Sitting of 25 February 1892

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1891–2 (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  CLASS I.
  £4,735, Supplementary, Houses of Parliament Buildings.

  £1,500, Supplementary, Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain.

  £20,000, Supplementary, Revenue Department Buildings, Great Britain.

  £498, Supplementary, Lunacy Commission, Scotland.

  CLASS II.
  £1,690, Supplementary, Public Works Office, Ireland.

  CLASS III.
  £2,000, Supplementary, Law Charges.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Police Courts of London and Sheerness."

  MR. LABOUCHEREI do not want to go over the arguments in regard to the scandalous character of this particular Vote, but it is well known that almost every Gentleman on this side of the House who does not happen to be a London Member is of opinion that any charge for the Police Courts of London ought to be thrown upon London itself. We are obliged to pay a sum towards the Bow Street Court because some extradition cases are tried there; but we on this side of the House do not see why we should be obliged to pay for Police Courts at Sheerness and Wandsworth and other places in the vicinity of London. Though really anxious as I am to expedite Public Business—
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY,The hon. Gentleman is not to enter into the subject of the original Vote, except so far as it is necessary to illustrate the present Vote.
  MR. LABOUCHEREI merely wish to point out how monstrous and excessive the original Vote was, and how super-monstrous it is to ask us to pay £100 more. I certainly shall divide on this Vote.
  DR. CLARKIt certainly happens in our country that we have to pay all these charges out of local rates; and when we clean our Courts and have these medical witnesses we pay for, it is not out of the Imperial Exchequer, but from the local rates; and I think it is right that the people of London should be in the same position as all the people in the provinces, and that they

  1319
  should put their hands in their pockets and pay for the cleaning of their Courts, and not ask the poorer parts of the country, such as Caithness, to pay for it. I join with my hon. Friend in protesting against this Vote.
  MR. MORTONI certainly objected last Session to pay these expenses out of Imperial Funds, whereas the expenses for other Courts outside London have to be paid by the constituencies themselves. I join in the objection to this Vote for £100; and I think we ought to have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman why he wants more than was voted last year. I am not aware of any reason why the Courts should want more cleaning this year than the year before, or why they should want more cleaning than was estimated during the last Session. I object to this Vote, therefore, on two grounds—the one is, that we ought not to be called upon to vote this sum out of the Imperial Funds at all; and the other is, that we have had no explanation from the right hon. Gentleman at all as to the reasons for asking these supplementary sums.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY,The explanation of the necessity for the sum stated in the Supplementary Estimates for which we have had to apply is this. The House will remember that a Committee was appointed under the presidency of Mr. Justice Wills for the purpose of seeing what improvements were necessary to be made in certain of the Police Courts for the better accommodation of untried prisoners. The recommendations of this Committee have led to a very considerable enlargement of some of the Courts and an increase in the number of cells, and further improvements. That necessitated considerably increased labour for cleaning. These improvements proceeded gradually step by step, and some of the expense has fallen outside the time in which the ordinary Estimates could be presented to Parliament.
  MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)When we ask for money for improving the Courts in Green Street, in Dublin, as we have done
  1320
  over and over again, not one single sixpence can be screwed out of the English Treasury, and we have been met practically with a stern refusal unless the Corporation pays a certain amount. But the moment Mr. Justice Wills says he is not quite comfortable because there is a draught on his poll, there is an Estimate for better accommodation presented to Parliament. The explanation of the hon. Gentleman is quite acceptable, and we shall know how to turn it to account at the proper moment.
  MR. MORTONThe hon. Gentleman did not explain as regards the medical fees. I know there were very many complaints, especially during last August, of the want of medical attendance. In one case a prisoner died who was said to be drunk, and I think there should be more attention paid to these police cases by the medical officers. I should like to have a little explanation of this item.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYThe amount for the medical witnesses' fees fluctuates very much, and is an item extremely difficult to estimate; but it forms a very small portion of this Estimate which is applied for.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 90.—(Div. List, No. 7.)
  Resolutions to be reported.

  CLASS V.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £22,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1892, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."
  MR. MORTONI see in this Vote a sum of £5,000 for telegrams "consequent on the state of affairs in America and China." The only information we have on these matters is contained in the daily papers. No right hon. or hon. Gentleman has given us any information. I gather from the daily papers that there have been difficulties in China with regard to the missionaries, and that, no doubt, put the Government to extra expense. I am still in some difficulty with regard o America. An hon. Gentleman beside me says he does not know where America

  1321
  is. I am glad we adopted free education last year, for in the future people will get to know where America is. But, Sir, I have not been able to gather from the newspapers any information as to any extraordinary condition of affairs in America. I do not know whether the extra expenditure arises in connection with the election of the President. Three years ago we tried to interfere. Whether that is the way this money has been expended I cannot say. I trust we shall have information.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,I hope to be able to satisfy the hon. Member by saying, shortly, as I said in the Debate on the Address, that with regard to China, Papers have been in an active state of preparation and will shortly be laid upon the Table. Considerable apprehension was excited during the autumn of last year in reference to the anti-foreign riots that took place in various parts of China. It became necessary to enter into telegraphic communication with Her Majesty's Representative at Pekin, which, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, is a considerable distance from London, and the cost of telegrams to Pekin and back is very considerable. With regard to America, the telegrams which have passed between Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Representative at Washington were due to the protracted negotiations which have been in course of progress during the autumn with reference to Behring Sea America also comprises South America, and, as the hon. Member is probably aware, there was a revolution in Chili in the autumn, by which British interests were considerably affected and endangered, and it became necessary to communicate very frequently by telegram with Her Majesty's Representative in that country. Papers on that subject are being prepared, and I hope to lay them on the Table next week.
  MR. MORTONCan you say what proportion of this extra expenditure is applicable to Chili, and what is applicable to America?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERI am afraid I cannot answer that question straight off.
  MR. MORTONI think the hon. Gentleman has made out my case, and I think I may appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to have this Vote postponed. We ought to have the Blue Book promised by the hon. Gentleman before voting this money, and with regard to America we should have more information.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURThe Government have no desire to take any controversial Votes to-night, and I do not think this is a controversial Vote. The extra expenditure was owing to the telegrams rendered necessary by the peculiar state of things in America and China, and on the ordinary Estimates the hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity of discussing the policy of the Government in these matters. The question of policy does not now arise. I hope the Vote may now be taken.
  MR. LABOUCHERENobody admires more than I do the strenuous exertions in the interests of economy of my hon. Friend third behind me (Mr. Morton), but at the same time I think he is now going a little too far. There were difficulties in China, and whether Her Majesty's Government conducted the negotiations properly or not, telegrams had to be exchanged. There was a mistake about the Behring Sea dispute, and about that it was also necessary that telegrams should be exchanged. I should be sorry if by any premature vote my hon. Friend abridged our opportunities of going fully into these matters hereafter.
  MR. MORTONI do not object to my hon. Friend intervening. I do not object to these telegrams. I said I knew there were troubles in China; but I said that as a matter of principle we ought to have this information before voting this money. I move that Item E. be reduced by £200.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item E (Telegrams), be reduced by £200."—(Mr. Morton.)
  MR. T. M. HEALYI should like to know when the Chilian Papers will be produced. We do not condemn the action of Her Majesty's Consul there; but we have some observations to make with regard to some other Representative of Her Majesty's Government there. We are anxious to see the instructions given to Her Majesty's

  1323
  Minister. I think Her Majesty's Government acted very properly, but I should like to see the exact instructions they gave.
  MR. D. CRAWFORDI quite agree with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). I do not think that an item for telegrams is a very suitable occasion for opposition on our part. We may think, and I suppose we do think, that the administration of these matters might be placed in other hands when the administration would better command the confidence of the country; but so long as the country leaves the present Government with power, I think it is unworthy of the Liberal Party to take a Division on this Vote of £5,000 for telegrams. I have perfect confidence that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has formed a just and proper decision as to the expenditure of such a sum as this. I do not think we ought to make this a subject for division; we have much more important subjects than this, upon which we shall have to join issue with the Government.
  MR. DILLONI do not agree with the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Crawford); I think this is an unprecedented—a monstrous —sum to ask for telegrams in a Supplementary Estimate. Look at the original sum asked for last year—£14,000—and here we are asked to vote £5,000 in addition without any explanation of the causes requiring this enormous expenditure. I think we might be told what portion of the expense is due to affairs in China, and what portion to America or to Chili. For my part, I confess I think if the Government had abstained from interference in Chilian affairs and had sent fewer telegrams there, it would have been better. I think that most of the troubles arose in Chili, if not from the interference of the British Government, yet from the attitude of British subjects there. That, however, is a matter of opinion. In the first place, I object to the Vote because it is too large; and, in the second place, we have not the information to justify us in voting so large a sum; and I think these Estimates are prepared in a way that seems to me disrespectful to the Com-
  1324
  mittee. We have not definite information. Part of the amount is debited to the negotiations in reference to the Behring Sea Fisheries, but it will be observed that the next item is one of £7,000 for the Behring Sea Commission, and I do not see why the cost for telegrams in this connection should not be charged to the expenses of that Commission. I should like also, before the Vote is passed, to have some assurance that we shall have, during the Session, an opportunity to discuss, with due information before us, the policy of the Government in reference to their interference in the affairs of Chili.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURassented
  DR. TANNEROf course I fully recognise the argument of the hon. Member for North-East Lanark (Mr. Crawford), but, at the same time, I think hon. Members will recognise the fact that upon many of these apparently trivial items, even on such an item as this for telegrams, very great points of policy have frequently been threshed out in Committee of Supply. There can be no doubt, from the various remarks which have been made in the course of the last few minutes, that this question of telegrams does attach itself in an intimate degree with the state of affairs in Chili, in China, and other places. I do not wish to go into details upon these matters, but it strikes me as a matter of convenience and common-sense after having heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman who is new to his office as Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and we having also another neophyte in the position of Secretary to the Treasury, it does seem to me that these gentlemen are not really in a position to give us that full information to which we are entitled when dealing with these matters. I do not wish to raise any captious controversy, or put any foolish questions, but here is a large sum charged—large for the purpose—and it is our business to know how, and why, the money is spent. For this reason I support my hon. Friend (Mr. Morton). In a somewhat diffident way the Under Secretary has expressed himself, and we are promised Blue Books which, I think, ought to be in our hands when we are

  1325
  asked to vote this money. Under the circumstances, I do think that the First Lord of the Treasury, whose ability we recognise, would do well to postpone the Vote now, giving to his two neophytes the opportunity to make themselves acquainted with all the facts, and so we shall dispose of the Vote with full information before us.
  Mr. WOOTTON ISAACSONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. T. M. HEALYWill the hon. Gentleman say when we shall have the Blue Books he has mentioned?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERI cannot say definitely. I had hoped they would have been circulated before now. I will inquire, and will push forward the work as rapidly as possible.
  MR. FLYNNWhen reference is made to Chili, we cannot but be aware of certain very suspicious circumstances in connection with British interests there, so that I certainly think we ought to have Papers on the subject. I do not wish to interpose any undue delay in the proceedings of the Committee, but somehow of late years a bad custom has grown up—a double-barrelled, bad custom. I might say, first of all, the ordinary Votes are taken so late that we have not time to discuss them, and then, on the other hand, when we approach these Votes early in the Session we are told discussion is premature. Are we premature in seeking a discussion on this the proper opportunity, and why should we wait until the autumn? As regards affairs in Chili, distinctly I am of opinion, and it is an opinion I think will be shared by all Members who are interested in the comity of nations, that we should have full information before we vote this large sum, part of which is due to negotiations arising out of suspicious circumstances in relation to the revolutionary movement in that country.
  DR. CLARKI would appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion for the reduction of the Vote. I do not see
  1326
  that he has given sufficient ground for it. I am quite willing to debate the question as one of expenditure on telegrams; but as a matter of the policy of the Government in Chili or in China, we shall have better opportunity for discussion on the Foreign Office Vote, and on the Admiralty Vote will arise the question of the conveyance of specie. There is no question of policy indirectly arising on this Vote for telegrams that could not better be discussed on the Foreign Office Vote.
  MR. MORTONI trust that even now the Government will consent to postpone this Vote. Personally, I do not wish to take a Division. I do not oppose the item, for, indeed, I do not know the particulars, nor does any Member of the Committee. Possibly, the Government may feel stronger, being re-inforced by the assistance of the hon. Members for Northampton, North-East Lanark, and Caithness, but what they have said does not alter my opinion as to the facts of the case. There was one point particularly mentioned by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who pointed out that while the total sum asked for last year was £14,000, we are now asked to vote a supplementary sum nearly a third of the original sum, and yet not the slightest information is given as to the expenditure of the money. We are told that in a day or two Blue Books will be laid on the Table, but, apparently, the Under Secretary cannot give us any information now. Well, then, there is a sufficient reason for postponing the Vote. I find it stated that part of the amount is consequent upon the state of affairs in America, and I am reminded that this may include South America, but our information does not say so. In answer to the question from myself the Under Secretary frankly owned he could not tell us how much of the money was spent in relation to Chili, and how much in relation to the United States. With this absence of information it is absurd to ask us to take the Vote tonight. I make no charge of improper expenditure, but, as a matter of principle, I say before we pass the Vote we are entitled to require information

  1327
  about it. I am sorry the Government do not see this. It can make no difference to them if the Vote is postponed for a day or two. If they had acquiesced in the suggestion they would have saved time, and by now we might have passed a number of other Votes. As it is, I do not see my way to withdraw my Motion for a reduction, although I should be sorry to take a Division. I should be much better pleased if the Government would consent to postpone the Vote until they could give us the required information. As I have said, this is a matter of principle, and I emphasise the point because it refers, perhaps, to hundreds of Votes on the Estimates. We are entitled to have the fullest possible information when we take the Votes, and not afterwards. It is ridiculous to ask for the Vote and say we shall have the information at some future time. Another point has been raised by the hon. Member who mentioned the Behring Sea Fisheries Commission; and, certainly, I think that if any of this expenditure is due to that account, it should be included in Item "M." I quite understand why this should be a separate item, but it does not represent the expenses of the Commission if the telegraphic expenses are not included.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGErose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that question.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. MORTONcontinued: I do trust the right hon. Gentleman will consent to postpone the Vote. I am anxious not to take a Division, but to obtain information which we have a right to demand with the Vote before us. It is very well for the Leader of the House to tell us that opportunities for discussion will arise later in the Session; but I am sorry to say that, so far as my limited experience goes, we do not get those opportunities. If we leave matters over until the regular Estimates for the year are before us, we shall find ourselves in exactly the position we were in last year at the end of the Session, when Votes for millions of money were forced through
  1328
  at late hours of the night when public discussion was impossible. It is absurd to tell us to take our chance of another opportunity; we shall never get our opportunity unless we make it. I have made up my mind that we can only hope for discussion early in the Session, and whenever matters require it I shall endeavour to raise discussion on Supplementary Estimates and Votes on Account. So far as I have been able to read the newspapers, and that is the only source of information in regard to this expenditure—and I admit that hon. Members have a right to laugh, for it is ridiculous that Members of the British House of Commons should have to go to the daily Press for information they ought to obtain here—the greater part of this expenditure arises upon a subject fairly open to our discussion—the foreign policy of the Government.
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported tomorrow.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  MLLBANK PRISON BILL.—No.140.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. T. M. HEALYYesterday, at an hour equivalent to this, when we had a Bill before us to which no opposition was expected, the Municipal Franchise (Ireland) Bill, the First Lord of the Treasury, in a manner as offensive to Irish Members as he could make it, refused to allow progress to be made with the Bill. I therefore now move that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL.—(No. 139.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Knowles.)
    MR. M. J. KENNYThis is rather a technical Bill; may I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should give us some explanation of it?
    MR.KNOWLESA memorandum on the back of the Bill sets out in concise and clear terms the object of the Bill, and I do not know that I can give an explanation in a better form, and so I will read the memorandum as follows:—
    "Assurances by deed of land for the purposes of a public park, a schoolhouse, an elementary school, or a public museum, or for the purpose of providing dwellings for the working classes in any populous place, are already exempted from the operation of Parts I. and II. of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888. It is proposed by this Bill to extend that exemption to all assurances by deed of land to Local Authorities for any purpose for which such authorities are authorised to acquire land. The restrictions on the assurances of land which it is proposed to remove occasionally create very great local inconvenience. For instance, if a landowner wishes to grant a plot of land, however small, to a local authority for any public purpose, other than one of those specially exempted from the operation of Parts I. and II. of the above-mentioned Act, without full and valuable consideration,' the deed must within six months of its execution be enrolled in the central office of the Supreme Court of Judicature, and if the grantor dies within twelve months of the execution of the deed, the grant is void."
    I may add that I noticed in yesterday's papers the case of a grant of land to which the Bill would apply. Supposing the grantor should die within 12 months, then the grant would be void.
    MR. CHANCEAre we to assume from the silence of the Government that they approve of the Bill?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER, Isle of Wight)The principle is one which I think may be conceded, but I do not pledge myself to the details.
    MR. T. M. HEALYWill the hon. Gentleman
    1330
    say is it the same Bill which was read a second time last year? Does it apply to Ireland?
    MR. KNOWLESThe same Bill, and it does not apply to Ireland.
    (12.6.) MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.): Does it apply to Scotland.
    MR. KNOWLES: No.
    Objection being taken to further proceeding, Debate adjourned till tomorrow.

    MOTIONS.

      SHERIFF CLERKS DEPUTE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. Philipps, Bill to improve the position of Sheriff Clerks Depute in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Philipps, Mr. Haldane, Mr. M'Ewan, and Mr. Sinclair.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 197.]

    COAL MINES REGULATION ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. David Thomas, Bill to amend "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887," and to provide for the giving of certificates to workmen on leaving their employment in Mines, ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Thomas and Mr. William Abraham (Rhondda).
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 198.]
    POOR LAW (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Mahony, Bill to amend the Poor Law (Ireland) Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mahony, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. Carew, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, and Mr. Harrison.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 199.]

    TOWN HOLDINGS.
    Ordered, That the Select Committee be reappointed to inquire into that portion of the original reference to the Committee which the Committee was precluded by want of time from reporting on last Session, namely, "into the question of imposing a direct assessment on the owners of ground rents, and on the owners of increased values imparted to land by building operations or other improvements."
    Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Twenty-three Members.
    The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Mr. Tyssen Amherst, Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Baumann, Mr. Beadel, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Channing, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Crilly, Sir John Ellis, Mr. Elton, Mr. Esslemont, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. Lewis Fry, Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. Knowles, Mr. Lawson, Sir William Marriott, Colonel Nolan, Sir Charles Pearson, Mr. Randell, Mr. James Rowlands, Mr. Mark Stewart, and Mr. Powell-Williams.
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

    TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS (INSPECTION COMMITTEE).
    Copy ordered—
    "Of Scheme for the appointment of an Inspection Committee of Trustee Savings Banks; for determining the mode in which the members of the Committee are to be appointed, and their term of office; and, subject to the provisions of 'The Savings Banks Act, 1891' (54 and 55 Vic., c. 21), their powers, procedure, and duties; together with a list of Members of the Inspection Committee of Trustee Savings Banks."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 86.]

    ENDOWED CHARITIES (CAMBRIDGE).
    Copy ordered—
    "Of Digest of the Endowed Charities in the county of Cambridge, the particulars of which are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, but are not recorded in the general digest of Endowed Charities for that county, 1863–4 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 433 (16), of Session 1868)."—(Mr. Brand.)

    RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR) COMMITTEE.
    Ordered, That Sir Edward Reed be discharged from the Committee on Railway Servants (Hours of Labour).
    Ordered, That Mr. Flynn be added to the Committee.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

    RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
    Ordered,That all Bills of the present Session to confirm Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," containing the Classification of Merchandise Traffic, and the Schedule of Maximum Rates and Charges applicable thereto, be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.
    Ordered,That a Message be sent to the Lords to communicate this Resolution and desire their concurrence.—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)

    RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER [NORTH LONDON, &c.] BILL.
    Order [10th February, 1892,] that the Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order [North London, &c.] Bill be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, read and discharged.
    Ordered, That the Bill be withdrawn.—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)

    RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND),1890–91.
    Return ordered—
    "Of Particulars of Relief Works undertaken in certain parts of Ireland in the latter end of 1890, and in 1891."(Mr. Jackson.)
    Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 85.]

    SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (CIRCUIT ALLOWANCES, &c.)
    Address for—
    "Return showing the number of days the Judges of the Queen's Bench Division were absent from London on the business of the Assizes held in 1891, and stating the amounts paid to them and the circuit officers for allowances and expenses."—(Mr. Morton.)

    ALLOTMENTS ACTS (ACQUISITION OF LAND BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
    Returns ordered—
    "Of the number of instances in which (1) Rural Sanitary Authorities, under the provisions of The Allotments Act, 1887; 'and (2) County Councils, under the provisions of the Allotments Acts, 1887 and 1890, have acquired land for allotments by (1) compulsory purchase; (2) purchase by agreement; (3) hire by agreement; showing, in each case, the parish within which such land has been acquired, the acreage, and the number of tenants to whom allotments have been let under the Act.
    "And, of the Rural Sanitary Authorities ho have not taken land for Allotments, and in each case the reasons why the Authority have not provided land for the purpose, whether in consequence of their deeming it unnecessary to do so, or otherwise."—(Mr. Channing.)

    JUSTICES OF THE PEACE IN PORTS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
    Address for—
    "Return of the names and descriptions of the Justices assigned to keep the Peace in all Ports in England and Wales having a separate Commission of the Peace, distinguishing as far as possible those Justices who own ships, or shares in ships, or in companies owning ships, from the others."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
    House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

NEW PEER.
Sir William Thomsonknight, having been created Baron Kelvin of Largs in the County of Ayr—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLMy Lords, I give notice that on Thursday, the 4th of March, I shall move the Second Reading of the Bill for the Abatement of Smoke in the Metropolis.
SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL.

  TRUSTS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to declare and amend certain provisions or the law relating to trusts—Was
  presented by The Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 20.)

EAST INDIA OFFICERS BILL [H.L.] (No. 18.)

  COMMITTEE
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order).
  Schedule.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKMy Lords, I beg to move that the words "The Governor General of India" be omitted from the Schedule of the Bill. I have not made any remarks upon the clauses of the Bill, although I cannot say that I altogether agree with those clauses, because I thought that it would save your Lordships' time and trouble if I simply went to the two points which I desire to press upon your Lordships, namely, that it is not desirable to allow the Secretary of State to call the Governor General of India back upon business to England, or that the Governor General should absent himself from India for six months upon a medical certificate; and the same thing with respect to the Commander-in-Chief. My Lords, when the Bill was read a second time I gave to those of your Lordships who were then present the reasons which I had for wishing
  1190
  those alterations to be made in the Bill. They are very simple. I believe that all your Lordships will agree that India is a country where great and sudden dangers not unfrequently occur; and I suppose your Lordships would also agree that it might be very serious indeed if, when such a sudden danger occurred, the Governor General of India should be absent from India, and his place should be filled temporarily by some one who, however able, could not possibly carry the same weight as one who had been the Head of the Administration. I believe that the provisions of the Bill would require, when the Governor General was called home by the Secretary of State, or went home on sick leave, that the senior of the Governors of the two other Presidencies should take his place; and it does not always occur that either of the distinguished men who fill those places could have the same acquaintance with the affairs of India, or carry the same weight in the country, as one who had been selected for the office of Governor General. My Lords, for that reason I think it is very unadvisable to give the powers conferred by this Bill. When the Secretary of State for India moved the Second Reading of the Bill he gave some indication that the Governor General might be omitted from the Bill, upon further consideration; and when the Prime Minister, in answering the few remarks which I made the other night, gave the reasons which he thought made the Bill desirable, he rested his argument upon quite a different matter; he rested his argument upon the possibility that it might be very desirable that one of the Members of the Governor General's Council could be summoned home to England to confer with the Home Authorities. My Lords, I think that the observation made by the noble Marquess was very pertinent. I do not at all dispute that in certain circumstances it might be desirable to summon home on business one of the Members of the Governor General's Council in order to confer with the Secretary of State; and, therefore, I do not propose to move the omission of the power to call home on business from India the Members of the Governor General's Council. But the

  1191
  noble Marquess did not give any reasons, if my recollection serves me rightly, for the necessity of summoning home the Governor General of India. The Secretary of State did not give, either this Session or last Session, when the Bill was introduced, any reason, upon public grounds, why he thought it was desirable to summon the Governor General from India to this country; and the other day I asked him whether he could produce any correspondence which would show that this proposal (which is one of considerable importance, as I think all your Lordships will admit) had been communicated to the Government of India, and that the Government of India had had any opportunity of expressing an opinion upon changes which may very seriously affect the administration of affairs in that country. My Lords, in my opinion—I speak, perhaps, somewhat from the Indian point of view—but still, in my opinion, such legislation as this should not be introduced into this House, or in the other House of Parliament, excepting in very peculiar circumstances, unless the Government of India have had an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it. There can be no reason at all in this case why the matter should not have been communicated to the Government of India, and an answer might well have been received between last Session and this. And, indeed, no urgency whatever has been alleged by the Secretary of State for introducing this Bill. Therefore, my Lords, I should very much prefer that the Secretary of State would drop this Bill altogether; but, as I do not suppose he will be prepared to take that course, I beg to move that the Governor General of India be omitted from the Schedule.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 16, omit "The Governor General of India."—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Viscount CROSS)My Lords, I think your Lordships will see at once that, since this Bill was read a second time, the provisions in the first clause have been made rather stronger than they were in the original Bill. The Bill was never intended to enable the Government to call home any
  1192
  one of these persons except for special reasons; and, in order to show that it must be a very special reason, you have the safeguard of the approval of the Secretary of State in Council to begin with, and that of the Governor General in Council as well; and then you have the further safeguard, that these persons are only to be allowed to come home on public grounds, or upon a medical certificate, for a short time. But, my Lords, although the Government are of opinion that it is quite right that there should be some power that these persons may be allowed to come home in case of necessity; and although they are of opinion that the original provision in the old Act was perfectly right when the journey to and from India was so long; yet the fact of the journey being now so very much shortened materially alters the case as to the question of these great personages being allowed to come home. Because, not only would they come home in a very much shorter time, but, if anything should happen in India to require their immediate presence there, their return to India would, of course, be equally shortened. But, my Lords, I am, as Secretary of State, and I am quite sure all my colleagues are, always most anxious to listen to anything which falls from the noble Earl, considering the great position he has himself held in India, and the interest he has always taken in any matter relating to India since his return to your Lordships' House sitting here; and, therefore, I am quite willing to take into consideration what he has said. My Lords, when the Bill was before your Lordships' House the other day the noble Earl said what was perfectly true—that the Viceroy of India stood upon a sort of pinnacle that no one else could stand upon; that he was in a position totally different from that of any other officer in India. It is equally true that, if you want to consult on matters of very great importance with regard to general questions in India, it is possible to make use of one of the Members of the Governor General's Council, who would come home perfectly prepared to give you all the intelligence that the Viceroy could give. Therefore, my Lords, upon that particular point I am

  1193
  anxious to meet the noble Earl so far as I can; and, considering that the Viceroy stands entirely alone and quite distinct from all the other officers mentioned in the Bill, Her Majesty's Government will assent to the Amendment of the noble Earl. I cannot give him any hope that we will assent to the other Amendment which stands in his name, because I think the Commander-in-Chief stands on a totally different footing; but, considering the supreme importance of the Viceroy of India, and how he does stand out on a pinnacle above everybody else, we will agree to the Amendment of the noble Earl in this matter. I may say, perhaps, that the second clause will want amending in consequence, but that can be done by the Standing Committee; and so will the Schedule in another way; but, so far as this particular Amendment of the noble Earl is concerned, I am willing to agree to it. In order to make the Schedule sense, it will be necessary to say "The Members of the Council of the Governor General of India."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKMy Lords, I now beg to move that the words "The Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in India," be omitted from the Schedule. The observations which I have made upon the subject of the Governor General seem to me to apply, with almost equal force, to the office of Commander-in-Chief of the Forces. My Lords, India is a country in which, as I said before, dangers occur suddenly, and military dangers occur with the greatest suddenness. I suppose many of your Lordships are old enough to recollect the time of the Mutiny. How long before the Mutiny took place was it thought possible that such a thing could occur? And, my Lords, even of late we have had, within the last two or three years, constant outbreaks of hostilities of one kind or the other in India. So lately as last year we had that very sad event in Manipur, and it was not more than a week ago that we saw from the papers that some hostilities had occured in Burmah. Now, my Lords. I, myself, think that the Commander-in-Chief is an officer whose responsibility is so
  1194
  great in that country that he ought to take his five years' appointment for good or for bad, and not to return from India to this country during those five years. In case of the Commander-in-Chief being attacked with illness, if the illness was not very severe indeed, India possesses climates of every description; there is no difficulty in his obtaining change of climate in India at all; and I cannot conceive that, in the case of an illness so grave as to require his absence in England for six months, it would not be, in the public interest, desirable that the Commander-in-Chief should receive a successor to his appointment; and, being an officer of high military position, it does not seem to me that it would be likely in any way to interfere with his future career—other offices would be open to him which he could fill. That is with respect to his coming home on sick leave. It has not always been that the next senior officer (who, I suppose, is the person who would be appointed), would be an officer who would command the confidence of the Government here, or in India, to the same extent as would the Commander-in-Chief. In point of fact, if I were to ask the Secretary of State whether he could say that there is any officer now in India whom he would be inclined to appoint to be Commander-in-Chief in India, in the event of a vacancy, I doubt very much whether he would be able at this moment to name such an officer. That is a reason why I think that this officer also ought to retain his appointment, and not to leave India. Now, my Lords, as respects summoning home the Commander-in-Chief in India on business, I think there are considerable objections to it. If the Commander-in-Chief has to come home on business connected with the Army in England, by the provisions of the Bill the whole expense of his substitute and everything else would fall upon the revenues of India. Surely that is not fair! If the Secretary of State proposes to introduce clauses in the other House, putting that expense upon the Imperial revenues, well and good; but there is no such provision now in the Bill. My Lords, if the Commander-in-Chief is to come home on Indian business connected

  1195
  with Indian military affairs, I think it is not fair upon the Governor General in Council. There is no military business, in my opinion, in India—no military question in India—which is not essentially affected by political considerations; and the effect of the Commander-in-Chief being summoned home on Indian military business to confer with the Government in this country (apart from the Governor General and the members of his Council) would be that the Governor General and the members of his Council would not be able, if they disagreed with the Commander-in-Chief, to represent to the Home Authorities the political views which they might hold, and which, if they could represent them, might very much modify the opinion of the Government upon important questions. I hold, therefore, that the Commander-in-Chief coming home to be consulted upon an Indian military question, apart from the Governor General, when the Governor General could not be represented, would not be fair or right to the Government in India. On those grounds therefore, my Lords, I beg to move that the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in India be omitted from the schedule.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 18, omit "The Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in India."—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)My Lords, I should be loth to sacrifice the discretion which we desire to obtain for the Secretary of State and the Viceroy in respect to this matter of the Commander-in-Chief coming home. The noble Lord seems to deal with the matter chiefly as an individual question as to what was fair to the Commander-in-Chief, and what was fair to the Viceroy. Those are important considerations; but there are public considerations of very much greater value. I do not base this provision chiefly, though I should to some extent, upon the question of a medical certificate. There is something to be said for the view of the noble Lord that, if the Commander-in-Chief is not well enough to continue in his work, he may be required to re-
  1196
  sign—though I think it is rather an inconvenient doctrine, and at variance with what is accepted in all other parts of the Indian Service at the present time. But I would venture to remind the noble Lord that the existing law in no way protects India from being left without her Commander-in-Chief. He may, at this moment, go to the Cape, and, for all I know, he may go up to Mashonaland; that is within Indian limits; and there is nothing to prevent his doing so. Therefore the protection is illusory, and I hardly think it is worth while to maintain it in this matter of medical certificate. But I acknowledge that it is not the question of medical certificate that is uppermost in my own mind. The noble Lord, at an earlier part of this conversation, freely admitted that consultation with the members of the Governor General's Council might be a matter of considerable value to the Government in England. But the Commander-in-Chief is one of the most important members of the Governor General's Council; and the matters on which the English Government would wish to consult him are matters more deeply affecting the welfare and maintenance of the Empire than any other matters that could be conceived. The noble Lord speaks as though military questions were divided by a sharp line into two categories: those which concern the Army in England, and those which concern the Army in India. Does it not occur to him that there is a class of military questions which concern both Armies very closely—and those military questions in which not only the Army in India, but the whole strength of the Empire may be involved—with respect to which the main decisions have to be taken in India, though they must be taken in consonance with the views that are held at home? Those questions have become much more important since the noble Lord was practically familiar with Indian Government. Since the year 1876 those questions have grown into vast importance. I will venture to say that no one who is familiar with the military questions of the day could put out of view the class of occasions on which it might be necessary for the English Army and the Indian Army to co-

  1197
  operate. My Lords, I can conceive of no question, or set of questions, upon which mature, and circumspect, and careful decision, taken in time before danger comes, by the English and by the Indian Government, is more vital to the interests of the Empire. I can conceive of no set of questions upon which all the light that can be thrown by the military knowledge and experience, both of those who rule in India and those who rule in England, is more required for guiding us into a right and wholesome path; and I will venture to say, speaking from my own personal experience,—for in these days these matters are not often absent from our consideration,—that, within no very great distance of time, it would have been a matter of the greatest possible satisfaction to myself, and to those with whom I act, if we could have had oral communication with the Commander-in-Chief in India. My Lords, I hope you will not ask me to develop that thesis. I think that most who hear me will see that it is capable of wide development, and that interests of a very considerable magnitude may hang upon the decision at which you arrive. I earnestly ask you not to take away this power, that we seek to obtain, from the Secretary of State and the Viceroy of India. There is no probability that they will use it lightly, use it without cause, use it for any frivolous reason. And, with respect to the last observations made by the noble Lord as to who is to pay the steamer fare of the Commander-in-Chief when coming home, if these matters are really important in the highest interests of the Empire, do not let us quarrel about which Treasury is to bear the cost of the travelling expenses. I think we are capable of coming to some arrangement upon that point. My Lords, I should, of course, repel at once the idea that the Commander-in-Chief would be often sent for. I believe it must necessarily be an occasion of very great rarity; but I can imagine, as I have said, cases in which it would be a matter of enormous value to our highest interests that we should send for him; and I cannot conceive that any real danger would arise from it. You have always two
  1198
  Commanders-in-Chief, chosen specially for their powers of governing large Armies in vast districts—the Commanders-in-Chief of Bombay and Madras; and either of those could surely hold, for the few necessary weeks, the office of acting Commander-in-Chief, while the actual tenant of the post was in England on consultation. If anything happened to him; if he was disabled; if he was killed; such a remedy would have to be taken; and nobody has ever yet suggested that any great danger lurked in that contingency. My Lords, without for a moment pretending (I desire to guard myself on that point) that such power would often be used, I say that the discretion of using it ought to be with the Government, and I hope your Lordships will not refuse it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYMy Lords, no doubt the mode in which the noble Marquess has approached this question is one which may make one hesitate upon this Amendment; because he has indicated that there are some tremendous occasions, to which he does not think it right, no doubt for public reasons, to allude, on which the presence of the Commander-in-Chief in this country is, in his opinion, of the very highest moment and importance. My Lords, not knowing what the circumstances are to which the noble Marquess refers, I cannot give my opinion upon them; but I have had myself some experience in the Office of Secretary of State for India, and certainly the military questions, which arose during the time I held that Office, were of so grave a nature that I can scarcely conceive that anything so grave can have arisen during the tenure of Office of the present Government. It never occurred to me, or to any of my Colleagues, that, in the circumstances in which we were then placed, it would for a moment have been desirable to have asked the Commander-in-Chief to come over to this country. I cannot allude further, any more than the noble Marquess could, to all the circumstances of the time; because, of course, one's opinion depends upon confidential information to which I had access, and to which it would be highly improper that I should allude in this House. But I still feel that,

  1199
  although it would be impossible to deny the weight of the arguments used by the noble Marquess on the one side, there is very great weight indeed in what has been said by my noble Friend (Lord Northbrook) upon the other. The circumstances of India, as my noble Friend has pointed out, are wholly different from those to which we are accustomed in this country. Everyone knows that a small cloud in the distance will suddenly spread into a hurricane, and, before your Commander-in-Chief could get back from this country to India, his absence from the Indian Empire might be the cause of very serious disasters. My Lords, if I felt perfectly satisfied that it was only upon some extraordinary occasion that such a power as this would be used, I might regard it with more indifference; but your Lordships must remember what the working of clauses of this kind is. It is all very well to say that the consent of the Governor General in Council is required; but I do not believe that, if the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief in India both desired that this power should be used, it would be possible for the Viceroy in Council to resist the demand; and what I should be afraid of is that this power would come to be used upon occasions not so grave as those which the noble Marquess has in his mind. Of course it is a balance of advantages and disadvantages. As I said the other night, I do not for a moment undervalue in the slightest degree—it would be childish to do so—the advantages of consultation with high officers. The whole question turns upon this: is it, upon the whole, more likely that the Public Service will suffer seriously by the Government not being able to bring over the Commander-in-Chief, or that the Empire of India may be endangered by the possible absence of the Commander-in-Chief at a crisis when his presence is greatly required? That is a matter upon which each person must form his own opinion. I, myself, for my own part, would greatly prefer that the law should rest as it is. With regard to sick leave, I think the natural conclusion from the noble Marquess's argument would be that the power of the Commander-in-Chief to go to the Cape ought to be abro-
  1200
  gated. That, however, is a matter which I will not press further. Upon the whole, I must say that I remain of the same opinion as my noble Friend (Lord Northbrook).
  On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Schedule?
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 21.)
  Their Lordships divided: Contents 27; Not-Contents 20.

BETTING AND LOANS (INFANTS) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 13.)
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]—(No. 4.)
Third Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Monday next.

LONDON FOG.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONMy Lords, since my noble Friend the Prime Minister expressed his willingness to support the appointment of a Committee to inquire into this question, I have carefully considered the matter, and have taken counsel with those upon whose opinion I could rely; and I have come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that no good or useful purpose is likely to be served if the Committee is to be restricted simply to Members of your Lordships' House. I say this for three reasons. In the first place, a Committee of your Lordships' House has already sat to inquire into this question, or into the kindred matter of the prevention of smoke, in the year 1887. Several distinguished Members of your Lordships' House served upon it; a Bill, founded upon the recommendations of the Committee, was subsequently introduced into the House: has been annually introduced for five years: and is still in the stage of being set down for Second Reading. That is not encouraging as to the results of the outcome of a Committee of your Lordships' House. But, in the second place, since the year 1887,

1201
not only do we know a good deal more about the subject-matter, but science has considerably advanced, and various methods for dealing with the subject have now been suggested, which were not known at the time when that Committee was appointed. But, in order that these methods should be properly tested and appreciated, they should be tested by those who are experts, and the number of those experts in a matter of this kind on the Benches of your Lordships' House is, and must always remain, limited. It is true that, within the last 24 hours, we have received a very distinguished addition to that number, in the person of the noble Lord who has taken his seat for the first time to-day. But that does not alter the fact that there are but very few of your Lordships' House, and those some of the busiest, and consequently most occupied, who could be appealed to to serve upon a Committee for this purpose. But there is a third, and a still more practical reason, which, after an experience (which has not been a short one now) of legislation, both in another place and in your Lordships' House, I think I am entitled to urge: and that is that, with hardly one single exception, no measure dealing with subjects of this kind, which has emanated from a Committee of your Lordships' House simply, and which has not been pressed in another place with all the force that the Government of the day have at its command, has had any chance whatsoever of passing into law. And in the case of a measure, founded upon the deliberations of a Committee of your Lordships' House in a matter of this kind, there would be a peculiar difficulty; because there are upon the Benches in another place many Members who are specially qualified by professional training to form their opinion upon a subject of this kind, and who are quite certain to tear in pieces any Bill that comes down from your Lordships' House, I am afraid in some cases because they have not been previously consulted in the matter. Now, my Lords, Her Majesty's Government have decided that it would not be desirable to issue a Royal Commission (which is the course I should have preferred) upon this subject, and, of course, I bow
1202
to that decision; but I do venture to submit that a Joint Committee of both Houses might meet these particular difficulties to which I have already referred. In the first place, they would have before them all the printed evidence taken before the Committee of your Lordships' House. In the second place, it would be possible to re-inforce any Committee appointed by your Lordships' House by an equal number, at least, of men specially qualified to deal with the subject from the Benches in another place. And, thirdly, I think that the recommendations of such a Joint Committee would come with much greater force, and with a much greater chance of having practical legislation founded upon them, than any recommendations which were arrived at by a Committee composed simply of Members of your Lordships' House. Now, my Lords, I should not for a moment think of asking a Committee of that kind to embark upon what the noble Marquess seemed to be afraid I was touching upon—namely, a hopeless crusade against the vapours of the North Sea and the Essex Marshes. No, my Lords, the London fog is, I think, just one of those things of which it may be said, as is said with regard to vice, that it loses more than half its evils when it loses all its grossness; and, if you could take away from the London fog the elements introduced into it by Londoners themselves, you would have done much to render it less injurious to human life, certainly more innocuous as regards sapping the vital energy, and incomparably less expensive than London fogs at present are. It may be in the recollection of your Lordships that a single foggy day means an extra expenditure of £4,000 in gas alone; and that, by the best computation, every year the combustic products which are sent up the chimneys to poison the air, instead of being used to warm our rooms and dwellings, amount to a tax upon the community of somewhat upwards of £1,000,000 per annum. Those are established facts, and those facts can be proved. My Lords, it has also been suggested that my object was to point out particular remedies. My Lords, that is exactly the point I wish to avoid. I think it is most essential

1203
that a burden of that kind should be left for the decision of a Committee, and that further inquiry should precede any legislation. As regards anthracite coal, I merely mentioned that as one of many methods which might be adopted for dealing with the question; and I think scant justice was done to it in the answer of the noble Marquess. If any of your Lordships wish to ascertain what may be done in that respect, I am given to understand that there is a fire burning at the present moment in the Prince's Chamber, which was lighted this morning, entirely composed of anthracite coal, which I have just been looking at myself. I found that there was a very wholesome flame proceeding from it; and certainly much more heat was given out than from the fireplace at the other end of the room. That, however, is only one branch of the subject. My Lords, since I first brought this subject before your Lordships' House, I have been inundated with suggestions, practical and un-practical, of all sorts and kinds. I have seen articles in almost every paper in the daily Press on the subject—many of them, I confess, not very encouraging to anyone who wishes to act as a reformer in this matter; but some pointing out that science has defined various remedies, any one or more of which might be adopted. And there is one remedy, at all events, within our reach. If we only agreed, by legislation, to say that all future grates should be so constructed as to consume their own smoke, and that all future ovens should be rendered smokeless, you would, at once, have done a great deal to cope with the increase of the evil which is daily going on. Had such a measure been adopted, which the Smoke Prevention Act suggested, and put into force 30 years ago, the air of London would now be comparatively pure. The great mischief has been done, not so much by the ordinary chimney as by the kitchen chimney, which must be in every house; and a very slight alteration indeed in many cases would entirely prevent the smoke and the deleterious action issuing therefrom. I merely mention these facts to prove that there is a distinct case to inquire into; and
1204
I believe that such an inquiry, if there is not to be a Royal Commission, might effectually and efficiently be carried on by a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. Those are the views I venture to submit to your Lordships. I gave the Home Office private notice of the question I was about to put three or four days ago; and I hope no objection will be placed in the way if it be possible to form a Joint Committee of both Houses to, inquire into this important matter. I do not say that such a Committee, would be entirely, or perhaps even partly, successful; but I do say that the subject is one which touches the comfort and health of so large a portion of the community that we ought not to sit down with hands folded, and say that nothing can be done, until it has been proved, beyond all manner of doubt, that the evil is one which is irremediable, and with which it is impossible for us to deal.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, in the first place, I must be allowed to congratulate my noble Friend upon the valuable auxiliary that he, obtained this morning to the arguments which he desires to press upon the House and upon the public. Not all the eloquence of my noble Friend was equal to that very dirty fog which we found upon coming into London this morning, and which made me feel a wish that it were possible by any means, Royal Commission or other, to further my noble Friend's desires. But I am afraid the facts are too strong for us. I am not going through the arguments that my noble Friend repeated, with great force, upon the evils or the remediability of the London fog. I am afraid lest I should be considered to be an advocate and friend of the fog—anything more near an advocatus diaboli I cannot imagine. But, on the present occasion, I have, not to argue the larger question. My noble Friend has gone off the safe field of Committees of this House and Royal Commissions into an unknown country—into the question of Joint Committees. He is touching the mysterious parts of the Constitution. I do not exactly know what the principles are

1205
upon which Joint Committees are appointed, but I know that the suggestion of them is very apt to be ill received on the other side of the Central Hall. I remember some years ago, when the noble Lords opposite were in power and had a large majority in the House of Commons, they proposed that the Indian Budget should be referred to a Joint Committee; it was a very reasonable proposal; but all the authority of Mr. Gladstone's Government of that day could not induce the House of Commons to accept it. And I am told that it is exceedingly unlikely that the House of Commons would accept a Joint Committee on this subject. Hitherto Joint Committees, with I think only one exception, have been confined to questions concerning the Private Business of the two Houses. I will not undertake, on behalf of the House of Commons, that they would consent to a Joint Committee; I should be giving an undertaking which I should be wholly incapable of fulfilling; but I will undertake this: that if anyone moves in the House of Commons for a Joint Committee, and that House accepts it, I will do my best to persuade your Lordships' House to join with the House of Commons in entering upon it. I cannot do more than that. My Lords, much of my noble Friend's remarks were addressed to the point that the House of Commons would not accept any measure that did not initiate with them. If that is the case, the proper course is clearly for my noble Friend to induce one of his many adherents in the other House to move for a Committee in that House, and I daresay he would move it with success. But I do not quite understand the modesty which induces my noble Friend to abstain from going forward in that path of investigation he has here selected. After all, the main point is to collect information, and that information will be good enough whichever House it comes from; it will not matter which House has put it into the Blue Book; and, if my noble Friend can get together, by examination in Committee, an amount of evidence which shows that there is an effective remedy for this evil, and that that remedy can be applied by
1206
Parliament, I will venture to say that the House of Commons will attach just as much importance to that evidence as if it were gathered by themselves.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock.