Lords Sitting of 15 May 1905

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) [H.L]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) [H.L.].
And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: —Whitechapel and Bow Railway; Great Western Railway (New Railways); Aylesbury Gas; Ealing Corporation; South Oxfordshire Water and Gas; Great Western Railway (Additional Powers); Halifax Corporation; Stockport Corpora tion; Bristol Corporation; Croydon Corporation; Heckmondwike Improve ment; South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company; Aberdare Urban District Council; Colne Corporation; Swansea Corporation. The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Wellingborough and District Tramroads and Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.]. Petition for additional provision; of the British Electric Traction Company, Limited, and of the Rushden Urban District Council, together with the proposed Amendments annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Bill. The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 6th of April and Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed.
Alexandra Park and Palace Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Sandgate Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee adjourned this day at One o'clock.
Rotherham, Maltby, and Laughton Railway Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Holy Trinity, Portsea, Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment. The said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
Brompton, Chatham, Gillingham, and Rochester Water Bill. Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [H.L.]; Morley Corporation Bill; Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Acton Sewage Bill; Birmingham Corporation Bill; Great Northern Railway Bill; Wellingborough and District Tramroads and Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.]; Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Hare (E. Listowel) be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Viscount Ridley; read, and agreed to.
Sandgate Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord De Mauley be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Denman; read, and agreed to.
Gamble's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Amendment reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
Malone's Divorce (Validation) Bill [H.L]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Lautour's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE WITH SIBERIA.
  Report on the condition and prospects of British trade in Siberia by H. Cooke, Special Commissioner of the Commercial Intelligence Committee of the Board of Trade.

  TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3371. Honduras (Truxillo).
  No. 3372. China (Kiungchow).
  No. 3373. China (Chinkiang).
  No. 3374. Persia (Kerman).

  INDIA (FOREST SERVICE).
  Correspondence relating to the training of forestry students.
  BANKING AND RAILWAY STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Report for December, 1904.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Code of regulations for continuation classes providing further instruction for those who have left school, 1905.
  Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, with Appendix, 1904–1905.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved the insertion of a proviso at the end of Clause 2, the effect of which was, he said, to provide a time limit for advertisements now in existence, so that if and when the Bill became law those who had advertisements already up should have a certain period of grace before the local authority could order their removal.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 1, at end of clause to insert the words, 'Provided that a local authority in making by-laws under this section shall provide for the exemption from the operation of such by-laws of any hoardings and similar structures in use for advertising purposes, and of any advertisements exhibited at the time of the making of the by-laws, for such
  240
  period, not being less than twelve months, as they may think fit."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD BELPER: I may say that there is no objection on the part of the Government to this or to the other Amendments standing on the Paper in the name of Lord Balfour of Burleigh.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that the object of the Amendment standing in his name was to check a very mischievous and annoying practice, and one which was becoming more common, especially in the neighbourhood of towns. People armed with advertisements or stamps travelled all over the country and fixed announcements to trees, gates, walls, and other property referring to somebody's boots or corsets, and these advertisements constituted a serious nuisance. It was very desirable that the practice should be stopped, or at all events checked. He knew a case in Scotland in which a county council passed a by-law for this purpose, but it was held that the by-law was beyond the power of the county council. He therefore hoped the Government would accept his new sub-section.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 1, line 16, after the word 'landscape' to insert as a new sub-section the words: (3) For preventing the affixing or otherwise exhibiting advertisements upon any wall, tree, fence, gate, or elsewhere on private property, without the consent of either the owner or the occupier previously given in writing."— (The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BELPER: The view of the Home Office with regard to this Amendment is that, although in itself it is a very desirable one, it is not necessary, because the power already exists. In the case of London there is a provision in the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, dealing with this particular case, and declaring it to be an offence for any person, without the consent of the owner or occupier, to fix any bill or other paper against any fence or wall. The law with regard to county council and borough areas is somewhat different. There is power to make by-laws under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, and also under the Local Government Act,

  241
  1888, and by-laws are constantly made for this particular purpose. A model by-law has been approved by the Home Office which provides that—
  "No person shall affix or cause to be affixed any placard upon any building, wall, fence, gate, door, pillar, tree, or post in or abutting on any public street or place, without the permission of the owner or occupier, unless authorised so to do by law."
  I am not authorised to speak on the case of Scotland. I do not represent the Scottish Office and have no means of knowing whether the law is different in Scotland; but as regards England the view of the Home Office is that the Amendment is unnecessary, as the power already exists.
  LORD HENEAGEdid not think the model by-law which the noble Lord who represented the Home Office had just read would cover country districts, because it contained the words—
  "In or abutting on any public street or place."
  The object which Lord Camperdown had in view, and with which he (Lord Heneage) cordially agreed, was to put a stop to men going about with paste pots and posting advertisements on gates in open fields and elsewhere, not necessarily in or abutting on a public place. Only the other day he saw a horse shy at one of these large advertisements. He (Lord Heneage) also objected to the small bills, many of which were, not nice reading.
  LORD BRAYEreminded the House that the Indecent Advertisements Act of 1888 rendered a great number of these advertisements indictable, and that within a year of the passing of the Act the gate posts in the country—at any rate in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire—were cleared of objectionable bills. He hoped the noble Earl would press his Amendment, because it went a little further still, and would, he hoped, have the effect of clearing the country of every kind of advertisement which could in any way be spoken of as objectionable.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid that, so far as he was personally concerned, the object of Lord Camperdown had his cordial sympathy. If the class of offence in question was not prohibited under the
  242
  existing law, he would be glad to see his Bill made the machinery for putting an effective prohibition upon it. But, in view of the statement of the noble Lord representing the Home Office, he suggested that Lord Camperdown should postpone his Amendment at this stage, so that in the meantime they might see exactly how the matter stood and make absolutely certain whether there was an existing power sufficient to meet the difficulty.
  LORD BELPER: I have not the slightest objection to that course. I believe the object of the Amendment is already met, but if it is not we can deal with it in Standing Committee.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid his Amendment proposed to deal, not merely with indecent advertisements, but with advertisements of all kinds. No doubt in England the law was as stated by Lord Belper, but the objectionable practice in question had not been stopped under it. It seemed to him desirable that where the advertisement was an indecent one the offender should not merely be punishable on indictment but summarily. It had been decided by the Courts that county councils in Scotland, at all events, had no power to make by-laws to stop this nuisance, and, whilst he was willing to accede to the course suggested, he thought the evil was one which ought to be dealt with when they had a Bill of this kind before them.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid he desired to move an Amendment to this clause which was not on the Paper, but which he had mentioned to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and to which neither Lord Balfour nor His Majesty's Government had any objection. Some persons had doubted whether the Bill might not derogate from the powers that local authorities now possessed of making by-laws; whether it might not be held that

  243
  he by-laws made under this Bill were in substitution for those already in force; and in order to make the matter perfectly clear he moved his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "At end of Clause 3, to insert the words, 'Provided always that the powers conferred by this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other powers of making by-laws possessed by any local authority.'"— (Lord Monkswell.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid that personally he had no objection to this Amendment. He thought it reasonable, because in urban districts such as the county of London there were stringent powers which were not appropriate to rural districts. The Amendment merely safeguarded those stringent powers where they existed.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid the Amendment which he now moved had been suggested by the Irish Government, and was to make it quite clear that a certain rate in Ireland would be applicable to defraying expenses if any were incurred under the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 4, page 2, line 12, to leave out the word 'and,' and after the word 'Wales' to insert the words 'or Ireland.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved an Amendment to provide that in the case of the city of London the expenses should be defrayed out of the consolidated rate. He believed the Amendment was agreed to by everybody concerned.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 4, page 2, line 14, after the word 'fund,' to insert the words, 'in the case of the city of London out of the consolidated rate of that city and.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHexplained that there was a clause in the original draft of the Bill applying it to Scotland, but in the changes agreed upon between the Home Office and himself, and which were given effect to by the House at the previous stage, the application of the Act to Scotland was accidentally dropped out. He begged to move his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 4, to insert as a new clause the words: '(1) In the application of this Act to Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland shall be substituted for the Secretary of State. (2) The town council of a burgh to which Section 77 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903, applies, shall not have power to make by-laws for the regulation and control of hoardings and similar structures in terms of this Act. (3) By-laws made by a county council shall not be of any force or effect within a Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh. (4) The section of this Act relating to expenses shall apply to Scotland with the substitution of 'general purposes rate' for 'county fund' 'Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh' for 'borough' and 'burgh general or police assessment' for 'borough fund or borough rate.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, new clause agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  Consequential Amendments agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid that the new clause applying the Act to Ireland had been suggested and drafted by the Irish Government.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 5, to insert as a new clause the words: 'In the application of this Act to Ireland the Lord-Lieutenant, acting with the advice of the Privy Council, shall be substituted for the Secretary of State.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended (No. 73.)

NAVAL AND MILITARY MEDALS BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, this Bill is exactly the same as the Bill which passed through all its stages in your Lordships' House last year, and therefore I do not propose to explain it at any length. The case for the Bill is this. Eleven years ago legislation was passed carrying certain penalties for wrongful use of the King's uniform. We wish to apply the same conditions to the wrongful wearing of medals. We have had cases of men wearing medals to which they were not entitled and using them as a means of obtaining employment, and we propose a penalty for such an offence. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I desire to say a word or two before this Bill is road a second time. The Bill only refers to medals granted to members of His Majesty's Naval and Military Forces. His Majesty was graciously pleased to grant a medal to the officers of the merchant service, in recognition of the valuable work done by them during the South African War, and I would ask my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he could not see his way, when the Bill goes into Committee, to insert an Amendment which would include the medals of officers of the merchant service. Some of those officers have the ordinary war medals which, I believe, are covered by this Bill, but the special transport medal granted to them is not so covered. I trust that my noble friend will prepare an Amendment meeting this point before the Committee stage is taken.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I shall be very glad to look into the point raised by the noble Lord.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  INDENTURED IMMIGRANT LABOURERS IN THE COLONIES.
  LORD STANMORE,who had given notice of his intention to move for a copy of a despatch from Earl Grey to Sir William Gomm, Governor of Mauritius, No. 38 of 1846, and for a Return, in a comparative form, of the Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations affecting the introduction and employment of Indentured Immigrant Labourers in His Majesty's Colonial Possessions (1) as existing in 1885; (2) as now existing, said: My Lords, I have felt and feel some embarrassment with regard to the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper to-day. That embarrassment is due to the fact that another Motion, also relating to coloured indentured immigrants, is to be brought before your Lordships for discussion to-morrow. It is true that the two Motions are not at all similar, either in their scope or in their object. The scope of mine is a much wider one than that of the noble Lord who has given the notice for to-morrow (Lord Coleridge), for the scope of mine includes the whole of the question of the legislation with regard to coloured immigration in all the Colonies. His Motion refers only to the introduction of a particular class of coolie into one particular colony. His object is understood to be to convey a censure on the Government for the action which they have permitted or enjoined; mine does not convey any censure upon any one, neither upon the Government nor upon private individuals, but merely desires to call public attention to one of those curious fluctuations of public opinion which from time to time occur. But though our Motions are not identical, either in scope or object, it is impossible to deny that to a certain extent the two Motions do overlap one another, and that some of the arguments and facts which would be quoted in the one would necessarily be, if not quoted, alluded to in the other. That, under ordinary circumstances, would not greatly matter; at least it would not greatly matter if the two discussions were separated from one another by any considerable interval; but through a series of circumstances not entirely due to myself the two Motions are now down for two consecutive days, and I think if I were now to go into

  247
  my Motion it would be impossible to prevent, to some extent, the discussion which must take place to-morrow being forestalled. It would be very difficult, although it is not my Motion, although it is not what I wish chiefly to dwell on, to keep out of sight the Chinese coolie question, which must necessarily form a part of it. I have, therefore, though somewhat reluctantly, come to the conclusion that I should best consult your Lordships' convenience, and also show that consideration to the noble and learned Lord to which he is entitled, if I withdraw the Motion standing in my name. Lord Coleridge gave his notice before mine, and, therefore, has a certain priority. I have no wish to poach upon another man's preserves, and my Motion, though, I think, not less important than that of the noble and learned Lord, is one which can wait. There is no immediate necessity for calling attention to this curious change of feeling in the public mind. My noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies need not laugh, because I can assure him I intend to return to the charge before long. Of course I cannot bring forward the same Motion again, but I shall bring up the same subject by another Motion at a decent interval after the discussion of to-morrow. I beg, with the permission of the House, to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  DEFENCE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSrose to move, "That the Duke of Wellington's letter to Sir John Burgoyne in 1847 on our defenceless state be printed and circulated as a Parliamentary Paper." He said: My Lords, I do not wish to raise on this Motion the general question of our defences. I hope to raise that question on another Motion, of which I have given notice, and which is in the following terms—
  "To move to resolve, That, in the opinion of this House, it would be a danger to the Realm, and limit the power of the Navy as an offensive
  248
  force in war, to trust to it alone for home defence, and, inasmuch as it is admitted that the Navy cannot guarantee us against so-called hostile 'raids,' it is the more needful that our land defences should at all times be such that no nation would ever attempt in any form a hostile landing on our shores."
  I desire the publication of the Duke of Wellington's letter because I think it is a letter of considerable importance, for it deals with the safety of our hearths and homes—the most vital question that could be brought before us. There are extracts from the letter in The Times this morning, and I will not trouble your Lordships by reading it. I think that if the Duke of Wellington were now alive he would probably be a member of the new Defence Committee, and, if he were the Prime Minister would not, I am sure, have made the speech that he delivered on Thursday last. My only object is that your Lordships should see this letter, which a great many people have never read. Full knowledge is wanted on this in the interests of the nation, it is on this vital question of home defence; and it is desirable to publish all the information on both sides of the question that can be obtained. What the Government will do with regard to this Motion I do not know. They may or may not refuse it. I hope they will not. I appeal to the noble Marquess the Leader of the Government in your Lordships' House to accept it. This is not a War Office question; it is an Imperial question. The War Office has no more to do with it than any other Department. It is a national question; and, in the interests of the nation, I hope my request will be acceded to.
  Moved, "That the Duke of Wellington's letter to Sir John Burgoyne in 1847 on our defenceless state be printed and circulated as a Parliamentary Paper."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl, in answering this Question, that I wish he had been provided with a foeman worthy of his steel. I will, however, do my best to reply to the simple Question he has put to me. I say at once that I hope

  249
  the noble Earl will not press his Motion. This letter cannot be characterised as a public document; it is a private letter.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I want it to be a public document.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: That is what I object to, unless the noble Earl has the Duke of Wellington's consent.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Where am I to go for it? This document has already been published a great many times. The earliest reference to it that I have been able to find is in a newspaper called the Morning Chronicle, in which this letter appeared on January 4th, 1848. A very full précis is also published in Sir Herbert Maxwell's "Life of the Duke of Wellington," in the second volume, page 361. That book, I have ascertained, is in the library of your Lordships' House. The letter was also published in Colonel Wrottesley's "Life of Sir John Burgoyne," in the first volume, page 444, and Colonel Wrottesley states there that it had frequently appeared in print. Therefore, the letter is available to everyone who wants to read it in studying this question. I think the letter is a good deal better known than the noble Earl seems to suppose. I have had occasion several times during the last few weeks to mention the letter to officers with whom I have the privilege of being associated at the War Office, and they all seem perfectly familiar with it. It was a letter which was not approved of by everybody when it was originally published. There were some speeches of Mr. Cobden which were very bitter in their comments upon it, showing considerable disagreement with the views put forward. Moreover, the letter can scarcely be considered to be up to date. It is, as I have said, at the disposal of anyone who desires to study this question, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served in printing and circulating it as a Parliamentary Paper. I hope the noble Earl will not press his Motion.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to second the advice given to my noble friend by the noble
  250
  Lord who has just spoken, but on, perhaps, a different ground. My recollection is that this letter of the illustrious Duke was written without any intention of its being published, and that it was published, if I may say so, surreptitiously, greatly to the annoyance of the illustrious writer. In these circumstances, unless some great public good is to be gained by publishing it, I do not think His Majesty's Government would be acting quite rightly if they were to give, as it were, an official stamp, not only to the letter, but also to the manner in which the letter was first published. I think it would be much better that this House should not mix itself up with the publication of the letter in question, and that it should be allowed to remain where it is, available to everybody who cares to read it, but without the official stamp of His Majesty's Government.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, what my noble friend the noble Duke has just said is rather counter to the view of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War, for he has told us that everybody knows all about this letter. But to know it you must buy a Morning Chronicle of January 4, 1848, and get a number of books referred to by the noble Earl. I want the public to have this letter without that trouble, and I think my noble friend is a little over-delicate about the Government's sanctioning the publication of a letter which was not intended to be published. I suspect there is something behind this, and that the Government do not wish the noble Duke's argument to be put in your Lordships' hands. That is my belief; I may be wrong. I shall not, however, trouble your Lordships to divide, for I have the remedy in my own hands. I am quite prepared to say that I shall print this letter myself, and send it to every Member of your Lordships' House and the other House of Parliament and to the Press. I hope your Lordships will read the letter, and I also commend to your attention, in relation to the subject of Imperial defence and Mr. Balfour's speech, the article in The Times of to-day by a

  251
  military officer and the able leader and important correspondent in the Morning Post. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary has alluded to the Duke of Wellington's letter as being out of date, but that cannot be so long as the shore of England remain unchanged. The Duke of Wellington said he had made a careful study of the subject, and that from the North Foreland to Portsmouth there was not a spot on the coast where infantry might not land, and there were several small harbours where cavalry, artillery, and stores could be landed. Therefore, to make this letter out of date you must prove that the shores of the South of England have changed. Be that as it may, I have served my purpose in calling your Lordships' attention to this preparatory to the Motion which I shall bring forward later. I think the motto, Audi alteram partem, is one which it would be well for the Government to adopt in regard to this subject.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I only wish to point out that there is really no difference between the argument used by the noble Lord who represents the War Office and the argument which was put with so much authority by the noble Duke on the Back Bench. My noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War pointed out that the letter was a private letter, and upon that ground he objected to a publication which would give to it the appearance and character of an official Parliamentary Paper. That was also the argument of the noble Duke, and this view is supported by an extract from a subsequent letter, published in The Times of to-day, in which the Duke of Wellington described the letter which we are now discussing as a "confidential letter from the Commander-in-Chief." We feel, therefore, that we have no right to convert that confidential letter into a Parliamentary document. The noble Earl who moved the Motion now before the House twitted my noble friend behind me upon his description of the letter as "out of date," and replied that the shores of England had remained unchanged since the letter was written. I have myself some doubt on that point,
  252
  for certain parts of the coast alter very rapidly indeed. But, be that as it may, surely the noble Earl must admit that the means of offence and defence have considerably altered since the time of Wellington, and if it were possible to recall the illustrious Duke to life and give him a place on the Defence Committee it might well be supposed that he would give serious study to the modifications which the art of war had undergone since he had taken part in the application of its principles to the defence of this country. I am afraid we must adhere to our resolve and leave the noble Earl to fall back on his own method for making the letter known.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I hope my doing so will not be considered in any way a breach of confidence.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I merely rise to quote what the view of the Duke of Wellington himself was with regard to the publication of this letter. As the noble Earl the Undersecretary of State for War stated, the letter was published on January 4th, 1848, and on the 30th of the same month the illustrious Duke, in a letter written to Lady Shelley, took exception to the publication, and expressed his views on the subject very strongly. If I may, I will quote a portion of his letter, and I think it will show conclusively that the illustrious Duke would neither have desired that this subject should be raised in your Lordships' House, nor that his letter should be published. The Duke wrote—
  "My opinion is, and has been, that the subject would be considered with advantage by the Government alone in the first instance. The rules of procedure so require. It is quite certain that the House of Lords, of which I am a member, is the place where it would be of the least advantage to suggest the discussion of such a subject. It is well known that in the last session of Parliament a discussion did take place in the House of Lords on the state of the defences of the country. Lord Ellen-borough spoke, others spoke; I did not say one word. I object to a movement of the kind on the part of any but servants of the Crown, and I declared I would not move in it."
  I think that is strong evidence of what the wishes of the Duke of Wellington would be if he were here, and I

  253
  venture to quote it in support of what has been said on behalf of His Majesty' Government.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I cannot refrain from expressing surprise that the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War has quoted Mr. Cobden in order to bolster up his argument. I confess that is the last authority I should have expected to hear quoted from the Front Bench, for of all prophets he was, I imagined, regarded by noble Lords on that bench as being the most discredited. But I should like to remind the House, and my noble friend in particular, that one of Mr. Cobden's prophecies was that, if we were involved in a European war, the country would be obliged to resort to the principle of universal service. I think that is a prophecy more likely to be fulfilled than others made by that statesman.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I did not quote Mr. Cobden to buttress up my argument. I quoted Mr. Cobden's having made a speech as evidence of a certain feeling in a certain section of opinion in the country, which is a very different thing.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.