Lords Sitting of 13 July 1905

VISCOUNT HAWARDEN.
Petition of Robert Henry Maude, Viscount Hawarden in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the election of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report there upon to the House.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Rhondda Urban District Council Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Denman be proposed to tins House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Earl of Craven; read, and agreed to.
Rotherham, Maltby, and Laughton Railway Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Midland Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
South Barracas (Buenos Ayres) Gas and Coke Company Bill [H.L.]. Committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 26th of June and the 4th instant discharged, and Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill; Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Edgware and Hampstead Railway Bill; Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (No. 1) Bill. To be read 3a on Monday next.
Whitechapel and Bow Railway Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
London County Council (Tramways) Bill. Brought from the Commons; road 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Hessle Gas Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Bolton Corporation Bill; WemyssDock Bill [H.L.]; North-Eastern Railway Bill; North-Eastern. Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Ravensworth and the Lord Hindlip be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Craven and the Lord Clinton; read, and agreed to.
North-Eastern Railway Bill; North-Eastern Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Ludlow be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Duke of Northumberland, and that the Lord Ludlow be Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.
Glasgow Corporation (Tramways Con solidation) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.] Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. To be read 2a To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. House in Committee (according to order). Amendments made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3434. Argentine Republic.
  No. 3435. China (Foochow).

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  Thirty-third Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1903–1904. Supplement containing the report of the medical officer for 1903–1904.
  ARMY (VOLUNTEERS).
  Circular letter addressed to General Officers Commanding-in-Chief in substitution for the circular letter of 20th June, 1905.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE.
  Report on fishery and hydrographical investigations in the North Sea and adjacent waters, 1902–1903.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENTS ACT, 1886.
  Treasury Minute, dated 10th July, 1905, requiring that the Comptroller and Auditor-General shall extend his audit of the accounts of the Crown Agents for the Colonies, hitherto restricted to the office fund, and shall verify the quarterly certificates of cash and securities held by them in trust for the Colonies.

  RULES PUBLICATION ACT, 1893.
  No. 220. Additional Rule.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act, and ordered to lie on the Table.

COAL MINES (WEIGHING OF MINERALS) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading; read.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this is a non-contentious measure which has come up from the other House and which deals with the weighing of coal. As the House is probably aware, under an Act passed when my noble friend Viscount Cross was Home Secretary, the men were given power to obtain an official of their own for the purpose of weighing the coal. This Bill provides, among other things, for the appointment of a deputy official of this character, who is known as a check weigher; it provides the method of
  512
  electing this official, and there is a provision imposing on the employers the necessity of giving Mm shelter and facilities. The Bill also provides for the removal of the check-weigher by ballot, and regulates the persons who are to contribute to his wages. The Bill is the result of negotiations between representatives of the masters and men, and everything of a contentious character has been eliminated. I believe no debate took place upon it in the other House, and I hope the Second Reading will be assented to with out opposition.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a"—(Lord Newton.)
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in stating that this is a non-contentious Bill. It has been agreed to by both masters and men, and His Majesty's Government give a general approval to its provision.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (FACILITIES) BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

  DISSEMINATION OF NEWS IN WAR TIME.
  *LORD ELLENBOROUGHrose "To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, considering the fact that we expend millions of pounds every year on the maintenance of cavalry for land service, and scouts and cruisers for sea service, whose chief business during war would be to ascertain what the enemy may be doing, it is not desirable to consider the question of our having to undergo some national inconvenience as regards the dissemination of news, in case of war or grave emergency, for the purpose of concealing our own warlike proceedings; and whether, considering the success that has hitherto attended the Japanese system of keeping secret the movements of their land forces, and the state and condition and whereabouts of their fleets,

  513
  he will cause the laws and proclamations of Japan, bearing on the subject of dissemination of news, to be translated and presented to both Houses of Parliament, together with some other documents on this subject, so as to enable the public in general to study the question as to whether our laws require alteration."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I much regret the absence of the First, Lord of the Admiralty, and not only his absence but the cause of it. I hope that his health may soon be restored. I have put this Question off for six weeks in the hope that he would be present when it was discussed. But in the public interest I do not think that there should be any further delay in the study of this matter. If we are ever engaged in a war with great Continental Power, the importance of the questions to which I am about to refer will only be equalled by the difficulty of dealing with them. Therefore, I think that they deserve careful study in time of peace.
  The Times of the 23rd of May of this year mentions a number of cases in which information was conveyed by British newspapers to an enemy who made full use of the knowledge thus obtained. For instance, in September, 1805, a month before the battle of Trafalgar, Nelson wrote to the Governor of Gibraltar requesting him to prevent the publisher of the Gibraltar Gazette mentioning the strength of his Fleet. He had good reason for so doing. Three months previously, on the 10th June, The Times had stated that Nelson had but ten ships with him when he crossed the Atlantic in search of Villeneuve's Toulon Fleet, and that the "Royal Sovereign" had been left behind at Ferrol because she sailed badly. I can scarcely imagine anything more likely to defeat Nelson's plans than the publication of such news. The Duke of Wellington also frequently complained of the information furnished to the French by the British newspapers. His complaints were well grounded. Berthier, the chief of the Emperor's staff, wrote to Massena—
  "We have the most perfect information from the English and much better than that possessed by you. The Emperor reads the English news-papers and a great number of letters written by
  514
  the Opposition, some of which censure Lord Wellington and speak in detail of your operations."
  On the 7th of November. 1810, Napoleon wrote—
  "We have news of the Army of Portugal up to the 16th. It comes from the English news-papers, who say that the two armies were facing one another on the 15th, live leagues from Lisbon."
  On the 7th of May, 1811, Napoleon wrote—
  "I send you the translation of the English newspapers. You will see that on the 18th of April Wellington had passed the Tagus. Have these despatches copied and sent to the Dukes of Istria and Ragusa, and to General Belliard."
  On the 15th of August, 1810, during the siege of Cadiz, Wellington complained—
  "That he had seen in the English newspapers an accurate account of the batteries and works erecting at Cadiz and on the Isla, with the number of guns each was to contain; their calibre, their distance from each other, and from the enemy's works."
  This complaint does not appear to have had much effect, for he repeated it to Lord Liverpool in January, 1811.
  In those days news from Cadiz would have had to come to England in a sailing vessel, to travel in a postchaise to London, and then when printed to go by post-chaise to the sea coast, cross the Channel in a sailing vessel, and then go by postchaise or courier to Cadiz. So that three or four weeks would elapse before such news could reach the army opposed to us, and by that time it would have lost a great deal of its freshness and its value. Whereas at present the contents of the London papers would have been known to the besiegers of Cadiz twelve hours after they had been published.
  Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge, who has held the appointments of Director of the Naval Intelligence Department and Commander-in-Chief on the Chinese and Japanese Station, wrote quite recently in Brassey's Naval Annual—
  "If we have no other lesson to learn from the war, we have at least that of the value of reticence given us by the Japanese. Never has the lesson been more needed. When two nations, each endowed with a newspaper Press and habituated to the perusal of the journals

  515
  of other countries, go to war, the objections to the publication of intelligence relating to an operation in progress are serious. The Japanese, and in a less degree the Russians, have shown us that concealment is possible. No officer should need to be told that it is wise."
  Admiral The Hon. Sir Edmund Fremantle wrote as follows in the July number of the Navy League Journal—
  "At the time of the Dogger Bank incident the whole world was promptly informed that our Home Fleet was in the Orkneys, our armoured cruiser squadron under refit, many of the ships being in dock, and that the Mediterranean squadron was in the North Atlantic."
  He went on to say—
  "It is certain that no censorship would be possible, and that no hurried Act of Parliament or Government action not well considered beforehand would lie satisfactory. If the Government have not sufficient information at their disposal, the question should be submitted without delay to a small Committee or Royal Commission, and a Bill brought in next session to deal with the matter."
  I hope that the Government may find themselves able to act in accordance with Admiral Fremantle's suggestion.
  I may add that I have lately discussed a number of questions with naval officers and find that though they differ considerably on such points as the usefulness of different classes of ships, and on matters connected with armaments, yet on this question they are unanimous. They think that news of the movements or proceedings of either ships, officers, or men should never be allowed to reach either an enemy or a Power that may become an enemy in the course of a few days. The opinions of the men who will have to fight our ships until they sink deserve some consideration from their fellow - countrymen. Our soldiers and sailors are ready to take all ordinary risks of war. But they are not mere gladiators fighting for the sake of lookers-on. When this country is at war, the whole of it is at war; and civilians must be prepared to undergo some annoyances besides having to pay taxes, if by so doing they can lessen the risks of those who are fighting for them.
  When the Russian squadron left Vladivostock in August last the news of its departure came in some unknown way to Europe, and was published in the London dailies. This was, of course, telegraphed to Japan without delay, and in consequence of this Admiral Kaminura
  516
  was able to intercept and defeat the Russian cruisers. Surely we do not wish to wait until similar disasters happen to us before we take steps to prevent them. Most of the Japanese movements, whether by land or by sea, appear to be unexpected. If when in a state of emergency, before the war actually commenced, the Japanese journals had published the news that their fleet had sailed, and that troops had been embarked on February 6th, it would have been telegraphed to Port Arthur, and the surprise of the Russian Fleet on the 8th of that month could never have taken place. The same element of surprise appears to form part of all Japanese schemes and, was notably most successful at Mukden, and at the battle of Tsusima. No one ever knew where Togo was, or what was the strength of his fleet. Whether off Port Arthur or Tsusima, he had a knack of appearing in force in unexpected places.
  As both Great Britain and Japan are groups of islands, their safety depends on much the same considerations, and as the Japanese Press and Telegraph Laws, backed by Japanese patriotism, have hitherto succeeded in their object, it is quite possible that some of their legislation may be suited to us also. At the same time, as I do not yet know what the Japanese laws are, I hope that I may not be represented as desiring that their laws should be adopted by this country in their entirety. Doubtless they will require some modification. I would point out, however, that though their war news is not published in full, the Japanese are in the habit of freely criticising their generals. Of one of them, whose troops had failed to capture an important position, a Japanese wrote:
  "That if the general had not got a weapon of his own with which to commrit suicide, there was a sharp sword hanging on a nail in the editorial office which was quite at his disposal."
  I have the greatest respect for the general referred to. I do not at all approve of this grim style of criticism, but I quote it to show that checking the publication of news is no bar to freedom of comment.
  No legislation on this subject is possible without the support of the Press, and I hope that some more of our periodicals

  517
  will follow the example of The Times, Morning Post, and the Globe, and declare their intention of supporting a movement in favour of the solution of these problems. Most writers and public speakers have read military histories; those who have not done so have probably read military novels or short stories in magazines, the plot of which frequently turns upon the keeping or divulging a secret in war time. And even those who never read anything must have been occasionally to plays in which the principal actress appears in the part of a lovely and designing lady, a spy, in the pay of a foreign Government, who endeavours to obtain the secret documents that have been entrusted to the care of her lover. Therefore, I think, it quite possible that the value of secrecy in war time could easily be brought home to the majority of our Parliamentary voters, that they only want a lead, and that they may consent before very long to pass a well-considered and carefully drawn-up Bill, which could lie dormant until a time of war or great emergency.
  The House of Commons and the country have for years approved of our spending millions on cruisers, scouts, and cavalry, who are the eyes and ears of an Army, and smaller sums on Intelligence Departments for the purpose of discovering the movements of an enemy. In face of this it is most illogical to make no attempt to conceal our own proceedings. If we persist in gratifying our very natural anxiety to know of all the steps leading up to a battle, we may get a wrong result. We may have to suffer defeat instead of obtaining a victory. Some of the laws of other nations may be worth studying, but if they were all printed they would form a Blue - book of portentous size. Selection is, I think, of more importance than bulk. On the 3rd of March, Lord Selborne, in this House, in answer to a Question of mine, put the necessity for the study of this subject in the clearest possible language, and I would suggest to the Government, if they accept my proposition, that that portion of Lord Selborne's speech which referred to the dissemination of news should be published in the Blue - book, together with any other documents of
  518
  importance which may affect these questions.
  What I am most afraid of is that this problem may be neglected until we have suffered some serious disaster, and that ten days later some crude and ineffective Act may be passed which will not only fail to secure its object, but will cause unnecessary annoyance. Therefore, I hope that the Government may see its way to adopt Admiral Sir Edmund Fremantle's suggestion—namely, that a small Committee or Royal Commission be appointed to take evidence and report on the subject so as to prepare the ground for legislation in 1906. They should have power to hear evidence with closed doors and in public, and to report publicly as well as confidentially. At the same time I wish it to be distinctly understood that I consider that the translation and the publication of the documents to which I have referred should not be taken as committing the Government to any particular policy or legislation. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LINLITHGOW): My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord I have to state that the Admiralty are not in possession of any Japanese regulations on the subject of the dissemination of news, but the important question of control over the issue of news in time of war is engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government.

  THE IVEAGH PIRRIE MOTOR-CAR SCHEME.
  LORD KILLANINrose "To ask His Majesty's Government whether any steps were being taken to bring into operation in Ireland the transit scheme known as the Iveagh - Pirrie Motor-Car Service: and to call attention to the local interest taken in the projected route from Galway to Costello." The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting to His Majesty's Government the Question standing in my name I should like to make one or two explanatory remarks. More than two years have elapsed since the then Chief Secretary for Ireland announced in another place that Lord Iveagh and

  519
  Mr. Pirrie had expressed their willingness to spend a very considerable sum of money in establishing and financing as a running concern a service of motorcars in out-of-the-way parts of Ireland where facilities of transit are very much needed, and this extremely generous and public-spirited action on the part of these two remarkable Irishmen was very well received in Ireland, and awakened widespread interest throughout the country. But, as I have said, it is two years since this announcement was made, and I desire to-day to ask what steps are being taken to carry the scheme into operation.
  I am fairly familiar with what occurred last year. Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie appointed a Commission to investigate as to suitable routes on which to run these motor-cars. They were given every assistance by Irish Public Departments. Local councils instructed their officials to give them every information, and they finally decided, I understand, to try the service on seventeen routes. Last year the then Chief Secretary for Ireland was very keen about it, and did a great deal to remove difficulties that had arisen in inaugurating the service. The present Chief Secretary has lately visited the West of Ireland, and now that he has become acquainted with the necessity for facilities of transit in these out-of-the-way parts of the country I hope he will attend to the matter, and see if this mo-car service cannot be brought into operation. I would also like to draw attention to one route with which I am more particularly familiar, on account of living in that district. It is one of the seventeen routes that were recommended, and it is in a part of Ireland which is more in need of these facilities, perhaps, than any other. It is very remote, but very populous; it is also a very poor district where the people have the greatest difficulty in getting what they require, and where they have no convenience for exporting what their labour produces. As evidence of the great interest that was taken in the scheme there, I would mention that the Galway County Council and District Council voted £1,750 for the purpose of putting the roads in repair. Anyone familiar with the county
  520
  councils in Ireland, and with the poverty of the districts there, will bear me out when I say that that was very strong evidence of the practical interest of the people in making this concern a success.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I am sure there is no one in your Lordships' House more competent to put forward the requirements of county Galway than my noble friend, whose name, through the good deeds of his late lamented father, is a household word in that county. I am, therefore, only too glad to answer any Question which my noble friend may put to me. Reference was made by the noble Lord to the debate that took place in the other House rather more than a year ago, in which my right hon. friend the then Chief Secretary for Ireland dwelt at considerable length on the proposal made by those two patriotic and highly-respected Irishmen, Lord Iveagh and Mr Pirrie, with regard to the creation of a motor-car service in certain parts of the country. The Chief Secretary stated that there were no less than seventeen routes selected which they considered would be benefited by this motor-car service. These routes were surveyed and investigated, at the request of Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie, by the Irish Government, who gave them, so far as they could, their cordial support in the philanthropic and useful scheme which they were propounding; and included in those seventeen routes was the route between Galway and Costello. But when the scheme was put forward there was this contingency, that the roads should be put in such a condition that the cars could travel over them with safety; and when I tell your Lordships that the motor engine of these cars weighs four tons and the trailer one and a-half tons it will be readily recognised that it was necessary that the roads should be put in order. Several county councils approved of the scheme, and amongst them was the county council to which my noble friend alluded. The county councils approved of the proposed experimental service, but declined the expenditure that was necessary to put the roads into proper condition. My noble friend is quite right

  521
  in stating that the county council of Galway did more, perhaps, than the other county councils in the matter, for I find that they made a suggestion that the share of the county in the unexpended balances of the Exchequer contribution for labourers' cottages should be placed at the disposal of the council for the relief of the expenditure on roads for this service. The Irish Government favourably considered this suggestion, and proposed an Amendment to the now defunct Labourers Bill of 1904 which gave effect to that proposal. Therefore, my noble friend will see that, so far as lay in their power, His Majesty's Irish Executive gave assistance to that council, of which he is a member, and would have been glad to see the proposed scheme carried into effect. But no further steps, so far as I can gather, seem to have been taken by the various county councils in the promotion of this very philanrhtopic and excellent scheme. Indeed, I believe that Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie announced that they would allow a year to go by in order to see what could be done, and whether the proposed scheme would receive that consideration at the hands of the various county councils which they thought it should receive, if necessary, a rate being levied to meet the expenditure incurred.
  I cannot but think that unless the county councils within whose jurisdiction these seventeen routes come act as a whole the scheme must fall through, for, philanthropic as these gentlemen are, they cannot be asked to supply motor-cars for only a few of the routes instead of for the whole of the system which they had thought out, surveyed, and investigated. I would remind my noble friend that, however much the Irish Executive sympathise with the idea of this motor-car service, developing as it would certain remote parts of Ireland and giving opportunities for the transport of the produce of that part of the country, they have nothing whatever to do with this scheme beyond according it, if I may use the expression, a paternal interest, and giving its promoters every assistance in their power. We should be glad to see the county councils act as we had hoped they would act when this scheme was first in
  522
  augurated by putting their roads in order, for we feel sure that if the scheme were taken up it would be of enormous benefit to the country as a whole, and especially to that part with which my noble friend is so intimately connected.

  THE SEIZURE OF BRITISH VESSELS.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, rise to ask the Question standing in my name—viz.: "Whether, in regard to the claims for compensation lodged by His Majesty's Government for the seizure, detention, and destruction of British merchant vessels by Russian men-of-war, the claims of the captains, officers, and crews of these merchant vessels for personal suffering and loss have been included; and whether, considering the length of time which has elapsed since several British vessels were seized or sunk, there is a probability of an early settlement of these claims being effected."
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I am able to inform the noble Lord that in nearly all of the cases in which claims have been put forward for compensation on account of the seizure, detention, and destruction of British merchant vessels by Russian men-of-war an amount has been included for the claims of the captains, officers, and crews of those vessels. That is certainly true of those cases which have attracted most public attention. For example, in the case of the "Knight Commander" a claim has been made for the loss of the effects of the captain, officers, and crew, and for compensation. In the case of the "Hipsang" a considerable sum has been claimed for the same purpose So also in the case of the "Ardova," which was only detained for eight days. Even in that case a sum has been asked for on account of certain men who were compulsorily paid off at Suez. In the case of the "Malacca" we believe that the lump sum claimed by the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company is intended to cover all claims of the kind to which the noble Lord refers. In the case of the "Calchas" we have only just received the judgment of the Prize Court, and the

  523
  claim has not yet been made out. In the case of the "Allanton" the claims of the crew have been put forward by the Sailors' and Firemen's Union, and an inquiry is being made into their claims.
  Then the noble Lord calls attention to the length of time that has elapsed since these British vessels were seized, and asks whether there is a probability of an early settlement of the claims being effected. The settlement of these claims is necessarily a matter which takes a considerable time, in the first place, because it is essential that in these cases the claimants should exhaust their legal remedies, and that, I need not remind the noble Lord, means that they have to appeal first to the Prize Court, and then to the Supreme Court, which hears cases on appeal from the Court below. As in most of these cases the seizure took place in the China Seas, and as the Prize Court is held at Vladivostok, there has obviously been a very considerable amount of delay. Besides that, it is, essential that in all these cases, before a claim is put forward by His Majesty's Government, the particulars of the claim should be carefully considered and sifted; and I am told that even in cases where claims have been put forward before a Prize Court in this country the delay is always appreciable. But it is not the case that nothing has been accomplished in the way of settlement of these claims. For example, in the case of the "Calchas" the Russian Government have already paid the value of the flour on board. In the case of the "Frankby" the owners have received the greater part of their claim. In the case of the "Ettrickdale" there has been payment in full, and the case is closed. In the case of the "Foxton Hall" 80 per cent, of the amount claimed has been paid, and we understand that the owner is satisfied. If there are any other cases in regard to which the noble Lore desires information, I need not say that I shall be glad to give it to him.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether it is not the fact that in a great many cases the captures were made, not by regular men-of-war, but by vessels of the Volunteer Navy, which, according to the laws of war, are not authorised to make
  524
  captures at all, and which formerly would have been regarded as pirates?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am afraid I cannot answer that Question offhand; but it is the case, as we all know, that some of these seizures were made by vessels belonging to the Russian Volunteer Fleet.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: May I ask the noble Marquess whether any representation has been made on the subject?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Certainly.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I should like to call the noble Marquess's attention to a case which he will recollect well. One of these Volunteer cruisers—the "Dnieper"—on her retreat after the battle of Tsu Shima sunk a British vessel and took the crew on board. The crew have, I understand, been recently released at Suez. Can the noble Marquess give information as to any proceedings that have taken place in Tegard to this matter.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It would be better that the noble Earl should put the Question on the Paper. The matter is very technical, and I should like to be exactly accurate as to details.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will place on the Table of the House any communications that have passed between the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia and His Majesty's Government on the subject of marriages in Australia with a deceased wife's sister; and whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps to effect any alteration in the law affecting that subject.
  My object in putting this Question to the noble Marquess is to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the importance of the matter to which the Question refers. A Bill legalising in this country marriages which have taken place

  525
  in the self-governing Colonies with a deceased wife's sister has lately been before your Lordships' House on two occasions. It was introduced for the purpose of remedying what is undoubtedly a great anomaly in our law. I will not enter into the merits of that Bill; but its object was to secure that the children of these marriages, effected by virtue of colonial laws sanctioned by this country, should not be illegitimate in this country in respect to the holding of freehold property. In 1898 a Bill with this object was carried through your Lordships' House by a majority of nearly three to one, and on the second occasion when it was introduced it was carried by a large majority. So far, the opinion of this House is strongly in favour of this measure. It was stated in 1898 that sixteen of the self-governing Colonies had passed this law, and now I understand the remaining self-governing Colony has accepted it. In 1896 every Agent of every Colony was instructed by his Government to appeal collectively to the Imperial Government to urge that this anomaly should be removed. Again, when the Prime Ministers came over in 1897 they appealed collectively to the Colonial Office to redress this great wrong.
  I am not aware whether there is any Parliamentary Paper on the subject, but I understand that Lord Northcote, on behalf of the Australian Commonwealth, has addressed a serious remonstrance to the Government, pointing out the strong feeling in the Colonies on the subject/and I am also aware that the Colonial Secretary has seat a sympathetic reply to that letter. I have every reason to know that the noble Marquess the Leader of this House is in favour of passing a Bill which should remedy the anomaly to which I have referred, and in 1898 he voted in favour of the measure introduced for that purpose. I do not doubt but that His Majesty's Government, as a whole, wish to remedy this defect, but the question is, When is it to be done? This is surely not the time when we should thwart a strong desire on the part of the Colonies. A refusal to remedy, even a delay in remedying, this injustice may do a great -deal of evil. I appeal to politicians of
  526
  every class that it would be a wise and statesmanlike thing to pass a Bill which would remedy this grievance by providing that marriages between persons of British race which are valid according to the laws of that part of the Empire in which they were celebrated should be considered equally valid in the United Kingdom.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, Lord Northcote's letter, to which my noble and learned friend refers, as well as the reply of the Colonial Secretary thereto, were presented to Parliament in the month of April of this year. The document is, therefore, within the reach of my noble and learned friend.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: Yes, but is there no other communication besides these two?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am not aware of any. The despatch from the Governor-General contained in this Parliamentary Paper is undoubtedly the letter which my noble and learned friend had in his mind.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: There has been nothing since Mr. Lyttelton's reply.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I have not heard o[anything. My noble and learned friend asks whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to take any steps to effect an alteration in the law on this subject. It must be obvious to your Lordships that it would be impossible for us at this stage of the session to attempt legislation upon so controversial a subject; and I am afraid I cannot take upon myself to inform the House as to the manner in which the question is likely to be dealt with in any future session of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord reminds me that I voted in favour of the Bill. That is perfectly true, and, personally, I have not altered the opinion which I then entertained; but when the noble and earned Lord goes on to suggest that His Majesty's Government as a whole are Probably in sympathy with the proposal, I must remind him that His Majesty's Government as a whole have never

  527
  committed themselves in any way with regard to this question; and I think it is an open secret that within our ranks there is a very considerable divergence of opinion on the question. I am afraid that in these circumstances I cannot enlighten my noble and learned friend as to the prospect of legislation.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I can quite understand that late in the session it would be very difficult to pass a Bill dealing with this subject. But may I remind the noble Marquess that these Papers were laid on the Table in April, and that a letter was sent on December 30th last year informing the Australian Ministers that their suggestion should receive the most careful consideration of His Majesty's Government. Nothing, apparently, has since been done.
  THE EARL OF RANFURLY: My Lords, I should like to point out that the law legalising the marriages in question has already received His Majesty's sanction as regards the Colonies. In these circumstances I think the question of the rights of the children of such marriages should receive immediate consideration. I may inform your Lordships that the present anomaly is seriously regarded in the Colonies, and the earliest opportunity should be taken to remove the existing conflict between British and colonial law in this respect.

  BRITISH TRADERS IN THE MARSHALL AND CAROLINE ISLANDS.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYrose "To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he was able to give further information concerning the negotiations with the German Government with respect to trade in the Marshall and Caroline groups of islands." The noble Earl said: My Lords, it will be within the recollection of the House that when this matter was last brought forward the noble Marquess was able to give a friendly and satisfactory answer from the German Government so far as its terms went. I should be glad to know it any further progress has been made. There are two main points. The first is
  528
  compensation for damages, and on that I would ask the noble Marquess whether any advance has been made towards a settlement. The other point is, what will be the position of British trade in the Pacific after October 1st? At the present time British traders are shut out from the Marshall Islands, whilst German traders trade freely with islands within the British group. German traders have been going round the German Islands and securing, for export exclusively in German ships, the trade of these islands, so it is very important that British traders should know what their exact position will be after next October. It is quite possible that steps will be taken in the interval which will bar British traders from the benefits of free and equal trade in these islands as arranged under treaty. The noble Marquess said on the last occasion that the German Government considered this, a matter of trivial importance, and therefore not one on which the two-nations should have a quarrel. That is perfectly true; and, therefore, I should be glad if the noble Marquess could persuade the German Government that though the matter may not now have created strong feeling, yet, if delay continues, it is quite possible that very acute feeling will be created in Australia upon the matter, which we should all deplore. I hope the noble Marquess will be in a position to say that some further advance has been made towards a settlement of this question.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I cannot add very much to the statement which I made on this subject on a former occasion. I may, however, tell my noble friend that we are in correspondence with the German Government in regard to the several points which arise out of the termination of the monopoly of the Jaluit Company in the Marshall Islands. Among those points are, I think, most of those to which he specially referred. We have desired our Ambassador in Berlin to obtain information as to the conditions under which land can be acquired with a view to securing domicile for trading purposes. The question arises whether the existing rule does not virtually prevent foreigners from obtaining domicile. We have also instructed Sir

  529
  F. Lascelles to ask whether the British firms which have been excluded from trade in the islands will after October 1st, when the monopoly terminates, be able to resume operations without unreasonable restrictions. We have also called the attention of the German Government to the alleged German monopoly in the Caroline Islands. We are under the impression that the prohibition of trade there is not absolute, and that it is probably the result of unauthorised provisions imposed locally without the knowledge of the superior authorities. My noble friend refers to the question of compensation. We have intimated to the German Government that the question of compensation has been raised, and that it will have to be considered. We have not yet received replies to these inquiries. Indeed, I think there has scarcely been time, making allowance for the ordinary delays of official correspondence. I can only add that we are quite aware that a very strong feeling on this subject exists in the Australian Colonies, and that we shall not fail to bring to the notice of the German Government the fact that that strong feeling exists.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock, till To morrow, a quarter-past Four o'clock.