Lords Sitting of 10 July 1883

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Channel Tunnel.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Poor Relief (Ireland)* (140); Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Cornwall)* (142).
Committee—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2)* (39); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3) (111).
Report—Pawnbrokers (136–141).
Third Reading—Tramways Provisional Orders* (110), and passed.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— STANDING COMMITTEES.

  NOTICE OF QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that seeing the manner in which Public Business was going on in the other House, as evidenced by the speech of the Prime Minister "elsewhere," and thinking that some measures which the Government were anxious to pass would not come up to their Lordships' House in time to be properly considered, he wished to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether some of those Bills which had been before the Grand Committees could not be brought before their Lordships' House at once, in order that they might have some attention given to them—he referred to the Bankruptcy Bill, the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill, and the Patents Bill? If it was possible to do as he suggested, a great deal of time would be saved; the measures would be more fairly considered, and both Houses would be kept employed. If the noble Earl preferred it, he would give Notice that, that day week, he would ask him whether there was any intention on the part of the Government that those Bills which had passed through the Grand Committees should be introduced into their Lordships' House at once? The Bills referred to had already received the sanction of an important Committee of the other House, and they would go down to the other House with an additional weight if they had also the approval of their Lordships.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was much obliged to his noble Friend (the
  920
  Earl of Redesdale) for giving him timely Notice of his Question, and he would confer with his Colleagues to see whether anything could be done, though he did not see how Bills which were passing through the other House could be brought before their Lordships at present. He should, therefore, like to know whether the noble Earl meant to withdraw the Bills from the Lower House in order to introduce them into their Lordships' House?
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he did not propose to withdraw them from the other House. They were Bills which had passed a most important Committee; but they would, of course, be introduced into their Lordships' House as new Bills.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that, no doubt, it would be a great advantage if it could be done; but he must confess that he could not see how his noble Friend's (the Earl of Redesdale's) suggestion could be complied with. Did his noble Friend propose that these Bills should be introduced into their Lordships' House as they had left the Grand Committees?
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES): The Government should introduce the Bills in this House.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: In the shape the Bills came from the Grand Committees?
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES): Yes.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: But the Bills might be very much altered by the House of Commons on Report, after they had come from the Committees; and, in that case, their Lordships would have to consider the same Bills twice. Therefore, he was afraid the proposal was not one likely to meet the object his noble Friend had in view.

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

  COMMITTEE.
  House again in Committee (according to Order.)
  LORD SUDELEY, in moving, as an Amendment, to strike out of the Bill a tramway in the East of London, said, he did so on the ground that the assent of the Metropolitan Board of Works as

  921
  the "Local Authority" had not been obtained to the application to the Board of Trade for the Provisional Oorder as required by the Tramways Act, 1870.
  Amendment moved, in pages 104 to 110, to leave out the whole of the Order relating to Woolwich and South-East London Tramways.—(The Lord Sudeley.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he felt bound to oppose the Amendment, as he thought it a great hardship on the Company. The Board of Trade should have taken the trouble to ascertain whether the requirements of the law had been complied with before granting the Provisional Order. The solicitors who had obtained the Order had acted in perfect good faith.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would point out to the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) the impropriety of allowing this part of the Bill to proceed, when the requirements of the Tramways Act, 1870, had not been complied with. The Law Officers of the Crown had, moreover, advised that the assent required by law had not been obtained. He had himself loooked into the questions which had been raised, and he entirely concurred in the opinion of the Law Officers. He hoped, therefore, the opposition to the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that after the statement of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack he would not press his opposition to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  House resumed.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next.

PAWNBROKERS' BILL.—(No. 136.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
PAWNBROKERS' BILL.—(No. 136.)

  REPORT.
  Order of the Day for the Report of the Amendments to be received read.
  Moved, "That the Report of the Amendments to the Bill be now received."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he wished to ask the Government whether, after the general announcement
  922
  made last night in "another place" of a general massacre of Bills, some of them being of great importance, there was the slightest chance of the present measure being passed this year? If there was no likelihood of the Bill passing, was there any use in making their Lordships go through this performance of a species of Parliamentary goose step?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Marquess had given him no Notice of the question.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he only wished to know, would the Bill be pressed forward in the House of Commons; if not, what would be the use of that House passing it?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, said, it was very difficult to answer a question of the nature of this one, put to him by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury); he might, however, state that the Government were very anxious to pass the Bill, and when it came before the other House they would have the means of forming an opinion as to the time which the measure would be likely to occupy, if it were persevered with. If it were to be taken for granted that Bills introduced into their Lordships' House could not pass in "another place," their Lordships would be discouraged from passing any Bills at all. He hoped, now that their Lordships had gone so far with it, they would go through with the Bill to the end, and deal with it with that fairness and candour which had hitherto been exhibited in its consideration. If it was not likely to occupy a great deal of time there was a fair prospect of its being passed into law this Session.
  Motion agreed to.
  Amendments reported accordingly.
  Clause 3 (Assistance in the recovery of stolen articles to be given by pawnbrokers).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, lines 9 and 10, leave out ("given to") and insert ("left with.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Duty of pawnbrokers to answer police inquiries respecting stolen articles).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made:

  923
  In page 2, line 7, after ("possession") insert ("received after the date stated to be the date of the robbery").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Pawnbrokers to enter in pledge book distinctive marks on pledges).
  LORD HENNIKER, in moving an Amendment, to the effect that a pawnbroker should not be compelled to enter in his pledge-book as distinctive marks any inscription, mark, initial, monogram, or crest, or, in case of jewellery, any peculiarity of setting, and should otherwise so describe such articles as the more readily to secure their identification, said, he had mistaken the scope of the clause on a former occasion, as he thought pawnbrokers would come under it, whether articles were pawned or not. This fact, and the Amendment of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, made the clause much better than it was at first; but he must remark that he could not accept the clause as it now stood in the Bill, as the latter part of the clause would make it almost unworkable. Everyone knew how difficult it was to describe the marks on plate, jewellery, and other similar articles accurately; and if a pawnbroker and his assistants were required to make entries of such marks as were mentioned in the Bill, he felt certain the work would not be performed in an efficient manner. It was also difficult to decipher the monograms and crests on rings and watches—perhaps their Lordships would examine their own watches and rings—because persons in the trade were always anxious to bring out something new, and it was scarcely to be expected that pawnbrokers would be able to decipher the peculiarities of certain kinds of letters, or know the meaning of various crests. Their Lordships, he felt sure, would appreciate the fact that the labour would be immense in describing carefully all the marks, monograms, crests, and so on, as prescribed by this clause. If they went to any of the large pawnbrokers' shops, they would find very extensive stocks of rings and other kinds of jewellery marked in the most extraordinary way; yet, by the clause, an entry of such marks was to be made in a book. It was necessary that the business of a pawnbroker should be done swiftly; therefore it would be al-
  924
  most impossible for him, or his assistants, to describe each article taken in pledge in the way prescribed. Then, again, he believed it was a fact that 75 per cent of the articles which were pledged went out again into the hands of those who pledged them within six months. Under these circumstances, he thought the clause would be quite strong enough without the words he proposed should be left out. It might be said that the Bill, stringent as it was, was intended to deal more with dishonest persons than upright, respectable pawnbrokers; but he thought he might venture to say that the pawnbrokers, generally, bore a high character, and the business was one which was conducted as honestly and straightforwardly as any in the country. If their Lordships looked at the clause carefully, they would see it did not matter whether the pawnbroker was honest, or the reverse—he would, all the same, have to carry on his business under the great difficulties he had mentioned. He was sure that if the clause were put into a workable state it would be carried out by all respectable pawnbrokers honestly, and to the letter. They would not expect the clause would be effective if passed in its present form; and he felt sure, if it went to the other House unaltered, it would destroy all chance of the Bill passing into law. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would agree to the Amendment he now moved.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 29, to leave out from ("upwards") to the end of the clause.—(The Lord Henniker.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. The clause had already been modified, and he did not think it desirable to make any further concession. It was very important to provide as well as they could for the identification of stolen articles. The proportion of discoveries was very small, when compared with the number of stolen articles which passed through the hands of pawnbrokers. The enumeration of the points to which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Henniker) objected would direct the attention of pawnbrokers to the kind of marks which would be most likely to lead to identification. He did not see what objection there could be to require the pawnbroker to enter any inscription, mark, or initial which might be on the article, and, in

  925
  the case of articles of jewellery, any peculiarity of setting. He was sure that, in the latter case, the pawnbroker who did not recognize any peculiarity in the setting would not be liable to penalties. He hoped the House would adhere to the clause as it stood.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, the vast majority of those who would be affected by the Bill were upright and honest tradesmen; but, unfortunately, there were certain members of that body who were the reverse of this description. Unless the Bill were made clear, definite, and specific, short cuts would be found, and means devised by the latter class for evading its provisions and rendering them nugatory. Honest members of the trade suffered from the practices of the less scrupulous. Having gone carefully into the whole question, he was of opinion that nothing short of the Bill before the House would be effectual in meeting the requirements of the case they had in view. The Bill was the outcome of the deliberations of a Committee of their Lordships' House extending over two Sessions; and, since then, every argument that could be urged by the trade had been heard. It was an open secret that the Bill was of a less stringent character than it would have been, had it been presented immediately after the Report of the Committee last year. Under these circumstances, he looked with apprehension to any alterations in the Bill.
  EARL FORTESCUE, in supporting the Amendment, said, he hoped, their Lordships would not unnecessarily multiply the details which had to be inscribed in the books of the pawnbroker regarding the articles pledged with him during the year. If their Lordships imposed various duties on pawnbrokers beyond what they were accustomed to discharge, it would be as little in the interest of the poor, who were chiefly the pawners, as as of the pawnbrokers themselves.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 30; Not Contents 34: Majority 4.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Richmond, D.

  Somerset, D.

  Bedford, D.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Grafton, D.

  Northampton, M.

  926

  Camperdown, E.

  Carlingford, L.

  Derby, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Granville, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Digby, L.

  Morley, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Northbrook, E.

  Redesdale, E.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Spencer, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Alcester, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

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

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Sudeley, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Truro, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Bath, M.

  Boston, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Brabourne, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Colchester, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Denman, L.

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

  Egerton, L.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Fortescue, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.) [Teller.]

  Lathom, E.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Ravensworth, E. [Teller.]

  Lamington, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Norton, L.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Gough, V.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Hawarden, V.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Amherst, L. (V. Holmesdale.)

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Resolved in the negative.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Detention of persons offering stolen articles).
  On the Motion of The Earl of LIME-RICK, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 3, Sub-section (3), at commencement of sub-section, insert—("Where a Court of Summary Jurisdiction grants a certificate that there was reasonable cause for suspicion.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Power to search for stolen articles).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made:—In page 5, line 10, leave out ("which appear to him to have been stolen").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Extension of the Pawnbrokers Act, 1872, to pledges of over ten pounds).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLER, the following Amendments made:—In page 5, line 15, after ("person") insert ("carrying on the business of a pawnbroker"), and after ("who") insert ("in the course of such business"); in line 16, leave out ("and shall") and in line 17, after ("advanced") insert ("and shall in respect thereof").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 141).

NAVY—H.M.S. "TRIUMPH"—COURT MARTIAL ON LOUIS PRICE.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in rising to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he will lay on the Table the finding of the court martial in the case of Price, seaman of the "Triumph," in 1882; and to move for this and other Correspondence, said, that Louis Price was a boy on board Her Majesty's ship Triumph on the Pacific Station. He had a very good character, and the captain, who had special opportunities of knowing him, from his having been captain's messenger, thought him one of the most promising lads in the ship. While a boy he had committed two faults; one so trifling that the commander dealt with it summarily, without reporting it to the captain. When he was 16 he had been ashore near Valparaiso, and had come back on board rather fresh and noisy. The other, also trifling, consisted of some boyish impudence, and was punished with caning and black list. Few boys were so rarely in the defaulter's book. The character on his certificate was generally "very good," and never less than "good." In March, 1882, he reached the age of 18, and was rated an ordinary seaman, passing an excellent examination. Unfortunately, owing to the injudicious Admiralty Regulations, rum began to be served out to him. One day in April, probably hotter than the others, his allowance of rum put him into a heavy sleep; he came up, not drunk, but in a cross, dangerous state from being roused from sleep caused by drink; he was found fault with by the instructor, a gunner's mate, and struck
  928
  him. For this, he was brought before a court martial. Price said he did not know what he had done, that he was very sorry, and pleaded guilty. The sentence was five years' penal servitude, which the Admiralty reduced to three. As the lad pleaded guilty, the statements of the gunner's mate were not proved; and the good character of the lad, and evidence which his captain would have given in his favour if he had been called, were not before the court martial. He was in the prison ship in the Pacific from April, 1882, to October, when he came home in the Triumph, was then sent to gaol, and had been in penal servitude at Chatham since February last. Mr. Clements Markham then applied to the Admiralty, asking them to be satisfied with two years' imprisonment. The reply he got gave two reasons for insisting on the penal servitude—1, That the offence was very cold-blooded; 2, that the boy had committed two offences before. As regarded the first, the captain had found at the time, on investigation, that young Price, though not drunk, had been roused from heavy sleep, the effect of the regulation allowance of rum. As regarded the second, if the Admiralty took those trivial offences into account, they were bound to call on the captain for a report as to the lad's character and general conduct. After Mr. Markham's failure, the parents of the lad, who were very respectable people in Chelsea, and about 60 constituents, sent a Petition to their Member, Sir Charles W. Dilke, entreating him to try and obtain a remission of the sentence. After some weeks, Sir Charles W. Dilke sent an answer. He said—
  "The case of young' Price is, in my opinion, a hard one, and I have done all in my power in his behalf. I wish I could do more; but I fear the case is now finally closed."
  He (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had a great regard for Sir Charles W. Dilke, and he feared that, at the next Election, he would find the case not "finally closed," as far as he was concerned, and that these 60 constituents, with a friend each, would remember that their Member could do nothing for them; and that it was he, and his section of the Liberal Party, who brought about such a frightful punishment as penal servitude and ruin for life, instead of four dozen, for an offence against discipline not involving moral turpitude, accompanied by extenu-

  929
  ating circumstances. He would urge on the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty a consideration which, though it could not be pleaded before a court martial, should have weight with him and with their Lordships. Though he (Lord Stanley of Alderley) would admit that subordination to the petty officers must be upheld as much as in the case of the commissioned officers, yet a sailor who struck a petty officer, who but a short time ago was his comrade and equal, more easily committed such a fault than he would in the case of a lieutenant, whose lace and epaulets would remind him that he was in the presence of a superior officer. They already admitted this principle, since in India, if a policeman were struck, it was resistance to the law if he were his badge, and only a common assault if he were without his badge. The sentence on Louis Price appeared to be yet more unjust, unequal, and capricious, when compared with another reported in the newspapers of June 30. On board Her Majesty's Ship Victory, T. J. Thorpe, of Her Majesty's Ship Asia, was tried for striking a ship's corporal, his superior officer, twice in the face, and for using insulting language to the first lieutenant. Sentence: two years' imprisonment. This man was a carpenter of mature age, and aggravated his offence by insulting the first lieutenant. It was, he thought, evident that the sentence in this case was too light, or that upon Price too heavy. He (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had a friend who was in Holland a few days ago, and spoke to a Dutch Commodore and Councillor of State on the subject of naval punishments. Some years ago, flogging was abolished in the Dutch Navy, and terms of imprisonment in a military prison substituted. But men who had committed mere military offences were never herded with ordinary criminals. Such a proceeding would be looked upon, not only as unjust, but as injurious to the State. That such things should be done here excited amazement. In this case, by this sentence of penal servitude, which involved herding with the worst criminals, disqualification for all civil and military service under the Crown, and ruin for life, a promising lad, who, up to the present, had borne a good character, was lost to the Navy, and perhaps a gaol bird let loose on society. The
  930
  Naval Discipline Act was passed when flogging was in use, and it needed revision now that flogging was abolished. At present the punishments inflicted were more severe and inhuman than in the worst days of flogging. The noble Lord concluded by moving for the Papers of which he had given Notice.
  Moved, "That there be laid before this House the finding of the court-martial in the case of Price, seaman of the "Triumph," in 1882; and correspondence relating thereto."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he would confine himself to answering the Question put by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley), for he trusted their Lordships would not be induced to enter upon the general question of flogging in the Navy on this occasion, nor did he think, and he hoped their Lordships would hardly do so, that that House was the place to review the decisions of courts martial. He could deal only with the official Report of the case, from which it appeared that Price, who, while at drill on the quarter deck, was corrected by the instructor for some mistake, threw away his rifle, used insubordinate and obscene language, knocked down the instructor, and struck him in the face when he was trying to get up. The noble Lord stated that Price was drunk, or stupified, from the effects of drink at the time; but the "circumstantial letter," written by Captain Markham, the captain of the Triumph, who sent Price for trial, stated that "the evidence goes to prove that he was quite sober, and accountable for his actions." Captain Markham considered that he ought to be tried by court martial; he pleaded guilty, and the court sentenced him to five years' penal servitude. Although the case was a very bad one, it was decided by the Board of Admiralty, on account of Price's youth and his former good conduct, that some remission might be given; and it was settled that when he had served three years of the sentence the case should be brought up for reconsideration. This was done before the receipt of a petition from his family, supported by other persons; and, in reply to the petition, the petitioners were informed that the case had been so decided. If Price behaved himself well, and got the number of good marks that it was possible for him to obtain, the three years

  931
  would be reduced to about two years and six months. For the sake of discipline it was necessary that an example should be made in such a case; and their Lordships would see that the manner in which the case had been dealt with did not indicate any desire to visit this heinous offence with excessive punishment; and he could not hold out any hope that the case would be further reconsidered. There were no documents except the finding of the court martial and the petition of the family, and the precedents were entirely against laying them on the Table. It had not been done in any case for the last 50 years. In the interests of discipline, he hoped the Motion of the noble Lord would not receive the support of the House.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, that, contrary to what had been expressed by the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook), he (Viscount Sidmouth) was of opinion that their Lordships ought not to be deterred from discussing a matter so recently before the House. He thought the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had done right in bringing it before the House, because it showed the great amount of loss and injury done to the Navy by the abolition of corporal punishment. The case before them went far to confirm the adverse opinions expressed on the Bill lately under discussion abolishing corporal punishment, and more than ever justified his conviction, that the abolition of corporal punishment in the Navy was a mistake. This was just one of the cases in which flogging would have been a much more appropriate sentence; and it would have had this advantage—that if this man, or rather boy, whose antecedents were good, could have received a punishment which was not at all uncommon in social life he might have retained his good character, which was now gone so far as the Navy was concerned, and he would not have been prevented from trying afterwards to become a useful member of the Navy. Price was only 18 years; and, at a similar age, many of their Lordships, including the occupants of the right rev. Bench, had been subjected to the same kind of discipline in the public schools.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.

NAVY—THE REGULATIONS—WARRANT OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHasked the Second Naval Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he will state what the rules and regulations of the Service are in accordance with which warrant officers are permitted to make reasonable representations as to their condition, rank, and on other matters connected with their profession, to the Board of Admiralty?
LORD ALCESTER: My Lords, I shall have great pleasure in answering the noble Viscount's Question, and I will do so by reading the following extract from the Queen's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions:—
"Every person is authorized individually to make known to his superior any just cause of complaint."
In the event, therefore, of any warrant officer on board the Fleet conceiving himself injured by the working of Regulations at present in force, he has only to represent the same to his commanding officer, and the case will be forwarded through the flag officer in command of the squadron in which he may be serving for the decision of the Admiralty. No difficulty has occurred respecting the forwarding of such information.

DEFENCE OF THE COLONIES— COLONIAL NAVAL FORCES.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, in rising to call attention to the necessity of forming Colonial Naval Forces; and to move an humble Address to Her Majesty for Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Australasian or other Colonies, with reference to their formation, said, that those who were interested in the Navy had, several times, complained in both Houses of Parliament of the ineffective character of the naval defences of this country. The attention of naval officers had naturally been more directed than that of other persons, at the present moment, to the position of the Colonies, and their defenceless condition, especially in Australasia; and as the subject was attracting some attention, he thought he was justified in laying some facts respecting it before their Lordships. Those Colonies were daily increasing in value

  933
  and importance. Very recently, he made inquiries into the character and the amount of the navigation in those seas, and it might give the House some indication of it, when he mentioned that he received the astounding official statement that the amount of shipping in one of these harbours alone—the harbour of Sydney—was in excess of the tonnage of the Port of London at the time of Her Majesty's accession to the Throne. The shipping in the Australian ports was in great danger from any sudden act of war on the part of a European Power. Sometimes it was stated the commerce concerned the Colonies alone; but that was not really the case, as, from its very nature, it was of immense importance not only to the Colonies, but also to the United Kingdom, that it should be protected. Indeed, £20,000,000 of that commerce in the past year was actually on its way to this country. From such instances as these, their Lordships would perceive that this was not merely a Colonial question, but also an Imperial question, and an Imperial question of the very highest order, for it was an affair in which the interests of the United Kingdom were very much implicated. At present that commerce was protected only by a small Fleet of the Imperial Navy. He did not wish to review, or even refer to, the action of other Powers in reference to Colonial matters; but he thought it would be apparent to their Lordships that, unless something were done by the united action of the Imperial Government and the Colonies, the shipping and harbours, and, indeed, the whole of the coasts of our Australian Possessions, would be liable, in the event of hostilities breaking out between this country and any other Power, to be attacked by cruisers and privateers; and he left it to their Lordships to imagine the amount of damage that might be done by a few vessels of the stamp of the Alabama. When this question was before their Lordships the other night, in connection with the reported annexation of New Guinea by Queensland, the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby) said he did not share in the alarm of the Colonists, as to the probable seizure of that country by any other Power; and, at the same time, added that it's seizure would be regarded as an unfriendly act. He
  934
  (Viscount Sidmouth) begged to remind their Lordships, however, that prior to the annexation of New Caledonia by France—he thought it was in the year 1853—the Colonial Governments, by the hands of Sir George Grey, addressed similar warnings to the Imperial Government as to the designs of other Powers; and the answer of the Imperial Government then was very much what it was now; and yet, the very next year or so, France came down with a man-of-war and a small force, the French flag was hoisted, and ever since New Caledonia had been a French settlement. New Caledonia might not be the most important station for a hostile Power; but our Colonies were surrounded with islands which would be of the very greatest use to an enemy, and one of them contained one of the very best harbours in these seas, capable of accommodating a Fleet of the largest size. Her Majesty's Government set themselves against annexation. Other Powers might not be so thin-skinned; and when it was too late, we might discover that we had allowed an enemy to plant himself at the very doors of our Colonies. The Colonies themselves were doing their very best. In this country there was indifference, or rather ignorance; but the Colonies were thoroughly alive to the necessity of preparing to defend themselves. They were making efforts to provide themselves with gunboats and torpedo boats; New Zealand had ordered two new gunboats and several torpedo boats; Victoria had two gunboats and three torpedo boats; Queensland had one gunboat and four torpedo boats; South Australia had agreed to procure a war vessel at a cost of £80,000; and Tasmania had one torpedo boat. The suggestion he ventured to make was, that some assistance should be given to those who were so very ready to help themselves. Many gallant officers of our Navy, now on half-pay, would be only too glad to serve the country by serving in the Colonies, provided that their pay was continued to them, and that they retained their rank and chances of promotion. If that were allowed by the Admiralty, there would be no difficulty in getting properly trained and competent naval officers to take charge of the vessels belonging to the Colonies, which, in a short time, would have a sufficient force for the defence of these most valuable

  935
  defences of the Empire. The Colonists were afraid that in the event of war a case like that of the Alabama might arise. A vessel of the Alabama class might steam into Sydney, which had one of the most magnificent harbours in the world, and might exact contributions from the inhabitants to an enormous amount, or take possession of the coalfields in the Colony. In reference to the question of extending our Colonies, he did not at all agree with his noble Friend (Lord Lamington), who had lately called attention to this subject. On the contrary, he thought it would be one of the greatest possible blessings, and very much to the advantage of the Natives of New Guinea and the other islands in these seas, that they should be annexed to a civilized Power, and that that civilized Power should be this country. He did not want to find any fault with France, who had her own interests to look to; but it was to be remembered that she had taken New Caledonia; and he believed that there were projects before the French Legislature with the view of creating another Penal Settlement out there, the result of which would be very prejudicial to the interests of our Colonies. These islands, moreover, were full of European adventurers, who were subject to no kind of magisterial jurisdiction except that of the High Commissioner, who had also to look after the maintenance of the law in Fiji—a large group of islands, where Englishmen were supposed to be—but he had not proper power by law to punish crime. Therefore, notwithstanding what had been said the other day by his noble Friend, all these things furnished strong arguments in favour of such an annexation as he was sorry to see the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) entirely repudiate on the part of the Colony of Queensland. The unprotected state of our shores in these seas must lead in course of time to one of two things—either they would be attacked by an enemy of this country, or the Colonies would require to say—"We must see what we can do for ourselves." That was a future which everyone must look forward to with the utmost dread. A warning ought to be taken from what had happened elsewhere. He could not refrain from alluding to one Colony, which, under proper management, might have been one of our finest Colonies, and
  936
  possessed of one of the finest seaboards, instead of being the straggling Colony it now was, without a single good harbour—he meant the Cape of Good Hope, which was full of every natural resource which could bring out the energies of Englishmen; but the unfortunate mismanagement with regard to the affairs of the Transvaal, and also in reference to Delagoa Bay, had been most injurious to our interests in South Africa. He was not well acquainted with the state of things in Canada; but he was informed that the Canadians were ready to establish Naval Forces of their own; and he knew that they were ready, in the event of this country being involved in a general war, to send over at least 10,000 good soldiers to fight her battles. He only trusted that the period would never arrive when the acts of the Government at home would shake the friendly feelings of the Colonists towards the Mother Country; and he believed that nothing could better tend to strengthen those friendly feelings than if Her Majesty's Government would meet the Colonists half-way by enabling them to defend their own shores. The noble Viscount concluded by moving for the Correspondence.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Australasian or other Colonies with reference to the formation of colonial naval forces."—(The Viscount Sidmouth.)
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he had been very much misunderstood by his noble Friend (Viscount Sidmouth) in the remarks he had made on a previous occasion. What he (Lord Lamington) had condemned was the practice of Colonists sending out ships, and hoisting flags without consulting the Imperial Government. He fully concurred in all that his noble Friend had said as to the necessity of the Government doing everything in its power to give protection to the Colonies. If it were true, as stated in the French papers, that it was the intention of the French Government to send all their convicts to the islands in the Pacific, that changed the position of matters entirely. But he understood the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby) to say the other evening that there was a distinct understanding with the French Govern-

  937
  ment that neither France nor England was to annex the New Hebrides. Was it so? The case, however, would be very different, and the whole position would be changed, if other countries were going to annex these islands. The Government should, in his opinion, do everything they could to strengthen the Colonies, and they could not do that better than by enabling them to obtain proper naval protection.
  After an interval,
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had waited to see whether any noble Lord would rise to add one more to the many topics which had been introduced to their notice—subjects all of them of the greatest importance; but subjects in regard to which he hardly knew that it would be their Lordships' wish that he should follow the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Sidmouth) and the noble Lord who succeeded him. More particularly, he doubted whether any good purpose would be served in dicussing the question whether they ought or ought not to have given up Delagoa Bay. They had given it up, not because it was not valuable, but because the authority to which the question was referred decided that it did not belong to us. The question as to its being a good harbour was not raised; but, even if it had been, he did not think the fact that a harbour was, in itself, desirable constituted a right on our part to take possession of that harbour.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHexplained that he had referred to the fact that the question was referred to arbitration, and that it should not have been so referred, as it was the case of a bay that was always held to belong to us.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he thought there were two opinions on that subject; but the question was disposed of so long ago that there was no advantage in entering into it now. The noble Lord who spoke last (Lord Lamington) had alluded to a proposal for the annexation of the New Hebrides, and asked whether there was not an understanding between our Government and that of France that neither Government should take possession of the New Hebrides? His (the Earl of Derby's) answer to that question was, there was such an understanding. It existed definitely, five years ago; and he did not
  938
  understand that anything had since been done on either side to make it of no effect. The noble Viscount who had introduced the subject more immediately before their Lordships adverted to the importance of the Australian Colonies; and, in doing so, had drawn a picture, in no way untrue or exaggerated, of the great extent of our trade with them, and of the large quantity of property which we had exposed to the risk of enemies in those seas. On that point he apprehended that there were not two opinions. All he could say on the general question of defence was this—that he did not think they could possibly undertake to protect every part of the whole of our vastly-extended Colonial Empire, which might at any time be liable to attack. The resources of no country in the world would be sufficient for such a purpose; and if they were to undertake a system of defence founded on that principle, they would have to scatter their force over almost the whole face of the Globe, and would probably, in consequence, find themselves weaker at any given point than the enemy to whom they might be opposed. The true principle, he apprehended, was to defend only those points which were of vital importance, and, for the rest, to rely on the general superiority of their Naval Forces on the seas of the world, and to trust to their ability to concentrate a sufficient number of them on any point of danger. The noble Viscount had referred to the probability of the exploits of vessels of the Alabama type being repealed. He (the Earl of Derby) supposed that it was not possible altogether to guard against the mischief which might be done by piratical cruisers in the event of a naval war breaking out; and when their Lordships considered that in Australia they had, at least, from 3,000 to 4,000 miles extent of sea-coast to deal with, they would see that the attempt to defend every part of that coast would be almost a hopeless undertaking. Australia, however, it might be remembered, although insular, was not much exposed to attack by sea, because the great bulk of its wealth lay inland, and not along the coast; and it was not a country that was, to a great extent, vulnerable to naval attack. Sydney and Melbourne, which were open to such attack, were admitted to be both in a very fair state as regarded defence; and he was glad

  939
  to say he had heard that opinion confirmed by the best authority very lately. With regard to Queensland, its capital, Brisbane, lay far up the river, and was not easily assailable from the sea. With regard to Adelaide, and some of the towns of the other Colonies, he did not know exactly how the case stood. He believed, however, that their state of defence was not so good; but, as regarded most of them, the population was small, and the towns were of such little importance that they held out little inducement to an enemy to attack them. The noble Viscount had suggested that some assistance should be given by the Imperial Government to the Colonies, in the way of placing at their disposal officers in Her Majesty's Service who were inclined to undertake service in the Colonies. That was a fair suggestion, to the principle of which he saw no objection; but, up to the present moment, no proposition of the kind had, to his knowledge, been made by the Colonial Governments. If, however, such requests were made he would be happy to consider them. The noble Viscount enumerated the various torpedo boats that were being made by the Australian Colonies, as increasing evidence that they were alive to the utility, and perhaps the necessity, of naval defences. That appeared to him (the Earl of Derby) to be a satisfactory state of things, and one with which they might be content. He could better understand the noble Viscount's complaint if any proposition for increasing their means of defence had been put forward by the Australasian Colonies and refused by us; but he was not aware of anything of the kind having occurred, and, therefore, he could only make the general statement, that he would consider any such proposition when made. He had made inquiries at the Colonial Office, but could find no Correspondence of late years, except certain Memoranda upon local questions of defence, which he thought it undesirable to make public. He did not think there was any Correspondence of a general character which it would be of the slightest advantage to lay on the Table.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he would not go into the topic of the annexation of New Guinea; but he thought the House was under an obligation to the noble Viscount behind him (Viscount
  940
  Sidmouth) for bringing under their notice the question of the formation of a Colonial Naval Force, which he (the Earl of Carnarvon) agreed with him was a subject of very great importance indeed. When his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Derby) said that there was no distinct proposal before him on the part of any of the Colonial authorities as regarded this subject, and that it was a question what was a fair proposal to be made, he thought his noble Friend would do well to remember that it was not always the function of Government to wait until a proposal of that nature was made; but that, when a question of Imperial importance arose in connection with the Colonies, it was for the Imperial Government themselves to meet it, or, at all events, to encourage the Colonies to do so. Some years ago, many of the questions raised to-night had been very carefully considered by the Colonial authorities, who had made a Report upon them, which, perhaps, his noble Friend had not seen. Upon the main question before the House he would like to say a few words. It seemed to him now, as it did then, that three points arose. In the first place, there was the question of the Australian trade; in the second place, there was the question of the defence of the coast and towns; and, in the third place, there was the question of the relations which Her Majesty's Navy bore to both those points. Now, when his noble Friend opposite said there was no danger to the towns on the coast, he was disposed to agree with him, with certain reservations. Melbourne and Sydney, thanks to the energy, courage, and patriotism of their inhabitants, had placed themselves in a condition of safety as regarded defence. Brisbane, on the other hand, was some distance up the river, and was, therefore, protected by nature, and needed no defence. But his point was, that it was not so much the towns as the Australian commerce which was afloat that was exposed to disaster. The commerce was of a very peculiar character. It was largely mixed up with the English trade, and he believed that what had been stated by his noble Friend was quite true—namely, that the amount of trade in the Port of Sydney was about the same as that of the trade in the Port of London at the time of the accession of the Queen. If so, that showed what a large stake Australia had in the matter.

  941
  More than that, he (the Earl of Carnarvon) believed there was a seafaring population, which was increasing largely, and which required protection. Then, as regarded the defences of the coast, there were important questions to be considered. There was the question of fortifications and armament; then there was the question of men, and then there was the question of floating defences. With regard to fortifications, and the whole system of Colonial protection, too much credit could not be given to the Australian Colonies, and he wished what had been done by this country would bear comparison with what had been done by them. The average expenditure in New South Wales and Victoria was close upon £80,000 a year for naval defences. That of Now Zealand was £40,000, and that of the other Colonies was of a proportionate amount. Besides that, New South Wales had a force of between 2,000 and 3,000 men; Victoria had rather more; Queensland upwards of 1,000; South Australia about 1,000; New Zealand had the large number of 8,000, and Tasmania had 10,000. These facts were all very creditable to the Colonies; but then came the question of floating defences. Whatever happened, and whatever was done with regard to land fortifications, the large Colonies required floating defences. Towns like Melbourne and Sydney were ready to incur any expenditure to obtain what was needed; and, in addition to that, New South Wales had a Naval Brigade of 4,000 or 5,000 men, some of whom were on a permanent establishment. As to Victoria, there was a Naval Brigade, part of which was permanent, and the Force was, he believed, very efficient. These were satisfactory arrangements so far as they went; but, as to further defences, the question was, what they should be. With regard to ships, their Lordships would remember that some years ago £100,000 was given by this country to Victoria, a service of ships, and a turret ship and cruisers were obtained. Since then great improvements had been made in their ships. Large sums had been spent on two ships; and there was a third, a steel ship, at Victoria. It was only right that the House should understand what these great Colonies were doing for themselves. Victoria was the first Colony that adopted the Naval Defence Act, which was passed 15 or
  942
  16 years ago, to enable the Colonies to provide ships, and to place crews under the Naval Discipline Acts and the Imperial Regulations. Their chief difficulty, however, was to get the officers and the men. He now came to the third point, which was one of real importance—namely, what were the relations which the Royal Navy held towards the Australian Colonies? There was, it was true, a very small squadron indeed in Colonial waters, which was confined to little more than the performance of police duty in those seas; but they undertook the general defence of the Australian Coasts and the Australian Colonies. On the other hand, Australia undertook to give shelter to those ships in time of war or difficulty; but there was no money payment asked for from the Colonies to maintain a Fleet, and the question was, whether any better arrangement could be substituted. He thought the present moment a very opportune one for the consideration of this subject. Any advance by the Government in this question would be as much for the interests of this country as for those of Australia. The idea which had found most favour was for something in the nature of a joint contribution. Then arose the question whether, and how far, it was possible for the Colonies to pay the money, and to leave the control of the administration in the hands of this country. That question was thought by some to involve difficulty; but, to his mind, the difficulty was more theoretical than real, and he believed that it could be satisfactorily arranged. The plan had been tried, and had succeeded in many cases. He would instance some. There was a Settlement in the North of Australia, called the Somerset Settlement, which was established for the relief of shipwrecked crews. This country paid so much money towards that Settlement, and the Australian Government undertook its administration. The Home Government, too, administered the Mint in Sydney, while the Colony paid for it. Again, when troops were maintained in the Australian Colonies, this country administered the affairs connected with them, while the Australians paid a heavy subsidy. Aden, also, was maintained by the Indian Government; but the administration and control was with this country. He saw, therefore, no

  943
  practical difficulty in combining the two propositions—namely, a system of subventions or subsidies from the Colonies, with a system under which the administration of affairs would be carried on by the Mother Country. There ought to be no divided responsibility. An English Admiral, if on the spot, must have the whole control. On the other hand, he agreed with his noble Friend behind him (Viscount Sid mouth) that in the formation of any Navy, or the maintenance of ships of war in or by a Colony, if possible, all the officers should be Queen's officers, as they were the only persons with knowledge and skill sufficient for the position. He was glad to hear from his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies that he considered the suggestion that officers should be lent by this country a reasonable one. He trusted the noble Earl would act upon the suggestion. There were two ways in which it would be possible to secure joint action between the Mother Country and the Colony. According to the first, and most preferable, a contribution of money would be made by the Colonies, and the ships would be the Queen's ships, under an English Admiral, who would have the power to move his ships to any part of his particular station, for the purpose of protecting Australian interests, he being the judge of those interests. The second way would be this—that the Colonies themselves should provide ships, which would be nominally placed under the control of the Admiral on the station, but which would really be attached to the Australian Coasts, and be the property of the Colonies. Either of these proposals would be possible; but the first would be the better. He did not think there would be any difficulty in arriving at a fair basis in regard to contributions of money by the Colonies, and as to how the ships should be managed, it being understood that they would be employed to protect the interests of the Colonies. If there had been any delay or difficulty in connection with the question of Colonial defence, the fault in recent years had not been with the Australian Colonies, for they had, on all occasions, shown themselves thoroughly alive to the necessities of the situation. That was evidenced by the fact that, three or four years ago, an important Inter-Colonial Commission sat
  944
  at Sydney, and discussed the whole question of military defence with remarkable ability and thoroughness. Moreover, these questions bad often been discussed in the Colonial Parliaments, and they had never been made a Party matter. The Colonies had spent large sums upon their Forces, which were considerable and generally well-disciplined; and they had been careful to procure the best articles and implements of war. So sagacious was the Victorian Government that, when it was a question of providing small arms for the use of its citizens, it determined to adopt the Imperial patent at considerable expense. What was really needed was action on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and he therefore wished they would make some suggestions on the matter. They alone were in a position to initiate satisfactory measures, for they spoke with an authority that none of the Colonies could speak with, and they could give effect to any proposals that might be made. It was not a question of the expenditure of money on the part of this country. What the Colonies wanted was the initiatory action and advice which were bound to be given by the Government, and he should deplore the wasting of the great opportunity which now offered for the solution of the question. In conclusion, he would say that he was convinced that if the position were only thoroughly understood, there would be no practical difficulty in agreeing upon a principle of joint action between this country and the Colonies on the important subject to which attention had been drawn. It was deplorable to see great opportunities wasted and difficulties arising through the fault of the English Government; and he was convinced it ought never to be made a Party question.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that a few nights ago he heard his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby), on the part of Her Majesty's Government, say that he would not consent to the annexation of New Guinea. He (the Duke of Somerset) had sat for 30 years in the House of Commons, and had heard frequent declarations against annexation from successive Ministers. For instance, he had heard a similar statement made long ago in the other House with regard

  945
  to New Zealand; yet we had since annexed that country, and there was, shortly after, a repetition of the same circumstances in the case of Fiji. More recently still, a British Company had obtained a footing in Borneo; and what had happened before would happen again; and he foresaw that the Government would find themselves obliged to annex New Guinea, or some portion of it, adjoining the Torres Straits. He was certain that the noble Earl, notwithstanding the present sincerity of his protestations, would, after a time, find himself, like the lady in Don Juan, who—
  "A little still she sighed, and much repented, And whispering, 'I will ne'er consent,' consented."
  The nearness of New Guinea to the Australian Colonies, and the necessity for a police in those seas, in order to keep away rogues and filibusters, were powerful arguments with the Colonies in favour of this step. He believed the result would be that the Government would be driven at last to take the necessary measures for the protection of British interests in that part of the world, and that a Naval Force there would lead to annexations, whether they liked it or not.
  LORD NORTONsaid, he was of opinion that the question of Colonial Naval Forces was an important one, and any further annexation would increase the importance of it. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) said we could not defend every point of the Colonial Empire, and he (Lord Norton) was glad of it, because the Colonists would not be worthy of their name if they required us to defend them. Happily, the necessities of the case had led to the renewed development of a system of self-defence on the part of the Colonies. In 1859, a Commission reported that the British Colonies might then be said to contribute neither men nor money for their own defence. Their defence was then undertaken by the Mother Country at a cost of £5,000,000 a year. Since that period, however, the military defence of the Colonies had been much more undertaken by themselves, they having found local forces, and partly paid for ours in money, and they were making rapid strides towards a return to Naval Colonial self-defence. Very few English troops were now sent to the Colonies,
  946
  and those that were sent were paid for at the rate of £40 per man, or nearly half the cost. The Colonies were, however, mainly to be defended from the sea. Under the Colonial Defence Act, a great deal had been done by the Australian Colonies towards more provision for their own protection, and a considerable number of them had now sufficient harbour defence. But, putting other Colonies out of the question, though the remark applied even with more force to Canada than to Australia, it was absolutely necessary that something like an adequate Naval Force should be established by the Australian Colonies in the seas around their coasts. In the last year of the Crimean War, a Russian Fleet was advancing from Alaska to make a descent on the Australian Colonies, and there was no force whatever to prevent it; but, fortunately, the war ceased before the descent was made. And so, in like manner, there would be great danger at this moment to Australia in the case of a great European war. The only defence against such a danger was a Naval Squadron on the spot. In the debate upon New Guinea he understood the noble Earl to say that though the Government were not prepared to undertake to annex the Island, yet he threw out a suggestion that the Colonies might combine for the security of their interests in it, and that he would be ready to consider anything requiring the sanction of the Crown that might be offered by the Colonists. That was an invitation to combine for secure government in New Guinea, supported by a Naval Force in its neighbourhood. There was no reason why British subjects in Australia should not make as good naval officers as British subjects at home. A Navy would be the power to protect and maintain order in the annexations of unoccupied territory, which, no doubt, would take place in the neighbourhood of those Colonies. A High Commissioner in Fiji, as now proposed to have authority, would be a very weak defence for British or Colonial interests in those seas. We had had High Commissioners in South Africa; but they were never successful. They involved this country in disputes which they could not decide, and which resulted in difficulties and war. He hoped the High Commissionership, to which the Secretary of State for the Colonies looked to deal

  947
  with the questions now arising in Australia, would be only a temporary expedient until a Regular Force was established for the security of the rights both of our Settlers and Natives, and for the defence of our commerce in those seas. That commerce was now very great, and it must be defended, for both the Home and Colonial interests were concerned; and he believed that the Colonists were willing to take their share in both a Military and a Naval Force to protect their country, and would meet any proposal for combined action on the subject which might come from the Imperial Government.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I always listen to my noble Friend opposite (Lord Norton) with great pleasure and attention, particularly when he speaks on a question of this kind, because he has greatly contributed to the propagation of sound notions on Colonial policy, which were not adopted at the time he advocated them as they are adopted now. I do not intend to enter into the general debate which has been raised; but I wish only to refer to one point raised by my noble Friend who introduced the discussion (Viscount Sidmouth). I understood the noble Viscount, in referring to the New Hebrides the other night, to give Notice of his intention to ask me a Question—namely, whether it was true, as reported, that the French had planted their flag on those islands? Had my noble Friend put the Question at that time, I should have answered that we had received no information to that effect, and that I thought it extremely improbable, seeing that an agreement had been come to between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government pledging both of them to a policy of non-interference as regards those islands. But I am now in a position to say that I have received authoritative information that there is no truth whatever in the report as to the hoisting of the French flag, and that both Her Majesty's Government and the French Government acknowledge in full the obligation which that understanding imposes on both.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, it should be remembered that Australian commerce had been protected, not merely by the squadron on the Australian Station, but also by other squadrons on the China and other stations. If this question of a Navy for Australia was to be
  948
  considered, the problem must be thought out more fully than had hitherto been done. In the first place, for what purpose was this additional Navy required? The Australian Colonies had already recognized that it was incumbent on them to provide vessels for defensive purposes, and, to a great extent, they had provided them. But if it was said that they required a Navy which would go to sea, we should further consider how far it was to be under the orders of Her Majesty's Admiral on the Station. The difficulty which the Australian Colonies had was not one of paying for ships or men, but of finding the men and the officers. The truth was, that the population of Australia was not sufficient for the peaceful pursuits of the Colonies; and how, then, could they be called upon to find men for a Navy? If the proposition came from the Colonies that they would find pay for men and officers, Her Majesty's Government might consider it. He held that it was impossible to praise the Colonies too much for the efforts they had made for their own defence; but when they came to the question of a larger provision in the shape of an additional Navy, it was like the question of Confederation, and ought not to be forced on too much. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, while they ought not to be deaf to any proposal which might come from the Colonies, ought not themselves to take the initiative in the matter.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he was glad to be able to confirm what the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby) had stated, as to the assistance which Her Majesty's Government could give the Australian Colonies. He did not think that the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Sidmouth) need have any fear of an Alabama entering into one of the Australian ports; and if such an attempt was made, he did not think the noble Viscount, or any of his Friends, would like to be on board her, and run the risks which would be incurred. Those ports were entirely protected against the depredations of such a vessel; and their position had been explained by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies so fully that he (the Earl of Northbrook) need not say anything more about them. What he would like to say was this—that the Admiralty had

  949
  always been delighted to render any assistance in their power to the Australian Colonies in making preparations for their defence. They had given them very considerable assistance and advice with respect to torpedo and other floating defences, which had been and were now being organized. The Government, moreover, had lately made New South Wales a present of a ship, and Victoria had asked for the services of a naval officer; and, no doubt, the Admiralty would be able to send one who might be advantageously employed in organizing their naval defences. He was very glad to notice the popularity of the Navy in the Colonies, and the cordial reception that Her Majesty's ships always met with both in Australia and elsewhere; he believed, indeed, that the relations between the Navy and the Admiralty and the Australian Colonies could not be on a better footing than they now were. Opinions had been expressed by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon), and by other Members of the Commission on the Defences of the Colonies and the Commerce of the Empire, as to the possible formation of a Naval Force by the Australian Colonies—a project which, as his noble Friend behind him had observed, ought to originate with the Colonies themselves. But whatever proposals might be made, he would say at once that there would, in his (the Earl of Northbrook's) opinion, be the strongest objection to any arrangement that would tend to localize any part of our Naval Forces. It had always been a fundamental maxim of our Naval Administration that no steps whatever should be taken in that direction; and that consideration, therefore, would militate against the suggestion that the Colonial contribution to the Navy should take the form of money. At the same time, every proposal or scheme for the better defence of the Colonies would be most carefully considered. The whole question was, in every point of view, most interesting, on account of the constantly-changing conditions of naval warfare, and the defence of our commerce in time of war, and would tax to the utmost the energy and ability of any Minister. He could only say, at present, that great attention had been bestowed on the recommendations of the Commission, and that many of those recommendations either had been,
  950
  or would be, adopted by the Government.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, in reply, that a very distinguished naval officer, with whom he had discussed the subject, had told him that, if adequate pay were given, many efficient officers would be glad to offer their services in the Colonies.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (CORNWALL) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday in Cornwall—Was presented by The Earl of MOUNT EDGCUMBE; read 1a. (No. 142.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday-next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.