, but was not to blame, as no necessity for legislation arose. Owing to the almost phenomenal good sense and forbearance shown by the people of Newfoundland and by the officers commanding British and French ships on the Station, our Treaty obligations were carried out for many years with tolerable satisfaction, or, at all events, without any intolerable dissatisfaction to the parties concerned. But of late years the long dispute as to French rights and the true sense and meaning of our various Treaties had entered upon a new and somewhat acute phase. Newfoundland became very much irritated by the system of bounties pursued by France. She subsidised her fishing industry to such an extent as to practically drive our Newfoundland-cured fish out of the foreign markets, and the Colony found herself threatened with the ruin of her principal, almost of her only, industry. People naturally had a strong prejudice against being ruined, and Newfoundlanders were not at all singular in that respect. Casting about to find means of protecting themselves, a Bill was passed by the Newfoundland Legislature for regulating the supply of bait—that was to say, practically forbidding bait to be sold to foreign countries. This Bill was disallowed by the Home Government in 1886, but, on being passed again in 1887, was allowed to become law. The importance of that Act in its effects upon France was greater than might appear on the face of it. The small fish used for bait came inshore, and were procurable on those portions of the coast lying nearest the great banks, over which portions of the coast of Newfoundland France claimed no rights whatever. France was, consequently, put to considerable disadvantage, as the fishing season was a short one. The rejoinder of France to this effort of Newfoundland to

  311
  force her hand in the matter of bounties was to raise the question whether crustaceans were fish; and the lobster—a creature of naturally retiring habits—suddenly found itself raised to a position of importance as an international question. A new industry had sprung up in Newfoundland in catching and tinning lobsters; and establishments called lobster factories, owned by both British and French subjects, were in operation on the Treaty shore. France interpreted the rights which she enjoyed under the Treaties of Utrecht and Versailles to catch fish, and to land and erect sheds and stages on the shore for the purpose of curing fish, as including the right to set lobster traps and erect establishments for tinning lobsters. She claimed, also, that the British lobster interfered with the French lobster; that British lobster factories and British lobster traps interfered with her lobster industry; and that by the Declaration of Versailles we were precluded from interference with her fishery. One of two things could be done. The Government could have repudiated the interpretation of France in practice as well as in theory. Some compromise pending settlement could be made. The latter course was adopted, and in March, 1890, a modus vivendi was agreed upon to remain in force for the fishing season of that year, which was subsequently renewed. The modus vivendi was to the effect that no lobster factories which were not in operation on July 1, 1889, were to be permitted to be worked without the joint consent of the naval officers of both nations; that no change was to be made in the position of the factories without such joint consent; and that if a new establishment was permitted to one nation the other might also establish a new factory in a locality to be mutually agreed upon. In 1889 negotiations for arbitration on the lobster question were opened; they were renewed in 1890, and in 1891 a basis for arbitration was agreed upon, and arbitrators were named. Against this modus vivendi Newfoundland protested vehemently, on the ground that the claim of France in respect of lobsters being included in the fishing industry was absolutely preposterous and should not be entertained for a moment; and in respect of the Arbitration Convention, in that it comprised no scheme
  312
  for compensation, and that compensation ought to be given by the Imperial Government in cases of factories ordered to be closed which had been erected previous to the question being raised. Newfoundland also demurred to a reference to arbitration on the lobster question alone, though she was not only willing, but exceedingly anxious, for arbitration on the whole question of the interpretation of the Treaties and Declarations, with the view of defining Brisish obligations and French rights. The execution of the modus vivendi involved us in a difficulty which was unforeseen, and of a most critical and serious kind. It was one thing for commanders of ships to exercise authority at sea, and in that respect, as a matter of fact, no serious trouble had ever arisen; but it was quite another thing when they exercised jurisdiction and authority in the territorial waters of a Colony and upon land—upon a shore settled by people paying taxes, sending Representatives to the Legislature, and possessing Municipal Institutions and properly-established and qualified Courts of Law. Sir Baldwin Walker, commanding one of Her Majesty's ships on the Station, ordered Mr. Baird's factory to be closed. Mr. Baird brought an action against Sir Baldwin Walker, and was cast in damages in an action in the Municipal Courts, whose decision was upheld on appeal by the Privy Council The position then became exceedingly difficult. The Imperial Parliament had no Constitutional means of carrying out the agreement entered into with France, or of enforcing the Treaty obligations. It was questionable whether empowering, an Imperial officer to act contrary to the Legislature at the Municipal Courts was the proper course to adopt. It showed you, even in the case of a community separated from us by the ocean, and not very intimately connected by ties of material interest, that a difficulty might arise between the Statutory Legislature, and the Imperial Parliament which would most certainly have led to most serious consequences had not both the Colonial Legislature and the Imperial Parliament been animated by the most conciliatory feelings, and most desirous of not coming to an absolute impasse. Newfoundland accepted the grant of responsible government. She accepted it

  313
  subject to all the Treaties affecting the Colony; and, in such a case, if a local Legislature refused to do its duty, the Constitutional course would be to annul the Statute, and degrade the Colony to the condition of a Crown Colony administered direct from the Colonial Office. However there was very little time to dwell upon the Constitutional aspect of the case. The fishing season was close at hand. The danger of some unfortunate collision occurring was imminent, and it was deemed necessary to immediately take steps to enable the Queen's Ministers to carry out their undertaking with France under the modus vivendi. It was obvious something must be done. Accordingly, the then Secretary of State for the Colonies (Lord Knutsford) introduced a Bill to re-enact the powers of George IV., c. 24. A vigorous protest was made by the Colony, and a stay of execution was prayed until they could be heard in the matter. The Second Reading of the Bill was postponed, and, on a Motion he had the honour to make, leave was granted to a Delegation to be heard at the Bar. Accordingly a Delegation, consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker of the House of Assembly, and two prominent Members of the Legislative Council, appeared at the Bar of their Lordships' House, and stated the case of the Colony very fairly and temperately. They said that the Colony were perfectly ready to do what was right and just in the matter—that an Act would be passed by their Legislature which would render unnecessary any Imperial legislation, and that, after consultation with Her Majesty's Government, permanent legislation would be passed. I need not go into details of the Debate. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for India was strongly of opinion that the best way of dealing with the subject was to institute special Courts. He said—
  "I am strongly of opinion—and I would press this upon your Lordships—that we should upon this question establish some Court of competent jurisdiction which should deal with all these matters on land; and I am confident that would go a long way towards removing the disagreeable feeling among the Colonists of Newfoundland with regard to the enforcement of the Treaties upon their coasts."
  314
  The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack held rather that the Treaties ought to be carried out under the Municipal Law prevailing in the Colony; that any breach of the Treaties should be punishable under that law; and that any building erected contrary to our Treaties and Agreements should be removable under it. On the general question of arbitration, both those noble Lords deprecated any arbitration which did not embrace the whole subject of interpretation and sense of our Treaties and Agreements. The noble Earl opposite said—
  "It seems to me almost impossible to contend that if there is a difference of opinion with regard to the meaning of the Treaty that difference of opinion should be settled by arbitration on one point only, and not on all. In principle, if it is right to go to arbitration on one of the points, it must equally be right to go to arbitration on all; and I still hope that under the Convention it will be found that the French Government, when the lobster question is decided, will agree to the rest of the questions being submitted."
  And upon that point the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said—
  "I confess I sympathise very much with the views of the Colonists as to the dangers to them of separate arbitration upon a variety of distinct points which do not cover the whole ground, and would still leave certain matters unsettled."
  And the noble Earl added—
  "I quite understand that it would be against the interests of the Colonists to have a series of references unless that series of references cover all the points raised."
  The noble Marquess, then Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies considered that, until the necessary legislation should be brought in by the Colony, it was absolutely necessary to proceed with Imperial legislation. In fact, the main difference between the noble Marquess and noble Lords opposite was that the latter wished to postpone Imperial pending Colonial legislation, while Her Majesty's Government thought it necessary to proceed with it, whilst expressing a strong hope that it would be rendered unnecessary by Colonial legislation. In pursuance of the undertaking given by the Delegates, an Act was passed holding good until the end of 1893 to the effect that the Orders of Her Majesty by advice of Her Council to the Governor or to the officers commanding ships on the Station for the fulfil-

  315
  ment of Treaty obligations should be lawful, and should not give rise to any action-at-law, and that the instructions for carrying out the modus vivendi and for giving effect to the award of arbitration should be lawful, and should give rise to no action-at-law. The result of all that was that the Bill introduced by the Secretary of State for the Colonies was passed through their Lordships' House, but was hung up in the other House of Parliament upon Second Reading on a Resolution that the House of Commons would support Her Majesty's Government by legislation if necessary; but that, as a satisfactory Act had been passed by the Newfoundland Legislature, it was unnecessary to proceed further with the Bill. So far, one of the undertakings given by the Delegates had been carried out, the other, regarding permanent legislation, had not; and it was upon that point he asked for information from Her Majesty's Government whether anything had been done in the direction of giving powers to the Municipal Courts of Newfoundland to fulfil our Treaty obligations as was recommended by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, or whether anything had been done towards establishing special Courts as recommended by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India—or whether things were still in the same uncertain condition as they were in 1889–91, and whether Her Majesty's Government contemplated bringing in any legislative proposal, either in that House or in the other House of Parliament? On the subject of arbitration, an agreement was signed on the 11th March, 1891, as regarded the lobstier industry; and when that was decided the Commission was competent to deal with any other questions upon the text of which an agreement had been arrived at between Her Majesty's Government and France. A hitch arose on the question of arbitration, owing to France having declared that Imperial legislation was the only satisfactory way in which the Treaty obligations could be fulfilled. To that the noble Marquess very properly replied that, provided we carried them out, the method by which we did so only concerned ourselves—that a Bill had been passed by the House of Lords and a Resolution by the House of Commons.
  316
  That this country would do its duty in the matter, and whether that was done by Imperial or by Colonial legislation, by permanent or by temporary and renewable legislation, was a matter which concerned ourselves alone, and did not concern France at all. He desired to know whether any agreement on that point had been arrived at; arbitration on the lobster question had taken place, whether any and what award had been made; and whether steps had been taken to insure that the award would be carried out? He was also very anxious to know whether there was any probability of arbitration on the larger question? The arbitration should embrace the whole question in dispute—not, of course, the principle of the Treaties and Declarations, but their meaning and true interpretation. After all, that was the most important point, because in that lay the only probability of arriving at a satisfactory solution of this question, involving the Sovereignty of this country, and affecting our relations with a neighbouring Power as well as the interests of a self-governing Colony. We had possessed undisputed Sovereignty over Newfoundland for more than four centuries; and yet over one-third of the coast line and that portion of the interior which found its natural outlet on that coast, the results and acts of Sovereignty were either not exercised at all, or only very partially. We were in constant dispute with France upon this fishery question, and the Colony had been stunted, hampered, and thwarted in its natural growth and in the development of its resources. That state of things was certainly not very desirable. He felt the deepest sympathy with Newfoundland in this matter, and believed that no community had ever been placed in a more difficult and intolerable position. They were unable to develop their resources, and had been hampered in every direction. The opinion was often freely expressed that Newfoundland had been neglected in this matter because she was a small and weak Colony. No doubt, in past years, our Governments had been somewhat lax, and had not sufficiently considered the interests of the Colony, but had been too contented to protest against the interpretation put upon the Treaties by France while tacitly

  317
  acquiescing in it. It would be a great mistake to allow the notion to go forth that Parliament, in dealing with our Colonies, was actuated by an appreciation of their relative strength, wealth, and power. Equal justice and equal consideration was the very essence of the Imperial idea. The whole sympathy, and, if necessary, the whole power, of the United Kingdom should, if justice and right required it, be as much at the disposal of the smallest as of the greatest of our Colonies. If anything, greater sympathy should be extended to the weaker ones, and we ought to lend a more attentive ear to those least able to make their voices heard. He had no desire to pursue that question, or to go into the rights and wrongs of Newfoundland on the present occasion. What he wished to ascertain exactly was how the matter stood at the present moment. He had seen it stated in the newspapers that the Bait Act had either been annulled or suffered to drop, or, at any rate, had not been exercised during the present fishing season. He would be glad to know if that was the case? He had also seen it stated that the Newfoundland Act extending to the close of this year for carrying out the modus vivendi and our Treaty obligations had been extended to the end of 1895. He would be glad to know if that was the case? He demurred to the principle of constantly extending Provisional Acts of this nature originally passed for a short time, because a sort of usage and custom might be set up which would be prejudicial to us if we went to arbitration. But if it were done to permit negotiations or the deliberation of arbitrators not a word could be said against it. He had no wish to tie down noble Lords opposite to their statements on the subject two years ago in that House; because, in the first place, it would hardly be right to do so; and, secondly, because consistency had entirely gone out of date, and was quite unfashionable in these days; but still he would like to know whether they still thought, as they did then, that arbitration which did not cover the whole ground would be prejudicial to the interests of the Colony, and, if so, whether that was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government? He did not wish to ask for information on any subject which might be deemed prejudicial to the public interest; but he hoped, if Her Majesty's
  318
  Government were not able to give information on the subject, their Lordships would receive an assurance that ample warning and notice would be given if any Imperial legislation upon it was to be brought in. All that their Lordships knew officially and authoritatively on the matter was that the Act passed by Newfoundland would expire in December next; and unless some further temporary arrangement were made, or unless the necessary legislation was passed by the Legislature of Newfoundland, or by the Imperial Parliament during this Session, we should find ourselves in 1894 in the same situation that caused so much anxiety and so much heart-burning in 1891. For these reasons he asked the question which stood in his name.
  Moved—
  "That there be laid before this House Papers relating to the execution of Treaty obligations with France affecting Newfoundland, and to the modus vivendi."—(The Lord Kenry, E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
  THE EARL OF STAMFORDsaid, he believed he was the only Member of their Lordships' House who happened to be a native of this ancient and he trusted still loyal, though often sorely tried, Colony. He re-echoed the noble Earl's earnestly-expressed desire that in the time still remaining a complete arbitration upon this most difficult and painful question might be carried out. He was glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words on the subject of that Colony, where, he could assure the House, a strong feeling prevailed as to the urgent necessity for settling the general question as to the French Treaty rights. The points at issue upon the subject of the French Treaty rights were set forth in a Despatch of the 24th December, 1890, of the noble Marquess, who was at that time Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The question raised involved points as to the exact rights over the French shore, a district which was now discovered to be rich in minerals, timber, and land, and would become of more importance to the Colony at large as time went on. There was now a prospect of extending the railway to the French shore, which would have the effect of still further opening up that district. Another point of dispute was as to the use which was said to be made

  319
  by the French of the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon as a centre for smuggling, and whether they had not been unduly armed. He ventured earnestly to express a hope that in Newfoundland itself wise and moderate counsels would prevail; that rival politicians would lay aside Party differences in dealing with matters of such vital concern; that they would show that readiness to conciliate which they had, in fact, exhibited in the suspension of the Bait Act; that they would continue in the path of peace, softened, it might be, by the sympathy which had been shown by Great Britain and by Canada towards them in the midst of the troubles which they had suffered from storm and fire; and that they would in every way help forward the final healing of that long open sore.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Earl (the Earl of Dun-raven) in the interesting historical details which occupied a considerable portion of his speech. It is my main duty to answer the questions which he has addressed to me. I should, however, like to say one word as to the views stated by the noble Earl to exist in the minds of some persons in Newfoundland—that the interests of that Colony have of late years been neglected because she is a weak Colony. Nothing can be more unfounded than that suggestion. It is entirely erroneous in regard to the conduct of any Government which has had recently to do with this question. For my own part, I feel the deepest sympathy with the people of Newfoundland in the unprecedented position in which they stand in regard to the Treaties with France and the fisheries upon the Newfoundland Coast; and it must be the desire of every Government in this country to bring to an end, whenever opportunity offers, a state of things so extremely unsatisfactory as that now existing. But I must be pardoned for saying that the Legislature of Newfoundland did not take the best means a year or two ago for bringing the matter to a conclusion. If they had accepted the draft Ordinance which was sent over to Newfoundland by the late Government, the question would have been, if not settled, at any rate much further advanced than it now is. I am, however, anxious not
  320
  to add to the difficulties of this difficult question; and if it should be my good fortune to find a mode of relieving those difficulties to any extent it will be my most earnest endeavour to bring that about. The present position of affairs is that the French Government will not proceed to arbitration until a permanent Act has been passed for enforcing the Treaty obligations and for carrying out the arbitration award. It was a permanent Act which my noble Friend opposite (Lord Knutsford) wished the Legislature of Newfoundland to accept, but which they rejected. They passed instead a temporary Act, which will expire at the end of the present year, for enabling the modus vivendi with France to be carried out. The aims of the Government have been to obtain such an extension of that Act as will afford them an opportunity of seeing whether they cannot take up the broken threads of my noble Friend's negotiations, and induce the Colony to pass a permanent Act. Such an Act should, I quite agree with the noble Earl, be passed in the Colony, rather than in the Imperial Parliament. But Her Majesty's Government are bound to carry out their Treaty obligations, though, in answer to the noble Earl's question, I can say that Her Majesty's Government have no intention to introduce during the present Session any Imperial legislation on the subject. Although the Newfoundland Legislature have passed a Bill for extending the expiring temporary Act for two years beyond the end of the present year—that is to say, until the end of 1895; although, under these circumstances, there is, I hope, no chance of our having to introduce any Imperial legislation, as the noble Earl appears to fear, in the course of next Session, still the ultimate result must depend on what the Colony may be willing to do in order that we may arrive at that arbitration which is now suspended for want of a permanent Act. The Legislature of Newfoundland is now about to be dissolved, and a new election will take place. Under these circumstances, it is improbable that the Delegates will arrive in this country until after that election has been held. Whenever the Delegates may come over, it will be my most earnest endeavour to induce them to come to an agreement with Her

  321
  Majesty's Government which may be approved and carried out by the Legislature of Newfoundland. For my own part, I should greatly regret to be forced to any legislation in the Imperial Parliament; but I am bound to reserve to Her Majesty's Government the right to take that course in the last resort if it be necessary in order to enable them to fulfil their Treaty obligations; but I do not believe it will. I have reason to hope that by some re-arrangement which we should be prepared to make, some reconsideration of the proposals of my noble Friend, which I think it right to say appear to have been just and fair, it may be possible that we shall be able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion of the matter. Still, after what has happened in the past, I am unable to give your Lordships any pledge upon that subject; but I may say it will not be the fault of Her Majesty's Government if a satisfactory arrangement is not arrived at with the Delegates. With regard to a larger and wider arbitration, nothing can be more natural than that the people of Newfoundland should desire an arbitration of that kind; but it is impossible, as I understand the matter, to arrive at that arbitration, or at any negotiations for that arbitration, until the lobster arbitration has been brought to a conclusion. That must first be done, and then it will be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to see what further steps it may be possible to take. But the noble Earl must not forget that there are always two parties to an arbitration, and that Her Majesty's Government are not able to bring the French Government to an agreement of that kind except by process of negotiation; and no such negotiation can take place until the lobster arbitration has been brought to a conclusion. Then, is it not to the interest of all parties—of the Newfoundland Legislature as much of Her Majesty's Government that the lobster arbitration should take place as soon as possible, so that the door may be open if possible to further negotiation and a wider arbitration? I hope the Newfoundland Legislature will see that this is the best and wisest course to pursue for attaining the object they have in view; and if they do, it will greatly facilitate the negotiations which it will be my duty to enter into with the Delegates when
  322
  they arrive. The noble Earl has put several questions upon the Paper, which I think I have answered. To the first, as to what provision has been made for securing the execution of the Treaty obligations, the answer is: the passing of the temporary Act. The modus vivendi, I should say, will come to an end at the close of this year; but I have very little doubt that the French Government will be willing to extend it during the next two years. The arbitration is not proceeding, as I have told the noble Earl, because the French Government are not willing to submit to the Chamber of Deputies the Bill which is necessary for that purpose until a permanent Act for carrying out the arbitration has been passed. I cannot give as full information as I should like with regard to the Baits Act, as that question was not placed on the Paper. If the noble Earl will be good enough to ask that question upon another occasion, I will give him more information than it is at present in my power to do. All I can say, in conclusion, is that the present state of things is, no doubt, provisional; but it opens the hope—as I trust will be the case—that it may be possible to come to an arrangement with the Delegates whom we expect next year, which will lead to the passing by the Newfoundland Legislature of a permanent Act which, on the conclusion of the lobster arbitration, will clear the ground for future possibilities. With regard to producing Papers, I propose to lay the Papers on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. I think that will be more convenient than that they should be moved for in this House alone.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, as I understand these Papers are to be placed before the House at an early date, it is unnecessary for me to trouble your Lordships with the Motion of which I have given notice—
  "To move for a copy of any Despatch sent by the Secretary of State for India to the Government of India upon the subject of the Indian Civil Service Examinations; of any opinions recorded by Members of his Council

  323
  against such Despatch; and to ask for an explanation of his reasons for acting contrary to the advice of his Council."
  On the present occasion I need not further refer to the matter.

POLICE REGULATIONS.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD TEYNHAMasked Her Majesty's Government whether their attention had been drawn to a Report published in The Daily News of 21st June, in which it was stated that a man was forcibly ejected by the police from a public meeting, held on the previous day at Exeter Hall, for interrupting the proceedings; and whether the action of the police in so doing was not contrary to the prescribed practice; and to move—
  "That the regulations affecting the conduct of police officers at public meetings be laid on the Table of the House."
  He reminded their Lordships that last month he brought the case of a disturbance at a meeting at St. James's Hall before the House, when the police did not think it their duty to interfere although told that a conflict was going on within the Hall, and their inaction was defended on the ground that they had no right to interfere unless the offenders were given into custody for breach of the peace. Though at this meeting at Exeter Hall, which was also of a semi-political character, there was no disturbance and only oral interruption, the police did interfere. All he knew about the meeting was from what appeared in the Press, that it was held by a few fanatics of the Stead type to discuss the social evil in India. It was unanimous as to the existence of the evil, though one person disagreed with his fellow-fanatics as to the cure, and advocated some panacea of his own. He accordingly mounted the platform to move an amendment; but the chairman ruled him out of order, and he was requested to withdraw. He declined to leave, saying—"Not me; not without I'm chucked." Then an Inspector of Police and two constables appeared upon the scene, and, after an exciting struggle, he was rolled off the platform and removed, but not taken into custody. According to Lord Vernon's statement on the last occasion
  324
  as to the Police Orders, if the police could not take the man into custody, what were they doing there at all? No breach of the peace had occurred, no storming of the platform, no "forlorn hope"; and, in fact, the police really acted as the private chuckers-out of the chairman. This was in strong contrast to the other case, where a serious disturbance happened, and they refused to interfere when appealed to. Those two instances did not stand alone, and frequent complaints had been made of the action or inaction of the police at public meetings. No doubt they did their duty to the best of their ability; but it was clear that great uncertainty existed in the force as to what their duty was.
  Moved—
  "That there be laid before the House the regulations affecting the conduct of police officers at public meetings."—(The Lord Teynham.)
  LORD VERNONsaid, he could add very little to his reply the other day, that it was the duty of the police to regulate traffic and to prevent obstruction at the entrance of buildings where meetings were being held; but that it was no part of their duty to enter buildings and take persons into custody unless an actual breach of the peace had occurred. It was for noble and learned Lords to say if a breach of the peace had taken place. He was informed that the gentleman in question was upon the platform using language so un parliamentary that he could not repeat it. Being requested to leave the platform he declined to go, and held on to the railings. The stewards were trying to draw him from the platform, and in the course of the struggle he kicked the secretary. The police were then called in, and, an Inspector having touched him upon the shoulder, he walked quietly out of the building, and, therefore, had not to be forcibly ejected. He had on a previous occasion informed the noble Lord that he could not place the Police Regulations upon the Table.
  On question? resolved in the negative.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CHISWICK, &c.) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow.
TRUST INVESTMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to further amend the law relating to the investment of trust funds—Was presented by The Lord Macnaghten; read la; and to be printed. (No. 183.)
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 128.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL.—(No. 153.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived: and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL.—(No. 162.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.—(No. 154.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL.—(No. 165.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 163.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.—(No. 135.)
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
PRISON (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) (No. 3) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 147.)
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 54.)
Amendments reported (according to Order); a further Amendment made; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Committee have added The Earl of Harrowby and The Lord Swansea to the Committee; and have added The Lord Stanley of Alderley to the Committee for the consideration of the Places of Worship (Sites) Bill.
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed. (No. 184.)
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'olock.