Lords Sitting of 11 February 1897

COMPANIES BILL.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY),in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said it was absolutely identical with that on the same subject which was read a Second time in their Lordships' House last Session. He proposed to ask the House to take the same course with regard to this Bill as was taken with regard to the Bill of last Session, which after the Second Reading was referred to a Select Committee, because it was thought right that some of its provisions should be considered and scrutinised in the light of direct commercial evidence. Unfortunately, owing to want of time, that Committee did not finish its labours, and therefore he asked the House to give the Bill a Second Reading now, in order that the Committee might be reappointed and continue the work it began last Session.
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to a Committee.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ELECTIONS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bid reported without amendment.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid that as the Bill was of a very simple character, and as it was desirable that it should pass as rapidly as possible, he thought their Lordships would agree that it need not go to Standing Committee. He therefore moved that the Standing Committee be negatived.
Motion agreed to; and Bill to be Read 3a To-morrow.

GAMBLING IN OPTIONS AND FUTURES.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYrose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs it he would lay on the
126
Table any legislative measures for prohibiting or restricting gambling in "option and future" contracts representing; "fictitious" agricultural produce and metals, either passed or proposed, in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Belgium, Franco, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden, Greece, Argentina, and the United States and South Australia; and if Her Majesty's Government had asked the Hungarian Government for a copy of the official report of the International Agricultural Congress held at Budapest last September; and to ask Her Majesty's Government if they would lay on the Table the sections of the Canada Criminal Code of 1892 which came into operation in March 1893 prohibiting gambling in prices. He said he would first say to the noble Earl the Under Secretary for the Colonial Office, that he had called there and finding no information about prosecutions under the Canadian Criminal Code, he had withdrawn that part of the Question. With regard to South Australia, they had also no information. What had happened in South Australia was that, on 11th November 1891 and in August and November 1896, Mr. Archibald brought forward in the Legislative Council and House of Assembly the questions of "options and futures," and moved a Resolution to urge the Imperial Government to legislate and declare it illegal to deal in options and futures except when produce changed hands. This Debate was adjourned on the first two occasions, and on the last it was wound up by the Premier, who deprecated the resolution principally on the ground that it would be a bad precedent to ask the Imperial Government to legislate in matters affecting themselves. In May last, when he brought the subject of gambling in fictitious produce before the House, the Board of Trade made some statements to the House which were not in accordance with the facts, and, as he would presently show, placed the Board in the dilemma of either wilful concealment of facts or ignorance of them disgraceful in a public office. He said the Board of Trade, because the noble Earl was not responsible for statements put into his mouth. He had too much personal regard for Sir Courtenay Boyle to allow him to be implicated in this matter, and he had already expressed his disapproval of this system of gambling. As

127
for the President of the Board of Trade, ha had recently got into a scrape, and on that account, and on account of the County Councils, he was not prepossessed in Ins favour; but that was a reason why he was the more bound to say that the dates showed that the President was not responsible for the statements made by the Board of Trade; for the President only got back to Parliament in 1895 and later in the year into the Board of Trade; but Sir Robert Giffen had persistently since 1891 endeavoured to prevent any discussion of these gambling systems, and Her Majesty's Government might do well to endeavour to ascertain whether there were any external reasons for his action. The noble Lord who spoke for the Board of Trade made two statements. First, he said that he doubted whether it would be possible to check this system of gambling by legislative authority; secondly, that in no single instance had attempts made by foreign Governments to check this gambling been successful, and no Bill drawn with this object bad as yet passed into law. The, noble Lord was not in any way responsible for statements which the Board of Trade asked him to put before the House, but he (Lord Stanley of Alderley) was entitled to ask whether the Board of Trade were really ignorant of the fact that the Criminal Code of 1892 of Canada imposed as much as five years' imprisonment and 500 dollars fine on persons convicted of making bargains in fictitious goods, wares, or merchandise in Canada or elsewhere, with the intent to make gain or profit by the rise or fall in prices: that this Act received the assent of the Governor General on the 9th July 1892, and that the Dispatch leaving the code to its operation was dated in March 1893 and was signed by Lord Ripon. Was the Board of Trade ignorant of the fact that this Act had had the effect of preventing produce exchanges being established in Canada, and it was passed because of the ill effects of this gambling in the United States? Did the Board of Trade not know that in the case of "Forget v. Ostigny," reported in the "Law Reports" for 1895, there was an appeal from the Court of Queen's Bench in Canada to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and that the Judicial Committee rightly reversed the decision of the Canadian Courts, and held that
128
the practice alluded to in that case did not constitute "gambling" and therefore the broker was entitled to recover from his client? For as the broker was not to make any profit or loss, the essential points of a gaming contract were absent. This case had been decided in respect of the Canadian Civil Code, and not under the Criminal Code of 1892–93, which was posterior in date to the transactions in the case which happened in 1882. This judgment of the Privy Council was delivered by the noble and learned Lord now sitting on the Woolsack. There was another more important case, that of "Strachan v. Universal Stock Exchange Limited," and a series of most satisfactory judgments, the facts of which were as follows:—Mr. Strachan, an officer on half-pay, had been betting with his broker to the extent in a few months of about three millions. The broker required some security, and Mr. Strachan deposited certain shares and £3,000 in money. Mr. Strachan brought an action to recover the shares and the money. Mr. Justice Cave and a special jury gave him back the shares but not the money. He appealed in 1895 to the Court of Appeal, and Lord Esher and Lord Justice Rigby upheld the decision of Mr. Justice Cave. The "Universal Stock Exchange" then appealed to the House of Lords, which upheld the decision of the Appeal Court, on the 20th March 1896. These actions turned upon the Gaming Act 1845, Section 18. Mr. Strachan, in November 1895, appealed to the Court of Appeal in order to recover his £3,000, but Lord Esher, Lord Justice Smith, and Lord Justice Kay upheld Mr. Justice Cave's decision. When the "Universal Stock Exchange," on March 20th 1896, appealed to the House of Lords against the decision which restored to Mr. Strachan his securities, the appeal was dismissed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Lord Halsbury, in delivering judgment, said:
"When I look at the terms themselves the whole scheme appears to me to be intended with great ingenuity to pretend that there is to be a real transaction, and yet there is to be a payment in respect of the relations between the parties, which is only reconcilable in my mind with its being an unreal transaction. They are to get 5 per cent. Each learned counsel in turn has been asked what that was for, inasmuch as it was admitted there was

129
no purchase and no sale. In all these transactions not one single purchase or sale is proved to have existed during the whole period in which this business was going on. Then if the real meaning of the parties is this, that there is to be only a payment of differences, what is it but a gaming and wagering transaction between the two us to what shall he the payment on the one side or on the other side? My Lords, if I were on the jury I should come to that conclusion; but I am not under the necessity of trying this question as if I were upon the jury, because the jury have found that it was a gambling transaction, and upon evidence which seems to me extremely satisfactory."
Lord Herschell delivered a similar judgment, emphatically disproving the contention of the Board of Trade as to the difficulty of distinguishing between gambling and legitimate speculation, He said:
"The proposition amounts to this, that parties who intended to gamble with one another, but wanted to have the security against one another of being able in a Court of Justice to recover their bets, could compel a. Court of Justice to adjudicate, and secure to them their bets by a judgment, if only they inserted in their contract a provision which might in certain events become operative, to compel the goods to be delivered and received, although neither of them anticipated such a contingency; the purpose of inserting the provision creating an obligation being only to cloak the fact that it was a gambling transaction, and enable them to sue one another for gambling debts. The proposition contended for by the learned counsel for the appellants would really lead to that result, and I should require much consideration before I gave my assent to a proposition involving such consequences."
Lords Macuaghten and Norris concurred in that judgment. It thus appeared that the Board of Trade maintained in May last that the law could not check these gambling transactions, and could not distinguish between gambling and legitimate speculation, either in spite of or in ignorance of a case which had been tried by a judge and special jury, had been heard twice in the Queen's Bench and in the House of Lords, during which suits nine judges, including the Lord Chancellor and seven Lords of Appeal expressed views disproving the opinions of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade might have said more justifiably that existing law provided against these gambling transactions, and that it was a question whether they should be made illegal as well as void in law. He hoped he might, perhaps, have shaken the confidence placed by Her Majesty's Govern-
130
ment in their advisers in the Board of Trade. Surely it was more likely that persons so ill informed as to current events were wrong, rather than that the 14 Governments and Parliaments mentioned in his question were in error. In conclusion he would read part of a letter published in the St. James's Gazette yesterday, and written by a prominent Hungarian statesman. The writer said:
"The Committee of the Austrian Parliament has already gone one step farther than to Imperial German law since that Committe; has reported to the effect that both Blanco-Terminal Trade (options and futures) is to be abolished, and Blanco-Delivery Trade (when no delivery takes place) is to be also made illegal. We have just now had an inquiry at the Hungarian Ministry of Commerce, on which occasion the very same clauses have been made by the Agrarian Party as in Austria. Our local inquiry was, of course, influenced not only by the Hungarian agrarians but also by the example of Germany, and also by the Debate in the Austrian Parliament."
THE PRIME MINISTER (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I hope I shall not be accused of disgraceful ignorance or dishonest concealment when I confess that I do not know one-tenth of the documents which the noble Lord desires me to produce. He tells me that there; re legislative Measures either passed or proposed in many foreign countries. It may be, of course, the deficiency of the Foreign Office; it is possible that the representatives of Her Majesty abroad do not take the keen interest in this subject that is taken by the noble Lord; at all events, I have not been able to discover that any Measures have been passed excepting the well-known German Measure. If the noble Lord wishes for a copy of that, no doubt he can obtain it; but we do not generally lay the Acts of Parliament of other nations upon the Table of this House. With regard to Measures that are proposed, I have only been able to discover one—namely, in France. There a Measure was proposed last September by a private Member; but I do not think it has gone any further. I can only say that if the noble Lord will help us in our research, and tell us what are the dates of these various Measures, we will ascertain whether they can be obtained without great inconvenience. Although it is perfectly easy to procure copies of Measures that have been passed, because they are

131
all published for the use of the inhabitants of the countries which they affect, Measures that have been simply proposed and not passed could only be discovered by very long and careful investigations into the daily reports of the various Legislatures to which the noble Lord has referred. I think, therefore, he must assist us in order to obtain this information. We have not asked the Hungarian Government for a copy of the Official Report of the International Agricultural Congress held at Budapest last September. I do not know whether the noble Lord is of opinion that it is our duty to ask for Reports of the Congresses held upon the Continent. There is no particular reason to make us ask for Reports of this kind. But if the noble Lord entertains these strong opinions, and if he can find a sufficient number of noble Lords who take the same view, the best course for him to take is to move for a Committee to report to the House upon this subject. At present the progress of economical science at the Board of Trade, or elsewhere, is so backward that I do not think there is enough sympthy with the object which the noble Lord is pursuing to induce them to make any great efforts to obtain the information which he requires.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of SEL-BORNE)said there was no objection to the noble Lord's request that the sections of the Canadian Act referred to in the Question should be laid upon the Table.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwas obliged to the noble Marquess for his suggestion that there should be a Committee of Investigation. That was all that was asked for last year.
THE PRIME MINISTER: Did the noble Lord move last year?
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: No; I only asked.

HOME DEFENCE AND THE VOLUNTEERS.
*THE EARL OF MINTOrose to ask the Lord President (the Duke of Devonshire) whether, in the existing scheme for utilising the naval and military forces of the Crown, the Volunteer Force formed part of the plan for home defence; and
132
whether the recent increase of expenditure, whereby the Navy had been strengthened and augmented, rendered it in the opinion of her Majesty's Government less necessary to maintain the Volunteer Force? He explained that the origin of the question was a statement made by the noble Duke when speaking on the subject of Imperial defence at the meeting of the British Empire League in December last. Very great importance had been attached to that statement as denoting an entirely new departure in regard to our home defence, and as affecting the question of the maintenance of our Volunteer Force, which had always been looked upon hitherto as a very important factor in the defence of the country. The noble Duke's statement amounted to this, that the Imperial defence of our Empire should be based on our sea supremacy, that the Admiralty had accepted all responsibility for the same, and that, though certain points might be liable to predatory raids carried out by the landing of a few thousand men, local defences should be generally sufficient to meet such attacks, and that on the conditions accepted by the Admiralty it was practically needless to consider the possibility of invasion by a large force. Upon that statement an interpretation had been put which he trusted was not correct. Critics and experts of some recognised authority had taken the view that this statement meant that we were on the eve of an entirely new departure in regard to home defences, that a great deal of the organisation of past years had been a mistake, that much of our expenditure had been money thrown away, and that in future the country need fear nothing beyond the predatory raids of small cruisers, invasions on a large scale being out of the question. If a statement of that kind were allowed to pass without some authoritative explanation it might have a serious effect upon the Volunteer Force, which had been formed to repel invasion. It was the fear of invasion on a large scale, and not the fear of the predatory raids of cruisers, that had brought the force into existence. When a volunteer joined the force he did so with the idea that some day he might have to defend his hearth and home. It was the thought of the possibility of invasion that induced him to join, and if

133
that possibility was no longer to be contemplated the raison d'être of the force would disappear in the opinion of a large number of the rank and file. There were, of course, other reasons for the continued existence of the force besides the remote chance of invasion. It fostered a, military spirit in the country, and in times of great emergency might prove a useful feeder to the Army. Such reasons, however, by themselves, would not, he thought, be sufficient incentives to recruiting. They ought to remember what had occurred in past times. At the end of the last century, and at the beginning of the present, there was a great fear of an invasion by Napoleon, and the Volunteer Force of those days sprang into existence. About 1803–4 it had risen to 460,000 men. Then came Trafalgar, and the hostile fleets were swept from the seas. The fear of invasion disappeared for the time, and the Volunteer Force began to dwindle, and in a few years had ceased to exist altogether, But he did not think that they could afford at the present time to belittle our Volunteer Army. They were justified in remembering that they had not yet had their second Trafalgar, nor, as far as he knew, had they got their second Nelson; therefore, we should do well to recognise the value of the Volunteer Force, and not let it go down too easily. They ought also to remember the composition of the force. It was entirely unpaid; it was supported very largely by Government grants, which maintained its efficiency, but neither officers nor men received anything in the shape of direct money payment. Nevertheless, they received a form of pay which they valued very much—the estimation which they earned from the public for their capability as soldiers. If they lowered that public estimation they would lower the pay, and as a natural result would obtain hereafter an inferior article. The standard of officers and men would gradually become lower. He knew very well that the Volunteer Force varied in efficiency in different parts of the country. At the same time a great deal had been done by the War Office of late years to improve its organisation, not in the matter of small details, but to organise it with the idea of forming a useful part of a large field army. The Volunteer Force had been told off in
134
brigades; it had been divided into garrisons and mobile brigades, which had been told off to certain positions. He believed that the brigade which he had the honour to command was intended in case of great national emergency to join the field army at Dorking—a place with rather an unfortunate name. If they were on an entirely wrong tack, if the critics and experts were right, and there was no more use for a large defensive army, then the Volunteer Force ought to be told so, and the Government of the day should put the force on some sound footing of organisation, where by the Volunteers might feel that they could do some good to their country. He wished it to be distinctly understood that, he did not believe any soldier who had thought over the question of imperial defence would fail to understand the paramount necessity to this country of the supremacy of sea power, and he did not believe any money spent in that direction could be possibly thrown away. At the same time, he did not think that the nation ought to be compelled to put all its eggs into one basket; and, therefore, it seemed to him that the nation was justified in having a second string to its bow, in having a large Army for Home Defence, with the idea that if an invasion on a large scale was attempted against this country, that army might be capable of meeting it. If the noble Duke found himself able to say that in the opinion of the Government the Volunteer Force still formed a valuable part of such an army, it might go far to dispel the harm which had been done by some of the careless criticisms to which so much publicity had been given.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): I am very much indebted to my noble Friend for giving me the opportunity of saying a few words to correct some of the misapprehensions which have arisen in consequence of the speech which I made a short time, ago at the meeting of the British Empire League, and at the same time of disavowing some of what appeared to be the most extraordinary conclusions which had been drawn from that speech. I was on that occasion speaking of the advantage which I thought might be derived from a repetition of such colonial conferences as

135
the conference which was held some time ago in this country. I was instancing as a subject which might be discussed at such a conference the conditions upon which the naval agreement with the colonies of Australia, the term of which will shortly expire, might be renewed. I went on to speak of some of the principles which the home Government hopes that some of the colonies are adopting, and will continue to adopt, in the way of preparations for their own defence. In the course of those observations I referred to a Memorandum which has been for some years in existence, and which has been in the possession of all the colonial Governments for some time. It is a Memorandum which had hitherto been treated as a confidential document, and which is, as regards some of its details, still confidential in character, but I was permitted to refer to it as far as related to the general principles underlying colonial defence. From that Memorandum I quoted words some of which have been referred to by my noble friend. These were the words of the Memorandum:—
"The maintenance of sea supremacy has been assumed as the basis of the system of Imperial defence against attack from over sea. This is the determining factor in shaping the defensive policy of the Empire, and is fully recognised by the Admiralty, who have accepted the responsibility of protecting all British territory abroad against organised invasion from the sea."
The Memorandum went on to point out that complete freedom and independence of action was an essential condition of the efficiency of the Navy, but the presence of the fleet could not therefore be insured at all times at any particular point. The colonies could not therefore be guaranteed against predatory attacks which might be made upon them by a force either of cruisers or of a small squadron of battleships. It went on further to point out the measures by which it was considered possible and desirable for the colonies to place themselves in a position to secure themselves against attacks of that character. Now, I think the statement contained in that Memorandum which I quoted may be open to comment on the ground that perhaps if places too great a responsibility on the Navy, and that it attributes to the Admiralty the assumption of a responsibility which it has perhaps hardly
136
to the fullest extent ever undertaken. But it is perfectly clear in what sense that statement was addressed to the colonial Governments. The evident intention of that statement was to limit the responsibility of the Imperial Government and to point out clearly to the colonies against what risks the home Government could not undertake to protect them, and that it was necessary, if they should be protected, they should undertake to protect themselves. This statement, as my noble Friend has said, has been treated in some quarters as the announcement of an absolutely new policy of defence, and of a policy of defence applicable not only to the colonies of which I am speaking, but to the United Kingdom also. But there is absolutely nothing new in the statement which I made on that occasion, although I fully admit that some extremely new deductions have been drawn from it. ["Hear, hear."] In the first place, the statement which I made applied only to the colonies and to colonial defence. I did not conceive that any sane Government ever imagined for a moment that the defence of our possessions abroad against naval attack upon a large scale could depend upon anything except the supremacy of our Navy. [Cheers.] No statesman, no soldier, and no sailor has ever, I conceive, imagined that a serious attack by a great maritime Power on one of our colonial possessions could be resisted by any fortifications, by the enlistment of any forces, or by any maritime provisions within the power of the colony itself to make, and that their security against an attack of that character could depend upon anything except the supremacy of the Imperial Navy. But certain critics have fastened upon this truism, which, as I have explained, is borrowed from a Memorandum long in existence of the Colonial Defence Committee, and have exposed it to a most remarkable treatment. Some of my critics have found fault with it because it referred only to our possessions beyond the sea, and not to the United Kingdom also; while other critics have commented upon it as if it referred to the defence of the United Kingdom as well as to the colonics, and, having drawn the conclusion from it that our Navy is, as it ought to be, strong enough to resist organised invasion either of our

137
colonial possessions or of our own shores, have inferred that then any expenditure or any energy applied to the erection of fortifications, of defensive works, or to the provision of adequate military establishments which are not of a mobile character, are so much expenditure and so much energy thrown away. I have no intention of entering at this time upon a discussion of the principles of Imperial defence. All I desire to do is to protest against the assumption that in that speech or at any other time I have advanced any new principles of defence either as concerns our colonies or the United Kingdom. I was not authorised to make any announcement of any such new departure, and had not the slightest intention of doing it. The various additions which have been made to the Navy by the present, and also by former Governments to increase the strength of the Navy and to insure our sea supremacy—these efforts all testify to the paramount importance which is attached not only by the present but by former Governments to the maintenance of our sea supremacy—[Opposition cheers]—which we look upon not only as our first line of defence but as our main security against attack. [Opposition cheers] I confess that, personally, I should have very little confidence in any defence organisation which was based on the probability of our permanently losing command of the sea; but between the permanent loss of the command of the sea; and the possibility of a temporary reverse which might expose some portion of our coast to the risk of invasion there is a very wide interval, and, as far as I know, no Government has ever contemplated, and certainly this Government has never contemplated, the neglect of any precautions which might tend to the diminution of such risk. [Opposition cheers.] Another consideration which might appeal, I should have thought, even to those who rely most exclusively for our security upon the supremacy of our sea power, is that, as I have already pointed out, one of the most essential elements in the strength of our Navy is the freedom and independence of its action—[Opposition cheers] and the more you can guarantee the safety of vital points either abroad or at home without requiring the actual and immediate pretence of the fleet, the more
138
you add to that freedom and independent; of its action which constitute one of the chief elements in its strength. Therefore, under these circumstances, I think that no Government either has been or can be indifferent to the necessity of making adequate provision, either by means of fortifications or defensive works, or by the provision of adequate military establishments in order to garrison them, and if necessary, to take part in field operations in their support. No Government has ever neglected or can be indifferent to the necessity of such preparations. The question addressed to me by my noble Friend refers only to the Volunteers. As regards the Volunteers, I have no hesitation in assuring him that the Government consider that the Volunteer forces form an essential and indispensable part of our defensive arrangements. The measures which were proposed to Parliament by my noble Friend last year for strengthening the financial position of the Volunteers testify to the interest and appreciation of the services of that force by the Government, and I am informed that in the present year there will be a considerable addition asked for to the Volunteer Vote caused by the increased number of efficients—an increase which I believe is partly due to the assistance which was given to them last year. "The Volunteers, who are represented on this occasion by my noble Friend, need be under no apprehension whatever that the importance of maintaining both their numbers and their efficiency is in no way neglected or discouraged by the Government. I trust that after the explanation which I have been able to give, the Volunteers will agree with me that any apprehensions which have been felt that their services are not held at their proper value by the Government are due not to anything which I have said on the part of Her Majesty's Government, but, to the totally unauthorised construction which has been placed on certain statements which I have ma le, and for which, in my humble opinion, there was absolutely no warrant or foundation. I hope this answer may be satisfactory both to my noble Friend and to the Volunteers.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have heard with very great satisfaction and no surprise the explanation given by the noble Duke, because I was for a long time connected with the Colonial Department and had opportunity of seeing documents at that time with reference to colonial defence, and I very well indeed remember the document to which the noble Duke referred in his former speech. It is no new principle which is laid down in that document. It has invariably been the opinion of Governments of this country, with reference to colonial defence, that the Navy, if it is to do its duty—which it cannot do unless it is free—must be supported by the colonies in such a manner as to make predatory attacks upon them capable of resistance without the presence of the fleet. That has been a constanty observed condition. With regard to home defence, I have read with great interest and extreme surprise various effusions implying that the trust which this country must always mainly put in its Navy for the protection of our coasts exempts us from the nee essity of making any other preparations. I am in no way qualified to speak upon questions either of naval or military tatics, but I should have supposed that if our Fleet is to be perfectly free to engage the enemy at a distance from our shores, it might possibly happen that at some given moment it might not be available at some particular point. Suppose we suffered some minor reverse to some squadron which was not so powerful as our main fleet, might it not easily happen that an enemy might make a serious attack upon one of our dockyards? The protection of our dockyards against any such sudden attack seems to be a matter of extreme consequence to the interests of the nation. I merely instance that because no person could conceive it was a safe thing to leave our dockyards unprotected against any sudden attack. Instances might be multiplied; and it seems to me that some preparations as regards fortifications—though I should not say very extensive fortifications—are very desirable, and that some preparations for fortifying important points, places where ships are built and where coal stores are accumulated for the use of the fleet, are
140
absolutely indispensable. The meaning of that is not that you rely upon those fortifications or even the military preparations to meet an invasion, but that they are necessary supports for your first line of defence and indispensable to the free action of the Fleet. Speaking with some knowledge of the views of previous Governments, I can most entirely confirm every word which has been so clearly and thoroughly stated by the noble Duke.
House Adjourned at Half-past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a Quarter past Four o'clock.