Lords Sitting of 13 June 1898

NEW PEERS.
The Earl CAWDOR—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Marquess of NORTHAMPTON—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
KEW BRIDGE AND APPROACHES.
  NEATH, PONTARDAWE, AND BRYNAMAN RAILWAY.

    SOUTHAMPTON GAS.
    USK VALLEY RAILWAY.
    EAST HAM IMPROVEMENT.
    Also the Certificates that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

PLYMOUTH AND STONEHOUSE GAS.
  SOUTHWARK AND VAUXHALL WATER.
    DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS.
    The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
    TORRINGTON AND OKEHAMPTON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Bolton be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Monckton (V. Galway); read, and agreed to.
    STAINES RESERVOIRS JOINT COMMITTEE BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Bolton be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Monckton (V. Galway); read, and agreed to.
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (ACTON SEWAGE) BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Bolton be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Monckton (V. Galway); read, and agreed to.
    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Bolton be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Monckton (V. Galway); read, and agreed to.
    NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Bolton be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Monckton (V. Galway); read, and agreed to.
    FORRES WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Bolton be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Monckton (V. Galway); read, and agreed to.
    ANDOVERSFORD AND STRATFORD-UPON-AVON RAILWAY BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Bolton be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Monckton (V. Galway); read, and agreed to.
    BIRMINGHAM, NORTH WARWICKSHIRE, AND STRATFORD-UPON-AVON RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Bolton be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Monckton (V. Galway); read, and agreed to.
    WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Bolton be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Monckton (V. Galway); read, and agreed to.
    WISHAW WATER BILL.
    Read second time and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
    CARMARTHEN IMPROVEMENT BILL.
    Read second time, and committed To-morrow.
    CRANBROOK DISTRICT WATER BILL.
    Read second time and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
    MUMBLES RAILWAY AND PIER BILL.
    Read second time and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
    GLOUCESTER GAS BILL.
    Read second time, and committed.
    GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY AND MIDLAND AND GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAYS JOINT COMMITTEE BILL.
    Read second time, and committed.
    ILFORD IMPROVEMENT BILL.
    Read second time, and committed.
    LLANELLY AND PONTARDULAIS RAILWAY BILL.
    Read second time and committed, the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
    CARLISLE CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Read third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    ENFIELD GAS BILL.
    Read third time; Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
    CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.
    Read third time, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
    FEE FUND OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
    The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid on the Table the Annual Account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords; the same was ordered to lie on the Table, and to be referred to the Select Committee on the House of Lords' Offices.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    PATRIOTIC FUND.
    Thirty-sixth Annual Report of the Royal Commissioners.
    MINT.
    Twenty-eighth Annual Report of the Deputy Master.

    TRADE REPORTS, 1898.
    Annual Series: Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance:

    No. 2120. Italy (Sicily);

    No. 2121. Paraguay.

    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
    Report to the Committee of Council on Education of the proceedings of the Charity Commissioners for the year 1896.
    Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
    Charter of Incorporation of the Borough of Hemel Hempstead, dated 8th June, 1898; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
    FLOODS PREVENTION BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Select Committee (with the proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. [No. 95.] Bill reported with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next; and to be printed as amended. [No. 96.]
  PETITION.
    INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
    Petition against the sale of, on Sundays; of inhabitants of Castleford; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  BILLS ADVANCED.
    CUSTOMS AND OTHER OFFICES (BARRY DOCK) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to order); Bills reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived. Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order), and dispensed with; Bill read third time and passed.
    CUSTOMS OFFICES (SOUTHAMPTON) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to order); Bills reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived. Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order), and dispensed with; Bill read third time and passed.
    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BARNES, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
    House in Committee (according to order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
    Read second time (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
    Read second time (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL. [H.L.]
    Read second time (according to order).
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL. [H.L.]
    Read second time (according to order).
    GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
    Read third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    Read third time (according to order), and passed.
    COMMONS REGULATION (WOLSTANTON MARSH) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Read third time (according to order), and passed.
    CANALS PROTECTION (LONDON) BILL.
    Read second time (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  NEW BILL.
    POISONS BILL. [H.L.]
    A Bill for regulating the sale of certain poisonous substances was presented by the Lord President (Duke of Devonshire); read first time, and to be printed. [No. 97.]
  PUBLIC BUSINESS.

    CHINA.
    LORD CONNEMARA: My Lords, I beg to give notice that on Friday I propose to ask the Prime Minister whether an agreement had been concluded by Sir Claude MacDonald with the Chinese Government for the extension of the

    9
    boundaries of Hong-kong, so as to afford means of better protection to that colony; whether any reply has been received to the dispatch of Lord Salisbury of April 4th, 1898, with respect to the desire of the Chinese Government to reform their military and naval power; and whether any reply has been received by Her Majesty's Government to the inquiry addressed by telegraph to Sir Claude MacDonald with respect to the concession given some time ago to a Belgian syndicate for the construction of a line from Pekin to the Yang-tsze valley.

    JAMESON RAID.
    EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War a question which has been for some time on your Lordships' Paper. I postponed it in the month of May, as I understood that it would be convenient that I should do so; but I understand now that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give a definite answer to this question, which has aroused so much public interest, and which I now beg to ask—namely, whether Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to restore the commissions of those officers who took part in the Jameson Raid? I have nothing to say further at this stage, except to mention that I have received a telegram this morning from the Duke of Fife, in which he states that he much regrets that he cannot be in his place in the House of Lords this afternoon. He desires me to inform your Lordships that, as a late director of the Chartered Company, he is anxious to state that he knew the officers had been misled by statements made to them. Those responsible for their misdeeds having been to a great extent absolved, the noble Duke thinks that it is surely unfair that these officers should be the only permanent sufferers in this deplorable business. I beg to ask the question which stands in my name.
    THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: My Lords, I beg most earnestly to support the request contained in the question of the noble Earl opposite, and I hope it may
    10
    be within the power of Her Majesty's Government to accede to it. No doubt there may be some difficulties in this matter, but the cleverness of our present War Minister may be able to overcome those difficulties. I plead on behalf of the whole of the officers engaged in the raid, and more especially on behalf, I may say, of the junior ones—those gentlemen who were led into it, and were unable to get out of it. The House must remember that all these officers are honourable gentlemen, that they have suffered great punishment, and that, in all probability, their future military career has been entirely stopped owing to this punishment. I venture to say that I think it would be a graceful act on the part of the Government if they were able to accede to the request of my noble Friend, and also one which would be generally approved of by the nation at large.
    LORD LOCH: My Lords, I wish to say a few words on this question. I sincerely trust that the Government may be able to give a favourable consideration to the position of these officers. I feel that the Government, no doubt, have been placed in a very difficult position in arriving at a decision; but, my Lords, I feel that, as the great mover with regard to the raid has practically been condoned by public opinion in this country, it would be but a natural sequence that those officers who, acting under his instructions, took part in that unfortunate occurrence, should receive some consideration at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. It is impossible, I think, to draw distinction between one officer and another in connection with the affair. I do not wish it to be supposed that in making these remarks I regard lightly the very serious offence of the raid itself, which cannot be too strongly condemned; but, at the same time, I feel that it would meet with the general approval of this country, that as Mr. Rhodes, who, no doubt, was the prime author and mover in that affair, has been restored to a position of great importance in South Africa, with the knowledge and with the consent of Her Majesty's Government, it would be but

    11
    an act of fairness and of justice to the officers who acted under his orders and authority that they should be restored to the position they formerly held in the Army. I trust Her Majesty's Government will take a favourable view of this matter.
    THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, before I answer the question of my noble Friend it is, perhaps, as well that I should remind the House of the position in which we stand with regard to these officers. The House may recollect that 13 officers altogether were implicated in the so-called Jameson Raid. Besides them there was Colonel Frank Rhodes, who, although he did not take part in the raid, played a very conspicuous part in the proceedings at Johannesburg. We had to deal with those officers. In the case of eight of them we determined, on the advice of the Attorney General, that no further action need be taken against them, upon the ground—I am using the Attorney General's own words—that, although they were participators in the raid, there was nothing to show that any of them had been concerned in getting up the expedition, or that they did more than some hundreds of others in obeying the orders of their leaders at the last moment. Their conduct, no doubt, involved a serious breach of discipline, but it did not seem to us to be a case in which the military authorities should take further notice. The other officers were, in the words of the Attorney General, found to have been—
    "prominently connected with the scheming, preparing, fitting-out, and inducing others to join in the expedition."
    Now, my Lords, of their conduct we felt that it was impossible not to take very serious notice. The extreme course which the circumstances would have suggested would have involved the expulsion of these officers from the Army, and the forfeiture of any pension or gratuity to which they might have been entitled. We did not go as far as that. The course actually adopted was that the officers were allowed to resign their commissions and to receive, on leaving the
    12
    Army, the gratuities to which their services entitled them. My Lords, my noble Friend and other Members of your Lordships' House believe that the time has come when we should review and mitigate that sentence. I understand that this is urged upon two distinct grounds. In the first place, we are told that other persons were not less gravely concerned in these events, but because they did not happen to be officers in the Army have escaped without punishment, or have in one or two cases—in one case, at any rate—lately been advanced to positions of great public importance and responsibility. My Lords, I own that that is an argument which I think your Lordships should receive with caution. A soldier, like any other professional man, if he brings himself within the meshes of the law, runs the risk of being twice punished—once as a citizen for his breach of the law, and a second time as a soldier by the injury which his professional career sustains. But, my Lords, another ground is urged in support of the view that the punishment of these officers should be mitigated. We are told that they acted in the honest belief that they were obeying valid orders from their superiors—orders which they could not disregard, and that when other orders reached them from the Imperial authorities it was practically too late for them to turn back. My Lords, we certainly do not accept the view that this argument affords complete justification of their conduct, or that it frees them from responsibility for their action. But we do feel that some, at all events, of these officers may fairly he regarded as having been, to a certain extent, the victims of circumstances, and that those circumstances may fairly be pleaded in mitigation of the punishment to which they at present stand liable. I must tell my noble Friend at once that we cannot allow this view to prevail in the case of Sir John Willoughby. His position, in respect to its importance and responsibility, was different from that of the other officers; and, indeed, my noble Friend may remember that there appeared in the newspapers last year a letter from Mr. Hawksley, who is, I think, the legal adviser of the officers, in which the writer said that in the defence which he offered

    13
    he did not include Sir John Willoughby, who alone had Dr. Jameson's entire confidence, and who stood in a different position to the officers he commanded. Nor, my Lords, can we admit the plea in the case of Colonel Rhodes, who, although he was not actually engaged in the raid, took a very conspicuous part indeed in promoting a conspiracy at Johannesburg. But, my Lords, in the case of the other four officers, we are prepared to admit the extenuating circumstances which have been urged by Members of this House. They have already been punished. They have been punished by imprisonment, and by exclusion for a time from the Army; and we are of opinion that the time has come when they may be once again permitted to wear the Queen's uniform. May I say one word as to the mode in which it is intended to give effect to this decision? We think it would be impossible to reinstate the officers in their old position in the Army—that is to say, to put them back in the place in which they would now stand had these things never happened, and had they never resigned their commissions. To do so would be to admit that while they were in private life—indeed, while they were undergoing imprisonment—they were qualifying for promotion in the Army and advancing in their military career. I am advised, again, that their reinstatement at the bottom of the rank which they held would involve considerable difficulties, with which, perhaps, I need not weary the House, and would operate very unevenly as between the individuals concerned. My Lords, under these circumstances, what we propose to do is this: we propose to appoint them to unattached half-pay in the rank which they held when they left the Army. They will keep the date of their rank, but the time which has elapsed between their resignation and their re-appointment will not count as service. They will, of course, refund the gratuities which they have received. They will be on the active list of the Army, and they will, therefore, be eligible for any employment which the military authorities may find it desirable to give them. I should add that what I have just said does not refer to Captain Coventry. Captain Coventry is a Militia officer, and I am told that he could not well be treated in this manner. We think that the part which he took
    14
    was a comparatively insignificant part, and we, therefore, propose to reinstate him in his Militia regiment, in his old rank, but at the bottom of the list. My Lords, I hope your Lordships will think that the course upon which we have decided is one which tempers justice with mercy in a reasonable manner. It will not lie in one's mouth to say that these officers have escaped punishment for their offence, but we do not think that their punishment should carry with it the extreme penalty of perpetual exclusion from the commissioned ranks of the Army.
    EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am bound to confess that I have listened to the statement of the noble Marquess with the most profound astonishment. Last year he took up a plain and logical attitude, and stubbornly refused to have anything to do with putting these officers back into their places in the Army; but now he has changed his mind, and he comes before the House with a policy which he says tempers justice with mercy. He restores four officers to their positions in the Army, but leaves out two of them altogether. I fail to see how he can possibly convince the House or the country that there is any mercy or any justice in such a transaction as we have just heard. I take the case of Sir John Willoughby first. The noble Marquess says Sir John Willoughby is not to be put back in his place in the Army because he prepared the expedition, and because he held a position of high importance and great trust. I believe those were the words of the noble Marquess. But Sir John Willoughby— who, I admit, does not wish that any exception should be made in his favour, but in the cause of justice I am bound to disregard this appeal—in a letter he wrote from Holloway Gaol, dated December 1st, 1896, said: "I took part in the preparation of the expedition in pursuance of orders received from the Administrator of Matabeleland, in the honest and bonâfide belief that the steps were taken with the knowledge and assent of the Imperial authorities." That statement has never, to my knowledge, been withdrawn, and what Sir John Willoughby wrote from Holloway Gaol I believe he adheres to now. It is absolutely impossible to believe that Sir

    15
    John Willoughby's knowledge was any greater—in my opinion it could not nearly have been so great—than Mr. Cecil Rhodes' knowledge, and it seems to me perfectly illogical and extremely unfair that Sir John Willoughby should be perpetually punished for misdeeds from which his chief and his superior has escaped scot-free. I do not for one moment say that the whitewashing of Mr. Rhodes was not perfectly legitimate and perfectly right. I believe the country has entirely condoned everything Mr. Rhodes has done in this unhappy matter. What I say is that if you excuse Mr. Rhodes, and let him off completely, it seems to me a terrible case of hardship that those who were his agents, and who acted under his orders, should have this perpetual punishment inflicted upon them. My Lords, I feel so strongly, personally, on this question that I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I say a few more words on this subject. I think it is my duty to remind the House that the South Africa Committee declined to press to a conclusion their investigations respecting the responsibility for this raid. I have nothing to say on that point. This is not the only country in which State trials and State investigations have been brought to a premature conclusion. I can only say that the party of which I am a humble member were disappointed at the result of the investigations of the Committee. I believe it has never been denied that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government brought on them, to a great extent, the responsibility of the initiation and the execution of what has been known as the Jameson Raid. I believe that never has been denied. They either knew or they did not know what was going to happen. They either knew or they did not know what was common talk of the town, what was common talk on the Stock Exchange, in all the London Clubs, on the tramways and on all the railroads. Of course, the Secretary of State for the Colonies has repudiated the idea that he knew anything of the raid at all. That has been accepted, as any Englishman's word would be, more especially when he holds the high position of Secretary of State under the Crown. But to the uninitiated observer mid to the outsider it would seem almost incredible that the Secretary of
    16
    State for the Colonies should be unaware of what was going on. This is not, however, surprising to some Members of your Lordships' House who, like myself, have served under the Colonial Office and know that such ignorance of what is going on in different parts of the world is not only possible, but, unhappily, too probable. I think it is a great pity that the Ministers of the Crown do not follow the example of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, and sometimes come among their fellow-men in the clubs and other places. If they did they would there hear really what was going on, and sometimes very serious and great difficulties might be avoided in the country. I have not, my Lords, any more to say on this point, except once more to express the deep disappointment I feel at the decision of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War. It cannot logically be defended in any way, and I fear that this act of the Government, which, if it had been generously done, would have been a concession to public opinion as expressed in the Press and elsewhere, will be commonly considered only as a disappointing and a very unfortunate compromise.

    EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BARNES, ETC.) BILL.
    The House went into Commit tee on this Bill.
    THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE)*THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE) moved, as an Amendment—
    "Clause 2, page 1, lines 14 and 15, leave out 'the said' and insert 'a school.'"
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, I beg to move as an Amendment to leave out from line 16, page 3, to line 22, page 4. In asking your Lordships to omit the portion of the Order which deals with the parish of Chailey I hope I shall be able to make my case clear in a very few words. For some years the Brighton School Board has leased some property in the parish of Chailey for the

    17
    purpose of an industrial school. When that lease terminated, the School Board was anxious to renew it, and negotiations were entered into for the renewal of the lease. But shortly afterwards a change in the constitution and the views of the Brighton School Board took place, the agreement for a new lease was repudiated, and the school board decided to apply for compulsory powers to purchase. It is against the granting of those compulsory powers that the parish of Chailey have petitioned your Lordships' House, and I have laid that petition on the Table. It certainly would seem very hard if the Brighton School Board were allowed to put the Land Clauses Act into operation in order to turn what had hitherto been a voluntary arrangement into a compulsory acquisition. Chailey, I may mention, is 14 miles away from the town of Brighton, and if it had not been for the fact that the parish council had been willing to allow some of their property to be leased to the school board there would have been no connection whatever between Brighton and Chailey so far as an industrial school was concerned. I need not point out to your Lordships that this power of acquiring a site compulsorily would seem to be very much strained if the Brighton School Board were to be allowed to take advantage of what has hitherto been a friendly arrangement, and turn it into a compulsory one. I venture to think that the Order has been issued under some misapprehension, as there is a strong feeling against it in the parish of Chailey. As I have mentioned, Chailey is 14 miles from Brighton. This property might be used for various purposes, into which I need not enter, and it has absolutely no connection whatever with the Brighton School District. I hope, therefore, that the noble Duke will be able to acquiesce in the view of the parish council of Chailey, which is that it would be very hard on them to compel them to sell nearly one half of their property in order to provide a site for an industrial school for Brighton. There does not seem to be any overwhelming reason why the Brighton School Board should settle down upon Chailey. Surely the fact that there has been a friendly agreement ought not to give the Brighton School
    18
    Board a locus standi in Chailey. I hope the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council will see his way to allow this portion of the Bill to be omitted.
    THE LOUD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I have looked into this matter, and I am inclined to agree with my noble Friend that the parish council of Chailey has been somewhat hardly dealt with. The local inquiry which is provided for by the Act was held somewhat late in the year, and certain recommendations winch were made by the inspector who held that inquiry were not able to be acted upon in consequence of the pressure of time. The parish council are, I believe, although it has not been stated by my noble Friend, ready to continue to allow the Brighton School Board the use of this land on a lease for a term of 50 years, or even longer. "This," the inspector says, "seems to me to afford a basis for the settlement of the dispute without recourse to a Provisional Order." I am inclined to agree with my noble Friend that it would be somewhat hard on the parish council to put them to the trouble and expense of opposing this Provisional Order before a Select Committee, and I trust that the postponement of the matter for a year, which will be the result of the omission of the Order, may enable an amicable arrangement to be arrived at between the school board and the parish council.
    Amendment agreed to, and Bill passed through Committee; Report of Amendments to be read To-morrow.

    CANALS PROTECTION (LONDON) BILL.
    VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I rise to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this small but very important Bill, which has come up from the House of Commons, where it passed through all its stages without any opposition, and to which, I believe, Her Majesty's Government have no objection. The Bill is important in that it is a Bill

    19
    for the protection of life, and the object of the Bill, which is confined to London, is to secure that there shall be sufficient protection, either by fencing or otherwise, along those parts of the canals that abut on the public highway. The danger of people falling into these canals is by no means an imaginary danger. I do not propose to give your Lordships any lengthy statistics, but I may mention that in 1895, between January 1st and July 1st, there were 31 cases of drowning, and 43 rescues from drowning. Indeed, your Lordships can hardly take up a newspaper without constantly seeing reports of persons, the large proportion of whom are children, having fallen into canals, and probably not one-tenth of the cases which really occur are reported in the newspapers. The state of the law at the present time is that while canal companies can be compelled to put up fencing to protect sheep and cattle from straying and falling into the canal, no local authority has any power to compel them to put up fencing to protect human life. It really seems as if the law had agreed up to this time with what Shylock says—
    "A pound of man's flesh, taken from a man, Is not so estimable, profitable neither, As flesh of muttons, beefs, or goats"—
    for, while we have taken precaution to protect the lives of sheep and cattle, we have not taken any steps to protect the lives of human beings. I think your Lordships will find, on examining this Bill, that canal companies are protected from any vexatious demands. Section 2 provides that if the canal company refuse to comply with any notice, or fail for one month from receipt of any such notice to comply therewith, it shall be lawful for the local authority to apply to a petty sessional court, to determine, after due inquiry, whether any such danger exists, and whether the works required by any such notice are necessary, and such as the canal company may be reasonably required to carry out; and the court may order whether the whole or any of such works shall be carried out, and may limit a time within which any works shall be executed, and shall determine whether
    20
    the costs of any such works and the future maintenance thereof shall be borne by the local authority or the canal company, or in what proportions between them. Canal companies have, therefore, full protection against any vexatious demands. Seeing that the Bill applies to London only, and that it applies only to parts of canals which abut on the public highway, I hope your Lordships will see your way to grant to this Bill a Second Reading.
    LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I rise not for the purpose of opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, but to ask my noble Friend why it is confined to the Administrative County of London only. There are numerous other populous places through which canals run, where the evil is precisely the same, and where the justice of dealing with it is precisely the same. Is there any special reason why in London it should be necessary to protect human life in this way, and not elsewhere?
    VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: These cases have arisen largely in London, and at a conference of vestries in 1896 a Resolution that this kind of legislation should be resorted to was unanimously passed. I hope it will be tried in London, and then extended. I should be very sorry if the Bill had to be amended to include other places, as its chance of passing through the House of Commons again would be very small.
    Question put—
    "That this Bill be read a second time."
    Motion agreed to.

    THE EXTENSION OF HONG-KONG.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask the Prime Minister whether he can give any information to the House with reference to the reported acquisition of territory in Hong-kong? On Friday last a statement appeared in the Times newspaper that on the preceding day Sir Claude MacDonald had signed a Treaty at Pekin on behalf of this country, the effect of which Treaty

    21
    was considerably to extend the boundaries of the colony of Hong-kong. My Lords, that Treaty was alluded to in a Debate which occurred in another place on Friday, and as the existence of it was not controverted, I suppose we may assume that it exists. But up to the present time we have received no official information with regard to the provisions of the Treaty, and therefore it is that I have placed upon the Notice Paper this question to the noble Marquess. My Lords, the colony of Hong-kong has been a colony of this country for more than 50 years—it is, indeed, the most important commercial port in the East, and, in point of commercial importance, is, I believe, the second port in the British Empire, but during the whole of that time it has laboured under great disadvantages, and has been exposed, and is still exposed, to great danger. My Lords, from a commercial point of view, it has been placed at a great disadvantage because its area has been so restricted, and British commerce, and, indeed, the commerce of the world, has suffered because that area could not be enlarged. From a military point of view, Hong-kong has laboured under disadvantages, and has been exposed, and is still exposed, to danger because it is commanded on all sides from Chinese territory. This disadvantageous state of things it was impossible to alter, and the opportunity has only now arisen, in consequence of the late important changes which have taken place in the Far East. My Lords, these changes, as the official papers have shown us, have not been the doing of Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government, in their friendliness for China, did everything in their power to preserve the integrity of the Chinese Empire, and to avert, or, at all events, to postpone, the changes which have recently taken place. But when the independent action of other Powers brought about an alteration in the existing condition of affairs, then it was, and only then, that the opportunity was given to us to remedy the disadvantageous state of things at Hong-kong. My Lords, any extension of the colony of Hong-kong must be a matter of great importance not only to this country, but, I think I may say, to the whole world. The commerce of Hong-
    22
    kong and the part of Hong-kong are open to the whole world, and this Treaty has this additional advantage, that throughout the civilised world it aught to be accepted, and I have no doubt will be accepted, with satisfaction. To the traders of every nation in the world ever}' British port is an open port. They experience there equal treatment, and they receive a protection and enjoy the liberty of trading even greater than they receive under their own flag. My Lords, it is in regard to this important matter that I wish to ask the noble Marquess at the head of the Government the question of which I have given notice, and I am sure that any information which he may feel himself at liberty to give to the House will be listened to with the deepest interest.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRE TARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I understand that my noble Friend is discontented with the position in which Parliament is placed with reference to the information on this convention. It is due to the novel state of things brought about by the existence of the telegraph. I cannot remember any instance in which a convention has been laid before Parliament merely on telegraphic warrant. The proper and ordinary course will be to wait until the convention comes into our hands, and then to lay it before Parliament. Of course, the intelligence of the substantial character of its contents long precedes the arrival of any such text. I do not know whether it is possible in any formal manner to correct the apparent irregularity to which the noble Earl has called attention; but if informal statements are to be accepted, I am glad to be able to assure the noble Lord that a convention of the kind has been signed, and that the terms of it are substantially, at all events, the same as those which have reached us through the ordinary channels of information. As soon as we possess the actual text it will be immediately communicated to Parliament. I do not know that the details of this matter are of any general interest, although they are of strategic importance. What has happened is this: an opportunity has been

    23
    taken to remedy a want which has been felt for a long time, not only to give a slight extension to the colony of Hong-kong, but also to make it strategically safe. The territory that did not belong to Hong-kong but to China so far commanded the Colony that in the case of war we should be put to a certain disadvantage; and, of course, these considerations have become much more imperative in consequence of the events that have taken place in the last few years. When Hong-kong was founded there was no reason to fear or apprehend the advent of any. Power with whose actions we need concern ourselves; but things have much changed since then. Now there are many Powers in the East —some Asiatic, some European—and though I cannot say that any immediate danger is apprehended—indeed, I do not see from what quarter it can come—yet it is in conformity with the ordinary rules of military prudence that all strategical conditions should be so revised that if an accident we cannot foresee takes place we should not be exposed to any danger or disadvantage. That is all we have done, and I believe it has been demanded for a longtime. But recent events have made the Chinese Government more sensible of the possibility of unexpected occurrences happening in their empire, and they quite understand and quite value the solicitude that is displayed by us for the maintenance of the commercial interests of Great Britain —which the noble Lord justly says are those of the whole world— against any accident that might occur. They met us very frankly and freely in the matter. We have not disturbed more than was possible their domestic and civil organisation. We have merely taken these precautions which the position of Hong-kong and the nature of the ground around it seemed to our military experts to be necessary. I do not know that there is anything else I can explain to the noble Lord. It would be idle for me to read again the geographical details which, without a map, would not be intelligible; but what I have tried to do is to indicate the motives that have guided us, and I have every reason to believe that the objects we have had in view have been fully attained.

    POISONOUS SUBSTANCES.
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I beg leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the sale of certain poisonous substances, and to move that it be read a first time.
    Question put.
    Motion agreed to.
    House adjourned at 5.25.