Lords Sitting of 22 June 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Order, applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
GREAT WESTERN AND GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the London awl North-Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill ought to be dispensed with and the Bill allowed to proceed:
Read and agreed to.

LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL.
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
    HASTINGS HARBOUR BILL. [Lords.]
    Reported with Amendments.
AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, that the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; the orders made on the 8th of June and Friday last discharged; and Bill committed for To-morrow.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION MARKETS BILL.
  CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.
LONDON IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
BRYNMAWR AND WESTERN VALLEYS RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL.
Committee to meet To-morrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
House to be in Committee on Monday next.
MID-KENT GAS BILL. [Lords.]
Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
WALKER AND WALLSEND UNION GAS (ELECTRIC LIGHTING) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
JONES DIVORCE BILL. [Lords.]
  WISHAW WATER BILL. [Lords.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
SHOTLEY BRIDGE AND CONSETT DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order):Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL. [Lords.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO.3) BILL.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES PROVISIONAL ORDER (BORROWSTOUNNESS) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL. (No. 135.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL. (No. 136.)

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. (No. 137.)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL. (No. 138.)
    MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 139.)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL. (No. 140.)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL. (No. 141.)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BELL. (No. 142.)
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. (No. 143.)
    Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Twenty-sixth annual report by the Accountant for Scotland to the Scotch Education Department.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2293. France (the Society Islands).
  No. 2294. Germany (Bavaria).

  EGYPT, No. 5.(1899.)
  Despatch from Her Majesty's Agent and Consul-General at Cairo, enclosing a
  232
  report on the Soudan by Sir William Garstin, K.C.M.G.

  GREENWICH OBSERVATORY.
  Report of the Astronomer Royal to the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, read at the annual visitation of the Royal Observatory, 3rd June, 1899.

  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.
  Directory for the year 1899; with regulations for establishing and conducting science and art schools and classes.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 TO 1890 (PROCEEDINGS).
  Report by the Board of Trade respecting the applications to and proceedings of the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1890, during the past year: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  POOR LAW ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. [Lords].
  A Bill to amend section 1 of the poor Law Act, 1889, Section 4 of the Poor Law (Apprentices, etc.) Act, 1851, and Section 4 of the Pauper Inmates Discharge and Regulation Act, 1871—Was presented by the Lord Harris; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next. (No. 132.)
FINE OR IMPRISONMENT (SCOTLAND AND IRELAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to assimilate the law in Scotland and Ireland to that prevailing in England and Wales. Up to January 1st, 1899, a prisoner committed to prison in default of payment of a fine, whether in England and Wales, Scotland, or Ireland, could only obtain release before the expiration of the period for which he was committed by payment of the full amount of the fine. The Departmental Committee of 1894 on Habitual Offenders, etc. (Scotland), strongly recommended that prisoners so committed should be allowed to work out their sen-

  233
  tences partly by imprisonment and partly by money payment—a remission of their term of imprisonment in default being made, proportionate to the part of the fine imposed which they were able and willing to pay—in other words, that a prisoner who had been sentenced, say, to a fine of twenty shillings or twenty days, and who could raise, say, ten shillings, should be liberated after ten days' imprisonment on payment of that ten shillings, instead of being kept in gaol till the very end unless he could pay the entire sum. This recommendation was adopted in the Prison Act, 1898, which came into effect on the first day of the present year. That Act, however, does not apply to Scotland or Ireland, and the object of this Bill is to extend to these countries the same reform in that respect which that measure enacted for England. The enacting clause of the Bill follows verbatim the wording of the Prison Act, and I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
  Moved that the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, so far as Ireland is concerned the Irish Office approve of this Bill, and give it their hearty support. It is a Bill which they will gladly see placed on the Statute Book, and one which they would have been willing to have brought in themselves if it had not been introduced by the noble Earl.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

ISOLATION HOSPITALS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [Lords.]

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according Order).
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  THE EARL 0F LICHFIELD: In moving the Amendment standing in my name, I should like to say that all the Amendments which I shall propose to this Bill have been prepared with the assent of the
  234
  Local Government Board. When the Bill was read a second time before the Whitsuntide recess, the Local Government Board had not decided whether they could support all the provisions in the Bill or not; but I am happy to say that since then they have agreed to the provisions, and the Amendments before your Lordships this afternoon have been prepared with their approval. The result of the Amendments will be to strengthen the Bill if passed, and to facilitate future dealings between the Local Government Board and the local authorities on these subjects. The object of the first Amendment, which I am now moving, is that where a hospital is sold by an authority the Local Government Board shall satisfy themselves, before they allow the sale, that adequate hospital accommodation is going to be provided under the new arrangement, and that where a district receives money in repayment for the hospital that repayment should go against capital sums, and not be devoted to the reduction of the rates.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 2, after 'Board' to insert 'Provided that no sanction in pursuance of this section shall be given by the Local Government Board unless the Board are satisfied that adequate accommodation for hospital purposes has been or will be provided for the use of the inhabitants of the district for which the hospital to be transferred was provided; provided also that all moneys which become payable to a district council or a joint board in respect of a transfer in pursuance of this section shall be applied in such manner as the Local Government Board direct either in repayment of any loan of the district council or joint board. or for any other purpose for which capital moneys may be applied.'"—(The Earl of Lichfield.)
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, the object of the Local Government Board in suggesting this particular Amendment was to take care that the district which had transferred its hospital to the county council should have sufficient accommodation in the event of an outbreak of infectious disease subsequent to the transfer of the hospital. This clause has been agreed to by the noble Earl and the Local Government Board, as have all the others, and the Local Government Board have no objection to them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Other Amendments made: Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee;

  235
  and to be printed as amended. (No. 133.)

MANCHESTER CANONRIES BILL. [Lords.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to deal with funds derived from the sale of the houses of residence of the Dean and Canons of Manchester, which now amount to £1,941 a year. By Section 20 of the Parish of Manchester Division Act, 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 41), the net proceeds of sale of the houses of residence of the Dean and Canons are required to be applied by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in or towards procuring a fit house of residence for the dean, canon, minister, or incumbent who, in case such sale had not taken place, would have been entitled to the premises so sold, or otherwise for the increase of the income of such dean, canon, minister, or incumbent, or for both such purposes, as to the said Commissioners shall seem best. Your Lordships will therefore see that this money with which we are proposing to deal belongs by law to the Canons of Manchester, and cannot be taken from them in order that it may be applied to any other object, or given to any other person, without fresh legislation. With the unanimous consent, however, of the Dean and Canons of Manchester it is now proposed that a fresh disposition shall be made of this sum of money. At present the incomes of the Canons are of equal value—nominally they are £600 a year and a house, but all the houses have been sold, and they were sold for very different sums. Consequently, at the present time, the senior Canon's income is £1,900; the second Canon £900; the third Canon, £900; and the fourth Canon, £641 a year. As the duties of the Canons are exactly the same, the state of things to which I have called attention is not desirable. Nor was it contemplated, for the Act under which the Manchester diocese was formed originally intended to make the incomes of all the Canons the same, and to give to each Canon £1,000 a year. It is now proposed, instead of having this unequal disposition of the fund, that in future all the
  236
  incomes of the Canons shall be £850 a year each. That, I must say, is not the whole of the income which the Canons will possess, because, by the Manchester Division Act, when a man is made a canon of Manchester he becomes incumbent or rector of a certain designated parish in Manchester, for which he receives £150 a year from the Ecclesiastical Commismissioners. The total income of a Canon, therefore, will amount to £1,000. Possibly to some persons that may seem rather a large sum, in the present state of circumstances, to assign to a canon for his income; but I must ask your Lordships to remember that the parishes of which these Canons are made Rectors by law are amongst the largest and poorest in the City of Manchester, and involve a considerable amount of labour, being thereby a burden and not an advantage. Again, a canon of Manchester cannot possibly hope, as is the case with the canons of other cathedrals, to hold a rich or desirable living. He is obliged to hold that which is assigned to him. If your Lordships are of opinion that these considerations are sufficient to justify the appropriation of £1,000 a year of the sum, to which I have referred towards the income of a canon, there will remain a sum of £941 a year to be further appropriated, and of this sum the Canons now desire to divest themselves; the money belongs to them by law, but they propose to divest themselves of it in order that it may be applied to the more efficient performance of Divine worship in the Manchester Cathedral. By the decision of Chancellor Long, the Canons have been prohibited from employing any part of the sum of money which belongs to their general fund to assist the choir, except so far as would maintain four singing men and four singing boys. That is an exceedingly inefficient choir, as the church and the congregation are both large. The choir frequently fails to make itself heard, and experiences considerable difficulty in leading the worship of so large a congregation. I hardly suppose that any of your Lordships will think that Archbishop Tait was a Ritualist, and yet this is what he said about the function of a cathedral:
  "It is, perhaps, the greatest function of a cathedral church that it should exhibit to the diocese an example of the highest form of worship, with all the appliances which sacred art, moderated by sound judgment, can contribute."

  237
  What example, I ask your Lordships, of the highest form of worship is to be obtained from a choir consisting of four singing men and four singing boys? If it is necessary, and I think everybody will admit that it is, that the choir should be improved, I do not think any objection can he taken to the source from which it is proposed that the support should be obtained, as it is to come from the present ncomes of the Canons of Manchester. We have certain Cathedral reformers in the City of Manchester—Canon Nunn and Mr. Freston—who put forward a statement in 1888 respecting one that had been made by the late Bishop of Carlisle. The Bishop had referred to
  "that absurd choir of four singing men and four singing boys."
  Upon that the following criticism was made by our Cathedral reformers:
  "This is the original parochial choir; there is no reason why it should not be augmented by subscription or otherwise. A rearrangement of the sums spent on the Cathedral would, it is thought, provide that is necessary without trenching on the fund required for the poor parishes."
  It is precisely what these hostile critics suggested that is now provided in the Bill before your Lordships. We desire to provide a choir from the existing incomes of the Canons of Manchester, who are willing that it should be so provided. Not a penny is taken from the fund which is applicable to the poor parishes, and seeing that the Bill is a very moderate and reasonable one, I have great pleasure in moving its Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill he now read 2a."—(The Lord Bishop of Manchester.)
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTON: My Lords, I desire to support the Second Reading of this Bill, both as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner and as one well acquainted with the wants of the churches and Cathedral of Manchester. There is no interference in the Bill with the revenues assigned to the 117 parishes of Manchester, and therefore there is no opposition to it from the rectors. There is unanimity, which has been sought for for a long time, among the Dean and Canons with regard to the redistribution of their incomes. This is a really moderate reform, and one which, I think, Parliament might fairly be asked to sanction, more especially as it is supported
  238
  by the general public opinion of the Church people in Manchester. Considering the large sums which are assigned to the rectors of other large towns, such as Bury and Blackburn—often £1,000 a year—I do not think it is unreasonable that a similar sum should be allotted to the Canons of Manchester. It should not be forgotten that these Canons have to do double duty, that of rector and canon, and have to supply the wants of their parishioners, who often number between 7,000 and 10,000, by providing one or more curates. With regard to the proposed increase in the Cathedral choir, I would point out that the Cathedral in the nave alone is capable of holding 2,000 people. It will therefore be seen that the proposal is not an unreasonable one. The object of the Bill is to equalise the incomes of the Canons, and, after so doing, to allow the balance of the proceeds of sale of the houses of residence to be applied to purposes connected with the service and administration of the Cathedral, and I trust it will pass without opposition; it meets the requirements of the case, and will tend to the making of better spiritual provision for the inhabitants of Manchester.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

TRAWLERS' CERTIFICATES SUS PENSION BILL [Lords.]

  THIRD READING
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I have taken the somewhat unusual course of proposing, on the motion for the Third Reading, that the Bill he read a third time this day three months, and I hope I shall be able to satisfy your Lordships that I have good and substantial grounds for the action which 1 am now taking. This Bill I may almost say slipped through its Second Reading without any real Debate, without any explanation as to the novel and unprecedented principle which the Bill involves, and also without the knowledge of those most interested in it. The only protests against the

  239
  Second Reading were made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Russell of Killowen, and the noble Earl the Secretary of the Board of Trade. This is no new Bill. It is the Bill which was introduced in the House of Commons two years ago by some Scotch line fishermen, supported by the Scotch Fisheries Board, and it was then opposed by the representatives of the fishermen and also by the Board of Trade; and, so far as I know, neither the fishermen nor the owners of fishing vessels nor the Board of Trade have changed their minds in the slightest degree with regard to their objection to the Bill. In Scotland the trawlers, and in England the whole of the fishing industry, are opposed to it, and the sea fisheries boards repudiate the Bill altogether. What is the necessity for this Bill? No attempt has been made to prove the necessity for it. On the Second Reading the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland gated that the present laws had not been the failure they were represented to be, although he approved of the Bill in a somewhat modified form. The noble Earl the Secretary to the Board of Trade pointed out—and I specially press this upon the notice of your Lordships—that the Board of Trade considered the penalties too severe for the offence, and that the Bill would impose penalties upon British trawlers which would not be applicable to foreign vessels guilty of the came offence in territorial waters. This is the decisive opinion of the Board of Trade, after having considered the question for three years. But this Bill includes all British and Irish territorial waters as well as the waters which are under the bye-laws of the Scotch Fisheries Board. What case is there, my Lords, for these fresh penalties? One would have thought, when a harsh and severe penalty was being proposed, that some case would be made out showing that the law had been broken throughout the length and breadth of the land. The Board of Trade returns, however, show conclusively that the law has been obeyed, and that no fresh legislation is required. In the last seven years in English and Scotch waters there have only been six cases of a second offence and one of a third offence; that is to say, one ease per annum during the last seven years, and yet the principle contained in this Bill is proposed for adoption. In Scotland it is very difficult to tell what have been the offences
  240
  in territorial waters, because the offences the during the last three years are added together, and no attempt is made at differentiation between the offences in territorial waters and the offences under the bye-laws of the Moray Firth. I very much doubt, my Lords, whether there have been many offences in the territorial waters of Scotland. I believe the offences have been committed by Scotch vessels in the Moray Firth, which is in an exceptional position. They have there one-sided and harsh bye-laws, which are in direct violation of the law of nations, and have not that respect which they ought to have from law-abiding people. They protect foreign vessels, but not British vessels. In Moray Firth foreign vessels can fish without any restraint or penalty, but British vessels are not allowed to enter the Firth without being subject to the bye-laws of the Scotch Fisheries Board. We who look after the interests of sea fisheries desire to see the law observed; but still it is a very difficult thing indeed to impress upon men the necessity of obeying the law when it is repudiated by them and is against the national conscience. Weave "conscientious objectors in this matter. We believe if Moray Firth is open to foreigners it ought to be open to British vessels also. The principle of this Bill is resented by all British smackowners and fishermen as insulting and unnecessary, especially at the present time when diplomatic negotiations are going on with Denmark with regard to their new and harsh rules. This is not the moment to bring in a Bill of this kind. It is proposed in this Bill to suspend the certificate of registration of a trawl vessel for six months where the master shall have been convicted of a second or any subsequent offence.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The Bill provides that the order shall be made for any period not exceeding six months, which is the maximum.
  LORD HENEAGE: If the certificate is suspended for any time it means that the vessel is to be prevented from earning dividends for its shareholders for the time under six months during which the certificate is removed if its skipper has violated the law in disobedience to his masters' orders. I think your Lordships will recognise that that is a very strong

  241
  order indeed. I would remind your Lordships that in England We have been able to enforce the law by means of a mild penalty of £5, and 1 venture to say that the proposition contained in this Bill is a novel and monstrous one. It is unknown in any other country, and unknown in any other trade in this country. I would ask your Lordships what you would say if a proposition were made to suspend the certificate of an ocean liner because it had come into collision with another vessel on the high sea, or if you were asked to prevent an omnibus being run in London because it had offended against some police regulations, or to prevent a railway engine from performing its duties because the driver had been guilty of some offence. Yet this is the very principle which is proposed in this Bill for the fishing industry. Under these circumstances, I do not think your Lordships can be surprised that the fishing industry feel that this is an unjust and extraordinary thing to do. I would ask your Lordships to consider what your position is in regard to the Third Reading of this Bill. It is utterly impossible that the Bill can pass into law this session.
  THE EARL or CAMPERDOWN: Why?
  LORD HENEAGE: Because, as a private Member's Bill, it will never get through the House of Commons. If your Lordships vote in favour of this Bill now you will be voting in favour of this principle being applied to Great Britain, where, as the statistics have given yon show, the law is obeyed and the additional penalty is not needed. But if you pause, and adopt my motion, it will be perfectly competent to consider the matter more fully and better on another occasion. I would suggest to my noble friend behind me who is in charge of this Bill that he should withdraw it, as he has no chance of passing it this session, and that Her Majesty's Government should undertake to look into the whole question, not only from its local aspect as it affects Great Britain, but from its imperial and international aspect, and deal with it if necessary next year. My Lords, I move that this Bill be read a third time this day three months.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out 'now' and add at the end of the Motion 'this day three months."—(The Lord Heneage.)
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLELGH): I expected the noble Earl who brought in this Bill, and who has carried it through its previous stages, would have answered some of the observations which the noble Lord has just made; but as he evidently expects me to say something I will accept the challenge thrown out by the noble Lord, Lord Heneage. I am bound to say, however, that I am afraid the discussion we are engaged in to-night is a somewhat academic one. We are engaged in discussing the question whether a certain Bill introduced into this House by a private Member shall or shall not be read a third time. I am afraid that under the conditions which exist in another place the friends of the noble Lord who has last spoken will have thoroughly effectual means of preventing the passing of the measure. I could not help thinking, when the noble Lord was addressing the House, that he was disguising, or at any rate passing over, the real case which exists for this Bill. I am not going to say that it is absolutely perfect, but a case does exist for legislation upon the lines contained in this Bill. There is no intention whatever, by any of the provisions Of this Bill, to interfere with the legitimate operations of those who are engaged in the industry of trawling. For those who offend against the law not as a regular practice I perfectly admit that the existing penalties are sufficient, and I would not be in favour of increasing them; but there is a small minority of those—I will concede that it is a small minority—who make it an habitual practice to offend against the bye-laws and against the limits which have been imposed, for reasons which it is not necessary now to discuss, upon their industry. The noble Lord referred to figures, and quoted some remarks which I made upon the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill. He omitted to remind your Lordships that the case for this Bill rests upon the fact that there are a small minority of vessels Which make an absolute practice of hovering round the three-mile limit, and, under cover of darkness, and when they think the preventive service is not at hand to detect them, of making incursions into the places where

  243
  they know they should not go. One of these vessels has been convicted no less than eight times within a short period of years. Others have been convicted six, five, and four times within the same short period. I am perfectly certain, though I cannot prove it, that they deserve to have been convicted a greater number of times, and I constantly receive reports through the Fishery Board of vessels which are well known being sent out under cover of darkness to pursue their nefarious operations. The noble Lord says that the law has been obeyed. I admit it has by a large majority of those engaged in the industry; but I venture to suggest to the noble Lord that it would be better for the industry in which he takes so large an interest if he could make up his mind to abandon the cause of those who break the law and confine his advocacy to those whom he thinks are being unduly interfered with although they do not habitually break the law. The noble Lord says the law is obeyed because there have been very few convictions in recent time, but I would remind him that convictions are to a great extent matters of chance. This is one of the evils of the present system, under which very few of the boats engaged in the detective service are devoted to the work of detecting vessels guilty of illegal trawling. During the last two or three weeks we have been more successful in finding out those who have been disobeying the law, and if he takes the figures of the more recent operations during this year the noble Lord will find that the law has not been so well obeyed as he represents to the House. As I have said, I do not think this Bill is absolutely perfect, and efforts were made in the Committee to see whether, if concessions were made to the noble Lord, he and those for whom he speaks would withdraw opposition in another place; but the policy of the noble Lord was soon declared, and his policy was to get everything he could from us in the Committee, and not to come under any obligation of any kind with regard to dealing with the small percentage of trawlers whom, to us in the Committee, he frankly admitted should be subjected to further penalties. The noble Lord has commented upon the severity of the penalties imposed in this Bill. But it must be remembered that the severe penalty is only to be imposed after the second or subsequent offence over a short period. It is perfectly clear
  244
  that it is a maximum penalty. I do not think the noble Lord himself is seriously alarmed that any real injustice will be done under this Bill, for the safeguards are amply sufficient. This penalty will only be inflicted in cases where there is repeated and deliberate intention to disobey the law, and therefore I think that part of the measure in every way justified. Although the Bill has no chance of passing into law this session, I hope your Lordships will not go back upon the decision at which you arrived when the Bill was read a second time and referred to Committee. During its progress through Committee it has been made much more simple, and the power of inflicting the very large penalty—that of preventing a vessel from going to sea—has been taken away from the local courts and transferred to the Board of Trade. The object is not to put an unduly severe penalty on the owner of the vessel. The clause as it is now framed allows the vessel to be used for other purposes than fishing, but I think your Lordships will see that if in the process of fishing an owner allows his vessel to be habitually used for breaking the law, it is not unfair to say that his vessel should not be allowed to go to sea as a fishing boat for a period within six months, although it is not to be altogether suspended from operations other than fishing. It is not my business to make out a case for this Bill. It is not necessary for me to say, and I do not say, that either my Office or the Board of Trade think it incapable of improvement. I simply desire to say that at this stage I think it would be a mistake, and it would certainly be misunderstood, if the House were to go back upon the decision previously arrived at, and I therefore hope your Lordships will allow the Bill to be read a third time.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I do not at all complain of the somewhat unusual course which has been taken by the noble Lord in moving the rejection of the Bill on the Third Reading, because I know that when it was read a second time he was not able to be present. At the same time I would respectfully demur to the remark he made that the Second Reading was slipped through. As a matter of fact, due notice was given of the Second Reading, and noble Lords who entertained any objection to the Bill had ample opportunity of

  245
  being present. The point your Lordships have to consider to-night is not whether the Bill is likely to pass into law. If we were to limit the Bills we read a third time to those which we were fully convinced would be passed into law, I feel sure the number of Bills that we should pass would be considerably curtailed. With regard to the merits of this Bill as it stands it is hardly necessary, after what the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland has said, to remind your lordships what the Bill does and does not do. The noble Lord (Lord Heneage) has indulged in very strong epithets in regard to it, and has said how monstrous it would be if your Lordships were to pass it. I think his epithets are hardly warranted by its provisions. I desire to impress upon your Lordships that this Bill does not make any alterations in the existing law; all that it does is to provide an alternative and severer penalty on a second offence. That is the Bill. It has been considered, as your Lordships have heard, by the Select Committee, who made this material alteration in the Bill: that instead of allowing the severer penalty to be imposed on the first occasion on which the offence was committed, as the Bill stood, this more severe penalty should not be imposed until the second offence. There is, I contend, a good ease for a more drastic penalty than that which at present exists, as repeated fines fail to prevent the offences being committed. The number of trawlers convicted of disobeying the law are a very small proportion indeed of the number of those who break the law. I have heard, although convictions have not taken place yet, that there are grounds of complaint in Ireland as well as in Scotland, and that the Irish Office have looked at this Bill and are of opinion that it might with advantage be extended to that country. I do not think it is necessary for me to trouble your Lordships at any greater length, and I will conclude by asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Third Reading.
  On Question, whether "now" shall stand part of the motion, resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL.
House in Committee (according to order):Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: the Report of Amendments
246
to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 134.)

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS AMENDMENT BILL. [Lords.]
Read 3a (according to order).
LORD NORTON: My Lords, this Bill is a short one-clause Bill, entirely consisting of reference to a one-clause Act five years old, and is wholly unintelligible without considerable study. But though it is unintelligible, there is no reason why it should be absolute nonsense and as it now stands it is absolute nonsense. The proviso proposes that where a felon under 16 years of age is sentenced to a reformatory school for five years he shall not, in addition, be sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment. How can any court send a boy to a reformatory school for five years, and after that sentence him to penal servitude or imprisonment? What would be the use of punishing the boy after the cure is complete? What I propose is to omit the reference to a reformatory school, so that whether the young convict is sent to a reformatory school or not he shall not be punished in prison. The whole object of this Bill is to prevent young criminals being sent to prison. I am told that the exception I make in my Amendment in regard to aggravated cases is unnecessary, because under the present law such offenders are sent to prison and treated as adults. Therefore I do riot care whether the words I propose to add are inserted or not. I beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 1, line 14, to leave out from 'Provided that' to 'addition' inclusive, line 16, and insert 'No such offender shall, except in what the court considers an aggravated case.'"—(The Lord Norton.)
LORD LEIGH: My Lords, I regret to say that I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite. If I did so it would make my Bill perfectly useless. The object that I have in view in this simple one-clause Bill would be completely and entirely defeated by the Amendment. What I desire is that magistrates should be compelled to send children, when they are to go to a reformatory, direct to the reformatory without having to undergo preliminary imprisonment. The noble Lord's Amendment would leave it to the magistrates to decide what an aggravated case

247
is. He has not told us what he means by an aggravated case, and it would be very easy for any magistrate who favoured the sending of children to prison to make out an aggravated case. The noble Lord knows, and, in fact, all your Lordships know, perfectly well that magistrates differ most materially upon the question of the imprisonment of children. One magistrate may strongly advocate imprisonment, and another would equally strongly disapprove of it. Consequently my object in bringing in this Bill is to make it compulsory upon magistrates to send children direct to reformatories without going to prison, and I would urge upon your Lordships to give the Bill a Third Reading without the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord.
LORD NORTON: I am quite willing to omit the words "except in what the court considers an aggravated case," and I beg to propose my Amendment without those words. My Amendment will then, I contend, carry out what the noble Lord opposite desires, namely, that young offenders be not punished in prisons.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (the Earl of HALSBURY): I cannot help reminding the noble Lord that we are not in Committee, and that he is not entitled to speak twice.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, the views of the Home Office on this Bill are very strong and decided in favour of the words of my noble friend, Lord Leigh, being retained. They are in substance the words contained in the Youthful Offenders Bill, which I recently introduced on behalf of the Government. The Government feel that they cannot give away their own clause, as they would be doing if they accepted the Amendment. Before 1893 magistrates were bound to send every youthful offender who went to a reformatory to prison. Lord Leigh intervened, and asked that youthful offenders should go direct to the reformatory. The Home Office, however, would not then accept that view in its entirety, but gave a discretion to magistrates to send to prison or not as they thought fit. Since 1893 the question has made progress. A Departmental Committee has sat, and the Home Office have been converted by Lord Leigh to the conviction that it is better that
248
youthful offenders should go direct to the reformatory and not walk to it through the corridors of a prison, and they therefore wish to take away from the magistrates their discretionary power in the matter. Taking the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Norton as it is on the Paper—and I cannot quite follow his observations—his object is that magistrates should retain that discretion, and if his Amendment were adopted Lord Leigh's Bill would come to nothing. The effect would be that there would be two classes of young persons in the reformatory—those who had gone to prison and those who had not, and during his whole reformatory life the question would be put to a boy, "Are you a prison boy or not?" and there would be that mark and stain upon him if he had been to prison which the Home Office think ought not to exist. How often have we who have practised at the Bar heard the question put to a witness, "Have you been in prison?" and happy indeed is the witness who can say he has not. This is one of the small reasons which have caused the Home Office to desire that youths who are convicted should not suffer imprisonment before being sent to a reformatory, and I have to ask your Lordships to allow Lord Leigh's Bill to be passed without any Amendments.
LORD NORTON: After what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy, I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

COMMONS AND OPEN SPACES BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, I hope I shall induce your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the measure which I venture to place before you this afternoon. The object of this Bill is to simplify and cheapen the process by which schemes for the regulation of commons are now initiated and become law, and by so doing to facilitate the means by which open spaces and village greens are now protected, preserved, and improved for the benefit and recreation of those who dwell in their vicinity. I am quite sure that the object will have the universal

249
approval of your Lordships if it can be shown, as I believe it can, that the reform is possible and feasible in a safe and satisfactory manner. First of all I should point out that this Bill is in no sense a Party measure. The most that can be said in that direction is that it was drafted under my direction while I happened to be President of the Board of Agriculture in the late Government, and that in that capacity I presented it to the House of Commons, but the main object of this Bill has long been pressed forward by the Commons Preservation Society, a body which, is your Lordships know, is a non-political one, and contains many men who are opposed to the principles of the Party with which I usually act. This Bill has with nothing to do with the question of enclosures, which has been a vexed question for many years, but merely deals with the management of commons. The question of enclosures has given rise to much controversy and several Acts of Parliament. The Commons Act of 1876 was brought in by the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal when he was Home Secretary in the Government of 1874, and the question of enclosures has long been dead and buried; its very ghost was laid by Lord Thring when he induced your Lordships to accept his Commons Amendment Act of 1893. I will, with your Lordships' approval, refer to Part 2 of the Bill, which is of a somewhat omnibus character. Some of the clauses are of a purely Departmental nature. They were drafted under my direction, because we thought they would be of service to us on the Board of Agriculture; but if the noble Viscount who represents that Board in this House does not think them as serviceable as we did I shall not press them. There are other clauses dealing with matters of procedure which I consider of great practical value, but as they are not absolutely necessary to the principle of the Bill, and may be considered a stumbling block to the passing of it, I do not intend to press them if they receive much objection. Having cleared the ground so far, I will endeavour to explain shortly to your Lordships what this Bill will do. It will, I trust, mainly affect those smaller open spaces and village greens of which we who dwell in the country are so cognisant, and it is really with those in my eye that I particularly press the Bill upon your Lordships' attention. The
250
procedure of the Act of 1876 is so expensive that small village greens of two or three acres in extent are absolutely prohibited from obtaining the advantages to be derived from a scheme for their regulation. This, I am sure your Lordships will agree, is in itself to be deplored. I will endeavour to give your Lordships an idea of the procedure which has to be gone through in the case of a village green of only two or three acres in extent. I will suppose that everyone in the neighbourhood, including the lord of the manor, are very anxious that the village green should be regulated and improved and used for the purpose of providing recreation for the inhabitants. At the present moment, in order to obtain a scheme, a notice signed by persons representing one-third of the interest in the common has to be published in the local newspapers and sent to the Board of Agriculture. If the Board of Agriculture think a prima facie case has been made out, they send down one of their officers to the spot where my typical village green is situated to hold an inquiry, examine witnesses, and make a report. If the report of the officer of the Board of Agriculture is approved by that Board, they have to get the assent of two-thirds of those in the locality interested in the common affected. The Board of Agriculture then proceeds to draw up a Provisional Order embodying the regulations, which they present to the Houses of Parliament. The House of Commons proceeds to refer this Provisional Order and the report of the Board of Agriculture to the Select Committee on Commons—a Standing Committee which, as your Lordships know, is appointed to examine into matters of this sort. That Committee proceeds to have another inquiry. They summon up the officers of the Board of Agriculture, and, if they choose, people from the locality where the common is situated, and hotel an exhaustive inquiry, a procedure which involves considerable expense. When the Select Committee on Commons has confirmed the report of the Board of Agriculture it reports to the House of Commons, and a Bill has to be passed through that House and your Lordships' House and receive the Royal Assent. But the procedure does not end there. The Board of Agriculture has then to send a valuer down, who has to make an award, a procedure also involving considerable expense. This cumbersome,

251
protracted, and expensive process is absolutely necessary at the present time in order to regulate one of the smallest village greens, where everybody interested is perfectly willing that the green should be improved and regulated. Under this Bill I propose to confer power on the district council in the neighbourhood of any open space to make a scheme. That scheme should be in the form provided by the Board of Agriculture for the regulation of the common. Notice of intention to make a scheme must be given, and the council must state where copies of the draft can be obtained. A copy of the draft and plan must also be sent as soon as possible to the Board of Agriculture, and after the expiration of forty days the Department will take into consideration any objections or suggestions made to it if it passes through that ordeal and goes up to the Board of Agriculture, the latter may, if it chooses, approve of the scheme as it is presented to them, or may make modifications. If they think fit, the Board of Agriculture may also direct an inquiry to be held by an officer of the Department. Then, if the Board of Agriculture approves of the scheme after this exhaustive inquiry, it should become law and have full effect. Under my Bill, I am informed, and I think I am right in saying this, that the whole process would be completed easily in a few weeks, and at a small expense. Under the present law the same process takes eight or nine months, and costs a very large sum of money. I am informed that the minimum sum spent even in securing a scheme for the smallest place, where everybody consents, is not less than £60, and that the maximum is something like £1,500 or £2,000. Every provision is made in the Bill for compensation for any profitable rights of the owner which might be interfered with without his consent. That leads me naturally to the question which I think may be a thorny one, namely, the veto of the lord of the manor. I have taken in my Bill the precedent of the Metropolitan Commons Act of 1866. That was not a very revolutionary period, and perhaps the precedents of that time may be right at this moment, but it may be said that the case in the country, districts to which this Bill applies is not exactly the same as in the metropolitan area. But on that point I should like to say that I am quite willing, if the Govern-
252
ment think right, that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee, where evidence might be taken and where discussion will enable a solution to be arrived at which will, I have no doubt, be satisfactory to all. The object I have at heart is to cheapen and simplify the procedure for the regulation of small commons and village greens, so that it may be possible for these open spaces, which tend so largely to the enjoyment of the people in the neighbourhood, to be improved and regulated in a proper manner. If that is carried out, I shall not quarrel with the noble Viscount or any other noble Lord with regard to the veto of the lord of the manor. I hope your lordships will admit that I have not approached this Bill in an unreasonable spirit, and if the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal will meet me in a spirit of equal "sweet reasonableness," I have not the slightest doubt that we shall be able, even this session, to place upon the Statute Book this measure, which is not an ambitious one, but one which will be highly useful and practical, and tend to promote the health and happiness of thousands of the inhabitants in rural districts.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, if the Bill does no more than carry out the object which the noble Lord has stated, and which is set forth in the memorandum to the Bill—that of providing simpler and less expensive machinery for regulating commons—it has my sympathy. In the Act of 1876, which I had the honour of passing, the Government wanted not to favour enclosures as they were favoured in former years, but to take up a different line of dealing with them, and all the commons that have been regulated under that Act have given satisfaction to everybody concerned. I am quite aware that experience has shown that not only may the procedure be simplified, but also that a great deal of the expense which has hitherto been incurred may be reduced to a very large extent. One of the great difficulties which causes as much expense as anything else in the present procedure is the necessity of getting the consent of two-thirds of the inhabitants. I understand the noble Lord to object to full notice being given in the newspapers on the ground of expense.
LORD BULGHCLERE: No I do not object to that.
VISCOUNT CROSS: Although I am quite willing that the procedure should be cheapened, there are other matters of great importance to be considered, which make it necessary that ample notice should be given of any scheme in contemplation. Your Lordships must bear in mind that in dealing with commons you are dealing with persons having absolute rights of ownership. Not only the lord of the manor, but also the commoners have rights, and it is a new thing to suggest that these rights should be taken away without the consent of Parliament. The procedure might be simplified; the two-thirds majority might be rendered unnecessary; but the taking away of rights is a matter for Parliament, and this should be made quite clear in the Bill. I understood the noble Lord to say that he was not averse to recognising the rights of the lord of the manor, and did not wish to take away his veto.
LORD BURGHCLERE: The Bill as it stands does take away the veto of the lord of the manor, because it follows the precedent of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866.
VISCOUNT CROSS: I am not going to defend the Metropolitan Commons Act, a great part of which is objectionable; but so far as the lord of the manor is concerned, it is quite clear that his rights must be protected. The noble Lord said that ample compensation would be given under Clause 7, but I have my doubts upon that point. Dealing with the Land Clauses Act is very different to coming before Parliament and stating one's case. There is another clause which I think will give rise to great injustice as it is at present drawn—namely, the clause relating to the adjustment of rights. In dealing with the adjustment of rights you are touching matters of great difficulty and great delicacy. I do not mean to say that the clause may not be amended, and I hope to submit proposals for its amendment should the Bill be read a second time. I am content that the Bill should receive a Second Reading, and I hope the noble Lord will accept the Amendments I shall place upon the Notice Paper, by which the main object may be secured and the risk of injustice removed. Commons are not the property of the public, but of private
254
persons, and their rights should not be interfered with unless some public necessity is shown. I do not understand why the noble Lord has included in his Bill metropolitan commons; they are dealt with under a special Act, and I think they should remain under that Act, by which they are satisfactorily dealt with.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am glad to find that the noble Viscount is willing to accept the Second Reading of this Bill. I am not going into details upon this Bill, but I think there will be general agreement in the desire that for the better regulation of small commons and village greens a simple and not costly procedure should be provided. At the same time, although I have not any intimate acquaintance with those parts of England which are different from that in which I live, I should say that for large tracts of common land, especially in the North of England, the situation is somewhat difficult, and I can conceive difficult questions arising to which the procedure suggested in this Bill would not be applicable. I hope my noble friend will proceed with the Bill, and that it may be a useful measure as applied to the smaller places of which he has spoken.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of offering any adverse criticism of this Bill. While agreeing with its general object, I take exception to the provision for management and the distribution of cost. Generally speaking the body most interested is the parish council; the county will have no general interest, and when a common is situated in the areas of two or more district councils the charge for upkeep and management should be upon the districts within which the common is situated. When the Bill is in Committee care should be taken that those who benefit by the regulation of commons should be those who pay for it, and not the county council or the district, for the latter may be a large district with no interest in the common in question.
On Question, agreed to
Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

QUESTIONS

  STATUE OF MR. CANNING.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the expediency of removing the statue of Mr. Canning to a more convenient site than that which it at present occupies. For a long time past my attention has been called to the position of the statue of Mr. Canning, and I intended some years ago, when the late Lord Granville was in this House, to draw his attention to it in the hope that some change would be effected. But I did not do so because I did not consider my opinion would carry much weight in your Lordships' House, and another reason for not calling attention to the matter was that the site which I had selected was one which I thought the then Government would have objected to use for the purpose. The statue to which I refer is, in the opinion of those most competent to judge, one of the best in London. In its present position at this period of the year it is almost hidden from view by the trees which surround it, and I believe that not one Londoner in a hundred, if asked the question, could say where the statue of Canning is to be found. The site which I had selected on the north side of Westminster Hall is now laid out as a garden, and it occurred to me that it was hardly likely that the Government would adopt my suggestion to place the statue there. But I have since learned that the Government have agreed that the statue of Oliver Cromwell should be placed on that very spot, and that is the reason why I now bring the subject before your Lordships' House. I am quite ready to admit that Oliver Cromwell was a great man, or perhaps I should say one of the most extraordinary men ever heard of in the history of this country. But if there was one thing for which Oliver Cromwell was more remarkable than another, it was his overthrow, not only of the House of Commons, but also of your Lordships' House, and it seems to me a ludicrous perversion of history to select that very site for a statue of a man who overthrew both Houses of Parliament, when there are many sites in London where his statue might be placed without offence to anyone. It would be almost as ridiculous to place his statue there as to place a statute of George III. opposite the White
  256
  House at Washington, or to put a statue of Louis XVI. opposite the Elysée in Paris. The site, if it should be adopted by the Government, is one certainly quite fitting for the statue of so great a man as Mr. Canning, as it would be close to the place where his fame was acquired, and he would be surrounded by those who have distinguished themselves in both Houses of Parliament. At present he is separated from his colleagues and those who shone in the same sphere as himself. There is another site, should Her Majesty's Government object to the site I have mentioned—namely, in Parliament Square, facing the entrance to Westminster Hall. Either of these two sites would be preferable to the one on which the statue at present stands.
  THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERY: On behalf of my right hon. friend the First Commissioner of Works I have to say that it is perfectly true that, owing to the growth of the trees in the neighbourhood of Mr. Canning's statue, the statue is at the present time considerably hidden. The First Commissioner of Works has experienced great difficulty in finding a better site for this statue, mainly owing to its size, it being much larger than any of the other statues of public men in Parliament Square. It would be impossible, therefore, to place it in Parliament Square. The noble Lord, I think, first of all suggested that it should be placed in the new garden at the north side of Westminster Hall, but he has since heard that the Government have decided to put the statue of Oliver Cromwell there. I may tell the noble Lord that that decision is not the decision of Her Majesty's present advisers. The site was selected by the First Commissioner of Works wider the last Government, and, as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said in reply to a question in another place, the present Government are not responsible for the site and do not propose to make any alteration in the arrangements which have been come to by their predecessors. I do not wish to enter into the question of the desirability of placing the statue of Oliver Cromwell on this site, but it may be that its position there might point a moral as to the mortality of man, however great, and the imperishable nature of our institutions. As to the noble Lord's suggestion that the statue should

  257
  be erected in Palace Yard, I remember some years ago I applied to the then First Commissioner of Works—Mr. Shaw Lefevre—suggesting that the statue of Lord Beaconsfield might be put up inside the railings in Palace Yard. I was informed that the Department could not countenance the idea of having statues inside the railings of Palace Yard. The noble Lord also suggested that the statue might be erected in the centre of Palace Yard, opposite the main entrance. If it were so erected there would be considerable objection owing to the number of vehicles which are constantly in awl out, and especially on occasions when Mr. Speaker has his dinners awl levees. I may mention that it is proposed to lop the branches of the trees which now surround the statue, and when that is done I think the statue will show out extremely well.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: The size of the statue is the very reason why it should stand alone. The proper site for it is below Westminster Hall, where it would not be dwarfed by nor dwarf any other statues.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount that owing to the size of the statue of Canning it ought to stand alone. That is exactly what it does on its present site. I happened to be First Commissioner of Works at the time the statue was removed from its original site. It was absolutely necessary to remove it because the Underground Railway was laid under the spot were it stood, and the engineering experts gave it as their opinion that it was not safe to leave it there. The Government of the day came to the conclusion that the place where it now stands was the most fitting place for it to be removed to. Although it is not close to the statues of other British statesmen, it, as it were, heads them, and is sufficiently near them to form part of the group. The present site has two advantages, one positive and the other negative. A much-frequented road runs in front of the statue, so that everyone passing has a view of it, but nobody can see the statue from the rear. If any of your Lordships doubt the value of that advantage I would ask him to saunter slowly down the bottom of Regent Street and Waterloo Place with his eye fixed on the rear of
  258
  the Guards' statue. He will, I am sure, come to the conclusion that it is expedient, if possible, that the rear of our statues should not be brought into any great prominence. Therefore, my Lords, on this ground I still think, although I am, in the opinion of the noble Viscount, the original criminal, that it would be best to let well alone in this matter. When the trees about the statue are lopped I believe the people of London will be quite content with the statue remaining where it is.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: I shall ask Her Majesty's Government on a future occasion whether they will adhere to the decision to allow Cromwell's statue to be placed on the spot to which I have referred.
  THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERY:I thought I had answered that question. The First Lord of the Treasury said in the other House that the site was not chosen by the present Government, and that they did not intend to interfere with the decision of their predecessors.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six of the clack till To-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.