Lords Sitting of 6 July 1896

MARQUESS OF WATERFORD (CLAIM TO VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVE 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 re ported to the House of Lords that the right of the Marquess of Waterford 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.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 16th day of March last,
  "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a Second time after Tuesday the 23rd day of June next,"
  be dispensed with, and that the Bill be Read 2a; agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  EAST SURREY WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid he wished to put a question to the noble Earl the Under Secretary for India. A
  738
  Return had been laid before the House of the Correspondence with the Government of India on the subject of the payment of the Indian troops which had been sent to Suakim, but the Papers had not been circulated among the Members of their Lordships' House. In view of the importance of the subject and the action being taken on the matter in the other House, the point was an important one, and he thought some explanation should be given why the Paper had not been circulated. He was aware, of course, that the noble Earl the Under Secretary was not responsible for the omission, but it was obvious that an important Paper of this kind, upon which, no doubt, a Motion would be founded in the House, should be circulated, and he wished to know why it had not been done. He also wished to ask the noble Earl whether he had any objection to lay before the House the Dispatch or Dispatches from the Government of India in regard to the recent treaty with France in respect to Siam, and also the Correspondence between the Ameer of Afghanistan and the inhabitants of Kafiristan.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The EARL of ONSLOW)said he shared the surprise of the noble Earl that the Paper referred to, which was of great importance in view of the Debate which was to take place in the other House on the matter, had not been circulated. On inquiry he had been informed that the procedure in reference to Papers to be laid on the Table of that House was governed by what took place in the other House, and he had learned with some surprise that the Members of the House of Commons had not received copies of the Paper either. [Laughter.] The Papers could, of course, be obtained at the Printed Paper Office; but, in view of the importance of the subject and the Debate that would be raised upon it, he would take the necessary steps to see that the Papers were circulated among their Lordships. With respect to the other Papers referred to, they had been presented to the House of Commons, and if the noble Earl would move for them in that House they should be printed.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid it was very desirable that Papers of an

  739
  important character should be circulated as soon as possible, not only on account of the information they contained, but in order to call the attention of their Lordships to the fact that such Papers had been laid on the Table. He moved formally for the production of the the Papers to which he had referred.

  IRISH CHURCH ACT, 1869, AMENDMENT (REPAYMENT OF ADVANCES) BILL [H.L.]
  *THE EARL OF BELMOREmoved the Second Reading of this Bill. He said the subject which the Measure dealt with bristled with technicalities, and in the observations he had to make he would endeavour to pass over those technicalities as lightly as possible and confine himself chiefly to what might be called the more popular aspect of the subject. The present state of the law with regard to tithe rent-charge in Ireland was laid down very clearly in a Memorandum which Lord Rosebery submitted to the House just as he left office last year. In that Memorandum it was said:—
  "By the Irish Church Act of 1869 (32 & 33 Vict., c. 42, s. 12) all the tithe rent-charge in Ireland became vested in the Church Temporalities Commissioners, who have since become the Irish Land Commission. The Irish Church (Amendment) Act of 1872 (35 & 36 Vict., c. 90, s. 7) provides two methods through which tithe rent-charge can be redeemed by the owner of the land charged therewith:—(1) By a cash payment equal to 22½ times the amount of such rent-charge after deducting from the latter the average sum in the pound paid for poor rates during the five years before 1869. (2) By an annuity for 52 years calculated at the rate of £4 9s. per cent. on the purchase money, as above arrived at. By the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict., e. 33, s. 15) the Land Commission may, with the consent of the Treasury, in the case of land sold under the Land Purchase Acts, redeem the tithe rent-charge at a price to be fixed by them—i.e., at less than 22½ years' purchase."
  That was the law as it stood at present, and those persons in Ireland who were interested in the matter asked that in consequence of what they thought was a miscalculation which was made when the Irish Church Act was passing through Committee some relief should be given them. The Treasury maintained that there was no miscalculation, because the amount of the annuity was based on
  740
  the terms of the Irish Church Act. No doubt the amount of the annuity was so based, but he contended that by fixing the number of years at 52, those who commuted their annuities and received an advance from the Irish Fund would have to repay a very much larger sum of money than had been lent to them. The Irish Church Bill as originally introduced provided for compulsory commutation of tithe rent-charge in 45 years, but when the Bill was in Committee Mr. Gladstone, for some reason which he did not explain, gave up the principle of compulsion and lengthened the term from 45 to 52 years, without altering the amount of the annuity. The clause as thus altered was passed without any discussion so far as could be made out from the pages of "Hansard." He had brought the subject before the House on more than one occasion. He brought it forward in 1894 and again last year, and on both occasions there was some discussion. Since the change of Government last year, the Treasury had again looked into the matter, and he believed they practically found he was right in his contention, for they had issued an Order that when uncommuted tithe was compulsorily redeemed in the Land Purchase Court, the Commissioners might accept a price of not less than 20 years' purchase. For the present they had stopped there, but he observed that in the Irish Land Bill which had been introduced in another place they admitted the principles of 45 years against 52 years. By the first clause of this Bill he proposed that the Irish Land Commission might order the reduction of the annual sum payable under the Act of 1869, or as amended by any other Act, upon the application of any person who wished to pay off his mortgage and owed the Treasury, and that the calculation upon which this was to be done should be based on a term of 45 instead of 52 years, to apply to any sum that might be owing. This would undoubtedly give a considerable relief to many persons who were suffering from a reduction of rents. It would enable them to invest part of the purchase money in the case of sales of settled estates to tenants, in redeeming their tithe rent charge annuities over the whole estate, whether sold or not. It was legal to do this; it was provided for by one of the Land

  741
  Acts, and it would give a much better investment for the money as regarded immediate income, than any one who was tied up by a trust could get at present. By the second clause they asked that when some one had been paying these sinking-fund annuities for a period of upwards of 20 years he should be entitled to go to the Land Commission and to ask how much had to be paid off, how much was owing, and to obtain a further annuity calculated upon the balance, with liberty to begin a fresh term. That would also probably give considerable relief to many persons, particularly to those who owned small estates; and it would not cost the country a penny. The third clause had been added in order to place the persons who might have commuted their tithe and afterwards obtained a smaller annuity under Clause 2 in a similar position to those who were affected by Clause 1, and also those persons from whom the Land-Commission might now accept 20 years' purchase. He thought it was only fair that every one should stand on the same footing. The Measure was not an ambitious one, and he hoped their Lordships would read it a Second time.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsupported the Bill. He said there were a vast number of persons in Ireland who would be grateful to his noble Friend for having brought this Measure forward. It was a well-known fact in Ireland that next to actual taxation there was no public charge that was so widely felt or which affected such a number of persons as that of the ecclesiastical tithe charge. The Church Temporalities Commission in 1880 reported that when the Irish Church Act was passed in 1869 there were no fewer than 36,000 persons who paid rent charges under the present system. He mentioned the fact to show that this was not a Measure brought forward solely for the benefit of Irish landlords. No doubt political opponents would attempt to make political capital out of the Measure as they had done with reference to another Bill which had recently passed the other House. The returns presented to Parliament in 1872 showed that out of a total number of 19,457 landed proprietors in Ireland only 13,000 might be considered Irish
  742
  landlords. In all probability the numbers were the same now as then, and therefore this Measure, if carried, would affect very nearly three times as many persons as there were landlords in Ireland. Up to 1872 the whole number of 36,000 ratepayers were entitled by Parliament to have those rents revised periodically. This privilege had always been possessed by the payers of tithe in all parts of the United Kingdom, and at present, although this privilege was taken away from the payers of ecclesiastical rent charge, it had never been taken away from those who paid the lay tithe charge. He did not think that the reason of this change was very far to seek. In 1869 the Treasury advanced £9,000,000 on the security of the Irish Church Estate, and naturally the Treasury were greatly interested in preventing either the capital or the annual value of the ecclesiastical tithe charge falling or in any way being reduced; and, consequently, in order to safeguard the interests of the Treasury, an Act—he might say a silent Act—was passed which deprived the payers of tithe of the right to have their rents raised. He said that the Act was carried silently in Parliament, for in neither House was it debated, and, consequently, those affected by the change in 1872 to safeguard the money advanced in 1869 never had an opportunity to put forward their claims or right in either House of Parliament. It might be well to bring under their Lordships' notice what was the value of the Irish Church property in respect of ecclesiastical tithe rent at the time the Irish Church Act of 1869 was passed, and when the advance of £9,000,000 was made. The evidence of Mr. Morrough O'Brien had been brought under his notice. In all matters connected with land statistics this Gentleman was a high authority, and his remarks before the Commission held to inquire into the financial relations between England and Ireland were interesting. Mr. O'Brien stated—
  "that the tithe percentage which was the property of the Irish Church in 1869 was £410,000 per annum, while the perpetuity and other rents brought into the Irish Church £131,000. There were, however, certain difficulties with regard to this rent charge. In the first place it was difficult to identify; in the second place it was costly to collect; and in the third place it was not easily saleable in the open market."

  743
  He also stated that, "as a rule, it was not worth more than 17 years' purchase.' The number of years' purchase laid down by the Treasury was 22½ years, which was an unfair number to place on the tithe-rent payers. Mr. O'Brien, speaking of perpetual rent, said it was not worth more than 21 years' purchase, and this statement was corroborated by the O'Conor Don in his evidence before the Bessborough Commission. He stated—
  "that the Church rents were variable with the current prices, and, therefore, not so valuable as fee farm rents."
  He also stated—
  "that the Church Act fixed the tithe-rent charge at 22½ years' purchase, and the perpetual rents at 25 years' purchase."
  And it was proved that £2,779,000 was added to the value of those annuities. The deduction, therefore, which the land-owning and tithe-rent-paying class make from this evidence naturally was that the Church property was artificially swollen to this large sum to the detriment of the land-owning class. Since 1869 the £9,000,000 advanced by the Treasury had nearly been paid off; it would be paid off in a few years by the £300,000 a year which had been paid up till now by those who had to pay the tithe-rent charge. £300,000 a year was somewhat more than 75 per cent. of the whole income which the Irish Church derived from the tithe-rent charges. It was, therefore, felt that, having paid this sum of money for many years, and the £9,000,000 being nearly paid off, there was no need for the Treasury to extract this large sum of money now; therefore, it was thought that the Treasury might easily lighten the burden of the tithe-rent-charge payers at the present time. His noble Friend referred to the fact that 22½ years' purchase of tithe had always been considered too high, and he could show, from statements that he could quote with perfect confidence, that 22½ years' purchase was far higher than those rent charges could be bought at in the open market. This statement was endorsed in 1869 in the House of Commons by Mr. Herbert, at a time when the agricultural depression in Ireland was nothing like what it was at the present time. Mr. Herbert said
  744
  that the Returns of the Encumbered Estates Court showed that, from 1850 to 1869, the average price of such property was only 15¾ years' purchase. On the same occasion Mr. Gladstone admitted the excessive character of the price, which he sought to justify by the fact that the landlord might extinguish it by agreeing to pay it for 52 years. That was what his noble friend was trying to bring under their notice. Mr. Gladstone stated that to the arrangement there were three parties—the Exchequer, the Church Fund, and the landlord. The Exchequer had to lend money at 3½ per cent. In ordinary times that was not a bad transaction for the Exchequer. With regard to the Church Fund, a property usually sold at 17 and a fraction was to net 22½. That was not a bad transaction for the Church Fund. As regarded the landlord, instead of a perpetual annuity he was to pay the tithe-rent charge for 52 years, and that was not a bad transaction as regarded the tithe-rent charge. At the same time there was a great change of policy, and the extension of the rent charge was attained. He hoped that the Treasury might see their way clear in this matter.
  THE EARL OF RANFURLYsaid that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had already in Debate shown his sympathy for the tithe-rent payers, but he regretted that it was not in his power to say that the Irish Government was in favour of this Bill. The fact was that the Bill as at present put forth was quite unworkable, possibly owing to its drafting. The title of the Bill was really a wrong title. The second clause in the Bill was the same as a clause in the new Irish Land Bill which would shortly come before the other House. The drafting of Clauses 3 and 4 was such that the Irish Government considered that the intentions of the promoters of the Measure would be absolutely defeated. Under these circumstances he would ask the noble Lord either to withdraw the Measure or move its adjournment. As it at present stood it was impossible for the Government to give it a Second Reading.
  *THE EARL OF BELMOREmoved that the Debate be adjourned.
  Further Debate adjourned sine die.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [The EARL of MORLEY, Chairman of Committees, in the Chair.]
  Clause 1,—

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.

    SLAUGHTER OF FORKIGN ANIMALS.
    (1.) For Section 24 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, shall be substituted the following sections namely:—
    "The provisions set forth in Part 1. (slaughter at port of landing) of the Third Schedule to this Act shall apply to all foreign animals other than—

    (a) foreign animals the landing of which is for the time being prohibited by order of the Board of Agriculture; and

    (b) foreign animals intended for exhibition or other exceptional purposes, and the landing of which is allowed for the time being by the Board, subject to the provisions of Part II. (quarantine) of the Third Schedule to this Act."

    (2.) Section 26 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, is hereby repealed.
    LORD HERSCHELLgave notice that he would, after the Third Reading, move an Amendment to provide that if by an address of either House of Parliament it was represented to Her Majesty that any particular colony or country was free from cattle disease, and that cattle might be admitted from such colony or country without any danger of introducing or spreading disease, then it should be lawful for Her Majesty in Council to make an Order allowing the admission of such cattle.
    The DUKE of RICHMONDtrusted that the Lord Privy Seal would not accept the Amendment, as it went to the very root of the Bill. He pointed out that there were some diseases in cattle which it was impossible to detect until they were killed. He mixed a good deal with the farmers of this country, and was on very friendly relations with a great number, and he thought there was scarcely any difference of opinion worth speaking of among the agriculturists of this country as to this Measure being a remarkably good one, and one which ought to be carried through in its present form.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought this was hardly the occasion on which to debate the Amendment of his noble and
    746
    learned Friend. He utterly dissented from every word the noble Duke had uttered.
    THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: Very likely.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid it was assumed that it was absolutely necessary that the Bill should pass in its present shape; and that every agriculturist in the country——
    THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: No, pardon me; I said the great bulk of agriculturists, not every one.
    THE EARL ON KIMBERLEYsaid, the great bulk of those who expected to get protection for their animals no doubt desired it. He should be entirely prepared to support the Amendment, and to give very good reasons why it could be introduced into the Measure without endangering the immunity of our cattle from disease.
    Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
    On the Motion, "That this be the title of the Bill "—(Diseases of Animals Act, 1896),
    THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CROSS)said, that as a promise had been given in the other House that the Act should not come into operation till the 1st of January next, he would move an Amendment to that effect on the Motion for the Third Reading.
    Title agreed to.
    Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

    FISHERIES ACTS (NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

    METROPOLITAN COUNTIES WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
    On the Motion of THE CHANCELLOR OF the duchy of Lancaster (LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD), this Bill was read a Third time.
    Clause 2,—

    METROPOLITAN COUNTIES WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]

      CONSTITUTION OF WATER BOARD.
      The members of the Water Board shall be appointed as follows:—

      Sixteen by the London County Council,

      Two by the Common Council of the City of London,

      Two by the Council of the County of Middlesex,

      Two by the Council of the County of Essex.

      Two by the Council of the County Borough of West Ham.

      One by the Council of each of the other metropolitan counties,

      One by the Conservators of the River Thames,

      One by the Lee Conservancy Board.

      *THE EARL OF DENBIGH*THE EARL OF DENBIGH moved an Amendment, the object of which was to entitle the Common Council of the City of London to have four representatives on the Water Board, instead of two as proposed in the Bill,
      LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment. It would involve a readjustment which he was unable to make, and the two Conservancy Boards had expressed indignation at the proposal.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      *THE EARL OF DENBIGHmoved, as an alternative Amendment, to add at the end of the clause the words—
      "and the Chamberlain of the City of London as trustee of the sinking fund applicable to portions of the capitals of the metropolitan water companies."
      He asked the noble and learned Lord whether he could allow the addition of one more member to the Water Board, in the person of the Chamberlain of the City of London. That gentleman was the trustee of the sinking fund, which had been brought into existence two years ago, owing largely to the action of the Corporation. In 1886 the Water Companies asked for powers to raise money by borrowing at 4 per cent., which they intended to employ in matters that would return 7 per cent., leaving them a clear profit of 3 per cent., on the amount borrowed. The Corporation felt that if they assented to this proposal on the part of the companies, the burden would be cast upon the ratepayers of paying the companies a largely-increased price when the undertakings of those
      748
      bodies came to be purchased. The result of the action of the Corporation was that a clause was inserted in the Bill giving the companies additional powers, but by which a portion of the margin of profit that would accrue to the companies was practically handed over to the Corporation. In consequence, the amount received by the Corporation under the clause to which he referred would be £20,000 this year, and would be £50,000 next year. The amount of invested capital now affected by the Sinking Fund clauses was £2,890,000, and eventually it would amount to a much larger sum. It was anticipated that before very long some £267,600 per annum would be paid into the coffers of the Corporation from the source he had indicated. The aggregate sum so received would ultimately go towards the purchase of the companies' undertakings. When the Sinking Fund was established, it was deemed expedient to appoint a trustee to take charge of it, and the Chamberlain of the City of London was accordingly appointed the trustee. He now asked the noble and learned Lord, in consideration of the fact that the Corporation had saved for the ratepayers this large sum by their action 10 years ago, to give the City exceptional treatment by appointing their Chamberlain an additional Member of the Water Board set up by the Bill. Inasmuch as the Chamberlain of the City would practically have the command of this very large sum, which was to be used for the purpose of buying out the Water Companies he had a right to a seat on the Board, which would have the control of the undertaking. He hoped that the noble and learned Lord would see his way to adopting the Amendment which he had moved.
      *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid that he was sorry he had again to refuse to accept an Amendment moved by the noble Lord. The present Amendment had certainly taken him by surprise, and if adopted it would entirely upset the arrangement that had been entered into under which the Board was to be a representative body. In these circumstances he could not assent to the noble Lord's proposals that an official of the Corporation of London should be made a member of the Board.
      *THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid that in the circumstances he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 5,—

      EXPENSES OF WATER BOARD.
      (1.) The expenses of and incidental to the exercise by the water board of their powers and duties under this Act shall be defrayed by the councils of the metropolitan counties in proportion to the total annual value of the parishes in each county situate within the metropolitan water area, and supplied wholly or partly with water by any of the metropolitan water companies, but any parish which is not so situate or so supplied shall be exempt from contribution towards those expenses.
      (2.) For the purposes of this section "annual value" shall mean the value as determined for the purpose of the county rate, or in the case of a county borough for the purposes of the borough rate.
      *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDmoved in Subjection (1), after the words "or so supplied shall," to insert the words
      "unless the County Council resolve that the expenses shall be defrayed as general expenses."
      He said that by the Bill, as drawn, the expenses of the Trust were thrown entirely upon the parishes supplied with water by the Water Companies. In the course of communications which had passed, it had been ascertained that in some of the counties, especially in one, a few parishes only were supplied with water. Under these circumstances it would be very hard upon those parishes if the expenses were thrown upon them. He had, therefore, introduced the present Amendment, which would enable the County Council to determine whether the expenses should be borne generally by the county, or only by the parishes. He thought that the suggestion contained in the Amendment was a reasonable one.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 7,—

      CONSTITUTION AND PROCEEDINGS OF WATER BOARD.
      (1.) The members of the water board shall be appointed at such times and in such manner, and shall hold office for such time as may be
      750
      fixed by the council or other authority appointing them: Provided that—

      (a.) One-third, as nearly as may be, of the members appointed by the London County Council shall retire by rotation in every year.

      (b.) The members appointed by any other council shall not continue in office for more than three months after the next triennial election of councillors of that council, or in the case of a county borough or of the City of London, or of any other authority for more than three years.

      (c.) A retiring member may be re-appointed.

      (d.) The county councillors elected for the City of London shall not vote in the appointment of members by the London County Council.

      (2.) A member of the water board need not be a member of the council or other authority by whom he is appointed.
      (3.) A person interested otherwise than as ratepayer or consumer of water in any metropolitan water company shall not be qualified to be a member of the water board.
      (4.) The water board shall, with respect to their proceedings and quorum, the appointment and powers of a chairman, the appointment, powers and proceedings of committees, the provision of an office, and the appointment of officers for the execution of the duties of the board, be in the same position as if they were a County Council.
      (5.) The accounts of the water boards and their officers shall, for the purpose of the enactments relating to the audit of accounts of County Councils, be deemed to be accounts of a County Council and their officers.
      *THE EARL OF DENBIGHmoved to omit Sub-section (1) (d). This was another humble endeavour on his part to obtain some exceptional treatment in favour of the Corporation of London. The sub-section which he proposed to leave out provided that the county councillors elected for the city of London should not vote in the appointment of members of the London County Council for the Water Board.
      *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid that this matter had been mentioned to him before, and he must say that he saw no objection to the Amendment. Unfortunately, however, the Amendment had not been circulated in time, it having only just been put into their Lordships' hands, and if the Amendment were accepted it might be objected that they were strengthening the city at the expense of the London County Council. He thought that the best course the noble Earl could adopt would be to apply to the President of the Local

      751
      Government Board whilst the Bill was passing through the House of Commons. He understood that the Amendment would, in that ease, receive favourable consideration.
      THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid the remarks of the noble and learned Lord gave him an opportunity of asking him a question of some considerable importance, namely, whether it was seriously intended to proceed with this Bill in the House of Commons?
      *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid that the Bill would certainly be proceeded with unless unduly opposed. The Measure had been framed to meet the views of all parties interested, and if it were opposed at all it would be opposed from one quarter only, namely, by the London County Council. The only ground upon which they could oppose it was that they desired to be the water authority for other authorities as well as for themselves. Unless they persisted in making this demand, which Parliament had hitherto refused to grant, the Bill would be successfully passed into law.
      LORD HERSCHELLsaid that he could not agree that the only objection to the Bill was that the London County Council desired to control the water supply of other communities. All that they desired was that they should control the water supply of London.
      *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid that the London County Council had already got that. The Bill created machinery by which the London County Council would be able to obtain the control of the water supply within their own area while allowing the other communities to do the same in their own districts.
      *THE EARL OF DENBIGHasked the noble and learned Lord whether he was to understand that in the event of his withdrawing his Amendment at that stage of the Bill the noble and learned Lord would favourably recommend the matter to the Local Government Board in the other House of Parliament.
      *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDreplied in the affirmative.
      *THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid then upon that understanding he would beg leave to withdraw his Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 8,—

      POWER OF COUNTY COUNCIL TO APPLY TO WITHDRAW FROM WATER BOARD.
      Whereas it is intended that, save as regards the metropolitan water companies, nothing in this Act should affect any existing right or power of any company or body supplying water to any part of the metropolitan water area:
      And whereas it may hereafter be found beneficial to vest in the council of any metropolitan county the power to supply water to that county: Be it further enacted, as follows;—

      (1.) The council of any metropolitan county may promote a Bill in Parliament for the purpose of providing or controlling (whether by virtue of any agreement with the water board or otherwise) a water supply for their county or any part thereof, and any such Bill may provide for the withdrawal of the representatives of such council from the water board, and for making any consequential alteration in the metropolitan water area and in the provisions of this Act.

      (2.) In the event of the water board promoting any Bill in Parliament for the purpose of acquiring or controlling the undertaking of any metropolitan water company, or of procuring a fresh supply of water to any part of the metropolitan water area, the council of any metropolitan county may apply to Parliament for the insertion in such Bill of provisions enabling that council to withdraw their representatives from the water board, and to acquire or control such portion of any undertaking proposed to be acquired or controlled under the Bill as is situate in their county and may reasonably be considered to be exclusively required for the part of the county which was previously supplied by the undertaking, and of provisions for making any consequential alterations of this Act.

      (3.) A parish in a metropolitan county, but outside the metropolitan water area, shall, until otherwise provided by Parliament, be exempt from contributing to the expenses incurred by the council of such county in promoting, or opposing, or applying for the insertion of provisions in any Bill above mentioned which does not affect such parish.

      *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDmoved, after the words "affect any existing right" to insert the word "interest."
      Amendment agreed to.
      *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD*LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD moved to insert at the end of the clause after the word "parish" the words—
      "unless the County Council resolve that those expenses shall be defrayed as general expenses."
      Amendment agreed to.
      On the Motion "That the Bill do pass,"
      THE EARL OF ROSEBERYasked under what clause in the Bill the London County Council were empowered to take control over the district over which it presided.
      *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid that the noble Earl had quite misunderstood him. By the Transfer Bill the London County Council sought to obtain the power of obtaining the transfer of the Water Companies' powers to themselves, and they had persisted in that demand. By this Bill, an opportunity would be afforded to each community to obtain from the Legislature powers to control their own water area, and the London County Council would have a similar power.
      LORD HERSCHELLsaid that under the Bill the Water Board would have the power to come to Parliament and get the control of its own water. There was power given to each of the outside counties to separate themselves altogether. If they all did that, it might be said that the London County Council would be left alone to manage their own water.
      *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: They will.
      LORD HERSCHELL: Then what is your Bill for?
      *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDcontended that before the proposals in this Bill County Councils had no power to come to Parliament to promote a water Bill. The hon. and learned Lord ought to have that in his mind.
      LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The noble and learned Lord is entirely wrong. The County Council has the power to come to Parliament to ask for power to acquire water.
      *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I was speaking of the County Councils of Middlesex, Surrey, Hertfordshire, and the other counties. You cannot separate the water companies' properties until you can create a power which will allow all the bodies that are to supply the water to come and ask for legislation. Of course the London County Council can do so, but they cannot get rid of the surrounding areas. By allowing them to separate themselves, you allow the London County Council to do what
      754
      they could not do before, namely, to obtain separation from the surrounding areas.
      Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

    FISHERY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
    *THE SECRETARY OF the BOARD OF TRADE (The EARL OF DUDLEY),in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that, with the exception of a few drafting alterations, it was identical with the Bill introduced last year by the then President of the Board of Trade. The Bill was divided into two parts, the first dealing with sea fisheries and applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom, and the second dealing with fresh water fisheries and applicable to England alone. The first clause of Part II. had been embodied in a separate Bill which had passed the other House, and had been read a Third time that afternoon by their Lordships. He should therefore propose in Committee that that clause should be struck out. The remaining clauses of Part II. were framed merely to clear up certain doubts which had arisen as to the interpretation of previous fresh water fishery Acts. Part I. was designed to put a stop to trading in undersized fiat fish, and was founded on the Report of the Select Committee which sat in 1893 under the Chairmanship of Lord Tweedmouth. Previous to the appointment of that Committee, strong representations had been made to the Board of Trade by fishing associations and by private persons in favour of restricting the sale of undersized and immature fish, and it was alleged that unless some action was speedily taken not only would the trade of our fishing fleet be damaged, but also a source of food, so important to the country, would be greatly decreased. Not only was there great waste in consequence of the number of these small fish that were thrown away, but the price of larger fish was increased, since the cost of the freight of the whole consignment had to be defrayed out of the proceeds of the sale of that portion

    755
    which was marketable. It was true that the figures laid before the Committee showed, on the whole, that there had been a slight increase in the number of flat fish caught within recent years; but that increase did not seem proportionate to the enormous growth in the number of steam trawlers, to the improvements in nets, and the extended area over which fishing vessels operated. After hearing a great deal of evidence on this point, Lord Tweedmouth's Committee came to the conclusion that in regard to the more valuable classes of flat fish, especially soles and plaice, the fishing grounds of the North Sea had become considerably depleted, and that there was a great falling off in the size of flat fish caught in the older fishing grounds of the North Sea. The Committee recommended that a size limit should be fixed by law, and it was suggested that eight inches should be the limit in the case of soles and plaice, and 10 inches in the case of turbot and brill. Those limits were adopted in the Bill, as they approximated as far as possible those in force in other countries. In France, in Belgium, and in Denmark, restrictions of this kind had already been imposed. It had been argued that before a Bill of this kind was passed some arrangement should be arrived at with foreign countries for general action. He could not see any force in that contention. Whether it might be possible in the future to arrive at an international understanding was a question on which he could hardly express an opinion. He hoped that it might be possible, but however that might be, surely the possibility of such action in the future constituted no valid reason why this country should postpone doing what it could to remedy an undoubted evil. The passage of the Bill would in no way hamper future action on international lines. On the contrary, he believed it would facilitate it. It might be said that to forbid the sale of these small fish would not prevent their destruction, that no legislation would deter them from entering the net, and that unless the fishermen was compelled constantly to raise his net, most, if not all, of the fish would be dead before they were taken on board. But he asked their Lordships to remember that the places where these small fish abounded were well known,
    756
    and therefore by prohibiting their sale it was hoped to make it no longer worth the while of steam trawlers to frequent those localities, and to establish sanctuaries in the sea where such fish could be preserved. He begged to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
    LORD TWEEDMOUTHdid not wish to let the Bill pass without a single word because it seemed to him that the method adopted for securing life to these small fish under the Bill was not sufficient. The noble Lord had pointed out very clearly the weak spot in the Bill in his last remarks. Unfortunately it was impossible to avoid catching small fish, and when they got into the net they were so much injured that they were practically dead when brought on board. Consequently if these fish were not allowed to be sold a great amount of stuff which was good for food would be wasted. What was wanted was to prevent fishermen going to those particular portions of the sea where these small fish were found, and the only way to arrive at that was by a convention of the various nations fishing the North Sea, and to apply rules which were agreed on by fishermen of the different nationalities. That was the method which commended itself to the noble Marquess opposite last year, for on the Third Reading of the Scotch Fisheries Bill, he introduced a provision which prevented the proposals of the Bill from coming into operation until they had been assented to by a convention of the other Powers fishing in the North Sea. The restrictions which would be imposed by this Bill would be chiefly felt by shrimpers and other small fishermen in shallow waters. It could hardly be contended that their operations seriously reduced the stock of fish in the sea, and he doubted whether it was quite fair to apply the proposed prohibition to them. He held that it would be far better not to put into operation the proposed provision for the prohibition of the sale of fish unless they could obtain a general agreement among all the Towers fishing in the North Sea to the establishment of sanctuaries in the sea where these small fish might grow to maturity unharmed.
    Read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

    LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL [H.L.]
    THE LORD PRESIDENT OF the COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE)rose to present a Bill to make further provision with respect to the University of London. He said: It may be convenient to your Lordships that I should make a short statement as to the circumstances that have led to the introduction of this Bill. This is a subject which has been under consideration for a very considerable time. In 1886 a petition to the Queen in Council was presented by University and King's Colleges praying for the establishment of a teaching University for London. Notices were published which gave an opportunity to those who were interested in the subject to be heard. Whilst the petition was supported by a very large number of persons of great educational authority and eminence, it was strongly opposed by the London and Durham Universities. In the same year a petition to the Queen in Council was also presented by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Surgeons asking for incorporation and the power to grant degrees in medicine and surgery. The consideration of these petitions was not proceeded with because it was decided to refer the whole question to a Royal Commission, over which the late Lord Selborne presided. The Commissioners recommended that a reasonable time should be allowed the Senate and Convocation of the University of London to consider whether they would apply for a new charter. Accordingly, what was held to be a reasonable time was given to the University of London to apply for a new charter, and after two years the Senate of the University informed the Privy Council that they had drawn up a scheme in accordance with the suggestions of the Royal Commission, but shortly afterwards the Convocation of London University declined to accept the scheme. It became necessary to refer again to the petitions, and those who supported and those who opposed them were heard by a Committee of the Privy Council. The result of that proceeding was the draft charter for what was called the Gresham University, which was laid on the Tables of both Houses. This step, however, also proved abortive, for a hostile address on
    758
    the subject of the draft charter was moved by Mr. Bartley in the House of Commons, and carried. In April 1892, the question was referred to another Commission, my noble Friend Lord Cowper being the Chairman. The Commissioners reported two years ago in favour of making London University a teaching as well as an examining University, and recommended the appointment of a statutory Commission with powers to carry out the details of the scheme which they recommended. A Bill dealing with the question was introduced in this House by Lord Play-fair in the last Session of the late Parliament, but it was not proceeded with in consequence of the Dissolution. The scheme proposed by Lord Cowper's Commission has received the formal adhesion of all the colleges and institutions concerned, and the Senate and Convocation of London University have passed resolutions in its favour. Your Lordships must not, however, suppose that complete unanimity exists, as might be inferred from the bare statement of these facts. I believe that neither University College nor King's College is altogether satisfied with the scheme as sketched out in the Commissioners' Report. But still more formidable opposition has manifested itself, not on the part of the Convocation of London University as formally constituted, but on the part of a considerable body of members of Convocation residing for the most part in the provinces. These members possess the power under the existing charter of expressing their views on certain occasions by means of voting papers, and a majority of those who have voted upon the question have shown by their choice of representatives upon the Senate that they entertain considerable objection to the scheme. This opposition, I believe, proceeds from an apprehension that under the proposed constitution of the University the teachers of the affiliated institutions and colleges will exercise a large and perhaps undue influence over the examinations of the University, and that students who have prosecuted their studies in independent colleges or privately will in future be placed at some disadvantage. The apprehension is that either the high standard which, it is admitted, has always been maintained by the London

    759
    University will be lowered, or else that in the examinations arranged by the new body external students will compete on unfair terms as compared with students in the recognised teaching institutions. To meet objections of this kind we give in this Bill a somewhat wider discretion and larger powers to the proposed statutory Commission than were proposed to be given in the Bill presented by Lord Playfair last year. While the Commissioners will be directed, as in the Bill of last year, to proceed upon the proposals of the late Royal Commission, they will also be directed to inquire into and have regard to the requirements of both the internal and external students. Following the precedents on similar questions, power of appeal will be given to the Privy Council by any body or institution concerned. Power will also be reserved to either House of Parliament to address the Crown against the statutes which may be framed by the Commissioners, or against any part of them. My Lords, I think I have now said enough to explain the circumstances under which this Bill is introduced, and the modifications which we have thought it necessary to make in a similar Bill which was introduced last year. I cannot, of course, form any opinion whether it is possible that such a Bill as this can pass the other House in the course of the present Session, but I trust it may, at least, pass your Lordships' House, and that an opportunity will be afforded, by presenting this Measure in a definite shape to those who are concerned, of ascertaining the real character of any opposition which may be offered to the proposed change in the constitution of the London University. Personally I am insensible to the motives which have actuated some graduates in offering considerable opposition to those proposals. After all it is the Senate of the London University which is charged with the duty and on which rests the responsibility of watching over the interests and upholding the character of the University, and this Bill and the proposals of the Commission which it seeks to carry into effect have, I am assured, the warm approval of a large majority of the Senate of the University of London. This is a Measure which practically has been recommended by two Royal Commissions, each of which
    760
    was composed of men highly competent to pronounce an opinion on such a question as this. It is, I believe, supported by a very large majority of the most eminent scientific and educational authorities in the country, and it is, in my opinion, a very great anomaly, almost approaching to a scandal, that the great City of London should alone of all cities in the United Kingdom—and I believe I may add alone among the great cities of Europe—have remained up to this time without a teaching University. ["Hear, hear!"] The experience during the last ten years of abortive attempts—which I have briefly recounted to your Lordships—shows that almost insuperable difficulties exist to the establishment of any such teaching University in any other way than that which has been proposed by the late Royal Commission. It has been almost conclusively proved that the intervention of Parliament through the appointment of a statutory Commission is necessary, and is the only means by which this desirable end can be effected. Of course, I am not asking your Lordships to express any opinion on the proposals I have submitted at the present time. I thought it might be convenient, before moving the Second Reading of the Bill, to make a short statement as to the circumstances which have led to its introduction. ["Hear, hear!"] I therefore beg to present a Bill to make further provision with respect to the University of London. ["Hear, hear!"]
    Bill to make further provision with respect to the University of London presented accordingly; read 1a, and to be printed.—[No. 182.]

  CONGO FREE STATE AND BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  LORD CASTLETOWNhad the following notice on the Paper:—
  "To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will lay on the Table of the House all Papers connected with the late trial of Major Lothaire, in Africa, for the execution of Mr. Stokes; to ask if an appeal for a new trial has been lodged, such trial to take place in Belgium; and also to call the attention of her Majesty's Government to an article by Captain Salusbury, published in the United Service Magazine of June 1896, in which Captain Salusbury states that British subjects from Sierra Leone were hired as

  761
  labourers for the Congo Free State by officers of that State, and that when they refused to land at Boma (hearing that they were to be used as soldiers), they were fired upon and some killed, and that others were forcibly taken up country and forced to serve in several expeditions; also, that some of these British subjects fled to the British Consulate, 'from which asylum they were dragged,' and that when Vice-Consul Bannister protested against such violation of the Consulate, he was subjected to a heavy fine by the officials of the Congo State."
  On the notice being reached, the noble Lord said that, as the first two questions were practically answered in the House of Commons on the previous Friday, he would not trouble the Government with them. But he was very desirous to ascertain whether the Government could give any information, either by way of confirmation or contradiction, in regard to the statements made by Captain Salusbury, and whether it was true that Vice-Consul Bannister was fined under the circumstances stated in the Question.
  THE PRIME MINISTER (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY): I am afraid I have not seen the article in question, but I have made inquiries with respect to the statements contained in the Question of my noble Friend. It is not quite easy to recognise the incidents to which he refers, but doubtless the most serious one is that "British subjects from Sierra Leone were hired as labourers by the Congo Free State by officers of that State, and that when they refused to land at Boma they were fired upon, and some killed." As far as I can find out, this refers to events which took place so far back as 1892. No inquiry appears to have been made at that time on the subject, and the Report that came to us indicated that the labourers were engaged as soldiers, and that they attempted to run away. It was said that they ran away in consequence of ill-treatment, but at this distance of time it is almost impossible to verify whether that statement was true or not. The allegations with respect to Vice-Consul Bannister appear to be an entire mistake. He was fined, undoubtedly, but what he was fined for was for taking a paper that did not belong to him from a clerk in the service of the Congo Free State. That clearly did not fall within the scope of his Vice-Consular duties, and therefore no diplomatic question could be raised
  762
  if he was dealt with according to the ordinary law of the land for the offence he committed. In respect to that offence, he underwent a small fine, and it had nothing to do with the protection of British subjects. It is very difficult to deal publicly with assertions that are made on authority which is not accepted or recognised by the State against whom they are made. Statements have been published in Belgium with respect to Major Lothaire which would make it quite impossible to press the Congo Free State diplomatically in regard to allegations which did not rest upon authoritative evidence. I do not wish to go further into the matter than that, but I must say that I do not think the very violent language or statements he has used are, as far as I can judge, justified by the facts, or that the Congo Government would be bound to treat those allegations as matters for which they could be asked to give compensation, or in respect of which any punishment of their officials could be claimed. That is all I have to say with regard to that question. With respect to the much more important question of the execution of Mr. Stokes, I have to say that the evidence came into my hands only three days ago, and that until I have had an opportunity of consulting the Law Officers of the Crown I cannot announce any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I should like to say a word or two on the subject of the treatment of the labourers who are engaged in our colonies by the Congo Free State. I have no cognisance of the particular matter referred to by the noble Lord, but I am able to say that during the time I had the honour of holding the seals of the Foreign Office, very serious complaints reached the Government on this subject. So serious were they, indeed, that it was thought necessary to prohibit the Congo Free State from engaging labourers in the Gold Coast and other colonies. It was alleged that men were engaged to work on railways or other works, and that then they were compelled to enter the service of the Congo Free State as soldiers; and, as I have just said, there was reason to believe that this led to great abuse, and led to steps being taken against it. I do not wish to ask the

  763
  noble Marquess to make any statement on the subject at present, but I do trust that very close and serious attention is given to the treatment of the labourers engaged from our colonies by the Congo State. I hope that the prohibition to which I just now referred is still in existence, and I should be glad to hear that it had been extended to the whole of our colonies in West Africa, at all events, until we have satisfactory reason to believe that the labourers when engaged will be properly treated when they go to the Congo State. ["Hear, hear!"]
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid he called attention to the subject because he had noticed in several magazines quotations taken from articles communicated by Captain Salusbury, and because in one of the principal weekly periodicals—the Spectator—there was a leading article on the subject. It was well, he thought, that the statements there made should, if possible, be set at rest. Since he came down to the House he had received a letter from Captain Salusbury, saying he was quite prepared to substantiate his statements.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: I think it would be better I should look over the Papers to see whether there are any which can be produced and give my noble Friend more detailed information. His interest in the matter is quite legitimate and is one to which we ought to give every satisfaction we can. Until I have examined the Papers, however, I really cannot tell what there is to produce. I remember that Lord Granville once said that nobody in charge of Foreign affairs ought to answer a question of which notice had not been given, and that must be my answer if I go slightly only over the ground pursued by the noble Lord opposite. [The EARL of KIMBERLEY:" I quite agree."] The matter is one which has occupied serious attention. I believe the abuse has existed to a very great extent. I have every ground to believe it has diminished in extent, though I should be very sorry to pledge myself it has disappeared. The fact of the existence of the abuse is occupying the careful attention both of her Majesty's Government and of the colonial Governments, and the particular remedy which the noble Lord indicates—viz., that of forbidding the enlistment of these people,
  764
  except under satisfactory conditions, is naturally the remedy to which we should have resort. The noble Lord knows quite well that not only on the West Coast of Africa, but everywhere where the labour of indigenous races under our protection is required, we have to exercise the most careful supervision to prevent the power given to their masters being abused. I assure the noble Lord we are quite as sensible of our responsibility as he can, be and that we shall continue give every attention to the subject. The particular question how far these conditions extend now is not one I can answer on the spur of the moment.
  House adjourned at Twenty minutes before Six o'clock till to-morrow, Eleven o'clock.