Lords Sitting of 8 May 1896

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
THE EARL OF JERSEY*THE EARL OF JERSEY moved the Second Reading of the Wild Birds Protection Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill, and said that every one would agree that it was desirable to give as much protection as possible to those wild birds which add so much to the charm of the country. But they must, of course, always take care not to take any steps which would infringe unduly on the rights and privileges of individuals. In a detailed explanation of the provisions of the Bill, the noble Lord said that the first clause gave power to the Secretary of State to give protection to particular kinds of birds either for a whole year or a portion of the year, or to give protection to all wild birds in particular places and at particular times—that was to say, either for a whole county or parts of a county as would seem desirable. Clause 3 had been inserted in order to meet a difficulty which had often occurred, namely, that when a man had been caught infringing the Act of 1880, he pleaded that it was a first offence and got off with nominal costs. That Act and this Bill did not interfere in any way with the owner or occupier of lands or person authorised by the owner or occupier; it only dealt with unauthorised persons. Clause 5 imposed a penalty on any one who was caught trespassing upon land while in pursuit of wild birds or any person aiding and abetting such person. This was a very necessary clause. Clause 6 give power to seize and retain the nets, snares and traps of any person infringing the Act. Up to 1894, he believed that in the Metropolitan district there was not a single case brought up under the Act of 1880, and yet he knew full well that that Act was constantly being infringed in a portion of the County of Middlesex; but it had been so difficult to get convictions that the attempt to take up persons breaking the law had almost
842
been given up. Legislation should not make enactments easily evaded; it should do everything to make the law as stringent as public opinion would allow. He believed the trend of public opinion was in the direction of the better protection of wild birds and he hoped their Lordships would give the Bill a Second Reading.
LORD BELPERsaid that when this Bill was formerly before the House this year, he expressed, on behalf of the Secretary of State, his wish to meet any reasonable objections to the present Act, because he believed it had not been so efficacious as it was thought it would be when passed. He saw no objection, therefore, to the first part of the Bill, because it would make the Bill more operative. With regard to part 2, though several of the objections to the drafting had been removed by the alterations introduced, there still remained the point whether it was desirable to alter the law of trespass in the novel way proposed and to make trespass in pursuit of small birds an offence in itself. Also whether it was necessary to give the stringent, powers of Clause 6 for the seizure of nets with any other implements used in pursuit of small birds, and to confiscate such implements upon a conviction. However desirable some of their Lordships might think it to be to give this power, it was a somewhat strong thing to seize and confiscate an implement like a gun simply because it had been used for shooting at a small bird. A wide power was given, not only to the owner or occupier, but to his servants to seize any of the aforesaid articles. He thought their Lordships would hesitate to give a power of this sort to an irresponsible person like a farm labourer, not used to the administration of the law. Even if they were to limit this power it was difficult to see how they could define any person who should be authorised to exercise this power. Of course the police officers could only act on the road, and could not follow people across the fields where they would be pursuing those wild birds. Under those circumstances the Home Secretary did not see his way to accepting the second part of the Bill. There was one consideration which he should like to submit to those who desired to see the law made more stringent. Was it wise

843
for them to load the Bill with contentious clauses which would undoubtedly delay its progress through the other House. There was, however, no objection to the Second Reading being taken, but in Committee the Home Secretary, as at present advised, would not assent to the second part of the Bill.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

RESERVE FORCES BILL [H.L.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE)presented a Bill to amend the Reserve Forces Act of 1882. He could explain in a few words the reasons which had led Her Majesty's Government to introduce the Bill he now asked their Lordships to read a First time. The House was aware that under our present military system the soldier divided his service between service with the colours and service in the Army Reserve. That system had been in force ever since its introduction by Lord Cardwell, and although in matters of detail there had been changes and modifications from time to time, the general principle had been maintained and had found acceptance. At the present moment, in regard to the bulk of the Army, a soldier enlisted for 12 years, seven or eight of which were served with the colours and the remaining four or five in the Army Reserve. That system had given us a body of 80,000 Army Reservists, the bulk of whom had had seven or eight years training, and had not been away from the colours more than five years at the outside. Those men not only presented themselves for their reserve pay, but upon all occasions on which it had been found necessary to call them up for service they had responded in the most satisfactory manner. In the year 1878 out of 14,000 Army Reservists 92 per cent. responded to the call, while four years later in 1882 out of 11,000 men 90 per cent. presented themselves; and upon other occasions when a certain number had been called up for some special purpose, in order, for example, to receive special instruction, they invariably responded in
844
a manner that left nothing to be desired. In spite of their separation from their regiments for a few years, they recovered their military efficiency in a wonderfully short space of time. Therefore, there was very good reason to anticipate that of those 80,000 Army Reservists we could count in case of need upon all save a very small proportion. But he had to call their Lordships' attention to the extent to which the military authorities could make use of this most valuable force. As the House was aware, the battalions of the Regular army were linked in pairs, of which one battalion was abroad and the other was, or should be, at home. He said "should be" advisedly; for, though it was a main principle of our Army organisation that there should be a battalion at home to feed each battalion abroad, yet the great and ever increasing demands upon our foreign Army were such that at no time since the system was instituted in 1870 had it been possible in practice to preserve the balance. He mentioned this, though it did not directly bear upon the Bill, as he was anxious that their Lordships should not think that he was neglecting this most important question. The foreign battalion was always kept at a high establishment, which might be taken in round numbers at something over 1,000 men. The home battalion was kept at a lower establishment, which might be taken at about 800 men. The foreign battalion contained no recruits. On the other hand, the home battalion contained a large number of recruits, and might be regarded as a sort of training establishment for itself and for the linked battalion abroad. It followed that the home battalion, as it stood, was quite unfit for service abroad, nor was it indeed, ever intended that as it stood it should be used for active service. What would happen in the case of mobilisation was that the men of less than one year's service and the men who were medically unfit for service abroad would be sent to the depôt, and the home battalion would be brought up to the proper strength by calling out a sufficient number of Army Reserve men. If the military authorities were always able to use the Army Reserve men, who numbered 80,000, in this manner, there would be nothing whatever to complain of; but their

845
powers of so using them were limited by the terms of the Army Reserve Act of 1882, which the Government now desired to amend. Clause 12 of that Act enacts that the use of the Reserve may be resorted to in cases of imminent national danger or of great emergency. It was perfectly clear that even the most liberal interpretation that could be given to those words would not render them applicable to such a case as the sending out of a small expeditionary force of 10,000 or 15,000 men. In such a case the military authorities were face to face with the fact that of the 800 men in a home battalion a large proportion were, as he had explained, necessarily unfit for active service in a foreign country. What then were they to do? They did not wish to denude India of troops or to weaken our colonial garrisons. There were only two courses by which in such a case they could make good the weakness of the home battalion—they could call for drafts from other battalions, or they could call for volunteers from the Army Reserve. With regard to calling for drafts from other battalions, those who have had experience of Army organisation were unanimous in agreeing that it was not possible to discover a more profligate way of strengthening home battalions for active service. ["Hear, hear!"] It meant that, in order to strengthen one battalion they were to weaken another battalion, which in its turn was to be strengthened from another, so that the process of weakening one battalion in order to help another went on in an ever-widening rate and with ever-increasing bad results. As for the other remedy—that of calling for volunteers from the Army Reserve men—he had the greatest confidence in the patriotism and spirit of the Reserve men; but, for all that, he did not think that at a moment when the condition of the labour market might be favourable to employment, or if the particular expedition did not offer any great inducement in way of honour or glory, they should be justified in counting upon obtaining a sufficient number of men by calling for volunteers from the Reserve. There remained, therefore, no course open to them but the course which it was proposed to take under this Bill; that course was to increase the liability of the Army Reserve men in a such manner as to render
846
a sufficient number of men available for use under circumstances which would stop short of that imminent national danger or great emergency which the Reserve Forces Act specified as the condition without which the Army Reserve men could not be called up for service. It was obviously their duty to increase the liability of the Army Reservists to such an extent only as to give us what we wanted, and nothing more; and they were advised that, by making these men liable for war service during their first year in the Army Reserve, a sufficient number would be obtained to bring up to the proper strength the number of units which we should be likely to make use of in the case of such minor operations as he had endeavoured to indicate. That would be allowing, of course, for a certain number of absentees, men who might either not present themselves or who, when they did, might be found medically unfit for foreign service. The liability was strictly limited by the Bill to war-like operations, and did not include purposes of training in peace time. The Bill applied only to men who might enlist after it had become law. It followed, therefore, that no Army Reserve man would incur the new liability except those who might accept service after this Bill passed. That meant, of course, that the operation of the Bill would not commence to any large extent for seven years. But power was taken by the first clause to make use of Army Reserve men who may have given their assent in writing to accept this new liability; and should the principle of the Bill find favour with Parliament, it would be for the Government to consider whether some special arrangement could not be made to provide for the interval. Perhaps it might be said that the Bill would increase the objections of employers of labour to give civil employment to Army Reservists, and that would be an objection the weight of which he certainly would not underrate. He was most anxious we should do nothing to deter employers from giving employment to Army Reserve men; but he believed that the suspicion with which employers of labour at one time regarded Army Reserve men tended to diminish as time went on, and would in time disappear. They would find as a matter of fact that these men were but very rarely called up, and they

847
would know that at any rate this new liability to be called up for active service with the colours was a liability which would only apply to Reserve men during the first year of Reserve service, and that when that year was over a man would stand in exactly the same position as he did before. He had said enough to show that there was at all events a primâ facie case for this alteration of the law on a matter of some military importance. [Cheers.]
Bill read 1a; to be printed; and to read 2a on Friday next.—[No. 87.]

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Second Report of the Select Committee, read: Moved That the said Report be considered (the Chairman of Committees); agreed to: On consideration of the following paragraphs, viz.:—
"1. The Sub-Committee have met, and have had the advantage of hearing a statement tendered to them by the Lord Great Chamberlain, and have adopted the following Report:
"2. The Resolutions of the House of 1888 and 1890, transferring the custody of the House and the appointment and control of its doorkeepers and messengers from the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to the Lord Great Chamberlain, should be adhered to:
"The Committee, having considered the Report of the Sub-Committee, are of opinion that paragraph 2 should be adopted, and that the Resolutions of the House of 1888 and 1890 should be adhered to."
LORD HERSCHELL LORD HERSCHELL moved to disagree to the above recommendation on the following grounds:—
''That it is at the least open to grave doubt whether this House has any power to transfer a right of appointment and an authority which have never been vested in this House, and which from time immemorial have been vested in and exercised by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, either by virtue of his patent or otherwise, and to vest that right of appointment and authority in another person; and that it is moreover inexpedient to vest that right of appointment and authority in an hereditary officer who is not under the control either of the Crown or of this House."
The noble and learned Lord said he need not disclaim any personal feeling in the matter, or any desire to cast reflection upon the Lord Great Chamberlain for whom he entertained respect and regard,
848
but the question raised was one of considerable importance affecting the dignity of the House, and involving possible difficulties in the future. The Resolution passed in 1888 was that the service and custody of the house should be placed entirely under the jurisdiction of one authority and that it should be the Lord Great Chamberlain for the time being. Public palaces had always been vested in the Hereditary Great Chamberlain by order of his office and the fabric of this House and of the other House and the whole belongings were vested in the Great Chamberlain as well as other palaces. About that there could not be the slightest question, and he thought it was equally clear that beyond the fact that the buildings were vested in him, he had no authority in those portions or buildings that were set aside for the use of the two Houses. In 1890 a further Resolution was passed that, on a vacancy occurring in the office of Black Rod, the power of appointing door-keepers and messengers should also be transferred to the Lord Great Chamberlain. The effect of that Resolution would be not only to take all the appointments which had hitherto been made by Black Rod out of his hands, but to place them in the hands of the Lord Great Chamberlain; and to take from Black Rod the jurisdiction and authority over those who have hitherto been his subordinate officers, appointed and upheld by him. The first question which arose was whether there was any power in the House to take from him the patronage which from time immemorial had been vested in him and to transfer it to the Lord Great Chamberlain; and his first proposition was that there was no authority. The patronage had never been vested in or exercised by the House, and the House had no power to take it from Black Rod. In 1701 the question arose whether Black Rod had the power to appoint his next immediate subordinate, the Yoeman Usher of the Black Rod. It was reported to the House that the Gentleman Usher, Sir David Mitchell, intended to appoint a Yeoman Usher. It was proposed to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges of the House, but it was thought not right that the House should pronounce an opinion on a matter which it was informed was about to be

849
contested in a court of law. There was a trial, and a verdict was given for Sir David Mitchell. It was thus decided that the Gentleman Usher had the power to appoint his chief subordinate. In 1824 a Committee reported that the Journals of the House clearly showed that the authority of Black Rod to appoint his inferior officers was distinctly recognised by the House, and, more than that, it had been regarded as among the perquisites and privileges of Black Rod. The Committee expressed their approval of the manner in which the duties had been discharged by the gentleman holding the office, and they remarked upon his disinterested conduct in the exercise of patronage in forbearing to sell, according to antecedent usage, the situations of the several inferior officers employed under him. Therefore down to the appointment of the gentleman in office in 1824, not only had he the appointment of his inferior officers, but the appointment was one of the perquisites of the office, for he had sold the appointment and benefited by the price obtained. A clearer recognition of the power of appointment and right of patronage it would be impossible to conceive. Down to the present day the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod had always appointed his subordinate officers, and the patent of the present Black Rod and his predecessors gave him the office "with all the privileges, perquisites, and rights now or hereafter belonging to or appertaining to the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod." There seemed to be no doubt he had the right of patronage. In MacQueen's ''Practice of the House of Lords,'' it was said he was also vested with the appointment and control of the doorkeepers of the House. So he believed he had established a case for contending that from time immemorial the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod had had the appointment and control of doorkeepers and messengers. It seemed only natural that he should have these appointments, because he was responsible for order being kept at the door and, more than that, he had other duties in connection with the House. When an order for commitment was made he had to see that it was carried out. If a witness did not attend, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod was
850
required to take charge of the person in contempt. Yet it was proposed to leave him all the duties he had before, but to take from him not only the appointment of subordinate officers, but the control of those officers through whom alone he was able to discharge these duties. It was inexpedient that the House should transfer appointments by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to the Lord Great Chamberlain because the House was incompetent to do it. If there was a vacancy in the office of messenger or doorkeeper, and an appointment were made by the Lord Great Chamberlain and another by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, the Courts of Law would have, as in 1701, to decide which was the good appointment. It seemed to him that they would be obliged to hold that the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod had the appointment, and it would put the House in an undignified position if it authorised appointments which Courts of Law held it could not make That was a grave objection to the House undertaking to assert a power of transfer when it was, to say the least, open to grave doubt whether it had any such power. It had been said that the officers of the House, of Lords were on the House of Lords' Estimates, therefore the House of Lords had power to deal with their appointment. But the Lord Chancellor (about whose power of appointment there could be no doubt) as Speaker of the House was on the House of Lords' Estimates. But he could see no power to transfer from the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod the power of appointing his subordinates merely because their salaries were on the House of Lords' Estimates. It was said that if, notwithstanding the Resolution before the House, Black Rod made an appointment and it was held valid, the House of Commons might refuse to vote the salary. True; but then the only result would be that the House would have to go without its messenger and doorkeeper. But he did not think the House of Commons would be any more willing to vote the salary if the patronage were transferred to the Lord Great Chamberlain, an officer over whom the House had no control. He was not an officer of the House, nor was he put, as the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod was, under the command of the House

851
by Her Majesty. The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod was put in a very undignified situation. He was put into the office, but told he was to do nothing; the control even of the doorkeeper was taken from him; he had nothing to do with any part of the House or its officers. He was simply Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. It would be better to abolish the office altogether than have it in that position. ["Hear, hear!"] It should be remembered that the Lord Chamberlain was an hereditary officer. No doubt they had the utmost confidence in the present Lord Chamberlain, but his successor would not be determined by the House, nor even by the Crown, because it was an hereditary office. It might be said that if a Lord Chamberlain came into office in whom the House had not confidence the House that gave the patronage could take it away, but obviously that would be invidious, and a grave objection to transferring any of the patronage to the holder of an hereditary office. Because the House might be involved in difficulty, and, perhaps, also some loss of dignity, he had thought it right to bring the matter before their Lordships, and to move to disagree from the recommendation.
THE PRIME MINISTER (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY)said, they often heard of identity of policy, and various practical interpretations were given to that phrase. But the noble and learned Lord had shown by his action on that occasion the oddest view of a continuity of policy. The Resolution to which he objected was passed by the Committee in 1888. The noble Lord was then, as now, a Member of the House, and a very authoritative Member of the House. Since that time he had sat on the Woolsack and had been a colleague of the Leader of the House. During all that time he saw no reason for calling forth the stores of valuable learning he had just exhibited.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that when he was in office and Lord Chancellor, the first time he was ever on the Black Rod Committee—in 1892, he believed—he brought the matter before the Committee, and moved for a Sub-committee, on the ground that he thought the position of Black Rod had not been fully
852
entered into at the time the Resolution of 1888 was passed.
THE PRIME MINISTER: But the noble and learned Lord never brought it before the House, and the result was they had passed over a vacancy. Now Black Rod had been appointed subject be conditions laid down by a Committee of the House of Lords, and when this was done the noble Lord came forward, eight years afterwards, and wanted to upset the arrangement.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that during the life of the late Black Rod he moved expressly in view of its being inexpedient to determine it at the time, when there was no vacancy, and a Subcommittee was appointed which drafted a Report, but it was not considered because there was a Dissolution. After the Dissolution came the death of Black Rod, and he had no opportunity of bringing the subject before the House.
THE PRIME MINISTERsaid, it seemed odd that in eight years the noble Lord could not move faster in his reforming operations. Turning to the essence of the proposal he did not think the noble and learned Lord had rightly brought before the House what Black Rod was. He was not essentially an officer of the House, having nothing to do with Parliament. He was an officer of the Order of the Garter. How he got into his present position he could not possibly conceive. The noble Lord laid much stress on the House having no authority over the Lord Great Chamberlain. The House had not an ounce more authority over the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. The Lord Chamberlain was appointed by the action of hereditary right; the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod was appointed by the Crown, not as a political office, but he was appointed in the way in which permanent officials of the Household were, and the House had no more share in that appointment than in that of the Lord Chamberlain. The noble Lord appealed to antiquity, and talked of immemorial right to exercise the patronage of Black Rod. What was this immemorial right to exercise the patronage of messengers, housemaids, and doorkeepers? No doubt it was a valuable right in the past, because Black Rod was in the habit of selling permission to appoint

853
these officers. It was a very old argument for proving the inalienable right of Black Rod, to quote the practice of selling the patronage which had been abolished since that time. There was nothing in the nature of an inalienable right in the right of Black Rod to appoint the messengers and housemaids of the House. It was a right that had grown up accidentally, and, like many other things, had been made the subject of great abuse. The noble Lord did not explain how great that abuse was. In the lifetime of men now in the House the housemaids had this immemorial right to sell their patronage. They did not come near the House, but used to enjoy the salary (which was considerable) and paid charwomen to do a portion of the duty which fell upon themselves. That was the kind of immemorial right the noble Lord wished the House to look upon with so much respect. No doubt there was a great abuse. But they could not have a patent right to appoint housemaids and messengers unless there was a fixed number of messengers and housemaids to be appointed. There had never been any such thing. They had been appointed from time to time as need might arise. The real person who determined what housemaids and messengers there should be, and who should appoint them, was the person who paid their salaries. That was under the present arrangement of the House of Commons. But in past times the House of Lords relied upon its fees for the purpose of discharging expenses, and the fees in those days were adequate to the purpose. A temporary arrangement had been made, which could be cancelled at any time, by which all the fees were paid into the Exchequer and the House of Commons passed in the Estimates the Votes necessary for maintaining the services requisite for the House of Lords. There had never yet been inalienable messengers, inalienable housemaids, and patents to appoint them. The Usher of the Black Rod never had had that power, because he never could have it. It was a power which, in the nature of things, could not exist. Eight years ago attention was drawn to the fact that two or three authorities controlled the internal and domestic organisation of the House, and great inconvenience was seen to
854
arise from that circumstance. And they asked not what was done in Henry VIII's reign or what were the inherent rights necessarily attaching to an officer of the Garter, but they asked what was the convenient thing to do in appointing housemaids, messengers, and so forth in the House, and they thought the person who had the control and guardianship of the building was also the person who should have the control and guardianship of these important officials. The noble Lord spoke as if the Lord Great Chamberlain had no control over any part of this building which was used by the Houses of Parliament. His belief was that the Lord Great Chamberlain had a right to one of the most important articles in that House, and that was the key of all the doors, and unless he gave up the keys the doors could not be opened, and unless the doors could be opened naturally the House would be closed. The Lord Great Chamberlain had the determination, in company with other officers, of the use the rooms should be put to. Under these circumstances it seemed to him, on the whole, that among the various authorities among whom they had to choose, it would more tend to unity and convenience that the Lord Great Chamberlain should appoint the housemaids and messengers. That there should be a rebellion among them, and that they should declare there was no right that their appointment should be exercised by any person except the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod was, he thought, a contingency which they need not seriously apprehend, because the power of the purse would indicate who was to be appointed, who was to be paid, and how much he was to be paid. That power lay with the House of Commons, and, failing its exercise by them, with the House of Lords, but they had no more authority over the action of the Black Rod than they had over that of the Lord Great Chamberlain. He did not say these were ideal arrangements. They had come down to them marked with indications of considerable antiquity. They must make as much use of them as seemed, under the circumstances, most convenient, and he thought the officer who had charge of the buildings and keys, had much better have charge of appointing the housemaids and messengers. It did not seem to him a large question,

855
and he was sorry so great a constitutional discussion should have been raised on the point. The decision having been come to eight years ago, and—in spite of the protest of the noble and learned Lord—not having been contested in any serious spirit during the time that had intervened, he thought the House of Lords would do better to adhere to that decision and cultivate in the management of their internal arrangements that unity which was most likely to avoid confusion.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYstood at some disadvantage in answering the noble Marquess, because he had not habitually attended, nor long been a Member of the Black Rod Committee, therefore he was not so versed in the history to which he alluded as the noble Marquess professed to be. But he was bound to say that the accuracy of the noble Marquess' memory on these transactions and with regard to the facts was not so complete as to dismay him from saying a few words on this point. If he said anything, he begged to disclaim any personal hostility to his noble Friend the Lord Great Chamberlain, who, if he was Usher of the Black Rod and appointed for that purpose would, he was sure, discharge his duties to the satisfaction of the House. This seemed to him a point of somewhat wider importance, and the noble Marquess' argument was one which he was not altogether able to follow. He went at large into the transactions relating to the housemaids and charwomen; he showed he was not liable to ancillœ pudor, and was prepared to grapple with that question in its minutest details. But as a matter of fact the noble Marquis was wrong in his facts. Whatever transactions there might have been of an unfortunate character between the housemaids and charwomen, related always and entirely to the Lord Great Chamberlain, under whose control these maidens had been within, at any rate, the memory of those now sitting in that House. The noble Marquess asked who paid the officials; he said they were paid in the long run by the House of Commons, and therefore the control of this matter rested with the body that paid, which was the House of Commons.
THE PRIME MINISTER: I said as at present arranged with the House
856
of Commons, and if the House of Commons did not pursue the present arrangement of putting Votes on the Estimates, the paying of fees, which would place the control in this House would be the resource to which we should naturally be driven.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYreplied that the fees were not an absolutely certain source of income. He took it the private Bill system might be changed, and the fees would disappear. He did not see that that affected the point of whether the Usher of the Black Rod or the Lord Great Chamberlain was to appoint to these offices. Whoever paid the money must nominate, and if the paying body always nominated it was clear that the House of Commons ought to appoint to every office for which it paid. He thought the noble Marquess had made no case whatever to the argument put forward by his noble and learned Friend, who had pointed out that from time immemorial the appointment of messengers and doorkeepers had been in the hands of the Usher of the Black Rod; that so complete was that control that he actually had the power of the sale of offices, the Committee from which quotation had been made not merely not denying that power, but thanking him for not exercising it, and hoping he would not exercise it in the future. He took it that no office more freehold could possibly be conceived or patronage more secure, as far as prescription went, than, the patronage hitherto exercised by the Black Rod. The noble Marquess attempted to confound the case of housemaids under the Lord Great Chamberlain and the doorkeepers who were under the Usher of the Black Rod. But there was absolutely no connection between them. If that House wanted to keep out any offending Member, if it wanted to eject any offending Member, the only power it had was to order the Usher of the Black Rod, who then, under the system that they should approve, would give directions to his officials to carry out their Lordships' orders. What would the result be now? The result now would be that they would give orders to the Usher of the Black Rod, who would have to go to the Lord Great Chamberlain and ask him for his sanction to employ doorkeepers! That was what the noble Marquess described

857
as a perfectly ideal and satisfactory arrangement. He said, among the many strange parts of his argument, that they had no control over the Usher of the Black Rod. He looked at the introduction of the Usher of the Black Rod as recorded in the Journals of their Lordships' House, and he saw that—
"The Lord Great Chamberlain acquainted the House that Her Majesty had appointed General Biddulph to he Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, and he was at the door ready to receive their Lordships' commands."
The noble Marquess said they could not command him. Of course, if the noble Marquess, as Leader of the House, confessed his own impotence in that respect—
THE PRIME MINISTER: We have no more control over him in respect to the appointment than we have over the Lord Great Chamberlain.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, the point was not whether they had control over the Usher of the Black Rod's appointment, but whether the Usher of the Black Rod had any control over his own staff. Their Lordships had determined to remove the control from the Usher of the Black Rod, the officer whom they had to command to carry out their orders, and transfer it to the Lord Great Chamberlain, whom they had no control over whatever. The Lord Great Chamberlain was not appointed for any purpose whatever. He succeeded to the office and the control of the housemaids by hereditary birth. They had there no test of fitness. But the Usher of the Black Rod, having been appointed by the Crown, under the advice of the Prime Minister, was a person appointed with these special objects in view, and, therefore, as between the two officers, was the one more fitted to discharge these functions. He did not want to enter into this matter in a contentious spirit, and he was afraid that if they debated too long about it, wholesale and retail, they might expose themselves to the risk of becoming ridiculous. He wished to make a conciliatory suggestion. He thought the noble Marquess would admit there was considerable legal doubt as to their position in this matter, into which they would be wise to look before they leaped, and ascertain what right they had to do what they proposed to do
858
before they actually did it. His suggestion was that it should be referred to a legal Committee of their Lordships to consider the precedents and determine exactly what their position was in the matter. He could not conceive there could be any objection to such a course. It would not delay, by any long time, the appointment that it was desired to make, and at any rate whenever that appointment was made they should stand on the Report of their lawyers as well as that of their Black Rod Committee, and he thought, to put it on the mildest ground, they should occupy a much stronger position than they did now.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN,who spoke as a Member for many years of the Black Rod Committee, said it had been stated with perfect truth that Black Rod was not an officer of their Lordships' House in any sense. He was the Gentleman Usher appointed by the Crown under patent, and he was an officer of the Garter. His patent gave him the rights and privileges of the office of the Garter, whatever those rights and privileges might be. They had had the patent read, and from beginning to end there was not a word about appointing any of the officials of that House. How did Black Rod come to be present here? Black Rod was only present here because he was commanded by the Crown to be present here. He had no duties in connection with this House, and with regard to these officials, if he had the right to appoint the doorkeepers of the House he had an equal right to appoint the housemaids. Black Rod did appoint the housemaids until a few years ago, but they were appointed in such a manner that this House was a perfect disgrace. Robberies took place, and for that reason the Committee recommended their Lordships to remove the appointments from Black Rod and to give them to the Lord Great Chamberlain, since which time the robberies had not been renewed. If this was a frightful invasion of the right of Black Rod which they were now going to sanction, why did the noble Lord not resent the invasion that took place on that occasion? Were the doorkeepers the officials of the House or of Black Rod, because if they were merely the officials of Black Rod then he would recommend their Lordships not to go

859
through the farce of annually appointing a Committee to inquire into the office of an official with whom they had no right to deal in any sort of way. Not only that, but this Committee had given directions to Black Rod over and over again within his recollection. He transgressed one of those directions, and he was immediately called to account, and that discussion did not come to an end during the tenure of the late officer. What were they prepared to do now? They were not, as the noble Lord said in his Motion, going to vest that appointment in the Lord Great Chamberlain. This House, he presumed, which paid the salaries of the officials, had surely some right to control the officials, and to retain within its own hands the right of appointment. The question, it seemed to him, was a very small one. They had debated it several times, and the noble Lord who had just made this Motion had never secured a majority upon it. He hoped their Lordships would adopt the Resolutions proposed by the Committee, perfectly understanding that the proposal of the Committee was not to vest an appointment in any official or officials whatever, but to retain the right of control of such appointments within the hands of the House. He hoped their Lordships would think it desirable to retain that right of control in their own hands, and that was the only purpose for which the Committee made the recommendation.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The EARL OF MORLEY)said, the noble Marquess appealed to the argument of continuity of policy in support of the Resolutions passed by the Committee, and he was bound to admit that so far as he was concerned he might charge him with some inconsistency in opposing these Resolutions. Though he was not a Member of the Committee in 1888, when the original Resolution transferring the Duties of Black Rod to the Lord Great Chamberlain was passed, he had had the honour of being on the Committee since 1889, and therefore he must admit that during that time he had slept upon these Resolutions. But when, on the first occasion on which it became possible to give full effect to the change, then he confessed it seemed to him that the arguments used by the noble and learned Lord opposite were
860
incontrovertible. He did not wish for a moment to tire the patience of the House by going into the question of the competency of the House in this matter, which had already been dealt with by Lord Herschell, but he would ask their Lordships to consider what was really expedient. They had two distinct officers. One officer, of whom he wished to speak with the greatest respect, was the Lord Great Chamberlain, but they were, by these Resolutions placing upon him functions and duties wholly foreign to the high office which he held. His office was to have charge over the Palace of Westminster, including the House of Lords no less than the House of Commons. Beyond that he ventured to think that he had no control whatever over this House during its sittings. Their respective portions of the Palace were allotted to the two Houses for their occupation, and when the Houses were sitting it was an officer appointed by the Queen, and lent to each House, who, up to 1888, performed their commands and had control over the doors and the order of the two Houses. This officer in the House of Lords was Black Rod; in the House of Commons the Sergeant-at-Arms. He would point out to the House that this very remarkable effect was the result of the Resolution of 1888. They rarely had the pleasure of seeing the Lord Great Chamberlain in the House, so that practically there had been since 1888 no one present during the sittings of their Lordships' House to control the doorkeepers and the entrance to the House. Unfortunately, the late Black Rod, in consequence of ill-health during the last two years of his office, was seldom here, though his deputy always was. But he had no function and no control whatever over the doorkeepers, who were under the control of the Lord Great Chamberlain. He admitted that that was past, and that the Lord Great Chamberlain, by appointing the Deputy Usher of the Black Rod as his secretary, now had always a representative present in the House to control the doorkeepers. But would their Lordships consider that a position to place Black Rod in at this juncture? Black Rod, he said without fear of contradiction, was an officer appointed by the Crown to obey the commands of this House and to keep

861
order. They had taken away from him the function which he was especially appointed and lent to the House to perform, and they were placing his own deputy in the position which controlled the officers whom he had hitherto appointed. He thought that was not a fitting position to place Black Rod in, and he thought it was hardly expedient, and, he would almost say, hardly consonant with the dignity of the House, that they should place the control and the custody of the House in an hereditary officer over whom neither themselves nor the Crown had the slightest power. For these reasons, and without the slightest personal feeling in the matter, he could not support the paragraphs of the Report of the Select Committee to which the noble Lord had moved an Amendment.
THE DUKE OF RUTLANDthought the uninformed Members of the House might have some right to complain of the way in which this question had been brought before them. The paper stated that the Committee had had the privilege of hearing a statement from the Lord Great Chamberlain, but they were not informed what that statement was, and he was unaware how he could get possession of it so that his mind might be informed on the subject. It seemed to him that, if they persevered in their contest and came to a Division, they would expose themselves to some possible very great ulterior difficulty. He hailed the suggestion of the noble Earl opposite as a way out of the difficulty, and as a means of arriving at further knowledge on the important point raised. That point was the legality or illegality of the proposed change. That was the essential and most important point, and he thought the suggestion of the noble Earl was an extremely wise and conciliatory one, and he hoped their Lordships would accept that solution of the question.
THE PRIME MINISTERsaid, that after that expression of opinion and the expression of opinion of the noble Earl opposite, and in view of the reluctance which he thought they would all feel in making the Debate much longer than it had been, he thought it would be expedient to accept the suggestion of the noble Earl. There was only one point in which he would like to amend it. The noble Earl suggested a Committee
862
entirely composed of lawyers. He had the greatest faith in lawyers, but he thought he should like an equal number of laymen to sit on the Committee.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he had the greatest respect for laymen, but surely on a legal question lawyers were almost better.
THE PRIME MINISTERsaid, there were some constitutional aspects of this important question which would justify some laymen being on the Committee. Perhaps the noble Earl would submit a list of the Committee.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he would do so next week.
Further Debate adjourned sine die.

ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
SHORT TITLES BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order); the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.
ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
PARLIAMENTARY COSTS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
JUVENILE OFFENDERS (WHIPPING) BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

ARMENIA.
LORD STANMORE*LORD STANMORE rose to put to his noble Friend at the head of the Government the Questions of which he had given notice. The first of these Questions was whether the conditions understood to have been agreed to by the Turkish Government with respect to the surrender of Zeitoun have been observed; and whether the Representatives at Constantinople of the Six Great Powers have, in concert, remonstrated with the Porte on the violation of those conditions. One of those conditions was the appointment of a Christian Governor at Zeitoun. It was not a condition to which he himself attached much practical importance, for, of course, they might appoint a Governor Christian in name, who might make himself the instrument of oppression and tyranny; and they might appoint a Moslem Governor, who might be a just and upright man, and who would administer better justice than the other. Still, the promise having been made, no doubt the promise should be kept, and he rejoiced to perceive that there was again a prospect, even in such a matter as that, of concerted action at Constantinople. Might it lead to much more! But that was not the only one of the conditions said to have been broken, and it was said that the conditions as to disarmament and the arrangements which were to be made under the control of the Consuls for the security of the refugees who were already in Zeitoun had been on more than one occasion shamefully violated. His second Question was whether Her Majesty's Government had any objection to present to Parliament the Report of Mr. Fitzmaurice on the recent massacres at Urfa and in its neighbourhood. There was too much reason to believe that those massacres exceeded in atrocity and the number of persons who suffered in them the first reports, and it was said that the report of Mr. Fitzmaurice confirmed those fears and even went beyond them. If so, the
864
subject was certainly deserving of attention. His third Question was whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been directed to the large number of forcible conversions to Mohammedanism, which were, on good authority, alleged to have taken place at Kharput and Diarbekir, and in the adjacent districts. This was a matter in which this country had always shown great anxiety, and it was with pride and satisfaction he recollected that one of the first, one of the most outspoken, and one of the most effective remonstrances made against this particularly odious form of persecution was to be found in a Dispatch written by his father (Lord Aberdeen) more than 50 years ago. He held in his hand a printed letter in which it was stated that in Kharput alone there had been 15,000 of those forcible conversions in the last few months, and that in the provinces around the number was no less than 40,000. The name of the author of that letter for obvious reasons had not been published, but he knew it, and he could assure their Lordships that were he at liberty to disclose it, they would recognise in it the name of a man whose character, position, and long familiarity with the country entitled any assertion made by him to the utmost respect. This was a very serious allegation and one which not only Her Majesty's Government but all Christian Governments were interested in seeing redressed. He was afraid it was too true that at the present moment one might traverse the continent of Europe from Cadiz to Archangel without finding anybody who cared much about the Armenian question, and so long as this was the case, forcible intervention was impossible, but there was one thing the Government might do and ought to do, and that was to attempt to educate the public opinion of the Governments of Europe and of the people of Europe with regard to the question, and this it might do by publishing to the world the reports which it received from its accredited and responsible representatives. It was not the first time that Powers had shown an inclination to resist the force of public opinion; but in the end it had been too strong for them. He could not believe that, if these representations were made over and over again to foreign Governments, it would be possible for

865
them, for very shame's sake, to hold out long. As to the delay of Russia, its unwillingness to act in like manner had once more been overcome, and at the present moment, in the midst of the pomp of his coronation, the young Emperor would be reminded in the most solemn, manner, and at one of the most marked moments of his life, of the duties and obligations on a Christian Sovereign; and he (Lord Stanmore) could not believe that the Emperor would long turn a deaf ear to the cry of the Christians who called to him from Armenia, or oppose the efforts of those Governments who were already disposed to act. On the contrary, he trusted that in the end he would join heartily with them. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE PRIME MINISTER: I shall venture to confine myself to answering the questions which my noble Friend has asked. I will not follow him into the very thorny discussion as to the possibility or the best means of influencing the opinions of the Governments and peoples of Europe. It is obviously a matter upon which we have not sufficient freedom of discussion to arrive at any very satisfactory conclusion. In answer to the first Question I have to say that an announcement having appeared in the Turkish newspapers on April 1st that a Mussulman had been appointed Governor of Zeitoun, Her Majesty's Ambassador and the French and Russian Ambassadors at Constantinople at once protested against the appointment as a distinct breach of the assurances given by the Porte, and expressed the hope that it would be cancelled. On April 19th a further representation, in which the Ambassadors of all the six Powers joined, was addressed to the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs. No reply has yet been received from the Turkish Government, and Sir P. Currie reported by telegraph that it was proposed that the Ambassadors should shortly meet and consider what steps should be taken in support of the representation. The answer to the second Question is that Mr. Fitzmaurice' s Report will, of course, be given. I am not sure whether it ought to be given at present in a separate form, but there is no objection to giving it. In answer to the third Question, as my noble Friend must know from the Blue-books, the attention of Her
866
Majesty's Government has been called for some time back to the question of forced conversion of Armenians by Mussulmans. It is one of the questions we pressed most earnestly on the attention of our allies, and especially upon the Russian Government. It is naturally one of the questions which moves the feelings of the population of this country, and I think it is more likely to move the feelings of the other countries than any other of the terrible details which have come from those districts. I can only say that the question is still being agitated and discussed by the Powers at Constantinople, and the Ambassadors are doing all they can to prevent the forced conversions or the threats of punishment for reconversion against which the noble Lord so justly protested. But perhaps of all forms of abuse of power, or expression of racial and creed hatred, this is the one which is most difficult to reach, the most difficult to prevent, and the most difficult to punish, because you are always confronted with the assertion of the person who has been said to be forcibly converted that his conversion is real, and you have obviously no means of disproving that statement.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I think it probable that my noble Friend at the head of the Government has exercised a very wise discretion in not entering further into the questions which have been put to him. It is quite obvious that in the present condition of Europe, in the political conditions of the Cabinets of Europe, and in our own political condition in all parts of the world, this is not a favourable moment for entering into a full or adequate discussion of what I shall call, not the Armenian, but the Turkish Question. ["Hear, hear!"] But I cannot allow these questions to be put without expressing my entire concurrence with the opinion of my noble Friend, that what we want is more light, more authentic information, upon what has been the course of conduct of the Turkish Government. I will not pretend to conceal my conviction that every document which can be produced by my noble Friend will only add further evidence of the incurable bad faith and the abominable cruelty of the Ottoman Power. The very fact of such a question being put, and the very fact of my noble Friend's consenting to produce

867
these papers does at least indicate our assent to the principle that we have a right to inquire into the internal affairs of Turkey, and to keep a watch over the conduct of its Government. Many of your Lordships will ask yourselves whether there can be any doubt on this point. After all the blood and treasure that we have spent in the defence of Turkey, after all the oceans of ink which we have spent in diplomacy at a later period in defending Turkey against her old hereditary enemy, is it possible that any human being can doubt for a moment our right, and that of other Powers, to hold a watchful eye over the conduct of the Turkish Government, which, I do not hesitate to say, owes its existence even as the shadow of an independent Power to our persistent and continuous protection during the last half century? And yet I cannot help drawing the attention of the House to a most extraordinary document which appears in "Turkey, No. 2." It is an account given by my noble Friend at the head of the Government of a Memorandum by Prince Lobanoff, the Russian Chancellor, on this very question of the right to interfere at all in the conduct of Turkish internal affairs. I confess that I never read a public document with more astonishment. It is dated January 29th, 1896, and these are the words used by the noble Marquess:—
"The effect of Prince Lobanoff's reply was clear. The Russian Government refused to sanction any course of conduct which might lead to European interference with the internal affairs of Turkey."
That sentence took my breath away. The whole of the previous correspondence with Russia, the whole of the previous action of Russia and of ourselves has universally assumed our right to interfere in the internal affairs of Turkey. With respect to Turkey, we have been concerned with nothing else during the last half century; and Prince Lobanoff expresses the matured opinion of the Russian Government that neither we nor any other Power have any right to interfere. The statement is beaten in its extraordinary character by the argument used in the Memorandum, which says:—
"Interference is distinctly forbidden by Article 9 of the Treaty of Paris and, by implication, by Article 72 of the Treaty of Berlin."
868
I have heard Prince Lobanoff described as a man of great genius. He must be a man of great genius if he can make out that proposition. I am the only survivor—for not even Mr. Gladstone is alongside me in that matter—of those who drew up the Treaty of 1856. Mr. Gladstone was responsible for the Crimean war, but not for the peace; he had left the Government. He gave it his general blessing with some astute observations which I now find were true. But not one of us in Lord Palmerston's Cabinet who drew up that Treaty ever' intended to admit the principle that we had no right of interference in the internal affairs of Turkey. And if you read Article 9 closely—adopting the principle of the noble Marquess, that Treaties are to be construed strictly according to their words, and not according to the wishes of enthusiastic persons—you will see that it was agreed that Turkey should communicate to the Powers a promise to give certain privileges to her subjects, and the communication was to become a part of the Treaty' of Paris. That article was inserted to show that the communication was not to be quoted against us as proving that we did not intend to interfere in Turkish affairs. To say that Article 9 proves that, is a gross misrepresentation of the Treaty of 1856. But the Memorandum is a still more gross misrepresentation of the Treaty of Berlin. Prince Lobanoff says that "by implication" the Treaty of Berlin confirms the Treaty of Paris. I assert the absolute contrary. The Treaty of Berlin was a total departure. I have a high opinion of the Treaty of Berlin, which was at the time a subject of bitter controversy, in which I am not sure that I did not gain. But, looking back, I admit that it was a great advance for the civilised world. And why? Because it was substantially the Treaty of San Stefano. It was that Treaty slightly altered; modified in some respects for the better, and in other respects for the worse. But the Treaty made this great advance on the Treaty of 1856, that it claimed on the part of Europe a right of perpetual interference with the affairs of Turkey; and the whole of the Treaty from beginning to end was nothing but one long series of

869
articles interfering with that independence. Therefore the pretence put forward by Prince Lobanoff in this Memorandum is one that cannot be sustained. I observed at first with some surprise that my noble Friend has taken no notice whatever of that extraordinary doctrine. But I am inclined to think now that on the whole my noble Friend was right. Perhaps he thinks it too absurd to be argued with. There was one clause put into the Berlin Treaty—I think it was suggested by my noble Friend—which gives us a direct right of interference, in the internal affairs of Turkey, and especially of Armenia. The Treaty of San Stefano had provided that Russia should have the right of interference over the Armenians, and it especially bound Turkey to take care that the Armenians did not suffer from the Kurds or the Circassians. The British Plenipotentiaries, Lord Beaconsfield and my noble Friend, wished, and very wisely wished, to make it more binding on Europe and on us, and they accordingly added the words that the steps to be taken by Turkey for the purpose of defending the Armenians from the Kurds and the Circassians should be taken subject to the sanction of Europe, and should be superintended by Europe. That gave us a direct intervention. On behalf of my colleagues who are dead, on behalf of many who are now alive, and on behalf of England as a whole, I must assert that we have for 50 years persistently exercised the right of interference in the internal affairs of Turkey. We have been prevented from doing so in this particular case by a conjunction of circumstances which amounted to a checkmate on our proceedings. The Government were embarrassed by the action of their predecessors in office. Secondly, we were embarrassed and checkmated by the geographical position of the country in which the massacres took place; and, thirdly, we were embarrassed—fatally embarrassed—by the conduct of Russia. I do not pretend to understand what has been the reason for the conduct of Russia in putting an absolute negative upon all active interference to save the Armenian population. I have heard it ascribed to various motives—to the trifling motive, for instance, of occupation in the pomps of a
870
new coronation. It has been attributed by Prince Lobanoff himself to the personal repugnance of the new Emperor to the putting of serious pressure on the Sultan of Turkey. The present Emperor of Russia is a man of the highest personal character; and I have no doubt that if it had been properly brought home to him what the result of this conduct would be, he would have been more repugnant at the continual butcheries of thousands of men, women, and children, which he could have stopped. It has been attributed also to the fact that we have other fish to fry, other difficulties to contend with in other parts of the world, and that the whole of the funds of Russia are devoted to the furtherance of her great railway schemes in Asia. But, whatever the cause, it has been a great defeat to Europe and a great disgrace to all of us, in so far as we have been remiss in putting into force those rights which we do undoubtedly possess under European Treaties which are now the laws of the world. My Lords, I take this opportunity to apologise for having put on the Paper a Notice in regard to this question which I have not been able to fulfil. The explanation is a very simple one. It is that I was taken ill immediately afterwards, and I was convinced that to deal adequately with the subject was far beyond my powers. I daresay it saved your Lordships from a wearying speech, and myself from a dangerous exhaustion. But I shall take the earliest opportunity of pointing out to the public in some other form the views I entertain on this subject. Meantime I admit that we are in a position in which we cannot do anything effectively to remedy the state of things except this—that we can, to quote my noble Friend's words "educate the public mind." Depend upon it that, though at present we are hampered by our controversies in South Africa, and perhaps lesser still by our difficulty in the forests of Venezuela, the Turkish and Armenian Question will arise again; and it is well that the heart and mind of the people of this country should be thoroughly posted in the nature of that Government which we have been so long supporting in the pretence that it was the English interest to do so. [Cheers.]
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not rise to say one word upon the main question, because I think that in matters of foreign politics it is best to deal with answers exactly fitted to those questions. I rise for a different purpose. But I must, in the first place, express the great pleasure which I know we all feel at the restoration to our midst of the noble Duke after his serious illness. [Cheers.] It was a pleasure to hear him this evening—[hear, hear!"]—though we on these Benches do not agree with all that he said. My object in rising is to ask what has become of the third Armenian Blue-book. It was delivered to the Press on Monday; it was canvassed by the Press pretty generally on Tuesday; but we have not yet been honoured by a sight of its contents. I do not know whom to ask. It is not the Usher of the Black Rod—[laughter]—it is not the Lord Great Chamberlain—[laughter]—and so I throw myself on the mercy of the noble Marquess and ask him. [Renewed laughter.]
THE PRIME MINISTER: It is a question which, when sitting in the place of the noble Earl, I have often asked myself, and I have never been able to find out what authority governs the printing of the Papers of both Houses of Parliament. [Laughter.] It would appear to be a most inscrutable authority, and it is given to producing the most unreasonable and unintelligible delays. [Laughter.] I can only say that I will apply what pressure I can. I do not know whether my exhortation will be of use. [Laughter.] I am not aware that I have any power of exercising more material influence in insisting that the noble Earl shall get his Blue-book, but I will do my best to secure that he has that pleasure at the earliest possible moment. [Laughter.]
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I believe it has been issued, for it has been promised to be sent to me by to-night's post.
House adjourned at Twenty minutes before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a Quarter before Eleven o'clock.