Lords Sitting of 5 July 1900

ASHANTI—NATIVE RISING—INVESTMENT OF COOMASSIE.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, seeing the noble Earl the Under Secretary for the Colonies in his place, I should like to ask whether he can give the House any information with regard to the state of affairs on the West Coast of Africa.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have received this morning the following telegram, which I am sure your Lordships will be glad to hear, from Colonel Willcocks—
"Fumsu, 4th July.—Just received letter sent by Governor Hodgson in which he states that he, with 600 native soldiers under the command of Major Morris, departed from Coomassie 23rd June by way of Patiasa (and) Terrabum. Captain Bishop, Inspector of Constabulary, Gold Coast, and Ralph, Lagos Constabulary, and 100 native soldiers have been left behind at Coomassie with rations up to 15th July. I will personally relieve Coomassie by the date under any circumstances. Hodgson states that intended to go over river Ofin by way of Mampong to Cape Coast—but I have applied to him by urgent special messengers to leave behind as many men as possible in order to give assistance to me enter into Coomassie. Lieutenant-Colonel Burroughs, with 400native soldiers, arrived at Dompoasi 1st July."
I may add that that means he has got through the Dompoasi Hills, which are the most difficult part of the road to Coomassie. The telegram continues—
"Enemy's force taken completely by surprise; stockades evacuated by them. Burroughs captured forty guns, quantity of gunpowder and caps, and also killed thirty of the enemy; our loss one native soldier killed in action, three native soldiers wounded."

The Earl of Tankerville sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

THAMES AND SEVERN CANAL PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, in moving the suspension of the Sessional Order of the 12th March
562
with regard to the First Reading of Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, I will trouble your Lordships with a few words of explanation. I should not attempt to interfere with the operation of this Standing Order except upon good cause shown. I should at once agree that the onus of proving the necessity of suspending the Standing Order lies upon those who propose it, and I should not suggest that at this period of the session a Standing Order should be suspended for a Bill of this kind, unless the Department promoting it had every reason to believe that the Order would be unopposed. Important interests are involved in the Bill referred to, the object of which is to hand over to the County Council of the county of Gloucester a canal which is out of repair. The canal was authorised in the last century, but has fallen out of repair, and in 1893 the company owning the navigation published a notice of their intention to close it for through traffic. A large number of the local authorities concerned thought this would be disastrous to the community, and a trust was formed of several county councils and urban district councils to see if the undertaking could not be resuscitated. That trust have spent £15,000 upon this waterway, and have come to the end of their resources, but the County Council of Gloucester are anxious to avoid the abandoning of what they regard as an undertaking important to their district, and the object of this Provisional Order is to hand over the canal to that county council. No objections to the Order were received after many weeks of advertisement. Careful inspection has been undertaken at the hands of the officers of the Board of Trade, and the Law Officers of the Crown had to be consulted upon certain points. Under those circumstances a considerable amount of delay has taken place, but I assure your Lordships that it was unavoidable delay, for which neither the promoters nor the Board of Trade were responsible. The notice to suspend the Standing Order was put down in perfectly good faith, the Board of Trade believing that there would be no opposition. Since that time, however, an intimation of opposition has been handed to me. I do not know whether that intention is really to be carried into effect, or whether the gentleman giving the notice really proposes to petition against the Bill. If he intends

563
to oppose it I would at once say that it would serve no useful purpose to proceed with the suspension of the Standing Order, but I should like to be quite sure that the opposition is really intended before, on behalf of the County Council of Gloucester, I abandon what I know is earnestly desired by them and what I believe will be for the public interest. To put myself in order, I move the suspension of the Standing Order; but as to whether I shall persevere in the motion, I shall be largely guided by what is said in the House, and by the opinion of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, who has the best right to speak on this matter.
Moved, "That the Sessional Order of the 12th March last, 'That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill originating in this House shall be read a first time after Tuesday, the first day of May next,' be dispensed with in respect of a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under Section 45 of the Rail way and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, in the matter of the Thames and Severn Canal."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I venture to hope that the House will hesitate before suspending the Standing Order in this case. I believe it will be generally admitted that it is undesirable to suspend the Sessional Order except where the object is a public one, and where it is quite clear that no private interests acquired by previous legislation or otherwise will be prejudicially affected or interfered with by reason of the Provisional Order. This, of course, professes to be and is a motion on the part of the Board of Trade for a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, but in reality it is not for any public purpose. It is, as the noble Lord has himself told us, practically the Bill of the Gloucester County Council. What may be the intention or the proposals of the Gloucester County Council as contained in this Bill we do not know, because the Bill has not been published. It is not laid upon your Lordships' Table; and I must say, in passing, with regard to the procedure of the House, that I venture to think it would be a good thing if, when it is proposed to suspend a Standing Order in the case of any Provisional Order Bill, the Bill itself should be laid on the Table and circulated, so that your
564
Lordships should have an opportunity of seeing what there is in the Bill.
*LORD BALFOUR or BURLEIGH:. You cannot circulate a Bill until it has. been read a first time.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN:. Possibly that is a good objection; but I think that in these cases some effectual means ought to be taken in order to inform the House, and persons who may be interested, what object the Bill is intended to achieve. This Bill proposes to take a canal from a Trust to which it now belongs, and to make an Order for abandoning the canal, and, after that Order has been carried out, then to proceed to dispose of the canal otherwise. I am not interested at all in this canal, but after looking over the statements of the Board, of Trade in promoting the Bill, and what the private individual has set out who is opposing it, I felt satisfied that it was a proper case to which to call your Lordships' attention. This private opponent, opposed the Bill which was promoted by the Trust in 1895 and obtained certain terms, which were conceded to him by agreement. If this Bill goes forward it will conflict with the clauses of the Act of 1895, under which these terms were obtained. I can tell the noble Lord that the private opponent certainly does intend to oppose the Bill, and to persevere in his opposition. I was a little surprised when the noble Lord said that the Board of Trade had received no notice of opposition. I have had an opportunity of reading a long letter from the Parliamentary agent of the opponent, which was addressed to the Board of Trade, and which, though it did not contain! the words "I object," recited the circumstances at very considerable length,, and pointed out how objectionable such a proceeding as this on the part of the Board of Trade would be, and how it, would injure his client. Under these circumstances I would appeal to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, whether it is not proper that the usual course should be taken in this case. Why should the Gloucester County Council not proceed in the ordinary way? The Bill undoubtedly affects certain existing-rights. It is, properly speaking, a private Bill, and why should it not be proceeded with in the ordinary way as a private Bill? I submit that this is not a

565
proper case for the suspension of the Sessional Order, especially as the House is in entire ignorance of the contents of the Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I take up very much the view of my noble friend behind me on this question. There is nothing irregular in the proposal being brought before your Lordships' House in the form of a Provisional Order; the irregularity consists in the Provisional Order being two months late, according to the Sessional Order of 12th March. I quite agree with what fell from my noble friend behind me, that the fault of the delay does not rest with the promoters nor with the Board of Trade, and I was quite prepared, from what I heard from the promoters, to make no objection to the Bill being introduced. But since hearing from the agent of the private individual who opposes the Bill that there is serious opposition, I venture to express the opinion that it is not a case where the Sessional Order should be dispensed with. We are now practically at the end of the first week in July. The Bill originates in this House, and if there is serious opposition it is impossible for it to be seriously considered. Under these circumstances it is hardly worth while suspending the Sessional Order in respect to this Bill.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: After the expressions of opinion which we have heard I shall not persevere with my motion, but I should like to say that up till yesterday, so far as I can ascertain, no notice of opposition was lodged at the Board of Trade. I did receive a letter yesterday afternoon from the gentleman who I understand is to oppose the Bill, and on that I consulted with the Board of Trade. Under all the circumstances, although I greatly regret the necessity for postponing it, and although I believe the public interest will suffer, and that the damage to the waterway will be greater next year than it is this year, I have no option but to ask your Lordships to allow me to withdraw the motion.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments
566
had laid upon the Table the Certificates, from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of Working Classes).
Local Government Provisional Order (Housing of Working Classes).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

BRADFORD CORPORATION 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. The Orders made on the 21st June last and Monday last discharged, and Bill committed.
ABERDEEN POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.

  LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  SOUTH EASTERN METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bills, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto. The Orders made on the 19th June last and Monday last discharged, and Bills committed.

TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.
LEE CONSERVANCY BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
COSTA RICA RAILWAY COMPANY, LIMITED, BILL [H.L.]
Reported without amendment.
NORTH METROPOLITAN RAILWAY AND CANAL BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
LAND REGISTRY (NEW BUILDINGS) BILL.
Reported without amendment, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.
LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL.
Report of Her Majesty's Attorney General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL.
  OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL.
    WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
    Moved, That the Order made on the 12th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 26th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; and the Bills read 2a accordingly.
ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL.
Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
WORKINGTON RAILWAYS AND DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
AIRDRIE, COATBRIDGE, AND DISTRICT WATER TRUST BILL.
  AIRDRIE AND COATBRIDGE TRAMWAYS BILL.
    BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
READING CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS) BILL.
  WOLVERHAMPTON GAS BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bills passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON COUNTY TRAMWAYS (No. 1) BILL.
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
    SCARBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    HAMILTON BURGH BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
WIRRAL RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.

    SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL.
    RICKMANSWORTH AND UXBRIDGE VALLEY WATER BILL.
    WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL.
    GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
    HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
    BLACKPOOL, ST. ANNE'S AND LYTHAM TRAMWAY'S BILL.
    METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.:—

    M. Winchester,

    E. Romney,

    V. Portman (chairman),

    L. Tredegar,

    L. Monckton (V. Gainsay);

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Monday next, at Eleven o'clock, and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL. (No. 165.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL. (No. 166.)

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL. (No. 167.)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL. (No. 168.)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL. (No. 169.)
    TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL. (No. 170.)
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TREATY SERIES.
  No. 12 (1900).—Accession of the Republic of Uruguay to the Convention signed at Geneva 22nd August, 1864, for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded in armies in the field, 3rd May, 1900.
  No. 13 (1900).—International Convention respecting the liquor traffic in Africa [signed at Brussels, 8th June, 1899]. Ratifications deposited at Brussels, 8th and 19th June, 1900.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896 (HIGH-BRIDGE, WEDMORE, AND CHEDDAR LIGHT RAILWAY ORDER, 1900).
  Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of light railways in the county of Somerset, between Highbridge, Wedmore, and Cheddar.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SEA FISHERIES ACT, 1868 (ORDERS FOR FISHERY GRANTS, 1899–1900).
  Report of the Board of Trade under Part III. of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868.
  570
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

EDUCATION.
Return respecting. Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of the 19th June last), and to be printed. (No. 163.)
COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
  COPYRIGHT (ARTISTIC) BILL [H.L.]
  Leave given to the Select Committee to report from time to time.
  COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, and to be printed as amended. (No. 162.)

  RAILWAYS (PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10:—
  LORD DE RAMSEY: I understand from the noble Lord who has charge of this Bill that he has not yet seen the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name. I therefore, with your Lordships' permission, propose to postpone it until the Third Reading stage.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I am obliged to my noble friend for allowing his Amendment to stand over. I wish to confer with the Board of Trade before giving him an answer with regard to it.
  Clauses 10 to 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14:—
  LORD AVEBURY: I have a couple of Amendments to this clause, but for the reason just given by the noble Lord opposite I will bring them forward at the Third Reading.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Bill reported, without amendment, and recommitted to the Standing Committee.

  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; and recommitted to the Standing Committee.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) EXTENSION BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I would remind your Lordships of the debates which took place in this House and elsewhere on the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Bill of 1897. That Bill introduced a novel principle in the matter of trade and business, making the business itself responsible for the risks of that business. Great apprehensions were entertained at the time that the Bill was going a good deal too far, and many persons, I believe, thought that such legislation would be a serious interference with trade and manufacture, and that great losses would be sustained by those engaged in such trades. There were other objections taken to the passing of that measure, not that it was too large, but that it was too small and did not include workmen in agriculture. The Government, whether rightly or wrongly—in my opinion rightly—said they would not include agriculture in the Bill of 1897 until time had elapsed, and they had been able to see whether the Bill would work well between employer and employed, and whether any serious mischief would arise from the passing of the Bill. Three years have elapsed since the Bill became law, and two things have happened. In the first place, although the Bill has very often been before courts of law in order that a legal interpretation might be obtained of that measure—which was no doubt complicated, and in some cases difficult of interpretation—the principle is now fully understood, and it is well known what the meaning of the Act really is. In the second place, those apprehensions which were conscientiously entertained as to the wisdom of passing the Bill and introducing this novel principle have really come to nothing. The Act has worked very smoothly and has been entirely satisfactory, I believe, to
  572
  employers and employed. After three years experience of the Act of 1897 the Government are of opinion that it would be wise that the present Bill—which was introduced by a private Member in the other House, where it was thoroughly discussed, and which has for its object the extension of the Act to agricultural labourers, whose exclusion in 1897 was the subject of much comment—should be passed into law this session. I should like to say one word with regard to the first clause. The Bill as originally introduced was simply to extend the provisions of the Act of 1897 to agriculture entirely. It was felt in the discussions in the other House, and I believe outside, that there should be some limitation as to the extent to which the Bill should go. That matter was most carefully discussed and the clause amended, it being felt that if there was no limitation in the case of small farmers, who might simply have an allotment and employ casual labourers, great hardship might be done, such farmers probably being in no better financial position than the casual labourers whom they employed. The first section of Clause 1 was altered, and now reads as follows—
  "From and after the commencement of this Act, the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, shall apply to the employment of workmen in agriculture by any employer who habitually employs one or more workmen in such employments. "
  That was to exclude very small men, and to include every bonâ fide farmer. The best words to secure this object which could be found in the other House were those embodied in the Bill. I hope your Lordships will accept the Bill as it has come up to us and pass it into law in the course of the present session. During the discussion elsewhere there were two or three other points raised which had not been foreseen by the private Member who introduced the Bill. In many cases farmers pay by piece work and not by day work, and in order to meet such cases the following section was introduced—
  "Where any such employer agrees with a contractor for the execution by or under that contractor of any work in agriculture Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, shall apply in respect of any workman employed in such work, as if that employer were an undertaker within the meaning of that Act."
  On large farms a great deal of the work is done by a contractor who brings with

  573
  him machinery for the purpose of threshing and ploughing, and it was thought that it would be very hard on the farmer if he had to pay damages to workmen employed by this contractor, who ought to be himself responsible for the safety of his own men. Therefore, the following clause has also been introduced—
  "Provided that where the contractor provides and uses machinery for the purpose of threshing, ploughing, or other agricultural work, he, and he alone, shall be liable under this Act to pay compensation to any workman employed by him on such work."
  That would not relieve the farmer to any extent so far as his own men were concerned, but it would relieve him of responsibility for any injury to the servants of his contractor. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships by referring to any of the other matters in the Bill. I will content myself by expressing the opinion that it will be of very great advantage to agricultural interests generally, and I trust that your Lordships will read it a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Viscount Cross.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I have certainly no objection to the principle of this Bill. I never could understand, and do not now, after the explanation of the noble Viscount, why the Government thought proper in the preceding Bill to exclude the industry of agriculture, and I am rather surprised to hear the argument which appears to be now used in favour of that course having been taken. The application to artisans only seems to be supported on the principle of fiat ecperimentum in corpore vili. That seems to be rather remarkable. I should have thought that the artisans were so important a class that it was not upon them that you should try experiments. I congratulate the noble Viscount on the extraordinarily rosy view which he takes of the working of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The principle of it seems to be generally recognised as good, but I have been myself under the delusion—as I suppose I must call it—that there was very wide discontent with the framing of that Act, that very great difficulty had occurred in applying its machinery, and it was said to be in great part unintelligible, making frequent application
  574
  to courts of law necessary. I am sure the opinion expressed by the noble Lord as to the smoothness of the operation of the Act cannot be shared generally by those who have paid attention to what has been passing in the Courts. The noble Viscount is persuaded that all the questions which arose under that Act have now been so completely settled that there is no probability of further difficulty. I have no information to lead me to contest that statement, but it certainly seems to me to be a rather sanguine view to entertain. I shall not trouble the House with any remarks with regard to the limitations of the Bill. It may possibly be that these limitations may be necessary, but I should like to ask the noble Viscount for some explanation of two of the sections to which he referred. I understood the noble Viscount to say that the second section of Clause 1 was inserted in order to meet the very common practice of a labourer undertaking work by piecework. I confess that it rather puzzled me, when I saw the clause, to find that a man who undertakes the very ordinary operation of agriculture by piecework is a contractor. If that is the proper legal term I have nothing more to say, but I should like to see a word used which would be more intelligent to the ordinary reader. I am certain there is no farmer in this country who would imagine that a man he employed to hoe turnips at so much an acre was a contractor. I hope the section is perfectly sound in law. I am not a lawyer, but I should think that applications to the Court to interpret the word "contractor" will be far from improbable. With regard to the machinery of the Bill I have nothing to say. I think it is rather surprising that this Bill was left to a private Member to bring forward. I should have thought the Government, having made up their minds that after three years working of the Act of 1897 it was safe to apply it to agricultural labourers, would themselves have brought in a Bill. I do not want to make this a matter of party at all; but certainly the agricultural labourer will have no reason to thank the Government for having passed this Bill.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I do not rise to offer any opposition to this Bill. On the contrary, I

  575
  approve of its provisions, and I have never been able to see why agricultural labourers were not as much entitled to be included in the Act of 1897 as any artisan or labourer of any other kind. I have only one remark to make. I wish to call the noble Viscount's attention to Sub-section 2 of Clause 1, to which the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has just alluded. That section says that Section 4 of the Act of 1897 shall apply with a certain proviso. I hope the provision for indemnity contained in Clause 4 of the Act of 1897 will also be inserted in the present Act, and I would submit this point in the hope that the noble Viscount will consider it between now and the Committee stage.
  *LORD WINDSOR: My Lords, I should like to express my satisfaction that Her Majesty's Government have taken up this Bill, and thereby practically ensured its passing into law this session. I do not think that anybody suggested during the debates in this House in 1897 that the Workmen's Compensation Bill of that year was applicable only to those trades which were particularly dealt with by that Bill. I think it is not an unfair thing to say that the extension of the Bill to agricultural labourers was the expectation of those who supported it, and the warning of those who objected to it. There were one or two Members of your Lordships' House who did object to the Bill. The noble Marquess who is now Postmaster General said that nobody had asked for it. However true that may have been at the time, I think there is no doubt that the agricultural labourers now take a very decided interest in this Bill, and desire that it should be passed. On the few occasions on which I have addressed audiences partly composed of agricultural labourers during the past year, I have found that next to the war in South Africa this is the only question which really seems to rouse interest in them. If it is admitted that the principle should be extended to agricultural labourers, the only point is whether it can be done so that no undue hardship or burden is placed upon the employers of agricultural labour. It seems to me that that becomes a question of insurance, and I do not think anybody can say that the terms which are now offered by insurance companies for the insurance of agricultural labourers would place any
  576
  severe burden on the employers. I understand that certain insurance companies are willing to insure for 3s. per £100 of wages paid, and, though there is a limit of 5s., below which amount the companies will not insure, the very small employers of labour can get out of that by combination. In that way I venture to think that no real hardship will fall upon small employers of labour. Those connected in any way with the land know that one of the difficulties farmers have to contend with is that of obtaining labour at particular times of the year. I do not suggest that the absence during the past three years of the protection of this Compensation Act has been the cause of the difficulty of getting labour, but I do say that a disparity and disadvantage of this kind will make it still more difficult for farmers to obtain labour, and give workmen a still greater inducement to go to the towns. I think it is of the greatest importance that the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897 should be extended to workmen in agriculture as speedily as possible, and I wish again to express my satisfaction that the Government have taken the Bill up, and that there is some chance of its passing; into law.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I am glad that Her Majesty's Government have got this Bill so far safely on its way, and that there is a good possibility of a measure becoming law this session which will help to keep labourers on the land. The noble Earl behind me, the Leader of the Opposition, expressed himself as rather afraid of litigation arising, but under the system of insurance which has lately been advertised and set on foot there will be no such risk, because insurance companies will compensate in all cases without the necessity of litigation. Last year I insured all my labourers in Cheshire, and this year I have done the same in Anglesey, and between those two occasions the rates have been lowered from 3s. 6d. to 3s. 3d. or 3s.—I am not quite sure which, but there has been a. considerable reduction. The only case where it might possibly press hard would be that of the small farmer, but he must hope that good luck will prevent him having any serious accident.
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: Far be it from me to, say that the ingenuity of the lawyers

  577
  would not enable them to raise fresh points on the Act of 1897. What I meant to say was that the more prominent points have already been decided, so that the Act is much more intelligible now than it was when passed. With regard to what fell from the noble Earl below the gangway, I cannot say that subsection 2 of Clause 1 is in the best form in which it could be put, and I will take care that the observation he has made shall be considered by the lawyers, and if it can be improved in form I will see that some amendment is made at a later stage. That the Act of 1897 has on the whole worked satisfactorily, and that the evils which were apprehended have not proved real, is shown by the fact that the insurance companies are asking much lower rates than were asked at first. If we want any proof that the Act is working satisfactorily we have it by the action of the insurance companies.
  On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

  IMITATION OF COUNTY COURT PROCESS BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  DISTRICT COUNCILLORS AND GUARDIANS (TERM OF OFFICE) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3aTo-morrow.

  COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION BILL
  [THIRD READING]
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a third time."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  LORD STANMORE: My Lords, before this Bill is read a third time and passes finally from the cognisance of this House, I should like to, ask for an explanation from Her Majesty's Government of some of the terms employed in the fifty-first section in regard to the subjects with which the Commonwealth
  578
  Parliament is empowered to deal. Those subjects are very numerous, and for the most part require very little explanation, | but there are one or two points about which I think it is only right that your Lordships should receive some information as to the meaning attached to the words, on the one hand by Her Majesty's Government, and on the other hand by the Governments of the Australian Colonies. I wish, first of all, to call attention to the words "external affairs." How are those words to be interpreted? They may be: interpreted in a vastly extended sense or in a very restricted one. I wish to know what interpretation Her Majesty's Government place on them and what interpretation the Governments of the Australian Colonies put upon them. Do these words mean that the Legislature of the Commonwealth may, if they like, appoint consuls and diplomatic agents in different parts of the world? It would be satisfactory to know to what extent the external affairs of the colonies are to be placed under the control of the Legislature and Government of the Commonwealth, because it may be held by some to be a power which I do not think your Lordships intend to confer. This is not altogether a speculative question, because I remember very well many years ago, when I was more conversant with the opinions of Australian statesmen than I can now boast of being, there were many very distinguished Australian public men who held that it was the right of the colonies that they should conduct their own external affairs, and who were eager to attain that object, and I do not believe that that wish has altogether died out. the next item is also one with regard to which I think some explanation would at least be acceptable—I do not say it is absolutely necessary. Under that clause the Commonwealth Parliament are also enabled to legislate with regard to "The relations of the Commonwealth with the islands of the Pacific." These are very large words. There are many classes of islands—islands which either belong to or are more or less under the influence of Great Britain, islands which are independent, islands which are the property of foreign Powers, and one group of islands which form a separate British colony. Is it intended that the Commonwealth is to have power to legislate with regard to all these islands? I presume not. No one would

  579
  suggest that the Common wealth Parliament should have power to legislate with regard to the relations existing between the Australian colonies and those islands of the Pacific which are the property of foreign nations. It is desirable that we should not be committed to vague words which may mean many things, and in connection with which questions may be raised to the great inconvenience of administration. The Commonwealth Parliament is also empowered to legislate as to "Fisheries in Australian waters beyond territorial limits." I confess I do not understand how they can have jurisdiction beyond the territorial limits, because the waters beyond those limits form part of the high seas. I cannot sit down without expressing that fervent hope, which I am sure everyone who has had any connection with the Australian colonies must feel from the bottom of his heart, that this great measure may be one attended with all the success and lead to all the benefits which its authors have anticipated.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just addressed you must remember, if he kindly will, what the scheme of Sub-section 51 is. It is a scheme to confer upon the Commonwealth Parliament a concurrent right of legislation with the Legislatures of the Australian States, and I am advised that "external affairs" in this connection mean neither more nor less than the right of dealing with that which has hitherto been dealt with by the Australian Colonies, which in future will become the Australian States. It is certainly not intended by the authors of this Bill that these words should be stretched so as to invest Australia with the paraphernalia of consuls and ambassadors separate from the British Empire. As regards the question of the relations of the Commonwealth with the Islands of the Pacific, those words are imported directly from the Federal Council of Australia Act, 1885. It is a simple transfer of the jurisdiction conferred in that Act upon the Federal Council to the Commonwealth Parliament. Section 15 of that Act began as follows—
  "Saving Her Majesty's prerogative, and subject to the provisions herein contained, with respect to the operation of this Act, the Council shall have legislative authority in respect of the several matters following."
  580
  The first matter was the relations of Australasia with the Islands of the Pacific. That is a mere transfer from one Act to the other, and the spirit in which it has been introduced and is intended to be worked by the authors of this Bill is the same as that which animated the authors of the Federal Council Act. I do not think it would be possible to lay down a strict rule beforehand as to the exact scope of this provision, but I do not think there is any more reason to suppose that this sub-section will be abused than there was danger that the Federal Council would abuse the powers conferred upon them. Before I sit down I should like to refer very briefly to one or two points that arose in the Debate on the Second Reading in connection with Clause 74. The noble Lord who followed me in the debate (Earl Carrington) will pardon me for saying that he seemed completely unaware of the doubts and difficulties which had arisen over the original wording of Clause 74. He seemed to be absolutely at sea as to the questions which were really discussed by the delegates and Her Majesty's Government, and I do not think he at all apprehended that in the attitude he was taking up he was putting himself in a position of opposition to the prevailing Australian public opinion. There were several objections to the clause apart from the points specially emphasised by Mr. Chamberlain in another place. One objection was that the interpretation of the clause was, at any rate, doubtful. If your Lordships refer to page 17 of Blue-book 158, which contains copies of the Memoranda furnished to Her Majesty's Government by the Australian delegates, you will see that it is asserted that the clause as brought to this country did not in any way impinge on the right of appeal to the Privy Council, except in a limited number of constitutional cases; but that was merely a question of opinion. It was open to argument that the right of appeal from the State Courts was abrogated altogether, and it was also open to argument that it was only abrogated in cases in which the Constitution might be supposed to be affected. It is not for me, being a layman, to give any opinion as to which of these views was the wisest or most sound. I only mention them to show that there was a real doubt as to the meaning of the clause as brought to this country,

  581
  and, whatever may be thought of the ultimate shape the clause has assumed, your Lordships must admit that the right of appeal is reserved in all cases, and that the only question is whether it was wise or unwise to leave it to the High Court of Australia to decide whether in a certain class of cases an appeal should lie. I was asked very pointedly why the provision which appeared in the original clause, "unless the public interests of some part of Her Majesty's dominions other than the Commonwealth or State are involved," was omitted from the clause as it stands at present. The reason is that it did not seem to Her Majesty's Government, in consultation with the delegates, that the words were any longer necessary, because any such case can now be taken direct to the Privy Council from the Supreme Court of a State, or, it it goes to the High Court of the Australian Commonwealth, it can be taken to the Privy Council by leave of the High Court, and Her Majesty's Government have absolute confidence in the discretion of the High Court. Great stress was laid upon the point that it might be held in the future that the High Court was a co-ordinate court with the Privy Council so far as the interpretation of the Constitution in a particular class of cases was concerned, and some doubt was felt as to the accuracy of my statement that there were precedents in the judicature of this country for allowing an inferior court to be the deciding authority as to whether there should be an appeal to a higher court. I find in the Judicature Act of 1873 that—
  "All appeals from Putty or Quarter Sessions, from a County Court, or from any other inferior Court, which might before the passing of this Act have been brought to any Court or Judge whose jurisdiction is by this Act transferred to the High Court, may be heard and determined by Divisional Courts of the High Court, consisting respectively of such of the Judges thereof as may from time to time be assigned for that purpose, pursuant to the rules of Court, or (subject to rules of Court) as may be so assigned according to arrangements made for the purpose by the Judges of the High Court. The determination of such appeals respectively by such Divisional Courts shall be final unless special leave to appeal from the same to the Court of Appeal shall be given by the Divisional Court by which any such appeal from an inferior Court shall have been heard."
  That was a direct case in which the leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was to toe given by the lower or inferior Court.
  582
  That enactment remained in force for, I believe, something like twenty years, when an Amendment was introduced by which the leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal may be given by the Court of Appeal as well as by the inferior Court. There is another precedent in questions of bankruptcy—and in this matter there has been no change in the law—in which an appeal lies to the House of Lords on the leave of the Court of Appeal. It is not the House of Lords which gives the leave to appeal, but the Court of Appeal. In neither of these cases has the inferior Court been held to be coordinate with the Court above it. The Lord Chief Justice, in arguing this question, laid great stress on the words "final and conclusive." I have carefully looked up what the noble and learned Lord said, as reported in The Times, and I think I am not misrepresenting him when I say that his argument was to the effect that there could be no doubt that the Privy Council would, in all matters including the interpretation of this Act, be held to be the final authority, except in that limited class of cases defined in Clause 74, in which leave to appeal to the Privy Council is left to the discretion of the High Court. In that class of cases, and in that class of cases alone, the noble and learned Lord said he had a fear that it might be held that the High Court of Australia was a co-ordinate court with the Privy Council. The Lord Chief Justice, if he will pardon me for saying so, was speaking without having the exact words of the clause in his hand, because the words "final and conclusive" do not appear in that particular clause, but in the previous clause, in relation not to those special points on which the High Court is to give leave to appeal, but to the much larger class of cases in which the Lord Chief Justice himself admitted that there could be no doubt that the authority of the Privy Council would be supreme. Therefore, whether his contention was right or wrong, he cannot rest it on the insertion of the words "final and conclusive," because they do not appear at all in the clause to which he was referring. I have been rather rash, as a layman, in mentioning these points, but I could not pass over in silence arguments which I venture to think were faulty. I cannot see how it can possibly be contended that there can be any superior judicial autho-

  583
  rity in Her Majesty's Dominions than Her Majesty herself, the fount of all justice; and I am advised—and as a humble student of history I have always understood—that the decision of the Privy Council is the most direct form of expression of the judicial authority of the Crown, and that there is no precedent in the history of the judges of our race for setting up the authority of any Court deriving its judicial functions from Her Majesty over that direct expression of Her Majesty's own opinion which is to he found in the decisions of the Privy Council. This is the final stage of this great measure in your Lordships' House. What the future has in store for Australia few of us will venture to measure; but perhaps we can exercise our imagination, and try to judge what the future of Australia will be by endeavouring to conjecture how different would have been the development of the thirteen potty American States if they had not become the great United States of America; and I am sure your Lordships will join with me, re-echoing that watchword of Australia, "Advance, Australia," in the hope that Australia united will, with Canada, and, I hope, in the not far distant future, with South Africa, be a partner with the United Kingdom in the great work that lies before it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, it would have been more satisfactory if the noble and learned Lords who usually sit behind me had been present when the noble Earl thought fit to make this statement in answer to what was said by them on the Second Reading of the Bill, but unfortunately they are not here. I can assure the noble Earl that there is a very strong feeling on this side of the House, and I believe among many people, that the Bill as it is now framed is not only not an improvement on the point of the appeal to the Privy Council, but is distinctly less satisfactory, than the Bill as it originally stood. In the original Bill Clause 74 declared that no appeal should be permitted to the Privy Council in any matter involving the interpretation of the Constitution, unless the public interests of some part of Her Majesty's dominions, other than the Commonwealth of Australia, were involved. It appeared to many of us, and certainly to me, that the provision
  584
  which was introduced in the original Bill by the Australians was animated by a desire to guard to the utmost possible extent against any interference by the Australian Commonwealth in matters of public interest outside Australia itself. To the ordinary man that appears to be a far better safeguard than what is now in the Bill. You have said that no appeal in certain cases should be allowed unless that appeal is permitted by the High Court itself. I have, of course, like all your Lordships, perfect confidence in the integrity and knowledge of the learned judges who will constitute the High Court of Australia, but anyone, I think, who knows what human beings are cannot but see that any tribunal which is appointed for the ordinary administration of justice stands in quite a different position when they themselves are to be the judges as to whether or not there should be an appeal in matters affecting their own court. I cannot conceive any task more difficult or invidious to fulfil. I can easily imagine that in certain cases there may arise a feeling of dissatisfaction with the decision of the Court, and that people may say the appeal ought to have been allowed. That seems to me a point of great importance. I am obliged to say that I have neither seen nor heard any answer to the arguments of my noble friends the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Davey; and many of us who have paid what attention we-could to this Bill are still lost in astonishment that there should ever have been raised this controversy with the Australian colonies. In my belief it would have been far better, safer, and wiser to have accepted the Bill as it stood. I would not have blamed Her Majesty's Government for taking care that the right of appeal was fully preserved. That was a matter of so high importance that it was a very fair subject for consideration; but, if they had considered it from the point of view that they should have done, they would have found there was no necessity for raising the controversy. Although the controversy is now, happily, ended—and we all know that the result is acceptable to the Australian colonies—yet there was a moment when there was very serious apprehension lest there might be difficulties raised in Australia which might possibly wreck the whole scheme. I again repeat that I do not understand for what possible reasons this controversy

  585
  was raised. The only explanation we can invent may possibly be ill-founded—it is that the first intention of those who objected to the Bill as it stood was to preserve the right of appeal altogether intact. It was found that that raised a very serious and very great difficulty as regards the colonies themselves. Then we saw with astonishment the Colonial Secretary appealing to newspapers in the colonies against the opinion of the Colonial Governments and the whole Australian people—one of the most imprudent and objectionable things I have ever known done by a responsible Minister of the Crown in a matter of this importance.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble Earl has forgotten that the Governments thanked the right hon. Gentleman for what he had done.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Then they were thankful for small mercies. It was a matter of great relief to them that he had come back to something they could accept. When it was found that the original course intended was impossible, it became necessary to find some way out which might save the credit of the Minister who had charge of the matter. I admit and admire the ingenuity with which it was done. The first attempt, which was communicated to the House of Commons, and was stated to be entirely satisfactory, broke down altogether, and then, at last, very ingeniously, and, I think, with wisdom, what is called a compromise was hit upon. I say it was ingenious. It was ingenious to find out such a contrivance, and it was wise, because it turned out to be something the Australian colonies could accept. But the conduct of the matter was not such as to excite any very great admiration. I am very glad the Bill has arrived at this the last stage, and I assure your Lordships I would not have referred to the controversy at all if the noble Earl the Under Secretary for the Colonies had not seen fit to comment upon it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I do not share with the noble Earl the opinion that Clause 74 as it originally stood was better than it has since been made. I may, perhaps, venture to suggest to the noble Earl that if he had had to construe as a judge the words "public interest in
  586
  some other part of Her Majesty's dominions," he would have found considerable difficulty. I myself took great exception to the phrase, and, again, with reference to what he calls an invidious course—that of calling upon a court to say whether there should be an appeal from it or not—I would ask the noble Earl whether he has not heard of such a provision before. There is hardly a court in the country in which exactly that provision does not exist. It exists in courts of quarter sessions, in courts of summary jurisdiction, in courts of first instance, and in courts of appeal. Those courts have from time to time exercised the very discretion contemplated here. It may be true that on some occasions people have said, "Oh, that Court was wrong; it ought to have allowed an appeal"; but on the whole the discretion is supposed to be exercised wisely and impartially. The question of the true construction of the Act, which was raised on the Second Reading by the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Davey, is one upon which any intelligent laymen is as well able to form an opinion as a lawyer. The point, apparently, is that there are some matters reserved for the Court in Australia, and reserved in the sense that its decision is final. So far as that particular case is concerned, of course the fact of the reservation by the statute prevents the particular case ever being brought up again anywhere else. That is perfectly true. But the important question which was suggested was that if the Court in Australia gave a different decision from some decision in this country—not in a particular case, because, of course, that could not arise, but in some equivalent case—it might be said that there was no authority in the Supreme Court of this country to overrule, in the sense of saying that was not the law. I think in making this statement the noble Lords have not sufficiently considered this point. The Supreme Court must ultimately declare the law, and that law must be final in all courts.
  *LORD MORRIS: I was unable on the Second Reading, owing to illness, to take part in the discussion on this Bill, but I should not like it to pass without making a few observations upon it. I regret extremely that Clause 74 was ever introduced into the Bill, and,

  587
  having been introduced, that it was not deleted. I heard the speech of the Colonial Secretary in the House of Commons, and I was convinced in my own mind of the absolute danger of meddling at all with the appeal to the Queen. The noble Earl opposite has asked why this clause was not struck out. He ought to have a very good opportunity of supplying the answer, which is an obvious one. It is, that immediately the Colonial Secretary suggested that Clause 74 should be deleted—which in my humble opinion would have been the best course for the Australians themselves, and which was manifestly in accordance with the opinion of the greater part of, if not the entire, judiciary and Bar of Australia, and of all the persons who understood the subject—the Leader in the House of Commons of the party which the noble Earl opposite represents in this House attempted to make party capital out of the suggestion by saying that the Colonial Secretary had flouted the Australians. That the course which the Colonial Secretary took was the proper course in the opinion of experts that right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to prove by referring to general sources of information, such as newspapers, etc., which I have often heard quoted as sources of information open to everybody, although it has been suggested this evening by the noble Earl that it was unworthy and unbecoming to refer to them. The proposal to get rid of Clause 74, and to leave the right to appeal to Her Majesty in Council to every subject of Her Majesty who thought he was injured in person or property, was called flouting the Australians, and it was quite obvious to me that, if the clause had been struck out, "Who flouted the Australians?" would have been raised as a party cry. A change was forced upon the Colonial Secretary by the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, and which the rank and file of his party appeared quite ready to follow up. I regret extremely that the clause was not left out, and the right of appeal in Australia allowed to stand on the same footing as the right of appeal in Canada. It has been said that it is a novel thing for an inferior court to have the power of giving leave to appeal to a superior court. In the case of landed property in Ireland it is not considered so extraordinary that there should be no appeal
  588
  from the Land Commission Court without their own leave. I join heartily in the chorus of admiration which has found expression among all parties in regard to this Bill.
  *LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I would crave your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments while I express my opinion on the point raised by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition. I am one of those who would have been most anxious to preserve the original right of appeal; not so much in the interests of the United Kingdom as in the interests of the colonies of Australia themselves. I have had personal experience of the great value the right of appeal was to Canada, and I know that grave political questions, which excited great public attention, were disposed of by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in a way which was satisfactory to all. But that is not the issue now raised. The noble Earl has given the great weight of his opinion, which I very much regret, to the view that the form in which the Bill was brought to this country by the Australian delegates was better than the form in which it now stands. I happen myself to have taken part in all the preliminary discussions in regard to the Bill, and I would ask your Lordships to permit me to present one or two arguments which, I think, should satisfy independent minds that the view presented by the noble Earl is not right. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has already referred to the difficulty of construing the clause as it originally came to this country, but that was not the way in which the difficulty was presented to those of us who had to do with the negotiations. It was practically admitted by those who were at that time arguing for the possibility of retaining the clause that an appeal might be debarred in the case of most important interests, such as those of great shipping companies. It was conceded by those with whom we discussed the matter that such important interests would not fall within the words, "the public interest of some part of Her Majesty's dominions." Very grave doubt also was felt whether or not the appeal from the Colonial Courts, as well as from the High Court of the Commonwealth, was interfered with. The Colonial Secretary and those associated with him accordingly endeavoured to induce the

  589
  delegates to agree to Clause 74 being cut out altogether. I am aware that we were not able to attain the full object we had in view, but the noble Earl has expressed the opinion that the clause as it now stands is less advantageous. The analogy of Canada has been quoted, but there is a marked difference. In Canada the rights of legislation between the Dominion and the provinces were carefully defined by sections in the North American Act, but under this Bill there will be to a certain extent co-equal powers between the States and the Commonwealth. Therefore there was a substantial ground for asking—if a question does arise between the Commonwealth and the State as to the powers of the respective Legislatures—is not that a matter which you could safely leave to the High Court to deal with? Accordingly the words were agreed to that—
  "No appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question howsoever arising as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States or as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of any two or move States, unless the High Court shall certify that the question is one which ought to be determined by Her Majesty in Council."
  That was a concession made to the feeling of Australia, and if I take that by itself I do not think the noble Earl would be able to say that it is not far preferable to leave the right of appeal standing generally, and to limit the express and particular point which was to be left to the High Court. One leaves the right of appeal standing, with an exception which is actually expressed in the Bill; the other would have made it necessary, in order to allow an appeal to be brought, to satisfy that extraordinary provision, "the public interest of some part of Her Majesty's Dominions." An advantage having, I would humbly submit, been gained by preserving the right of appeal and by limiting the particular questions which might be dealt with by the High Court of the Commonwealth, we have to consider whether there is anything in a subsequent part of the clause which in any way deprives the subjects of the Queen of the advantage, which I trust I have demonstrated, the Bill in its altered form gives them. The next paragraph in the clause provides that—
  "The High Court may so certify, if satisfied, that for any special reason the certificate
  590
  should be granted and thereupon an appeal shall lie to Her Majesty in Council on the question without further leave."
  In the interest of Australia I should have been glad to see the colonies and the Commonwealth, or persons interested in questions that may arise between them, free to appeal to the Privy Council—and I hope that view may still find weight with the Australian Commonwealth—for in times of great political excitement this is especially valuable that leave to appeal to the Privy Council may be given; and I do not doubt that when great political questions arise every member of the High Court will feel it his duty to accept the guidance of this impartial tribunal, which can be relied upon to decide the questions free from any bias or political agitation. It is said that you impair the dignity of the Privy Council and run some risk of its decisions not being followed, because leave is given in this particular case to appeal. I share with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a feeling of astonishment that such views should have been placed before your Lordships as were put forward by the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Davey. I regret I was not here on the Second Heading of the Bill, and I am sorry that the noble and learned Lords are not in their places to-day. Appeals have been given by inferior Courts to higher Courts in the circumstances mentioned by the Lord Chancellor and others, and I have never yet heard it suggested that the Court which had given the leave afterwards felt itself justified in declining to obey the rule of law laid down by the Court to which it had given leave to appeal. Lord Davey, I understand, suggested that there would be two sorts of Courts of Appeal in which the Jurisdiction would appear to be co-ordinate. I venture respectfully to suggest that the experience of the world is contrary to that view, and I do not hesitate to say that every lawyer, at any rate, who follows the traditions of our profession, sitting in the High Court of the Commonwealth would feel it his bounden duty to follow the decision of the Privy Council. I think the noble Earl will agree that, if I have pointed out, as I trust I have, that far wider rights of appeal are reserved, and are kept alive under the existing form of the Bill than would have existed under the Bill as introduced, and if I have pointed out

  591
  that the door is open in times of political agitation for the High Court to send questions to be decided by an impartial tribunal, almost every argument he has used in support of the view that the Bill as now presented to the House is inferior to the Bill as it was brought to this country is cut away. I apologise for having troubled your Lordships at such length. But, believing as I do that in the interests of the colonies, quite as much as in the interests of Great Britain, it is desirable that the right of appeal should not be interfered with, I am satisfied that the clause as it now stands is a vast improvement upon the form in which it was brought over by the delegates from the colonies. It is because I hold that opinion strongly that I have ventured to raise my voice, for the first time in your Lordships' House, in opposition to the view of the noble Earl.
  On Question, agreed to. Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.

  MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order).

  UNION OF BENEFICES ACT, 1860, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  [THIRD HEADING.]
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, before this Bill is passed I should like to call attention to one matter which has excited a feeling of anxiety on the part of antiquaries. One of the inconveniences of the prevailing method of legislating by reference is that it is extremely difficult for ordinary laymen to understand exactly the scope of a particular Bill. I am informed that under the Union of Benefices Act, 1860, a large number of churches in the metropolis have been pulled down and destroyed, and that by extending this Act to the whole of England you are putting it in the power of certain persons to pull down and destroy
  592
  any parish church in any part of England. If that be the case I think it is a very grave power to give. The parish churches of England are absolutely unique from an historical point of view. And I cannot but think that if for certain reasons benefices are to be united there should be some machinery for handing over the disused churches to some responsible persons, either to the county council or to some other public body. I trust that if this Bill is taken up in another place this point will be attended to, and that we shall not be led by the vicious form of legislation by reference to sanction something which we otherwise would not permit.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, there are various eases in which it is important that the powers which have been exercised in the metropolis should be extended to other parts of the country. For instance, you have in the city of Exeter a considerable number of churches which are really of no use at all, the population of the parishes being so exceedingly small that they do not work as parishes ought to work. Moreover, the incomes have been so small that it is practically impossible to get anyone to remain for a considerable period. The removal of these churches would be in every respect a great gain, as the removal of similar churches has been a great gain in the metropolis. As I explained when this Bill was read a second time, the city of Norwich contains a great number of churches of precisely the same character, and there are many other cases throughout the country. The Bill has had the consent of the Convocation of Canterbury and of all the bishops of that Convocation, and it is a Bill which is very much needed in the interests of the Church.
  On Question, agreed to. Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY BOARD.
  Moved, "That the Lords following be named of the Committee to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the constitution of Queen Anne's Bounty Board, and to report whether economy and efficiency of administration

  593
  would be promoted by any change in its constitution or by its amalgamation with any other body, viz.:—

  L. Privy Seal (V. Cross),

  E. Aberdeen,

  L. Bp. London,

  L. Barnard,

  L. Ashcombe.

  That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman."—(Earl Waldegrave)
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I do not rise to object to the names of the Members proposed—they are as good a selection as I believe could have been made—but to ask Her Majesty's Government why there is to be this inquiry, and at whose instance it has been set on foot. There are most ill-omened words in this notice. It is proposed to inquire whether economy and efficiency of administration will be promoted by any change in the constitution of Queen Anne's Bounty Board or by its amalgamation with any other body. That can only mean amalgamation with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as nobody would think of the Charity Commissioners in this respect. I venture to think that those who have contributed money to Queen Anne's Bounty would not think it was equally safe with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and I hope the noble Marquess at the head of the Government will be able to allay their anxiety and dispel their fears on this subject. Why, I ask, is there to be this inquiry into the efficiency of the administration? I have been familiar with the administration of the Bounty for nearly thirty years, and can testify to the fact that the economy and efficiency of its administration have been much greater than the economy and efficiency of the administration of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The work of the Bounty has increased very much of late years, and large additions have been made to the sums invested in its name, but the expenses have not increased. Again, why is this inquiry to be made, just when the late secretary of Queen Anne's Bounty has departed this life? It is not suggested that an inquiry should be made into his administration; but why take advantage of the death of an efficient servant to make this attack on the Bounty? This
  594
  question has been sprung upon the House and upon the public, and I heard nothing of it until I saw this motion on your Lordships' Paper.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): The noble Lord has mentioned me, and I will answer him, not from my own knowledge, but from information derived from high authority. I am told that Queen Anne's Bounty is a very remarkable corporation. It seems to have been the fashion in the last century in. constituting these corporations to make them a numerous body of men, selected from those already overworked. Such was the idea then to secure efficient administration. I am told that Queen Anne's Bounty Board includes all the Bishops, all the deans—I am not sure whether all the Privy Councillors—["Yes."]—all the sheriffs, all the mayors, all the aldermen, and all Queen's counsel. Of course it is only by the exercise of a great deal of self-denial on the part of these gentlemen that business goes on. If all of them attended the meetings and took active part in proceedings, the transaction of business would be beset with difficulties. I am told, however, that they are not required to be summoned to attend, and the danger arising from their number is therefore diminished. It is only necessary to insert an advertisement in the London Gazette, and as that journal is not so widely read as its merits deserve, there is not a large attendance of all these Bishops, deans, aldermen, etc., and confusion is avoided. I understand that it has entered into the heads of some revolutionary persons that possibly this body might be amended. To explain the matter which is disturbing the mind of my noble friend, it was thought wiser to commence action at a time when no one had vested interest as secretary, so that an unnecessary demand should not be made upon the resources of the Church. That is all the explanation I have to give. I believe those composing the Committee are careful men, and will not prune these bishops, deans, aldermen, and other dignitaries without sufficient cause, but I think the House will admit that there is some case for legislation.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: AS one of the body to whom my noble friend has

  595
  referred, I may say that I have been a member of that body since 1865, and I can assure him that I have never once attended.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Ordered, That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.

  VETERINARY SURGEONS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 164.)

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS— MR. BURDETT-COUTTS'S CHARGES —COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Before the House adjourns I wish to ask the Secretary for War whether he can inform the House what has been decided as to the Committee which is to inquire into the question of medical appliances during the war in South Africa and the complaints of alleged negligence as to the treatment of the sick and wounded, especially those suffering from enteric fever, and what is likely to be the nature of the Committee which the Government have undertaken to appoint.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): The Committee or Commission—I am not quite sure which it will be—will be presided over by Lord Justice Romer, and I am sure I only have to mention his name in order to satisfy your Lordships that the inquiry will be conducted in a thoroughly judicial and dispassionate tone and spirit. With Lord Justice Romer we propose to associate two others. We think that to do its work with efficiency this body should be a small one. One of the two other gentlemen will represent the medical and the other the surgical profession. For the selection of a representative of the medical profession we determined to refer to the Royal College of Physicians, and we addressed ourselves to the distinguished gentleman who presides over that body, Dr. Church, and invoked his assistance. We asked him either to move the college to recommend a representative, or, if he was prepared to do so, to place his own
  596
  services at our disposal. I am happy to say that he has chosen the latter alternative, and I do not think a more fortunate selection could be made. With regard to the surgeons, we should, in ordinary circumstances, have addressed ourselves in the same way to the Royal College of Surgeons. But your Lordships, or those of you who have paid attention to the question, are no doubt aware that the name of the distinguished President of the Royal College of Surgeons, Sir William MacCormac, has figured conspicuously in this controversy, and we felt it was hardly fair to ask him to recommend a representative of his college. We have selected a gentleman whose name is probably known to many of your Lordships, Professor Cunningham, Professor of Anatomy and Physiology in Dublin-University. He is a man of most distinguished reputation. He holds degrees of the University of Edinburgh, at which he has held high office, and he now occupies a high office in the University of Dublin. These are the three members of the Committee. The reference (I am quoting from memory) runs in those words:—"To report as to the arrangements for the care and treatment of the sick and wounded during the campaign in South Africa." My lords, I will only add to what I have already said that I have sometimes seen it stated that it was our intention to appoint a Departmental Committee. No such intention was ever entertained; as far as I am aware, by any member of Her Majesty's Government.
  House adjourned at Twenty-five minutes before Seven of the clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four of the clock.