Lords Sitting of 19 May 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Berwick-upon-Tweed, &c.)* (85); Veterinary Surgeons* (87).
Committee—Tramways (Ireland) Acts Amendment (74); Inclosure Provisional Orders (Scotton and Ferry Common)* (64); Regulation Provisional Order (Langbar Moor)* (63); Regulation Provisional Order (Beamsley Moor)* (62); Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* (65); Inclosure Provisional Order (Wibsey Slack and Low Moor Commons)* (71).
Committee—Report—Stolen Goods*(60–86). Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Bath, &c.)* (77); Local Government (Highways) Provisional Order (York)* (78), and passed.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANS VAAL—THE COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I wish to ask the noble Earl opposite, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, a Question of which I have given him private
782
Notice. I have seen in a London newspaper a telegram, dated Newcastle, Tuesday, in which it is stated that—
"The Commission has arrived at a very important decision with reference to the non-delivery of the Potchefstroom guns. They have determined that until the guns are surrendered they will not enter the Transvaal."
I should like to know, Whether that statement is correct; and, if so, whether it will involve any suspension in the business which the Commission has to transact? It is also reported that—
"There is news from Pretoria that commandeering on an extensive scale is going on there for war against the Native chief Montsuine, who remained loyal to us. The natives near Pretoria are coming in there in numbers to escape being commandeered by the Boers."
If this be true, the fact is incompatible with the supposition that the Boer Leaders are enforcing their decisions upon their followers; and if such a state of things were allowed to continue, it may result in fatal consequences. I will not trouble the House at present with any further comments on these two statements, except to observe that they are statements of extreme gravity.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, it was decided a month ago that for various reasons, and especially the absence of telegraphic communication with the Transvaal, the Commission should sit at Newcastle, in Natal, and we have not heard of any proposal to change the place of meeting. The most recent intelligence of any disputes between the Boors and Native tribes was received on the 12th instant, when Sir Evelyn Wood reported that Major Buller and Mr. Joubert were going to the Keete Award territory to part the Boers and the tribe of Montsia, a Bechuana Chief. It is not stated that the Boers were commandeering Natives.

AFFAIRS OF TUNIS.
POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION.
EARL DE LA WARRgave Notice that he would postpone his Motion relative to the affairs of Tunis till an early day, when he hoped that the Papers promised by Her Majesty's Government would be upon the Table of the House.
EARL GRANVILLE: I beg to present to the House Papers with respect to the affairs of Tunis. I hope that a large portion of them will be in the

783
hands of your Lordships to-morrow; but I can scarcely hope that they will all be delivered by that time.

TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACTS AMEND MENT BILL.—(No. 74.)
(The Lord Monteagle.)
COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 5 (Regulations as to speed of locomotives on tramways).
THE DUKE or RICHMOND AND GORDONwished to draw attention to the fact that, while the width of road on which tramways might be constructed was reduced from 25 feet to 18 feet, the cars were authorized to run at a speed of 10 miles per hour. It seemed to him that there was no necessity for such a speed, and that it could not be unattended with danger to the public.
LORD MONTEAGLEobserved, that in regard to tramways in the neighbourhood of London, similar to those sought to be authorized by the Bill, a speed of 10 miles an hour had been agreed to by Parliament. The tramways were to be constructed in country districts; but even in the case of cities, such as Bristol, a speed of eight miles through busy streets had been sanctioned.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONthought that oven in country districts 10 miles an hour was too high a rate of speed.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he could not concur in that opinion, and hoped their Lordships would not adopt the over-cautious view of the noble Duke.
THE EARL OF COURTOWNin supporting the clause, said, that the consent of the Grand Juries of the counties in which the tramways were to be constructed was required; and they were well acquainted with the roads and with the nature of the traffic which might be expected to be carried over them.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to, with Amendments: The Report thereof to be received on Tuesday next.

PARLIAMENTARY PRINTING.
QUESTION.
LORD MONTEAGLEin rising to call attention to the "First Report of the
784
Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office," lately presented to Parliament by command of Her Majesty, said, that the Report showed a very great increase in the cost of stationery and printing during the last few years, but that a saving, estimated at £55,000, had been effected by making certain changes in the contracts for printing. It was a remarkable fact, that whereas in 1823 the cost of the Stationery Department had been only £68,000, it amounted last year to £460,000. It appeared that each House had a separate printer, and this involved in some cases duplicate printing, the cost of which could be saved if both Houses had the same printer. Their Lordships' printing was done at a much more moderate rate than that of the other House; and the figures seemed to show that a considerable saving might be effected if the printing contracts of the Houses were subject to competition, as were the printing contracts for the Government Departments. He, therefore, begged to ask, in the terms of his Notice, Whether Her Majesty's Government proposed to institute inquiries as to the possibility of effecting improvements in the printing and publishing of Acts of Parliament, and other Official papers?
LORD THURLOWsaid, the Report to which the noble Lord had called attention was one of considerable interest, being the first of its kind presented to Parliament by a Department which had been steadily growing in importance ever since its creation, just 100 years ago, and which now exercised annual control over upwards of £500,000–its gross expenditure in 1879–80 being £568,377. In reply to the Question of the noble Lord, he had to state that the Report of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office had received the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government, who proposed to institute inquiries as to the possibility of effecting improvements in the printing and publishing of Acts of Parliament and other Official papers. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, this Inquiry should take the shape of a joint Committee of both Houses; and the exact scope of the Reference to that Committee would remain to be hereafter determined, but would certainly include a revision of what was known as the "promulgation list," a somewhat anti-

785
quated and obsolete document, more particularly described at page 12 of the
Report. It would also include all points connected with the printing, storage, and publication of Acts of Parliament, Orders in Council, and Parliamentary Papers which required consideration. The Committee would further inquire in what manner the many reforms and economies recently introduced and proposed in Her Majesty's Stationery Office might best be supplemented and carried out. The Report was a singularly concise and satisfactory document, and would well repay the perusal of all interested in the subject. He begged to give Notice that on that day week he would move on behalf of Her Majesty's Government for the appointment of the Committee in question.

INTERNATIONAL LAW—RIGHT OF ASYLDH FOR POLITICAL OFFENDERS.
QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
LOED LAMINGTONasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether the report is true that certain Foreign Powers had made representations to them respecting the right of asylum for political offenders in this country; and, if so, whether the correspondence will be laid on the Table? He attached considerable importance to the report, because early in April the German Parliament all but unanimously passed a Resolution advocating International Treaties for the prosecution and extradition of persons guilty of attacks against the Chiefs of States. It was pointed out that the attempts of the Nihilists and other political refugees were often directed not only against one, but against all Governments, and therefore the action taken should be of an international character. Instigation to these crimes was to be regarded as conspiring, and the nationality of the offender was to make no difference in the application of the law. To provoke to murder was more wicked than to murder, and to tempt more devilish than to fall. Their Lordships would agree with him that the feeling abroad was almost universal that there should not be any right of asylum in the case of political murderers, or would-be murderers. In Austria it was proposed recently in the Reichstag that a Treaty should be negotiated with other Governments to extradite foreigners guilty of
786
the offence of conspiracy to assassinate Sovereigns. In 1876, even Belgium,
which was one of the freest countries in the world, declared that an attack on or murder of any Sovereign or of any member of his family was without the pale of the right of asylum. His attention was drawn to a meeting held in this City, on the 16th of April, at the rooms of the Slavonic Club, Hampstead Street, Fitzroy Square, which was attended by persons of all nationalities, when it was proposed and carried—"That this meeting expresses its profound sympathy with the martyrs of liberty hanged at St. Petersburg;" and it was added—"The present Czar must not think that he would reign long if he did as his father had done." He was perfectly aware of the difficulty the Government had to deal with in this matter; but though Englishmen had a right to pride themselves on the fact that England afforded a safe asylum for political refugees from all nations, still, when such a Chamber as that of Belgium had taken measures to provide against the abuse of the right of asylum, wo ought not to neglect co-operating with other countries in the endeavour to exclude conspirators from our midst, and those who did not hesitate to instigate to murder. He trusted, therefore, that Government would not hesitate to give a favourable reply to any representation which might be made to them on the subject by foreign Powers.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord has spoken under some misapprehension of the facts of the case. No representation has been made to Her Majesty's Government in regard to the right of asylum for political offenders. This question has been repeatedly raised, and the decision of this country is now so well known abroad that it is not likely that any representations will be made again. In 1852 I held the Seals of the Foreign Office only for two months; but during that short time it was my duty to issue a Circular in answer to strong representations from all the Great Powers on this subject. In that Circular principles were laid down on which the right of asylum to political offenders was granted. First, it was laid down that foreigners had a right to be admitted and to reside in this country; secondly, being here, that they had a right to

787
the protection of our laws, but at the same time they were amenable to them; and, thirdly, that the Government had no power to send them away from the country except under the conditions of Extradition Treaties. That Circular went on, on the other hand, to denounce in very strung terms the flagrant abuse of the hospitality given to foreigners in attempting to incite insurrection in the countries they belonged to. It was formally stated that Her Majesty's Government would exercise all legal powers at their command to prevent such attempts being made. That Circular was very much criticized in many parts of the Continent; but, I believe, it was universally acknowledged in this country to be a sound exposition of the national doctrine On the subject. Ten years ago, when it happened that I was again at the Foreign Office, I had a similar representation from the Spanish Government. I made an answer, and in so doing put into a more condensed furor the same statement and phrases. My despatch was presented to Parliament as the Circular had been, and I think, I am not mistaken, there was no one person, either in this House or the other House of Parliament, to call it in question, excepting my. noble Friend Lord Lamington). I might farther allude to another circumstance that no doubt all remember—namely, what occurred at the time of the Orsini attempt on the life of the late Emperor of the French. Count Walewski wrote a strong letter at that time, not discreetly worded, reflecting on the state of our law in relation to the conduct of refugees in this country. Lord Palmerston's Government, having considered the subject, came to the conclusion that there was something in our laws which required amendment, and prepared a Bill by which the crime of conspiring to murder or inciting to murder, whether the murder was to be in this or in any foreign country, should be a felony, and not a misdemeanour, as it then was. Upon that occasion the matter was very carefully considered in the Cabinet. As it is so long ago, I may mention that I remember hours being spent in discussing the Bill and the prudence of presenting it to Parliament at that time As we were about to separate, the despatch of Count Walewski was referred to, and Lord Clarendon said—
788
"How am I to act with regard to the despatch? I think I had better not answer it at all." Lord Palmerston said—"I think that will be the best way." And in that the whole of the Cabinet acquiesced without saying a word. The Bill was introduced and read a first time without comment; but on the second reading was opposed not only by Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Cobden, and Mr. Bright, but by Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Gladstone, and Lord John Russell, and the result was that they obtained a majority, and the Government of Lord Palmerston was destroyed and a Conservative Government was formed. The ground the majority took in opposing the Bill was not objection to the improvement of the law, but to no answer having been sent to Count Walewski to vindicate the state of our laws. A year or two later that improvement in the law was agreed to without a single dissentient voice in a clause of another Bill. I only mention this to point out how exceedingly jealous the feeling of this country has been, and how strong I believe it will continue to be, in case of any notion of foreign interference with regard to our own domestic legislation. I have said that no representation has been made this year with regard to the right of asylum. I am glad to repeat that that is the case. What has happened is this. The Russian Government applied to Her Majesty's Government, with the approval of the Government of Germany, to join a Conference to consider what practical measures should be adopted in order to prevent criminal efforts on the part of certain associations, but guarded herself against any interference with our internal laws. I do not think, my Lords, it is surprising, after the frightful catastrophe of the murder of the late Emperor, that Russia should have desired, among other means of dealing with Nihilism, to seek the co-operation of other Powers. It is certainly no feeling of sympathy with Nihilism that has induced Her Majesty's Government to think it would not he advantageous to join such a Conference. If Nihilism means, as it seems to do, a general war against the laws and institutions of organized societies, not by appeal to opinion, but by murder and other crimes, it is the duty and the interest of this country to oppose and to punish it

789
by all the legal means in our power. To go beyond those legal means is impossible; but we believe those means are sufficient for the purpose. It seemed to us that to join the Conference would not have led to any practical results, but would have had a contrary effect as to the objects proposed. In no country has the national indignation against such crimes been more strongly shown both in and out of Parliament than in England; but I am convinced that to accept the Conference would not have been approved by Parliament or by the nation. But this refusal only makes it more incumbent upon us to exert all legal powers to prevent acts prejudicial to foreign and friendly Governments, more especially with regard to murders, whether such murders or attempts to murder are directed against private individuals, or against Sovereigns and Chiefs of States.
VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Law relating to Veterinary Surgeons—Was presented by The Lord ABERDARE; read 1a. (No. 87.)
House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.