Lords Sitting of 2 May 1912

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Land Drainage (Lincoln West) (South District) Provisional Order. [H.L.]
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

BRINE PUMPING (CHESHIRE) BILL. [H.L.]
Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
CANVKY DEEP WATER WHARF AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee that it in not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
BLYTH HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
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Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 27th of February and 27th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
BLYTH HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS (RECONSTITUTION) BILL. [H.L.]
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.
GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
    STEPNEY BOROUCH COUNCIL (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Select Committee that the Committee adjourned yesterday at Two o'clock, and pray leave not to sit again till Monday next; read, and leave given.
WORKING DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
The Order made on the 27th of March last appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged
BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
HOVE CORPOR ATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
BRIGHTON AND HOVE GENERAL GAS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
NORTH ORMESBY, SOUTH BANK, NOR MANBY AND CHIANG ETOWN RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
WOKING DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Great Central Railway Bill [H.L.] and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of Woking District Gas Bill [H.L.]; read, and agreed to: All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
LOTHIAN RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Shute (V. Barrington) and the Lord Monkswe11 be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Earl Amherst and the Lord Oranmore and Browne; read, and agreed to.
GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]

    STEPNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL. [H.L.]
    WOKING DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Gwydir be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of Lord Vivian; read, and agreed to.

WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Chiddingfold and District Water, East Surrey Water, Henley-on-Thames Water and Wimborne Minster Water—Was presented by the Lord Granard (E. Granard); read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 42.)

BANKRUPTCY BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, this Bill, to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading, is identical, save for a few drafting amendments, with that which I had the honour of introducing last December. It is founded upon the Report of a Departmental Committee appointed in 1906 mainly in consequence of repeated representations from Chambers of Commerce and others to the effect that bankruptcy offences too often went without punishment. A further subject that had been pressed upon the attention of the Board of Trade was the ease with which fraud might be practised under deeds of arrangement. These questions and. certain others suggested by the Law Society and by Departmental experience were specifically commended to the attention of the Committee, who were also asked to report generally upon any matters of bankruptcy law and procedure as to which amendment might appear desirable.
The Committee was a strong and representative one. The Chairman—Mr. Montague Muir Mackenzie, now Referee
900
in the Supreme Court—had had long experience in bankruptcy practice, and had for many years been standing counsel to the Board of Trade on bankruptcy questions. He was assisted by two Members of Parliament (of whom one represented trade, while the other is the present President of the Probate Division), and by representatives of the Law Society, the Trade Protection Societies, the Associated Chambers of Commerce, the Chartered Institute of Accountants, and commercial travellers, while official experience was represented in the person of the late Inspector-General in Bankruptcy. The Committee, after a long and careful inquiry, made their Report, which was a unanimous one, in April, 1908. I should like to say that the Board of Trade feel very greatly indebted to the Committee, and especially to the Chairman, for the painstaking energy and the thoroughness and ability with which they conducted their investigations, and for the admirable Report which they produced. The Committee's report was received with strong approval by representative commercial bodies, who by repeated resolutions and by deputation to the Board of Trade have asked for legislation on the lines recommended.
As the result of their inquiry the Departmental Committee approved generally the present system of bankruptcy administration brought into existence by Mr. Chamberlain's Act of 1883, and in particular they found that the important subject of investigation into a bankrupt's conduct arid the causes of his insolvency is already adequately provided for. They made, however, numerous recommendations for amendment in matters of detail, the chief of which it may be convenient to describe, at the same time explaining such modifications as have been made in certain cases in preparing clauses based upon them.
First, as to criminal offences. Under the present law a bankrupt charged with criminal offences is, after an order for his prosecution has been obtained from the Bankruptcy Court, brought before a magistrate, and, if the charge is not dismissed, he is committed for trial before Quarter Sessions, Assizes, or the Central Criminal Court, as the case may be. The proceedings must be undertaken by the Public Prosecutor. Under this cumbrous procedure there are some forty indictments

901
annually. The Committee recommended that bankruptcy offences should be made capable of being dealt with by Courts of Summary jurisdiction. They further thought that in such cases as could be so disposed of the prosecution might be left in the hands of the Board of Trade or their officers, the Official Receivers. They were also of opinion that certain offences such as at present are only punishable by refusing or delaying the grant of discharge in bankruptcy should be made criminal. These were—(1) the failure on the part of a trader to keep books of account, a fruitful source of bankruptcy and an easy means in many cases of escaping conviction for offences under the Debtors Act; (2) gambling—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What is gambling?
THE EARL OF GRANARD: That is difficult to construe. Everybody has a different opinion about that. The gambling here referred to is gambling and rash and hazardous speculation outside the scope of the bankrupt's own trade or business where these have brought about or materially contributed to bankruptcy. These two offences appeared to the Committee fit subjects for criminal punishment. With regard to the offence involved in not keeping hooks, although the recommendations of the Committee do not go beyond what is at present the law in France, in Germany, and. in Scotland, it has been thought that the time is perhaps not yet ripe for fully adopting the Committee's recommendations. The offence in question is therefore, as the present Bill runs, to arise only where the delinquent has been insolvent on a previous occasion. As to these new offences the Bill, adopting the recommendations of the Committee, makes them criminal only in the case of bankrupts engaged in trade or business. In such cases, where credit is practically indispensable under modern conditions, it will be admitted that the offences in question are specially grave and serious. There is, further, a period of two years' grace from the commencement of the Act; and, again, prosecutions for these offences are not to be undertaken except upon an Order of the Bankruptcy Court, which will have full knowledge of all the circumstances of the bankruptcy.
The Committee had before them the question of trading on the part of un-
902
discharged bankrupts, whether in their own or in an assumed name. At present, if such a person obtains credit to the extent of£20 without disclosing that he is an undischarged bankrupt, he is guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment up to twelve months. The Committee recommended that the limit should, be reduced to£10, and this is embodied in the Bill. I may mention that the same recommendation so far as relates to Scotland has recently been made by a Committee which has been inquiring into the bankruptcy law of that country. The Committee also recommended that it should be a criminal offence for a bankrupt to trade under an assumed name without disclosure of his true name and position to those with whom he deals. It has teen thought enough to require disclosure of the true name only.
A further question to which both the legal and mercantile community attach great importance is that of after-acquired property. At present, so long as a bankrupt remains undischarged, all such property vests in the trustee in his bankruptcy, and it may happen that when an undischarged bankrupt after again trading finds himself once more insolvent and is adjudicated bankrupt a second time, his creditors find all his assets claimed by the trustee in the prior bankruptcy for the benefit of the prior creditors. There is, however, under decisions of the Courts, this restriction on the trustee's claim—that where such after-acquired property has been sold by the bankrupt, a purchaser for value, even if he has knowledge of the bankruptcy, has a good title in the case of personal property, though not in the case of real estate. The Committee recommended that both classes of property should be put on the same footing, and this is proposed in the Bill. But in both cases it seems necessary, to avoid, collusive transactions, to confine the protection to innocent purchasers—i.e., those without knowledge of the bankruptcy—save in the case of transactions in the course of the bankrupt's trade or business, which it is proposed to protect even though the purchaser has knowledge of the bankruptcy. With regard to the claims of creditors to whom the bankrupt has incurred debts since his bankruptcy, the Committee recommended that these should be paid out of after-acquired property in priority to outstanding claims for debts provable in the bankruptcy. This appears to the Board of Trade to go

903
too far, and it is thought that on the whole the course which will, on balance of considerations, be the most equitable is that the subsequent creditors' claims should be admitted on equal terms with the unsatisfied claims of the prior creditors.
Again, much hardship has been occasioned to creditors by the restrictions which at present operate to prevent a married woman being made a bankrupt. The Committee recommended, and the Bill provides, that married women who trade, whether with or apart from their husbands, shall in future be subject to the Bankruptcy Laws. The Committee also had before them the question of contracts in marriage settlements for the future payment of money or transfer of property. Under the present law trade creditors may be seriously injured if such property is transferred on the eve of bankruptcy, while if the contract is for the payment of a sum of money (which may be quite unreasonably large) then, even if the contract has not been executed before bankruptcy, the trustees under the settlement, or the wife, can by their voting power control the bankruptcy proceeding in the bankrupt's interest and take a large part of the estate in dividend, really for his benefit. The Committee recommended an amendment to meet this evil, to which substantial effect is given by Clause 13 of the Bill. The Committee, however, proposed to make the execution of such contracts within a period of five years open to attack by the trustee in bankruptcy, but the Board of Trade have thought this perhaps undesirably long, and the Bill shortens the period to two years.
A good deal of evidence was laid before the Committee as to evils arising from assignments of book-debts. Where such assignments are made trade creditors may see assets disappear on which they may reasonably have counted as part of the debtor's estate. The Committee came to the conclusion that, so far as relates to specific debts or debts growing due under specified contracts, there was no sufficient ground for legislative interference, but they recommended that general assignments of debts, existing or future, should be void against a trustee in bankruptcy, unless registered like bills of sale. The Bill adopts their recommendation.
Another subject considered by the Committee was that of deeds of arrange-
904
meat (outside bankruptcy procedure). There is abundant evidence of mischief o and of positive fraud committed under such deeds, and the Committee recommended numerous safeguards, which are included in the Bill, to secure honest administration. It is not desirable, as your Lordships will readily understand, that these arrangements, which may in many cases be advantageous to creditors, should be subject to official control, but it is desirable that the creditors concerned should all be made aware of proposals for such deeds before they become effective. The Bill accordingly provides, as recommended by the Committee, that the express assent of a majority of the creditors must be obtained within the prescribed time. Provision is also made for the giving of security by the trustee; for the periodical rendering of accounts; and for the official audit thereof if asked for by creditors representing one-half in number and value of the total number of creditors affected by the deed.
As to minor matters dealt with by proposals in the Bill which do not find place among the Committee's recommendations but were suggested by the experience of the Department, it may be enough to refer to Clauses 8 and 9, designed to cure a defect in the law which has been pressed upon the attention of the Board of Trade—namely, the facilities that exist for a foreign member of a firm doing business in this country to withdraw his assets from English creditors; and Clause 21, relating to the claims of money lenders. At present such claims, so far as they include interest in excess of five per cent., are postponed to other claims in the bankruptcy; but by various devices, such as a series of transactions in which new promissory notes are successively substituted for the original notes, this provision is largely evaded. The amendments now proposed are meant to meet such evasion. I think I have now touched briefly on the different points raised in this Bill. The Government are anxious that the Bill should receive discussion in your Lordships' House, where there are so many experts on this particular subject of bankruptcy law, and it is therefore with confidence that I submit the Bill to your Lordships' consideration.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Granard.)
LORD FABER: My Lords, I welcome this Bill. I think it is a good Bill, and one that is desired by the commercial community. It has been very fully touched upon by the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading, and therefore it will not be necessary for me to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. The first clause gives Courts of Summary Jurisdiction power to dispose of bankruptcy offences when they are of only small amount. That is very necessary, because at present these small cases clog the wheels of the law and the larger cases are postponed when there is no sufficient reason for that postponement. The next important amendment of the law contained in this Bill has reference to commercial offences which are not now criminal. If a trader who has failed once omits to keep trading accounts it becomes a criminal offence on the second occasion. Personally, I think that where a trader who is trading with other people's money gets into difficulties and it is found that he has not kept any accounts at all, it ought to be made a criminal offence on the first occasion. I see that the Departmental Committee on Bankruptcy Law were in favour of that, but their view has been overruled. Next, failure by a trader to explain the disappearance of assets is to be made a criminal act. I think that is quite right, and that it should be made a criminal offence where a trader trading with other people's money cannot explain where it has gone. The next important amendment makes it a criminal offence where the insolvency is brought about by gambling. I must say I differ from that provision, and I think immense difficulty will be experienced in saying what is gambling in the criminal sense. One man, we will say, is trading in cotton and another in wheat. It seems to me that the very essence of those trades is buying cotton and selling cotton and buying wheat and selling wheat, and if a dealer in either of those commodities fails it is generally because he has bought at the wrong moment, or sold at the wrong moment. That is part of his trade, and I think it would be hard in these conditions to say that he had been guilty of a criminal act—
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I would point out that the penalty in this Bill only applies to gambling unconnected with the trader's business. The instance which the noble Lord has given would be
906
connected with the business and would not come under the Bill.
LORD FABER: I am obliged to the noble Earl for correcting me in that respect. If it is possible to designate what is gambling connected with the business and what is gambling outside the business, I shall be satisfied; but I fear that when you come to work the provision it will be extremely difficult. Then under this Bill all married women engaged in trade are made amenable to the laws of this country. Apparently in these days women want to take part in everything. They take part in trade, and. therefore they must expect to be made subject to the laws which govern ordinary traders. Additional restrictions are imposed by the Bill on the power to place property out of the reach of creditors in case of bankruptcy by means of covenants in marriage settlements. That is, to my mind, an important provision. When a single man commences business as a trader things may go well with him at first, and then be gets large credit and has a large amount of the money of the public in his possession, temporarily of course. He trades with that money; and then we will assume that things go wrong. He then says to himself, "How am I to get this money for myself?" and up to now there has been only one way. Being a single man he can get married and settle the whole of the creditors' money as a marriage settlement on his wife, and hitherto that could not be upset. Marriage has been held to be a good consideration, and therefore it is possible for a single man, if he wants to defraud his creditors, to get married and settle the whole of the money on his wife. Under this Bill that defect in the law is going to be taken in hand and put right. To my mind that is one of the good points in the Bill.
Next, general assignments of book debts are to be void against a trustee in bankruptcy unless registered. I think that is a good provision. A charge on book debts ought to be registered just in the same way as bills of sale are now registered. Under this new provision it will be necessary for a register of such charges to be kept, and this register will set out exactly what traders are in a bad position and will give those who deal with them an opportunity of saving their skins. There is a further excellent provision in the Bill extending

907
the control of Bankruptcy Courts over foreigners trading in this country. The City of London will be grateful for that enactment. But whether there will be any assets on this side when the foreigner fails I cannot say. This is, however, a move in the right direction, and this clause should certainly be carried. Noble Lords will be able to judge for themselves of the merits of the Bill when we go into Committee upon it. Personally I am of opinion that it is a good Bill, that it has been well drawn, that expert advice is very clear in every line of it, and I hope the Bill will pass into law in due course.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I have no intention of saying anything which would place any impediment in the way of this Bill, but there are several matters in it of serious importance which will require, when we get into Committee, to be very carefully considered. I only mention them now in order that those who are supporting the Bill may have before their minds the questions that will arise. In the first place, I think the question of whether or not the procedure is to be by Court of Summary Jurisdiction or by indictment is a matter of the greatest importance. Some of these offences are very serious, and the question of whether or not you are to abolish trial by jury in some cases is one which, I think, will require to be very carefully considered. And not only so, but if trial by jury is to be abolished in certain cases the persons to whom power is given to order that the procedure should be by Court of Summary Jurisdiction ought to be defined. Nothing is more unsatisfactory to my mind than leaving it in the position in which it is left in this Bill. My noble friend behind me (Lord Faber) spoke of its being very important that certain cases should be capable of being dealt with at once. But it is more important, I think, when you are dealing with the liberty of the subject to consider who shall determine the question of what tribunal shall have jurisdiction in the matter. That, I think, will have to be seriously considered.
There are one or two matters which I venture to say have not been sufficiently considered in the drafting of this Bill. Your Lordships are aware that at one time the only person who could be made a bankrupt was a trader. The distinction
908
was very marked, and there are a great number of decisions upon it. I observe that in answer to a criticism the noble Earl in charge of the Bill spoke of an offence "connected with a man's business." What is the meaning of the word "business"? The distinction between a trader and an ordinary person becomes of serious importance here, but I do not find that there has been any very definite idea on the point in the mind of the draftsman of this Bill. A criticism made just now across the Table illustrates the importance of this matter. It was pointed out that some businesses are necessarily of a gambling character, and, if gambling is to be made an offence, that question must be dealt with. It must be defined what gambling is in the sense in which it is used in this Bill.
I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but I most strongly object to and shall certainly resist, when this Bill reaches Committee, a Government Department being given power to decide whether persons shall be prosecuted for a minor offence or for a graver offence; because, if the case goes to the minor tribunal the jurisdiction is limited and only certain punishment can be awarded, whereas if it goes to the other tribunal there is a power of inflicting much larger punishment. The power in this matter, if confided to anybody, should be given to the Public Prosecutor, who is the officer responsible for the due administration of the law. I strongly object to leaving it in the uncertain way in which it is left in this Bill, and at all events I object to a Government Department having this power.
Then I would ask those who are responsible for the drafting of this Bill to be good enough to read Clause 2 and then tell me, if they were deciding on the question of what the offence was, whether or not that clause expounds with sufficient clearness to the ordinary intellect what it means. It first says that the person accused shall have the onus of proving that he was not guilty of this, that, or the other. Then it says it shall not be necessary to insert the allegation that it was done with the intent that the clause means to make unlawful, and, having done that, it says it shall neither be necessary to allege it in the indictment nor to prove it. How the onus of proof is to remain on the person accused under those circumstances puzzles me

909
beyond measure. It becomes to my mind a serious thing to say there shall be an offence which it shall not be necessary to allege in the indictment; and that a person should be capable of being convicted on that seems to me to be a sort of thing that requires sonic defence at all events. I do not propose to detain your Lordships longer. I only rose to point out that there are several serious natters in this Bill which must be considered when we reach the Committee stage; and upon one of them, at all events, I certainly should resist this Bill if it were made an essential part of it that a Government Department should have jurisdiction to determine what tribunal should try a man.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL LOREBURN): My Lords, I have no cause to complain of the noble and learned Earl's criticism. He has indicated what must have been apparent to your Lordships, that when you are dealing with Bankruptcy Law you are dealing with a highly technical and difficult subject. The Common Law of the land is difficult; the Statute Law is made more difficult than it need be; Equity Law is difficult; but in the case of the Bankruptcy Law what you have to do is to adjust between rival claims to a denuded property what are the respective rights between the one and the other owing to the insolvency which has arisen, and this is, so to speak, an additional difficulty super-added to the sufficient difficulties that already exist in construing and applying the general law of the land. This Bill is brought forward for the reasons stated by my noble friend Lord Granard. It is unquestionably true that a good many people succeed in cheating by successive insolvencies honest traders who have no means of obtaining proper reparation, and it is necessary to use the Criminal Law as well as the Civil Law in order to make it clear to people that they cannot with impunity perpetrate a series of transactions which are practically, taken altogether, equivalent to fraud and to criminal misconduct, although in each particular instance they may be able to evade the effects of the law as it at present stands.
The criticisms that have been made to which I propose to advert are three in number. One of them is the difficulty of describing gambling. It is, no doubt, a very difficult thing to do. But the fact that you cannot, if you cannot—I do not
910
say that it might rot be practicable to do something to make it clearer—describe a particular offence in language which is exhaustive, so to speak, is not necessarily an objection. All the great Judges in this country have from the very first refused to give any definition of the word "fraud," on the ground that if they gave a definition which would limit the conception of fraud with which they were at liberty to deal, rogues would immediately seize the definition and use it as a means of escaping the consequences of their misconduct. It may be possible to use other language, as well as the word "gambling," for the purpose of preventing a misuse of the enactment. But we must not attempt to be too detailed o too particular, or we shall find that the net is so wide that rascals will be able to escape.
The next point to which the noble and learned Earl referred was that which relates to procedure by summary jurisdiction and to the proposed faculty for a Government Department—the Board of Trade—to avail itself of the power of proceeding by summary prosecution. It is only in minor cases that this could be done, and then only after the Judge had ordered a prosecution. Therefore the Department would not be arraigning people of its own sweet will. The Board of Trade would merely say, This is a small case, the Judge has ordered a prosecution, and we propose that the prosecution should take place, not before a Judge and jury, but before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. At the same time what the noble and learned Earl has said will be listened to with the greatest respect, and I will consider what he has said with all the deference that one would give to his opinion on this matter.
The other clause to which the noble and learned Earl adverted is Clause 2. His criticism there was as to the drafting. Drafting is a subject which certainly lays itself open to very constant criticism in this and in the other House of Parliament. I feel sure, knowing as I do that this Bill had its origin in the advice given by Mr. Montague Muir Mackenzie and the other gentlemen referred to, that these things have been carefully considered. But all these points will, as I say, deserve to be considered carefully in Committee, and we shall not forget the observations made upon them by the noble and learned Earl.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise, not to give my useless opinions upon these most complicated matters of law, but in order to draw the attention of your Lordships to one or two points in connection with this matter. In the first place, I would like to ask the Government to give us a little time before taking the Committee stage of the Bill. Any one who has listened to the short discussion this evening must have been convinced of two things—first, that the matter is intensely complicated; and, secondly, that the most learned members of your Lordships' House are not altogether in agreement with the Government as to the drafting of the Bill. Those two points make it very important that we should have time to consider the Bill. It is quite true, as stated by the noble Earl who represents the Board of Trade, that this Bill was presented last December, but it was not defended then; it was not even explained, and I doubt whether it has attracted the amount of attention outside which is fitting if the Bill is to be properly considered.
The only other matter to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention is this. Every speech which has been delivered this evening has been directed to bankruptcies arising in trade and commerce. Those are not the only bankruptcies with which the law deals, though they are no doubt the most important. Enough has been said of bankruptcies arising in trade by noble Lords much more qualified to speak upon them than I am. Therefore I will leave them alone. But there are other bankruptcies, and I wonder whether the Government in drafting this Bill have carefully considered its effect upon bankruptcies which do not arise amongst the business community. It is somewhat difficult to construe the Bill when you apply it to bankruptcies which do not arise commercially. Take the gambling provision, to which attention has been called. The gambling which is to be criminal is gambling not connected with the bankrupt's business. But if the bankrupt has no business, how are you to construe that clause? If it is to be construed in its widest sense, is it to be held that a person who becomes bankrupt in consequence of gambling, even of reckless gambling, is to be held guilty of a criminal offence? That may be right, but it is a very serious proposition to make. I do not think it is
912
probably the intention of the clause, neither am I qualified to say that the clause would be right to include it. But it is evident that the words require very careful scrutiny in order that a provision of this kind should not be made too wide.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess is quite right, but already under the existing law gambling may be a ground for refusing a bankrupt his discharge. It is a different thing and has different consequences; but the fact of gambling is now judicial, if I may use the expression, and has to be considered by Courts of Law for another purpose.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Earl's interruption is really directed towards the criticism of my noble and learned friend behind me, that it is difficult to define what "gambling" is. What I understand the Lord Chancellor now to say is that certain judicial persons already have to form an opinion of what gambling is. The criticism which I made still remains—that it is exceedingly difficult to apply the provision as to gambling to bankruptcies which do not arise commercially without facing a change in the criminal law of a very serious kind which I hardly think the Government intend.
My noble friend Lord Faber approved very much of the provision in this Bill which deals with marriage settlements. I agree with him in principle, because it is sought by the clause to avoid a method of evading the bankruptcy law by a man who is about to become bankrupt. But are the Government quite sure that they have not drawn their net too wide, and that they may not prejudice one of the parties to the marriage in a perfectly bona fide and legitimate transaction—persons not engaged necessarily in commerce at all? Take this case. Provision is made on behalf of a lady about to be married that certain property should be put into settlement. But if the husband within two years became bankrupt, she and those who were responsible for her welfare—her father or her guardian—might suddenly find that the settlement executed on her behalf was rendered null and void, and that the

913
property which was supposed to make her future secure had to be paid away to the creditors of the husband. I hope your Lordships will not think that I am attempting for a moment to accurately interpret the drafting of this most complicated provision, but I give this instance in order to illustrate my point. I hope that His Majesty's Government will see that in legislating for commercial bankruptcies they do not affect adversely a number of comparatively innocent persons who are not engaged in commerce at all. What little I have been able to add to your Lordships' consideration of this Bill leads to the same conclusion with which I begun—namely, that the House is entitled to certain time in which to consider carefully the provisions of this Bill, and I hope His Majesty's Government will not hurry us in taking the Committee stage.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I think it is very reasonable in the case of a Bill of this complexity that sufficient time should be taken to look into it, and I suggest that the Committee stage should be taken on Tuesday the 14th instant, which will give nearly a fortnight. The noble Marquess has put rather too severe an interpretation upon the clause which deals with marriage settlements. This is not a clause for voiding a settlement of property made in consideration of marriage. It is a clause for the purpose of putting a restriction on what is a very common practice and what sometimes amounts to fraud. I refer to the case in which a man, in. consideration of marriage, covenants that a large debt is to be created out of his assets in prejudice of his creditors. There is no reason why that should be allowed. What happens is that a covenant is entered into to settle on the wife, say,£100,000 by a man who is going into trade. He then finds that his business is not flourishing, and he proceeds, as his bankruptcy approaches, to strip his estate by placing property out of the reach of creditors. What the Bill proposes is to leave the covenant standing, but that it shall not be operative to enable the trustees claiming under the covenant to claim in competition with the ordinary creditors. The covenant is binding, but the trustees cannot claim in competition with ordinary creditors. That is a reasonable thing to do, and certainly this is a case where a remedy
914
is wanted. Where property is conveyed in consideration of marriage, that case is expressly saved and is not touched. As regards the question of gambling, it is extremely difficult to lay down an abstract line between what ought to be prohibited and what ought not, but your Lordships will notice that no prosecution is to be instituted under this clause except by order of the Court which has the whole of the situation before it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will that be a Summary Court?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: No, the Bankruptcy Court which has investigated the circumstances. One sees almost every week in the newspapers bankruptcies where the liabilities are a tremendous amount and the assets nil. The clause provides that in determining for the purposes of this section whether any speculations were rash and hazardous the Court shall take into consideration the financial position of the accused person at the time when he entered into the speculations. If the Court knows that the bankrupt has been a fool or has been misled, it will not order a prosecution. But these tremendous speculations so often result in great misery to other people that some check ought to be put upon them. As my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has explained, we already deal with gambling for the purpose of suspending the bankrupt's discharge, and the question of what is gambling is one with which the Courts are very familiar. It is a question to which the Courts do not come without experience. There are a great many attempts at a definition, and great light has been cast upon it by the decisions of the Courts. I should say for myself that taking Clause 4 there ought to be no difficulty in deciding what is a right case and what is a wrong case for prosecution. But that, like the other matters referred to, will be open for consideration in Committee. I have only risen to assure the noble Marquess opposite that the complication of the matter has not escaped the attention of the very experienced persons who prepared this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 14th instant.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD EVERSLEY: My Lords, after the discussion which took place on Tuesday last I imagine that your Lordships will not wish to further discuss this question to-day, but will agree to the Second Reading of this Bill and to its being referred to the same Joint Committee as that to which the other two Bills have been referred. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Eversley.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I naturally wish to avoid expressing any opinion on the merits of this Bill, which is going to be referred to a Committee of which I may myself be a member. But in the absence of the noble Lord the Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of England, I desire to make one allusion to a clause in the noble Lord's Bill and to point out to him that it goes in direct opposition to the First Interim Report of the Royal Commission on the ancient monuments of Hertfordshire, the first county with which the Commission dealt. In subsection (2) of Clause 2 of this Bill the noble Lord proposes that—
"Where an Order of the Commissioner of Works is made under this section the Royal Commission shall forthwith, and in any case within six months from the date of such Order, inspect the monument which is the subject of the Order and report whether, in their opinion, the monument is especially worthy of preservation."
In their Interim Report the Royal Commission say—
"We have from time to time been asked for advice and assistance with respect to the preservation of monuments which have been threatened with destruction. In these cases we have tried to give such help as lay within our power. But we are agreed that, having regard to the conditions under which we carry on our work, it would seriously impair the efficiency of our inquiry were it expected that we should at any moment interrupt its settled course in order to report upon the nature and value of threatened monuments in counties outside the immediate purview of the Commission."
I desire, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Burghclere, the Chairman of the Royal Commission, to point out that there would be from the members of the Commission itself considerable objection to the provision in the Bill which I have quoted.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on this Bill, and to welcome it on behalf of His Majesty's Government as being yet another sign of the interest which is taken by members of your Lordships' House in the question of the preservation of ancient monuments. Like the noble Earl who has just sat down, I should be unwilling to express any decided opinion on the merits of the Bill. There are two things proposed in this Bill. One of them follows the suggestion which was thrown out by the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, on Tuesday last, that instead of proceeding by the purchase of monuments we should say that the rights which would exist under the Preservation Order should not be taken away by the sale of any monument. In that way the noble Earl thought that the Treasury would be saved an expenditure of money and that the public would be protected. I think now, as I thought then, that that is a valuable suggestion. It is proposed in this Bill that that b suggestion should be carried out. The method by which it is proposed to carry it out is a method to which the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, takes sonic objection on behalf of the Royal Commission. The method suggested is that it should be done on the recommendation of some member or members of the Royal Commission. I do not suppose that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would look upon that as an integral or vital part of this scheme, and I am not sure that if it was carried out by some other body well qualified to do it it might not meet the objection raised by the Royal Commission, and at the same time, if it was agreeable to the Select Committee, prove a method more generally acceptable in carrying out the object which we all have at heart. I venture, therefore, to hope that your Lordships will agree to refer this Bill, with the other two Bills on the same subject, to the proposed Joint Committee, and that as a result we may have a workable scheme to which we may all be able to give our hearty support.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Then it was moved to resolve, That it is desirable that the said Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses (the Lord Eversley); agreed to; Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

THE CLOSING OF THE DARDANELLES.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had the following Question upon the Paper—"To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have addressed any representation to the Italian Government with reference to the closing of the Dardanelles."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since I put this Question on the Paper I observe in the Press that a temporary arrangement has been arrived at by which the Dardanelles are partially reopened, but this is obviously a merely temporary arrangement because it is quite clear that it is liable to be upset in consequence of any additional action being taken by the Italian Fleet. As no Parliamentary Papers have been laid with regard to this particular question and as no general statement has, so far as I know, been made by His Majesty's Government, it occurred to me that they might, perhaps, be glad to take the present opportunity of making one. At the same time I do not think there is any harm in pointing out in a very few sentences how the present situation has arisen. It is now more than seven months since the Italians sent, practically simultaneously, an Ultimatum and a large Expeditionary Force to Tripoli, and that action was followed shortly afterwards by a somewhat premature declaration of annexation. The military operations in Tripoli have proved to be considerably more difficult than was anticipated, and events have marched very slowly. So far as one can gather, a condition of stale-mate exists at the present moment. The Italians are unable to advance—they have not advanced outside the range of the guns of their ships; and the Turkish and Arab force is incapable of turning them out from the towns which they occupy.
In consequence of this state of things the Italian Government have carried the war into different parts of the Turkish Empire in opposition to what I believe was their original intention. In pursuance of this policy they have bombarded various places in the Red Sea; they have sunk a certain number of Turkish ships; they have made demonstrations on the Syrian coast; they have seized and occupied some islands in the Archipelago, and, as a climax, they have attacked the Dardanelles. There are, apparently, various versions as to this particular attack. It has been said that it was a mistake and was not intended. I do not
918
think that, as a mater of fact, there can be very much doubt as to what the intention was. It must be fairly obvious that the intention was not to make a serious and determined attack upon the Dardanelles, but to create a considerable amount of confusion in Europe, to cause a great deal of inconvenience, and so to bring about the coercion of the Turkish Government by the action of the Powers which were inconvenienced. International morality may not be on a very high level at the present moment, but, at all events, this apparent attempt to prevent people front defending themselves when they have been attacked in an entirely unprovoked way has not met with success.
It will probably be said that the Italian Government, being a belligerent, have the right to make war in any way they choose, and to attack any part of the Turkish Empire which they may feel inclined to do. In principle they are obviously entitled to carry out this course, but I desire to point out that in practice they are doing nothing of the kind. The natural point of attack for the Italians would obviously be the Albanian coast. Italy has long nourished ambitions with regard to Albania. Italy considers that she has important interests there. It is an open secret that Turkey has not been attacked on the Adriatic in consequence of the action of the Austrian Government. The Austrian Government have warned the Italians off the Adriatic and off the Gulf of Salonica, and this action has been taken, so far as we are able to judge, without impairing the relations between the two countries. Those relations apparently continue to be friendly. The Ministers of the two respective Governments make speeches in which they allude to their respective countries in friendly terms, and Italy remains a party to the Triple Alliance. What I desire to ask is why, if the Austrians have been able to obtain this concession, we and other Powers are not able to obtain the same for ourselves. We are all neutrals. All these Powers are neutrals. Why should the Austrians he placed in a privileged position, and why should not all neutrals be treated in the same way?
If we attempt any thing in the nature of the action which has been taken by the Austrian Government, is there any serious danger of our imperilling our present friendly relations with the Italian Govern-

919
ment? It seems to me that we have given the most unmistakable evidence of our friendliness to the Italians during the present contest. Perhaps we have gone even further in that direction than many persons would approve. His Majesty's Government, so far as I know, have never made any sort of protest against Italian action, although we have been considerably inconvenienced. They have never condemned that action. The Press of this country has, upon the whole, been entirely upon the Italian side; and we have stretched our friendship to the Italians even to this point, that as far as I can gather we have prevented even unarmed or unorganised bodies of men passing through Egypt in order to serve as volunteers with the Turkish and Arab forces, Egypt being, it must be remembered, still a part of the Ottoman Empire. I do not think it would be possible to stretch friendship as a neutral further than we have done in this particular case. Surely in view of what we have clone, and putting aside, for the present at all events, all questions of morality, we are entitled to ask that the war should not be conducted in a way which has become almost intolerable, as far as we are concerned, and that it should be localised as much as possible in accordance with the original intention. This I venture respectfully to submit can be best secured by asking the Italian Government to make a plain declaration of its policy, and asking that Government at the same time whether it will agree to totally exclude the Dardanelles from the area of war. And if it is suggested to me that Italy is a friendly Power and that therefore we are not entitled to make a request of that kind, my reply is, and I think it is an obvious one, that Turkey is a friendly Power too, and that this is not a war which has been of her seeking.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME LORD NUNBURNHOLME also had the following Notice on the Paper—"To ask why His Majesty's Government do not take steps to ensure the free passage of British ships through the Dardanelles."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps it will be convenient that I should put the Question standing in my name before the noble Viscount replies on behalf of His Majesty's Government to the speech of the noble Lord opposite. What I should like to call the attention of the Government to is the very serious losses that are being
920
caused to the trade and commerce of the whole of Europe, especially to the trade and commerce between Turkey and South Russia and England—apparently because the Italians have come to a deadlock in their war with Turkey. Of course, it is not for us at the present moment to go into the merits of this disastrous and unhappy war, but I cannot press too strongly on His Majesty's Government that they ought to obtain from the Italian Government some pronouncement that the sphere of operations is to be limited. The day before yesterday I took the trouble to telegraph to Constantinople to ascertain how many ships were held up, and I received a reply saying that there w ere 185 vessels inside and outside the Dardanelles unable to move. It is unnecessary for me to point out to your Lordships the enormous value of the cargoes on board those ships. Many of those cargoes are at present deteriorating. Further than that, it is a well known fact that all bankers have stopped making advances on bills of lading, and the whole of the trade in that part of _Europe has come to a state of absolute chaos. We are still a great Naval nation, and I think that we ought to make some show of protecting our own interests in this matter and give proof that there is some use in being the predominant Naval Power, if there is no other way of bringing about a solution of the difficulty.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will not suppose for a moment that His Majesty's Government have been indifferent to the disastrous state of things—it deserves no less serious a word than that—which has been existing for several days in the Black Sea and the Dardanelles. The figure of 185, which my noble friend said was the information he got yesterday, does not quite correspond with our own. It is rather higher than we should put it, but it is not worth while arguing for a moment as to whether it is 185 or 135. The root fact remains that we are suffering huge damage. In the matter of the grain trade, and perhaps the oil trade, Russia suffers more than we do, South Russia being greatly dependent on our market, but we are suffering peculiarly in shipping. In shipping our predominance is extraordinary; shipping ordinarily passing through the Dardanelles is largely British. The total tonnage of shipping arriving at Constantinople in 1909,

921
the date of the latest Consular report, amounted to 15¾million tons. Of this 6¾millions were British, 2¾millions were Greek, 1¼millions were Austrian, and 1 million was German. We have no information at the Board of Trade as to the shipping now, but the foregoing figures of the ordinary traffic show satisfactorily our supremacy in commerce in the Black Sea and how the relative effects of this disastrous closing of the Straits were distributed.
I think my noble friend will feel that it is not worth while to go further into the details of the transactions between ourselves and the Governments of Turkey and Italy. But let me assure him that, since the Straits were closed, we have been in constant communication with both those Governments, and he has seen to-day in the public prints that, after no unreasonable length of time, considering the difficulties of the Porte in coming to a decision, after we had taken prompt and friendly steps to call their attention to the mischief which is being done to the great interests of ourselves, and, after taking reasonable time for consideration, we heard from our Ambassador, last night, I think, the intelligence which has already, in a less formal shape, been given through the public Press. Yesterday the Porte informed the Ambassador that it had been decided upon to open the Dardanelles under the same conditions as existed before its closing, namely, that vessels must pass with pilots. The opening will take place as soon as ever the mines can be removed, but the Ottoman Government—it may be of interest to the noble Lord opposite—maintains its absolute right to close the Dardanelles completely in case, and as soon as, the necessity should arise.
The noble Lord opposite was, I think, rather unreasonable in asking His Majesty's Government here to make a general statement surveying all our relations with the Porte and with the Italian Government at Rome and other Powers. I think unreasonable because—and no one in the House will understand, it better than the noble Lord himself—it cannot be expected that, when you are in the middle of a war in which you are maintaining an absolute and firm neutrality, the Government should be called upon to produce all the Despatches, all the telegrams, all the
922
interchanges of views. I am sure he will feel in his conscience that that is not a fair thing to expect. Nor can the noble Lord expect me now to get up and follow him in the criticism he made of something that Austria-Hungary is supposed to have done, what the relations are between Austria-Hungary and Russia and Italy, what promise or undertaking has been given by Italy to Austria, and so on. Then the noble Lord, having assumed that there has been an undertaking by Austria-Hungary to Italy and vice versa, asks why we do not approach Italy to exact from her the same kind of undertaking in our own regard that he assumes she has given to Austria-Hungary. That is not at all a reasonable position to take up. Then he says plainly that we ought to protest to Italy that we cannot endure, being, as my noble friend said, the supreme Naval Power, these roving operations of war. I wonder that he with his diplomatic experience thinks it possible for a Government that is firmly neutral to say to either of the two belligerent Powers, "You shall not carry on the war in the way you are doing."
LORD NEWTON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but that is precisely what the Austrian Government has done.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: It is what the noble Lord says Austria has done, but I submit that nothing could be more inexpedient than that we should in this House assume that the Austrian Government has done this or that, and on the basis of that assumption we are to be catechised and interrogated as to whether we will not undertake the same step. You cannot. I am amazed that the noble Lord does not agree with this. He must agree. Could we in reason be asked to say either to Turkey or to Italy, "We will prescribe to you the limits within which you shall carry on your military operations"? If they came into the Thames then we should have something to say. But to say that Turkey is not to defend herself and that Italy is not to follow her own plans of military operations would be a serious departure from an attitude of non-intervention. There are those, I know—I am not sure that there is not a member of this House—who, by way of speculation to avoid the evils of war,

923
wish that the Powers of the world at The Hague or elsewhere should agree to the acceptance of some sort of principle to the effect that the area of a war should be strictly localised and limited. That may or may not prove ultimately a step towards the civilisation of war and the conveniences of war, but it is no use for us to-day who have practical business on our hands and who have the difficulties and the inconveniences of the hour to settle, to assume any realisation of a speculation of that kind. When the correspondence and telegrams are, in the fulness of time, published in a Blue-book I will undertake to say that the House and the country will find that we have thoroughly and assiduously followed the full duties of a firmly neutral Power between these two belligerents.
The noble Lord said nothing about the Turkish case. We have done full justice to the Turkish case. The Turkish Government have a right to take all legitimate means for the defence of their own territory. No treaty can oblige Turkey when her actual and immediate safety is concerned to open the passage giving free access to the destruction, if necessary, of her own capital. You could not expect that. Another point. This is rather against those who are impatient—some, like the noble Lord, at our being so patient with Italy, and others at our being so patient with Turkey. We hold a completely equal balance. With regard to the Turkish case, when their military authorities tell them that to abandon the defence by mines would be an equivalent to a reduction of their power of defence by about 50 per cent., such a consideration a neutral Government like ourselves is bound to take into account. I will say this. Neither the noble Lord nor anybody in the House will deny the obligation by which Turkey is bound to keep open the Straits under the Treaty of Paris, 1856, the Treaty of London, 1871, and the Treaty of 1878. She is bound to keep the Straits open for neutral commerce unless some immediate and direct necessity for her own safety should arise. We have held that in full regard. But now I think we might say that, while the principle that the Straits are to be kept open to commerce unless danger is actual or imminent imposes an obligation on Turkey from the point of view of international morality, it carries with it the corresponding expediency—
924
I will not put it higher than that—that that principle should not be strained and overstrained in case of war by other parties to it.
The noble Lord indulged himself in a rather cynical interpretation of the attack on the Dardanelles. I have seen it in the public prints, and it comes to this, that neither the Italian nor the Turkish Government were averse to inflicting severe inconvenience on neutrals on the chance of hastening the effective intervention of those neutrals in bringing to an end what is certainly apparently an extraordinarily obscure and ambiguous military issue.
As to Italy, I confess I was rather sorry to hear at this stage of things the tone of the noble Lord. I have said it before and say it again, we cannot insist on either of these belligerents foregoing their full belligerent rights or limiting them for the convenience of neutral States. May I add the consideration, and I venture to think it is well worthy of the attention of your Lordships' House, that it would be a very great mistake if in our natural impatience with such transactions as have recently taken place in the Dardanelles we were to leave out of sight the wider elements that affect both the Turkish and Italian cases and our attitude with regard to these cases. It would be a great mistake if we left out of sight with regard to Turkey the enormous Mahomedan interests with which we are concerned. With regard to Italy, on the other hand, it would certainly be an immense, and I will even say a lamentable, mistake, if we were to forget our friendship, our long traditional friendship, with Italy in the past, and, more than that, if we were to forget our concern in her position and relations as a Mediterranean Power. I do not think I need say more. I have disappointed, I am sure, the noble Lord. I could not make, and. I do not think he could expect it, a general statement of all that has been going on in this matter. We, at all events, have got for the time a situation which is better than a few days ago we could have hoped.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I desire to offer a few observations about one remark which was dropped incidentally by the noble Lord who raised this discussion. He referred to the neutrality

925
of Egypt, and appeared to think that the enforced neutrality of Egypt was insisted upon by His Majesty's Government on account of their friendliness for Italy. I do not know what has been going on recently on this subject and I am not in the secrets of the Foreign Office, but I conceive I am not far wrong in saying that it would have been a departure from neutrality to have shown any special friendliness either to Italy or to Turkey. I do not think that the reason why the neutrality of Egypt was insisted upon was due so much to friendliness towards Italy as to a due regard for the interests of Egypt itself and of all the people who reside there. It would have been a disastrous thing for Egypt if they had been dragged into this quarrel, with which they have no sort of concern, and I think His Majesty's Government have done extremely well in keeping them out of it. I make these few remarks because if the idea got abroad in Egypt that we were not acting in Egyptian interests but rather in the interests of Italy, it might do some harm, and I think it is just as well to put the matter right.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we have all listened with interest to the statement of the noble Viscount, and for myself I am prepared to say that I heard that statement on the whole with considerable satisfaction. The noble Viscount may perhaps have fallen short of the expectations of my noble friend on the Back Bench (Lord Newton). My noble friend certainly favours strenuous methods of diplomacy, which I cannot help thinking might not be found quite so easy of application as he supposes. At any rate the noble Viscount must have convinced all those who listened to him that he and his colleagues fully realise the great gravity of the situation which has arisen in the Eastern Mediterranean. I will not repeat what he has said as to the magnitude of oar interests in the commerce of the Black Sea, or as to the grave menace to those interests which we discern in the recent dislocation of that trade. It is satisfactory to know that His Majesty's Government have spared no efforts to bring about a mitigation of those circumstances, and that they have been able to achieve at any rate a certain amount of success.
The noble Viscount said a word as to the Treaty obligations of Turkey, and
926
there I entirely agree with him. I think he might have gone back even to the Treaty of Adrianople to show the obligation of Turkey to keep the Dardanelles open for the passage of peaceful traders. The noble Viscount is no doubt correct when he tells us that that obligation must be interpreted subject to the inherent rights of Turkey to take whatever measures are reasonable, necessary, or justifiable to ensure her own safety. The Turkish I Government no doubt in this case claims that the temporary sealing of the Straits was a measure indispensable to secure the Turkish capital, and I think she may fairly add the argument that this unfortunate conflict was not one of her seeking and that it was not due to any action of hers that the area of the warlike operations now in progress was extended in a manner which most of us greatly deplore. But, my Lords, whatever the strict rights of the Turkish Government may be, we all of us feel that they should not be strained, and that the utmost regard should be paid to the interests and claims of all concerned, in the peaceful trade of the Mediterranean. It is, I think, creditable to the Turkish Government that they should have frankly recognised this, as I understand to be the case, and that they should have undertaken to open the Straits to the same extent as they were open before these lamentable events, subject to certain regulations as to pilotage which are no doubt indispensable in the circumstances.
The accounts given in the newspapers of the conditions under which Turkey has agreed to this concession suggest one or two points which are perhaps a little disconcerting. In the telegram published in The Times this morning it is stated that in the Turkish reply which was communicated to the Russian Government the day before yesterday Turkey announces that the Turkish Government is anxious to reopen the Straits as soon as that is possible "without danger." I take it that that points to danger from mines, and I recall a statement that was made in the House a few days ago by the noble Viscount, in which he told us that there were still some mines the whereabouts of which was not precisely known, and it naturally occurs to one that some time may elapse before the Turkish Government considers itself in a position to intimate that no danger can arise to

927
vessels passing through the Straits. Let us hope that the period of suspense may not he too much prolonged. In the same telegram it is said that Turkey will reopen the straits as soon as Italy gives pledges not to repeat her attack on the Dardanelles. I should be glad if the noble Viscount is able to tell us whether there is any truth in that statement, because obviously that would be a very serious limitation to the Turkish announcement and one which might make it much less satisfactory than we now believe it to be.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: That assertion in the newspaper is quite inconsistent with the words used to our Ambassador yesterday or the day before.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am very glad to have elicited that statement. It will give great relief to many who have read this telegram and were a little alarmed by it. This is perhaps hardly the occasion for dwelling upon the larger aspects of the case, but they are very important. We think, of course, of ourselves, and of the£20,000 which we are said to be losing every day during the time when the Straits are sealed. But the real question which will no doubt have to be considered sooner or later is the extent to which a belligerent Power, controlling narrow waters which form a great trade avenue for the commerce of the world, is justified in entirely closing such an avenue in order to facilitate the hostile operations in which that Power finds itself involved. That is a very serious matter. There is a certain analogy between that case and the case of some of those unfortunate trade disputes which we have been lately discussing. It seems to me that just as public opinion in any country would be slow to tolerate arrangements under which a local trade dispute might have the effect of paralysing the whole industrial life of the country, so public opinion amongst the great nations would be slow to tolerate a state of things under which a local conflict involving only two Powers would be allowed to create such serious detriment and disturbance to the whole trading community of the world. I hope I may infer from the words of the noble Viscount that our diplomacy is being directed to obtain the recognition of that principle, and I entirely agree that whatever our policy may be in this matter we should
928
proceed tactfully and without undue impatience, bearing in mind upon the one hand the relations in which we stand to the Turkish Empire Owing to the great number of his Majesty's Mahomedan subjects, and upon the other hand our old friendship with Italy, which should certainly, so far as possible, be taken into account in any diplomatic communications with her at a crisis which affects her so closely as this crisis does.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I understand that there is no business on the Paper for Monday, the Duke of Bedford, who had a Motion down for that day, having postponed it until Tuesday. In those circumstances I move that the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Tuesday next.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.