Lords Sitting of 2 July 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3) (111); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 4) * (104); Metropolis Improvement Provisional Order * (118); Metropolis Improvement Provisional Order (No. 2) * (119); Metropolis Improvement Provisional Order (No. 3) * (120); Metropolis Improvement Provisional Order (No. 4) * (121); Supreme Court of Judicature (Funds, &c.) * (130).
Committee—Report—Inclosure Provisional Order (Hildersham) * (115); Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) * (116); New Forest Highways * (101); Forest of Dean (Highways) * (98).
Report—Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Fraserburgh Waterworks) * (63).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) * (73); Sea Fisheries * (127); Stolen Goods * (105), and passed.

TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 111.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 111.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD SUDELEY LORD SUDELEY moved, as an Amendment, to withdraw the name of the Woolwich and South-East London Tramway from the title of the Bill. He said that the Board of Trade had power, under the Tramways Act of 1870, to grant Provisional Orders, provided they

  3
  had the consent of the local and road authorities. When the matter was brought before them, it was alleged by the agents that the Woolwich Local Board were the only local authority, and their consent was produced. It afterwards—when the Bill was before the House—transpired that the Metropolitan Board of Works claimed to be the local authority under the clause of the Act. Under these circumstances the Board of Trade decided to have the question argued before them, and the decision they arrived at was that the consent of the Metropolitan Board was necessary. As the matter now stood, therefore, the Order was ultra vires, and the Board of Trade had no other course but to ask the House to allow this Order to be withdrawn.
  Amendment moved, in the title of the Bill, page 1, leave out ("Woolwich and South-East London Tramways.")—(The Lord Sudeley.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he maintained that there was no reason for imputing any fraudulent intentions to the promoters of the Bill. The Woolwich and South-East London Tramways were already in operation, and the Provisional Order in question only related to about 12 chains of a new line. The Company was advised that the Board of Works was not the local authority. It was, no doubt, a legal question whether or not the claim of the Metropolitan Board of Works was well founded; and it would be a hard case on the promoters to lose the benefit of all the expense which they had incurred in relation to the Bill.
  LORD SUDELEYobserved, that on the 12th of February the Tramways Company received notice from the Metropolitan Board of Works stating that they considered themselves to be the local authority.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House resumed; and to be again in Committee on Tuesday the 10th instant.

NEW GUINEA.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD LAMINGTON,in rising to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he has received any official information that the Victorian Government, in
  4
  concurrence with the other Colonial administrations, is taking steps with the view of urging on the Imperial Government the importance of annexing the New Hebrides, the Solomon Islands, and other groups in the Pacific; and if he will state how far any colonial government is justified in annexing territory, or even in advising a policy of annexation, without the previous consent of the Imperial Government; and to move for Papers, said, the question was a very important one. It was perfectly clear that it had originated with the Victorian Government, in consequence of what occurred in Queensland with reference to the annexation of New Guinea. From what occurred, from time to time, in "another place" he understood that Her Majesty's Government had not made up their mind yet whether they approved or disapproved of the policy of the Government of Queensland. As far as his own feelings went, he must say he thought this question of annexation a very dangerous one. He really did not know what right they had to talk of annexing certain islands one day and an enormous extent of country another day. The word "annexation" was a very grand word, just like the word "suzerainty." They were governed by grand words; but annexation, to his mind, seemed almost spoliation. He did not see what right they had to act so, except upon the principle—
  "That they may take who have the power,
  And they may keep who can."
  The noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby), as far as he could gather from observation of what occurred, agreed with his view of annexation. The noble Earl, in answer to a deputation from the Aborigines Protection Society, that waited upon him last February, with reference to the proposed annexation of the New Hebrides, used these words—
  "All I can say is, that I am glad to observe that no suggestion has been made by any speaker, that we should ourselves annex these islands or establish a Protectorate over them. Annexation is not looked on with favour in this country."
  He was glad to hear that from the noble Earl. At the interview to which he referred, the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was present, and the noble Earl undertook that the Government would endeavour to come

  5
  to a formal understanding with France to preserve the independence of the New Hebrides. The real object of these annexations was one connected with the Free Labour Question. What, he asked, occurred the other day in Queensland? As soon as the annexation of New Guinea was effected a ship was sent from Port M'Kay to look for labourers, whose condition, if not slavery, would certainly amount to servitude. There was abundant evidence to show that servitude would be their unhappy lot. One of the most distinguished of our Colonial Governors—Sir Arthur Gordon—in answer to a deputation which waited upon him on the eve of his departure for Fiji, said—
  "I trust that, in the exercise of the large powers with which it is, I believe, intended to intrust me, on Her Majesty's High Commission in Western Polynesia, I may be enabled materially to check, if not wholly to suppress, those acts of piratical violence which have excited such just and general reprobation throughout the civilized world."
  An influential paper published at Melbourne said—
  "Another wail of sorrow and disgrace has reached us from the South Sea Islands—another series of catastrophes has to be chronicled—another page in the history of traffic in regard to Polynesian labour has to be written in blood. The news received last week, on the arrival of the Rhoderick Dhu, labour vessel, at this port, is perfectly appalling; but such is the deadening power of being accustomed to the recital of such scenes, that the effect appears to have been but small in the minds of the community generally, and in the Legislative Assembly more particularly. In the House we find what is in effect a defence of the hideous system by the Premier of the country."
  And Commodore Wilson used these words—
  "I can hardly imagine anyone not interested in getting cheap labour for a moment countenancing the labour trade, or the employment of Natives by traders and others. Only a few years ago (1860 and 1865), and even later, much indignation was felt in England because the French Government sanctioned what was known as the 'engage trade' between their Colonies and Africa. Such was, I know, from personal observation on the spot, nothing but the Slave Trade under a new name; but I ask what is the difference between the engaged African and the Native labourer recruited from the South Sea Islands? I certainly can see none. If anything, as the African originally cost more, being the more valuable animal, his plight was probably the best. It would, undoubtedly, be best entirely to stop what is known as the Polynesian labour traffic."
  The number of Natives imported into
  6
  New South Wales from 1876 to 1881 was 2,345; into Victoria, from 1873 to 1880, 1,959; into Queensland, within a comparatively few years, the large number of 17,329; into New Zealand, from 1871 to 1881, 338; into Fiji, between 1864 and 1869, 1,649, and between 1874 and 1880, 7,395. The Melbourne Argus said—
  "We have good reason to believe that the Imperial Government is elaborating a scheme for the better government of the Western Pacific and the regulation of the labour traffic. It can hardly be doubted that under existing arrangements many atrocities are perpetrated on the Islanders by labour collectors and their agents. After making every allowance for exaggeration, sufficient evidence remains to show a state of affairs that cannot he allowed to continue without disgrace to civilization."
  It was said that New Guinea had iron mines, gold mines, and so on; but was that a good argument for annexing it? The same kind of argument might be used to justify the breaking into a rich man's house. He now came to the second part of his Question, which was—what were the powers and what the limits of authority of Colonial Governments? If this kind of action was tolerated, one Colony after another might proceed to make annexations. He would ask, were Colonial Governments to be allowed to put this country into what might be called "a fix?" He should have thought that any Colonial Governor, before pursuing such a policy, would have to ask the permission of the Colonial Office. He confidently hoped that the noble Earl opposite would be able to say that the Government were not disposed to sanction this policy of annexation. He begged to move for Papers on the subject.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for further papers relating to the proposed annexation of New Guinea."—(The Lord Lamington.)
  LORD NORTONsaid, he wished to express a somewhat different opinion from that of his noble Friend. He wished to protest against the assumption that annexation by British Colonies of adjacent unoccupied territory, subject to subsequent approval by the Crown, was so unprecedented a thing as his noble Friend seemed to suppose. The policy which his noble Friend had called into question had marked every period of our Colonial history, especially the most brilliant. A very considerable number

  7
  of the Colonies we once had in America, which were now, in consequence of an unfortunate episode of contrary policy, independent States, were annexed to the British Crown in that way. Those Colonies were, indeed, self-maintained and self-defended, and had contributed their Forces to aid us against our common foreign enemies. It was because we had lost that high spirit of colonization that such fears were expressed. It was because we looked upon Colonies now rather as Dependencies which we had to support than of a growth of Empire of equal freedom with ourselves that we were afraid of annexation. The first great sign of the decadence of the Romans was their restricting and drawing in the outskirts of their Empire, considering that those spreading extremities were a burden upon them, and were unable to support themselves. If, however, we adopted the same principle, we should not have the same fate, because our Colonies had too much of the spirit of growth in them to be stifled by a repressive spirit at home. The British Sovereign could not persistently refuse the offered allegiance. The only question was, whether, when annexation became necessary, the Colony itself should undertake the work, or the Imperial Government should assume the actual government of the new territory and constitute it a Crown Colony; in short, whether the annexed territory should be a new Colony, or should form part of an old one? He could not agree with the noble Lord that Colonies would be likely to misuse their power in annexing countries half occupied by barbarian tribes by maintaining the Slave Trade, or by confiscating Native property; but were we to assume that even if any attempt were made to take such a course, we should be powerless, through their local government, to prevent it? Why could not the Queenslanders take slaves from New Guinea now if they desired? His only objection to the taking of Fiji was that it was made a Crown Colony instead of being annexed to New South Wales. Possibly, the now proposed annexation would be better made by an united Australian action. He held that it was better that old Colonies anxious to annex practically unoccupied territories in their own neighbourhood, and to bring them safe from foreign interference within their own administration, should be allowed
  8
  to do so, than that we should have innumerable little Crown Colonies scattered all over the world, involving the British Government in a thousand intricate questions and responsibilities, hindering commerce, and placing on the shoulders of the British taxpayers an enormous and useless expenditure, and all this in the teeth of our experience in the best Colonial policy which this country had ever known.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that the Motion of his noble Friend (Lord Lamington) referred to two questions. First, to the possible annexation of the New Hebrides and the Solomon Islands; and, next, to the instructions that were to be given to Colonial Governments and Governors. The islands in question were, no doubt, closely connected geographically with Fiji, New Zealand, and the Australian Continent; but, as it appeared to him, their annexation was not a matter of pressing importance. If the Government received any application or recommendation on the subject from the Colonial Governments, it was to be hoped they would carefully consider it, and watch the course of action of any other Power with a jealous eye; but he would not at this moment urge the case of the New Hebrides upon that point. He now passed to the terms of the Motion, which embodied some of the most extraordinary propositions he had ever heard. The Notice began by asking the Colonial Secretary how far any Colonial Government was justified in annexing territory, or even in advising a policy of annexation, without the previous consent of Her Majesty's Government. In ordinary circumstances, a Colonial Government was, of course, not justified in annexing territory proprio motu, and without communication with the Imperial Government; but extraordinary circumstances might not only justify, but even compel such an act. Indeed, the whole history of our Colonies showed that they had been originally acquired by the voluntary and spontaneous action of captains, Government officers, travellers, and commercial adventurers, necessarily without the knowledge of the British Government, by whom they were afterwards accepted and taken over. The Government was free to accept or decline the annexation of new territories, and they always had the final power in

  9
  their hands; but to lay down an abstract principle contained in the Question of his noble Friend was too preposterous to be considered for one moment. The next part of the Notice—that, namely, which asked whether Colonial Governments were justified in advising a policy of annexation without the consent of Her Majesty's Government—was so surprising that he was at a loss to know whether his noble Friend could be serious. It would be foolish, indeed, to issue such an Order. The question of the annexation of the Southern Coast of New Guinea was vital to the Australian Colonies; and if it was to be stopped, what else was to be put into the category of prohibition? The Colonists of Australia were just as loyal as we were, and they desired the right of free speech; and his noble Friend must know extremely little of the temper and condition of the Australian Colonies when he made such a proposition. Could his noble Friend possibly think that Colonial Governments ought to be forbidden even the expression of their opinion, or that they would be rendered dumb by an Order from the Colonial Office? But, perhaps, his noble Friend alluded rather to Colonial Governors than to Colonial Governments. The position held by Colonial Governors was a peculiar one, and if they were required to act according to the strict letter of their instructions they would often fail to fulfil the great functions they had to discharge. The position and duty of a Colonial Governor varied considerably—in some cases he was a sort of Constitutional Sovereign, in others he acted as an Adviser of the Colonial Government, and also of the Home Government; and many a Governor whom he had known had stood in this trusted position between the Colonial and the Home Governments with the confidence of both. Therefore, if the noble Lord meant that the Colonial Governor was to withhold the expression of his opinion to Her Majesty's Government, that was a proposition equally preposterous to the previous one. He wished now to enlarge somewhat on the terms of the Motion, and to ask what was the opinion of the Government on the subject of the annexation of New Guinea? He was a little surprised that no announcement had yet been made on this question, especially as a long interval had
  10
  now elapsed since the discussion of the subject in the House, and the Government could not be supposed not to have come to a decision. In the course of the discussion to which he had referred, he had guarded himself very carefully against expressing a definite or distinct opinion as to what should be done; but the Papers that had since been laid on the Table of the House had made it possible to form a decided conclusion. Everyone, probably, would admit the unwisdom of sanctioning the annexation of the whole or part of New Guinea to the Queensland Government, because Queensland, though a prosperous and thriving Colony, had not more than 250,000 of population, and £2,000,000 of income, and had not at present developed her resources sufficiently to enable her to bear so great a burden; but the time had, in his opinion, come when the Government might determine what steps should be taken with regard especially to the Southern seaboard of Australia. As to slavery or abuses in the labour trade, it was very easy to rake up extraordinary stories from the Colonial newspapers; but the importation of labour was placed under very strict statutory restrictions. The Governments and Governors were doing their duty in that part of the world; and there was not much fear of real abuses. His noble Friend had confounded the action of half-a-dozen Colonial Governments. To talk of labour trade in New Zealand was absurd; and as to the abuses in Fiji, the matter was admirably regulated there a few years ago, and he had never heard of anything to lead him to believe there had been any retrogression since. The simple reason why the Australian Governments desired some action on the part of Her Majesty's Government was, that they dreaded the establishment of any Foreign Power on the Southern Coast. It would be a monstrous thing if any Foreign Power were to take up a position on the South Coast of New Guinea. When the question was raised in 1876, he, as Colonial Secretary, had no fear of the action of any Foreign Power; the Government had taken the precaution to satisfy themselves; they stated so publicly, and their confidence was justified by the result; but a great change had occurred since that time. It was impossible for us to shut our eyes, and still more for the Australian Colonists,

  11
  to whom this was a matter of life and death, to shut their eyes to the recent action of France, whose rulers had publicly proclaimed their desire to have a Colonial policy, and who were taking action in Tahiti, the Congo, Tonquin, Madagascar, and possibly other parts of the world. The establishment of a Penal Colony by France or any other Power on the Southern Coast of New Guinea would be simply an intolerable nuisance, and the establishment of an armed fort would be a menace to the Australian Colonies. Torrens Straits would cease to be English territory, and the result would be to throw an enormous military burden on the Australian Colonies. We could not understand this question as the Australians did; as it was to them a matter of life or death, they could hardly view the matter from our cold and impartial standpoint. Another reason why the matter could not be overlooked, and why definite action on the part of the Government seemed to be necessary, was that there was great risk of a sort of Alsatia growing up on the coast. The two shores were 60 or 70 miles apart; the quiet summer sea could be crossed in open boats; commercial intercourse was growing up; and there was every probability of disputes arising between the Natives and the White population. Sir Arthur Gordon was alive to this danger, and reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was incumbent on Her Majesty's Government to consider whether they should not take some steps in the matter. It was absolutely necessary that some discipline should be enforced on the coasts, and the question was how it was to be done. In an analogous case we had enforced discipline by means of what was called the Pacific Islanders Protection Act, which had worked admirably. It gave power to the High Commissioner of Fiji to exercise very large powers indeed, and the result had been to put a stop to most of the practices which his noble Friend seemed to think existed at present. There were three classes of persons requiring to be brought under discipline—Englishmen, Natives, and foreigners; but this Act applied to Englishmen only; and it was clear that, unless its powers were greatly enlarged, it would not be adequate to meet all possible risks; there was an analogous power on the Gold Coast, which was British territory, and it worked admirably,
  12
  because English officials had full powers on the coast, the interior being left to take care of itself. The question first came distinctly into view in 1876, when he was Colonial Secretary, and when applications were made for the annexation of the whole or part of New Guinea. The Fiji Islands had just been annexed. He had thought it his duty to propose to the Australian Colonies that this fresh addition to Imperial liabilities should not be undertaken solely on the responsibility of this country. It did not appear to him to be reasonable that the British taxpayer should be required to pay for it exclusively; and he proposed that each of the Australian Colonies should make a moderate contribution to the outlay. That proposition was declined, though the general sense of the Colonists was very far, indeed, from being unfavourable to it. Soon afterwards a question was raised as to New Guinea; and he repeated the proposal he had made in the case of Fiji, pointing out that it would be unreasonable and unjust to impose the burden on this country exclusively. He explained his views fully, and intimated that he was not discouraged by the answer he had received, and that he considered the question of annexation by no means closed; and, in fact, as only in abeyance. In a few years his anticipations had been completely justified. The Australian Colonies had adopted, in the case of New Guinea, the policy he had invited them to adopt in the case of Fiji; they had expressed themselves ready to accept the entire burden of the expense, and to leave the administration to Her Majesty's Government. In all the circumstances, it seemed to him that it was the duty of the Government to consider whether they could not meet the Colonists. The question was, comparatively speaking, little understood at home, and we could scarcely appreciate the interest it had for the Australians. He hoped the noble Earl the Colonial Secretary would not only weigh his words carefully, but would show that he had hearty sympathy with these great and noble Colonies.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid he did not think there was anything improper or preposterous in the Question which the noble Lord (Lord Lamington) had asked. He only asked for information. The subject was one on which

  13
  there had been no official declaration for a long time, and Parliament and the public would be glad to hear what were the views of the Government as to the relative positions of this country and the Colonies. In his opinion the noble Lord had done good service by bringing the subject forward.
  THE DUKE OF MANCHESTERsaid, it was a gratification to hear the declaration of the noble Earl the late Colonial Secretary in favour of annexation. He was certain, from his knowledge of those countries, that the noble Earl did not say a word too much; and he hoped that those arguments would have weight with Her Majesty's Government in whatever decision they might come to on the point. The noble Lord who brought forward this subject had observed that the labour traffic was a mere subterfuge for slavery. He could assure the noble Lord that that was not at all the case. The inhabitants of Queensland were no more inclined to practise slavery than any of their Lordships. In Victoria and New Zealand there was no coloured labour at all. In Queensland the labour was very jealously guarded. The electoral franchise was very low, and the majority of the electors, who belonged to the labouring classes, were very jealous of any coloured labour. They had imposed a tax of £10 a head on immigrants from China, and the coloured labour was restricted to the sugar estates on the coast in the tropical part of the Colony. The coloured labourers were introduced only for a period of three years; they were subject to inspection; and at the end of the term they had to be sent back by the persons who employed them. True, there were abuses of the labour traffic in some of the Islands; but the only way to stop these abuses was to take the Islands and govern them. In fact, this was an additional reason for annexing them whenever it appeared practicable.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he thought that the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) took rather a rose-coloured view of the state of the labour traffic in these territories. He wished to take exception to the expressions of the noble Lord (Lord Norton), who found fault with the manner in which the noble Lord who introduced the discussion had blamed annexation. "Annexation" was a word entirely foreign to the English language; it was
  14
  invented by the Americans to make that which was wrong appear to be right.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I do not know that it would be of any advantage that I should take part, either as a disputant or as an umpire, in the interesting conversation which has been carried on on the other side of the Table. I quite agree with my noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon), who was formerly Secretary of State for the Colonies, in one proposition which he has uttered as to the terms of the Question which has been put to me. My noble Friend opposite (Lord Lamington) gave Notice of his intention to ask me to state how far any Colonial Government is justified in annexing territory, or even in advising a policy of annexation without the previous consent of the Imperial Government. Well, my Lords, I apprehend that the right of offering advice, or, rather, as I should say, of expressing the wishes and feelings of a Colonial community, is one with which no one could desire to interfere. It is most essential that we should know, whether we agree with it or not, what Colonial feeling is upon questions of this kind; and I am very happy to find that the system which has been of late established of giving to the Agents General for the self-governed Colonies what I may call a quasi-diplomatic character and position has made it much more easy than it formerly was for any person holding the Office which I have the honour to hold to obtain accurate and constant information as to the opinion which prevails in the Colonies themselves on local matters. I do not think there is any use in discussing the general argument as to whether annexations are desirable or not, and if they are to take place, whether they should be effected on the responsibility of the Colony, or on the responsibility of the Home Government. You cannot lay down in such matters any hard-and-fast line. Circumstances differ so much that no two cases resemble one another, and no one case can be quoted as a precedent for others. Speaking generally, I should say—and I think it is the universal feeling of this country—that our responsibilities are already heavy enough, that our Possessions, scattered, as they are, over every part of the world, are sufficient to require the utmost care and vigilance, and that it is not desirable to increase

  15
  either the one or the other. No doubt, if, as in this case it has happened, a Colonial community itself, desiring an increase of its territory, undertakes to bear the burden, and to take upon itself the administration and the expense, that is a circumstance which alters, to some extent, the position. At the same time, I think that my noble Friend on the second Bench (Lord Norton), who has taken for many years past a warm interest in Colonial subjects, carried his doctrine of Colonial independence a little too far when he contended that a Colony should be left free in its external policy, as well as in the administration of its internal affairs. There is a very wide difference between the two. Whatever a Colony does with regard to its own affairs affects principally—indeed almost exclusively—those by whom the legislation is undertaken; but when you come to the question of external policy and of annexation, or of extension, other considerations come in, since the annexation even of an island in the Pacific may raise a question of foreign policy in which the Imperial Government is very deeply concerned. I do not think, therefore, it can be denied that questions of this kind are questions on which the Imperial Government ought to have, as it actually has, a controlling power. Now, my Lords, passing from these general considerations, I think the best answer I can give to the Question of my noble Friend will be to state briefly, and with no more comment than is absolutely necessary, what has actually taken place. When I last spoke on this subject some weeks ago, I told your Lordships all that I knew; but I knew very little. I knew nothing more than that a ceremony, purporting to be an annexation of New Guinea, had been gone through at the order of the Government of Queensland, and that an explanation of that singular and unusual proceeding was about to be sent home. Well, of course, before expressing any opinion upon the matter, it was necessary to hear the explanation that would be given. I have now received it, and I am bound to say that it does not throw much fresh light upon the transaction, and that it does not in any way satisfactorily account for the action that was taken. The explanation given comes to no more than this—I shall shortly lay it on the Table—that there were
  16
  strong reports throughout Australia of the intention of some Power—nobody knew what Power—to seize upon some part—nobody knew what part—of New Guinea. I endeavoured to ascertain the origin of these reports; but it does not appear that there was a shadow of evidence forthcoming to substantiate them. They were simply a creation of the anxiety felt by the Colonists in this subject; and, as a matter of fact—and, of course, I have taken all possible pains to inquire—we are tolerably well assured that, as regards the leading European Powers—that is to say, the only Powers that are at all likely to interfere in such a matter—no such intention is entertained. My noble Friend who was formerly Colonial Secretary (the Earl of Carnarvon) referred to certain designs which he ascribed to France, and he used an argument which seemed to me to cut both ways, and rather to tell against his case than in favour of it. He said—"Look at what the French are doing to build up a Colonial Empire in other parts of the world—in Tonquin and Madagascar." If the French Government, whether with or without the will of the French people, have already undertaken two considerable Colonial expeditions, and, in all probability, have involved themselves in two Colonial wars, that is about as good a security as we could have that they will be not in a hurry to have a third complication of the same kind on their hands. To return, however, to the original question, considering that telegraphic communication existed between Queensland and this country, it would not have involved a delay of more than 24 hours to have asked for the sanction of the Imperial authorities before proceeding to this act of so-called annexation. If, therefore, the Queensland authorities did not apply for leave, it can only have been in consequence of their entertaining decided and, perhaps, a reasonable apprehension that the sanction they asked for would not be granted. And now, my Lords, as to the effects of this formal proceeding, the noble Earl (the Earl of Longford) wants to know—and he has a perfect right to know—what are the rights and powers of Colonial Governors in such matters. I apprehend that the effect of the action of the Governor of Queensland is simply null. A Governor or any official holding authority

  17
  under Government exercises that authority within the limits of the jurisdiction assigned to him; but beyond those limits, as I understand the matter, his commission does not go; beyond those limits he ceases to be invested with any official power, and an act, therefore, done by him beyond his jurisdiction is of no more validity, in regard to its legal effect, than the act of any private person. The action of the Governor of Queensland, therefore, in this matter, has left things where they were. Of course, it may be said that any person, even though not invested with official power, may take possession of a newly-discovered country in the name of the Czar; but it cannot be contended that New Guinea is an undiscovered country, and I do not think it will be contended that if any passing traveller, of whatever nationality, were to claim that he had taken possession of New Guinea such an act would be held to be valid according to International Law. Now, then, the question arises, what is the course which the Government will be prepared to take? My Lords, I may say, at once, we are not prepared to undertake the annexation of New Guinea. I do not suppose that that decision will be any great surprise to your Lordships or to Parliament. The enormous extent of territory, the absolutely unknown character of the interior, the certainty that the large Native population, numbering several millions, would object to foreign annexation, and the enormous expense of undertaking to administer such a territory, are all reasons which, I think, will be admitted as valid against that course being taken. Even, if upon the general question of annexation, we had come to a different conclusion, I think your Lordships will agree that it would be practically impossible that the Government of Queensland should take upon themselves the work of holding and administering that country. Queensland has already vast unsettled territories. It is a very prosperous and promising Colony; but it is a Colony whose population is exceedingly small in comparison with the extent of the country. I think if you look at the map you will see that the capital—Brisbane—is something like 1,000 miles distant from the nearest point of New Guinea. If, therefore, anything is to be done in the way of conquering and administering New Guinea, one thing is clear—that it
  18
  must be done by the Imperial Government, or by the Australian Colonies acting together, or by both those agencies combined. New Guinea is too important to be made the Dependency of any Colony. I can quite understand the Australian feeling as to the Coast of New Guinea being a country which lies within the scope of British influences and interests. I purposely use vague and general language; but undoubtedly we should not view it as a friendly act if any other country attempted to make a settlement on that Coast. Further than that, we shall be prepared to strengthen the hands of those charged with preserving order in the Pacific Islands; and we shall consider, with the help of the Colonial Governments, the different means which may be tried for better securing the order of the country, so far as British adventurers are concerned. It may be said—"It is quite true you may get jurisdiction over British subjects, and perhaps over Natives; but you will have no jurisdiction over foreigners." It is a question how far we may obtain jurisdiction over foreigners; but that can only be done by means of negotiation. As to the Natives, I believe it would be seldom necessary to exercise jurisdiction over them, if their rights or their lands were not interfered with. I do not know that I have anything to add, except that I shall be prepared to lay upon the Table in a few days the Correspondence that has passed. There is not very much of it, because I have already given your Lordships and the other House of Parliament the earlier Correspondence. I ought to mention, in further answer to the Question my noble Friend has put to me, that I have received within the last few days a suggestion or proposition very much larger than that for the annexation of New Guinea only. I had an official representation made to me by the Agents of the various Australian Colonies, speaking, and authorized to speak, in the name of their Governments, to consider proposals—first, for the annexation of New Guinea; secondly, of the New Hebrides; thirdly, of the Solomon Islands and the Islands in the neighbourhood of New Guinea; and, fourthly, of those very large and almost entirely unknown islands which lie to the north and north-east of New Guinea, and which occupy, collectively,

  19
  an area larger, I should think, than that of France or Germany. I could not hold out any great hope that Her Majesty's Government would see that question in the light in which it would be viewed in Australia; but I am bound to recognize the fact that the Australian people in general, although they certainly do not want any extension of territory for their own sake, are very strongly impressed with the danger which they suppose to lie before them if any Foreign Power, great or small, were to establish themselves in a settlement some hundred miles from the Australian Coast. I cannot say I share in that fear. I think they underrate their own powers and their own importance, and that they have really no such cause for fear as they suppose. But, at the same time, the existence of a general opinion of that kind among the great majority of the inhabitants of such a country as Australia is a thing that no wise Minister in this country would ignore; the question which they have raised will have to be considered in all its bearings. They did not ask for any immediate action to be taken; they simply wished to lay their views before Her Majesty's Government, and I have asked them to place those views on paper, so that they could be laid before the Cabinet for the consideration of my Colleagues. What I said to these Colonial Agents I will repeat now—
  "If the Australian people desire an extension beyond their present limits, the most practical step that they could take, the one which will most facilitate any operation of that kind, and diminish in the greatest degree the responsibilities of the Mother Country, would be the confederation of those Colonies in one united whole, which would be powerful enough to undertake and to carry through tasks for which no one Colony is at present sufficient."
  I do not dwell upon that point. I only throw it out here as I did to those gentlemen who did me the honour to call upon me; but I think that is really one of the points of the greatest possible importance in dealing with this subject, and certainly in dealing with other Australian questions which are certain to arise in the future.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: There is one question I should like to put in regard to extension. I understood it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take some measures to enforce better discipline on the Southern
  20
  Coast of New Guinea. I should like to know whether it is proposed to do this by any fresh Act of Parliament, or simply by an Order in Council?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: It only requires an Order in Council. I do not apprehend that any further Act of Parliament will be required.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: Do you propose to proceed by the same machinery—the High Commissioner of Fiji?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: At present in the same way. If that machinery is defective, it is open to us to consider in what way it may be remedied.
  Motion agreed to.

TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN, LEASING AND PERPETUITY ACT, 1851.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNG-WORTH,in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into and report as to the position, under the Trinity College, Dublin, Leasing and Perpetuity Act, 1851, of the grantees and sub-grantees in perpetuity of lands held under grants made in pursuance of the said Act, and as to the position of the occupying tenants of such grantees and sub-grantees; and to inquire and report as to the variations effected in the rents reserved by such grants made subsequently to the date of such grants, and as to the provisions of the said Act regulating such variations; and to inquire and report as to the justice and expediency of further legislation to alter or repeal any of the provisions of the said Act,"
  said, he was in no way personally interested in this business—indeed, he had no property at all in Ireland. He had been asked, as an independent Member of the House, to bring forward the question by an enormous body of men who were the tenants and sub-tenants under Trinity College; and solely with the view of removing the hardships from which they suffered he submitted this Motion. The estates of Trinity College were very large, comprising some 200,000 acres. These had been for some hundreds of years let to about 40 or 50 tenants, who had afterwards sub-let them to several hundred other tenants. The original plan of the lettings to the head tenants was by 21 years' leases, renewable on the payment of an annual fine of 5s. 6d. in the pound. This fine was paid every year, so that the tenant always had a

  21
  period of 21 years before him. The incomes of the Senior Fellows of the College were made to depend upon these fines, and it was alleged that they could not be altered because the Fellows would suffer thereby. Subsequently, these leases were corrected and altered by two Acts of Parliament—one was an Act passed in the Reign of Charles I., and the second in the Reign of George III. The old system continued down to the year 1848, the year of the Famine, when the tenants had difficulty in paying the rents; and the consequence was that the governing members of the College became alarmed, and made an application to the Government to change the constitution of the College, and enable these fines and rents to be paid into the College, and the Senior Fellows to be paid out of the general fund. The Government, however, refused to grant their request, as it would be unfair to the tenants, and enable the College, by abolishing the renewal fines, to run out the leases, and practically to amend them. They promised to see justice done. In 1850 a Bill was brought in by the Government, which was backed with the names of the Chief Secretary (Sir William Somerville) and the Solicitor General for Ireland. This Bill did not pass into law, but was followed the year after—1851—by a Private Bill, brought up practically by the Government, but which was not backed by the Members of Parliament then sitting who were tenants of Trinity College. It provided, amongst other things, that instead of 21 years' leases with the old annual fine, perpetuity leases should be given to the grantees on payment of an extra rent, and there was a covenant which bound the grantees to give perpetuity leases also to the occupying tenants. The immediate effect of the change was to increase the original rental of the estates by about one-fifth. The rents were subject to a decennial valuation based upon the prices of certain articles of agricultural produce; but among them potatoes and flax, two of the staple articles of Irish production, were omitted. He maintained that the valuation of the property, as authorized by the Act of Parliament, was unfair and unworkable. He did not mean it was unfair in the ordinary sense of the term, but that a very odd standard of valuation was adopted, which was one certain to increase
  22
  the rent without having regard to the general prosperity of the country. The result of the valuation and the consequent increase of the rents of the immediate grantees was this—that if they should ask a proportionately high rent from the sub-grantees they would ruin the latter, and if they should refrain from asking a high rent they would be ruined themselves. Moreover, the fact of these persons being householders precluded them from receiving the benefit of the Land Acts; so that on one side of a hedge they might have a person with his rent reduced by the Act of the Land Courts, and on the other side a man whose rent was raised by the Act of 1851. The question did not affect merely a few persons, but an enormous number of people; the sub-grantees were several hundred in number, and their case was certainly one of great hardship, and ought to be inquired into. It might be suggested that inquiry was not called for, because if the grantees found themselves in a difficulty it was their own fault, as they had entered into a contract and they must abide by it. To that he replied that no proper contracts had been entered into by the parties whose cause he was advocating, and that the transactions which had occurred were such as did not leave them free to contract or not as they might wish. But though the tenants protested, they were advised to accept the conditions, and practically they had no other alternative. There were several other points which he would have liked to have entered into; but he would not trespass too long on the House. He appealed to their Lordships whether this was not a matter more or less for their consideration. The justice of the case, he thought, would best be met by the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the facts. He felt sure their Lordships would not be willing that injustice should be done to a worthy class of people, even if they were few in number, and much less so when they numbered hundreds. He therefore appealed with confidence to the House to agree to his Motion, which he should press to a Division.
  Moved, "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into and report as to the position, under the Trinity College, Dublin, Leasing and Perpetuity Act, 1851, of

  23
  the grantees and sub-grantees in perpetuity of lands held under grants made in pursuance of the said Act, and as to the position of the occupying tenants of such grantees and sub-grantees; and to inquire and report as to the variations effected in the rents reserved by such grants made subsequently to the date of such grants, and as to the provisions of the said Act regulating such variations; and to inquire and report as to the justice and expediency of further legislation to alter or repeal any of the provisions of the said Act."—(The Lord Zouche of Haryngworth.)
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, he must compliment the noble Lord on the clearness, and, from his point of view, the fairness of the statement by which he had supported his Motion. He was obliged, however, to dissent from the noble Lord's conclusions. It was very doubtful what could be the object of a Motion of this kind. The noble Lord asked for a Royal Commission to inquire as to the provisions of the Trinity College Act of 1851, and the positions of certain parties under it. But there was no need of any inquiry whatever. The Act of 1851 was as plain as any Act of Parliament that was ever passed; and there could be no possible dispute about the position under the Act, either of
  "The grantees and sub-grantees in perpetuity of lands held under grants made in pursuance of the said Act," or of the occupying tenants, or about "the variations effected in the rents reserved by such grants made subsequently to the date of such grants," or "as to the provisions of the said Act regulating such variations."
  There remained only one other thing—and that contained the gist of the noble Lord's Motion—namely—
  "To inquire and report as to the justice and expediency of further legislation to alter or repeal any of the provisions of the said Act."
  At first sight that demand seemed a very just and reasonable one; but, to those who looked below the surface, it was plainly a suggestion to Parliament to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the expediency of breaking certain leases made under Act of Parliament. Such a proposal was not likely to find much favour on his (Earl Cairns's) side of the House. It was the same as if it were proposed to have a Royal Commission to inquire into the expediency of revising the conditions of any of their Lordships' leases. The property was chiefly situated in the North of Ireland, and was leased out. The rent which Trinity College received was £33,000 a year, which was considerably
  24
  under the Poor Law valuation; and, therefore, the rents could not be said to be excessive. The Act of 1851, which was mentioned in the Question of the noble Lord, had its origin, like many other Acts, both English and Irish, in the unthrifty and unsatisfactory dealing with property by ecclesiastical bodies. In old times, it was the habit of Ecclesiastical Corporations, when not restrained by law, to let their lands below their proper value, and to compensate themselves by the imposition of large fines. This course, however, was interfered with by legislation, which provided for the proper duration of leases, and ordered that the rent reserved should be at least half the value of the land. The result was the renewal of leases from year to year, on payment of an annual fine for renewal. In the year 1849 or 1850 considerable difficulty was experienced by Trinity College in obtaining payment of these fines; and, after an application by the Provost and Senior Fellows to the Lord Lieutenant, a scheme was arranged in accordance with which the whole question was settled by the Act of 1851. It was to be noticed that this Act contained many provisions extremely favourable to the tenants, and that it gave effect to many of the suggestions of those who acted for them in the negotiations. That Act laid down the conditions on which leases were to be granted; and, as the rents were partly based on the current prices of produce, permitted the revision of rents as the prices varied. Ten years after the passing of the Act, prices having risen very considerably, the College thought themselves entitled to a revision of rents, and a revision was made, the cost of which, amounting to £3,000, was paid by the College. The middlemen, having had their rents increased, passed on their increase, and required it to be paid by the occupying tenants; and, under the Land Act, the occupying tenants had come into Court against the middlemen, and had had their rents reduced. The middlemen, therefore, no longer received augmentation of rent from the occupying tenants. The College did not shrink from inquiry into the management of its property; but there was no necessity for it, for all the facts were upon the surface. This being the case, he could not support the present Motion.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he thought the case was one for inquiry. The inquiry need not be a long one, but would be one attended with satisfactory results. There was no suggestion of any breach of faith on the part of the College; but there were many facts too complicated to be brought out in debate, and which ought to be inquired into. The whole case seemed to point to the expediency of the purchase, by a public authority, of the estates of Corporations in Ireland. He was a Member of one which, finding its income reduced, was obliged to withdraw many of the grants it had hitherto made to schools and for educational purposes.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, it was not his business to enter into the merits of the question as between Trinity College and the grantees. The Government did not think it their duty to advise Her Majesty to issue a Commission of Inquiry; that was the view of the Lord Lieutenant when the grantees addressed him not long ago, and the Government did not see any reason to differ from him. He did not agree that inquiry would be short and simple, and would easily dispose of the matter. The facts of the case were perfectly easy to ascertain, and were on the face of the documents that were always accessible to their Lordships. The real object of inquiry was not the desire to obtain additional information, but the desire to recommend fresh legislation for the purpose of obtaining the revision by Parliament of the terms of the Act of 1851, under which the arrangements were made between the College and the tenants. The Government did not deem it their duty to take a step which would involve them in such a responsibility on the application of one of the parties. They were told that the action of the Government in 1851, in introducing a Bill, was a reason why the Government of the present day should accede to this Motion. But he did not agree in that inference. There was no doubt the Government of that time did take a considerable part in the arrangements between the College and its tenants. But that action, which was in the nature of mediation, was taken at the request of both parties, and not upon the application of one party. The Government was now asked to proceed on
  26
  different lines at the request of one party. A word or two had been said as to the bearing of the Land Act on this question. In his opinion, the Land Act and its operation had practically nothing to do with the question. He admitted that rather an unpleasant light had been thrown upon the standard of valuation under which the College exercised its powers of altering the rents. The College, under the provisions of their Act of 1851, did possess very formidable powers of increasing the rents of their lessees; but those powers had been exercised moderately. And, Land Act or no Land Act, it was clear that the occupying tenants would not have been able to pay the full rents. It must, however, be remembered that the tenants were not coerced at all to accept the arrangement. If there were any coercion at all it lay in the undesirable nature of the property, which was very different from that of land held in fee simple. Although the facts would not justify the Government in interfering in the way in which they were asked to interfere, yet those facts furnished a motive to the College for great moderation in the exercise of their powers—moderation which he was bound to say the College had thus far shown. It was impossible for the Government to assent to the Motion of the noble Lord.
  LORD FITZGERALD,in supporting the Motion, remarked, that the system of sub-grantees gave the College a better security for their rents. This was a matter involving the interests, not merely of 38 tenants—that might be a small matter for their Lordships' attention—but of an enormous number of sub-grantees also; for he knew that in one county alone—Armagh—the number of sub-tenants was 500. The decennial valuation based upon the price of produce was a most unwise power to have given the College. In justification for having used the word "unwise," he might quote from the inquiry by the Devon Commission the evidence of a witness who represented Trinity College, and who was one of the ablest men of his day—namely, Dr. Longfield. Being asked if he considered the prices of produce a fair test for the giving of rent, Dr. Longfield replied that he considered it perfectly impossible to form an accurate opinion of the proportion existing between produce and rents, adding, the

  27
  political economists all agreed that there was no fixed proportion between them, and the rent must depend upon the state of the country at the time, and, at the same time, upon the state of the land. He (Lord Fitzgerald) had no doubt whatever the arrangements of 1857, as embodied in the 12th clause of the Act, authorizing those decennial valuations, was too liberal towards the College side. It might not have been unfair at the time it was made; but let them see whether subsequent and changed circumstances had not made it a great injustice. Up to 1870 there was no difficulty; but, since that Act passed, it had been impossible to exact from the occupying tenants the rents demanded by the increase which had been made. Since 1851, no less than 32 per cent had been added to the rental of the College. The College was entitled to exact the full average value of the land; but the value of the land did not mean now what it meant in 1851. This was not a private estate. It was an estate granted to Trinity College for great public purposes, and the whole community, as well as the immediate tenants, were concerned in the question. The tenants were not asking for any abatement or decrease of rent. They were not seeking to break any lease or perpetual grant. They asked only that these decennial increases should cease. He regretted the decision of the Government; but an inquiry must be held some time. It was obvious that an injustice existed. They were bound, in some way or other, to meet it; and the remedy ought to be preceded by a short inquiry.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he thought that, as everybody's holdings were being interfered with, and leases were frequently set aside, Trinity College ought not to be the only privileged body in Ireland.
  LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNG-WORTHsaid, he felt bound to press his Motion to a Division.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 9; Not-Contents 29: Majority 20.

  CONTENTS.

  Lucan, E.

  Denman, L.

  Fitzgerald, L.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.) [Teller.]

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  28

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L. [Teller.]

  Stewart of Garbles, L. (E. Galloway.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Braye, L

  Richmond, D

  Carlingford, L

  Clan William, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Annesley, E

  Bathurst, E

  de Ros, L

  Cairns, E

  Ellenborough, L

  Derby, E

  Forbes, L

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Granville, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Morley, E.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Redesdale, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Ha warden, V.

  Thurlow, L.

  Truro, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Resolved in the negative.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.