Lords Sitting of 19 July 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Pharmacy * (209); Copyright of Designs * (211).
Committee—Report—National Debt (Sinking Fund) * (178).
Third Reading—Bridges (Ireland) * (198); Artizans Dwellings (Scotland)* (202), and passed.
Royal Assent—Parliament of Canada [38 & 39 Vict. c. 38]; Metalliferous Mines [38 & 39 Vict. c. 39]; Municipal Elections [38 & 39 Vict. c. 40]; Intestates Widows and Children (Scotland) [38 & 39 Vict. c. 41]; Glebe Lands, Corporate Bodies (Ireland) [38 & 39 Vict. c. 42]; Medical Acts Amendment (College of Surgeons) [38 & 39 Vict. c. 43]; Royal Irish Constabulary [38 & 39 Vict. c. 44]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [38 & 39 Vict. c. cxvi]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3) [38 & 39 Vict. c. cxvii]; Chelsea Hospital (Lands) [38 & 39 Vict. c. cxviii]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order [38 & 39 Vict. c. cxix]; Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) [38 & 39 Vict. c. cxx].

INDIAN IMMIGRATION—THE COOLIE TRAFFIC.—MOTION FOR A PAPER.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYrose to call the attention of the House to the Coolie traffic; and to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies to state the result of his inquiries into the death of two Indian Coolies from flogging in Province Wellesley; and to ask what progress has been made in framing a law for the protection of Indian Coolies in the Straits Settlements; and to move for the law for the protection of Indian immigrants to be laid upon the Table. The noble Lord remarked that on the 11th of May a deputation of the Anti-Slavery Society waited on the Secretary of State for the Colonies to make representations as to Coolie labour in all the Colonies and the necessity of supervision of the transport of Coolies, of the contracts entered into by them, and of their treatment when their engagements expired. Owing to misreporting, the deputation were represented to the world as having requested the Secretary of State to put down Coolie labour, and an evening paper said that the supervision of Coolie contracts was as little necessary as that of Irish or English emigrants' contracts, though those emigrants went out to join people of their own language, religion,

1631
and laws. What really happened was that Mr. Sturge, speaking for himself only, stated to the Secretary of State, what a short time before he had written to the leading journal—that the immigration of Coolies was only the Slave Trade under another name. Now, he would mention in defence of Mr. Sturge that a French Deputy, M. Victor Schœlcher, came over to London a short time before the deputation went to the Colonial Office, to represent the state of the Indian Coolies in the French Antilles to the Aborigines' Protection Society, and he there made a similar statement to that of Mr. Sturge, of his conviction that Coolie immigration could not be distinguished from the Slave Trade, and in support of this view he had brought with him a French colonial newspaper called The Journal d' Outremer, containing a report of the excessive mortality of Indian Coolies on different plantations. While excepting the islands of Mauritius and Bourbon and the Straits Settlements, he entirely concurred with Mr. Sturge and M. Sehœlcher as to the more distant West India Islands, and believed that it was almost impossible to prevent the transport of Coolies to those islands differing from the Slave Trade. He might remind their Lordships that all the horrors of the African Slave Trade owed their origin to a want of thoroughness on the part of the philanthropists in the beginning of 1500, and to the adoption at that time of the principles, nay, of the very words used by the noble Earl to the deputation—
"Considering the commercial depression that exists in many of the West India Islands, a system of Coolie importations, if it can be administered under due safeguards, should be favoured by Government."
These were the considerations which brought negro slaves to America for the relief of the Mexicans and Caribs, who were fast dying out under the labour imposed upon them, and whose sufferings stirred up the good Bishop Las Casas to write of the destruction of the Indies. The burdens that were destroying the aborigines of America and the Antilles were transferred to the shoulders of the Africans till Wilber-force raised his voice in behalf of those oppressed men, and with such effect that the Africans were now almost everywhere emancipated; but if the Secretary of State for the Colonies did not take
1632
care the error of transporting Africans across the ocean to relieve Americans would be repeated under his auspices, and Hindoos and Chinese would have to relieve the negroes by suffering all the horrors formerly imposed upon the Africans. When his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies answered the deputation of the 11th of May, he did not think he could have read the Blue Book on the Macao Coolie traffic; not a word in that Blue Book contradicted the assertion of Mr. Sturge, and there was much in the Reports of Sir Brooke Robertson and in the despatches of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which confirmed it. Sir Brooke Robertson wrote—
"I trust this is the last we shall hear of that most iniquitous trade. Publicly and privately I have ever done my best to expose its inhumanity and bring pressure to bear on the Lisbon Government to decree its extinction, and at the last the end has come, and Macao, upon whose shore more tears have been shed than in any other spot on earth, will have to look elsewhere to enrich its citizens, in a more legitimate manner, and more in accordance with the professions of a Christian nation."
This Blue Book contained a table of disasters and mutinies which had occurred to 34 ships containing kidnapped Coolies between the years 1852 and 1872; and he would read a despatch from the Earl of Derby to Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires at Lisbon, dated October 19, 1874, which said—
"I have to instruct you to express to the Portuguese Minister for Foreign Affairs the satisfaction with which Her Majesty's Government have received His Excellency's assurances of the determination of the Portuguese Government not to allow a revival of the Macao Coolie traffic in any form, as reported in your despatch of the 6th instant."
So long as the Colonial Office could not efficiently provide for the well-being and protection of Indian Coolies in Mauritius, Réunion, and the Straits Settlements, it would be still more doubtful if it would be able to secure these objects and safeguards in the more distant West India islands. The Chinese Coolies in the West Indies were in still greater need of protection than the Indian Coolies, who, being our subjects, found zealous supporters among the Calcutta, Madras, and India Office officials. Most of the Chinese who had been transported to Peru, Cuba, and other parts of America had been taken there against their will, or in ignorance of where they were going.

1633
They did not require to go to America for the purpose of emigrating, for there were ample fields for Chinese emigration nearer China, places to which they could go and find their countrymen and associations ready to assist them on their arrival. And how could the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs consistently urge the Portuguese Government not to allow emigration from Macao under any form, and even after proposing regulations for the protection of the emigrants, if the Secretary of State for the Colonies were to encourage a similar emigration, and so appear to justify the criticism of the Portuguese Minister, that—
"the British functionaries had markedly hostile dispositions to any emigration which might seek other shores than those of British Colonies?"
It might be readily understood that the Secretary of State for the Colonies should have been rather too much influenced by the Colonists and by Colonial representations, and by the natural desire to hear of flourishing Colonial Budgets, and should have lost sight of the public opinion of this country, which would not allow of the substitution of Chinese for African slavery; he (Lord Stanley of Alderley) might also say the public opinion of Germany, for in the Blue Book on the Macao Coolie traffic there was a note from the German Ambassador strongly repudiating, on behalf of one of his subjects, the imputation of being concerned in this iniquitous trade. The public opinion in Spain and Portugal was also very much changed of late years, for in the modern novels of the Peninsula the villain of the plot was always a slave trader, and the name of negrero, or negro trader, was now a most opprobrious epithet. He desired also to call the noble Earl's attention to a matter of which he had been informed by an Australian magistrate—namely, the kidnapping of women in Polynesia, which was said to have become so general that nearly every master of a vessel and many of the mates carried Polynesian women on board their vessels, entered on the ship's articles as wives of men they had nothing to do with. The law of Western Australia, that no women be permitted to be shipped in these vessels, should be copied in the other Colonies. He did not intend to go into the ease of the Coolies in Mauritius—the subject and the Blue Book relating to it were too large;
1634
but when the noble Earl talked of safeguards for the protection of the immigrants, he (Lord Stanley of Alderley) would ask what measures he was taking, and why he had not already taken measures, to remedy the state of things under which the families of Coolies who died in Mauritius were robbed of their property under forms of legal administration? Among the cases of property left by Indian Coolies and absorbed by the curator reported by the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the abuses concerning Indian immigrants into Mauritius might be quoted that of Millapore Monisamy, who died and left effects which were sold for $630 82c, or about £130. The legal expenses amounted to $630 51c, leaving a balance of 31c, or 15½d. There were, however, other legal expenses which were defrayed by the sale of Monisamy's jewels, which sold for $877 52c, or about £183, and when all legal expenses were paid there remained a balance of $11 53c, or £2 8s. There was also the case of Jaunkee, who went temporarily made: when he recovered he found that his property, worth £44, had been sold for £8 12 s. 4½d., and that 8s. 8½d. of it had been left to his children. He petitioned Sir Arthur Gordon on the subject, who asked why the Curator had meddled with the property. The Governor was told that had he not done so the property might have been robbed; to which Sir Arthur Gordon replied, that in that case Jaunkee would have been no worse off; and he declined to write a Minute on the subject lest he should express himself too strongly. He would also ask the Secretary of State whether he intended to take any steps to relieve the immigrants who had completed their five years' contract service of the heavy charges imposed on them for photographs (2s.) and pass-tickets (20 s.). From the Report of the Commissioners it appeared that for a number of 116,333 photographs the sum of £23,311 12 s had been charged to Mauritius during five years. The photographer holding the contract informed the Commissioners that his profits were £6,000, leaving £17,311 for the cost of photography; but the Royal Engineers' highest estimate came to £5,201, leaving £12,110 to be accounted for. Two Coolies were flogged by two planters on the Malakoff estate, in Province Wellesley, in the

1635
Straits Settlement; they died of it, and the planters were sentenced to three and four months' imprisonment. These sentences appeared to be very lenient; but it happened that the brother of one of the planters died, and application was made to the Governor, Sir Andrew Clarke, for his release, in order that he might look after the plantation. The Governor accordingly remitted half of his sentence and set him free, and, as the other planter was in the same case, he remitted half of his sentence also, apparently to avoid invidious distinctions. If the Governor had made his remission of the sentence conditional on the payment of some compensation to the families of the Coolies whose deaths they had caused, he would have shown more regard for justice and for those safeguards which the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies desired to establish for the protection of Coolie immigrants. He (Lord Stanley of Alderley) did not in this matter impute any fault to Sir Andrew Clarke other than that of excessive good nature, and, perhaps an inability to say no; but for the sake of the future, he would ask his noble Friend to join with him in an expression of regret that Sir Andrew Clarke should have allowed himself to be induced by the planters' representations to remit half of sentences which were already too lenient. To show that contracts and engagements of Coolies required supervision and revision by an officer of the Indian Government, he might mention a case which recently happened in the Straits Settlement. Some 70 Coolies had engaged to labour for planters (Messrs. Brown and Co.) for two years, and had had their passage-money from India advanced, which advance had been repaid. These Coolies left off work six days before the complete expiration of their two years, and a portion of them were brought before a magistrate, under the Indian Act XIII. of 1859. The magistrate dismissed the summons, and his decision was reversed by Mr. Justice Ford, who held that these Coolies' contracts were binding on them, which obliged them to be jointly and severally responsible for one another's labour, so that one man out of 100 might have to make good the work of 99 absconders. The appellant, the agent for the planters, did not ask for this, so Mr. Justice Ford only required the magistrate to order the Coolies
1636
(1) to work up the six days, and (2) to work up the loss of labour occasioned to the planters by their default. Now, this decision of Mr. Justice Ford, if it were upheld, would establish a system of slavery. It would probably be met by the Indian Immigrants' Protection Act, now under the consideration of the Colonial Office. This draft Act omitted, however, to limit the period for which Coolies might be engaged. In the Straits the practice had usually been for two years; but in the Mauritius five years was the usual term. He would take leave to read to the House the Secretary of State's opinion of such indefinite engagements founded on advances, taken from his despatch of August 21, 1874, to the Governor of the Gold Coast, in Paragraph 20, in which he was considering how to provide for the abolition of native and domestic slavery. He said—
"But besides slavery proper there is a species of slavery called 'pawning,' which has its origin in contract, and the chief feature of which is that the pawn remains in servitude to a temporary master, as a pledge for debt."
A person whose opinion had great weight with him (Lord Stanley of Alderley), and he believed, would have no less with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, observed to him that before the Straits Settlements passed under the Colonial Office the immigration of Coolies from India was free, and as beneficial to the immigrants as it was to the Settlements. He (Lord Stanley of Alderley) believed that the cause of the change and of the necessity on the part of the Indian Government of imposing restrictions on Coolie emigration to the Straits had been the diminution of protection given to Coolies in the Straits, owing to the falling off in the quality and independence both of Judges and magistrates since the transfer of the Straits from the India Office to the Colonial Office. This falling off of judicial and magisterial quality seemed on the increase, and this downward tendency had been much advanced by the fact that summary jurisdiction formerly confined to the Government police magistrates, had recently lapsed into the hands of merchant and planter magistrates, who were not so well qualified. The noble Lord concluded by asking the Secretary of State for the Colonies to state the result of his inquiries into the death of two Indian Coolies from flogging in Province

1637
Wellesley; and to state what progress had been made in framing a law for the protection of Indian Coolies in the Straits Settlements.
Moved, That there be laid before the House, copy of the Law for the protection of Indian Immigrants.—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley).
THE EARL OF CARNARVON, with all respect to the noble Lord who had just sat down, declined to deal with all the multitudinous points to which he had referred. The noble Lord had asked, first, whether any precautions were to be taken against the abuses which had been shown by the Report of the Commissioners recently appointed to inquire into the matter to exist. The best mode of answering this was to refer the noble Lord to the despatch which he (the Earl of Carnarvon) had based upon the Re-port and sent out to the Colonies, and which contained a great deal of information upon the subject. That despatch contained 27 distinct recommendations, and as the noble Lord had only criticized two of them, the remaining 25 might be claimed on the other side. It had been asked whether precautions would be taken to prevent the property of intestate Coolies from being wasted; and he could only say that this was probably a point well worthy of legislation. But, as a matter of fact, it sometimes happened that, even in our country, the property of intestates was wasted; and, therefore, it was not surprising that something of the same kind should happen in a distant part of the world. He had read an article recently published in a review, and mentioned by the noble Lord; but he was unable to agree with its conclusion that the Coolie system amounted to a modified form of slavery. Abuses might exist in connection with the system; but he saw no insuperable difficulty in the way of dealing with them in the Mauritius or elsewhere. The noble Lord, in speaking on this branch of the subject, had mixed up the question of the importation of Chinese Coolies in foreign ships and from foreign ports, with the importation of Coolies from India and China in English ships, under the English flag and under English law. He was quite willing to concede that the importation of Coolies from Macao under the Portuguese flag had been attended with cruelties and horrors. "Whatever might have been the intentions of the
1638
Portuguese Government, there could be no doubt that atrocities were committed under her flag the like of which he utterly and indignantly denied had ever occurred in English ships. If abuses had taken place they had been exceptional. Sir Bartle Frere, in drawing a distinction between the condition of the Coolie in India and his condition in an English Colony, put the case thus: In India the Coolie could not, as a rule, earn more than 1½d. or 2d. a-day, and was nearly always on the verge of starvation. In the British Colonies, on the other hand, he worked only five days in the week, and earned 1s. a-day; if he took task-work, he received for each task 1s.; he was well lodged, he was provided with medical attendance when sick, he was protected by special legislation, protectors were appointed to watch over him, and in almost every Colony he was guaranteed a free return passage to his own country if he desired it at the end of his period of service. Those persons, therefore, who spoke of them as undergoing modified slavery, threw about their words with a recklessness and imprudence which was mischievous, if not something worse. The condition of the Coolie in the English Colonies might be inferred from some figures which he was in a position to give their Lordships. In British Guiana, in eight years ending in June, 1872, 2,100 Coolies returned to their own country, taking with them no less than £64,000 of savings. In 1872, 1,100 returned, with £44,000; and in 1873, 950, with £24,500. From Trinidad, in 1873, nearly 400 returned, with £11,500 of savings; in 1874, 330, with over £16,000; and, besides this, there was no less than £40,000 stored in the Bank of Trinidad by these Coolies; and 60 of them alone had succeeded in placing £6,000 in the Colonial Bank at interest. Their position in the Colonies could not, under such circumstances, be said to contrast disadvantageously with their position in their own country. He would take one more instance. In the Mauritius, in seven years, ending in 1872, no less than £24,000 was remitted by Indian Coolies to India; in 1873, 619 returned homo with £8,500; and between 1860 and 1871 the enormous sum of £93,400 was actually invested by Indian Coolies in land in the Mauritius. These figures were so remarkable that they called for

1639
no comment from him. As he had already stated, every Coolie was entitled to a passage back to his own country; but in British Guiana they constantly refused it and preferred to remain in the Colony, and the same thing happened at Trinidad and the Mauritius. He wished he could answer as satisfactorily another part of the noble Lord's statement—namely, that which referred to the grievous cases of harshness and ill-treatment which were said to have occurred on two estates in the Straits Settlements. On inquiry, it was found that no case had been proved in reference to the transactions on one of the estates—the Alma—but on the other there had been gross mismanagement and cruelty, which in the case of some of the Coolies had been followed by the most serious results. There was want of hospital accommodation, of medical treatment, and of proper dwelling-houses, and there had been severe corporal punishment. In this case there were found guilty, among others, two Englishmen; they were not the owners of the plantation, but one of them was the owner and the other was an overseer. Although the offence did not legally amount to murder, still it was of a very brutal character and might have helped to cause the death of the two unfortunate men. It was perfectly true that both sentences had been commuted; but one of the men, being convicted under a second indictment, subsequently underwent a period of four months' imprisonment. He could only say that he regretted the whole matter extremely, and took some blame to himself that he had not made use of stronger language in reference to it. In future the Government would take every precaution by legislation to prevent a miscarriage of justice in cases of the same nature, and with that view he had pressed upon the local Government for a new ordinance which should deal with such questions, and which would prevent injustice being done to the Coolies. Much consideration had been given to the matter, and communications had been held with the Indian Government and with his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, and the result had been that, although it was impossible to sanction all the proposals which had been submitted, still, so nearly was the business now concluded, that he hoped they might soon see the ordinance
1640
upon the subject. He trusted that a few days or a week would be sufficient for the purpose. He believed that he had fairly answered all the noble Lord's questions, and though they were questions which did not excite much interest in this country, yet they affected to a most important extent the condition of the Coolies. He felt, however, that do what the Government would in regard to legislation, there would always be some possibility of abuses springing up; but he hoped that by improved regulations those abuses would be reduced to a minimum.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he had heard the fair and able defence which had been made by his noble Friend in reference to the Coolie traffic, and was glad he was able to agree so cordially with much of what had been said. As he had himself taken part in this matter, he was unwilling to let the subject pass without making any remark. There were, no doubt, two sides to this question, the bright side and the dark one, which had been presented to their Lordships in respect of this particular instance in the Straits Settlements; but it would be unfair, unjust, and impolitic—and, indeed, most disadvantageous to the planters and to the Coolies, if they should rush to the conclusion that because abuses had occurred that there was no hope of a better state of things. As regarded the Mauritius, he was not one of the six persons referred to who had mastered the Report. It was exceedingly bulky, and required much study, and that was his excuse for not being better acquainted with the contents of that Blue Book; but he would suggest that the power which existed in the West Indies of depriving plantations of Coolie labour in case the Government should not be satisfied with the treatment of the Coolies should be resorted to in other Colonies, and he contended that Coolie emigration to the Mauritius should be entirely stopped if the Government there did not do what Her Majesty's Government required to be done. He was glad to find that new regulations had been made for the Straits Settlements, for it was not safe that Coolies should be employed in large numbers on any estate without special regulations being made for their well-being.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that he was entirely satisfied with the reply of the noble Earl the Secretary of State as to the Coolies flogged in Province Wellesley, and that their Lordships' time had not been wasted since that reply had been elicited. As to the savings of the Coolies in Guiana, that proved the faulty administration in Mauritius, and when the noble Earl said that the losses of intestate Coolies in Mauritius were the fault of the lawyers, he had forgotten that in this country there was a law for poor intestates to save them from inordinate legal expenses, and that quite recently their Lordships had passed a Bill of the same kind for intestate widows in Scotland. In answer to the noble Earl's denial that the statement of disasters and mutinies on board Chinese Coolie ships concerned England, and that such had never occurred in English ships, it was clear that the noble Earl had not read the Macao Blue Book, which was a Foreign Office Blue Book, since in the table there given out of 34 ships which had been set on fire, or on which the Coolies had mutinied, 14 were British, and 8 ships had sailed from the British port of Hong Kong. With regard to the Motion for Papers, as he had only set it down in order to secure for himself a reply, in consequence of the innovation in the practice of the House, by which the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had recently prevented a noble Lord (Lord Carlingford) from replying as he had made no Motion, he would withdraw it with the leave of the House.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

INDIA—OUDH AND KIRWEE PRIZE MONEY.

  ADDRESS FOR RETURNS.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD, in moving for—
  "Copies of Military letter from the India Office to the Government of India, dated 17th July 1873, No. 140., with its enclosures, in extenso, referring to an order of the House of Lords, No. 52, dated 10th July 1873:
  "Copy of Military letter from the same to the same, dated 4th February 1875, No. 36., upon the same subject."
  pointed out that the Correspondence related to prize money which was claimed by the troops who had served in India.
  1642
  In reply to the Order of their Lordships' House mentioned in his Motion, an imperfect Return had been sent from India after a lapse of 15 months, and it had been found necessary to return it to that country for correction. Great delay was thus incurred, and he begged to commend the matter to the attention of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, so that a speedy settlement of the claims in question might be secured.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he had no objection to produce all the Papers referred to, and that there had not been the slightest intention on the part of the India Office to prejudge the ease of the troops. He admitted that the time the controversy in reference to the distribution of this prize money had taken was a perfect scandal; but the fact was the inquiry was a large one, and the amount of business at the India Office was so enormous that other matters had taken precedence, and hence the number of years that had elapsed without a settlement of the matter referred to by the noble Earl. He would do his best to bring the subject to a satisfactory conclusion.
  Address agreed to.

EDUCATION ACT (1870)—CLAUSE 74.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in rising to ask the Lord President, Whether Her Majesty's Government will amend the Education Act of 1870 by substituting the words "boys and unmarried women" for "children" in Clause 74, said, their Lordships were aware that the police of Manchester had, at the bidding of the Manchester School Board, been making raids upon all the children of school age that they could find in the streets, in order to bring them into the board schools and compel their attendance. Now, by the Common Law of England, as their Lordships were recently informed by Lord Coleridge, it was lawful for a woman of 12 years of age to marry. Under these circumstances, the following case might any day present itself:—A Manchester working man might select for himself a bride of 12 years of age, marry her, and take her to his home, when in consequence of

  1643
  her absence from school for a week or a fortnight, the police or school board officials, on her first appearance in the public streets, might carry her off from her husband to hurry her away to the nearest board school. With or without a breach of the peace the case would then be brought before a magistrate for his decision, when the husband would plead his right to his wife's company at all times, under the Common Law, while the school board official would show that the Education Act gave him the right, and imposed on him the duty, of enforcing her attendance at school for another year. How would the magistrate decide in such a case, and what view would the Home Secretary adopt? The Education Act of 1870 was a very sacred thing, which no Government was disposed to meddle with. Would the Government be disposed to ask Parliament to enact that no woman should marry till she had attained the age of 13 and had completed her schooling? The Education Department might be willing to allow a woman to marry when 12 years old, and be free from school, if she had completed a certain number of attendances during the previous year; but that might be open to the same objection which was raised to a clause in the Artizans Dwellings Bill, that it would be resorting to the dispensing power. It was true that such cases might not be very frequent; but if they did occur they would lead to a conflict of law, and Her Majesty's Government could hardly say that they would not legislate for exceptions, when it was on the ground of these same exceptions that they rejected Clause 4 of the Offences Against the Person Bill, which extended the protection of the law given to young girls up to the age of 13.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the Government had already so much Business on their hands that he did not think it would be wise or convenient that they should at the present late period of the Session undertake to amend the Education Act of 1870 in the way suggested by the noble Lord. He could, however, assure him that if he would himself introduce a Bill for the purpose it should receive the best attention of the Government, though he could not promise that they would give it a very cordial support.

ARMY—HYDE PARK BARRACKS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN, in asking the Under Secretary of State for War a Question respecting the sanitary state of the troops quartered in Hyde Park Bar-racks, took occasion to refer to the conduct of the Knightsbridge Improvement Committee, expressing some doubt as to whether they had even effected any improvement in that locality, and declaring it to be his opinion that they might more properly be described as a committee for pulling down the buildings to which he was about to call attention. A deputation from the Committee had, he might add, waited some time ago on the First Commissioner of Works. He could not understand how Mr. Hardy should have handed over that deputation to the First Commissioner of Works, whose office was a civil one, and it was certainly filled by a very civil officer. He found fault with the First Commissioner of Works for having received the Deputation, as he was not competent to decide that question, and it was not to be supposed that Mr. Hardy ordered him to receive it. Nothing denoted the healthiness of barracks better than the absence of zymotic disease. He had obtained an account from the medical officers as to the health of the regiment—the Life Guards—during the past 18 years. The information thus supplied to him disclosed a degree of healthiness among the men which their Lordships would be glad to secure for themselves. In the Hyde Park Barracks there occurred only one death from zymotic disease in six years; while in six years at Windsor Barracks, there were two such deaths; and also two in six years at Regent's Park Barracks in the same regiment. At Knightsbridge there had been 29 cases of zymotic disease in the six years. Of these, 19 were of a simple character, five were small pox cases, two scarlet fever, and two typhoid fever. One death occurred from small pox, and the remaining 28 patients returned to their duties. The deputation that had waited upon the First Commissioner urged that either the barracks should be repaired, or they ought to be pulled down. Baron Worms said that scarlet fever had prevailed; that it would be exceedingly dangerous to retain buildings that were extremely bad in a sanitary point of view;

  1645
  that the barracks were a hotbed of fever, and might be the means of spreading that disease in the metropolis; and, as a ratepayer and an owner of property, he claimed protection from that danger. Baron Worms, he believed, was a German gentleman, who had come not very long ago to reside near that so-called den of filth and disease; and in his case they had a striking example of the great liberty of speech allowed in this country. He should like to ask what would have happened to Baron Worms under his own Government if he had used similar freedom of language in demanding the removal of the barracks from Berlin? Why, he would, probably, soon have found himself in a prison. Hyde Park Barracks were excessively popular both with the officers and the men who were quartered in them, and he denied that the accommodation they afforded was so insufficient as was alleged. There were more cubic feet of air in them per man than in any other barracks in the country. Mr. Lowe stated that the barracks were out of repair, and this was no doubt quite true. In a way that was simply disgraceful they had been left without repairs. It was said also that the barracks narrowed the road like the neck of a bottle, and that the traffic was in consequence seriously obstructed. This was an entire romance. He had not once seen a block of traffic at the barracks. With respect to a character of the regiment, on which the deputation seemed to have cast some reflection, he could only say that what was generally sought in a soldier was to be found amongst the Life Guards, than whom no regiment was more sober and regular. He had never met with a drunken man at the barracks. The police said the Life Guards were temperate men, and they never had but one case to deal with from the regiment; and that was a man who, having been unjustly taken up, was acquitted. The Hyde Park Barracks were no more a nuisance than those situated in Albany Street and at Windsor, and against which no complaints were ever heard. It was true, as alleged, that there was a serious nuisance in the neighbourhood; but the magistrates and the landlords, if they tried, could very soon put it down. When the safety of London, of the Government, and of Her Majesty, was imperilled, where would you put barracks for the purpose of meeting such
  1646
  emergencies? It would, of course, be necessary to make Hyde Park the base of operations. Two thousand Infantry, a considerable number of Cavalry and guns, must be brought there. Consequently, if the barracks did not exist it would be necessary to construct them for the safety of London. The removal of the barracks appeared to him to be simply a question of money, because no doubt the ground landlords thought the removal would increase the value of the land.
  THE EARL OF NORMANTONsaid, a great number of false issues had been raised and comments made upon them, and reckless statements—unsupported by even the smallest rag of evidence—had been uttered on all sorts of occasions against these barracks. As an inhabitant of that immediate neighbourhood he was able to assure their Lordships that these statements were untrue. Nor had there been any unanimous opinion expressed by those who resided in the neighbourhood in favour of their removal. It was possible, indeed, that a majority might entertain such a desire; but he knew that the matter had never been properly tested in any way. Besides, this was not a case in which the comfort or the convenience, or even the material interests, of the inhabitants of that part of the town ought to be solely consulted. He was not a military man, and therefore he would not presume to give an opinion, whether they ought or ought not to be removed. But the question was one which should be decided by the Government and the military authorities alone, who were responsible for the general well-being of the troops and the safety of the town. There was no ground of complaint with regard to their situation as to the approach to London. Because the width of the road was nearly the same for half a-mile, so that the removal of the barracks alone would be no improvement unless a much larger portion of Hyde Park was given up for the purpose of widening the road. The Chief Commissioner of Works since receiving the deputation had stated that he never meant to cast any imputation on the Household Troops. The memorial, however, contained very strong language, for it talked of the existence of Knightsbridge Barracks and its natural associations which defiled

  1647
  and vitiated the neighbourhood; but if inquiries had first been made the contrary would have been found to be the truth. The highest military authorities had said that the soldiers were not in the habit of frequenting the houses in the neighbourhood—that their conduct was good, and that they were always ready to assist the police in the execution of their duty. The police, too, reported even more favourably of their conduct. He hoped that those who were so anxious for the removal of these barracks would contrive so to discuss this question as not to find it necessary to have recourse to unjust, unfounded, and most unfair attacks upon the characters of the officers and men of what he believed to be the best conducted, best disciplined, most orderly and respectable body of troops not only in England, but in the whole world.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I agree in what my noble Friend has just stated in regard to the character of the troops quartered at Knights-bridge Barracks. I do not believe that in any part of the world could there be found three regiments so well conducted, in every respect, as the three regiments of Her Majesty's Household Cavalry that have been so unjustly attacked. It is all very well, my Lords, for gentlemen to say that it is a great inconvenience to have the barracks in their neighbourhood; but, if they felt that, why on earth did they come to the bar-racks? The barracks have not come to them, but they have come to the bar-racks, and if they choose to come to the barracks they must put up with any inconvenience or annoyances which may result. But I maintain that the annoyances of which the memorialists complain have nothing on earth to do with the barracks. It is the licensing magistrates upon whom rests the responsibility of keeping the neighbourhood in question in an orderly way. They licence the public-houses and places of amusement of which the memorialists complain. I should myself like to see every public-house in the neighbourhood closed; not because I think that the troops frequent them, but because of the temptation which they offer to men. In point of fact, the men of the Household Cavalry are not allowed to go into those houses; and I repeat that for myself I should like to see every one
  1648
  of them closed. There is no such thing in the neighbourhood of the Regent's Park Barracks; there is no such thing at Windsor; and if it exists at Knights-bridge the licensing magistrates are responsible for it. I do not blame the licensing magistrates for granting licences if they deem them to be necessary; but if there be complaints as to the character of the houses it is the business of the magistrates to cause them to be closed, or to be conducted in a proper and respectable manner. However, a much graver question arises as to the position of the barracks. We, no doubt, live in this country in peaceful and orderly times; and I hope that, with the blessing of God, they may long continue; but it would be unjustifiable if the military authorities shut their eyes to the fact of the possibility of something happening in a population so extensive in the Metropolis to cause disquiet. It is their bounden duty to look to it, though I hope the time will never come, but if it does, they could with this small nucleus of troops in the Parks—smaller, I believe, than any other country in the world could keep regularity and order in such an enormous community—preserve the peace of the Metropolis. The men ought to be placed, as in these barracks, in the heart of government—and Her Majesty's Palace, the Public Offices, and the Houses of Parliament are all in direct communication with the barracks. The late Duke of Wellington always said that it should never be forgotten that in this great City the Parks are the only military ground that we can occupy. I quite admit that some years since, when the Government of the day seemed disposed to entertain the idea of the removal of Knightsbridge Barracks, I said they might, if they liked, select Millbank as the new site; but I, at the same time, objected in the strongest manner to all removal. If Millbank be healthy now it certainly was not so some years ago. Indeed, it was so unhealthy that it was thought the convicts could not remain there; but though convicts could not live there, soldiers were to be stationed there. I say on principle it would be highly objectionable to remove the troops from Knightsbridge to any of the other places that have been pointed out. I hope this question may now be definitively settled, because I think that one

  1649
  of the reasons why the matter is again being agitated is the uncertainty which has been allowed to prevail in reference to it. I hope that the Government will come to a determination in the matter, and will say that the barracks are not to be removed from Knightsbridge. They will not find any other place so well suited for the purpose. Knightsbridge is not only well situated, but it is, in point of fact, the best Cavalry barrack that we have—best for the health of the men and most convenient. When any emergency arises, Knightsbridge holds more troops than any other bar-rack. We have had a whole battalion of Infantry and additional Cavalry there, and yet the ground which is now stated to be too small for the ordinary number of troops contained them all. If it be determined that the barracks shall remain where they are, then I think that improvements should be made in them, which improvements have, from time to time, been put off because it was considered doubtful whether the troops would, in fact, remain there. Great improvements might be effected at but little expense. The removal of the forage barn would be a great improvement, and a respectable front might be put to the barracks at a very moderate cost. As far as the convenience of the public is concerned, it seems to be forgotten that there are two roads passing the barracks—one for omnibus, cab, and other heavy traffic, and another for carriage traffic on the Park side of the barrack buildings. I have, however, no objection to the approach being improved; but that might be done by pulling down the houses opposite, which I should be rejoiced to see removed. By pulling down the objectionable houses opposite we should widen the road, whilst, at the same time, we should leave the barracks in a position which is essential for the security of the Metropolis and the requirements of the service. As I have said, I hope that the barracks will remain where they are, but will be considerably improved. If we could pull down the houses as far as the passage east of the barracks, I should be glad to have the additional room; but, at the same time, I am con-tent to remain upon the ground that we at present occupy. It is essential that it should be borne in mind by those who complain of the road being narrow in
  1650
  consequence of the barracks being there, they might very fairly be told that the new houses have come to the barracks, and not the barracks to the houses.
  EARL CADOGANobserved, that he had very little to add to what had been said on the subject, especially as he had not sufficient military knowledge to deal with the main question of strategical position. The matter had been warmly discussed, both in and out of Parliament. No doubt persons who were interested had a right to attempt to get these barracks removed; but then there was an equal right to protest against the means which they had adopted for the furtherance of their wishes. There need not be any surprise that owners of property in the neighbourhood should wish to improve that property, and that persons residing at Princes' Gate and other places should wish to have a broader approach and better access to their houses. It was, however, only fair to ask them to put their appeal upon this ground, and abstain from making entirely groundless charges against the troops in the barracks. With regard to the position of the War Office on this question, it was the opinion of the Secretary of State that the Department had nothing to do with the improvement in an architectural point of view of the part of London in which the barracks were situated: all that the War Office had to look to was to see that the barracks were good and useful in a military point of view, and that in a sanitary point of view they could show a pretty clean bill of health. The Question of the noble and gallant Earl referred to sanitary matters, and in reply he (Earl Cadogan) could say that these barracks were as healthy as any of the other barracks in which the Household troops were qartered in London. He had a report of the surgeon of the 2nd Life Guards, dated the 15th July, which said that there had been no fresh case of scarlet fever since the 14th June last, that there were only three non-commissioned officers and men who were suffering in addition to one woman and three children. Since the 10th of July no case of scarlet fever had been admitted to the hospital, and all the cases were now convalescent. He had another Return, made on Friday last, which said that there had been no further case of scarlet fever. He sent an Inspector to the barracks on Thursday

  1651
  last in reference to the state of the building, and the report was that there were repairs and alterations wanted, yet, upon the whole, it was in a very healthy state. He had nothing to add to those reports, except to ask their Lordships whether, in the face of the state of things which they represented, Lord Alfred Churchill was justified in characterizing the bar-racks as a foul fever den." The whole tone of the debate had pointed so completely in the direction indicated by the noble and gallant Earl who had originated it that it was unnecessary for him to say more upon the subject.
  LORD HAMPTONwished merely to say that when he had the honour of being appointed to the War Office the first thing he had to do was to meet a large deputation appointed to wait upon the War Office and the Office of Works to urge the removal of these barracks. He gave the strongest answer to the contrary, founded on the two reasons which had been stated by the illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cambridge)—first, that the houses of the objectors were brought to the barracks and not the barracks to the houses; and, secondly, that, in face of the fact that the buildings were in a military and sanitary point of view admirably suited for the purpose to which they were put, the country would not be justified in spending the large sum necessary for their removal. We might not always be in the same state of tranquillity as now, and a day might come when the population of London would be glad to know that the barracks were in their present position.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLbelieved that this was the best possible site in the whole of London for barracks, and therefore that nothing could possibly be said against the place on that ground. On the other hand, he thought that the existence of the barracks there was prejudicial to property in the neighbourhood, and, upon the whole, that it would be a considerable metropolitan improvement if the barracks were removed. He had not a word to say against those most distinguished regiments which had been in the barracks. He could not imagine that anybody could say a single word against the Household Troops; nor that anything could be said against the military position of the barracks, because everybody knew that, in the
  1652
  opinion of the great Duke of Wellington, in was a most excellent position. One thing, however, was clear, and that was that it was the duty of the Government to bring this question to a complete and final settlement one way or the other. So far as it was a question of metropolitan improvement it would, no doubt, be under the control of the Board of Works; but he hoped that it would not be made a shuttle-cock of, and bandied about from one Department to another without any settlement being come to. After a full consultation with all whom it was his duty to consult upon the occasion, he came to the conclusion that the barracks ought not to stand in the way of improvement, if improvement could be made; but he never said that the barracks should be removed upon military grounds.

  COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Copyright of Designs Act—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 211.)
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.