Lords Sitting of 27 July 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL.
    BROMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY BILL.
    Committee to meet To-morrow.
LEA BRIDGE DISTRICT GAS BILL [H.L.]
  SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  MENSTONE WATER BILL.
  Read 3a, and passed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.

    BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL.
    DERBY CORPORATION TRAMWAYS, &c., BILL.
    LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
    REDDITCH GAS BILL.
    STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

LOUGHBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (FINANCE) BILL [H.L.]

    PORT TALBOT RAILWAY AND DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
    WHITEHAVEN CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

    LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to, with Amendments, and a consequential Amendment to the Bill.
BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  ELECTRTC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL.
  House to be in Committee To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 14) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
Road 3a (according to Order), and passed.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (DANGEROUS TRADES).
  Fourth Interim Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to inquire into and report upon certain miscellaneous dangerous trades. Supplementary report and evidence on the manufacture and use of grindstones and on file cutting.
  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  Accounts and estimates for the years 1896–1900.
  INDIA (CURRENCY).
  Despatch of the Secretary of State for India in Council to the Governor-General of India in Council, dated the 25th of July, 1899, respecting the report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the Indian currency.
  AFRICA, No. 7 (1899).
  Correspondence respecting the African Liquor Traffic Convention signed at Brussels 8th June, 1899.

  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.
  Calendar, history, and general summary of regulations for the year 1900, with tables.
  Presented (by Command); and ordered to lie on the Table.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (DIFFERENT MEAL HOURS) (SPINNING OF ARTIFICIAL SILK).
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, dated 20th July, 1899, extending to factories or workshops in which the spinning of artificial silk is carried on, the special exceptions with regard to meal hours contained in Section 52 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITIONS.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour of; of the Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Galashiels; the Commissioners of Tillicoultry; the Edinburgh Merchants' Association; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  Petitions for amendment of; of the Royal Parliamentary and Police Burghs of Scotland; the Magistrates and Town Council of Dunfermline; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  Petition of Colonel David Milne Home for return of two documents produced in evidence before the Committee of Privileges on the Marchmont Peerage claim in 1842; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  GORDON MEMORIAL COLLEGE AT KHARTOUM BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  OYSTERS BILL [H.L.]
  House to be in Committee on Monday next.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1:—
  LORD HERRIES: My Lords, I was unfortunately prevented from being in my place when the Second Reading of this Bill was taken, and I should like, therefore, to make one or two observations upon Clause 1, and, if necessary, to move the omission of the clause. I regret very much that Her Majesty's Government have brought in this Bill, especially at so late a period of the session, and I regret it for several reasons. In the first place, although the amount of money which is to be handed over to the tithe-owner is small, a very serious principle is involved, and as one interested in the rating question, I feel that it is rather important, in the interests of the local taxpayer, that the principle which was adopted when the Agricultural Rates Act became law should be adhered to. I remember that, at the time that Act was passed, the principal argument of those who upheld it was that rates were a tax on capital, and that if a landowner or tenant farmer, by means of his capital, doubled the rateable value of his land, his rates would also be doubled. It was also argued that land was the raw material upon which a farmer depended for his trade, and that for that reason it was unfair that it should be taxed. I took this line myself, and was strongly in favour of the rates being taken off land in consequence of the injury they did to the capital of the farm. But it appears in this Bill that the principle has been extended to those whose capital is not affected in any way, and whose incomes are fixed. The unfortunate thing about this Bill is, that in those counties in which the tithe is highest the relief will be greatest. Let me give you the instance of Essex, where the commuted tithes amount to an average of 5s. per acre throughout the county, and to a total of £250,000 a year. This amount is equal to 6s. per head of the population. In Lancashire, the amount of tithe is only £75,000 a year, and the relief of the tithe-owner in Lancashire will not be great in consequence. The tithe-owner in Essex receives 5s. for every acre in the county, and 6s. 4d. per head of the population. In Lancashire, he only receives 4½ d. per head of the population. In Northumberland he receives Is. 1½ d. per acre, or 3s. per head of the population. In the County of Hereford, it is at the

  437
  rate of 13s. 6d. for every head of the population. Surely, you would think that the tithe-owner who received so large a sum as 13s. 6d. per head of the population was receiving enough; but it is in the counties where the tithes are the highest that the owner will receive the most benefit under this Bill. This will fall very heavily on the local taxpayer, because, if the money were not given to the tithe-owner, it would go to the relief of the general rates. In my opinion the ratepayer has a prior right to it. A good deal has been said as to whether tithe-owners are liable to pay rates. I think it is clear that in the years immediately preceding the Tithe Commutation Act tithe-owners did pay rates. It will be seen from questions which arose, especially in Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk, that the rates which were paid by the tithe-owners in those days were very high indeed. In 1833 and 1834 the Poor Rate alone was, I believe, sometimes as high as 10s. in the £ I am of opinion that the reason the tithes in Essex and Suffolk are so high, is that when the Commissioners under the Tithe Commutation Act inspected the different districts, they found that the rates were so high that they increased the tithes with a view of protecting the tithe-owner from any danger which would accrue in consequence of these high rates. It is for these reasons, and not through any want of respect for the clergymen, who have so well performed their duties in the various parishes, that I condemn the principle of this Bill. Tithes are no doubt the property of the tithe-owner, but they carry with them the obligation to pay rates, and by passing this Bill you are injuring the chance of the Agricultural Rates Act being prolonged, and only conferring a temporary benefit on the clergy of the Church of England.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I do not understand that the noble Lord has made any motion, but it would not be entirely courteous to him if I left his remarks unanswered, although he has travelled over ground which I thought was fairly covered during the Debate on the Second Reading. As regards his general criticism of the reasons why this Bill has been introduced, I can only refer him to the statement of the Government. They have introduced this simply as a
  438
  rating question, to remedy what in their opinion is a great injustice, and an injustice which has remained too long unredressed. As to the second point of the noble Lord, that the relief to be given would not correspond exactly with the prospective amounts taken from the Local Taxation Account, county by county, Her Majesty's Government entirely admit that fact; but the point for which we have contended is that it is perfectly within the competence of Parliament, and within the original intention of the Local Taxation Account, to redistribute a prospective advance in this way. I know this view does not command the universal consent of your Lordships. This sum is only a prospective advance. I find that the average annual increase during the past eight years in the whole of the Local Taxation Account has not been loss than £100,000 per anmum, and the total amount proposed to be taken under the Bill is £87,000. Therefore, under no circumstances will this Bill take anything from any county which it ever had before. It simply forestalls to a certain extent the proportion of the prospective increase to which they might otherwise have looked forward. The noble Lord has accounted for the high tithe in Essex by the theory that a special allowance was added to the Essex tithes by the Tithe Commissioners in 1836 in order to make up to the tithe-owner the large amount of rates for which he was liable. That was a point which I endeavoured to deal with in my speech on the Second Reading, and I trust the noble Lord will allow me to assure him respectfully that there is not the shadow of a shade of foundation for that theory. The owner of a farm, when he lets his farm, receives from his tenant a certain rent. What he receives from his tenant is not the letting value of his farm. If anybody wants to ascertain the exact letting value of a farm, he must add to the amount of rent which the owner receives the amount of income-tax which the tenant pays to the Inland Revenue on his account, and which he deducts from the rent. That is exactly what happened in the case of the Essex tithe-owners. They had in most cases made a composition with the tithe-payer. Suppose an Essex tithe-owner had arranged with a tithe-payer that the value of his tithe was £400 a year. In most cases the tithe-owner would say to the tithe-payer,

  439
  "You pay me £350, and pay the £50 which I should have to pay in rates for me." This was not done in all cases. In some cases the tithe-owners decided to receive the composition in full and discharge the rates themselves. But in those cases where this arrangement was not made, in order to arrive at the full value of the tithe rent-charge, the Commissioners had to add to what the tithe-owner received from the tithe-payer the amount the tithe-payer paid in rates on behalf of the tithe-owner. Those two together made the true composition, and the allowance in respect of rates to which the noble Lord has alluded was simply in connection with this arrangement. The Tithe Commissioners have left on absolute record that they never made any allowance for the payment of rates as such, or in other words, they never added anything to the commutation on the ground that the tithe-owner was heavily rated. I trust the noble Lord will be satisfied with that explanation.
  Clauses 1, 2, 3, and 4 agreed to; Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) BILL.
  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, the Bill which I have to ask your Lordships to read a second time is a short one, and one which has not met with any opposition in the other House. It is in the nature of a Departmental Bill for the purpose of remedying certain defects which have been made apparent in the operations of the Congested Districts Board, which has already done so much good in Ireland. Your Lordships will remember that that Board was to a certain extent an experiment, and, in the course of the years during which it has been operating, certain difficulties have arisen which this Bill is intended to remove. The first clause provides that an offer for the purchase of an estate by the Board shall be considered before the estate is offered to the tenants. Clauses
  440
  2, 3, and 4 deal with matters of detail, such as provision for redemption of superior interests in case of purchase of land by the Congested Districts Board and limit of advance. Clause 5 makes a permanent provision of £25,000 a year for the expenses of the Board. The Chief Secretary in the other House pointed out that the real addition to the income of the Congested Districts Board which was proposed by this Bill was about £18,000 or £19,000. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I do not think I need detain the House many minutes by going over the history of the various attempts which have been made to legislate upon the subject dealt with by this Bill, nor do I think I need say much as to the general case for legislation of this kind, because both Houses of Parliament have, by their attitude in regard to the Bills which have been before them, practically admitted that there is a case for this legislation. So long ago as 1888, a Joint Committee of both Houses was appointed to discuss this question, and endeavoured to find a remedy for some of the grievances and difficulties which were then admitted to exist. The minority of that Joint Committee recommended that a remedy should, be found by attempting to extend the system of legislation by Provisional Order, and it is largely upon the report of the minority of that Committee that this Bill is founded. In 1897, a Bill on the same general lines as this Bill was pre-

  441
  sented to your Lordships' House, and after being discussed by a Select Committee, was passed through all its stages and sent to the House of Commons. In 1898, a Bill very much the same as the one which was passed by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House was introduced in the House of Commons, and referred to a Select Committee of that House. The Select Committee did not report until so late a period of the session as to prevent more progress with the Bill last year. This year the Bill has again been introduced into the other House of Parliament, and has, after a careful discussion in Committee of the whole House, passed through all its stages. It is that Bill which I now ask your Lordships to read a second time. I think the best course I can take, and the one most convenient to your Lordships, is to briefly indicate the chief changes which have been made by the other House of Parliament since the Bill was passed by your Lordships in 1897. Generally, I may say, that all those changes have had for their object the strengthening of Parliamentary control over projects of private legislation. Notices for Provisional Orders may, under the Orders to be prescribed under the provisions of this Bill, be somewhat shorter, simpler, and less expensive than notices for Parliamentary Bills; but it is in the power of either House to prescribe, by Standing Order, that if these schemes for Provisional Orders are rejected as Provisional Orders, or, rather, if it is agreed that they are not to proceed by Provisional Order, the same notices with some additions may be accepted for the Private Bill which will then be introduced. In the second clause, it is left to the Chairmen of Committees, as before, to decide, according to the character or magnitude of the proposals put before the Secretary for Scotland, whether they may or may not proceed as Provisional Orders, and to those words are added others to further secure that nothing shall be done contrary to the ordinary policy of Parliament. The Chairmen of Committees will also decline to sanction proceeding by Provisional Order if the projects are said to raise any question of policy or principle. The power of dispensing with compliance with Standing Orders, which in the Bill of two years ago was to be vested in the Lord Ordinary of the Bills in the Court of Session in Scotland, is,
  442
  under this Bill, placed in the hands of the Chairmen of Committees of the two Houses of Parliament. The main difference in this Bill is in regard to the appointment of the panel from whom the Commissioners to conduct each particular inquiry are to be selected, and as regards the method of choosing the individual Commissioners for each inquiry. There are now to be two panels. There is to be one, called in the Bill the extra-Parliamentary panel, which is to be formed by the Chairmen of Committees of the two Houses, acting jointly with the Secretary for Scotland. They are to nominate twenty persons qualified by their experience of affairs to act as Commissioners under the Act, and the panel will be reformed at the expiry of every period of five years; but in addition to that panel there is to be what is called the Parliamentary panel—that is, that either House of Parliament may provide, by its own Standing Orders, for the formation of a panel of its own Members, from which the Commissioners for each inquiry may be selected. That panel is not limited in numbers. All that is said about it is that it is to be composed of Members of both Houses of Parliament, and that they are to be chosen by the Chairmen, or by the Committee of Selection under the Standing Orders. There is a provision in the clause that, if possible, when a particular tribunal is to be formed for trial of a scheme in a locality, Members of the Parliamentary panel will be, in the first instance, chosen; but, if it is not found possible to get them to act, then the extra-Parliamentary panel may be drawn upon so as to avoid failure in the inquiry. I am not at all sure that the changes which I have just indicated will be entirely satisfactory. In my opinion, for what it is worth, I still prefer that the first inquiry in the locality should be by the extra Parliamentary panel, but it was perfectly clear, during the passage of this Bill through the other House of Parliament, that there was a very considerable reluctance on the part of Members of the House of Commons to part with their power, oven to the small extent that was proposed. In my opinion, the better method would have been to have had the first inquiry in the locality by persons chosen as I have indicated, and to have left the final control of Parliament to be brought in by means of the Joint Committee, as was then proposed. But, as I

  443
  have said, there was very distinct reluctance on the part of the other House to see any power whatever pass away from it in this respect, or that in any respect the grasp of its Members upon Private Bill business should be loosened. To a certain extent this feeling was accentuated by an amount of professional opposition to the proposals contained in the Bill; and while I think the scheme, as it now appears in the Bill, is somewhat less elastic, and somewhat less satisfactory than that which was first proposed, it has been accepted by the Government, and we shall do our very best to make the scheme operate successfully. I think I have indicated sufficiently the changes made in regard to the formation of the panel, and to the method of choosing members for each inquiry. The other main changes in the Bill will be found in Clauses 7, 8, and 9. Clause 7 deals with the future course of schemes which have been the subject of local inquiry, and, in the case of those schemes, it is now proposed that all the Orders require the sanction of Parliament. The scheme of the Bill of 1897 was that if the Secretary for Scotland, after inquiry, or without an inquiry in cases where there was no opposition, issued an Order, it should have the effect of an Act of Parliament, unless a memorial was presented by the opponent praying that the Order should not become law without confirmation by Parliament. The scheme of the present Bill, as embodied in Clause 7, is that in no case shall an Order have any validity until confirmed by Parliament. The procedure in the course of those Bills which have not been the subject of local inquiry differs, and the form in those cases is regulated by Clause 7, the provision being that, if any alteration has been made since they were first presented, they shall be re-deposited with the Treasury, with the Clerk of the Parliaments, and any such other public Department as may be prescribed; and the Confirmation Bill shall be submitted to Parliament, and shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages up to and including the Committee stage, and shall be ordered to be considered in the other House of Parliament as if coming from a Committee. In the case of Bills which have been the subject of a local inquiry, or where the opposition has been withdrawn after inquiry held, or where, although there has
  444
  been no opposition, the Secretary for Scotland has ordered an inquiry, the procedure is to be by a Confirmation Bill, to be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. In other words, Clause 9 of the present Bill corresponds to Clause 8 of the Bill of 1897, and, although in various particulars these clauses differ, they agree in this, that if a Confirmation Bill is opposed, it is to be sent to a Joint Committee of both Houses. I do not conceal from myself that this second inquiry was opposed in another place, and a very considerable amount of pressure was put upon the Government to abandon it, and to leave the procedure, even in the case of these Bills, to be, as I understand it, something the same as that which is now provided by Clause 7. I am bound to say that I think there would be serious disadvantages in that course. As I have indicated, I think the Bill, as it now stands, is less elastic and less satisfactory than the scheme which was placed before the other House of Parliament; but, whatever may be its disadvantages in that respect, I am of opinion that to make no provision at all for a second inquiry would be a somewhat serious innovation in Private Bill legislation, and I should view its adoption with great reluctance. There are, undoubtedly, cases in which things are done at the first inquiry which may affect the interests of persons who are absent. I think it is only right that there should be some appeal to provide for a reconsideration of matters in a case of that kind; and as Clauses 8 and 9 are intended to deal with those schemes in which there will be, in all probability, greater opposition, I am of opinion that if you make no provision for an inquiry by Committee under those circumstances, you will put a considerable premium upon, and give a considerable inducement to, the discussion of Private Bills and Provisional Orders either in this House or in another place. I think your Lordships will agree with me that anything which would have a tendency to bring, about that result ought to be greatly deprecated. I also think that if you do away with the second inquiry, you will inevitably bring about this result, that the Chairmen of Committees will be much less willing to allow large and important schemes, which, however, are local in their character, to be dealt with in the locality, and will prefer to maintain

  445
  the system at present in existence, which provides for the inquiry first in one House and then in the other. On the other hand, I am bound to say that I think there is a little too much power placed in the hands of a single objector or of a large corporation, whether public or private, to object to schemes and bring about an increase of expense, and I am willing to consider any method whereby not such an absolute power of objection should be given to an individual objector as is the case at the present time. I know from private communications that the noble Earl opposite, the Earl of Camper down, has been considering this matter, and therefore I have made this observation with a view of explaining to the House that, while I could not myself view with acceptance or favour the doing away with the second inquiry altogether, I am quite willing to consider proposals that may be made for the purpose of preventing such an absolute power being placed in the hands of those who, having had one inquiry, wish to repeat it over again before another tribunal. At the same time, when we are to some extent trying what is in the nature of an experiment, it would not be wise to do away altogether with the power of having a second inquiry. My Lords, I do not think I need explain further the provisions of the Bill. I have not gone over every verbal change which has been made because they are very numerous, but I think I have indicated with accuracy the main changes—the important changes—which have been made since your Lordships saw the Bill last, and I hope this attempt to cure what has undoubtedly been felt to be a great grievance in Scotland will be successful, and that, at any rate, your Lordships will to-night give a Second Reading to this Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a".
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I am sorry I cannot offer my congratulations to the noble Lord opposite on the probable sufficiency or sufficiency of this Bill. In the first place, it seems to me that it deals with a very small fringe of the subject. Again and again has the present system of Private Bill legislation been brought before the two Houses of
  446
  Parliament, and in the other House, at any rate, strong expressions of opinion have been registered that some change is necessary in that system. I believe that a far more effectual system could be provided if it were proposed to deal with the whole of the Private Bill legislation of the three kingdoms, rather than merely with that portion which affects Scotland. So far as Scotland itself is concerned, I must protest that this Bill does not satisfy the just expectations of Scotland. We consider, and we have pressed that view, that in Scotland we should have the control of those matters which are dealt with by private legislation in our own hands, just as we have our own systems of law, education, Church government, and our own Establishment. We think that, in matters affected by Private Bill legislation, we, as Scotchmen, should have the power of dealing with them for ourselves according to Scotch ideas. So much for the general question. My noble friend has explained the various stages of incubation of this Bill, whose germ was to be found in the minority Report of the Committee for which my noble friend himself was responsible. That germ was cultivated in three sessions of Parliament—in a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, in a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and in the passage of the Bill through the other House this year. I think the Bill bears, on the face of it, a sign of the many hands that have been at work upon it. I think it is, at the best, but a "cobbled" Bill, and I would earnestly appeal to my noble friend to endeavour, during its passage through your Lordships' House, to remove from his handiwork some of the patches and long tacking stitches which are still to be found upon it. I think, in considering the provisions of this Bill, I may divide its proposals under two heads—its proposals as regards unopposed and opposed Bills. So far as unopposed schemes are concerned, I at once say that I think the Bill will prove effective, and may, indeed, facilitate the passage of such measures. At the same time I feel that the proposals in this Bill give guarantees, so far as unopposed measures are concerned, that they will receive sufficiently careful attention because they have to go first to the Scotch Office, then to the two Chairmen of Committees, and, finally, before the Provisional Order becomes law, even if

  447
  there is no local inquiry, they have to receive the sanction of Parliament. But there is one remark I would like to make on this head in passing, with regard to the position of matters which are at the present moment dealt with by means of Provisional Orders from the Scotch Office itself. I think that, so far as those schemes are concerned, there will be some difficulty, and probably some additional expense, because, as I understand the Bill, while Provisional Orders issuing from other Departments in the State do not come under this Bill, yet Provisional Orders issuing from the Scotch Office in all cases come under the Bill, and therefore the work of the Chairmen of Committees will be considerably increased.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think the noble Lord is mistaken. Provisional Orders under the existing system will only come under Section 9, so far as they are applicable. The effect is that Provisional Orders, instead of having to go through a Committee of both Houses, will go to a Joint Committee if there is a Parliamentary inquiry.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: As I read the Bill, and I have read it carefully, it seems to me that all Provisional Orders issuing from the Scotch Office will have to be dealt with under this Bill in future.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Only those which require confirmation by Committee; but this, of course, is a matter for the Committee stage.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I now come to the much more important question of opposed schemes under the Bill, and I venture to ask your Lordships' assent to the proposition that the procedure under the Bill will be more cumbrous, more lengthy, and more expensive than it is in the case of Bills that now have to pass the ordeal of both Houses. Let me cover, step by step, the procedure which opposed Bills will have to pass through. In the first place, you have the issue of notices, as in the case of Private Bills, and I was glad to hear from my noble friend that it was intended to do something to lessen the cost of the issue of notices. This is
  448
  a question which I have already called your Lordships' attention to. I am sorry, however, that nothing to this effect appears in the Bill; I should have liked to see some provision inserted to ensure that something in this direction would be done. The application for the Order has to be lodged with the Scotch Office. It then goes before the Chairmen of Committees of both Houses, and they have to deal with it in a very serious manner. They have to give it their very careful consideration, because it becomes their duty to decide whether it is a proposal which ought to be dealt with by a Provisional Order or go through the ordinary formalities of a Private Bill. These stages must involve expense and fees in the two Houses.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (the Earl of MORLEY): No.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I should have thought that if the officials of the two Houses, with their expert advisers, were required to examine into the proposals for legislation, they would require some remuneration for their pains; but, if the chairmen are able to give their services in this respect for nothing, so much the better for the promoters of these schemes. Let us suppose that the proposal is passed by the Chairmen of Committees as being one which may proceed under this Bill, but that there is opposition to it. It is then sent to a Commission which has to sit locally. That Commission, in the first instance, is to be composed of two Members from each House of Parliament. Supposing it were found impossible to secure two Members from each House, then the places on the Commission are to be filled by Gentlemen taken from the extra-Parliamentary panel. Either from one source or another you get your Commission formed, which has to go down and inquire into the subject on the spot. This local inquiry, I venture to say, will not be very much less expensive than the one which takes place at Westminster. I quite admit that the individual expenses of particular local witnesses will be loss, but I think the number of those local witnesses will be greater, and you must also remember that in any important Bill you will have the promoters and opponents of it bringing down expert

  449
  witnesses from London, who will, in addition to their usual fees here, require to be paid extra fees for going into the country and giving evidence. Then it is supposed, I fancy, that a great deal of the work will be done for these commissions by members of the Edinburgh Parliament House; but I do not think you will find those members willing to give their services at fees very much lower than the Members of the Parliamentary Bar here, and when you come to the cases of rich opponents and rich defendants you will have them bringing down to the local inquiries leaders of the Parliamentary Bar here to fight the cases for them; and you must add to that the further expense of the commissioners. Let us suppose that the scheme is passed by the Parliamentary Commissioners, sitting locally. It comes back again to the Secretary for Scotland to introduce a Confirmation Bill into Parliament. The opposition again arises, and the Confirmation Bill is sent to a Parliamentary Committee consisting of two Members from each House, before whom the whole subject has to be gone into again from the very beginning. Who will tell me that the expense of these two inquiries put together will be less than the expense of the two inquiries held within the four walls of Westminster itself? The Bill, if it passes the second inquiry, goes through the ordinary stages and becomes law. To put forward the scheme contained in this Bill as a method to simplify procedure and reduce expense will not command the assent of any thinking person. It may be said to me, "You profess that you are desirous of seeing a change. You have criticised the proposal; have you anything to suggest in its place?" I would suggest as a remedy the very thing which my noble friend has objected to—namely, that the second Parliamentary inquiry should be done away with altogether. I will give my reasons for that opinion. In the first place, you will have a Parliamentary inquiry sitting locally which will have heard all the evidence.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Not necessarily a Parliamentary inquiry locally; it may have been by the extra-Parliamentary panel.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I am going to suggest presently that the extra-Parlia-
  450
  mentary panel should disappear altogether. You would probably have had a Parliamentary inquiry locally, and have had the question thoroughly gone into by the two Chairmen of Committees. You will have had the matter well sifted before them, and they will have decided that the scheme in question is not of first-class importance. I understand the whole object of the Bill is that all measures of first-class importance should be compelled to go through the ordinary procedure as it exists at the present moment.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That is not the definition of the Bill.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The Bill says that—
  "If the Chairmen report, and it appears from such Report that either of the Chairmen is of opinion that the provisions or some provisions of the draft Order do not relate wholly or mainly to Scotland, or are of such a character or magnitude, or raise any such question of policy or principle, that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order, the Secretary for Scotland shall, without further inquiry, refuse to issue the Provisional Order, so far as the same is objected to by the Chairmen or Chairman."
  If that does not mean that the Chairmen are to decide whether a Bill is of sufficient magnitude to require Parliamentary inquiry under the present system, I do not know what it means. It does mean, in my opinion, that they are only to pass those Bills for action under this proposal which seem to them not to be of first-class importance. That is a matter on which I should be glad to hear the views of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees in this House. Opinion in Scotland is certainly very strongly in favour of the omission of this second inquiry, and I have to-day presented a petition from the Convention of Royal Burghs supporting the omission of Clause 9. I would remind my noble friend that on the Division in the House of Commons the number of Scotch Members who voted in favour of the omission of this clause was 36, and only nine against. I think that shows that there is a strong feeling in Scotland in favour of the omission of this second inquiry. The first inquiry should be a Parliamentary inquiry, and I would pro

  451
  pose that Clause 4, which provides for the formation of an extra-Parliamentary panel, should also be deleted. It is said that it would be difficult to find Peers and Members of Parliament who would be prepared to serve on this local Commission. I do not agree that any difficulty would be experienced. Peers and Members of Parliament will, I believe, be quite ready to serve on the Commission, and probably more willing than they would be to sit here in this House. The sitting will probably be shorter to begin with. If an excuse is wanted for Members of either House declining to serve, it will be found in the fact that there is an extra-Parliamentary panel. I estimate that there will not be much necessity for many of these Commissions during the session. I have in my hand an interesting Return which was presented to the House of Commons last year. It is a Return giving all the details with regard to private Bills for the last seven years prior to August 31 1897. I find that, so far as Scotland is concerned, the average number of private Bills for the seven years was only twenty-two per annum. Of those twenty-two private Bills which received the Royal assent, only eleven came before the Committees as opposed Bills. I think it is only fair to assume that of the opposed Bills a considerable proportion would be schemes which would not be considered to come within the operation of this Act at all, and which would have to go through the ordinary form of procedure. If these figures may at all be relied upon as showing the amount of private Bill applications in the future, as regards Scotland, I should say that there will not be more than half a dozen proposals annually to form subjects for local inquiry, and probably two or three of these will be grouped together. I earnestly press careful consideration of the suggestion that the second inquiry at Westminster should be eliminated from the Bill. I want to say a word as to the proceedings before the Chairmen of Committees, because it does seem to me rather difficult to understand from the Bill exactly what those proceedings are to be. In the original Bill which my noble friend introduced into this House any one single opponent was allowed to raise opposition before the Chairmen of Committees. That provision has disappeared from this Bill, and the clause now stands as follows:
  452
  "The Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons (in this Act referred to as the Chairmen), shall, if the two Houses of Parliament think fit so to order, determine all matters of practice and procedure which will enable them to take into consideration the draft Order, and to report thereon to the Secretary for Scotland. Provided that with a view to such report the Secretary for Scotland shall forthwith inform the Chairmen of any dissents from or objections to any of the provisions of the Order which have been stated in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time."
  What I want to know is, is it simply intended that the Chairmen shall consider the provisions of the scheme as they appear on paper? Are they merely to be required to take a primâ facie view of the case, as presented on Paper, or are they to make themselves acquainted with the facts? I think this is a very important point. Judging by Clause 17, it seems as though it were intended that they should go beyond a primâ facie view as presented on Paper, because Clause 17 says:
  "If any objection to any draft Order is made to the Chairmen on the ground that the undertaking proposed to be authorised by the Order will destroy or injure any building or other object of historical interest, or will injuriously affect any natural scenery, the Chairmen shall consider such objection, and may, if they think fit, either report to the Secretary for Scotland that such objection raises an issue or issues which ought to be dealt with by private Bill and not by Provisional Order, or refer such objection to the Secretary for Scotland or to the Commissioners, as the case may be, who shall give to those by whom it is made a proper opportunity of being heard in support of it."
  I do not see how the Chairmen are to: form a satisfactory opinion on these points without having some evidence before them as to the particular facts of the case. It ought to be made clear what the duties of the Chairmen are to be. If it becomes necessary for them to take evidence, either on the subjects contained in Clause 17 or on other matters, then the stage before the Chairmen becomes a serious one, and one which will materially add to the expense. I am sorry I am not in a position to take a more active opposition to the Bill. I know it is useless to attempt to throw the Bill out, but I have felt compelled to register my opinion that if this

  453
  Bill is passed the procedure for opposed Bills will be found more complicated, more lengthy, and more expensive than the present system.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I propose in the observations which I shall make on this Bill to follow the example of my noble friend who introduced it, and not argue in any sense as to whether the Bill is expedient or desirable. I take it that that has already been settled in both Houses of Parliament. I shall, therefore, confine my remarks entirely to the details of the Bill, and to the points in which this Bill differs from the Bill of 1897. My noble friend opposite began by criticising the Bill on the grounds that it did not leave the whole of the procedure of Scotch Private Bill legislation to the Scotch people themselves. We are dealing now with legislation, and not with administration, and there is no legislative body in Scotland which could properly deal with the mass of business which has to be dealt with by Private Bill legislation. Therefore, that contention seems to me wholly futile. Your object is, as I understand it, that your legislation shall be confirmed at Westminster, but that the procedure should be rendered as cheap and as convenient as possible. This Bill differs in one most essential point from the Bill of 1897. That Bill gave Parliament practically no control over the private legislation of Scotland. I say that advisedly, because it did not provide for a Confirmation Bill. My noble friend opposite does not approve of confirming Bills, but my own opinion is that it would not be right for Parliament to give up the control which it at present has over Private Bill legislation. I would call attention of the House to the fact that you are dealing, not with administrative work, but with legislative work. Every Private Bill alters the public law in some particular, and in favour of some individual or company, and gives them powers and privileges which they have not got under the general law.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I only object to the second inquiry. I do not oppose a Confirming Bill.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: The House of Commons now agrees, and we have in this measure provided for a Confimation Bill. I know my noble friend has a difficult task in endeavouring to reconcile the two opposite views—the one which would keep the control as far as possible in the hands of Parliament, and the other which would enable an outside tribunal to deal with this matter. It is an extremely difficult and complicated question, and, if I do not think this Bill has dealt with it in a wholly satisfactory manner, I do not wish to in any way accuse my noble friend or his advisers of want of ingenuity or ability in framing it. Practically, the Bill before us is an extension of the provisional order system with certain variations. Those variations are twofold. First, the local inquiry is to be conducted by a special tribunal of a rather curious and mixed character; and, secondly, when the Confirming Bill comes to Parliament it is to be dealt with in one inquiry by a single Committee instead of two, an economy which I am in favour of. This process does not apply to all the Bills which originate in Scotland; it only applies to those Bills which are taken by the Chairmen out of the purview of direct Parliamentary interference. You, therefore, have a certain number of those Bills dealt with by Provisional Orders. I confess that it seems to me that a much more simple method could have been adopted—namely, the extension very largely, if you think fit, of the power of the Secretary for Scotland to issue Provisional Orders in the ordinary way. Under this system you would have an inquiry by an official of the Scotch Office, instead of an expensive local inquiry. I believe that you would in that way greatly diminish the expenses on unopposed Bills, which I admit will be less under this Bill than under the present system. The great blot on the Bill now before your Lordships is that it is absolutely incapable of further extension. I should have preferred a system which would have been capable, if opportunities arose, of extension over the whole of the United Kingdom, and I believe the system of Provisional Orders, as at present worked, would be capable of that extension to a very large extent. I am anxious not to indulge in any carping criticisms of the Bill, but I think it is right for me to state to the House any difficulties which seem to be in the way of the working of

  455
  the machinery which it is proposed to set up, and I feel compelled to refer to the duties which will be placed on the Chairmen of Committees under this Bill. The Chairman of Committees occupies a somewhat peculiar position. He is only appointed for the session, and I have some doubts whether, when Parliament prorogues, he has any position at all. That may be a more or less academical question, but what is not at all an unimportant point is this—that he never acts as of himself. Every decision and every act which I take, as Chairman of Committees, is an act of the House, and one which the House can, at any moment, criticise and modify. Everything I do should, be done as an officer of the House, and as the mouthpiece of the House. I quite admit, my Lords, that this Bill greatly improves the provisions which deal with the duties of the Chairman of Committees. In Clause 2, it says distinctly that the two Houses shall determine all matters of procedure and practice which will enable their chairmen to take into consideration the draft order, and I attach considerable importance to the fact that a copy of the report which shall be made by the chairmen is to be laid as soon as possible before both Houses of Parliament, because this brings the action of the chairmen at once within the knowledge of Parliament, and Parliament can then take any step to alter the decisions arrived at. There are other duties of a somewhat independent nature placed upon the chairmen of committees, and I hope your lordships will not for a moment think that I am at all desirous of shirking any duty, or of assuming any responsibility which the House may think fit to place upon me. Nothing is further from my wish, and I can assure my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill that it will be my desire as far as I possibly can to assist in enabling the Bill to work satisfactorily. It is not my wish to raise any difficulties in the way of carrying the Bill into effect. It is right, however, to point out that difficulties may arise. I think my best plan, if your Lordships will bear with me a short time, will be to trace an Order in its progress from the time the petition is lodged with the Secretary for Scotland until it finally passes through your Lordships' House. The first process is in Clause 1, which makes provision for the lodging of a petition for a Provisional
  456
  Order with the Secretary for Scotland. After this Bill has passed, no one in Scotland can, under any condition, come directly to Parliament for any purpose except in the case of Estate Bills. I should like to know whether my noble friend thinks it is necessary, having in view the fact that in Clause 1, sub-section 1, it is imperative that any public authority or persons desirous of obtaining Parliamentary powers shall proceed by presenting a petition, to retain, at the end of Clause 2, the fifth sub-section, which says that except under the provisions of this section it would not be lawful to apply to Parliament by Private Bill for powers which may be obtained by Provisional Order in terms of this Act. It seems to me that, having in view the earlier words of Clause 1, the words in the fifth section of Clause 2 are unnecessary. It may be a prejudice, or some superstitious fear of violating the Constitution, but it seems to me undesirable to place in a Statute words to the effect which I have just read. There is one objection, and one preliminary objection, for which I see no solution—namely, that every Order, whether it is clear that hereafter it must be turned into a Bill or not, must go through the preliminary stage of presentation to the Secretary for Scotland instead of going direct to Parliament. It, of course, originates in a difficulty which has been found when any scheme for private legislation has been in process of manufacture—the extreme difficulty of separating those schemes which ought to proceed by Provisional Order from those which ought to proceed by a Bill. But there is this fact, that where it is quite obvious that a scheme must be hereafter turned into an ordinary Parliamentary Bill, it must, all the same, in the first instance go through the Secretary for Scotland as a petition for a Provisional Order. Now comes the question of the second clause, which seems to me to raise a very important point. The second clause lays down that after the petition has been lodged, and the order drawn, it shall be sent to the two Chairmen of Committees to consider whether it is a proper subject for an Order, or whether it should go through the ordinary process of a private Bill in Parliament. I need not say that that is an extremely responsible, and, I think, a somewhat difficult task for the Chairmen to perform. I do not,

  457
  however, say that it is an insuperable one. I take it that, as a rule, or at any rate when this scheme first comes into operation, the Chairmen of the two Houses will, in case of doubt, be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to Private Bill procedure. But what are the cases which the Chairmen are to rule must go through the ordinary Private Bill process? They must be "of such a character or magnitude, or raise any such question of policy or principle, that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order." The words "such character or magnitude" are rather difficult to interpret, and I should be glad to hear the views of my noble friend in charge of the Bill on this subject. Take the case of large housing schemes. large drainage schemes, or large municipal schemes of any kind which would involve an expenditure of many millions of pounds. Would the Chairmen be bound, owing to the magnitude of those schemes, to decide that they should be dealt with by Private Bill? This is a difficult point, but one which, will, I suppose, right itself in time. With regard to the words in the clause, "or raise any such question of policy or principle that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill," I would point out that the chairmen have power to approve of a certain part going on by Provisional Order, and certain other parts being cut out and proceeding by Private Bill. Take questions of police, questions of local government, and sanitary matters. There may be a very important provision in one of the large Municipal Bills which deals with sanitary matters or with police matters in a manner very different from the general law. I take it that in that case the chairman would be bound to cut the clause that dealt differently with these matters than the ordinary law out of the Bill. I should like to ask whether promoters would, in that case, be entitled to bring in the clauses which the Chairmen had decided should not be proceeded with by Provisional Order as a separate Private Bill, because in that case you might have a large municipality with a Provisional Order under the Secretary for Scotland, and at the same time a private Bill being conducted in the same session. This is a difficult matter, but, as I have said, I do not think the problem is an insuperable one. I have no doubt, as time goes on, the custom will become stereotyped, and we shall get to know
  458
  what matters it is desirable shall proceed by Private Bill. My noble friend opposite asked what would be the character of the inquiry before the Chairman of Committees. That is difficult to say, and I can only give the noble Lord my impression, which is, that the inquiry will be merely a reading of the Bills, and, if there is any doubt as to certain points in them, information will be sent for. I can hardly think it will be necessary to hear witnesses. If it were, it would add another and very expensive stage to the Bill, and would give myself and my colleagues, at a time when we are extremely busy, far more than we could do. Unless there were special circumstances that required further explanation, I take it that it would be easy to ascertain in which direction the Bill should proceed. There is one point I should wish in this connection to call the attention of your Lordships to, and it is rather an important one, though one of detail. It is the question of time. I do not think it will be possible, under any conditions, to allow these petitions to be presented at any time during the year. It will not only be extremely inconvenient, but, what is far more important, it will not be safe or fair to those who may wish to oppose the Orders. At the present time it is well known by every one that Private Bills have to be deposited at a certain period of the year—the end of November. At that time solicitors and agents are on the look out for all schemes that are afloat. It would lie extremely undesirable to keep these people on. tenterhooks all the year round, and keep them constantly on the lookout for notices of Orders which might possibly escape their notice altogether. I think it is important that there should, be some fixed period of the year when these petitions should be deposited with the Secretary for Scotland. There is another point. Supposing the Orders are, under the direction of the Chairman of Committees, to be turned into Bills. It follows that they must be deposited, before the session begins, otherwise you will have wasted a session and also valuable labour. I would, therefore, suggest that it would be necessary to have the petitions for the Orders deposited some time in December, not very much, if at all, later than the Bills are now deposited, especially if, in accordance with this Bill, the Chairmen are, in addition to.

  459
  the Bills, to have before them the dissents and objections to the provisions of the Order which may be sent to the Secretary for Scotland. I would suggest to my noble friend, for his consideration, whether it will not be necessary to make provision, in Clause 2, or in some other convenient clause, in the event of a dissolution or prorogation, for the continuance in office of the Chairmen of Committees till the beginning of the following session, otherwise there might be a period when important work would be going on with no one to attend to it. In the progress of the Order the next point is that the Order has to pass what we call the Standing Orders. The examiner is to certify that the Standing Orders have been complied with. I presume the examiner is to be one of the examiners of the House, and it does not seem to me that it will be very difficult, if the proper times of the year are taken, for him to perform this work, but I anticipate that he will have to journey to Edinburgh, or wherever it may be, to certify that the Standing Orders had been complied with. But the dispensation of the Standing Orders rests entirely with the two Chairmen, without any appeal from them. It is not the responsibility in this matter which I should be very much afraid of, because I take it that in most cases the Standing Orders may not be of a very important or crucial character, but I suppose it would be possible for an opponent to oppose before us the dispensation of the Standing Orders, and in that case, of course, it would be necessary for us to hear their agents as we do in the Standing Orders Committee. In the case of the two Chairmen differing as to the dispensation of the Standing Orders, there is no provision in the Bill by which that difficulty can be solved. Now comes the local inquiry. If the Chairmen consider that the Order ought to be dealt with in Parliament as a Private Bill, it goes its usual course; but if, on the other hand, it is sent back to the Secretary for Scotland to be dealt with as a Provisional Order, the first stage, after the certification of the Standing Orders having been complied with, is the local inquiry. I was somewhat surprised to hear my noble friend opposite speak so strongly as to the expense of local inquiries. I agree with him that it may even be much more expensive to take expert witnesses to the
  460
  localities where the inquiry is to take place, than to bring the ordinary witnesses to London, but I would ask your Lordships to remember that the argument cuts at the root of all reforms of Private Bill Legislation, which have invariably tended in the direction of local inquiries. Whether the proposed inquiry is the best one we can conceive is for your Lordships to consider. As to the question of an extra Parliamentary panel, I differ from the noble Lord opposite, who stated that that part ought to have been omitted from the Bill. In my opinion, such a panel will be absolutely necessary, but in the nomination of the panel, although I am not unwilling to perform any duties the House may assign to me, I apprehend some difficulty, for in effect it will mean that I, knowing little or nothing of Scotland and Scotch affairs, will have to accept the nominees of the Secretary for Scotland. Again, I am not so sanguine as my noble friend that it will be an easy matter to find a sufficient number of Peers to perambulate Scotland to hold these local inquiries. If the inquiries are to take place during the session they will take Members from their duties at Westminster; if during the recess, your Lordships know the difficulty there will be in getting Peers to sit. Moreover, it does not seem to me to be the duty of Peers to travel about the country and inquire into matters of this kind. I have been able to impress upon noble Lords that it is their duty to attend Committees here, but I cannot say that I should look upon it as their duty to make these inquiries outside the walls of Westminster Palace; and I would suggest, for my noble friend's consideration, whether, if it is decided to maintain this Parliamentary panel, the Peers should not be chosen by the Committee of Selection. It does not seem to be part of my duty as Chairman of Committees to choose this panel, especially when we have a body in both Houses who are better fitted to perform it. I should like to call my noble friend's attention to the words in Clause 5:
  "The Chairmen shall, with due regard to the character and magnitude of the provisions in the proposed Order or Orders, appoint four Commissioners for that purpose, and shall at the same time nominate one of the Commissioners as Chairman."
  I do not see the least meaning in those words. Does it mean that I am to

  461
  graduate the capacity of the Committee to the importance of the Orders? I think, if that is all it means, it had better be left out, because it is clear that whether I or the Committee of Selection will have to choose the Commissioners it will be in all cases our duty to choose a suitable Committee. I therefore suggest that these words are perfectly without meaning and unnecessary. Even if my noble friend's surmises are correct, and we are able to get Peers and Members to take these long voyages into Scotland to inquire into these matters, the composition of the Committee is a matter of importance and causes no little anxiety. It is necessary, in addition to having the actual members of the Committee, to have a really experienced and competent Chairman. I am very much afraid, if you look at this House—of course, I cannot speak as to the House of Commons—and deduct Ministers and ex-Ministers, noble Lords who are too old to undertake these duties and noble Lords who are abroad, you have not a very large number of noble Lords left who have special ability to act in these matters, and they are generally men who are chairmen of their county councils or employed in public business of great importance, which would render it absolutely impossible for them to undertake the duties laid down in this Bill. I do not wish to be desponding about this Parliamentary panel, but so far as I can tell from my experience, I am not at all sanguine that you will, at any rate in this House, get very satisfactory results from this clause. Therefore, my Lords, I am strongly of opinion that the extra Parliamentary panel should be maintained. In fact, it appears to me that it would be almost better to have allowed the Bill to remain as it was when it left your Lordships' House in 1897. I should like also to know if my noble friend has considered whether these Committees are to be assisted in any way by counsel or clerks of experience. Of course, Committees in your Lordships' House have constantly the opportunity, if they so desire—which is not often—of consulting my own counsel, and they have experienced clerks who can at once instruct them and give them any information they require. Though this is rather a question for the General Orders, I throw it out for the noble Lords' consideration, and I would suggest the desirability of appoint-
  462
  ing some standing counsel. Now we come to the fourth stage of the Order, where it blossoms into a Confirmation Bill. If unopposed it shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages up to and including Committee, and shall be ordered to be considered as if reported from a Committee. There is no Committee stage in the House, and therefore, if any Amendments are made, they must be inserted when the Bill is reported to the House. As I understand, in the case of an opposed Bill, the Bill will go through all its stages and will be referred to a Joint Committee. I think this will save a great deal of expense and time, and be satisfactory. I do not, however, agree with my noble friend opposite that there is no cause for a second inquiry. In the first place, we are not quite certain how the tribunal which makes the first inquiry will work out; and I would suggest that during a certain number of years, while the Act is in the experimental stage, it is necessary, in order to avoid injustice, that there should be a Court of Appeal, or rather a Court of Rehearing from the local inquiry; and I therefore am decidedly in favour of the proposal to refer the Confirmation Bill, in the case of opposition, to a Joint Committee of both Houses. I think the second inquiry is rendered necessary because Amendments and agreed clauses may be introduced at the first inquiry which may prejudicially affect the interests of third parties who may not have been injuriously affected by the Order as originally framed. My noble friend said one reason why the second inquiry would be unnecessary would be that the Bill would have been not only inquired into locally, but would have been carefully read by the Chairmen of Committees. That is quite true. But your Lordships must remember that the Chairmen have no opportunity of hearing any evidence. They have no means of knowing whether anyone is injured, or whether any interest is prejudiced by anything in the Bill. Though the Bills may not be many, and although they may be small, surely that is no reason for saying that in small Bills an injustice should be possible. I think there is very great danger, if you have no such Committee as that, of having questions relating to Private Bills constantly raised in the House, and I cannot possibly conceive of a worse tribunal for deciding questions

  463
  of this kind than the House, which must, of necessity, act on ex parte statements and without having the evidence before them. On this ground, I am decidedly in favour of the second inquiry, as provided in the Bill. I would ask my noble friend whether, in Clause 8, it might not be desirable, even if there had been no opposition and no inquiry held, that there should be some means given of enabling an opponent or supporter of a Bill, who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Secretary for Scotland, to appeal to Parliament, because it might happen that the Secretary for Scotland had introduced important Amendments, or made the granting of the petition for the Order conditional upon the promoters complying with certain conditions which might have a very evil effect on either the opponents or promoters. I cannot find in the Bill that the Secretary for Scotland has any power to refuse a petition, neither can I find that he has power to modify the Order except on the recommendation of the Chairmen or certain public bodies. I cannot help thinking that I am wrong in this matter, but I have read the Bill carefully and cannot find that any powers are given to the Secretary for Scotland in this direction.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: They are in Clause 2.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: In summing up I should like to refer to the duties of the Chairmen. In the first place, they will have to road petitions and see if the Order is to be proceeded with as an Order or as a Bill. That means rather careful reading, because they may, as I have said, reject part of a Bill. We shall have to read the Orders without the advantage of seeing the agents as we do at present. It will be somewhat difficult to avoid refusing to allow the insertion in an Order of any matters that are against general legislation. So far as that goes, it will almost inevitably result in the Chairmen having to be more particular in reading these Orders than they are at present. The second point is that they are, if they think fit, to dispense with the Standing Orders if they are found not to be complied with; and. thirdly, they are to choose the extra Parliamentary panel, and, in connection with the Secretary for Scotland, the Commission which is to try
  464
  this case. Then, when the Orders come into your Lordships' House, they are again to carefully read them, with the modifications introduced, and make recommendation to the Secretary for Scotland. I am afraid this will add considerably to the work, because we shall have to read not only all the Bills as they come in, but we shall have to report. Moreover, we shall not have the same powers which we now possess of discussing the Bills with promoters. I was rather staggered, on reading Clause 17, to find that I was the guardian of the buildings of historic interest and the picturesque beauties of the Highlands, and I am sure this duty would be much better left to my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland. I do not see how it is possible for the Chairmen of Committees to decide a question of this kind, which is entirely one of taste and evidence. I would suggest that the Secretary for Scotland should be substituted for the Chairmen. Clause 16 saves the present power of making Provisional Orders whether by the Secretary for Scotland or the Board of Trade. As I read the clause, the present powers of the Secretary for Scotland to make Provisional Orders remain exactly the same, except that the Bills, when they come to Parliament, shall be referred to a Joint Committee instead of having to go through two Committees. Sub-section 2 of this clause saves the powers of the Board of Trade, but here let me point out an anomaly. The Board of Trade have now power to give Orders for harbours up to £100,000. Under this Bill, however, the Secretary for Scotland would be able to frame an Order for a harbour of any size he liked, providing the Chairmen did not say it was big enough to go to Parliament. It certainly seems an anomaly that the Board of Trade, who are experts on this subject and the harbour authority for the country, should be restricted in this particular manner, while the Secretary for Scotland, who has no expert advisers, would have authority to give an Order for a harbour costing half a million or a million of money. That is a point which requires looking into. I must crave your Lordships' pardon for having mentioned so many matters which are more fitting for Committee, but I have called attention to them on the Second Reading because I have no right to address your Lordships when the House is in Committee. I have

  465
  in my observations endeavoured to avoid unnecessary criticism, and I assure your Lordships that, although I think they will be responsible, and in some cases very difficult, I shall be most anxious to perform those duties which the House chooses to put upon me under this Bill. I shall be only too glad to co-operate with my noble friend in endeavouring to render the operation of the Bill satisfactory. I see some difficulties in the way of the working of this now scheme of Private Bill procedure; but on the whole, with the exception of the panel, about which I am in doubt, I think the general scope of the Bill is more satisfactory than the Bill which was before your Lordships' House in 1897.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: After the Debate which has taken place on this Bill, and more particularly after the full and exhaustive examination of the Bill by the Chairman of Commiitees, it is not necessary for me to offer more than a few observations to your Lordships at the present stage on this subject; but there is one point I wish to bring under the consideration of the House. This is a Bill on which it is extremely desirable that we should have the assistance and advice of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, who has better means than we have of forming a judgment upon the merits and demerits of the Bill. We shall be deprived of the advice and assistance of the noble Earl if he is in the chair during the Committee stage, and, therefore, I hope some means will be found whereby the noble Earl will be in a position to give the House the benefit of his help upon the details of the Bill, and also to move Amendments in the direction which he has foreshadowed. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the forms of your Lordships' House to give an opinion on this matter with absolute certainty; but I think, if we were to take the Committee stage pro formâ, and discuss the Amendments on Report, we should be able to obtain the assistance of the noble Lord, and that would be a very great benefit to the consideration of the Bill by the House. I should like to know the opinion of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill in regard to this proposal. If he consents to it, I will move the necessary motion. Like the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, and others who have
  466
  spoken, I greatly prefer the Bill in its present shape to the shape in which it was presented to us on a former occasion. I think it is absolutely necessary, for the protection of petitioners and objectors, that this House should retain in its own hands the control of all legislation which has reference to property; and it seems to me, also, that it must necessarily be wrong and unfair to the official himself to impose upon the holder of a political office the duty of dealing with legislative details which must expose him to a great deal of solicitation and trouble. This Bill avoids that difficulty. The fact that the Secretary for Scotland and the Chairmen of Committees are placed in a foremost position with regard to this matter, gives the House and the country considerable security that matters will be dealt with under proper control, and in a proper manner. With regard to the panel, I rather agree with my noble friend (Lord Tweedmouth) that there will not be such difficulties as is supposed in obtaining the panel. I think the number of Bills will not be great, and I venture to hope that you will find sufficient Peers and sufficient Members of the other House who will be willing to make the necessary exertions, and go to Scotland when required; but there is a special mention in the Bill of Scotch Members of Parliament. It is provided that nothing is to disqualify Scotch Members from sitting on such Commissions. I think that is a very proper provision, but I hope there is no insinuation in it that Scotch Members are to be preferred for this purpose. In dealing with Private Bills, I do not know whether by accident or design, the Chairman and the Committee of Selection, in choosing their Committees, take care to seldom place on those Committees Peers who are connected with that portion of the kingdom to which the question to be discussed relates. I think, as a general rule, that is a wise course to take; and if there is anything in these words which is likely to indicate that Scotch Members are to be preferred in the consideration of Scotch questions, I should enter a strong protest against it. I shall only refer to one other matter, namely, the second inquiry. As the Bill stands, after an Order has been considered locally by a Commission it returns to Parliament, and a Confirmation Bill is to be laid on the Table. I am, of course, speaking of the case of an opposed Order. If a peti

  467
  tion is presented, the Bill, subject to the Standing Orders, is to be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. That gives an opponent the absolute power to insist upon a separate inquiry by a Joint Committee of both Houses. Having been defeated before the Commission, he has a right to demand a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. I cannot say with my noble friend (Lord Tweedmouth) that I should be willing to do away with that second inquiry altogether—I think it would be a great mistake to do so, for the reasons which were given by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, if for no other reason; but, at the same time, I think we are going a little too far in giving an opponent, who presumably has been defeated at the first inquiry, the right to insist on a second inquiry by a Joint Committee of both Houses. It may be pointed out that at the present time, under a Provisional Order, everyone interested has a right to ask for a Committee in either House of Parliament, but this is not quite the same as the case of an ordinary Provisional Order. This matter will have been considered by the Chairmen and the Secretary for Scotland, and they will have arrived at the decision that it is a matter which is not so important as to require to be dealt with by a Bill, and have authorised an inquiry by Provisional Order. That inquiry will have taken place, and it seems to me a little too strong to give an opponent the power to insist, at his own free will, that there shall be a second inquiry by a Joint Committee of the two Houses. A solution has occurred to me, and it seems a very simple one. It is, that when this petition is presented, the procedure should not be left, as it is now, to the opponent himself, but that the House should decide, after seeing the petition, whether it was desirable to further inquire into the allegations of that petition, and if they should decide that there were primâ facie reasons for further inquiries, or if Amendments had been introduced after the first inquiry, there should be a second inquiry. I shall submit an Amendment to this effect for the consideration of the House at a later stage. Clause 17 did not belong to those who framed the Bill, but was the work of Mr. Bryce, a private Member in the other House, and he is responsible for
  468
  the form which it at present takes. I think a very natural and proper suggestion might be that this question should be referred, with other questions relating to the Order under consideration, to the Commission appointed to inquire into the other matters.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I only rise to say that I strongly concur in the views expressed by my noble friend opposite as to the extreme desirability of the Chairman of Committees being in a position to discuss this Bill, and I hope some means will be found for giving effect to this suggestion. However, if the proposal of the noble Earl is adopted, that the Committee stage should be taken pro formâ, and the Amendments moved on Report, no noble Lord—not even the noble Lord in charge of the Bill—will be able to speak more than once, which will be most undesirable. The only way out of the difficulty would be to resolve that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill should be allowed to speak as often as he liked on Report, the same as in Committee.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Lord opposite (Lord Tweed-mouth) said that Scotchmen should be allowed to decide these matters entirely amongst themselves, but he did not say distinctly what sort of substitute he would place in the Bill to take the place of the present provision. That may be some new form of Home Rule which we may yet have to have explained to us. I will make him this offer, that if he will move to reject Clause 17 at the next stage I do not think I shall put any particular obstacle in his way. With regard to the future stages of this Bill, I have consulted my noble friend, the Chairman of Committees, since he has spoken, and I think I am right in saying that most of the objections which my noble friend has taken are points of detail and of drafting. I will confer with him before the Committee stage is taken, and I think I shall be able to meet his views on many of the points. The Committee stage will be taken on Tuesday and the Report on Thursday. By that time the noble Earl will be out of the Chair, and any of the points he has, raised which have not been dealt with in

  469
  Committee can be taken up on that occasion.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am sure everyone must desire to have the assistance of the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees, who is able to give us the soundest advice in regard to this Bill. The same difficulty which has been present in the mind of the noble Earl occurred to me, and it has been suggested to me that there is no Standing Order of the House which will prevent the Chairman of Committees from leaving the Chair, and standing by the Table to address the Committee in a similar way to that adopted by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when he addresses the House. If that is possible, I think it will solve a difficulty which is a very serious one.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I am not aware of any reason why the Chairman of Committees should not take part in Debate and express his opinion. If there is no precedent for it, I think it will be most convenient that we should make one.
  On Question—agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, and read 1a; and to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.) (No. 184.)
  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2aon Monday next (The Lord Privy Seal [V. Cross]). (No. 183.)
QUESTIONS.

  OUTRAGES BY SOLDIERS IN INDIA.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they intend to take to prevent outrages by soldiers in
  470
  India and the Colonies, such as that which caused the death of Mr. Talwattee; and to ask the Under Secretary for India whether, on the 14th February last, the India Office was entirely ignorant of the following cases:—
  1898. January 16.—Poona, Arjuna shot by Gunner W. E. Piper.—Times of India.
  1898. February 27.—Poona, Private McQuillan, Royal Irish Rifles, cut the throat of a dooly bearer.—Champion.
  1898. March 23.—Satara, Mr. Rowecroft, a military officer, slapped on the face for insufficient salutation Mr. Sohoni, first assistant master Satara High School.—Mahratta.
  1898. April 10.—Poona, two soldiers, Durham Light Infantry, drove through the cantonment firing an air gun, hit a tailor and a woman and a man.—Times of India.
  1898. April 24.—Allahabad, H. L. C. Killick, East Surrey Regiment, out shooting peafowl with another, with Lee-Metford rifles and bullets. Killick cut Janak Singh's arm with a hunting knife, he bled to death.—Pioneer.
  1989. May 7.—Karachi, five soldiers committed to sessions for wounding a policeman on duty.—Jagat Samachar.
  1989. June 5.—Kussowlee, two European soldiers demanded liquor of a carter, on refusal threw cart, bullocks, and whiskey down the cliff.—Champion.
  October 2.—Nasirabad, a punkah coolie attached to sergeants' mess of Royal Fusiliers, thrown into a well by two soldiers, September 25.—Champion.
  1899. January 28.—Punjab, Asghar Aly, magistrate and civil servant, assaulted on Punjab Railway, December 31, 1898, by four commissioned officers.—Moslem Chronicle.
  and to ask if the Indian Government will amend or remodel the Indian Government Resolution No. 4625, of

  471
  August 31, 1897, and the Bombay Government Resolution No. 1507, Judicial Department, of March 2nd, 1899. I had hoped, my Lords, and I still hope, to be able to speak to this notice without uttering anything which could give any offence, and I had every reason to believe that I should receive a very satisfactory reply, for I was indebted to the noble Earl for an introduction to one of the military authorities at the India Office, and everything promised well for a reply which would have effaced the ill-effects of the reply given in this House in February last; and one which would encourage the efforts now made in India to diminish the evils complained of. But since Friday last a disturbing element has intervened, the Parliamentary and Permanent Under Secretaries have become for me Purdeh-Nisheen, and have retired into their zenanas; and I am obliged to infer that the Secretary of State is the disturbing cause, and that he has taken offence at the list of outrages on the notice Paper, coming as it does shortly after he had made a statement similar to that made in this House in February last. Should the reply to what I am going to say be less satisfactory than I expected, or than the inhabitants of India have a right to expect, I must point out how the saddle should be put upon the right horse, and that is the Secretary of State for India. After this caveat I can proceed as I originally intended. In again bringing this subject before the House, my first duty is to explain, not for your Lordships, but for those outside the House, and especially for the Press in India, that the noble Earl, the Under Secretary for India, is not to be blamed or made responsible for the brevity or curtness of the replies with which he is furnished by the India Office. I next desire to correct a statement which I made when I spoke in February last. I have received a letter saying that I had been misinformed, and that O'Hara, the Dum-Dum murderer, was not the same O'Hara as the one who was hung for shooting a sergeant and a soldier. This point has not much importance except for the sake of accuracy. If there were two O'Haras it destroys the point of what I said as to the escape from punishment of the Dum-Dum O'Hara, but it tells in favour of the military administration that the Dum-Dum O'Hara did not succeed in re-entering the Army
  472
  after he had been dismissed from it. On the other hand, if there were two O'Haras, the military authorities have had two murderers to answer for instead of one. With regard to the list of outrages by soldiers in the course of last year I have been careful to word the notice so as not in any way to let it appear that the noble Earl was aware of any of these cases. I have put them down, because they must show that I am not complaining of an imaginary evil, and because even quite recently the Secretary of State for India seemed to believe that these cases were very rare. I am not disposed either to blame the India Office on account of its ignorance of these cases. I did not know of them all myself until a list was sent to me with newspaper extracts. The cases are spread over several newspapers, some of which are not received at the India Office; and I can exonerate the India Office at the cost of another Department. In well-conducted public offices, like the Foreign Office and Local Government, the clerks examine carefully the minutes of both Houses, and also the newspapers, and inform the heads of Departments and the Under Secretaries of anything that concerns their office. But I found on June 12th that a letter published in the Morning Post on the 7th had not yet attracted the attention of the Colonial Office, although it was headed, "Northern Railway, Ceylon." With regard to this list of cases the Barrackpore case in May, and that of the boy shot by Private Knight in August, have been omitted, as they have already been discussed in this House. These cases speak for themselves. I shall not take up the time by mentioning how many were acquitted or how few convicted. With reference to the third case, I will, with the leave of the House, read an extract from India, of April 21 this year:—
  "Professor Augustus de Morgan had superintended the reprinting of a famous 'Treatise on Problems of Maxima and Minima solved by Algebra,' by Ramchandra, late teacher of science, Delhi College, a volume expressly stated to be reprinted by order of the honourable Court of Directors of the East India Company, for circulation in Europe and India, in acknowledgment of the merit of the author, and in testimony of the sense entertained of the importance of independent speculation as an instrument of national progress in India. De Morgan wrote to the Dean of Ely, about forty years ago, a

  473
  letter (reprinted in India of December 23rd last): 'Had I been publishing independently of Government, I should perhaps have added what Ramchandra meant me to add—as I judge by his mode of telling it—that he had been beaten in the public road by a man in a British uniform, for not making a salaam as he passed. We talk a great deal about the ways and means of preserving India; but few know that this treatment of educated and civilised natives is always going on. We are constantly sending out to India a parcel of boobies who have no idea of the people they have to govern, and who will each of them make a few hundred malcontents among educated men who are reverenced by the mass of the people.' "
  I have not yet read of any redress having been offered to Mr. Asghar Aly, who was assaulted, and his eyes blackened, because he was going to a stationmaster to complain of the treatment he had met with from four commissioned officers, whose rank makes this a worse case than the others. I hope that the Under Secretary for India will have some satisfactory information to give on this point. In this year six outrages, three of them by soldiers, have taken place between March 23rd and April 9th, reported by the following papers:—
  Amrita Bazar Patrika., March 23rd.—"Toll Manager of Jhelum, telegraphed:—'Abused, assaulted, and ears pulled out by police inspector on demanding toll.' "
  India, March 24th.—"Private Joyce, armed with a razor, cut at every native, four wounded."
  India, March 24th.—"Mr. J. N. Ross, in a dispute as to land, killed a native, one of the two whom he had arrested."
  Times of India, April 4th.—"Rangoon outrage on Church Parade by West Kent soldiers."
  Times of India, April 5.—"Gunner Love, separated from his two soldier friends, attempted rape of a village girl (by another report actually committed it); a scuffle ensued, the soldier's gun went off, and a man was killed."
  Amrita Bazar Patrika, April 9th.—"Mr. Cunning, manager of a tea estate, gave a cooly boy of twelve or thirteen a severe beating, from which he died."
  Some newspaper, I cannot now remember or ascertain which, asked why I have not referred to outrages by civilians. The reason is that they are fewer, and that they do not cause the same ill will against the Government as those committed by soldiers. An Indian paper, however, reminds civilians that there is a Bengal Regulation X. of
  474
  1804, and Section 2 of XX. of 1825, under which civilians might be tried by court-martial. Those who ask for measures of prevention may fairly be expected to have some suggestions to make. In February last I suggested trying soldiers by court-martial instead of by juries, and this has been partly carried out by a military Order, dated Naini Tal, April 12th, 1899, No. 224, for cases of soldiers infringing rules relating to shooting passes. With regard to court martials, everything depends upon the colonels and other regimental officers being convinced that the Government is in earnest. If the telegram from Allahabad, published last Friday, July 21st, be correct, that conviction had been borne into the minds of the officers, as a severe sentence was passed. On the other hand, at Rangoon, as has been stated in some newspapers, a soldier was about to make a statement, but was stopped by a captain. I hope the Under Secretary will be able to give the House some information as to this point, and as to the progress of this inquiry by General Protheroe. The Government can show that it is in earnest by letting it be known that wherever a court martial trifles with justice, or acquits against the evidence, on the first occasion the colonel of that regiment will be put on half pay; and, on the next similar occurrence, the colonel will be dismissed the Service. In cases such as the Rangoon outrage, or the Kandy murder, confinement of the regiment to barracks and the barrack yard, and putting the officers under arrest until evidence was forthcoming, might secure the desired result. The next suggestion I would make is founded upon what took place when Mr. Talwattee was murdered, namely, that in future soldiers off duty, going or coming back from any games, and passing through a native quarter, should always be accompanied by a subaltern commissioned officer, and not, as in Mr. Talwattee's case, by a corporal only, who would be no restraint upon them. A third suggestion was impressed upon me by a friend, an ex-Bengal civilian, that the soldiers are greatly over fed during the hot season, and that if supplied with a less inflammatory diet outrages would be fewer. I have been reminded of what I had forgotten, that one of Mr. Kipling's stories in "Soldiers Three" says exactly the same thing; in it he says that a regiment sometimes gets hysterical like

  475
  a girls' school. This is a reform which can be easily carried out by the regimental officers, and I have reason to believe that it has been considered by the military authorities. The fourth suggestion is contained in the notice. I will read to the House the Bombay Government Resolution mentioned in it, and your Lordships will be able to judge whether the warnings to villagers not to molest soldiers are not rather of a wolf and the lamb description. No doubt the soldiers have some warning in the rules issued to them, which I have already referred to, breaches of which are to be tried by court martial, but at present the Government Resolution seems one-sided. It is as follows:—
  "BOMBAY GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION.
  "No. 1,507.
  "Judicial Department,
  "2nd March, 1899.
  "District magistrates should cause it to be made known generally to villagers that British soldiers are permitted to go out shooting game in the district, but Government have issued instructions, so that any injury to the person or property of the inhabitants may be prevented. Should any person be aggrieved by the conduct of soldiers who may be out shooting, their proper course is to make a complaint to the magistrate empowered to receive it. They are not permitted to take the law into their own hands, or to molest or threaten soldiers who are not committing any offence, but are out shooting in accordance with the permission given to them. The village officers in each village should further be warned that they will be held responsible that these instructions are known and observed in the village.
  "(Signed) G. G. H. FAWCETT,
  "Under Secretary to Government."
  I would now point out that there is great risk of accidents, if soldiers are allowed to shoot with Lee-Metford rifles; many parts of India are level plains, and more populous than this country. Shot guns ought to be kept for the good conduct soldiers allowed to shoot, to prevent accidents. A short time ago I met a Christian Bengalee in the house of a dignitary of the Church; he was not a convert but the son of a convert, and of a well-known Bengali family. I asked him what remedy he could suggest for these military outrages. He said: "Raise the moral tone of the soldiers." I replied that you must first raise the moral tone of the officers; and my Bengal civilian friend says, "You must raise the moral tone of the race." It is, perhaps, more the conceit that wants lower-
  476
  ing, than the moral tone raising; a great country or a great people does not require a Tyrtæus. Oliver Goldsmith began it, and Mr. Rudyard Kipling has excelled in that line. I admire Mr. Kipling's writings very much, and though not acquainted with him, in order not to offend him, I shall use no words of my own, but quote a paragraph from the Bombay Indian Spectator criticising his last utterance:
  "Egotism sometimes takes the form of excessive laudation of one's own race, and nationality, called by whatever name, the underlying feeling is the same—namely, one of supreme self-complacency. Mr. Rudyard Kipling's latest poem, 'The White Man's Burden,' is one of the most glaring instances of such egotism. It would seem, from this poem, that the white man has been carrying the burden of the whole universe on his shoulders at considerable self-sacrifice and discomfort to himself, and all for the benefit of the 'half devil, half child,' whom he has kindly brought under subjection. In a large sense the greatest burden-bearers in the world to-day are not the white men. It is the 'half devils, half children,' whose skins are browned or blackened by the sun that carry the twin artillery of the white man—his gin and his gun—wherewith he 'civilises' or shoots them down, according as they fall in with his ways or rebel against them."
  It is no use preaching to alter the present feeling of the troops, and the best thing the Indian Government could do would be to offer Mr. Rudyard Kipling publication at their own expense, and a large reward for a novel which should tone down the song of the white man's burden. If Mr. Kipling should decline the task, the Indian Government has another and a better string to its bow, and might ask Mr. Thorburn to enter the lists, and show how Mr. Kipling's song lured on the Americans into a bog, and how almost every step taken by the United States since the beginning of their war with Spain has been dogged by retribution. Mr. Thorburn's recent novel, "Transgression," is as good as any other of the many good Indian novels. He is the Bengal civilian who got into a scrape at Simla last winter for taking at their word those who invited discussion on the Afridi campaign. As for the part of the question that concerns the colonies, Ceylon appears to be the only one requiring attention in this respect, for I have not heard of any military outrages in the Straits Settlements or in Hong Kong, probably because the Malays and the Chinese are better able to defend

  477
  themselves. I hope that the Colonial Office will be ready to adopt in Ceylon whatsoever measures may be adopted by the Indian Government. I also hope that the Under Secretary for the Colonies will now be able to explain how it is that a clerk of the Magistrates' Court could be murdered in the town of Kandy by daylight, in the presence of his wife and sister-in-law and of witnesses, European and Singhalese; and why a soldier named Conolly, who has been accused, was allowed to leave Ceylon without being confronted with persons who might have recognised him and disproved his alibi. I hope that my noble friend, the Under Secretary for India, will recognise and admit that I have used very dispassionate, indeed colourless language, and have simply placed facts before the House. This I have been able to do, because I know that the Viceroy is bent upon preventing these outrages, and that some of the best officials in the India Office are now thoroughly awake to the necessity of action, and that apathy has been dispelled by the Sunday mid-day performances at Rangoon.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, the noble Lord has placed on the Notice Paper a very long list of outrages alleged to have been committed by soldiers in India upon natives of that country, but the noble Lord has himself admitted that he has not made careful inquiry as to the acquittals and convictions in these cases. It would be an easy matter to compile a long list of cases drawn from newspaper reports of crimes committed by those of any profession among Her Majesty's subjects, drawn from the same class as soldiers, and I do not think the noble Lord has convinced your Lordships that soldiers in India are guilty of more crimes than the same class elsewhere, or any section drawn from the same class of the population. On the contrary, if the noble Lord will examine the returns which are laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament he will find that since 1878 the proportion of courts-martial on soldiers for offences has been very steadily decreasing. In 1878 there were 114 at home and fifty-six abroad, while in 1897 the figures were only fifty-four at home and thirty-four abroad. I think your Lordships would agree that
  478
  the conduct of Her Majesty's troops has been steadily improving and not deteriorating. With regard to the cases quoted by the noble Lord, two of them have been brought officially to the notice of the Secretary of State, and he has replied to questions about them in another place. As to shooting passes, they are most carefully guarded. Orders are only issued to men of extremely good character, and every precaution is taken to prevent any collision with the natives, and I can only say that all that is possible is done to prevent any outrages of the kind referred to by the noble Lord. They are extremely cowardly, and are repudiated by the men's comrades in the Army. There is no evidence that they are on the increase, though there may be isolated cases of violence. The Secretary of State at this moment is taking precautions to have himself informed of all cases which are brought before the Civil Courts against soldiers of the British Army. I will not go at length, into the proposals which the noble Lord made as to remedying what he complains of; I leave that to the Secretary for War. It will be for him to say whether he could justify such an increase in the number of officers as would be necessitated if a subaltern was in each case to accompany the men when they go through a native village. As to the suggestion that the British soldier should be given peas and porridge instead of beef and beer, the noble Marquess will be able to tell the House what effect that would have on recruiting for the Army.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I was glad to hear from the Under Secretary, what I felt quite sure would be the case, that not only is there no reason to apprehend that there is a serious increase of crime committed by soldiers in the Army, but that in point of fact those crimes are tending to decrease; and, although there may possibly have been some instances, some particular cases, which everyone will greatly deplore, still there is no reason to believe or suggest that there is a general deterioration among our soldiers in India. It would be most unfortunate that such an erroneous impression should get abroad. No doubt circumstances may have occurred lately which required the attention of the Government. That attention I am sure—indeed, we have heard

  479
  that it is so from the Under Secretary—will be given to the subject, and if it is found that there is any necessity for their interference, I must say I feel confident the Government will take any steps that may be necessary for the protection of the natives. I cannot, however, believe that the conduct of the soldiers in India is such as to give rise to any general apprehension of deterioration. On the contrary, I believe that their conduct deserves approbation.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I rise merely to express my concurrence in what has been said by the noble Earl. We must all regard with the utmost reprobation acts of ill-usage perpetrated by Europeans, whether soldiers or civilians, upon the natives of India. It is for civilians a disgrace to the nation to which they belong; but when these acts are perpetrated by soldiers, they not only bring disgrace upon their country and countrymen, but upon the honourable profession of which they are members. I am glad to concur with what has been said by the Under-Secretary as to the improvement which has taken place in the conduct of our soldiers in this respect. I believe that at this moment acts which not many years ago—I do not speak of crimes or outrages, but acts of perhaps rough usage and brutality—would have been regarded as comparatively venial are now regarded as well by the military as by the civil community as deserving the utmost abhorrence and reprobation. As I believe that no pains are spared by the military authorities and the commanding officers to prevent these occurrences, I wish to join the protest of the noble Earl against such reports as those which the noble Lord has placed upon the Paper being regarded as authentic proof of the conduct of the troops in India. He has not told us as to these cases whether there were any legal proceedings, or whether, if there were, any convictions followed. I, for one, should certainly want to know a great deal more about these cases before I should be inclined to accept them as being authentic. My impression is that the amount of crime committed by British soldiers in India is steadily diminishing. Courts-martial are diminishing; and, in particular, the offence of drunkenness—so closely connected, I am afraid, with military crime—is showing a marked tendency to
  480
  become less. As representing the War Office, I have only to add that no pains will be spared to prevent any act of ill-treatment being perpetrated by soldiers upon the native population of India.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven of the clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.