graphed to me on the 4th inst. that two The third Question of the noble Earl military commissions were inquiring has reference to the Venezuelan arbitrainto the charges which had been made tion. The facts are as follows:-By the against the Turkish authorities; and on protocol signed on 13th February last, bethe 9th inst. he informed me that he was tween Great Britain and Venezuela, it confident that all the authority of the was agreed that any question as to the Turkish Government would be used to distribution of the Customs revenues prevent excesses, to the danger of which, assigned for the satisfaction of the British he said, the Turkish Government were claims, and as to the rights of Great fully alive. We shall continue to watch Britain, Germany, and Italy to a separate these events with anxious attention, settlement of their claims, should be deand we shall do our best, so far as our termined, in default of arrangement, by opportunities permit, to mitigate these the tribunal at The Hague, to which any troubles. other Power interested should be allowed to appeal. Similar protocols were signed by Germany and Italy with Venezuela At a subsequent date, on 7th May, the same three Powers-the Powers which

under

had been engaged in the blockade-Ger
many, Great Britain, and Italy-signed
an agreement with Venezuela,
which it was provided that the Emperor of
Russia should be invited to name and ap
point from the members of the permanent
Court at The Hague three arbitrators to
constitute the tribunal which is to deter
mine and settle the questions submitted
ment; and it was again provided that
to it, under and by virtue of this agree
zuela might join as a party in the arbi-
any nation having claims against Vene-
tration. The other creditor Powers -
other than those Powers engaged in the
blockade-having claims against Vene-
zuela, were subsequently invited to join
in the arbitration. But in two cases a
difficulty arose in consequence of a claim
put forward by two of the Powers in
question that the proceedings should be

The second Question which the noble Earl asked me had reference to the case of some Chinese journalists who have been imprisoned at Shanghai. These persons were accused of publishing statements of an inflammatory kind in a local newspaper; and I am bound to say that these statements, translations of which I have seen, were of a most violent and incendiary description. These men were arrested by the municipal authorities at Shanghai at the instance of the Chinese Taotai, and upon the assurance that they should be tried and punished by the mixed Court in the European settlement at Shanghai. Two of the men pleaded guilty; and we consider that we are morally bound, in consequence of the circumstances under which that plea was entered, to insist that the pledge that was given by the Chinese official should be carried out. The Chinese Government has applied for their surrender; but holding the views which we hold, we thought it desirable to instruct our Chargé d'Affaires that he was to refuse the demand. There is some doubt as to the opinion of the better, and would add to the completeness We were of opinion that it would be consular body at Shanghai, but we know and validity of the proceedings, if the that we do not stand alone in holding request to the Emperor of Russia were that the men ought not to be sur-made simultaneously by all the Powers rendered. Your Lordships probably concerned. Some delay was, therefore, noticed a terrible account of the manner caused in consequence of the action of the in which a Chinaman was executed the other day at Peking, in circumstances of two Powers to which I have referred horrible barbarity; and we feel that in But we have lately heard that the Ve such a case as that which we are dis- nezuelan Government has proposed that cussing, it would be impossible for us to it should be open to them to become be parties to the surrender of these ac- parties to the arbitration, whether cused persons to Chinese justice. We do they adhere to the agreement OE not think the case one in which the not, and that the tribunal should decide opinion of the majority of the consular all questions of the interpretation of the body ought necessarily to be allowed to agreement. In that proposal, which prevail. seems to be entirely reasonable, the United

The Marquess of Lansdowne.

conducted in French.

States Government has concurred, and His Majesty's Government has concurred also. We instructed our Ambassador in St. Petersburg on the 8th inst. to press his colleagues to take early action, and to proceed without loss of time with the request to the Emperor of Russia. We have no reason for supposing that any of the Powers concerned desire a settlement by any means other than those laid down in the protocol and in the agreement, and we therefore have every reason to hope that the difficulties which I have mentioned will be easily overcome, and that the proceedings contemplated by the protocol and by the agreement will go on without further delay.

IRISH LAND BILL.

Returned from the Commons, with several of the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to; with several other of such Amendments agreed to, with Amendments; and with consequential Amendments to the Bill; with several other Amendments disagreed to; with Reasons for such disagreement.

On the Motion for the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments,

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE

will be my duty to move, as I propose to move, that this House do agree with the Commons in the Amendments made to their (the Lords) Amendments, and do not insist on their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.

THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: My Lords, the noble Duke is perfectly correct in saying that there will be no disagreement in this House with the Amendments that have come up from the other House. I myself, and those noble Lords with whom I have the honour to act, will not disagree with the action of the Commons with regard to our Amendments, but I regret that three Amendments have not been accepted by the other House, because they were introduced by us, not with any desire to hinder the Bill, but rather with the purpose of making it operate better when it becomes an Act of Parliament. No doubt in a great measure of this kind there are many matters which may be considered by those in a position to know, to be capable of being carried out easily and effectually, but there are other matters which may possibly, though I hope not, give some amount of legal trouble. The three Amendments which the other House did not see fit to accept, were: one, proposed by my noble friend Lord Clonbrock, requiring the Estate Commissioners to state specifically their reasons for allowing a case to be dealt with outside the zones; the second, was proposed by myself with reference to the guarantee deposits. The objection in this case seemed to be that the Commissioners if they gave way in one case might be induced to give way in

other cases inside the zones. And

the third Amendment to which the Commons did not agree was the one to

allow a

COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE) said: My Lords, although I believe that the Amendments to the Irish Land Bill have only within a very few minutes come into the possession of the House, I think your Lordships will have seen, from the ordinary channels of informa tion, that the anticipation I was able to announce to this House the other day as to the advice which His Majesty's Government would be prepared to give to the House of Commons in reference to its discretion to the parties as to the character and amount of arrangements, was substantially correct, and also that the House of Commons has evidence they ought to produce in acted upon that advice. Your Lordsmall cases. This Amendment was ships are aware that at this stage of the brought in to save expense, because in proceedings of the two Houses of Parlia- very small cases expenses are incurred ment a considerable amount of communi- which might often cover one year's rent cation outside the walls of either House with regard to the farm affected. It was generally becomes necessary, and the result brought in in the interests both of the of such communication has been, I believe, landlord and the tenant, and I regret that that I am able to form a confident anticipa- it has not been accepted by the Governtion that no difference will arise between ment. But whilst I regret that these the two Houses with regard to these Amend three Amendments have not been ments. If I am correct, as I believe I am accepted I beg to thank your Lordshisd correct, in forming that anticipation, it on behalf of noble Lords who have acted

an eyesore.

Majesty's Government and the noble Lord at the head of the Office of Works will give some little attention to the matter to which it relates. I wish also to remove the impression that it is with regard to the decoration of the House that I am principally concerned. That is not so. It is the unfinished character of the existing state of things which I desire to see dealt with. The original designs of Sir Charles Barry for the wall space of this House adopted a very different treatment from that which we now see, and it was altered in order that these large panels might be filled with pictures. Whether they should be filled with pictures or not is an open question. If they are not filled with pictures then they should be finished according to the original designs of the architect, and should not be left, as they have been for many years, We who come here habitually have got accustomed to them and do not notice them, but they make a very bad impression on all strangers who come to see what might be a magnificent building. Before I sit down I should like to thank the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works for the courtesy with which he has met my wishes on the subject, and has disinterred what remains of the frescoes in the Upper Lobby of the House. Most of them are destroyed beyond repair, but there is one, the picture of Lear and his daughters, which is still a very pleasing picture though the head of one of the ladies is gone. I cannot but think that means might be found to restore that head. May I be permitted to make one suggestion? It is this, that the noble Lord will seek, in a quarter to which we do not generally look for guidance in matters of art, for an illustration of what my wishes are with regard to this House. That quarter is the Corporation of the City of London. The cloister of the Royal Exchange has round it panels of much the same area, though of different shape, as those in St. Stephen's Gallery. The Corporation of the City of London have gone on year after year filling those panels with pictures by Lord Leighton and other eminent artists. They are not finished, and there are many still to be put in, but the course adopted is exactly what I would desire His Majesty's Government to take in the case of the Palace of Westminster. At

comparatively small expense, if it is persisted in year after year, the unfinished condition of the rooms in the Palace might be gradually remedied, and works of art worthy of admiration placed in the sites intended for them.

into

*THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Lord WINDSOR): My Lords, the noble Lord, in withdrawing the Motion which he had put down on the Paper, gave notice that he proposes to renew his Motion in another session. I think that relieves me of the necessity of entering at this moment at any length the questions which are involved. I shall be glad, however, to deal with one matter to which he referred-namely, the condition of the frescoes in the upper waiting hall. I should like to inform the House that Professor Church was asked to examine those frescoes, and he reported that in his opinion they were all of them in a condition which made it useless to endeavour to restore them or to spend any money upon them. But with regard to the particular frescoe to which my noble friend has drawn attention the Lear frescoe--I shall certainly ask Professor Church to look at that one again in case he thinks that anything might be done to preserve it. With regard to the general question, may I just say that I, for my part, sympathise very greatly with the object which

the noble Lord has in view. I do not

doubt that all of your Lordships who take an interest in the decoration of buildings and the completion of buildings which had in their original design a certain scheme of decoration, sympathise with the noble Lord in the object which he has in view. At the same time he will forgive me for saying that, however much I sympathise with him in this object, I still feel-and I know His Majesty's Government generally feel-that one must observe a sense of proportion as to the works necessary to be undertaken. Owing to the great expansion of the chief Government Departments of late, very large demands have to be made upon the Treasury for absolutely necessary works in order to keep pace with those requirements. Only a moment ago your Lordships passed the Public Buildings Expenses Bill through all its stages, and I feel that it would be rather losing the sense of proportion if the work of completing the decoration of the Palace

of Westminster were to be
the Treasury at this time when other
important works have to be undertaken.
At the same time I promise my noble
friend that I will consider the matter.

The subject then dropped.

WAR OFFICE TRACTION ENGINES.

urged upon | Petty Sessions on the ground that as the
Crown was not mentioned in the Act of
1865 the servant of a contractor to the
Government might be considered to
be exempt from the provisions of the
Act by reason of the prerogative of
the Crown. The law in this
country is a very curious one,
and it turned out, when the case came
before the Divisional Court, that ser-
vants of contractors do come within the
prerogative of the Crown, and therefore
are not amenable to the law. Accord-
ingly the conviction was quashed, and
the police were rendered powerless to
This was the
deal with this nuisance.
reason why I raised a similar question in
connection with the Motor-Cars Bill.
Your Lordships agreed to a clause dis-
tinctly placing servants of the Crown
under the provisions of the Motor-Cars
Bill, and I desire in this connection to
express my obligation to the noble Lord
the Secretary for Scotland and to the
President of the Local Government
Board for the manner in which they
considered this question. I think it
is quite clear, now that the principle
has been accepted that servants of
the Crown should be made liable to
legislation of this kind, that it ought to
apply to the Locomotives Act, 1865. In
view of the decision which has been
adopted in the case of the Motor-Cars
Bill, it is really incumbent upon the
different Departments of the Govern-
ment to take care that the servants of
the Crown, under them, conform to the
provisions of other Acts of a similar kind.
I may mention that, although some repre
sentations have been made to the War
Office in this matter, the nuisance continues,
and only on Monday last one of the repre-
sentatives of Aldershot on the Hampshire
County Council stated, at the meeting of
that council, that the nuisance continued,
and that the present state of things con-
stituted a danger to the inhabitants.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I beg to ask whether the Secretary of State for War has issued any order directing the drivers of traction engines employed by the War Office to conform to the limits of speed laid down by, and the other regulations contained in, the Locomotives Act, 1865; and to move an Address for a copy of any such order. This question arose in this way. The Urban District Council of Aldershot forwarded for the consideration of the County Council of Hampshire, a memorial from the inhabitants of Aldershot complaining that the traction engines connected with the Army had been running through the streets of Aldershot at a rate higher than they had any right to run under the Locomotives Act, 1865; that those traction engines were of a weight greater than was authorised under the Act; and that they in other respects violated the provisions of the Act. The County Council communicated with the Standing Joint Committee of the county, who, in their turn, communicated with the chief constable, and the constabulary were instructed by the chief constable to attend to the matter. They found that the representations of the people of Aldershot were correct, and that the traction engines were in the habit of going above the rate of two miles an hour through the streets of Aldershot to the damage of the thoroughfares and also to the annoyance of the inhabitants. Therefore, the police were instructed to prosecute, and they took proceedings at the Petty Sessions against the driver of one of these traction engines. There was no question whatever as to the facts of the case.

It

was admitted that he had been going at a higher speed than two miles an hour, and a small penalty was imposed upon him for this breach of the law.

A circumstance subsequently arose which had not been considered before. The driver thought it desirable to lodge an appeal against the decision of the Lord Windsor.

Moved, that an humble Address be

presented to His Majesty for any order that may have been issued by the Secretary of State for War directing the drivers of traction engines employed by the War Office to conform to the limits of speed laid down by, and the other regulations contained in, the Locomotives Act, 1865.-(The Earl of Northbrook.)