Lords Sitting of 23 July 1903

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Strabane and Letterkenny Railway Bill. Several witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported front the Select Committee, with Amendments.
London County Council (Money) Bill; Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Extension of Time) Bill; South Shields Corporation Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Erith Tramways and Improvement 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 ninth instant
2
and Friday last discharged; and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
Kingston-upon-Hull 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; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 14th instant and Friday last discharged; and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8.) Bill. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the Committee having found that the petitioners had no locus standi before them; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; the orders made on the 7th instant and Friday last discharged; and Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Alexandra Park and Palace Bill; Croy-don and District Electric Tramways Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 16th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of

3
Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a, agreed to; Bills read 2a accordingly, and committed.
Blackheath and Greenwich District Electric Light Bill. Read 3a, and passed.
Watford and Edgware Railway Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, arid returned to the Commons.
London United Tramways Bill; London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill; Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (Various Powers) Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Irish Land Bill; London Education Bill; Licensing Acts (Scotland) Consolidation and Amendment Bill. Brought from the Commons.
Lochnell Estates Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Derby Gas Bill [H.L.]; Dudley, Stourbridge, and District Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Poole and District Electric Traction Bill [H.L.]; Tynemouth and District Tramways Bill Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Returned from the
4
Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
Middlesbrough Corporation Bill. Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
Plymouth Corporation Bill. Report from the Select Committee, That the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered, that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill. Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AFRICA No. 9 (1913).
  Memorandum showing position of the four African Protectorates administered by the Foreign Office in June, 1903; arranged in chronological order of date of administration.
  WEST INDIES.
  Report on Excise Restrictions in force in the West Indies and British Guiana in relation to a proposal to sanction the payment of such an allowance on export of rum as shall compensate the distillers in those colonies for additional outlay caused by Excise restrictions.
  Report of the progress of the Ordnance Survey, to the 31st March, 1903.
  AGRARIAN OUTRAGES (IRELAND).
  Return for the Quarter ended 30th June, 1903. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  FORESHORES.
  Treasury Minute, dated 21st July, 1903, directing the application of moneys received by the Board of Trade, in the year ended 31st March, 1903, in respect of the rights and interests of the Crown in the foreshores of the United Kingdom.

  POLICE ACT, 1890.
  Correspondence relative to the refusal of the Secretary of State's certificate under Section 17 (2) of the Act to the River Tyne Police Force, for the year ended 29th September, 1902.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MUNICIPAL TRADING.
  Report from the Joint Committee (with the proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed.(No. 172)
  MARINE STORE DEALERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further amendment; The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House to be received To-morrow.
  MOTOR CARS BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with further amendments: The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House, and by the Standing Committee, to be received To-morrow; and the Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 173.)

  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  House in Committee (According to Order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I think it would be more convenient that any Amendments I have to move on this Bill should be referred to the Standing Committee. With one exception the Amendments which I intend to propose are upon questions of law, and I therefore think it would be more convenient if I postponed them to the Standing Committee.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  MILITARY LANDS BILL
  On the Motion to go into Committee.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of HARD WICKE)said: My Lords, before we to
  6
  into Committee I should like to say a few words with reference to the remarks which were made upon this Bill by my noble friend the Chairman of Committees the other day. On that occasion I gave an undertaking to look into the matter to which he took exception. The noble Earl Pointed out that the Bill would enable a County Council to borrow money in order to pay for the hire of land, and he objected to that power. I propose when the House is in Committee, to move an Amendment which will make it clear that the money that is to be borrowed is only to be in the nature of capital expenditure. I have taken this opportunity of mentioning this matter in order to give the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees an opportunity of expressing his views before the House goes into Committee, when he will not have that Opportunity.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): I am much obliged to my noble friend for his courtesy in telling me the nature of the Amendment which he proposes to move when the House goes into Committee on this Bill. I may say that the Amendment entirely satisfies the objection I raised, and I think it will be a great improvement to the Bill.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: The last words of Clause 1, if the Amend meat which I am about to move is agreed to, will read —
  "And the payment of those expenses, so far as they are in the nature of capital expenditure shall accordingly be a purpose for which the Council may borrow."
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, line 13, after the word 'expenses,' to insert the words. 'so far as, they are in the nature of capital expenditure.'"—(The Earl of Hardwicke.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to, and Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended.

  THE SUPERANNUATION OF LAW CLERKS
  LORD MONKSWELL,who had given notice—"To call attention to the Report of the Ridley Commission as to superannuation; to ask the Lord Chancellor whether he proposes to take any steps to apply the scheme of superannuation obtaining in the Civil Service, or any other scheme of superannuation, to the law clerks serving in the several divisions of the High Court; and to move for a Return of the total number of such clerks, giving the number, ages, salaries, and length of service of such clerks as are over the age of sixty," said—My Lords, I am very sorry to stand, even for a few minutes, between this House and the interesting debate to which we are about to listen, and my remarks will be as short as I can reasonably make them. In moving the Motion that stands in my name, I have to say, in the first place, that my most grateful thanks are due to the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack for his courtesy in giving me information which is not accessible to the public. I hope I need not assure the House that in bringing forward this Motion I am not in any way actuated by a spirit of hostility to the noble and learned Earl. It is a perfectly friendly Motion. The noble Earl is, of course, entitled to his own opinion with regard to superannuation. He may agree, or lie may not agree, with the principle of compulsory superannuation as applied either to the Civil Service or to the law clerks; but I do say that the time has now come for the noble and learned Earl, and for the other Judges who are responsible for the efficiency of the Law Offices, to sate their views.
  The Ridley Commission, to which I have directed your Lordships' attention, reported in September, 1888, and from that time to this, with two exceptions, there has been absolutely no authoritative exposition by the Judges of their views with regard to this important question of the superannuation of law clerks; although they have been very often pressed to give their views. The late Lord Herschell expressed a view in favour of a scheme of superannuation being applied to some, at all events, of the law clerks, and Sir Francis Jeune is very enthusiastic indeed in the same direction. But with those two exceptions, for fifteen years the
  8
  Judges have been asked for their opinion by the Treasury and by private people, and so far they have not given it. The authority in support of my view is very great indeed. There is the authority not of one, but of two, Royal Commissions, and the action of the Treasury enthusiastically endorsing the finding of those Royal Commissions; and I have not heard any reason stated why the great majority of the law clerks should be treated differently in this matter from the Civil Service. I shall not weary your Lordships with any views of my own on the subject. I shall content myself with making an extract from the Treasury Minute respecting the Order in Council of 15th August, 1890, which carried into effect, with regard to superannuation in the Civil Service, the recommendations, of the Ridley Commission. The Treasury Minute says that—
  "The question of compulsory retirement was considered by the Royal Commission of 1857 on Civil Service Superannuation, and they suggested sixty-five years of age as a lit period at which retirement might be made compulsory. This regulation had, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the great advantage that it relieved heads of Departments of the invidious and painful duty of suggesting to a meritorious public servant chat his powers were beginning to fail. If, in special instances, long services were accompanied by undiminished power of usefulness, it might be left to heads of Departments to perform the more agreeable task of inviting a particular officer to continue in his post. The Commissioners, presided over by Sir M. White Ridley, expressed in their second Report their concurrence with the Commissioners of 1857 'That it is absolutely essential to fix an age for compulsory retirement.' They suggested 65 as the age. 'There should be no exception,' the Commissioners continue, to this rule, except in the case of certain scheduled offices in which the officer, if asked by the Government to do so, might be allowed to extend his services for a further period never exceeding five years. It should be clearly understood that at the age of 60 a man may be required to retire by the head of his Department upon such pension as by the length of his service he is qualified to receive."
  The Minute goes on to say—
  "It will he seen that Clause 10 of the Order in Council gives effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners, which may be said to represent the most recent utterance of competent opinion. My Lords entertain no doubt of the wisdom of the regulation as laid down by the Order in Council."
  It appears to me that the reasons given in this Minute appeal to one as common sense. A great deal has happened since

  9
  1890. This system of superannuation in the Civil Service has been going on for thirteen years. I can quite understand the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack and the other Judges saying that they did not care to extend this system of superannuation to the law clerks until they had seen how it worked in the Civil Service, but we have now had thirteen years experience of how this system works in the Civil Service, and I do not think there is a man who wishes to go back to the old system.
  With regard to the application of the Civil Service system to the law clerks, on that matter a distinction has been drawn by the Judges. They say that the law clerks may be divided into two classes—judicial clerks and non-judicial clerks; that is, clerks who perform judicial work, and clerks who do not. It is perfectly clear that when the Order in Council was issued it was supposed at the time that that Order not only ought to include the law clerks, but did, in point of fact, include them; and that appears very clear from a Memorandum to a Bill brought in by Lord Herschell in the year 1893 dealing, among other things, with the question of the retirement of law clerks. He puts the arguments of the Judges, and also his own views, in the Memorandum, and I chink it would be desirable that I should read a short extract from the Memorandum. The Memorandum states:
  "Doubts have recently been raised whether Orders in Council regulating the Civil Service Apply to the legal departments."
  Therefore, clearly, before 1893, no doubt at all existed in the minds of the Treasury on this point.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I ought to tell the noble Lord that that was the view of the Treasury. It was not the view either of Lord Herschel or of myself.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I quite understand that.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But I think the noble Lord was reading it as if it had the concurrence of Lord Herschell.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I apologise if that is the case. Lord Herschell, in the
  10
  Memorandum to his Bill, goes on to say"—
  "The organisation, qualifications, duties and requirements in those (the law) departments are so materially different from those in the ordinary branches of the Civil Service that great confusion would follow any such application; but, at the same time, there are recommendations in the recent Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments which ought not to be disregarded ill the legal departments if they are thought right to he enforced in other public offices. The Bill, therefore, declares that the offices of the Supreme Court shall be regulated by Orders of the Lord Chancellor, with the consent as far as expenditure is concerned of the Treasury; and Orders based on similar principles to those recently laid down for the Civil Service are intended to be issued as soon as the power to make such Orders is given."
  Therefore I think I am justified in saying that Lord Herschell was, at all events, in favour of some of these clerks being compulsorily retired. Lord Herschell brought in another Bill dealing with the same subject in 1895, and on May 16, 1895, a Committee of five Judges reported on this Bill. The Report dealt with the proposal to extend the patronage of the Lord Chancellor, and with the compulsory retirement of la w clerks. The patronage proposals were discussed at considerable length, and I may say with some heat, and the Committee unanimously denounced the application of an age limit to judicial clerks. It is not wonderful that His Majesty's Judges should take a great interest in these matters; but the unfortunate part is that their interest seems to have stopped there, because, although they had been asked for five years by the Treasury and by other people to express some opinion as to whether the great body of law clerks should or should not be compulsorily retired on reaching a certain age, they express no opinion in the matter. They give it the go-by. They do not make any suggestion that they cannot agree. From all one can read in the Report, they did not take the matter into their consideration at all. One of the Judges on this Committee was the President of the Probate Division, Sir Francis Jeune, who is, and always has been, strongly in favour of an age limit for a great majority of law clerks. Therefore I suppose that, although the Report does not say so, the subject was considered, and that the reason they did not express an opinion

  11
  was that that opinion was very much divided.
  On April 17, 1901, Sir Francis Jeune wrote to Admiral Field, who took up this matter in the House of Commons, a letter. The concluding paragraph of his letter reads as follows—
  "Since the Ridley Commission the case for superannuation is overwhelming, and the absence of it leaves very many of the clerks in the Probate Registry in a very sad position. I have by personal influence obtained a good many resignations from clerks who were really beyond their work, and were wise enough and just enough to recognise the fact. But my power in that way is, of course, very limited, anal beyond question there should be a rule working automatically."
  The Judges, as I have said, unanimously agreed that judicial clerks ought to be exempted from age retirement. So far as my personal opinion is concerned, I cannot entirely agree with them. But there is a distinction, no doubt, between judicial and other clerks, and one that ought to be recognised, but it appears to me that it ought to be recognised in the way that it is recognised in the Civil Service. In the Civil Service, as well as with law clerks, there are persons who do not enter young, but in middle life, with great professional experience, but they are compelled to retire at sixty-five. The only difference is that a certain number of years are added to their service in calculating their pensions. Therefore I think the distinct on that has been made with regard to law clerks is one that will hardly hold water; but as the Judges are unanimously against me I will not press my opinion on that matter.
  I desire to say that this is not a mere sentimental grievance; it is a very real grievance. Admiral Field moved for a Return in the House of Commons very similar to the Return I am moving for to day, and that Return showed that in 1900, there were twenty-five clerks between the ages of sixty-five and seventy-five with from thirty-two to fifty-tour years service, and six clerks of over twenty years seniority serving in the same class and on the same pay as at the time of entering, with ages varying from forty to seventy-one years. I asked one of the Judges the other day whether that state of things had been at all a meliorated, and he said it was just as
  12
  bad now as in 1900. I do not doubt for a single instant that the noble and learned Earl and the other Judges concerned do the best they can to find out what is going on in these law offices; but they cannot find out everything that is going on. What the junior clerks say is, that they have a double grievance, that they are compelled to do the work of incompetent seniors and promotion is blocked. It is said that vested interests stand in the way of reform. I leave that question to be dealt with by noble and learned Lords in this House. I would only point out this—that in the Army and Navy the age limit is applied to persons why joined before the limit was imposed, so that it would seem, with regal d to certain persons at all events, the question of vested interests is not entertained. So far as I am concerned, I shall be perfectly satisfied if the Lord Chancellor gives his adhesion to the general principle of superannuation with regard to non-judicial clerks, and will promise to take at once such steps as he thinks advisable to carry his views into effect. In addition to the Papers I have moved for, I should like to ask the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack whether he would be inclined to grant me certain correspondence that has taken place between the Lord. Chancellor and the Treasury with regard to this question of superannuation.
  Moved, "That there be laid before the House a Return of the total number of law clerks serving in the several divisions of the High Court, giving the number, ages, salaries, and length of service of such clerks as are over the age of 60; and all correspondence passing between the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury with respect to the superannuation of the law clerks serving in the several divisions: of the High Court.—(Lord, Monkswell.)
  THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE (Lord ALVERSTONE): My Lords, before the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack replies, I should like to say a few words upon this subject. Speaking as head of the King's Bench Division, I should be extremely sorry to see a hard and fast rule laid down, as indicated in the Motion, that there should be retirement at the age of 60.
  ٭LORD MONKSWEIL: I suggested that the Civil Service rule should apply—namely, that there should be compulsory retirement at 65, with the possibility of having a few years added, and optional retirement at 60.
  LORD ALVERSTONE: As I say, I should be sorry to see any hard and fast rule laid down. In all probability the difficulty has arisen in the past because there has not been sufficient consideration of individual cases. I think that in some cases it might be well that the power which now exists should be more freely exercised, but there is another aspect of the case which has been overlooked, and that is the hardship that would ensue if this proposal were carried out. In the King's Bench Division, with some eighty clerks, there are only nine first class clerks. The consequence is that only one in nine second class clerks ever can become a first class clerk. Therefore, if you are going to have a hard and fast rule of retirement, you must retire men who are second class clerks on a comparatively small pension, although they have done a great number of years service. If anything of the kind is established there ought to be some modification of the rule as to the salaries which the second class clerks receive. With regard to the present working of the office the noble Lord has suggested that there are cases in which second class or lower class clerks have had to do the work of their seniors, because the latter are incompetent. Speaking for the King's Bench Division, I can state that there is no justification whatever for that statement. If the noble Lord suggests that in regard to that Division there has been any necessity for calling upon lower clerks to do the work of the seniors, because of their incapacity through age or other causes, I can assure him that, to the best of my information, he is absolutely mistaken. I would remind the noble Lord that the present state of the office is peculiar. We have reduced the staff at the Law Courts very materially during the last fifteen or twenty years, and the slow promotion is due to the large reduction made in first class clerks. Until things right themselves and get into what I may call the normal state, the usual rate of promotion will not be restored. I would ask your Lordships to pause
  14
  before endorsing the theory that for clerks exercising such duties there should be this compulsory age retirement. I feel that the complaint arises to a certain extent from the scale of pay and the unavoidable delay in promotion. It may be said that they go into the office knowing what the salary is, and what the expectations are; but that does not prevent the hardship being felt, when the second class clerks are nearly eight or nine times as numerous as the first class clerks. In my Division, notwithstanding the slow promotion, the clerks have worked extremely well, and I desire to take this opportunity of publicly stating my high appreciation of the way in which they have done their work. Whatever view my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack may take with regard to this matter, speaking for myself I should be very sorry to see a hard and fast rule laid down.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We all desire to further the public interest in this matter. I very much deprecate the notion that any body of junior clerks or junior employés have the right to start an inquiry on this subject on the ground that they are entitled to promotion. They may be entitled to promotion in due course, but I protest against that notion because I think it would be mischievous to the public service. In the first place let me deal with what the noble Lord said with reference to the Ridley Commission. I am sorry the noble Viscount is not here who presided over that Commission, because I know what his views are. It is an entire mistake to suppose that the Ridley Commission was ever intended to apply to the judicial body at all. It did not take a single witness from that body, but, apart from that question, which, after all, is not a very important one, I am not fascinated with the age rule, even as it has been accepted during its thirteen years trial. It has frequently happened that Civil servants, who have been retired under the age rule upon the ground, arid only upon the ground, that they are unfit any longer to perform their duties, have immediately found employment at high salaries in commercial establishments to the great loss of the public,

  15
  who are deprived of services to which they were entitled.
  My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice has answered for the Division with which he is connected. I can assure the noble Lord that, with regard to the Division of which I am the head, it is not in the smallest degree true to say that the junior officers are employed more than they should be by reason of their seniors being incompetent. Do not person unable let it be supposed that we do not know what goes on. I can assure the noble Lord that if there is any cause for complaint, there is no reluctance to make it. I get reports from time to time of the conduct of the officers, and there is not the smallest ground for supposing that there is any complaint on the ground stated. With the Lord Chief Justice I must bear testimony to the efficient way in which the duties are performed, and they are discharged without complaint of undue pressure. Of course these clerks like other people, may think that their services are not adequately requited, and the with respect to some of them I should be disposed to agree with that view. But, with reference to the question raised, I may say that I have never heard any complaint such as the noble Lord has suggested, and I do not think there is any ground at all for it.
  I personally should have no objection to a rule of retirement for non-judicial clerks, but the House of Commons refused to pass the necessary Bill; and if there is anything to be done in that direction the noble Lord should bring in a Bill for the purpose. I do not believe I have the power to do it without an Act of Parliament. Some of the learned persons who are associated with me in this matter are of opinion that we have this power, and some certainly think we have not; and in that divided state of authority I certainly should not think to acting without the sanction of an Act of Parliament. But as I have said, personally I should have no objection to any Bill which provided that the persons who are not invested with any judical authority should be retired at the age of sixty-five. Thereare some positions—such as that of the Chancery Masters—which cannot be held without considerable professional experience, and it would be
  16
  absurd to retire men in those positions at the age of sixty-five.
  With regard to the proposal that the period should be extended at the suggestion of the Treasury, if there is one thing more objectionable than another, it is that any Government Department should have the power to affect the future of any judicial person. The power is possessed by me, in common with other heads of Departments, to remove any person unable to perform his duties, and I have more than once exercised that power. It is quite a mistake to suppose that there is no such power. To the best of my ability I will continue to exercise it, and anybody in my position must exercise it. It do not think on a single occasion during the fifteen years I have had to exercise that power it has been necessary to do it by order. It has been sufficient to intimate that the time has arrived when they had better retire, and they have always acted upon that. I very much object to the notion that they should be compelled to retire, because the public would thereby be deprived of services which are extremely valuable. In these circumstances, I cannot give the noble Lord any such assurance as he asks from me. With reference to the Return, if the noble Lord Presses for it I shall place no impediment in the way of its being given. If, as he says, there are a number of officers in the Probate Division who are unfit to discharge their duties, the President of the Probate Court has not exercised the power which I have been called upon to exercise, but has allowed the Court to remain in a condition in which it ought not to remain. But Speaking for my own Division no such state of affairs exists.
  LORD MONKSWELL: Will the noble and learned Earl give me the correspondence between the Treasury and the Lord Chancellor, which I think might be interesting?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORE:So far as I am concerned I have no objection to my predecessor's correspondence being given.
  LORD MONKSWELL: The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack goes

  17
  further with me than the Lord Chief Justice, and I am glad to find that he is in favour of some age for the retirement of clerks who do not exercise any judicial function. But I would suggest that a Bill on the subject would come very much better from him than from me.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  FISCAL POLICY—THE BIRMING AM LEAFLETS.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON,who had given notice "To call attention to certain publications of the Tariff Committee of the Birmingham Liberal Unionist Association, and to ask the Lord President of the Council whether these publications are issued with the knowledge and approval of the Secretary of State for the Colonies; whether what is described in them as 'the Chamberlain policy' and 'the fiscal policy of Mr. Chamberlain' is the policy of the Government; if so, when this policy will be expounded in Parliament," said: My Lords, however conscious I may be of my own inability to command your Lordships' attention on the subject with which this Question deals, I do not think. I need offer any apology for asking this House to consider one feature of that great political question which at this moment is absorbing so large a share of public attention in the country. Your Lordships will remember that a request was made a few days ago in a quarter by no means hostile to the government for an opportunity to discuss the fiscal policy of this country in the House of Commons. That request was refused, and, whatever the ground may have been for that refusal, we all know that the House of Commons, unlike your Lordships' House, is a very busy place; and the Prime Minister, at my rate, gave it as his opinion that no useful purpose could be served by interrupting the course of business in the house of Commons by discussing this important question at the present moment.
  A few days later an attempt was made to obtain discussion in another quarter. A request was sent to the Lord Mayor for the use of the Mansion House for he purpose of holding a large meeting,
  18
  but the Lord Mayor was of the same opinion as the Prime Minister, and thought that no useful purpose could be served by granting the request—or, at any rate, that the question was not of a character which lent itself to discussion in that place. No doubt the reasons given on both those occasions were perfectly adequate; but it comes, then, to this, that there is only one Chamber, only one Assembly in this country at the present moment, in which this matter can have free and full discussion, and that is your Lordships' House. We, my Lords, are happily not hampered by any congestion of business, and our debates are not interfered with by any consideration either of prejudice or of procedure and therefore it is to the House of Lords at this moment that the country is looking for full comment upon the extraordinary political situation which has been created. For, my Lords, it is an extraordinary political situation. It is a situation full of very grave considerations, for this new policy which has been put forward so suddenly by a Minister of the Crown—this policy which Mr. Chamberlain has threatened, if I may borrow a word from the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council, that he will use every means in his power to bring before and to carry in the constituencies in this country—is a policy which is bound to divide, and possibly will shatter the great Unionist Party, that Party for which the Colonial Secretary has himself done so much during the last eight years to make a great and a powerful Party; and it is also a policy which we have already been told is intimately connected with the whole future of our Empire.
  Now, my Lords, those are grave considerations, and it is therefore to the noble Duke the Leader of this House that we all look for some of that information and guidance which it is not convenient to give in another place. The Question which I have put upon the Paper, deals with the publications of the Tariff Committee of the Birmingham Liberal Unionist Association. If these publications were merely ordinary expressions of opinion of political agitators in the country, if they were merely the usual sort of pamphlets which are circulated about the country in times of political excitement, I should never have dreamt of

  19
  coming down to this House and taking up your Lordships' time by asking you to give special attention to them. There are plenty of such leaflets and publications in circulation at the present moment on this as upon many other subjects, and I think I must say that almost without exception they are entirely unworthy of the attention of Parliament. But, my Lords, these particular publications have one feature about them which put them in a different category, which differentiate them altogether from other publications of their kind, and that is the fact that they are universally believed—I do not say at this moment whether rightly or wrongly—to be inspired by a member of that Cabinet which at the present moment, owing to acute differences which exist on the subject, is pledged to nothing more than to a policy of inquiry.
  There is, I admit, an element of inquiry even about these Birmingham leaflets, because they are sent out accompanied by two circulars which are labelled "Very important" and "Private and confidential." I think by this time they are sufficiently public to relieve me of any charge of betraying a confidence if I draw your Lordships' attention to them. But what are the questions which are asked? They are three. The first is—
  "How is Mr. Chamberlain's proposed fiscal policy being received in your district?"
  Secondly—
  "I should be glad if you would advise me what special arguments are being used with and most effect against Mr. Chamberlain's policy, so that, if necessary, special leaflets may be prepared giving our side of the case."
  And, finally, a request is made for the names and addresses of gentlemen in the district who public speakers and supporters of Mr. Chamberlain's policy. That is one of the circulars. The other one makes the very generous offer not only that these leaflets will be given gratis, but that all reasonable cost of distribution will be defrayed by the Association which distributes them.
  I next come to the grounds for believing that these publications have a connection with the Colonial Secretary. It the first place, they emanate from Birmingham. The telegraphic address of the Association which sends them out is "Consistent, Birmingham." Those two facts alone would suggest—I do not say
  20
  more—but would suggest some sort of connection with the Colonial Secretary. They I find that the circulars are singed by Mr. Vince, whom we know we as Mr. Chamberlain's most trusted agent, and who not infrequently signs his official letters. Then a very prominent member of the Committee is Mr. Powell Williams, a man who has been associated with Mr. Chamberlain in his official work, land in connection with the Liberal Unionist Association, and who, in fact, has been his right-hand man in most of his affairs of organisation. So far, we only find the connection with Mr. Chamberlain's friends; but it is also openly stated in the Press that no leaflet—and thousands have been issued—is sent out from Birmingham before it has been submitted and directly approved by the Colonial Secretary. That is only on the authority of the daily Press, but the statement is significant for this fact alone, that it has up to the present moment received no contradiction.
  If the noble Duke will give me some definite assurance that this committee is a thoroughly irresponsible body, that it has never received any encouragement or any assistance in any form whatever from the Colonial Secretary; in other words, that there is no justification whatever for connecting the one with the other; he will, of course, relieve me of the necessity of pursuing that point any further. But in the absence of any explicit assurance of that kind, we must fall back upon the more natural assumption that Mr. Chamberlain knows his own mind, that he is not going to allow the grass to grow under his feet. Mr. Chamberlain probably feels, as everybody else does, that
  "Thoughts shut up want air,
  And spoil like bales unopen'd to the sun."
  and, therefore, we may look upon these publications as some of the means which he has assured us he will not fail to use in order to get support for his policy. We are justified, in view of the statement I have just read, in regarding these pamphlets as being directly inspired by him; and, that being the case, some special weight attaches to the arguments which are used. Without unduly taking up your Lordships' time, I should like to direct your attention to one or two of the statements which are there made. There is, first of all,

  21
  a very engaging leaflet called "The Truth about Taxation of Food," in which we read, on the first page, that—
  "By encouraging British farming, it will bring back to cultivation thousands of acres of derelict land."
  and when we turn over the page, we find it stated that—
  "The statement that import duties on food are pail wholly by the consumer is contradicted by common-sense…The duty will encourage the production of wheat at home and in the colonies. It will, therefore, increase the amount of wheat in the word; and an increase of supply must mean a falling f price."
  Now, my Lords, any policy which will both bring back to cultivation thousands of acres of derelict land, and at the same time bring about a redaction in the price of wheat, is a policy which I think we all desire to see put into execution at the earliest possible opportunity and if the Government are able to bring about such a result as that, if they have such a policy as that, I only wonder that they have delayed so long in submitting it to Parliament. But I confess it does suggest some sort of resemblance to a certain famous Amendment which was passed in this House last year on the Education Bill, by which the cost of the repairs to maintained schools was placed on the State, provided that no extra charge was made on the public funds. If these things axe possible, they are very well worth doing. That is not the only inconsistency I find, because in another leaflet I see it stated that one of the great drawbacks to that system of free trade which has existed in this country nip to the present has been that it has driven a number of British workmen out of employment and compelled them to emigrate, where they are finding employment in competition with their comrades at home. Yet on page 1 of the first pamphlet from which I quoted it was stated that—
  "A duty on wheat will provide occupation for thousands of Englishmen who will emigrate to Canada and Australia instead of docking to the towns, overcrowding the slums, and overstocking the urban labour market."
  I find another leaflet which puts forward this amazing economic theory. First of all it gives a list of the imports and exports, derived from the Board of Trade Returns, and then it says that every item that goes
  22
  to make up the export Return means employment and wages for British industry—
  "Exports are what we sell, imports what we buy The interest of the wage-earner is therefore in the export Return."
  And the leaflet concludes by saying—
  "This is Mr. Chamberlain's policy. Is it not worth fair and favourable consideration?"
  We are to take it then, my Lords, that Mr. Chamberlain's object is to induce the working man of this country to submit to a tax upon his food by directing his attention to the export Return of the Board of Trade, and asking him to keep his attention closely fixed on that Return, and that Return only—in fact, to ignore altogether the home market, which I should have thought was rather an important consideration, mind also the Return of imports, which includes both his food and his raw material. If any of your Lordships had credited Mr. Chamberlain with the police which is contained in these leaflets, I think he would have been told by the First Lord of the Admiralty that he was attributing impossible schemes to the Colonial Secretary for the purpose of rejecting them; in other words, that he would be playing at a sort of "political Aunt Sally," but here we have an "Aunt Sally" which comes direct from Birmingham, and which bears the trade mark "Consistent, Birmingham." Therefore it is one which I think those who regard it with some suspicion are justified in demolishing if they are able to do so.
  What I want to know is whether policy of the Colonial Secretary has yet been adopted by the Cabinet as a whole, and, if so, when it is to be submitted in detail to Parliament. If it is not the policy of the Cabinet, if they have no policy, if they are still inquiring, then I should like to be informed whether Mr. Chamberlain is the only member of the Cabinet who has made up his mind, and who is actively inviting support for his own views. What are the other members of the Cabinet doing? Are they allowing the grass to grow under their feet? I say that this is an impossible situation, it is a situation which ought not to be allowed to continue. If there is to be a complete change in the fiscal policy of this country, that is a matter of such grave importance that it ought not to be approached except by some definite proposals submitted to Parliament

  23
  and submitted on the authority of a united Cabinet. No attempt ought to be made to snatch a hasty and ill-considered verdict from the country upon some vague and general proposition—a verdict which may afterwards be used as a mandate from the country to carry out one of the most radical and far-reaching changes in the traditional policy of this country. If the Government has a plan or a policy, I say, and I say emphatically, that that plan ought to be explained and ought to be given to the country and to Parliament in detail; and, if it has not a plan, then I think it is an unconstitutional and a mischievous practice for individual members of the Cabinet to be canvassing the electorate, either directly or indirectly, either openly or by means of their friends, for the support of views which they may hold individually but which have not been put forward on the authority of the Prime Minister and which have not the sanction of the rest of their colleagues. I will conclude by making a strong appeal to the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council to give us some further explanation of this state of affairs, and I would ask your Lordships to believe that I have raised this question with no desire to embarrass His Majesty's Government, and with no intention of precipitating the decision at which they may ultimately arrive.
  I feel that the matters they are inquiring into are of sufficient importance to necessitate a very serious and careful investigation; and so long as that inquiry upon which they are engaged is carried on in good faith, so long as the Government is merely investigating the deficiencies, if any, of the present system and trying to find some possible remedy for them, so long as that is the nature and the object of their inquiry, I think that the Government will have both the sympathy and the support of everyone who has the best interests of the country at heart, and the country itself will be quite willing to possess itself in patience until such time as the facts arid figures may have been duly arranged. But, my Lords, if the inquiry is merely a temporary makeshift, if it is merely a sort of spurious flag of truce, calculated to give a false sense of security, and under cover of which active preparations are being made for war, then I think we have a right to
  24
  ask that an end shall be put as speedily as possible to a state of affairs which is opposed to all the accepted traditions of Ministerial responsibility, and which is without precedent in the political history of this country.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the noble Earl has placed on the Paper three clear and distinct Questions, and it would be discourteous on my part if I did not give them an immediate answer. But as I understand that it is desired by several Members of your Lordships' House to continue discussion upon this subject, I hope I may be excused if I do not follow any part of the noble Earl's speech, and if I venture to ask the indulgence of your Lordships to make some further observations later on. The noble Earl asks whether these publications are issued with the knowledge and approval of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. On that question I have consulted with my right hon. friend and his answer is in the affirmative. They are published with his general consent and approval. Mr. Chamberlain, however, is not a member of the Tariff Committee and is not aware of, or personally responsible for, all that appears in its publications. The noble Earl then asks whether what is described in them as "the Chamberlain policy" and "the fiscal policy of Mr. Chamberlain" is the policy of the Government. The answer to that question is distinctly in the negative. The fiscal policy of Mr. Chamberlain has been explained in his own speeches, and he has expressly stated that he spoke only his own opinion, and did not intend to commit his colleagues. The noble Earl in the third place, when this policy will be expounded in Parliament. As I have already said, the Government have up to the present time no new fiscal policy to propose, and the answer therefore is that it cannot either now, or at any short period, be expounded to Parliament.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I feel sure that the great majority of the House will agree that we have arrived at a condition approaching a crisis which may possibly have results disastrous to the nation. It is

  25
  unprecedented in the political history of this country that a member of a Government should separate himself from the action of his colleagues and announce that "a big fight" is to take place under his leadership, and not with the co-operation, and perhaps not with the sanction, of his colleagues. This is a position which has shaken the confidence of the people in Parliamentary action, and the position has been aggravated by what has occurred since the pronouncement in question. Your Lordships heard the other day of a great inquest of the nation being held. That great inquest ought to be held in this Chamber or in the other House of Parliament; but forgetting the usual practice, and what would be the course not only convenient, but almost necessary, for public safety, we have this great war announced to take place under conditions that are most fatal to fair warfare. What is announced is not a policy, but the outline of a policy, which is sent out under pressure to the people to discuss first what it means, and then express an opinion on what they do not understand.
  If this were a question affecting only this country internally—such a measure, for example, as the repeal of Church rates or the extension of the franchise—we might regret that it should be launched under the present conditions; but this question affects not only the home country, but every self-governing colony and every foreign nation, and our relations with it. It is, therefore, a question that ought to have been launched after the gravest consideration and with the greatest care that no wrong should be done. Under the present conditions may we not apprehend that as this uncontrolled war proceeds the consequences will be that we shall be teasing every colony, irritating every foreign nation, and disturbing every interest at home. This strange result will proceed from the fact that there has been forgetfulness of the responsibility of Parliament, a responsibility which we are willing to accept, but which His Majesty's Ministers refuse to give us. The distinction between Parliamentary discussion and discussion on the platform of a public meeting is self-evident. In the one case von have assertion made and answer given at once; in the other, statements may be made that
  26
  are not quite accurate and no immediate reply is possible.
  I am not going to reply to the leaflets, lint there was one grave mistake made by someone when he said there was £100,000,000 of trade with our colonies and that such trade was equal to £10 per head. That is repeated in one of these pamphlets and scattered in millions throughout the country, and people believe it. If such a statement were made in Parliament it would be refuted at once. I will make one practical suggestion to the Government. This discussion is raised in no hostile spirit, but became those who have initiated it are supporters of the Government, anti are anxious to know what can be done to remedy the sad prospect before us. On May 28 there was a clear statement made of a definite policy of duties on food so as to give preferential treatment to the colonies. That is the subject upon which the feeling of the nation is centred. Is it not possible that an ad interim report may be presented to the nation? Can it be possible that in a matter so vital, so much affecting almost the very lives of our people and our relations with our colonies, the opinions of the Government can be still in the air and unknown. If Parliament discussed this great question in the first place the great danger that might arise from the sensitiveness of our colonies would be avoided. I know that it is said that the report as to the result of import duties on food cannot lie presented before. Parliament rises; but the announcement of May 15 should never have been made if the time was so inopportune that between then and the rising of Parliament that report could not be presented.
  Why is the announcement made at a time when Parliament is shut out from the power of dealing with the subject? The most convenient place for discussion is in the other House, responsible for the taxation of the people, and not by means of discursive debate or distribution of leaflets. I venture to make an appeal to my noble friend the Lord President of the Council. It is thirty years since I became a follower of my noble friend, and I never set more store upon that leadership than I do to-day. Throughout the country there are many men of different Parties who have drawn the inference from my noble friend's long political life that he is always actuated by a stern sense of honesty, common-sense, and

  27
  good feeling towards his fellow men. Seventeen years ago, at a time when many men thought a great danger, a great peril, threatened the country, my noble friend forgot those obligations to which he has always given the greatest allegiance; personal friendships did not prevent, and long political associations did not discourage him; he took the course of standing in the way and saving the country from what he and his followers believed would prove a great disaster. History repeats itself, and again an opportunity is afforded to my noble friend to stand forth, to give his aid and advice to the people of this country, who will cheerfully follow him in averting a great disaster.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, my noble and learned friend who has just sat down spoke as a warm supporter or the Government. I cannot say that, but I share the feeling with which he has referred to the Lord President. I entirely endorse what has been said as to the high qualifications of the noble Duke to speak on the subject. In my own position I have been unfortunately separated politically from the noble Duke for seventeen years, before which I was as intimately connected with my noble friend as any Member of the House, and I can fully endorse what has been said as to the confidence in his judgment. His great common-sense, his loyalty, and Ids great courage are well known. I regret to have again and again to put my noble friend into what may be an awkward position. His views on the subject are known; his powerful, lucid speech made on the first occasion when this matter was raised, assured us that the noble Duke is a free trader. Therefore it is with some regret that I add to the noble Duke's difficulties by asking Questions on the policy which Members of the Government pursue. That cannot be avoided. He is in a very responsible position, and the duty of answering falls to him.
  What is the position of His Majesty's Government? My noble friend Lord Rosebery said inquiry was an ingenious mechanism for keeping the Government together, and in a more feeble way I called the inquiry a bond
  28
  for uniting a great many of those who, though they might differ from Members of the Government on this great question, still desired to maintain the Government and give them support. Now, my Lords, is the inquiry real or sham? It is reported that there was a compact among members of the Cabinet to the effect that for a certain time, at all events during the sitting of Parliament, no one Member of the Cabinet was to advocate any particular view he might entertain on the subject. If there was such a compact, and if the inquiry was not a sham, what is the meaning of these leaflets? I can see no distinction between a speech from a Minister and a leaflet issued with his authority. The fact that the leaflets are circulated and prepared with great ingenuity and ability seems to me to be an entire breach of the compact. We hear that the leaflets are being sent into every constituency, not only into those represented by Members of the Liberal Party, but also where Unionist Members have seats, and where the Members have declared against the fiscal policy advocated by Mr. Chamberlain. This seems to me a state of things which His Majesty's Government should speedily bring to an end.
  What are we to look forward to? The Colonial Secretary Las announced his intention to commence a campaign in favour of his policy early in October, and it appears that this is not merely a threat; while from a letter to a distinguished person in the City there seems to be an intention to bring this campaign to a close in the Metropolis in January. Can this take place while Mr. Chamberlain remains Colonial Secretary If so, it will be almost impossible to dissociate his views and arguments from the responsibility of the Cabinet as a whole. It is hardly possible, unless the Cabinet accepts his policy, which we know is not the case, that Mr. Chamberlain can continue to maintain his position; I cannot suppose the noble Duke taking the field and making speeches against the policy of Mr. Chamberlain, his colleague. It is absolutely essential that as speedily as possible an end should be put to a state of affairs that impairs the responsibilities of Government and is opposed to our notions of sound

  29
  government. Before Parliament rises there should be some distinct announcement of policy; and I should like to know from the noble Duke whether the Government still maintain the position of treating every attempt in another place to raise the subject as a proposal for a vote of censure and so preventing discussion. The question must be submitted to the country when the policy is defined, and I have no doubt as to the decision of the country.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: May I ask His Majesty's Government a Question? I understand that, so far, the policy of Mr. Chamberlain is not the policy of the Government.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Hear, hear!
  VISCOUNT CROSS: Then that fact ought to be proclaimed. Speaking as one who has been a free trader all his life, I think the present position is a very anomalous one. It is the duty of the Cabinet to decide, after they have made the inquiry which they desire, what, in their opinion, ought to be the policy of the country. They ought to come forward before Parliament rises and explain what the policy of the Government is I do not think there is a warmer supporter of the Government in your Lordships' House than I am, but I feel a sincere compassion for the supporters of the Government in the other House who, on meeting their constituents, will be asked—
  "Do you support the Government in their fiscal policy or do you not?"
  I am afraid these gentlemen will be obliged to say that they do not know what the fiscal policy of the Government is. All the information I have at present is the comforting statement of the noble Duke that the fiscal policy attributed to Mr. Chamberlain is not the fiscal policy of the Government. If that declaration may be published as the opinion of the Cabinet declared to us by the Leader of the House it will be something to go upon. But can a more miserable state of things be conceived than that in which one particular member of the Cabinet should press his policy in the constituencies? Are other Members
  30
  of the Cabinet to go about saying, as I understand the noble Duke to say, that Mr. Chamberlain's policy is not the policy of the Government, or are they to say that they throw this matter before the constituencies and leave it to them to give the lead? This course would not be in accordance with the Constitution. It is the duty of the Government to lead, and of the country to turn them out if it thinks the lead wrong. For them to go about making speeches first for one policy and then another is like throwing the reins of a horse upon its neck instead of driving it in the right direction.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I consider the situation to be both anomalous and dangerous. The inquiry has lasted long enough, and it is the duty of the Government to give some indication before Parliament separates what their policy really is. The noble Duke has said that the result of the inquiry cannot now or within a short period be announced. In using those words he has, no doubt, expressed the opinion of the Cabinet. I appeal, however, to the noble Duke to use great influence to modify the opinion of the Cabinet which he has just announced. There are two distinct questions before the country. The first question—raised by Mr. Chamberlain in the other House—is whether it is desirable to make preferential arrangements with the colonies, involving a duty upon imports of food into this country. There are other questions which, I think, are subordinate—important questions which have been most ably dealt with by my noble friend the Foreign Secretary—such as the questions of negotiations with Germany and the possibility of retaliation in respect of the conduct of Germany towards Canada. I consider these two question to be separate and distinct. I cannot understand why the Cabinet can not now come to a definite determination whether the policy of preferential duties in the colonies, coupled with a duty on food imports in this country, is or is not the policy of the Government. The question is one which ought to be determined by the Cabinet before Parliament separates. I hope the noble Duke will exercise all the authority he possesses in the Cabinet to obtain such a decision.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I do not think it is possible for me to decline to address a very few observations to your Lordships in answer to the appeal which has been made to me, not only from the front Bench opposite, but also from my noble and learned friend who sits behind me. I am bound to say that I am not aware in what way I can add anything to what I have endeavoured to place before the House on former occasions, nor am I able to see in what respect the position in which the Government and Parliament stand towards this question has in any degree been altered since last we discussed this question in this House. From a very early period of the discussion the position which has been taken up by the Secretary for the Colonies has been very clearly defined. It does not seem to me to make very much difference to that position and to his relation to this question that certain pamphlets or leaflets should have been published with his authority; because, so far as I know—I have not seen those pamphlets and leaflets—so far as I have heard anything in the discussion this evening, they add very little to what we have all read in the published speeches of the Secretary for the Colonies.
  As I have said, the position of my right hon. friend has from the outset been perfectly clear. He has made his inquiry into the results which have been obtained by the system of free imports during a period of fifty years. He has formed his conclusion, and he has definitely announced his intention of endeavouring, so far as he is able, to obtain from the constituencies, from the people of this country, authority not to carry out a certain plan, but authority to make certain overtures to the colonies of preferential treatment, authority to propose certain changes in fiscal arrangements. There is no doubt what the policy of the Colonial Secretary is, and I venture to think that the position of the Government is equally clear. No member of the Government, so far as I am aware, has said a single word to identity himself with the policy which has been thus announced or sketched out by the Colonial Secretary. What the Government have said is that they consider that there is a case for inquiry. I stated on a former occasion when I addressed the House on this subject
  32
  some of the grounds on which we thought an inquiry was necessary, and I do not think any object would be gained by recapitulating the statement of those grounds. But we have not in the least changed our opinion that such an inquiry is necessary, and until it is completed, and until we have had time to consider the results of that inquiry, we have no policy to propose.
  With reference to the question of Lord Cross, I have only to say that, until we are convinced by the results of the inquiry which we are making that changes in any direction are required, the policy of the Government with regard to the fiscal arrangements which regulate our commercial system is the policy which now exists. My noble and learned friend behind me made a suggestion which, I think, on reflection, he will scarcely conceive to be a practicable one. He suggested that before the end of the session we should make what he calls an interim report. My Lords, this inquiry is not being conducted by a Royal Commission. It is being conducted by the Cabinet itself, and the result of this inquiry will not be a report; it will be either that we adhere to the fiscal policy of the country as it now exists, or that we adopt such changes as have been suggested, or that we adopt some minor modifications of the existing system. What my noble and learned friend calls a report would he an interim declaration of policy; and until the Cabinet are in a position to frame their final conclusions upon the inquiry which they are conducting it seems to me that they will only be adding confusion to confusion if they do anything in the nature of proposing an interim policy to the country.
  I am bound to say, my Lords, that I do not understand the extreme and nervous anxiety with which some of my friends appear to regard the position of free trade. Free trade has now had in this country full and fair and complete trial for a period of fifty years. The inquiry which we are conducting is not an inquiry into the merits of any rival policy; it is an inquiry into the results of that fifty years trial, its results, economical, financial, industrial, commercial, social, and political. If those results should be found—and it will depend upon what is

  33
  proved or what we hold to be proved as to those results, as to whether they have been on the whole beneficial to the comity or whether they have in any respect failed in the carrying out the expectations with which they were introduced—it will depend on the results of that inquiry whether we have any change to propose or not. As I have said, this policy has now had a full and complete trial for a period of fifty years. A Minister, no doubt a powerful Minister, has impeached that policy. But because a few speeches have been made in the country, and a few leaflets have been issued by a branch of a political organisation, and because the Government have admitted that they consider that the time is ripe for an inquiry, then we are told that the very foundations of our free trade policy are being sapped. What is this policy, which at the blast of the trumpet of a single Minister, however powerful, is to collapse because its results are to be exposed to examination I have a better opinion of free trade than some of those who feel this nervous anxiety about the possible results to the permanence of the principle if it is once exposed to inquiry.
  If any very definite assertions have been made impugning the policy of free trade, it seems to me that it would be far more useful if, instead of indulging in these plaintive appeals to the Government or the free trade members of the Government, those who are strongly convinced of the soundness of the principles of free trade would devote a little of their time to the examination of these allegations that are made, and would prove them to be entirely wrong. For myself, I believe that these allegations are unfounded. I believe also that even if free trade has not done for us all that some of its authors expected that it would or could do, it is not very difficult to prove that any alternative policy would not remedy the evils complained of, and might involve us in greater evils still. But when this inquiry has been assented to, not only by the Government, but also by such a man as my noble friend Lord Goschen, by, I think, the noble Earl who sits on the cross benches, Lord Rosebery, and, I think, admitted also by other Members of the Opposition, I cannot see why we are now
  34
  suddenly to abandon the policy of inquiry or, before that inquiry is completed why we are to announce an interim or final policy.
  I have not heard the expression tonight, but I have heard it said very often in the course of these discussions that the Government are sitting on the fence, and that that is an undignified or unconstitutional position. Well, I quite admit that there may be circumstances in which what is called sitting on the fence may be an undignified and unconstitutional position for any Government. In circumstances where a prompt and immediate decision is required, to occupy a position of doubt and uncertainty and to wait until the opinions of the constituencies can be ascertained— I can conceive that that may be extremely undignified. When the policy of the disestablishment of the Irish Church was proposed by a responsible Minister and his friends an immediate decision was required of every man who had any responsibility, and to occupy a doubtful and uncertain position on such a question as that would have been pronounced unworthy of any man who called himself a statesman. So again, when the policy of Home Rule was proposed by that same responsible Minister, I hold that it was the duty of every man taking part in public affairs to make up his mind whether he would support that policy or whether he would oppose it to the best of his ability, and not to wait until he had ascertained what would be the prevailing opinion in the country on the subject.
  So, again, when it was a question of our relations with the Transvaal Government whether this country should enforce its claims or yield to the position taken up by the Boer Government, it was impossible for any man with a sense of responsibility to refrain from taking a decided line and giving his vote on one side or the other. But in a case of this kind, where there is no proposal by the Government to make any change in our fiscal arrangements, where all to which we are committed is a policy of inquiry into the results of a policy which has been in force now for fifty years, I cannot see that this position of caution, or, if you will, of hesitation, is in any

  35
  way undignified. It seems to me that you might just as well say that a Judge in a Court of law is sitting on the fence because he declines to give his judgment until he has heard the evidence and until he has heard counsel on both sides. That is the position which the Government have taken up in this matter. The policy of free trade has been impeached. We say that there may be a case; but until that case has been argued, and until we know the evidence and the arguments founded upon it, we decline to be driven into a premature announcement of the con elusions which we have or which we I may form. What all these discussions amount to is that the position of the Colonial Secretary and the line which lie is taking in the country is an unconstitutional one.
  I can only refer to what I have already-said. It all comes to this—that in the opinion of those who address these appeals to us, it is necessary, in the highest constitutional interests of the country, that somebody should resign. I asked a question the other day to which I have as yet received no answer. Who is to resign? I gather from the speeches which have been made this evening that a self-respecting Prime Minister would have told Mr. Chamberlain that he ought to resign. That seems to me to be a somewhat illogical position, having regard to the inquiry which we have undertaken to carry out. If the result of that inquiry should be to convince the Prime Minister, or any of his principal colleagues, that the impeachment of free trade was a well-founded impeachment, and that changes in that policy ought to be effected, the Prime Minister would probably find himself in rather an absurd position if he had to go back to Mr. Chamberlain and say, "We find that you were quite right. No doubt we turned you out before we made that discovery, but we shall be glad if you will now come back and help us out of our difficulty." That seems to be a practical difficulty in the way of demanding the resignation of Mr. Chamberlain. Then I ask, who else ought to resign? Ought the Prime Minister to resign before the result of the inquiry which he is conducting is known? Or ought
  36
  we, who are supposed to be the Members of the Cabinet most averse from any tampering with the doctrines of free trade, to resign and deprive the Cabinet of such humble assistance as it may be possible for us to give in the defence of the principles of free trade? My Lords, I cannot see that that is a practical solution of the question. Neither can I see that the position is in the smallest degree altered from what it was when we last discussed it in this House, or when the Prime Minister challenged the Opposition, if they thought that our position in this matter was an illogical or unconstitutional one, to take the straightforward Parliamentary course of moving a vote of censure, and inviting the opinion of the House of Commons on the question whether our conduct was unconstitutional or whether it was not. Under our Parliamentary system I cannot see that there is any solution but that well-known and time-honoured one of bringing such matters as these to a decision. It is of no use for noble Lords to come down to this House and utter these complaints and appeals unless they are prepared to take some definite action, to place in a definite form the grievance which they have against the Government, to say in what respect they think it has departed from its duty, and to challenge the opinion of the House and, through the House, that of the country.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, in discussing this question we who do not agree with the noble Duke and the position which he takes up are in a position of singular difficulty. In the first place, it is to be remarked that, out of the several hundred independent supporters which the Government have in this House, not one, as far as I know, has risen to justify the action of the Government in this matter. The debate to-night has been one of almost unmixed censure upon the position of the Government.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: No.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: If the noble Duke is satisfied with it I am, and with one exception that debate has been conducted by the habitual supporters of the Government. But there is one greater difficulty still, and that is

  37
  that the Government, for the purpose of securing an absolute consistency in their utterances, limit their speaking to one Member of their body, and that is the noble Duke, who has already made two speeches this evening while his colleagues have sat silent beside him. I share in the fullest degree all the expressions of confidence and admiration which have been so freely given to the noble Duke this evening—expressions which I desire to renew with all the more warmth on this the auspicious anniversary of his birth. If my respect for him could have been increased, it would have been enhanced by the very manly, straightforward speech which he has made this evening. We regard his presence in the Cabinet as a guarantee that, as long as he is there, the fiscal system of this country will not be interfered with; and, therefore, if we have occasion to criticise the acts and the position of the Government, it is most ungrateful and distasteful to us that we should appear in any way to associate that criticism with the person of the noble Duke. But I would venture to say that his speech, outspoken as it was with regard to his fiscal faith, failed singularly in appreciation of the position of the Government and of the criticism which it directed against that position.
  The noble Duke thinks that it is enough to say that the position of the Government has not changed since we last discussed this question. That is precisely the ground of our complaint—that we think that the position of the Government is an unconstitutional position, and that its remaining immutable is a ground of complaint to the people of this country. The noble Duke seems to think that there is nothing at all unusual—perhaps I am putting it rather stronger than he himself did—in the spectacle which we have before us, of a free discussion of the fiscal policy of the country conducted by one Member of the Cabinet, who is, perhaps, almost the most powerful Member of it, amidst the silence of his colleagues, except when it is broken by the outspoken repudiations of the noble Duke. That is a situation unprecedented in the constitution of this country.
  It may seem a simple thing to the noble Duke that the Colonial Secretary
  38
  should announce that he is about to commence a big campaign against the fiscal system of this country, and that he should be already distributing by the million leaflets which convey rather crude ideas of political economy, in order to further that campaign, while the Government sits and watches, and determines to make up its mind at some late period of the autumn. But was not the noble Duke rather unkind to the late Chancellor of the Duchy in refusing an interim report? The noble Duke says, "I should be giving you a fragment of policy, when we mean eventually to give you the whole." But half a loaf is better than no bread; and, as Lord Cross pointed out, the followers of the Government in the House of Commons are compelled to appear before their constituents—obligations from which your Lordships are happily free—possibly before the Government has made up its mind, and they have to declare their support of a policy of which they have not the faintest notion, and of which the very first element is absolutely unknown. Surely common feelings of compassion for suffering fellow-creatures should have moved the noble Duke. He seems to think that all is solved by the blessed word "inquiry." We must remember how the inquiry came about, if, in the ordinary sense of the word, there is any inquiry at all. We had just got over the Budget which repealed a tax on flour and wheat, and we thought that we were aware of the fiscal policy of the Government for the coming year. All of a sudden the Colonial Secretary comes down and delivers a speech, which was a manifesto against free trade, and which contained several important propositions which, I am convinced from the speech of the noble Duke, he is totally unable to swallow. Now the remainder of the history of this proceeding must rest upon conjecture; but it is so obvious and apparent that it enters the region of certainty. It is obvious that when the Cabinet read that speech their breath was entirely taken away. They had no ground to expect any such declaration. They did not think that any one member of the Government had the right to pledge them to that policy. I venture to predict that the position of the Cabinet at

  39
  that moment was chaotic. They met, and they had to consider how it were best to deal with the situation, and they hit on the formula of an inquiry which was to satisfy the people, until under the shadow of that inquiry, and in the time that the inquiry might be presumed to cake, the Government could frame a fiscal policy with which to meet the country in the autumn. I say that is as plain and as clear as anything in the world can be. The noble Duke asks us in these circumstances to feel a blind faith in this inquiry. He denies to his followers any inkling of its results, and he tells us that this is a satisfactory position for the Government to occupy—that while one trumpet has been blown from a very conspicuous quarter, the rest the Cabinet are to be allowed to hold themselves in meditation and investigate the simple truths of political economy.
  I am not one of those who go so far as to say that there is no inquiry at all. There is a famous passage in one of Dickens's books in which Mrs. Prig falls out with Mrs. Gamp, and speaking of her favourite heroine, whose name was Harris, she suddenly exclaimed, "I don't believe there is no "sich a person." There are many who will say that there is no "sich thing" as an inquiry conducted by His Majesty's Government. I am not one of those who are inclined to believe that there is such a thing in the ordinary sense, but I believe free licence has been given to every member of the Cabinet to address conundrums to the Board of Trade, and any member of the Cabinet has right to take down the volumes in his library of political economy and to utilise them for his leisure reading. More than that I confess I do not believe, and I think I have some reason. We have had, in the course of our investigations two lights thrown on the inquiry by very eminent members of the Government. One was the Foreign Secetary, who said in the most emphatic way that if such an inquiry were conducted it must be a public inquiry. Some of us have been waiting ever since for the announcement of that public inquiry. Then there was another light thrown upon it in a phrase which has already become dear to us. It was given to us by the First Lord of policy the Admiralty, who said that the inquiry
  40
  was a "grand inquest" of the nation. I do not say that these expressions, as far as we have gone into the inquiry, are eminently misleading, but they do justify the scepticism of some who doubt whether any inquiry in the ordinary sense of the word is progressing at all. What is the "grand inquest" of the nation? It is, as far as we know, the House of Commons. The House of Commons has made every endeavour to discuss this question, and has invariably been refused.
  I do not know a more pathetic, or, I may add, more ridiculous spectacle in the world than that which the House of Commons presents at this moment. Here is she, the mother of Parliaments, exhorted by the First Lord of the of Admiralty and the other members of the Cabinet to proceed to a free and full inquiry on the fiscal policy of the nation, exhorted in loud tones by the Government to do this while they have gagged and bound her to prevent her from doing anything of tire kind. Can there he a more preposterous position for a body which boasts itself to be the free expression of the opinions of this country, to be the mouthpiece of the voice of the nation, than to be told at one moment by the Government, and all day long by the Government, that a discussion is what the Government wants, and then to deny it any opportunity of having it except under a vote of censure?
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Why not?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The noble Duke is always asking for a vote of censure, and I am always answering, him, though I do not think he considers, my answers satisfactory. I will speak my mind on this point to the noble Duke. I say quite truly that if I were in the, House of Commons I would ask for a day to discuss a Motion, "That the House of Commons should resolve itself into Committee on the state of the nation." There is a precedent for that Motion in 1849, when it was moved by the late, Lord Beaconsfield and rejected by a very considerable majority. But the advantage of that proposition is this—that it I does not necessarily pledge Parliament or the country to any particular; in this matter. It does enable the

  41
  House of Commons to have that free and full inquiry in the matter which the Government are constantly inviting. I do see strategical disadvantages in moving a vote of censure, because it is quite obvious that a vote of censure rallies to the support of the Government all its followers, however critical and unsympathetic they may be in every-day life, on some critical occasion like that. Indeed, gratitude for the manifold benefits lavished on Ireland by the Land Bill might swell the Government majority beyond its ordinary size and might give to the Empire and foreign countries a false opinion of the true voice of the nation with regard to this question of free trade.
  That is my answer to the noble Duke. But I do press upon him most earnestly that this policy of telling the country that the Cabinet is engaged in inquiry is not sufficient for a nation so active and inquisitive as this. I hope that I shall not be accused of making any disparaging comparison when I say that it reminds me rather of the case which has excited great interest in France, and which is, I believe, still pending before the Courts, where an enterprising lady raised enormous sums of money by the exhibition of a safe—or it may have been a cabinet—which she represented as containing unbounded treasures. We are in the position of the gullible victims of that lady, but the experience of those in France has already made us cautious. The Government presents us with the spectacle of pointing to the closed door of the Cabinet and saying—"We confess that we are not able to give you any satisfaction with regard to our policy, but look at that door. Inside that door there are treasures of wisdom, experience, eloquence, sound judgment on this subject, and when that door is opened they will be revealed." But I am sorry to say that Madame Humbert's treasures represented only a fourpenny piece in the safe; and I am inclined to think that when the door of the Cabinet is opened—unless it is for a purpose which I should sincerely deplore to see—a large number of its members walking out never to return inside it—we shall not have more satisfaction than the victims in the Humbert case.
  I hope your Lordships will excuse me for introducing a semi-humorous epilogue
  42
  to exemplify what I believe to be a grave situation. I defy the noble I bike, however large and varied the experience he may have, to come down night after night and represent that the position of the Government is either normal defensible. I for one, even if I had the power, which I have not, do not force the situation, because I should not like the inquiry to resolve itself into a question as to which wing of the Cabinet it would be that would have to resign when it came to a contest. I confess that I do not quite agree with the noble Duke that no other member of the Cabinet has given any public support to the proposals of the Colonial Secretary. I understand that the Foreign Secretary and the First Lord of the Admiralty give considerable indirect support; but not knowing which wing of the Cabinet may retire defeated ill this intestinal strife as to the inquiry in which they are engaged, I prefer to wait for what I hope, through the character and ability of the noble Duke, will be the ultimate victory of free trade principles, which have to a large extent made this Empire what it is.

  THE SANITARY CONDITION OF HOLYROOD PALACE.
  THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Chief Commissioner of His Majesty's Office of Works at what date previous to 1902 any examination of the drainage system, the sanitary condition, and the water supply of the Palace of Holyrood House was made, and to move for copies of any report or correspondence relating to that examination; to ask whether, in future, if the Consulting Sanitary Adviser of the Office reports that any building must not he occupied until its sanitary arrangements have been reorganised, His Majesty's Office of Works will at once communicate that opinion to those who occupy, or are about to occupy, the said building; whether he is well assured that the sum voted for Holyrood Palace will be sufficient to make the whole drainage and water supply system thoroughly effective and good, and also to put the Palace generally into a fit condition for the residence of the Sovereign or his Representative; and to move for a Return of the Repairs and Improvements in Holyrood Palace and its

  43
  grounds since 1893, with their cost each year.
  On a recent occasion, at the request of my noble friend the Chief Commissioner of Works, I accepted his explanation and assurance and withdrew my Motion for Papers relating to the Palace of Holyrood. I thought that the matter would then have been allowed to drop But since then my noble friend has thought it right to place upon the Table the Reports and correspondence with reference to this subject, and this action it appears to me, has changed the matter from one of a purely personal character to one of much wider and more general interest. I alluded in my previous speech to the Memorandum by Professor Corfield, the Consulting Sanitary Adviser to His Majesty's Office of Works, and I will now read the Memorandum in full. It is as follows—
  "I have read the report referred to in the foregoing Memorandum, and am of opinion that the condition of things described in that report is such Holyrood Palace ought not to be occupied by His Majesty even for the shortest period until the sanitary arrangements have been thoroughly reorganised. This will take a considerable time, and, in view of the fact that, as I am informed, the High Commissioner must occupy the Palace in April and May next, could not well be commenced until the month of June, and would certainly not be finished before the end of the year, if even then."
  This Memorandum, which is dated November 12, 1902, had been in the hands of His Majesty's Office of Works since that time, and I wish to ask my noble friend the Chief Commissioner whether, when the Office of Works receives from its Consulting Sanitary Adviser a report saying that one of the palaces of which they have charge cannot be inhabited, even for the shortest possible period, they are not bound to convey that opinion to those who inhabit or are about to inhabit the palace. I applied at the Office of Works for information as to the drains and was promised that I should see the report, but the report was not forthcoming. It was delayed, under circumstances of extreme inconvenience to myself, as the noble Lord and his office know quite well, for thirteen days, and not for one or two days, as was stated by the noble Lord on the former occasion when I brought this matter before the House. Yet all that time the Office of Works had in their hands this Memorandum
  44
  from their consulting sanitary adviser to say that the palace was not habitable.
  My noble friend says I am to blame, because I was told in the month of October that the drains were not in good order, and had made no inquiry. I had no right to make any inquiry. My appointment as Lord High Commissioner is an annual appointment, and it is one of a personal character as representing His Majesty, and the King, I believe, takes a personal interest in the appointment. For me to have assumed, although it has always been the custom, that I should have been appointed again for the coming year, would have been presumptuous on my part; and, even if I was justified in assuming that, in all probability I should be appointed, it did not follow that I should be the High Commissioner, because that appointment goes with the Government. It would have been presumptuous on my part if, before I was appointed, I had made any inquiry. After I was appointed, and on the first day that I could get to London, I went to the Office of Works, on the matter, and at that time they had in their hands this Memorandum which would not have been taken more than a few minutes to have copied. I was promised the report on the next day. I did not receive it, and I wrote on several occasions and telegraphed, and the only reply I got was a letter from the Secretary of the Office of Works, from which I quoted a short paragraph on the last occasion, and which I will now read in full. Sir Schomberg McDonnell wrote—
  "My dear LEVEN,
  "Windsor tells me that you are anxious to know the precise position as regards the sanitary works at Holyrood before you be abroad to-morrow.
  "Let me say at once that you need not be in any way concerned. The new works will not be begun until after the King has paid his visit to Edinburgh, and at present we do not propose to touch them until the third week in next August or thereabouts.
  "As regards the present condition of the drains, I think that though they are far from being perfect or up to date, there is no danger to be apprehended to yourself or your house hold. It would, however, be a very different matter to have the King and Queen staying there with a huge Court. Under such conditions the existing system of drainage would be quite inadequate.
  "I hope this will set your mind at rest; in any case, we should do noting whatever

  45
  which would inconvenience you as High Commissioner."
  Yours very truly,
  SCHOMBERG K. MCDONNELL.
  18th March, 1903.
  It seems to me that the Secretary of the Office of Works took upon himself a grave responsibility when he asked me to go to Holyrood while he held in his hand the report of Professor Corfield showing that it was not habitable even for the shortest possible period. I inhabit the same rooms as I have every reason to believe His Majesty would occupy. They are on the first floor of the south wing of the Palace. There are three or four rooms on the east wing, on the second floor, which have never been opened, I believe, since her late Majesty and Prince Consort were there. They are reached by an exceedingly steep staircase, and it is in the highest degree improbable that His Majesty would ever think of living there. But whether His Majesty would live there or not, it does not alter the question as to the sanitary condition of the south wing in which the Lord High Commissioner must always reside; and out of the large quantity of condemned closets to which I referred, there are no less than eleven in that wing. There is no large bedroom which has not one in the wall between it and the dressing-room, and there is one in the sitting-room. I think the remark that the Palace was not safe for His Majesty but was perfectly safe for me was unjustifiable. The report was not sent to me till March 27 of this year, after my Purse-bearer had been to the Office of Works to press for it. He was not at first shown this Memorandum by Professor Corfield, or the report, but was asked to obtain on my behalf a wholly independent report. What possible use could an independent report be? The Office of Works had this detailed report and the Memorandum from the consulting sanitary adviser, and what advantage could there be in having another report? The only possible use of such a report would have been to remove responsibility, if any evil effects had resulted from my going to the Palace, from the Office of Works to the unfortunate man who might have made that hurried report. My noble friend said that the report might have reached me
  46
  one or two days sooner. I would point out that it only consists of 1,875 words, which a child could have written within an hour.
  I understand that the Secretary of the Office of Works feels aggrieved because, in the first place, I read an extract from his letter. He says that it was semi-private. It was the only answer I got to my application to know the condition of the Palace, and it was written on official notepaper and not marked private. I regret very much if I was not justified in alluding to it, but I do not see what else I could have done. I understand that he also felt aggrieved because I only quoted a part of his letter. Well, I have quoted the whole of it now; and I think the House will see that it my previous quotation I gave the pith of the communication. That letter invited me to place my body in jeopardy while it strove to set my mind at rest. A great deal has been made of the point that in October Sir Schomberg McDonnell told me that the drains were bad, and he considers that that was ail official intimation. The way in which I got that information was a perfectly chance one. I had the honour of dining with the Lord Mayor, and, after being received, I happened to stand next to Sir Schomberg McDonnell. I asked him if he had been to Holyrood, and he said he had. The drains, he added, were in had repair, and he was going to have them seen to. I said I hoped the work would not be carried out in the winter, for obvious reasons. On the last occasion that I called attention to this matter my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland said that if I had given judicious notice to the newspapers of my intention not to occupy Holyrood Palace, no dissatisfaction would have arisen. But I would point out that it was quite impossible for such notice to, be given, because the contracts on which the arrangements depended were not complete. I beg to ask the Questions and to move the Motion standing in my name.
  Moved, "That there be laid before the House report or correspondence relating to any examination that may have been made previous to 1902 of the drainage system, the sanitary condition, and the water-supply of the Palace of Holyrood

  47
  House; and also a return of the repairs and improvements in Holyrood Palace and its grounds since 1893, with their cost each year." (The Earl of Leven and Melville.)
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Lord WINDSOR): My Lords, I, in common with other noble Lords who heard the speech of the noble Earl the other day upon this question, listened to it with interest and amusement. But I did hope that the assurance that I was able to give him then of the intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to the drainage of Holyrood Palace, and my expression of regret that there had been any misunderstanding between himself and the Office of Works with regard to letting him know the exact condition of the drainage would have been satisfactory. I do not think he will expect me to repeat what I said then, but I would add this that when Sir Schoenberg McDonnell told my noble friend that the system of drainage at Holyrood Palace had been condemned, the noble Earl left him under the very strong impression, rightly or wrongly, that what the noble Earl was chiefly anxious about was that the drains should not be touched before he had been there himself the next time. Sir Schomberg may have been wrong, but it was under that very strong impression that these letters were written, and I think the letter which my noble friend has quoted in full to-day bears this out, because Sir Schomberg wrote—
  "The new works will not be begun until after the King has paid his visit to Edinburgh."
  And he added at the end—
  "In any case we shall do nothing whatever which would inconvenience you as High Commissioner."
  I regret very much if there was any misunderstanding on this point, and I beg to assure my noble friend again that there was no intention whatever of concealing from him any reports as to the condition of the drains. The noble Earl asks me whether in future, if the Consulting Sanitary Adviser of the Office of Works reports that any building must not be occupied until its sanitary arrangements have been reconstructed, the Office of Works will at once communicate that
  48
  opinion to those who occupy or are about to occupy the said buildings. To that I most certainly give an affirmative reply. It is the intention of the Office of Works to communicate to those who are concerned matters of this kind, and I can promise that that will be done in the future. With regard to the noble Earl's question as to what date previous to 1902 any examination of the drainage system, the sanitary condition, and the water-supply of the Palace was made, I can tell him that there was an examination of and a report concerning the water-supply as long ago as 1863, very shortly after the old water-supply had been discontinued, and a supply taken from the City of Edinburgh. In 1872 there was a report about the condition of the drains at that time, and they were tested and found perfectly satisfactory. They were thoroughly flushed in accordance with the usual practice. That is the system which goes on; they can be thoroughly flushed from the City fire mains at this moment. Since 1872 there has been no special report, but I am informed that the first step which the present surveyor took was to have a complete plan of the drainage prepared, and in the years 1893, 1894, 1895, and 1899 renewals and re-arrangements of portions of the drains were carried out, the two latter being of considerable importance. One of the main difficulties had been that the fall was not sufficient, but it was impossible to remedy that until the new City sewer was put in, and when that had been done the fall of the old sewer from Holyrood Palace was altered. That, no doubt, would have been done in any case as soon as it was practicable.
  I assure the noble Earl that the surveyor has repeatedly and with regularity inspected all the sanitary works in Holyrood Palace itself. As the Report of Sir Henry Littlejohn shows, they are in excellent order, and have been well kept up. My noble friend moves for copies of these reports. Of course, if he insists upon them they can be laid on the Table; but I venture to suggest that these old reports of the years 1863 and 1872 are merely ancient history, and would be of no importance at this moment. The noble Earl asks me whether I am well assured that the sum voted for Holyrood Palace will be sufficient to make the whole drainage

  49
  and water supply system thoroughly effective and good. I repeat the assurance I gave on the last occasion, that I am advised that it will be quite sufficient. With regard to the Motion for a Return of the repairs and improvements in Holy-rood Palace and its I am unable to give him separately a Return of the repairs and improvements apart from the maintenance of the Palace. I should be able to give him the amount for maintenance asked for and obtained in each year since 1803, but that will, of course, include, as I say, minor repairs, and so forth. Finally, I wish again to assure my noble friend that there was a misunderstanding in this ease, and that there was no intention whatever to keep from him reports of the actual condition of the drainage in Holyrood Palace. Every care will be taken to put the drainage in thorough order, and he will have access to any documents he may wish to see in the Office of Works with regard to it.
  THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: I freely accept my noble friend's assurance. With regard to the old reports, I agree with him that no advantage would be obtained by their publication. I may say that I was never given the slightest idea by Sir Schomberg McDonnell that the drains were really in a dangerous condition. All he told me was that they were in a bad condition. I was afterwards advised that the peril was one of the most imminent kind. That the Office of Works should have done nothing to stop my going there, but, on the contrary, should have encouraged it, seems to me to require some explanation. With regard to the report by Sir Henry Littlejohn, which declares everything to be satisfactory, I would point out that when he made his inspection the Palace had not been inhabited for eleven months, and, therefore, the drains were, of course, sweet at that time.
  Motion, by leave of the House, with drawn.

  IRISH LAND BILL
  Read 1a; and to be printed.(No.170)
  LONDON EDUCATION BILL
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next—(The Earl Vane, M. Londonderry). (No. 171.)

  LICENSING ACTS (SCOTLAND) CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next—(The Lord Balfour). (No. 175.)
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till to-morrow, Eleven o'clock.