Lords Sitting of 3 May 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Heading—Artizans Dwellings * (82); Municipal Elections* (83).
Second Reading—Explosive Substances (75); Tramways Orders Confirmation * (69).
Third Reading—County Courts * (57); Glebe Lands (Ireland) * (47), and passed.

GERMANY AND BELGIUM.

  ADDRESS FOE CORRESPONDENCE.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I rise to move that an Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copies of the recent Correspondence between the Governments of the Emperor of Germany and the King of the Belgians, with an account of the steps taken to ascertain the truth of the allegations referred to in the said Correspondence. As your Lordships are aware, a Correspondence has taken place between the Governments

  1945
  of the two countries which has been communicated to Her Majesty's Government, and you are also aware of the statements that have appeared as to the nature of that Correspondence. From all we have been able to learn it would appear that Germany has asked that certain laws should be passed by Belgium which should give additional security for the maintenance of friendly relations between the two countries. Prom this it would appear that the two countries are not in such amicable relations as could be desired. The Correspondence of the German Government is in a friendly tone. It states that the Powers of Europe generally have not provided for the punishment of offenders against the amity of nations at peace; that there is a want of completeness in those laws on the part of Belgium; and that the want of such provision is now felt by Germany; and therefore in the most friendly tone and terms the Government of Germany asked for those laws which it has requested the Belgian Government to have passed in Belgium. The Correspondence is complete on the part of Germany. With respect to Belgium, I am not at all sure that the Belgian Government has made its answer—its final and complete answer—and I ask the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs for information on that point. The question raised by the Correspondence is one of very considerable interest to this and other nations. A person fully competent to give me information as to the state of the law in this country—namely, the late Lord Westbury—has laid down two peremptory principles as the test of friendship of a foreign country—the one being the punishment of offences against the Queen's person, and the other of offences against the Queen's amity. Undoubtedly the competency of the law to deal with this second class was long ago recognized by the legal authorities of England and by the Executive Government, because a person was indicted for issuing a publication inciting others to assassinate the First Consul, the then ruler of Prance. I may observe also that it was the late Lord Westbury's opinion that every State in Europe ought to have laws sufficient to prevent the offence of inciting to the murder of any ruler of any foreign nation with which the particular State was at peace. It appears
  1946
  to me that this is a very important question. If that be a good principle of International Law, it appears to me that it would be very desirable that both Germany and Belgium should conform to it. As to Belgium, the rumour is that the Belgian Government holds that the present state of the law of that country does not admit of any action being taken for the punishment of any outrage against a foreign Government which was not attended by overt action. Then the Correspondence seems to pause. Perhaps the noble Earl the Secretary of State will say whether there is any final decision to be expected; whether Belgium is able to point out those portions of her own law which render her unable to punish persons inciting to offences against the rulers of foreign nations, or whether her Government is ready to propose laws which would enable her to maintain amicable relations with foreign nations in this respect. The last part of my Question is an inquiry as to the steps taken to ascertain the truth of the allegations referred to in the Correspondence. They are of a character on which I do not care to pronounce any opinion. One allegation is that a person named Duchesne, a Belgian subject, and domiciled in Belgium, when in a state of intoxication expressed his intention to assassinate Prince Bismarck. Another is that this person wrote letters to the Archbishop of Paris, offering to murder Prince Bismarck on payment of a certain sum of money. The truth of this story it is impossible to ascertain; but this I must say—that I think the proposal to have laws to punish any person who states it is his intention to act against the person of a foreign ruler—whether that ruler be the First Consul of France or whether he be Prince Bismarck—is a proper one, because it is plainly impossible to allow the suggestion of such outrages, and at the same time to preserve that amity which should exist between nations at peace with one another. I ask the noble Earl, therefore, whether he can inform me whether any steps have been taken towards any legislation such as I have indicated? This is a question which materially affects this country, because, as the noble Earl is aware, we have promised to guarantee the neutrality of Belgium, and therefore, whether Belgium is fulfilling all her obligations to foreign

  1947
  Powers and has laws by which she can deal with persons who threaten the assassination of men in high office in Germany, or whether she declines to have such laws, is a matter of great importance to this country. It is obvious that if we are required to guarantee the neutrality of Belgium, and she declines to have such laws, a very embarrassing question might arise, requiring the grave consideration of the Powers who have guaranteed her neutrality. I am, therefore, anxious to know from the noble Earl whether it is true that Germany has asked Belgium to have laws passed to prevent the offence to which I have referred; and whether, if Belgium declines to do that, she is prepared to punish under existing laws persons guilty of such an offence? As I have mentioned, our own laws were strong enough to convict a person who had published in this country a libel against the first Napoleon, and who would have been punished, only that war broke out between England and France at the moment. I ask the noble Earl whether, if Belgium has not such laws at present, her Government will propose to the Legislature such laws as will tend to preserve those amicable relations which should exist between herself and the other Powers of Europe? It appears to me that the law which prevails at present in this country—which pledges us, in fact, to prosecute those who commit such offences against friendly foreign nations, and under which Lord Ellenborough in his day would have punished offenders—is a good one, as tending to preserve the peace of Europe. I shall not go further at present; but I hope the noble Earl will be able to give your Lordships the information for which I have asked him in the few observations I have addressed to your Lordships' House.
  Moved, that an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty for, Copies of the recent correspondence between the Governments of the Emperor of Germany and the King of the Belgians, with an account of the steps taken to ascertain the truth of the allegations referred to in the said correspondence.—(The Earl Russell.)
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am sure that neither the noble Earl nor your Lordships will think I am wanting in the respect which I should wish to pay him and the House if the reply I make to the questions he has just
  1948
  put is necessarily brief and couched in somewhat guarded terms. Though I am ready to state any facts which may be within my knowledge, and which I am at liberty to make public, I think your Lordships will feel that there would be no advantage in my going into a general discussion of the question which is pending between the German and the Belgian Governments in this case—especially as the Papers are not, and, for a reason which I shall presently state, cannot be now before your Lordships' House. My Lords, with regard to the production of those Papers, I conceive that they are not mine to make public. They were communicated to me by the German Ambassador in London: and when I asked whether I could publish them, I was requested to consider them as confidential for the present. When the noble Earl (Earl Russell) put his previous Question to me a fortnight ago, the second of the Papers of the German Government had been placed in my hands in the course of that afternoon, and I was able to give an opinion—though only a hastily formed opinion—of its contents. By a singular chance the answer to that Paper has been placed in my hands only within the last three-quarters of an hour. I have not had time, therefore, to study it with any care, and I think your Lordships will understand that I am reluctant to give an imperfect and hasty, and therefore an inadequate and perhaps even an unfair, summary of its contents. I understand that the Correspondence will shortly be laid before the Belgian Chambers, and that a debate will be taken on it in that Assembly; and when those Papers are communicated by the Governments which are primarily concerned in their contents, there will, of course, be no difficulty in our producing them and circulating them in this country. But, as they are to be shortly laid before the Belgian Parliament, I think it would be the fairer and more convenient course to allow the Belgian Government to tell its own story in its own way. It will, therefore, be enough for me to say that there is nothing in the Correspondence on either side, as far as I can learn, of an unfriendly character, and nothing in it in the nature of menace. The question between the two Governments may be very fairly described—as the noble Earl has described it—as a question whether

  1949
  the Belgian law is in certain respects sufficient to satisfy the admitted requirements of international relations. That is a question on which no Foreign Minister ought to express an opinion without a fuller and more careful examination of the laws of other countries than I have been able to make at present. I may add that no appeals have been made on either side—either by Germany or Belgium—to the guaranteeing Powers. Her Majesty's Government have watched, and will continue to watch, this question with close attention and with the deepest interest; but I do not think that any advantage would be gained for the good relations between those two countries, or for the peace of Europe generally, by volunteering at this stage an uncalled-for interference in a case which has been only partly heard.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, that after what had fallen from the noble Earl, he would postpone his Motion to a subsequent day. He had no wish to hurry the noble Earl in the production of the Papers.
  Debate adjourned to Friday, the 14th instant.

EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES BILL.
(The Lord Steward.)
EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES BILL.

  (NO. 75.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the present state of the law with respect to explosive substances was very unsatisfactory. The existing Acts dealt only with those explosive substances which might be classed under the general name of gunpowder: but from the inquiries made by Major Majendie and the testimony given by other persons who had devoted attention to the subject, it would appear that there was an absence of legislation with regard to the manufacture, storage, transport, &c. of several large groups of explosives; there was an absence of regulations for the prevention of accidents; there was inadequacy in the regulations for localizing and protecting the public from the effects of possible accidents; there was an inadequacy of the provisions with regard to the inspection
  1950
  of places where explosives were manufactured and stored, and an absence of regulations with regard to the retail trade in explosives. In addition to those, there were several miscellaneous defects in the existing Acts, such as inelasticity, unsatisfactory nature of the provisions for the punishment of offences against the Acts, imperfect wording, and want of homogeneity. In the three years, 1868, 1869, and 1870, the number of serious accidents from explosive substances in England and Wales was 64, and the number of deaths resulting from them 129. The Bill dealt with the subject under four main divisions. Part I enacted a general law relating to gunpowder, its manufacture and storage; licensing and regulating the storage and sale of gunpowder for retail purposes; and for its safe conveyance by road or otherwise. Part II. contained the law relating to other explosives. In the first place, it regulated the application of the provisions of the first Part to other explosives; it prohibited the manufacture, importation, storage and carriage, of specially dangerous explosives, with necessary provisions in favour of makers and users of explosives for manufacturing and mining purposes, and of small firework manufacturers. Part III. provided for the due administration of the law by Government or local supervision; and Part IV. contained supplemental provisions, legal proceedings, exemptions, and definitions. There were special provisions respecting the application of the Act to Scotland and Ireland. The Bill, which had come up from the Commons, had been shown to be necessary by many recent disasters, and especially by the lamentable catastrophe which occurred within the metropolis last autumn. The noble Earl then moved that the Bill be now read the second time.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, on Friday next.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.