Lords Sitting of 29 June 1896

LORD BELLEW.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Charles Bertram Bellew, Baron Bellew, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
GRAY PEERAGE.
Committee for Privileges to meet on Tuesday, the 7th of July next.
VEXATIOUS ACTIONS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to prevent abuses of the process of the High Court or other courts by the institution of vexatious legal proceedings,—was presented by the Lord Chancellor, read 1a, and to he printed.—[No. 169]

WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL [H.L.]
*THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said it was a Measure with which they were familiar, as although it had not been discussed in that House, it had passed through a Second Reading on two occasions in the House of Commons. The Bill would enable local authorities, where they thought it advisable, to advance money to working men in order that they might become the owners of the houses in which they lived. The Bill was originally drafted and brought into the House of Commons by his Friend and neighbour Mr. Wrightson, in 1893, and it passed the Second Reading, but owing to circumstances which occurred last year, Mr. Wrightson was not able to reintroduce it this Session. In March that task was undertaken by Sir A. Hickman and Sir H. Vincent. The Bill could do no harm to anyone, and it would very considerably
222
benefit the working classes in large towns. The Bill was of a purely permissive character; there was no compulsion of any sort or kind about it. If there had been he should not have presented it on that occasion, nor would the Bill have received the approval of the noble Marquess at the head of the Government. The first condition was that the man who applied to the local authority must be actually resident or intended to reside in the dwelling he wished to purchase; the second condition was that he must prove that the purchase was bonâ fide; and the third condition was that the dwelling house must be in a sanitary and tenantable condition. The local authorities had their interests closely safeguarded. The first restriction was that they must not advance more than one-eighth of the full rateable value of their district; the second restriction was that not more than £150 should be advanced to one purchaser; and the third condition was that no money whatever should be advanced where the lease had not 70 years to run. When these conditions were complied with it would be in the power of the local authorities to advance not more than three-fourths of the sum required, and in no case was more than £150 to be advanced. It would be necessary for the purchaser to maintain the house in thorough repair and insure it against ordinary dangers. So far he had dealt with the Bill introduced by Mr. Wrightson; but the present Bill, while embracing these provisions, went a little further, because it proposed to give the local authorities power to advance to working men money to build their houses where advisable. Certain conditions were laid down. It might be said that, with regard to Clause 5, they were somewhat overloading the Bill, but if that was their Lordships' opinion he should not regard that clause as of vital importance. He believed the Bill would encourage thrift, self control, and independence, and all these were qualities which were essential to the making of a good citizen. Having quoted some remarks made by Mr. Wrightson on the Bill, the noble Lord said he had always advocated the principle on which the Bill was based, and he had given practical proof of his desire to see working men become the owners of their dwelling houses. The

223
Land Purchase Act introduced by his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, which was based on the same principle, had been a signal success in Ireland. If there was any fear as to the irregularity of payment, he could only refer to the working of that Act, where, out of nearly two millions sterling due, there was now in arrear only £3,625. He doubted very much whether the great ground landlords in London had their rent paid with greater regularity and punctuality than were those instalments paid by the Irish tenants. That allusion to Irish affairs might, perhaps, be thought out of place; but he, as well as the Government, had had experience of the honesty and integrity of the Irish tenants in paying the instalments of the advances made to them; and, therefore, he had no doubt that the working men of our big towns would pay with the same punctuality. He generally tried to take a broad view of the questions which he brought under the notice of the House, and he admitted that some objections might be raised to this Bill. He noticed that Sir Charles Dilke had declared on the Second Heading of the Bill in another place that it was a. Measure of a socialistic character. He joined issue with that assertion. He did not consider that Socialism was promoted by making individuals the owners of their own houses. On the contrary, he thought Conservatism was promoted by such a course, for once an individual became the owner of his house his aim would be to conserve and keep that property. In any case the Bill was not as socialistic as the Amendment which Sir Charles Dilke had moved in another place. Sir Charles Dilke was anxious to vest the ownership of the houses built under the Act in the public bodies and not in the individuals. If that Amendment had been carried the working men would have been, to a, great extent, the slaves of the local authorities, except at one time—that was at the time when the corporations or other local bodies in possession of the houses were being elected. He wars sure that the candidates for membership of those bodies would receive a bad quarter of an hour from the working men occupying the, houses who were anxious to obtain reductions of rent, or extract something else which they considered would be to
224
their benefit. Another objection which had been raised to the Bill was that it was objectionable for an individual to acquire the ownership of his house, which might be a profit to him, by which he concluded was meant that the value of the property might increase. But when a working-man had paid down 25 per cent. of the sum advanced to him, he was absolutely justified in sharing in any profit that might accrue to the property. It might be said—and he considered this the greatest objection that could be raised to the Bill—that after money had been advanced by local authorities to working men to purchase their houses the trade of the locality might fly elsewhere, and the houses might, consequently, be left derelict. ["Hear, hear!"]" It should, however, be remembered that there was generally a great tendency in towns to add to the population, which, of course, meant an increased demand for cottages. Besides, as the local authorities were responsible for the advances, it would be their duty to convince themselves that the trade of the district was not a declining trade, or one that might be removed, but a trade that would last at least for 30 years, which was the time allowed by the Bill for working men to repay the money advanced to them. He appealed to their Lordships to give their sanction to the principle of the Bill by reading it a Second time, and to reserve the discussion of its details till the Committee stage. He hoped especially that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley)—whose masterly grasp of the details of every Bill laid before the House he heartily recognised, would aid him with his advice and assistance in carrying this Bill—the first of the kind he had ever taken in hand—through the House. If their Lordships passed the Bill they would send down to another place a Measure which would add materially to the happiness and prosperity of the working classes.
*LORD MONKSWELLsaid they must all agree that the object; the noble Marquess had in view in introducing the Bill was an excellent one, but he had grave doubts as to whether the Bill would, if carried, bring about the results the noble Marquess desired. He was glad to find that the noble Marquess was willing that considerable modifications might be made in the Bill in Committee. It seemed to

225
him, indeed, that unless great changes were made in it the Bill ought not to be passed into law. It was a curious circumstance that Mr. Wrightson, who had carried the Bill through the House of Commons in the last Parliament, was rejected at the General Election at Stockton—where the Bill was prominently before the electors—in favour of a man who was against the Bill. Therefore, in the place of its origin, this Bill was by no means popular. He entertained grave doubts as to the result of the local authorities being vested with powers to do the work of building societies. He would do anything in his power to lessen the rents of houses occupied by the working classes, but it appeared to him that anything that would at all hamper the operations of the building societies would, in the long run, increase instead of cheapen the rents of such dwellings. There was another objection which had not been met by the noble Marquess. The Bill would do nothing whatever in favour of those who most required help. The provision that a working man must declare that it was his intention to live in the house before an advance was made to him would make the Bill inoperative in all big towns. It was calculated that in London not more than 2 or 3 per cent. of the working classes would be able to take advantage of the Bill. Therefore all the Bill would do was to create a privileged class of working men, who would get their houses under value or under competition rent, and, though those persons might be perfectly honest in declaring that it was their intention to live in the houses, circumstances might occur which would make it impossible for them to carry out that intention. He knew that there were restrictions against assignment, but he did not think the local authorities would be in a position to say to a working man, "You may be in difficulties, but you shall not get out of your difficulties by assigning your interest in the house." He thought the best way to deal with this question of rent of working men's dwellings was to carry out the suggestion of the Report of the Commission on the Housing of the Poor, which was that unoccupied land should be rated at its full value. If that were done more land would come into building, and under the stress of competition rents would come down. He
226
looked upon the Bill as an experiment, but it was the duty of their Lordships sometimes to make legislative experiments. He sincerely hoped that the experiment might succeed, and did not offer any opposition to the Bill at that stage; but in Committee he would do his best to improve it.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid that the noble Lord opposite, in referring to the danger that when a trade migrated from a particular locality it might leave the local authority saddled with a security that had become valueless, had remarked that the guarantee against loss so occasioned would be found in the fact that the local authority would be able to judge of the likelihood of the trade continuing in the locality. He, however, would put two cases that would not be covered by the noble Lord's guarantee, the one being where a coal mine was suddenly closed, and the other being where workmen in a town obtained unexpected traffic facilities which enabled them to migrate from the town to the country. It was impossible that the local authorities could provide for such contingencies. He, however, was of opinion that whatever difficulties might arise in carrying out this proposal, they ought to be resolutely faced, because the experiment ought to be allowed to be tried in the interests of our working population. He suggested that the difficulties he had referred to in the two cases he had mentioned should be met by Amendments in the Standing Committee of that House, which was likely to be more business-like than a Committee of their Lordships' Whole House, and which, curiously enough, was in proportion more largely attended than the sittings of their Lordships' House were. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]
*THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYthanked the noble Earl who had just sat down, for the kind manner in which he had treated this proposal. He quite agreed with the noble Earl that the cases he had referred to would require careful consideration in Committee, although he thought they were exceptional ones. The proposals in the Bill would be very acceptable in the northern towns in the interest of the working classes. He felt assured that the local authorities would fully appreciate the responsibility that the Bill threw upon them, and would

227
not advance the money necessary to carry out the proposals of the Bill unless they obtained adequate security.
Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MUSSULMAN LAW IN INDIA.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYrose to ask whether the Secretary of State for India was aware of the alarm prevailing among the Mussulman subjects of Her Majesty in India, owing to a recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Abul Faiz Mahomed Ishak and others versus Russomoy Dhar Chowdry and others, the effect of which was to abrogate an important branch of the Mussulman Law—namely, that relating to family vakfs, or the law relating to the creation of benefactions for the en-dower's family, with the reversion for the general poor; whether it was not the fact that the full enjoyment of their law and religious usages and institutions, so far as they did not conflict with any statutory enactment, has been guaranteed to the Indian Mussulmans by Her Majesty's Proclamation. The law in question related to one of their most cherished institutions, upon which depended the prosperity of their principal families, which had rendered important services to the State in times of danger; whether it was not the fact that numerous memorials had been presented to the Indian Government against this judicial decision; and whether they have not prayed for a declaratory Act declaring the validity of the law which had been held to be invalid; and what steps the Government propose to take to redress the wrongs inflicted by this decision of the Privy Council. The noble Lord said that he regretted having to differ from the opinions of the noble Lord (Lord Hobhouse), and he regretted having been told by him that he thought this question of vakfs was dead, since it was as lively as ever in the Indian Press, and the noble Lord might have remembered that "the evil that men do lives after them." The Notice on the Minutes had been prepared about last July, at which lime memorials against the Privy Council
228
judgment had been sent in to the Indian Government. This Notice had been put on the Minutes in August and September last, so that there had been ample time for obtaining some of these memorials. He would, perhaps, be told that no memorials had been received at the India Office. This was most likely, if they had not been asked for, and after the notice last September, they ought to have been asked for; and the India Office ought to be ready with an answer to the question as to these memorials. The Mussulmans, however, were not the only persons aggrieved by the attitude recently taken by the Indian Administration, with regard to family settlements. The Hindus also had reason to complain of a decision in what was called the Tagore case. He had always felt the highest respect for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and he voted against his inclination and against a Resolution moved in 1872 by the late Earl Stanhope, and supported by the noble Marquess now at the head of the Government, on the occasion of the appointment of the late Sir Robert Collier to a seat on that Bench; he had so voted because of the high opinion that was entertained at the time of the judicial capacity of that learned gentleman. He did not remember ever having read or heard of anything to diminish the judicial reputation of Sir Robert Collier during all the time that he sat in the Privy Council. During that Debate in 1872 the noble Marquess (the Prime Minister) had blamed the parsimony of Mr. Gladstone's Government, which had given too low a salary for the Privy Council Judgeships, and if the salaries then fixed were still insufficient, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would make them such as to secure a first-rate man for the next appointment to the Judicial Committee. It might, however, be the case that since the fall in value of land and funds, the salaries of 1872 might now be sufficient. He could not help thinking that the decision of the Privy Council, to which he was now calling attention, was likely to jeopardise the reputation of the Judicial Committee. Some decisions might err from the Judges not being sufficiently informed on the subject before them, but in this case the decision quoted several very good authorities, but only for the purpose of

229
disregarding them. Syed Amir Aly was an authority before he became a High Court Judge at Calcutta. The judgment quoted from him frequently, and its reasons for differing with him were, to say the least, extraordinary. The judgment said:—
"The opinion of that learned Mahomedan lawyer is founded as their Lordships understand it, upon texts of an abstract character and upon precedents very imperfectly stated. For instance, he quotes a precept of the Prophet Mahommed himself, to the effect that 'A pious offering to one's family to provide against their getting into want is more pious than giving alms to beggars.' "
Further on the judgment said:—
"Those precepts may be excellent in their proper application. They may, for aught their Lordships know, have had their effect in moulding the law and practice of vakf as the learned Judge says they have."
This last sentence ought to have run as follows:—
"These precepts, as their Lordships very well knew, had moulded the law and practice of vakf."
This point as to which the Court professed ignorance was proved by language. The judgment used the word "Mahomedan" instead of "Mussulman" as to communities. He did not complain of this, since it was an ordinary English phrase; but, as a matter of fact, the adjective "Mahomedan" was never used in any Mussulman country or language except with reference to, and to describe the law founded by the Prophet, which was named "Sheriat i Muhammadiyeh," so that Mahomedan law was correct, and a Mahomedan community an incorrect expression. Besides the precepts quoted by Syed Amir Aly, other sayings of the Prophet showed that he recommended charity to the family and dependents of a man in preference to more distant poor. A book called "Mishkat ul Musabih," translated by Captain Matthews of the Bengal Artillery, and printed at Calcutta 1809, contained this passage:—
"Abu Hurairah said a man came to his Highness (to ask about alms and charity) and said, 'I have got one dinar'; he said, expend it upon yourself.' The man said, 'I have got another dinar" the Prophet said, 'expend that upon your children.' The man said, 'I have
230
got another dinar'; he said, 'expend that upon your relations, your women, father and mother.' He said, 'I have got another dinar'; the Prophet said,' expend that upon your servants.' The man said, 'I have got another dinar'; he said, 'you know best the condition of the person most worthy of it, and whoever you know to be so give it.' "
This judgment of the Judicial Committee appeared to have gone wrong, because it failed to distinguish between gifts and vakfs. Gifts in perpetuity, it said, were forbidden by Mussulman law; that was true, but the essence of vakf was its perpetuity. The judgment quoted an opinion of Mr. Justice Farran which showed this: That Judge had described a settlement as
"a perpetuity of the worst kind, which would be invalid on that ground unless it can be supported as a vakfnameh."
The Privy Council judgment was very near arriving at a correct interpretation and decision when it declared:—
"Whether it is to be taken that the very same dispositions, which are illegal when made by ordinary words or gift, become legal if only the settlor says that they are made as vakf, in the name of God, or for the sake of the poor. To these questions no answer was given or attempted, nor can their Lordships see any."
This seemed to be a slur or a reflection upon Mr. Branson, who appeared before their Lordships in this case, and who could have answered this question if it had been put to him, and their Lordships ought to have seen the answer, since their judgment mentioned the law book "Hidaya." This book was translated and published by order of the Bengal Government in 1791, and a new edition of it was published in 1870. This authority said (p. 234):—
"An appropriation (or vakf) is not complete according to Hanifa, unless the appropriation destine its ultimate application to objects not liable to become extinct; as when for instance a man destines its application ultimately to the use of the poor (by saying, I appropriate this to such a person, and after him to the poor), because these never become extinct."
So that when the Judgment said—
"Their Lordships agree that the poor have been put into this settlement merely to give it a colour of piety, and so to legalise arrangements meant to serve for the aggrandisement of a family."

231
Their Lordships appeared to have been ignorant of what was laid down in a law-book, that was one of the best known in India, and to have imputed to the settlors as a colourable regard for the poor, what was in fact a legal technicality. Whatever fault might be found with this judgment, the merit of great candour must be conceded to it. It stated that this Board in Ahsan Ullah's case adopted the view of Mr. Justice Kemp to the effect that provision for the family out of the grantor's property might be consistent with the gift of it as vakf. It also cited the judicial opinion of Mr. Justice Amir Aly in Bikani Mia's case, a dictum of Sir Raymond West in the Bombay High Court, and a decision of Mr. Justice Farran in the same Court—all these contrary to this judgment. Mention had often been made of those who were Plus Royalistes que le Roi. In this case the India Office appeared to pose as a more strenuous supporter of Mussulman law than the Indian Mussulmans or the Turks of Constantinople, by denying the legality of such vakfs. The last time he was at Constantinople, which was six or seven years ago, before these cases had arisen in India, he had heard of similar vakfs, or family appropriations in Constantinople, and a few days ago he met a Turkish diplomatic agent who had confirmed the existence of many such vakfs at Constantinople. Some writers said that Mussulman law was not sufficiently elastic, and that it was only suited to primitive communities. The Indian Administration and the Privy Council Judges were in these cases endeavouring to deprive that law of the elasticity it did possess; and with regard to the latter accusation, all the malpractices of the Liverpool Produce Exchange were forbidden in "Miscat al Musabih," the book already mentioned. He had lately read a French historian's comment on judicial decisions during the reigns of the Stuarts, and their base subservience to the Government. He thought that a future historian reading the Privy Council judgment and the communication he had received from the India Office would infer similar pliancy on this occasion. For his own part he would be more inclined to impute obstinacy than pliancy to the noble Lord
232
who had delivered the judgment. But whether the legal or executive officials in India were at fault in this matter, it would be easy to remedy it if the Secretary of State would order a Declaratory Act to be passed in the sense petitioned for in some of the memorials. He thought he had shown that the judgment of the Judicial Committee was not in accordance with Mussulman law, neither was it in accordance with Christian law. When their Lordships so lightly dismissed the precepts quoted by Mr. Justice Amir Aly, they might have remembered that there was not much difference between them and the eighth verse of the fifth chapter of the 1st Epistle of Paul to Timothy.
"But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel."
Perhaps, as St. Paul lived 600 years earlier, the Privy Council judges who thought the precepts of the Prophet too old, would think still less of St. Paul's precept. Perhaps they would think that Gaius, who lived 100 years later than St. Paul, was also too old. A case had, however, been decided this year in one of Her Majesty's Law Courts in London, by which a will leaving some thirteen thousand pounds to the poor had been upset. It was true that this was due to a technicality, but the satisfaction with the decision had been general, because the testator had left five relations unprovided for, one of whom was in the workhouse, and two others on the verge of it. He now came to the last two paragraphs of the Notice—questions addressed to the Under Secretary for India, as to what steps the Government of India would take. A correspondence had been going on in the Moslem Chronicle of Calcutta, showing the interest taken in this question. A pleader, Mehmed Mustafa Khan, had written a letter, dated May 11th, from the Vakil's Library, High Court, in the Chronicle of May 23rd last. This letter repudiated the views urged in another letter of Mr. Iradut Ullah in the Chronicle of May 9th. After pointing out that for a Mussulman to propose to repeal Divine law by human legislation would be apostacy, he ended his letter in the following words,

233
and he entreated the noble Earl to give his attention to them:—
"The vakf question, however, stands on a different footing, and its administration by our Courts has, to a great extent, certainly been unsatisfactory. Even here our Courts profess to expound the Mahommedan law; but we say 'No,' this is not our law: and we have now appealed to the Government to put our Courts right by legislation. But the difference in the two legislations proposed is that, while in the vakf question we want an Act confirming the Mahommedan law disturbed by our Courts, Mr. Iradut Ullah wants an Act disturbing Mahommedan law heretofore rightly administered."
These few words summed up the whole question. It would be preposterous if the answer were that the India Office could not interfere, after the Secretary of State had interfered with the Government of India in an unprecedented manner by a mandate to alter the Cotton Duties, in order to redeem the electioneering pledges which he had incautiously given to Lancashire, and by charging the cost of the troops sent to Suakin to the Indian Exchequer.
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (the EARL of ONSLOW): It is the fact that full enjoyment of their law and religious usages and institutions has been guaranteed to the Mussulman population of India by Her Majesty's Proclamation; but the case to which the noble Lord has called attention was decided by the Privy Council strictly in accordance with the Mussulman law. It was a case in which a remainder to the poor was inserted merely for the purpose of perpetuating a bequest to the family of a testator, and in accordance with the Mussulman law it was held by the Privy Council not to be valid. The noble Lord asks whether it is not the fact that numerous memorials have been presented against this decision. The India Office is not aware that any memorials have been presented, and it is quite certain that they were not numerous. It may be that the parties in this case, or those interested to maintain the legality of similar settlements, may have presented memorials, but no others are known of. The Government of India does not propose to take any steps to redress the wrongs which the noble Lord imagines to have been inflicted
234
by the decision, and if any representation is made on the subject it should be to the local government, who will be able to introduce legislation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): My Lords, I cannot allow this occasion to pass without entering a protest against the precedent set by the noble Lord. It is quite within his right, if he thinks proper, to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they mean to alter the law; but to argue a judgment of the Privy Council—a matter over which, I may point out, your Lordships have no jurisdiction at all—and to use such language as the noble Lord has thought it right to use—namely, that the judges have altered the law, and that wrongs have been inflicted by their decision—appears to me neither a decorous treatment of the highest legal tribunal of the land nor a very desirable precedent to set; and, further, it is not calculated, I think, to add to the dignify and impressions which the judgments of the Privy Councils make in those places where observations such as those of the noble Lord are likely to do more mischief than good ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Lord must assume that this is the law, because when once a decision has been given by the highest Court of Appeal it becomes the law of the land. Therefore, the noble Lord's course should be to alter the law and not to make observations on the character of a judgment which may do no little harm in the country effected. ["Hear, hear!"] I want to say this, further, that when the noble Lord examines the judgment and comments upon it and reasons with it he is in this difficulty. I am making this protest because I was not a party to this judgment. If I had been I should have refused to have said a word, and I do not suppose that any one of the learned Judges sitting in this House who were parties to that judgment would condescend to argue with the noble Lord whether their judgment was right or wrong after they had once delivered it. ["Hear, hear!"] They would tell the noble Lord to look at the judgment and read it and—may I add?—understand it—[laughter and cheers]—before he comments upon it.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid he understood the noble and learned

235
Lord to say that a decision of the Privy Council made the law. For that reason it was justifiable to ask that Her Majesty's Government should alter it.

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[The EARL of MORLEY, Chairman of Committees, in the Chair.]
Clause 1,—

WHEN MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND HIS DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER NOT TO BE DEEMED VOID.
No marriage heretofore or hereafter contracted within the realm or without, other than a marriage hereafter contracted in England by solemnization thereof, by a clergyman of the Established Church of England, shall be deemed to have been or shall be void or voidable by reason only of having been or being contracted between a man and his deceased wife's sister, notwithstanding any statute, canonical or other objection, unless it has been already annulled in a suit already instituted, or unless either party thereto has (after the marriage and during the life of the other) already lawfully married another; and such evidence as would he proof of any other marriage shall be received for all purposes as evidence of such marriages respectively; but no right, title, estate, or interest now existing in, to, or in respect of any dignity, title of honour, or property, and no claim by the Crown for duties leviable on or with reference to death, and already due and payable, and no payment of or discharge for such duties already duly made or given, shall be prejudicially affected hereby.
Clause agreed to without Amendment.
Clause 2,—

PRIVILEGES OF CHURCH MEMBERSHIP MAY BE WITHHELD.
Provided that no clergyman of the Established Church of England shall be liable to any pains or penalties for withholding the rights and privileges of Church membership from persons living together in marriage made valid by this Act, or from either of them; and nothing herein contained shall relieve any such clergyman from any ecclesiastical pains or penalties to which he would otherwise he liable if this Act had not been passed, by reason of his contracting, or having contracted, or living in marriage with his own deceased wife's sister.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved after he word "passed" to insert the words,
"By reason of his solemnising a marriage between a man and the sister of his deceased wife or "
The noble Lord said he understood the object of the clause was to leave the ecclesiastical law as it stood, and with the object of securing that more effectually he moved this Amendment, so as be provide that no clergyman of the Established Church should be relieved by the Act from the ecclesiastical pains and penalties to which he was now liable by reason of his solemnising a marriage between a man and the sister of his deceased wife.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENaccepted the Amendment. He thought it was totally unnecessary, but otherwise it appeared to him unobjectionable.
Amendment agreed to.
On the Question that Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill,
*VISCOUNT GALWAYcontended that the clause might inflict great hardship on many members of the Church of England. A man who made a perfectly legal marriage with his deceased wife's sister might live in a parish, the clergyman of which might hold extreme views, and refuse him the sacrament or refuse to baptise his children, and this clause specially exempted that clergyman from any penalties for so doing. That, he thought, was a special case of hardship, and if he thought there was any possibility of the Measure becoming law this Session with this clause in it he should take the opinion of the House on the matter.
VISCOUNT CLIFDENagreed with the noble Lord. It seemed to him they were doing just what they did with another objectionable Bill, the Divorce Amendment Bill. If marriage with a deceased wife's sister was to be allowed, what right had they to put a penalty upon it? The clause was in his opinion a penal clause, and if a division were taken he should vote against it.
*THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYthought that a determined stand ought to be made against any attempt to effect indirectly a change in the law of the Church of England by altering the clause.

237
The proposer of the Measure had drawn special attention to it as safeguarding the rights of the Church.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYshared the objections expressed against the clause. They would set up a most dangerous precedent if they were to enact that the law of marriage as settled by Parliament should be subject to a kind of indirect veto on the part of the clergy. Such a state of things might be all very well if there were no established Church, but if this kind of cleavage were sanctioned it might extend and end in cleavage between Church and State.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNheld that the proposed provision would very likely weaken the Establishment, the strength of which lay in this, that it represented England as a whole. If clergymen were to be permitted to refuse the rights and privileges of the Church to persons who had contracted the marriage contemplated by the Bill, the danger alluded to by the noble Earl who had preceded him would very probably arise. He should vote against the clause.
THE PRIME MINISTER (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY)expressed the opinion that it would be wise to retain this clause in the Bill. He would not go into deep questions of principle, but would rather ask the House to look upon the matter from a prudential point of view. The difference to the persons who desired to be married under this Bill of being married at a registry office or at a church was not, he imagined, a very great one. If they liked big words they might talk of "penalising," but he did not believe that anyone would consider this enactment a very severe hardship. At any rate, whether their Lordships approved of the clause or not, they might be quite certain that if any coercive power were applied to force the clergy of the Church to celebrate these marriages the vast majority of the clergy would object, and there would be all the trouble and all the scandal and all the danger that arose when the power of the State and the conscience of the clergy were opposed to each other. He did not see how what they could gain by such a challenge to the clergy would compensate for the loss and injury that would be caused. Therefore, carefully avoiding on that occasion all those
238
questions of principle that could be raised later on, and merely appealing to their Lordships to deal with this matter as if they were dealing with the religion of another community, he earnestly advised them not to strike out this clause.
THE CHAIRMANput the question that the clause stand part of the Bill, and his decision in favour of the "contents" was at first challenged, but ultimately the clause was agreed to.
Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended.—[No. 170.]

BOYNE NAVIGATION TRANSFER BILL.
Considered in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CROSS)rose to move the Second Reading of this Bill. He explained that it had come up from the House of Commons and was entitled a Bill to amend the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894. Their Lordships were aware that under the existing law it was in the power of the Agricultural Department to allow live animals to come into Great Britain from other countries. It was proposed by this Bill to take away that power and to make slaughter compulsory in all except very special cases. Under the Bill, practically all animals would be slaughtered at the port of debarkation. That was the simple proposal of the Bill. It would really make no alteration in the practice at the present time, because the Board of Agriculture, when the noble Lord opposite (Lord Burghclere) so ably presided over it, prohibited the importation of live cattle, and that prohibition had been in force for several years. What the Government now proposed was to give a permanent character to the regulations laid down by the noble Lord himself, and to take away the discretion of the Board of Agriculture in this matter. Upon this question there was undoubtedly a great feeling among all agriculturists in this country. A large deputation waited upon the noble

239
Lord opposite when he was at the Board of Agriculture, but he did not see his way to grant their request that an Act of this kind should be passed. After the change of Government a still more important deputation waited upon the present President of the Board of Agriculture. The Royal Agricultural Society of England and the Highland Agricultural Society joined together and made representations to the President of the Board. They said that in the interests of the producers and consumers of meat in the United Kingdom it was essential that as a safeguard against the introduction of contagious diseases, all cattle, sheep and swine imported into the Kingdom from foreign countries, which were not for the time being prohibited countries, should be slaughtered at the port of debarkation. That covered all cases except the few to which he had alluded. The representations of these societies were entitled to the greatest consideration. This was not a small matter, as the number of cattle and store stock in this country was very large. The President of the Board of Agriculture computed the number of cattle in this country in 1895 at nearly 11 millions, and the value of that stock at £96,750,000. He computed the number of sheep at 30 millions, and their value at £29,750,000. Agriculturists, their interest being so large, felt strongly that they were entitled to look to Parliament for protection against preventible disease. If the cattle were slaughtered at the port of debarkation the security which they wanted and to which they were entitled would be given. In the last four months of 1890 pleuro-pneumonia existed in 20 counties; 119 outbreaks were confirmed, 591 cattle were found to be diseased, and of cattle slaughtered as having been exposed to infection the number was 5,389. The result of putting in force the Act of Parliament was that in 1895 there was only one county infected, one outbreak confirmed, one animal found diseased, and only 43 slaughtered. By putting in force the Act, therefore, the disease had been reduced to a minimum; in fact, this country was now free from disease; and the agriculturists who spent their money on stock now came to Parliament asking that they should be left in this happy
240
position of security. It was said that this legislation would disturb the amount of imports, and the cattle trade especially with Canada. At the time when the restrictions were put in force no doubt the Canadian trade was a falling one. In 1890 the imports were 121,836 animals; in 1891, 108,000; in 1892, 98,000; in 1893, 82,000; in 1894, 82,000; but in 1895, in spite of the restrictions, the trade rose to 96,000. In 1891 the imports from the Argentine Republic were 4,000; in 1892, 3,500; in 1893, 6,800; in 1894, 9,500; and in 1895, in spite of the restrictions, 38,000. The fact was that the trade was adapting itself to new conditions, and therefore the meat was being sent in another form. The sheep imported from Canada in 1894 were 7,900; in 1895, 4,500; and up to June, 1896, 12,500. There had thus been neither a limitation of market, as had been predicted, nor had the trade suffered from the restrictions, though the character of it had changed. Rash statements had also been made as to the raising of prices to the famine point. The price of meat in the Metropolitan Cattle Market per stone of 8 lb., sinking the offal, in 1878 was—British inferior, 4s. 6d.; in 1884, 4s. 1d.; in 1895, 2s. 8d.; second class, 5s. 6d., 5s. 4d., and 3s. 11d.; first class, 6s., 5s. 9d., and 4s. 6d. Statistics as to sheep told precisely the same story, so that the quantity of moat which had come in by the changed conditions of the trade had reduced the price of moat instead of raising it. He said that agriculturists had a right to come to Parliament and to ask that the introduction of cattle disease should be prevented by statute, so that it could not be changed. It might be asked, "Cannot you trust the Board of Agriculture?" He could trust the Board to do its best in the matter, but it did not give absolute security. There were two reasons which seemed to him to be conclusive on this point. The first was the great difficulty which the Agricultural Department had in finding out what was the sanitary state of the stocks of cattle in foreign countries. In the second place, pleuro-pneumonia and sheep scab were extremely difficult to detect in the living animal; and if the Board of Agriculture had the duty of finding out whether a cargo of animals

241
were diseased or not, it was almost impossible for it to do so with absolute certainty. It might be urged that there was an objection on the part of Canada, but he believed that there was less likelihood of a quarrel with Canada if prohibition was imposed instead of continuing the existing order of things under the discretion of the Department. Agriculturists had a right to demand, that now the country had been cleared of the disease at a cost to the Exchequer of no less a sum than £272,000, all possibility of the disease being reimported into the country should be taken away. That could only be done by the passing of an Act of Parliament. He had shown that the Bill could not possibly do any one any harm, and he hoped their Lordships would give it a Second Reading.
*LORD BURGHCLEREsaid he would not have ventured to have intervened in the Debate, being so recent a Member of the House, did not the Bill deal with a subject with which he had had some intimate acquaintance and seek to affect and modify an Act of Parliament which it was his duty for a considerable period to administer. The noble Viscount had quoted figures to prove the success of the action which had been taken by the Government of the country to suppress the various cattle diseases which formerly existed. From what the noble Viscount said it was clear that the existing law was of so admirable a nature that it certainly did not require any alteration at all. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Viscount spoke of the trade having gone into other channels. What trade did he mean? [VISCOUNT CROSS: "I meant the dead-meat trade."] He did not see what the dead-meat trade had to do with the exclusion of store cattle, and that was the only object the Bill appeared to have. The noble Viscount went on to say that this was not a question affecting prices, and he quoted figures to show that prices had probably gone down rather than up. He quite agreed with the noble Lord; but the question was whether, if they did not stop this trade prices would not fall and the consumer be benefited. It was undoubtedly a fact that if they stopped this trade permanently they would do serious injury to those who bought cattle for fattening
242
and for the market. Before he dealt with some of the arguments he had heard advanced in support of the Bill, he wished to make it perfectly clear that he and those with whom he acted were entirely in favour of every possible and reasonable precaution being taken to prevent the introduction of disease among our flocks and herds. That was a policy which had their warmest approval and one which they did not wish to see in any way diminished or endangered. But the object of the Bill was to repeal Clause 26 of the Animals' Diseases Act of 1894. That was a section which allowed the Board of Agriculture to make orders from time to time admitting live animals into this country. Of course, if all the rest of the world were suffering from cattle disease and were permeated with pleuro-pneumonia, it might be wise to prohibit animals quitting the port of debarkation alive. Such a condition of affairs would inevitably, in his opinion, be brought about under the existing law. But the promoters of this Bill were not content with the power, which was now possessed, to close our ports against infected countries and infected animals, but they proposed to close our ports for all time, and without any appeal, against healthy animals and against countries that were free from infection. ["Hear, hear!"] That seemed to him a very drastic measure, one which required very convincing arguments before it could commend itself to the inhabitants of a Free Trade country like this. Two principal arguments had been advanced why the law should be altered from its present permissive character and converted into one for perpetually excluding live store cattle. It was said a Government might arise and a Minister of Agriculture be appointed who would so fail in their duty, either for political or other unworthy motives—he supposed either from the weakness of the majority of the Government or from the weakness of the Minister himself—as to open our ports, let in infected animals, and so recklessly endanger the health of our home-bred stock. He could not believe that such a thing would ever happen. The responsibility would be so great as to make a Minister rather err on the side of exclusion than of free entry. The late Government were not afflicted with a

243
plethora of supporters—[a laugh]—it had amongst its adherents very influential opponents of the exclusion of Canadian cattle, and yet neither the pressure of their friends, nor the action of their opponents at an important by-election in Scotland, made them waver for a minute in their proper policy. Besides, to use the argument he had quoted was really to cast a reflection upon the expert permanent officials of the Board of Agriculture. If any danger were to be apprehended they would not sit idly by. They would not see the great work of extinguishing cattle disease in this country imperilled without putting before their chief such excellent reasons and admirable representations that would cause him to adopt the safer methods. It was further said that the cattle breeders of the United Kingdom lived in such constant fear of their herds being decimated by disease that they were deterred from developing their industry. That might have been a valid argument 20 or 30 years ago, when farmers lost large sums of money through disease amongst their flocks and herds, but it could not be regarded as such now, when practically cattle disease had been exterminated under the existing law, and through the action of the Board of Agriculture. Security from disease was by no means solely due to the exclusion of foreign cattle. It was due also to the increased efficiency and skill of the experts in dealing with the outbreaks. When he was at the Agricultural Office he had no hesitation in saying that the outbreaks were suppressed at a tithe of the cost and a tithe of the time which had been necessary in previous years, and that was owing to the increased experience of the officers of the Board of Agriculture; and he was not afraid to repeat what he had said elsewhere, that there never was a time when breeders might put capital into their business with greater confidence than now. The only justification for this Bill would be to show that the original Act had failed. ["Hear, hear!"] There was practically only one disease affected by the Bill, and that was pleuro-pneumonia. The noble Lord spoke about sheep scab. It was not a pretty disease; but it was not—and he quoted the opinion of Professor Brown to this effect—a disease
244
which required stamping out. Had they not been able to deal with pleuro-pneumonia under the existing Act? Figures showed that they had actually exterminated it. The outbreaks, which formerly could be numbered by thousands, were, after the passing of the Act, reduced to 191 in 1891, in 1892 to 35, in 1893 to nine, and in 1894 to two, at which figure, he believed, the outbreaks now stood. These figures amply demonstrated that the Act had been a success, and that the proposed change was absolutely and entirely unnecessary. Then if increased security would not be the result of this Bill, what was the use of passing it, and whom would it please? It was not likely to please the colonies—Canada, for instance. Canada naturally viewed with regret the prohibition of her store cattle which the late Government were obliged to impose; that was a temporary measure enforced for hygienic reasons; but what would she say to a Bill which would exclude Canadian cattle for all time, though the country might be free from disease. There were other colonies also seeking to set up a profitable trade with this country in the matter of store cattle. That hope would be extinguished by this Bill. Surely this question of the colonies was one which should have their grave attention; any way the Bill was a strange precursor of that Imperial Zollverein which was to link all the Colonies by the bonds of Free Trade, and which they had lately heard adumbrated in so important a quarter. ["Hear, hear!"] Those who had anything to do with the administration of these Acts knew that suspicions were aroused that Protectionist tendencies were being brought about under the veil of protection from disease. Again, in the enforcement of restrictions when an outbreak occurred, they had often heard farmers say that the regulations were worse than the disease; could they be certain that under this new and extreme Act all the existing discontent might not combine together and produce an agitation dangerous, if not fatal, to the excellent policy which the existing law embodies? He had, he thought, shown four things—first, that the Bill would give no greater security against cattle disease than was given under the existing Acts;

245
second, that as far as disease was concerned it offered no additional impulse to cattle-breeding; third, that it must offend the colonies; and, fourth, that it might endanger the very policy it was supposed to strengthen. What was the real reason why the supporters of the Bill were so anxious that it should become law? He believed it was one thing only, and that was the uncertainty of the maintenance of the present restrictions. That was the root of the agitation against this Bill. The fact was the cattle breeders were afraid that some day Canada, the United States, Argentina, and other countries would be able to show a clean bill of health, and that "prices would fall to a ruinous level," as was stated recently in a letter in the Standard. What was desired was to give a monopoly in store cattle to the breeders in this country, and to protect them for all time against competition in the open markets of the world. He was not accusing the Government of bringing in veiled Protection; he was not even saying then whether the effect of this Bill was good or bad; he was only stating what the inevitable result of it would be. He knew the Measure had been pressed on the Government by agricultural societies of the highest authority, but it was legislation for one class and one trade; and it was essential that such legislation should not injure other great principles which were beneficial alike to that class and the nation as a whole. The Bill in no way fulfilled these elementary conditions, and he therefore felt it his duty to oppose it as a Measure absolutely unnecessary, and possibly dangerous to the very interests it professed to safeguard.
*THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid the great majority of the agriculturists of the country had come to the conclusion that the time had arrived when permanency should be given to these Acts. He admitted that the disease had diminished year by year, but, surely, it was right that they should take care that the country was not subjected to the risk of having in the future to go to the expense of dealing with fresh outbreaks. They would find that nine-tenths of the farmers were in favour of the Acts being made permanent. He sympathised very much with those who were affected by this Bill, and who
246
thought that the price of store cattle would be raised and that farming pursuits would be more difficult for them in the future. He sympathised with the large farmers in Aberdeenshire, Forfarshire, and Norfolk, who never bred their own animals and trusted to buy cheap store cattle to fatten on turnips; but they should not say that there was a danger of their raising the price of meat by this Bill. Since store cattle had been prohibited altogether from landing the price of meat had gradually fallen. The fact was that the dead meat trade was now increasing—[Opposition cheers]—and that Canada was not losing in any way by not importing stores for feeding in this country, but was really making a better profit by sending dead meat. They had proved in the last four years that prohibition certainly did not raise the price of meat, but what it did was to prevent about one-tenth of the farmers of this country from being able to go to ports like Aberdeen, Dundee, or Glasgow, and buy what they thought were cheap stores—[Opposition cheers]—as against the interests of nine-tenths of the other agriculturists in the country. He believed there was pleuro-pneumonia in Canada, and they must remember that there were 3,000 miles of frontier between Canada and the United Stales, over which the cattle could pass and re-pass with the greatest freedom, and that disease might be communicated in that way. They believed that if they once let in stores indiscriminately from foreign countries they would not be able to check disease. The evidence adduced before the Board of Agriculture was conclusive to the minds of most agriculturists, when the experiment was made in two cargoes that came over, there were animals infected with pleuro-pneumonia. The most prudent course was that there should be a total prohibition of live animals at the port of landing, and that it should be made permanent.
*EARL SPENCERsaid he would give place to no one in his desire to prevent the introduction of disease among the flocks and herds of the United Kingdom. He had had considerable experience of the subject as far back as the year 1865, and had been chairman of a Commission of which the Prime Minister and Lord Playfair were also members. He had had also very considerable experience in

247
the administration of the Acts, both in Ireland, at the Privy Council here, and in his own country, and he had always advocated the strongest possible enforcement of the laws which existed for the prevention of disease among cattle. Feeling so strongly as he did as to the necessity of preventing disease in this country, he did not approve of the present Measure, which was altogether unnecessary. He did not want to labour this argument, because his noble Friend, who not long ago was Minister of Agriculture, had put the case so admirably. It had been said that if, cattle disease again appeared without an alteration of the law we might again incur a heavy expenditure; but he did not believe that for a moment. The heavy expenditure which the noble Viscount had quoted was an expenditure when there were practically no effective means of dealing with disease in the country. His belief was that no Government would venture to admit cattle into this country if there was the slightest evidence that disease existed in the country from which those cattle came. He maintained that this was absolutely a matter for the Executive Government to deal with, and that Parliament was not the proper body to deal with it. If cattle were permanently prevented from being introduced into this country it would be a very serious thing for a large part of the agricultural community. The noble Marquess who last spoke had said that the Bill would only affect one-tenth of the agriculturists; but why should they pass an Act which put a great hardship upon one-tenth of the agriculturists when it was not necessary at all? ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to the position of the graziers and feeders, he had consulted a good many of the farmers who were very largely interested, and they had the strongest objection to this Measure, stating that it would deal a most serious blow to the occupiers and owners of the best grazing lands of this country. From his own personal experience he should certainly say that was the case. The graziers and feeders bought in a market which under this Bill would be an absolutely closed market—he would not use the word protection, but it really did come to that—and when they sold they sold in a market
248
which was perfectly open to the whole world. ["Hear, hear!"] He altogether denied that all agriculturists were in favour of making the prevention of the introduction of cattle permanent, and adduced, as a case in point, the evidence of Mr. Clare Sewell Read to the effect that—
"as a grazier, if he was exposed to all the benefits, or rather all the evils of Free Trade, by having the meat hero from every country under Heaven, if he could by any possibility obtain these healthy stores from our own dominions, he did not think they ought to be excluded. Our cattle would not be fed as cheaply as the Canadians supplied them at present. They were good well fed cattle, better bred than the Irish as a rule; they were older and they were cheaper."
That was a high authority on this subject. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course he could quote several other authorities with regard to it, but he had no desire to weary their Lordships by doing so, and therefore he would only add that a well-known agriculturist in Norfolk had stated that the loss per bullock caused by the absence of store cattle in one year from Canada had amounted to about £2. He would not labour the subject further, but would merely state that the question, in his view, was not so much that the price of meat would be raised as that the distribution of profits would be largely interfered with to the injury of the feeders and graziers throughout the country. He need say no more on the subject because his noble Friend who sat beside him had spoken so well with regard to it. Before he sat down he should like to say a word with regard to the way in which this Bill would affect Canada. He must say that he had been somewhat surprised at the way in which it was proposed to permanently exclude Canadian cattle from our ports. We were using fair words of conciliation towards Canada when we referred to the possibilities of the establishment of a Zollverein, and at the same time we were about permanently to exclude her cattle from our markets. He thought that that was a very serious step to take, and he desired to enter his strong protest against this Measure, which he thought was perfectly unnecessary, and which, if passed, would deal a very heavy blow at one of the most important interests

249
in our agricultural community, and would be a most unfriendly act towards Canada and others whose interests we were bound to do our best to promote. ["Hear, hear!"]
The House divided on the Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time":—

CONTENTS

83

NOT-CONTENTS

34

Resolved in the affirmative.

DIVISION LIST:—CONTENTS.

Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Colville of Culross, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Crofton, L.

De Saumarez, L.

Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Egerton, L.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) [TELLER.]

Grafton, D.

Marlborough, D.

Glenesk, L.

Portland, D.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Bristol, M.

Heneage, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Hillingdon, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

Bathurst, E.

Howard de Walden, L.

Belmore, E.

Kelvin, L.

Carnwath, E.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Clarendon, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount Earl.)

de Montalt, E.

Dudley, E.

Hardwicke, E.

Ker, L. [M. Lothian.]

Harewood, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Malmesbury, E.

Mayo, E.

Lawrence, L.

Morley, E.

Lovaine, L. (E. Percy.)

Nelson, E.

Manners of Haddon, L.

Onslow, E.

Meldrum, L. (M.) Huntly.)

Romney, E.

Rosse, E.

Middleton, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Waldegrave, E. [TELLER.]

Morris, L.

Yarborough, E.

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Bangor, V.

Norton, L.

Falkland, V.

Pirbright, L.

Knutsford, V.

Poltimore, L.

Llandaff, V.

Sackville, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Ashbourne, L.

Balfour, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Bateman, L.

Blythswood, L.

Sinclair, L.

Boston, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Templemore, L.

Cheylesmore, L.

Tollemache, L.

Clinton, L.

Ventry, L.

Clonbrock, L.

Wenlock, L.

Colchester, L.

250

NOT-CONTENTS.

Ripon, M.

Kensington, L.

Leigh, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Chesterfield, E. [TELLER.]

Monkswell, L.

Playfair, L.

Crewe, E.

Reay, L.

Granville, E.

Rendel, L.

Kimberley, E.

Ribblesdale, L. [TELLER.]

Spencer, E.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Oxenbridge, V.

Portman, V.

Russell of Killowen, L.

St. Levan, L.

Burghclere, L.

Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)

Camoys, L.

Coleridge, L.

Suffield, L.

Davey, L.

Thring, L.

Farrer, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Hawkesbury, L.

Wandsworth, L.

Herschell, L.

Welby, L.

Hobhouse, L.

Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

INDIAN DISPATCHES.
LORD REAYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, whether he would lay on the Table of the House a Return of opinions and reasons entered in the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Secretary of State in Council with reference to the Dispatch of April 2, 1896, to the Government of India, leaving to their operation Acts 2 and 3 of 1896, on the subject of the Indian Tariff Act and the cotton duties; a similar Return with reference to the expenses of troops to be dispatched to Africa in aid of the Egyptian troops, and the Dispatches from the Government of India on the liability of India to defray this cost.
*THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid that there would be no objection to laying the first two Papers to which the Question of the noble Lord referred upon the Table if he would move for them. The third Paper would be presented to both Houses in due course by command, and therefore there was no necessity for the noble Lord to move for its production.
LORD REAY LORD REAY moved that the first two Papers should be laid upon the Table.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.