Lords Sitting of 3 May 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Pacific Islanders Protection (90); Epping Forest (82).
Committee—Church Seats (59–97).
Third Reading—Alteration of Boundaries of Dioceses * (84), and passed.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON. TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA). THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.
  CORRESPONDENCE.
  Further correspondence with the Government of Canada in connexion with the appointment of the joint High Commission and the Treaty of Washington (in continuation of papers presented April 1872): Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
CHURCH SEATS BILL—(No. 59.)
(The Earl Nelson.)
CHURCH SEATS BILL—(No. 59.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (Short Title).
  Clause 2 (Promoters of new churches may declare that seats shall be free and unappropriated).
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he objected to this clause altogether. It might become necessary for the maintenance of the church that a scale of pew rents should be appointed; but if this clause stood part of the Bill there would be a perpetual prohibition of any pew rents. He therefore moved that the clause be omitted, and that the following be inserted in its stead:—

  171
  "It shall be lawful for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in the exercise and fulfilment of the powers and duties conferred or imposed upon them by the Acts administered by them or any or either of the same Acts, to accept a church site under a grant or conveyance in which it is declared that the pews or seats in the church erected or to be erected on the same site, or some specified portion of the same pews or seats, shall not for the space of thirty years be let for any payment of money, and thereupon it shall be unlawful to let the same pews or seats, or portion of the same, for payment of money during the aforesaid period: Provided always, that at any time during or subsequent to the expiration in any case of the aforesaid period of thirty years, if the bishop of the diocese in which such church is situate shall see fit, a scale of pew rents may be appointed in the same church, by and under the authority of an instrument executed by the said Commissioners with the concurrence of the patron of the church."
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he would support the Amendment of the noble Duke. He objected to the erection of any churches in which the churchwardens would not be able to exercise the power they now had by the law of the land of seating the worshippers in seemly order.
  EARL NELSONwould point out to the most rev. Primate that the 5th clause of this Bill expressly reserved power to the churchwardens or other authorized persons of regulating the temporary occupation of church seats, so as that due order and decorum may be observed during the time of Divine worship. The latter part of the noble Duke's clause would utterly defeat the object of the Bill, which would entirely fall to the ground if that Proviso were carried.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEasked their Lordships how the Bill would operate if a wealthy man were building and endowing a church, laying it down as a condition that the seats should not be appropriated as now by the churchwardens. Any alteration in the law would require careful consideration; but if properly guarded it was a privilege which a number of persons throughout the country anxiously desired, and with the concession of which they should be gratified.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that if their Lordships should create a perpetuity it might cause great inconvenience, and perhaps lead to the scandal of resorting to a special Act of Parliament to set aside the will of some generous benefactor of the Church.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLbegged their Lordships to observe that while the Amendment of the noble Duke provided that no money should pass, it did not bind the churchwardens to appropriate seats as they presently did.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERthought it was not desirable that the whole area of a church should be open to be scrambled for by the congregation. He said so in the interest of the poor, for no persons were so modest in the way of not taking good seats as the poor. It was, therefore, advisable to keep them from being continually thrust out by the accidental presence of richer and better dressed people. If there was no appropriation of seats poor men and their families would go to the worst part of the church or out of it altogether.
  After some further discussion,
  EARL NELSONsaid, he would accept the first portion of the noble Duke's Amendment down to the word "period," but omitting the words "for the space of 30 years." But he could not consent to adopt that part of the Amendment commencing with the words "Provided always."
  Original clause withdrawn.
  After some discussion, the words "for the space of 30 years" were struck out of the first paragraph of the Amendment; which was then agreed to. The second paragraph, containing the Proviso, was withdrawn, and the following words substituted:—
  "Provided always, that if at any time the bishop of the diocese in which the said church is situate shall see fit, a scale of pew rents may, be appropriated in the same church for a portion of the sittings, not exceeding one half, by and under the authority of an instrument executed by the said Commissioners with the concurrence of the patron of the said church."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Free and unappropriated seats to be no impediment to acceptance of sites or consecration of churches) struck out.
  Clause 4 (Church seats free and unappropriated for three years to so remain).
  EARL GREY EARL GREY moved to leave out the clause, and insert—
  "In churches in which seats have been let or appropriated, the churchwardens shall be entitled

  173
  to direct that such seats shall be given to persons unprovided with places if they should remain unoccupied when the officiating clergyman begins to read the service."
  Amendment amended and agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Saving rights of ordinary and churchwardens to keep order).
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bills to be printed, as amended. (No. 97.)

REMOVAL OF NAVAL COLLEGE, PORTSMOUTH—QUESTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEsaid, he was about to put a Question which was one of considerable importance to naval officers and had direct reference to the efficiency of the Navy generally. It was, whether in the Navy they were to have a high-class scientific and philosophical education at the expense of personal experience? Now, he had a great idea of the importance of imparting a high-class and scientific education to our naval officers; but he did not hesitate to say that if it could only be given at the expense of a practical knowledge of seamanship he would have nothing to do with it. High-class education of that kind never yet made an officer or a sailor; nor would it ever prevent a ship from going on shore. It was commonly said that the status of education among naval officers was low; but he begged to dispute that assertion. They came into the Navy very young, and from his experience as Superintendent of the College of Portsmouth for five years he could say that not more than one boy out of eight who came into the Navy from the large schools could pass in the common examinations of reading, writing, and arithmetic if they went up direct. None of them could pass without a "cram." But it frequently occurred in the case of young men who had served in the Navy for a few years and then left it, that they were next heard of as taking high honours at the University. He did not know how that was done; but he thought it, too, must be done by cramming. He had never known an instance of a high-class University man becoming a naval officer; but he had known many instances of young men who, after having entered the Navy, took high-class honours at the University and attained to the most exalted positions in the Church and the State,
174
and even becoming Members of their Lordships' House. He might point to his noble and learned Friend on the front bench as an example.
LORD CHELMSFORD: I am sure my noble and gallant Friend will forgive me for interrupting him to say that I went into the Navy before examinations were instituted. I underwent no examination.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: However that might be, his noble and learned Friend was an example of a man who had attained a high position in the State after having been in the Navy. The Naval College at Portsmouth was an extremely useful institution if it was desirable that naval officers should have an opportunity of keeping up and improving their professional knowledge. The Government, it was understood, were about to remove the College for the education of Naval Officers from Portsmouth, where it had been established for very many years, and which might be called the very centre of the Navy, to Greenwich, which was now totally unconnected with the Navy; and he wanted very much to know the reasons which had induced the Government to form that determination. One of those reasons was said to be that at Portsmouth there was no school of naval architecture; but there had been, although it had been removed. In Portsmouth could be seen everything connected with the Navy; they might see the drawings of ships as sent down from the Admiralty—ships in mould—the first plate of their bottom laid—ships launched, rigged, manned, armed, and made ready for sea. Instruction could be got in gunnery; he could witness the manœuvring of ships, taking them in and out of harbour in bad weather; he might see a squadron getting under weigh, and taking up position; he might observe the foreign men-of-war that visited the port—in short, he might obtain practical insight into every point that a naval officer ought to be acquainted with. At Greenwich all these opportunities would be taken away. It was, as he had said, totally unconnected with the Navy. There had been dockyards there—one on either side—but the Government had sold them, one of them being converted into an immense slaughterhouse for foreign cattle. He thought the removal of the College from Portsmouth

175
to Greenwich would be highly detrimental to the efficiency of naval officers. He therefore wished to ask the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camperdown), Upon what grounds the Government have or intend to remove the College for the instruction of naval officers from Portsmouth (where they have every opportunity of improving and keeping up their professional knowledge) to Greenwich, where they will be entirely separated from the Navy?
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he wished to put another Question in connection with the same subject, so that the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) might answer both at the same time. There were three systems of education in the Navy which, so far as he understood, were now to be interfered with. One was for the education of the naval cadets. He believed that was to be materially altered. That system of education was carried on at Dartmouth, and it would be very undesirable to bring it into a large town such as either Greenwich or Portsmouth. Young lads should not be exposed to contamination in large towns; they had, therefore, been placed in a port where their education was going on with much satisfaction; but that, it appeared, was to be altered. Greenwich was so close to London as to be almost part of it. The next Question was, what was to be done with the School of Naval Architecture which had been established at Kensington—the object of which was to admit shipwrights from the dockyards, and to enable young men to be instructed for the general shipbuilding service of the country. When removed to Greenwich would it be open to the private trade as well as to the Royal Navy? The third Question had reference to the officers who were at present studying at Portsmouth. They had now the great advantage not only of studying under scientific professors, but of seeing the practical application of their studies in the dockyard. He did not mean to say that the removal of the College to Greenwich might not be justified on some grounds; but he wanted to know the scheme of Her Majesty's Government with regard to these three departments of naval education.
LORD DUNSANYsaid, he was not surprised that the Government, finding themselves in possession of a large unoccupied palace, conceived the idea of
176
applying it to naval purposes, and determined to establish a Naval College. But if it were a mere question of economy, he very much doubted whether it would not, after all, be less expensive to enlarge the present building in Portsmouth Dockyard than to adapt Greenwich Hospital to the purposes of a Naval College. Greenwich was too near London to be a suitable place for the College. True it was also near the Admiralty; but that was, perhaps, the greatest of all objections to it. The Admiralty was fast becoming a Department of the House of Commons, and he could not imagine a greater misfortune for the country than that it should have a House of Commons navy out of which the true naval element should have been almost obliterated. It was exceedingly important, when they were constantly building new ships, that fresh experience of them should be obtained by the officers of the Navy, and it was by being on the spot and going out on trial trips that they could ascertain how these monsters were to be handled. Another new department of naval science had recently sprung up—he alluded to the torpedo department; and young men being educated for the Navy would have no good opportunity of gaining practical knowledge in that department, or in seeing how the present large guns were put on board of the ships. As for Greenwich Hospital, it did not follow that if it were not made use of for purposes connected with the Navy, it might not be devoted to some other national purpose.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that the apprehension felt by the noble Earl (the Earl of Lauderdale) as to the removal of the Naval College to Greenwich, must have been caused by his non-acquaintance with the details of the proposed arrangement, and with the extent to which it was proposed to move the College to Greenwich; and he trusted that the explanation he had to give would have the effect of diminishing some of the noble Earl's objections to the change. During the last 20 years two views as to the proper method of naval instruction had undergone much discussion. One view was that it was absolutely necessary that a naval officer should throughout his career remain in connection with his profession, and be as much as possible surrounded by his brother officers. On the other hand, it was contended that

177
the general education to be obtained during the period when an officer was not employed was not of less value than the advantage to be gained by his being surrounded during his whole career by naval officers and naval associations. The career of education might be conveniently divided into three periods. The first was that when the cadet, having passed the examination for entering the Navy, was obliged to prepare for active duty. The second period was when having attained the rank of acting sub-lieutenant, he was obliged to prepare himself again for examination in gunnery and navigation; and the third period embraced the remainder of his career, and included his going to College and obtaining the instruction provided by the authorities. The question as to the best means and best place for the education of naval cadets had been considered by the Admiralty for a long time, and although he was not in a position to state what measures would be adopted, he might state that one measure which would not be adopted would be sending the cadets to Greenwich. The second portion of a naval officer's education was also a period of compulsory education; because it was not possible that a young naval officer out with the Fleet at sea could come home prepared to pass his examinations without further instruction, and in this part of the education the practical course of study of gunnery would not in any way be interfered with. Those of their Lordships who had been brought up to a naval career would admit that the Excellent constituted the finest school of gunnery in the world, and no persons were less disposed than the present Board of Admiralty to interfere with the practical course of that instruction. The number of the pupils now studying at the College was, on the average, from 25 to 30 young sub-lieutenants, four or five lieutenants studying for commissions in the Royal Marine Artillery, from five to eight lieutenants preparing themselves for gunnery lieutenants, two commanders, and two captains. The Staff connected with the College, though not numerous, had been most active in promoting the education of the young men and officers; but he was perfectly willing to allow that at the present time the provision for the higher education of naval officers was not sufficient, considering the importance
178
of the Navy to England; and without new instruction and additional lectures the desired result could not be properly attained. The noble Earl said that it would be easy to increase the accommodation in the College. However, as the College was situated in a corner of the Dockyard, there would be great difficulty in increasing the accommodation to any extent, and at present it was insufficient for the purpose for which it was wanted. He would not deny that Portsmouth had considerable advantages over other sites for a Naval College, in affording a facility for officers to witness the sea trials of new ships, and in having the Dockyard close at hand; but he did not think that any attendance in the Dockyard was absolutely enjoined. With regard to obtaining the attendance of superior Professors, Greenwich would possess considerable advantages over Portsmouth; and if the expectations of the Government were fulfilled, it was probable that a larger number of officers of various classes would attend the College than had hitherto been the case. Even granting that they were cut off from association with Portsmouth—which would not be entirely the case, because by far the greater number of sub-lieutenants would have to go to Portsmouth to go through their course in the Excellent—the number of persons associated together could not be said to be removed from the influence of their profession. If at Greenwich they would not have the advantage of a dockyard, they would, at all events, have the great advantage of being near Shoeburyness. Officers, therefore, educating at Greenwich would have the advantage of seeing the trials of heavy gunnery—an advantage not obtainable at Greenwich or elsewhere. It was urged in opposition to fixing upon Greenwich as the site of a Naval College that it was too near London, and that the allurements of the metropolis would be too much for the younger naval officers. There was, however, the security that the younger naval officers would be under the necessity of attending lectures; while, in the next place, it had been found by experience that at Woolwich, which was almost equally near London, the officers who went there to be educated were not unwilling to avail themselves of the advantages which had been offered to them. Even granting

179
the justice of all that had been said by the noble Earl on that point, would he, he would ask, undertake to say that there were none of those allurements at Portsmouth to which he objected in the case of Greenwich? He had spoken hitherto only of the executive officers of the Navy; but there was a most important class of officers who were being educated in our Dockyards, and very few of whom had an opportunity of obtaining any higher education, whom it was essential that we should have educated in the most effective manner. He alluded to the engineer officers. As matters at present stood, after open competition at the Dockyards, and after passing a few years there, about eight annually out of about 40 were sent to South Kensington for a period of three years. The probability was that, instead of a small number of those officers being sent to South Kensington in future, they would all in some form or other have the advantage of a higher education at the Naval College at Greenwich. As regarded the School of Naval Architecture, the students were educated at the Dockyards in very much the same manner as the engineers, and only two of the most promising, selected by examination, were sent up to South Kensington. For those persons also it was proposed to provide in the new Naval College at Greenwich. The naval models at South Kensington, which were of the highest interest and value, had been referred to, and that collection it was intended to remove to Greenwich. In that way, by the concentration of officers, lectures, and models, that improvement might be obtained which he thought it was most desirable in the interest of the service should, if possible, be effected. It had been asked whether it was proposed to proceed in the same manner as hitherto with respect to the architects in private trades? He had no doubt the First Lord of the Admiralty would seriously consider the proposal which had been made to him by the committee which had been charged with preparing the new arrangements for the College at Greenwich. He did not, he might add, think it improbable that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) would accede to the proposition that the same advantages should be held out to those in private trades as to others. The whole subject, he might add, had been most seriously canvassed, both in the
180
naval Press and by the country generally, for the last two years, and it could not, he thought, be denied that on the whole there was a growing opinion that Greenwich was the most eligible site for the establishment of a new Naval College. He wished to repeat that there was no desire on the part of the Admiralty to substitute theoretical for practical education in the Navy. The First Lord of the Admiralty was fully alive to the necessity of promoting in the highest degree the qualities of seamanship and physical superiority among the officers of the service, and he could assure the noble Earl that in any arrangement which might be made the continuance of the connection of a sailor with the sea and with the active duties of his profession would be duly looked after and provided for.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEreminded the noble Earl that the trials at Shoeburyness to which he had referred were simply the trials of new guns; while at Portsmouth an officer would have the opportunity of seeing the actual practice from the forts, as well as of going out to sea in ships which carried large guns. As to the enlargement of the College at Portsmouth, it was a matter about which there was no difficulty. It might be carried out for a less sum than that which would have to be expended at Greenwich. It had been stated that the general opinion was, that Greenwich was the best place for a naval University. He could only say that he had spoken to a great many naval officers with respect to it, and that he had not heard one of them express an opinion that Greenwich was a better site than Portsmouth.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNrepeated that it was not intended in any way to interfere with the practical education of naval officers. He would, however, add, that in the statement which he had made he had perhaps gone further in some respects than he ought to have done, inasmuch as the subject was still under the consideration of the First Lord of the Admiralty. He believed, at the same time, that all that he had stated would be found to be perfectly correct.

EXTRADITION OF CRIMINALS.

  ADDRESS FOR RETURNS.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, in moving that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Returns stating the number and nature of all Treaties or Conventions at present in force with Foreign States for the Extradition of Criminals, said, that public attention had been directed to this subject by the circumstances connected with the arrest of Marguerite Dixblanc in Paris for a murder committed in this country. But, as it seemed to him, hardly a crumb of information was supplied with regard to these treaties. In 1870 the then Attorney General (Sir Robert Collier) brought forward an Extradition Bill, and in the course of his speech stated that while France had 53 Extradition Treaties and the United States nearly as many, this country had only three. Now, so far as he (the Earl of Rosebery) could gather, at the time the Attorney General spoke England had in fact four Treaties of Extradition with foreign Powers—one with Russia made in 1842, one with France in 1842, one with Denmark in 1862, and one with Prussia in 1864. It was quite possible that as their continuance depended on the will of the high contracting parties, some of these might have ceased to be operative; but, at any rate, it was important that information should be supplied as to which of them still remained in force. During the two years which had elapsed since the Extradition Bill was introduced, a new Attorney General had come into office, but the country had obtained a very small increase of information. Their Lordships might possibly be aware that in the course of some recent proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench arising out of the protracted trial that had recently absorbed so much of the public attention the Attorney General said we had not a Treaty of Extradition with America. Mr. Justice Blackburn, apparently overcome with astonishment, said—"Not with America!" The Attorney General replied—"No; but negotiations are going on, and I hope there will soon be one." MR. Justice Blackburn asked, whether the time had expired? and the Attorney General said he was not sure, but that a proposal was pending to extend the time. But the Act of Parliament founded on the Treaty with America provided that
  182
  the treaty should continue in force till one or the other of the signataries gave notice to the contrary. There was no limitation of time, therefore, in the treaty, and the period of its continuance could not be "extended." When such vague statements were made in quarters which they would assume to be well-informed, their Lordships were justified in turning from these doctors who disagreed and in applying to the Foreign Office for information. There could be no object in keeping those treaties secret. Indeed, the events of the last two years had made secret treaties rather out of fashion. The publication of Extradition Treaties must surely be useful and necessary. A forger, for example, if he found that he would leave these shores only to be brought back in handcuffs, would perhaps hesitate before committing such a crime. The knowledge that treaties of this kind existed must have a repressive effect on some crimes, like forgery, which were committed with premeditation. On inquiry it might be found that more Extradition Treaties existed than the Attorney General supposed, and that they had a Treaty with America, for if not they might as well give up the system of Extradition Treaties altogether. He trusted that the Government would grant the modest request he now made for information on a subject than which few were more important, and certainly none were more obscure.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Returns stating the number and nature of all treaties or conventions at present in force with foreign states for the extradition of criminals.—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he must express his satisfaction that the subject had been brought forward by the noble Earl—first, because his noble Friend had, as yet, but seldom availed himself of his opportunities for adding to the sufficient, though few, proofs he had already given of his power to take a most important part in their Lordships' discussions; and, secondly, because Her Majesty's Government were willing to afford all the information in their power upon a subject which, at the present time, occupied so much of the public attention. Not knowing that his noble Friend would refer to the Attorney General, he had not been able to communicate with him, and could not,

  183
  therefore, say what his hon. and learned Friend had stated to the Court of Queen's Bench in reference to these treaties, or whether he had been correctly reported. He (Earl Granville) must, therefore, confine himself to giving the information asked for. Three Extradition Treaties were now in existence—one with France, one with the United States, and one with Denmark. That with the United States comprised charges of murder, attempts to murder, piracy, arson, robbery, forgery, and frauds by means of forged documents. The treaties with France and Denmark comprised murder, attempts to murder, forgery, and fraudulent bankruptcy. There was also a Treaty of Extradition with China; but it was of a different character from those existing with the countries he had just mentioned. The principle on which the three treaties to which he referred rested was that any demand for the surrender of a person accused of crime should be made through the diplomatic agents of the country requiring it, and that the surrender should only be made after the commission of the crime had been so established as that the laws of the country to which the fugitive had escaped would justify his apprehension and commitment for trial if the crime had been there committed. In the case of Denmark there was an exception as to the surrender of natives of Denmark. No such provision existed in the treaties with the United States or with France. As to the former, neither the Americans nor ourselves could hesitate about giving up natives, for the identity of language would make it difficult, if not impracticable, to enforce such a provision. As to the French, the case had never arisen. The belief was that France would be opposed to the surrender of natives—the universal principle adopted on the Continent of Europe being that a native subject of any State could not be surrendered by the State. Besides these treaties, powers of surrendering criminals were exercised between some of our colonies and neighbouring territories; but these were not treaties; they were separate legislative enactments. With regard to Prussia, an Extradition Treaty was concluded in 1864, and in 1852 one was made with France; but in neither case did the Government succeed in obtaining the sanction of Parliament, and therefore the treaties remained inopera-
  184
  tive. Two years ago a difficulty arose with France, as to certifying the depositions taken, but by subsequent legislation that difficulty was removed. His noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) was correct in stating that no time was limited in the treaty with the United States, that treaty being terminable at any time by six months' notice from either of the two signataries. A treaty with Germany was now almost on the point of being signed; but delay had arisen entirely through the difficulty which English lawyers and foreign jurists experienced in defining the crimes to which the treaty applied; but he hoped that no long time would elapse before those difficulties were overcome. All these treaties were terminable at six months' notice. He had no doubt that other countries would follow the good example which had been set with regard to those treaties, the value of which his noble Friend had not, in the slightest degree, overrated.
  Motion agreed to.

PACIFIC ISLANDERS PROTECTION BILL—(No. 90.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
PACIFIC ISLANDERS PROTECTION BILL—(No. 90.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that those of their Lordships who had read the Papers which had been presented to Parliament on this subject would agree with him in opinion that legislation had been made imperatively necessary by the circumstances which had arisen in late years. The great extension of communication with the South Sea Islands and their rapid colonization by Europeans had brought about a state of things which did not exist a few years ago. At present there was a great desire that those colonies which were suited to the growth of tropical products should be supplied with labour other than that of Whites, and Polynesian labourers were in great demand for that purpose. This immigration of Polynesian labourers was confined principally to the colony of Queensland and the settlements in the Fiji Islands. The immigration to Queensland had been placed under strict regu-

  185
  lations by the law of the colony, which provided on the whole in an effective manner for the protection of the labourers who had arrived in the colony. Some doubt had been expressed on that point; but as far as he had been able to learn from various sources, and especially from his noble Friend the Marquess of Normanby, who had lately gone out as Governor, there existed a real desire on the part of the Colonial Legislature to make efficacious provision for the protection of the labourers, and if further legislation should be required no indisposition would be found to pass more effectual and stringent laws. But, of course, the Legislature of Queensland could make regulations only with regard to the labourers who had come to the colony and the vessels which arrived within their ports and came under their own jurisdiction. But a system had grown up of late by which vessels belonging—he was afraid to a great extent—to the subjects of Her Majesty went to the South Sea Islands, decoyed the natives on board, or frequently carried them on board by force, and conveyed them to the settlement in the Fiji Islands, over which the Queensland Legislature had no control whatever, and where no sufficient regulations for the protection of these poor men existed. He would not weary their Lordships with an account of the atrocities committed in the course of this traffic. The masters of vessels who had engaged to procure a certain number of labourers were not likely to be exceedingly scrupulous as to the manner in which those labourers might be obtained: and if their Lordships could conceive how extremely numerous were the persons engaged in this business, how varied their influence, and how many opportunities they had of evading any regulations which Her Majesty's cruisers might attempt to enforce, they would feel no surprise that very great evils had grown up. He could not help referring here to what he might term the crowning atrocity of the murder of Bishop Patteson. He called it "the crowning atrocity," not because he laid such great blame upon the islanders, though they had been guilty of an inhuman and cruel act, by which they had themselves sustained the greatest loss, as on that system of kidnapping which had led to the loss of a valued friend—for the late Bishop had been a
  186
  valued friend of his—and he could affectionately testify to the value of his services in the sphere to which he was called. Nothing could have been more melancholy. Here was a man who had devoted his whole life to the spread of Christianity and civilization, and to the improvement in every way of the natives of these islands. We had the strongest testimony that the Bishop was universally loved and regarded by the natives with the utmost veneration, and such was the influence which he had acquired over them that whatever he did or recommended was received with implicit trust. When a feeling of trust of that kind was once established in the minds of these uncivilized people, the revulsion was all the greater when they supposed that their trust had been misplaced. The reason why the natives believed that their confidence had been misplaced was this: These atrocious kidnappers actually made use of signals and disguises to induce the natives to think that the Bishop was about to visit them and to make them come on shipboard: but the result of the stratagem was that when they came on board they were seized and carried off to the Fiji Islands: So that when the vessel with the Bishop on board arrived, the natives, under the miserable and melancholy misapprehension that the Bishop was in reality an enemy, took their miserable revenge and took the life of their best friend. The guilt, therefore, rested not so much upon the natives as upon those treacherous traffickers who had brought about such a state of mind in these unhappy people. And here he must say that he regretted what was stated to have been done when the cruiser Rosario visited these Islands. It was necessary that the natives should be made to feel that a civilized country was strong enough to avenge any atrocity committed on its subjects. But the House would agree with him that a power of this kind should be very cautiously and sparingly used, and he was quite sure that those who had read almost the last words of Bishop Patteson himself would especially lament the steps which he was informed had been taken to avenge the murder. He was quite certain that the commander of the Rosario acted in the belief that he was only performing his duty, and he was not, therefore, disposed to east too great blame upon him. Those who were

  187
  employed at a distance from home, and who had to act often under circumstances of great difficulty, had a heavy responsibility to bear, and we should always be exceedingly careful in finding fault with them: but he was bound to say that in his opinion, if what was stated was correct, the commander of the Rosario had in this matter misapprehended his duty, and in his desire to do what he believed necessary for the protection of the lives of Her Majesty's subjects, and from no spirit of cruelty, had proceeded to measures which might leave an impression upon the minds of the natives which it was most undesirable should be produced. The Bill now before their Lordships would, he hoped, give such power to the cruisers sent to those seas as would to a considerable extent put a stop to kidnapping. At the same time, so vast was the number of these Islands, so large the region over which they extended from east to west, and so great the difficulty of detection, that even with the most active measures and the most efficient laws it would be exceedingly hard to extirpate the practice. The clauses of the Bill had been most carefully framed with a view to the necessary powers, and it was proposed to punish kidnappers in the same manner as under the Slave Trade Acts. With the co-operation of the Australian Colonies, and from the feeling expressed there, we had every reason to expect much good would be done. While the Colonial Government and Legislature would feel that a responsibility rested upon us to do whatever might be necessary, they might be fairly called upon to assist us by their laws and by enforcing the regulations which might be required. There were two or three points in which the Bill might be improved. In the passage of the measure through the other House it was pointed out that it would be very desirable that all those engaged in carrying labourers from those Islands should be licensed to do so under bond, so that no vessels not duly authorized should be allowed to take any part in the traffic. Such a provision would give much greater control over the whole system; and though it was not thought desirable to delay the Bill in the other House until a clause to give effect to that suggestion had been framed, he was happy to say he had been able to draw up a clause to carry out that object. As
  188
  to the establishment of a Vice Admiralty Court in the Fiji Islands, that involved a question of great difficulty, which, he thought, ought not to be dealt with in this Bill. The establishment of such a Court might involve the assumption of jurisdiction over these Islands. He thought that after this Bill had passed we should be able by communication with the settlers in these Islands to establish a satisfactory and stringent system of punishment for these offenders, and he feared it would prejudice the opportunity of making such arrangements if our proposals were anticipated by statute. Her Majesty's Government had this most important subject at heart, and he sincerely trusted that the measures they were prepared to take would have the effect they desired.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELDexpressed his thanks to Her Majesty's Government for having introduced this measure—and he might be allowed to state that he had considerable knowledge of the subject, because the miserable traffic it was sought to put down commenced under his own observation in 1848. He regarded the Bill as a useful instalment of means for preventing the continuance of this enormous and disgraceful evil. No doubt there might be some difficulty in carrying out a system of repression; especially as the natives, numbering about 1,000,000, were scattered over 500 islands; but he believed a few examples would be very effective in checking the traffic. The only just principle upon which labourers could be engaged for labour in these Islands was that of fair and well understood contracts between the white and coloured men. He thought a system similar to that adopted on the West Coast of Africa might be successful in stopping unlawful traffic. With regard to the unhappy occurrence to which the noble Earl had alluded, and as to which Papers had yet to be laid on the Table, he (the Bishop of Lichfield) visited the island 14 years ago, and, it being the most friendly in the group, it was deemed a convenient stepping-stone to some of the larger and more difficult islands. Bishop Patteson was accordingly accustomed to visit it; and he felt persuaded that his death was the result

  189
  of some act of aggression by others—whether kidnapping or slaughter. The island was no larger in area than the site of the Houses of Parliament, and there being no shelter upon it the islanders could not possibly have defended themselves against a boat's crew. Why the Rosario went there he could not understand; but on a boat's crew proceeding up a narrow channel, the natives, no doubt thinking their purpose a hostile one, shot at them, and killed one of the crew, whose lives were thus unnecessarily risked. The reprisals thereupon taken were, he supposed, intended for a retaliation of that act; but this was not the way in which the dignity of the Empire or the majesty of the law should be vindicated. Such acts led the natives to regard us, though professing to be Christians, as more barbarous than themselves, and he would express a hope, as the late lamented Bishop had done, that if a missionary lost his life by violence neither the British nor any other Government would carry out any measures of revenge. Missionaries went on their own responsibility, and desired to leave persons guilty of violence towards them to the judgment of God alone.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

EPPING FOREST BILL—(No. 82.)
(The Duke of St. Albans.)
EPPING FOREST BILL—(No. 82.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANS, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the Bill was originally introduced in the other House, but, owing to the pressure of Business and a rule that no Opposed Business should be taken after half-past 12 o'clock, had been transferred to this House. By an Act of last Session Commissioners were appointed to prepare a scheme for the preservation of Epping Forest, and to inquire into forest lands unlawfully inclosed. It was objected during the progress of the measure that private rights were not sufficiently guarded by it; but this was owing to the absence of the notices requisite in the case of Private Bills, and an undertaking was given that
  190
  the subject should be dealt with this year. The Bill was a redemption of that pledge, and though in form a Public, it was rather a Private one. The Select Committee to which he hoped it would be referred would have power not only over its clauses, but over its principle, and would be able to hear all parties concerned. The Metropolitan Board of Works had undertaken to carry out the projected scheme, and the Government had no interest in the matter, except that the question should be fully considered and all parties heard. It was unnecessary, therefore, for him to offer any opinion on the claims of the persons holding land in the Forest.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Duke of St Albans.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was rather disappointed with the noble Duke's statement, for the undertaking on which he had waived his opposition to the second reading, and which accounted for the thin state of the House, was that the character of the Bill should be entirely altered. At present it was most violent and unconstitutional, for it proposed to refer the disputes between the Crown, a number of landowners, and the Corporation of London now pending in courts of law and equity to arbitrators, consisting of three laymen and a lawyer who had never sat on the Bench. There was to be no appeal from their decision. Now, of late years similar powers had been given to arbitrators, but always to men of high position and experience—indeed, he believed exclusively to ex-Chancellors. He had felt it his duty to resist such a proposal as worse even than the recent proposition of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to refer the appeals of this House to barristers of 10 years' standing. It was, moreover, unexampled to refer suits of the Crown to persons appointed by the Crown and subject to dismissal by it at any moment. The undertaking given him was on the understanding that the Bill should simply suspend all these suits and actions until the Commissioners had reported and Parliament could deal more fully with the subject, and it was on this ground only that he had not persevered in the opposition he originally offered to the Bill. He hoped the Government would adhere to the arrangement for striking out all the other powers.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYdisclaimed any intention of departing from the understanding alluded to by the noble Marquess. After being read the second time, it was intended that the Bill should follow the usual course of a Private Bill and should be referred to a Select Committee, and that it should be confined to suspensory clauses, pending an opportunity on the part of Parliament to deal definitely with the question.
  LORD REDESDALEmaintained that the Bill in its present shape should never have been introduced. Time would be saved and, perhaps, opposition removed by its withdrawal and its introduction in the shape it was intended to retain, and in that shape submitted to the Committee.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYremarked that all the notices involved in the Bill in its present shape had been issued. The Government were willing to meet the objections which had been taken, and the second reading would not hinder its taking the form now agreed on by all parties. To withdraw it would involve delay, and great hardship and inconvenience would result if no Bill was passed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was quite satisfied with the pledge given by the noble Earl, but would suggest, as more convenient, that the Bill should be committed pro formâ and referred to the Select Committee in the shape agreed upon.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he did not object to this suggestion, but thought that as the same objections were taken in the other House, the Government might have remodelled the Bill before introducing it here.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYagreed to adopt the suggestion of the noble Marquess, and that the Bill should be committed pro formâ and reprinted.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYinquired when the noble Earl proposed the House should adjourn for the holidays, and for how long?
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he proposed that the House should adjourn on the 13th till the 31st instant.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.