Lords Sitting of 17 July 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Sea Fisheries (Ireland) * (146).
Second Heading—Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) (144), debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—Turnpike Acts Continuance * (132).
Withdrawn—Lunatic Poor (Ireland) (85).

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ADVANCES TO TENANTS—DUTIES OF INSPECTORS.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDasked, Whether the Lord President could now give the information asked for with regard to the class of inspectors appointed to supervise the loans made under the 31st Section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881; whether their duties included the laying out of the proposed improvement for the tenant, and seeing if it would be of permanent advantage to the holding; and, whether any inspector or official had reported that the money advanced has not been laid out on the improvement for which the loan was sanctioned, but was spent by the tenant in purchasing stock?
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): My Lords, I think the information obtained from the Board of Works will enable me to answer the Question. With regard to the status and qualifications of the Inspectors, I am informed that they are all professional men—civil engineers, surveyors, and valuers—and are selected solely in regard to their fitness, experience, and ability. Their duties include the preparation of plans and estimates for the improvements for which the loans were to be advanced, as well as seeing that the improvements are properly carried out. It is their duty to keep a constant watch over what is going on, and, in case of an application on the part of a borrower for a second instalment, to make inquiries so as to prevent any illegalities, and to insure the proper outlay of the money. I am informed that a tenant, having received the first instalment, could not misapply the money without early detection; and, in that case, the money advanced would have

1653
to be refunded, either by the tenant or his securities. Not a single instance of the misapplication of the money advanced has come to the knowledge of the Commissioners.

MADAGASCAR—THE FRENCH AT TAMATAVE.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wish to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have received any further information with respect to Madagascar?
EARL GRANVILLE: The Government have no further information with respect to the events alluded to by the noble Marquess than that which has been already stated in the telegraphic despatches of the Vice Consul at Zanzibar, and of the Captain of Her Majesty's Ship Dryad. The despatches received only referred to events which occurred up to the 14th of June. Up to that period the French Consul at Tamatave appeared to have behaved with great courtesy to the English Consul.

LUNATIC POOR (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lord President.)
LUNATIC POOR (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NO. 85.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he should not trouble the noble Lords who had Notices on the Paper relating to this measure to bring them before the House, as he was going to move that the Order be discharged. He much regretted being compelled to take that course, because, in spite of the objections made to the Bill on the second reading, he still held, and the Irish Government held, that it was a Bill which would have effected an important improvement in the management of Irish lunatics and the relief of distress. With these feelings, if the Government had seen any prospect of carrying the Bill through the other House during the present Session, he certainly would have endeavoured to persuade their Lordships to pass it, and have cast upon the House the responsibility of its rejection; but, believing that there was no reasonable prospect
  1654
  of carrying the Bill through the other House during the present Session, he would not put their Lordships to the trouble of proceeding further with the Bill. He therefore moved that the Order for going into Committee be discharged.
  Moved, "That the Order for the House to be put into Committee be discharged."—(The Lord President.)
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD, who had a Motion on the Paper for the rejection of the Bill, said, before the Bill was withdrawn he wished to say a few words. He hoped the fact that their Lordships had given a second reading to the Bill would not be looked upon next year as an endorsement of its principle, and as a reason why it should be passed next year. Since the Bill came before them he had had communications from Ireland, and found that the universal feeling was against the Bill in its present form. Nobody denied that these unfortunate people required looking after; but the people objected very much to the principle of the Bill, and he believed several Boards of Guardians had taken up the matter, and had sent protests against it to Her Majesty's Government. Another point which had been taken up in Ireland, and which he did not dwell upon when the Bill was read a second time, was that there were very great objections to the removal of the present Board of Governors, who had done their work extremely well, and the substitution for them of the Local Government Board, who did not, he believed, understand this particular class of work, and who already had enough work on their shoulders. He believed these Boards of Governors were the only Governing Bodies in Ireland who could carry on the work without going into questions of politics; and he believed there was the very strongest feeling against the substitution of the Local Government Board for a Board of gentlemen who had done their duty so well in the past. He was glad the Lord President had withdrawn the Bill, and he sincerely hoped that they would never see it again in their Lordships' House. He hoped a Bill would be introduced dealing with the subject, but dealing with it in a manner advised by the Report before their Lordships.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the noble Marquess was under a misapprehension. The Boards of Governors were not touched by the Bill in any way. The Central Authority under the Bill was the Local Government Board; but the Bill did not interfere with the Boards of Governors at all.
  Motion agreed to; Order discharged, and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) BILL.—(No. 144.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) BILL.—(No. 144.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
  LORD SUDELEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to carry out the recommendations of the Committee appointed last year by the Board of Trade to report upon the Sea Fishing Trade. The fishing trade of this Kingdom was very extensive, and gave employment to a sea population of about 95,000 men and boys. During the last few years there had been an enormous development of trawler fishing, of which the principal stations at present were Hull, Grimsby, and Yarmouth. The Bill related principally to this class of fishings, since, owing to the size of vessels and the length of time trawlers were usually at sea, an increased stringency in the regulations was necessary. The drift net fishing, although a most important industry, was chiefly confined to certain localities, and the boats were small and seldom absent from port for more than 24 hours altogether. The great facilities afforded by the railways for the rapid distribution of fish throughout the country had tended to enhance the demand for this important article of food. Indeed, everything pointed to the fishing trade becoming more and more extended, so that duo provision should be made for the good government of those engaged in it. Docks and accommodation for landing had been provided; but it was stated in the Report of the Committee that—
  "The only drawback to the progress of this industry, so beneficial to the general public, appeared in the unsatisfactory relations existing
  1656
  betwixt the owners and crews of some of the vessels."
  It was proposed to remedy these grievances by the present Bill, of which the chief points were as follows—Apprenticeships and agreements with young boys, discipline of the seamen employed, certificates made compulsory on the skippers, easy method of settling disputes between skippers and seamen, and reports to be made of all casualties. Since the Payment of Wages Act of 1380 was passed there had been a great falling-off in the number and conduct of the apprentices. They had been able to cancel their indentures and evade their obligations to a very great extent by deserting or refusing to join their vessels; and there could be no doubt that this had been the cause of serious annoyance and loss to the owners. Under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 there was no limit of age under which a lad could be apprenticed; and instances constantly occurred of boys, at the early age of 10 and 11, binding themselves, and being sold or bound by others, for the long period of 10 years as apprentices, without the intervention of any person to see that they understood the conditions they subscribed to, or to see that the master's part of the agreement was fairly carried out. This had resulted in grave discontent among the apprentices, especially in cases where the indentures contained no stipulation as to any money payment being made by the master. Under the present Bill it was proposed that no lad should be indentured before he was 13 years old, or for a longer period than seven years. The master was to be hold responsible for the lodging and food of the lad, and the indenture must enumerate the whole of the conditions the parties thereto had to carry out. The Mercantile Marine Superintendent, or a Board of Trade officer, must in future be a party to the indenture, with power to act as guardian and protector of the lad, and the selling of boys to the Service for the sake of illegitimate profit was made penal. The next most important feature of the Bill was that portion which related to discipline. Unfortunately, owing to doubts concerning the effect of the Act of 1880 upon Section 243 of the Act of 1854, great differences had arisen among the magistrates at the several ports. By the Act of 1880 the power of arrest without warrant for desertion

  1657
  or failure to join the ship were repealed. It further abolished the power of imprisonment for the same offences, though it left in full force that portion of the previous legislation on the subject relating to forfeiture of clothes and effects. It also left in force the power of imprisoning seamen for wilful disobedience to lawful command; but, unfortunately, this had been entirely misinterpreted by many of the magistrates at these ports, and had not been carried out. The result of the misunderstanding had been that men had believed that they could safely break their engagements by simply deserting and refusing to join the ship, and they had actually done so in large numbers, trusting that the time necessarily occupied in procuring a warrant would give them full opportunity for avoiding arrest. The civil remedy had been inoperative, as very frequently the men had no effects and no wages due to them. Under the present Bill it was intended to prevent any further misunderstanding, and power was given to Superintendents of the Mercantile Marine and officers of the Board of Trade to issue warrants for the arrest of seamen for the offences of desertion, refusing to join, and disobedience to lawful commands. By Clause 42 of the Bill it was made compulsory upon all skippers of trawlers of 20 tons and upwards to hold a certificate of competency. Clauses 43 and 45 provided that there should be a report of all deaths, injuries, and casualties to the Mercantile Marine Superintendent, and powers of inquiry were given. This had not, unfortunately, been the case up to the present time, and instances had constantly arisen of lads having been lost overboard, and no report whatever having been made of the occurrence. There had also been cases of brutal treatment, and actual murder had occasionally taken place. It was hoped that this system of regular and compulsory reports, together with the new rules by which all captains would have to be certificated, would to a very great extent do away with cases of ill-usage, and much improve the general conduct of the crews. There were also various clauses providing for the regulation of seamen's lodgings, for which existing legislation had been found inadequate. Trusting he had said enough to enable their Lordships to understand the scope and objects of the Bill, he
  1658
  begged to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Sudeley.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he could hardly think the proposal serious, that a Bill so minute in its provisions, and affecting the interests and even the liberties of so many of Her Majesty's subjects, should be read a second time in so precipitate a manner at this late period of the Session. As far as he knew, there had been no inquiry into the subject by Parliament. It was true that there had been a Departmental Inquiry; but Parliament had no share in the selection of the persons who were to inquire; and no guarantee that the inquiry would be conducted in such a way as to command its approval. The Bill dealt largely with the charter of the fishing population, the Mercantile Marine Act of 1854, it established new regulations for trawlers, and would subject apprentices and seamen employed in fishing boats to the summary punishment of four weeks' imprisonment for desertion and other offences. Neither the Members of their Lordships' House nor of the other House of Parliament were able to say whether the provisions of the Bill were wise or the reverse. The proper course would have been to print the Bill, send it down to the places affected by its provisions, and by the light of their representations or remonstrances the Government might be directed as to what was best to be done. If their Lordships passed the Bill now, they would pass it absolutely in the dark. The Bill had been circulated only that morning, and could not be interpreted without reference to several other Acts of Parliament. Under these circumstances, he earnestly trusted the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would not press the second reading today. He should be better pleased, however, to hear that the noble Lord would not press it this Session.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that he understood from the Government Department which had framed the Bill that the fishing populations were extremely favourable to the Bill; and, seeing that their Lordships were anxious to have Bills introduced in that House, the course taken by the noble Marquess was not encouraging.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, their Lordships were anxious to have Bills introduced in that House, but at a proper time, and not in the last days of July. His noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) objected to the second reading only on the ground that the House had not sufficient information. Their Lordships had not any sufficient knowledge of the clauses, though they might have received the approval of the Board of Trade. He would suggest that, having printed the Bill, it should be circulated among the population of the places concerned, and should be re-introduced next Session, if it were found to be a good measure.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, he had found that in the fishing town of Lowestoft the prevailing opinion was that there was not sufficient power to deal with apprentices and others who broke their contract.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that he proposed to postpone the second reading until that day week.
  Further debate on the said Motion adjourned to Tuesday next.

PARLIAMENT—DESPATCH OF PUBLIC BUSINESS—BILLS REPORTED FROM STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES)said, he rose to ask, Whether Her Majesty's Government would take into consideration the expediency of introducing into that House the Bills passed by the Standing Committees of the House of Commons on Bankruptcy, Criminal Appeal, and Patents, whereby due time would be allowed to that House for their consideration, which could not otherwise be the case if they were to be passed in the present Session? He did not propose that Bills which had passed through Committees of the House of Commons—that was to say, Committees of the Whole House—should be introduced in their Lordships' House; but only those Bills which had passed through a newly-constituted body of the House of Commons, and which, perhaps, might never reach Committee stage in the other House. If those Bills were introduced in their Lordships' House as new measures they would have an opportunity of considering them
  1660
  carefully, and of sending them down amended to the other House. Otherwise, owing to the late period of the Session, it would be impossible for their Lordships to give them due consideration. If what he proposed was done, it would enable the House of Commons to consider the Bills, not only as they had come from the Grand Committees, but as they had been amended by their Lordships.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the object of the noble Earl was excellent; and the Government were obliged to him for making suggestions with the object of facilitating the despatch of Public Business. They did not, however, see their way to the adoption of the noble Earl's present recommendation. Grand Committees were an experiment, and, in his opinion, a successful experiment. A perfectly new arrangement, such as that proposed by the noble Earl, could not be agreed to for the reason given, a few days ago, by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), in which the Government felt that there was considerable force—namely, that as the Bills had not passed all their stages in the House of Commons, their Lordships might have to consider the same measures twice over.

SPAIN—THE STEAMSHIP "LEON XIII."

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise, according to Notice, to ask a Question of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with respect to the imprisonment of three English engineers serving on board the Leon XIII., and to move for Papers. When I first placed this Notice upon the Paper we were not aware of the very much graver matter which has occupied the attention of the noble Earl. Though the actual interests involved in the matter to which my Notice refers are not extensive, the question which is raised is one of some importance; and I should like to hoar what the noble Earl has to say upon it. The case is this. Three English engineers sailed in a Spanish steamship which had been manufactured on the Clyde, and when they were in the Red Sea they were seized by the Spanish captain, placed in irons, and confined below decks. This was done on a charge which was not

  1661
  subsequently pressed, and which I may, therefore, assume was not held to have any validity. They were kept in irons for three months below decks in the latitude of the Equator, and the windows were closed. This was severe treatment; but it amounted to no more than a private grievance—a matter for the consideration of English engineers proposing to servo on Spanish ships, but not a matter which could come under the notice of the Government and the House. But when they reached Point de Galle they contrived to send ashore a statement of the treatment they were receiving. The result was telegraphic communication with Singapore; and when the ship arrived there, a motion was made for a Writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of bringing the men up before the Court, in order to ascertain by what right they were confined. The captain refused to obey this Writ; and in so refusing he was supported by the Spanish Consul; and the refusal has subsequently been sustained by the Spanish Government. The position taken up by the Spanish Consul and the Spanish Government seems to be that even in English waters a British subject is not within the jurisdiction of the Writ of one of Her Majesty's Courts if he is on a merchant vessel flying a foreign flag. Of course, what would be true of Singapore would be equally true of the Thames; and, under this doctrine, a British subject might undergo the most unjust and outrageous treatment on board a foreign merchant vessel; and the treatment might be continued even after the issue of a Writ of habeas corpus from one of the Queen's Courts. The noble Earl has very properly refused to accept that doctrine; but I could wish that it had been negatived in a more decisive manner, because it is a doctrine which I am sure neither the English Government nor the English people could listen to for a single moment. But I have not stated all the facts. After the captain of the ship refused to obey the Writ of Attachment which was issued against him, he was brought before the Chief Court of the Colony. As he refused to produce the men, he was himself committed. It was stated in Court that it would be necessary to take measures to prevent the ship from carrying away the three engineers in the hold; but the captain, and the counsel who was defending him,
  1662
  told the Judge that the ship would not move away, that the men would be produced next morning, and that the ship could not leave, as she had no provisions. The Spanish Consul was by when that statement was made to the Judge. No sooner was the Court over than he walked down to the quay, and, with the help of some engineers from a neighbouring Spanish vessel, raised the anchor, and ran the ship out to sea with the three engineers on board, and carried her on to Manilla. I regret very much that, under those circumstances, the noble Earl has not withdrawn Her Majesty's exequatur from that Consul. His ground for not doing so is that the Consul acted in good faith, but under a misapprehension; but a Consul who so grossly misconceives his duty is not fit to possess Her Majesty's exequatur. I do not wish to impugn his motives; but considering the doctrines that have been advanced by the Spanish Government, and considering that the Consul has since been decorated for his share in these proceedings, I cannot but think that the notice taken of the transaction by the noble Earl is inadequate. It is necessary that the Government should insist upon obedience in British waters to the Writs of Her Majesty's Courts; and it is necessary that the liberty of British subjects serving on foreign vessels should be fully secured; and, therefore, I believe that grave and serious notice ought to be taken of conduct similar to that which this Spanish Consul has pursued, and that the matter ought not to be left in its present unsettled state. I am afraid there is danger that this case might be cited on future occasions as a case in which it was held that it was doubtful whether the denial of the Queen's jurisdiction was not rightly made. I, therefore, trust that the noble Earl may be in a position to assure us that an emphatic protest has issued from his Office.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in considering this matter, it is necessary to consider the difference between the two questions which are involved in it. For the engineers themselves there is no doubt that the case was one of very great hardship; but the remedy of those who take employment under foreigners must be sought for in the Courts of the country to which those foreigners belong, and so must the remedy in this

  1663
  particular case. The Spanish Consul at Liverpool has volunteered to act as an assessor in this case, and has stated that his decision would be recognized as binding on the owners, and the captain of the vessel. In the interest of the engineers Her Majesty's Government thought it best formally to ask the Spanish Government whether the decision of the Spanish Consul would be accepted as final—whether, in short, it would have a legal binding effect in the event of its being in favour of the men? We have not yet received a reply to that question, but are expecting it daily; and, in the meantime, we do not feel that we can do anything in the matter. With regard to the other point of complaint against the Spanish Consul and the Spanish Government, I do not think that at present we have any case as regards the Spanish Government. However, we may still have reason for complaint, provided the action of the men results in an obvious miscarriage of justice; and in the event of such a state of circumstances arising it will, of course, be necessary to make diplomatic representations to the Spanish Government. We have, however, very great reason to complain of the acts of the Consul at Singapore; but after considering the whole question, and ascertaining that he was acting under a misapprehension as to the nature of a Writ of habeas corpus—a misapprehension afterwards shared in by the Spanish Government—we do not think the case so bad as it appears to be at first sight. Your Lordships ought to remember that the Government of the Philippines acted in a most commendable and conciliatory manner, and, losing no time, liberated the three engineers from the ship in which they were confined. But there is another consideration which has influenced Her Majesty's Government in this matter. Some months ago we had reason to complain of the tone and character of the communications we received from the Spanish Government; but since that time a very great change has taken place, and nothing could now be more courteous and conciliatory than the language adopted by them towards us. The noble Marquess says that the question has been left open, and certainly it has been left open as regards the right of the engineers; but if your Lordships will read the Papers you will
  1664
  see that, so far as the Government is concerned, it has been very fairly closed, though, as I have said, it may be reopened in the event of a gross miscarriage of justice.

THE SUEZ CANAL—CONSTITUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTON, who had given Notice that he would ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether the statement is correct that out of the twenty-four directors of the Suez Canal Company only three are English; and, although every ship passing through the Canal must take a pilot, only one English pilot is employed? said, he did not propose to ask the first part of his Question, nor to say anything on the subject, which, at the present time, was agitating the public mind, except that it was manifestly impossible for the three English Directors to exercise any considerable influence in the management of the affairs of the Canal. The Question in regard to the pilots, however, was one that required some explanation?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the Question of the noble Lord, the assumption of the noble Lord is perfectly correct. The state of the Directorate of the Company is exactly as it was when the Shares in the Canal were bought. With regard to the pilots, I think the best thing I can do is to read a Report which has been prepared on the subject. The noble Lord will see that the point in question is one of those that are dealt with in the Provisional Agreement. The Report states that there are 17 pilots at Port Said to pilot vessels in and out of the harbour, and 97 Canal pilots. Of the Port Said pilots, 12 are Greek, two are French, one is English (Maltese), one Austrian, and one Italian. Of this number eight speak English, or can make themselves understood in English. Of the 97 Canal pilots, 27 are French, 24 Italians, 19 Greek, 17 Austrians, and 10 English (three Englishmen and seven Maltese). All the 97 can either speak English or make themselves understood; 45 can speak English, and 52 can make themselves understood in their directions for working the ship. This shows a much more satisfactory state of things than that stated in the Question of the

  1665
  noble Lord; but, at the same time, the Government are of opinion that much more should be done in the interests of our vessels, considering the preponderance of English shipping in the Canal. I cannot help taking this opportunity of making a few remarks with regard to this question. Your Lordships will remember that this Canal, which has been of such use to us, and which, on the other hand, owes its entire prosperity to this country, was not made with the concurrence of England, but very much in spite of, and with the opposition of, this country. Lord Palmerston opposed it on political grounds, some of which have now passed away. He also considered it a bubble Company, and the scheme quite impracticable, and he was in his right in doing this, although it was a mistaken view, on the very high engineering authority which had been furnished to him on that occasion. The opposition of Lord Palmerston had two important effects—one, that it influenced the conditions of the concession to the Company; and the other, that it afforded a stimulus in France, by the excitement of international amour propre, which, in the opinion of those conversant with the matter and competent to judge, really alone enabled large sums of money to be lent, and thus brought about the completion of the Canal. My Lords, for 10 years the Canal was anything but a commercial success; but during the last 4 years it has been not only a great success, but promises an increasing success in every manner. It promises to be highly remunerative to the shareholders; and I think the House will admit that the men engaged in a speculation of this sort accompanied by so much risk, unquestionably have a right to receive larger interest for their money than those who invest in an undertaking almost certain of success. The events of last year have given this country a peculiar influence in Egypt, and I believe that unless we lose our relative position among the nations of Europe, that influence is likely to continue. One of the immediate consequences of our military success was that our interest in Egypt, which has always been great, has increased, and many rich and energetic capitalists have turned their minds to enterprizes of great utility to that country. To all the promoters of these enterprizes I have always held the same language.
  1666
  With the entire concurrence of my Colleagues I have stated that we rejoice to see enterprize and capital directed to the improvement of Egypt. On the other hand, Her Majesty's Government are not inclined to commit themselves to industrial, economical, and commercial enterprizes, and the very fact of our peculiar position in Egypt makes such enterprizes less, rather than more, desirable. Yet we admit that there may be enterprizes of such an exceptional character that they ought not to be neglected by Her Majesty's Government if they tend to the advantage of this country, and, indeed, of the whole world. What Her Majesty's Government have a right to expect is, that they should not be called upon to give an opinion on any embryo plan, or to consider any plan unless it is put in a complete manner before them for their consideration. I may say, with regard to this particular point of the improved accommodation for sea-going vessels between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, that I have had four different schemes before me; but, up to the present time, none of them have been presented in a manner which fulfilled the conditions we thought it necessary to make before assenting to anything of the kind. The increase of the traffic in the last four years and the quarantine difficulty have produced delays which have excited for the first time great discontent on the part of shipowners. One of the most obvious ways of meeting the difficulty was to arrive at some understanding with the Suez Canal Company. That was not merely our idea, but was the idea also of many of those who now find fault with the manner in which it has been carried out. It is quite clear that the existing Canal possesses many advantages. In the first place, it is made; in the next place, it is undoubtedly the shortest route from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea; and, lastly, it has been acquiesced in by all the European nations without exception. My Lords, a few months ago we had some confidential communication with the Directors of the Company, but for a long time there seemed to be no prospect of a satisfactory arrangement. Your Lordships must be aware that in this negotiation M. de Lesseps had a very strong position. In the first place, he believed that he had an exclusive right to the communication

  1667
  between the two seas, as far as the Isthmus was concerned. He also held that he had the power to give permission to anyone else. Now, the first point which was considered in these negotiations was whether this claim of M. de Lesseps to any exclusive right was valid or not. I do not know whether Her Majesty's late Government considered this point; but it seems fair for me to believe that they assumed an exclusive right, otherwise they would not have invested many millions of our capital in an enterprize of this sort—that they did not do so reckless a thing as embark in an enterprize which might turn out to be most unsuccessful, while if, on the other hand, it should turn out to be successful, it was liable to interruption and destruction by the construction of a rival Canal. Therefore, I have some right to assume that if they thought at all on the subject they believed that there was an exclusive right. There were two men in the Foreign Office as competent as any to give an opinion upon a question of this sort. They had no doubt as to the existence of an exclusive right; and we ourselves ascertained that the Egyptian Government had been advised by their legal adviser that this right existed. Our own Law Officers advised the same thing. We had the advantage of referring to the highest legal authorities on the subject. My Lords, the responsibility in a matter of this sort rests with Her Majesty's Government; but it is impossible for us, because one or two eminent counsel take a different view of the construction of a deed, to disregard the absolute conclusions of all the official advice that was open to us for the purpose. And I must say more, that though this advice was contrary to that which we should have wished to have, yet it did commend itself to our common sense. I cannot conceive, it being granted that there was an exclusive privilege, that that exclusive privilege did not mean something of substance. To say that it is an exclusive privilege of forming a Company is to say that it is what would turn out to be no exclusive privilege at all; and I cannot but think that if one of your Lordships gave an exclusive privilege to a Company not about to spend £20,000,000, but a much smaller sum, in building, say, an hotel, upon his estate, he would not, after having given
  1668
  it, feel himself at liberty, either legally or morally, immediately to give a concession to some other Company to establish an hotel in the same place. My Lords, I wish to point out that we never, in the course of these negotiations, made the slightest admission with regard to this claim of M. de Lesseps. We were obliged to admit it in the other House of Parliament the other day, when the scheme was condemned on the ground that there was nothing to be dealt with but a tabula rasa. Now, I wish to guard myself against saying that this is a question which can never be argued in the future. Supposing that the Canal Company, against their own interests, were to do nothing to facilitate communication between the two seas, and that they acted to their own disadvantage on the dog-in-the-manger principle of doing nothing, and preventing others from doing anything—I do not say that this state of things might not justify the exercise of considerable diplomatic pressure. But that is not the state of things at all. The Canal Company have already decided to widen and deepen their Canal. They have gone further than this. They state—and I have no reason to doubt it—that they have the means of making a double Canal, though not absolutely in the most advantageous way, on their own land, requiring no further concession at all, and that they would thus be able, undoubtedly for a great many years, to furnish very ample accommodation to the shipping and commercial interests. Now, the question remains as to whether, under these circumstances, the bargain we have made was so bad that Parliament should reject it, as they have a perfect right to do, and as was perfectly understood between ourselves and M. de Lesseps. If I had answered the Question put by a noble Lord yesterday, I should have gone in some detail into the advantages which we think are to be derived from the arrangement which we have made, and into some defence with regard to the concessions that we are willing to make in return. But I think the Report goes much more fully into these questions than I can do, showing the undoubted advantage of a double Canal, constructed on the best possible lines, such as we have agreed to urge upon the Egyptian Government to give a concession for the making of, and showing that it does give a very

  1669
  large, instead of a very insignificant, reduction of the burden on shipowners, both with regard to ships in ballast and ships in cargo. I believe the shipowners are very much mistaken in thinking that these different dues very much affect them; but they do affect, in a very large degree, the consumers. But, my Lords, the question is whether we could have obtained better terms than we have got. If I am right in saying that M. de Lesseps had this strong position—if he is right in saying that he had some title to claim a very considerable return to the shareholders for that which they at such risk have constructed, and if I show that on political grounds—as I am quite sure your Lordships will admit—it is much more advantageous in this matter that we should go heartily with France than in opposition to her. I do say that it is a subject which is well worthy of your Lordships' consideration. I should like the House to consider what are the alternatives. I have made allusion, as the noble Lord has done before me, to our position in Egypt at this moment. Our position in Egypt might have been different. We might have withdrawn our troops immediately from Egypt, and left everything purely to diplomatic agency; or, on the other hand, we might have annexed or conquered the country; but I think that, whatever we might have done with our Forces, it would not have affected our position with regard to doing anything which is unfair to the existing Canal Company. Even if we had conquered the country, I think it would have been, according to the modern usages of civilization, perfectly impossible to force the Egyptian Government to do anything illegal, or to do ourselves that which was unjust and illegal, with regard to an Egyptian Company composed chiefly of foreigners to that country. Therefore, I wish to know what is the alternative pressed on us. As regards the bargain, I can only say that during the three months' negotiations it has been the opinion of those who negotiated the terms, and of some of my most competent Colleagues who have been examining this subject, and given great labour to it, that these are the extreme conditions which we could obtain from M. de Lesseps. That being so, we thought it right to submit the scheme to Parliament for its consent to our carrying it out.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should not have thought it necessary to make any observations in reply to the statement of the noble Earl, had not the noble Earl brought in the conduct of the late Government as in some measure a justification for the proposal now before Parliament. I confess I was surprised at the noble Earl's argument. He said it would have been a reckless proceeding on our part to have invested money in the shares of a Canal if it had been possible that a rival Canal should be created. Is he prepared to carry that view into private enterprize? Is he prepared to say that everyone is guilty of a reckless investment who invests in any railway or in any telegraphic works, or in any canal, with regard to which it is possible that a competing line or canal may be constructed? Is it not the case that many railways exist in this country where there is the fullest, the most open competition, which are yet exceedingly profitable undertakings? The noble Earl has, moreover, entirely ignored what Lord Beaconsfield put forward very prominently at the time of investing in the purchase of the Canal Shares—that, though a sound commercial operation, it was not principally or mainly a commercial operation; but that it had a political object—a political object which was well stated and well understood at the time—and the possibility that a rival Canal could be created would not in the slightest degree have affected the political aim which Lord Beaconsfield's Administration had in purchasing those shares. As a matter of fact, if by this or any other arrangement a rival Canal were to be commenced to-morrow, it would still have been not only a political step in the highest degree expedient, but it would have been a successful and profitable financial operation, and its profit would not have been seriously interfered with by the creation of a competing Canal. It is evident no competing Canal could ever have obtained support at all until the profits of the first Canal had arrived at such a point as to invite investors to take part in such an undertaking. I therefore entirely repudiate the idea that Lord Beaconsfield's Government gave a constructive sanction to this claim of monopoly on the part of the Suez Canal Company. With respect to the legal considerations referred to by the noble Earl, I do not

  1671
  conceive that it is my business to argue them, nor should I be likely to do so with success. But the noble Earl must be well aware that legal opinions on the subject are much divided, and that authorities quite as great as on his side can be quoted against the view that M. de Lesseps has any monopoly over the junction of the two seas. The noble Earl rested his ease on the use of the word "exclusive" in the concession of 1854; but he did not take notice of the fact that the concession of 1854 had of itself no validity or value whatever. It was still-born, because it never received that which alone could give it validity or value—namely, the sanction of the Porte. Twelve years later the Porte gave its sanction to the Agreement of February, 1866, in which there was a clause revising somewhat vaguely by-gone Agreements; but the whole question lies in this—whether the words used in the Firman of the Porte giving sanction to the concession of 1866 are wide enough and specific enough to carry by implication that which they did not say explicitly—namely, the conferring on M. de Lesseps and the Company the strange prerogative of barring for over 100 years all other industry and enterprize in the junction of the two seas by which such a vast commerce is carried? This is a matter, my Lords, which Parliament will have to argue carefully, and it will be argued by disputants much better qualified than I am to deal with it; but I venture to say that even if legally the words did convey the meaning which Her Majesty's Government, in my opinion, most imprudently put upon them, I doubt very much the competence of the Sultan or the Khedive to make an Agreement that would debar nations from the natural right of passage across the Isthmus of Suez for the commerce of the world. Supposing there had been some improvement in the Dardanelles or the Cattegat, would it have been within the competence of the Sultan's Government or of the Danish Government to place an artificial limit upon the passage of the commerce of the world through those channels?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I should like the noble Marquess to speak so that my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack shall hear his remarks.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I wished to say was, that this was
  1672
  more than a mere legal question; it deals with that far higher question of how far Governments have the power, without appeal, to confer upon persons receiving concessions a prerogative which shall have the effect of preventing the natural access to means of transit which, as a primâ facie right, is possessed by the commerce of the world. That is a point which I desire to commend to the consideration of the noble Earl, and it does not rest merely upon legal grounds. The noble Earl has asked what we shall do in the alternative. Well, I confess that the objections which at first sight I feel most strongly to the proceedings of the Government are that they confound the practical difficulty with the legal difficulty—that on account of the practical difficulties of the moment, which may or may not be genuine, they are raising a legal and moral obstacle which, when those practical difficulties are removed, will yet remain behind. It may be possible that another Canal could not now be cut without those diplomatic complications which, as the noble Earl says, this country desires to avoid. Upon that point I do not wish to pass a judgment. But if that is so now, it may not always be so. The difficulty may pass away this year, next year, a short time hence. If this improvident Agreement is not concluded we shall then be in a position to make use of any opportunity we may possess, and by the aid of British capital to secure a British Canal from sea to sea. If this bargain is concluded it will give a practical security to the monopoly claimed by M. de Lesseps, which will be an impediment to the chance of such a desirable end whenever circumstances may be favourable to our achieving it in the future. That is the great danger which I apprehend from the Agreement which the noble Earl has defended. There is much to be said as to its improvidence in detail; but those are questions for argument when the project comes nearer to us, and we have to pronounce a practical decision upon it. For the present I will content myself with regretting that from words used in the other House, and certainly in the conduct of the arrangements, the tendency of Her Majesty's Government has been to give an unnecessary confirmation to the monopoly claimed by M. de Lesseps—a monopoly which could not but be disadvantageous

  1673
  to the commerce of this country?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there is one thing the noble Marquess has said to which I am able to give my cordial approval, and that is that the question of the effect of the concession to the Suez Canal Company, the rights of that Company, and the proper course to be taken by this country with respect to it under the present circumstances, rises into a higher region than that within which either I myself or any other English lawyer has a right to speak with authority. In that I entirely agree with the noble Marquess, and I shall be glad if in the discussions on this subject that is borne in mind. We occupy at this moment a position in Egypt which makes it, as it appears to me, of the highest obligation that we should both ourselves respect—and, as far as we have any influence, that we should not use that influence so as to lead the Khedive not to respect—the obligations which he and his Predecessors may have entered into with those persons by whose money the Canal has been made. It was a great, it was an extraordinary undertaking of doubtful success, of great difficulty, requiring the outlay of very large capital; and it could not have been entered into, or accomplished, except on the faith of public engagements of an important and peculiar character. Could any private individual have been expected to enter into such an undertaking or advance such a capital? I do say that if ever there was a case in the history of the world in which the engagements of Governments and Sovereign Powers towards private persons required to be considered and acted upon uberrimâ fide this is the case; and no course could have been less honourable or less creditable to a country like ours than if, having obtained an accidental superiority of position in Egypt through political movements to which we were unwillingly led, though forced into them by the view which we took of the interests and duty of our country—if we had availed ourselves of that position to go to the right or to the left in opposition to private rights contracted by the Government of that country under such circumstances; and more especially when those private rights were intimately
  1674
  connected with interests cherished and valued by a great neighbouring nation, whose position in Egypt, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, we were under special obligations to consider and to respect. I have said that there was one part of the noble Marquess's speech with which I entirely agreed, and that is when he laid aside the technical authority of English lawyers, proceeding upon principles of narrow verbal construction, as sufficient to rule this question; but there was another part of his speech which I listened to with unfeigned surprise. He referred to high political, or, I may say, cosmopolitan considerations as paramount to all others on this question. He seemed to speak as if the Isthmus of Suez, before the Canal was made, had been a natural maritime highway and channel for the commerce of the world—as if it had not been any part of the Egyptian territory; as if no territorial concession had been required for it; or as if, the Canal having once been made, the geographical nature of the world was changed, and all territorial interests were to give away to the convenience of the nations navigating the Canal. My Lords, I think that was an-argument founded upon forgetfulness of the fact that the Canal came into existence by means of these concessions, and by means of the money which the Suez Canal Company laid out upon them. There is no analogy whatever between this case and that of the Straits of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles or any other natural maritime passage in which all the world may have an interest. The territory of the Isthmus of Suez belongs to the same Power to which it belonged before; and whatever footing international commerce has obtained upon that territory, it has obtained by means of these engagements; and whatever may be the true construction of these engagements, nothing will induce me to believe that your Lordships will ever consent to enlarge that international interest by violence. My Lords, I have thought it necessary to say so much. I quite agree with the noble Marquess that the time for a detailed discussion of this question has not yet arrived; but I could not help taking exception to the manner in which the noble Marquess has stated the case.

EGYPT—THE SLAVE TRADE IN UPPER EGYPT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF FIFE, who rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they could give any information as to the state of the slave trade in Upper Egypt; and whether they had given any authority to our representative in that country to take further steps with a view to its suppression? said, that no sooner had Sir Samuel Baker and Colonel Gordon turned their backs upon the Soudan than the old practices were revived with, he might almost say, increased atrocity. He learnt that the practice was now to take the slaves from Darfour by a more roundabout way, entailing 47 days' journey over paths strewn with human bones. The mortality might be inferred from the value of a slave before and after the latter part of that fearful journey. At Obeid he was worth £3, at the Second Cataract £12, and yet these unhappy creatures were said to reach that point 40,000 in number. If that represented the number finally disposed of, what could be the number originally kidnapped? There was no doubt that many of the officials who had been appointed to suppress the Slave Traffic had themselves been deeply involved in it; at all events, we had it on the very high authority of Dr. Schweinfurth, that—
  "No subordinate in Egypt had ever been seriously punished by his Chief for conduct concerning slavery."
  This was still further confirmed by-Colonel Stewart's Report that—
  "None of the really big firms engaged in the trade had been molested," because "there were too many interested in the business, and the Notables were too powerful and influential."
  It had been admirably pointed out by those who guided public opinion that it was useless to interfere with the supply of slaves unless we went to the root of the evil by stopping the demand for them, and unless we insisted upon the abolition of the legal status of slavery in Egypt. However, there was already a Treaty concluded between this country and Egypt in August, 1877, abolishing the Slave Trade, and stipulating that in seven years from that time the sale of slaves in Egypt should be rendered illegal, and in 12 years in the Soudan.
  1676
  Therefore, in 12 months from the present date, according to our own Treaty rights, it would be our duty to see this degrading Institution effectually stamped out. In the Parliamentary Paper on the Soudan, he noticed that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs requested that the suggestions of Colonel Stewart should be brought to the knowledge of the Egyptian Government. He rather doubted that having much effect, as the facts narrated were well within their knowledge already, and the Oriental mind was peculiarly obtuse to unpalatable facts and suggestions. It had been abundantly proved that no Native had the power, even if he had the will, to do any real good. The whole of his surroundings and traditions were on the other side. Power and authority must be placed in the hands of some resolute European, backed by that civilizing influence which it was surely now our bounden duty to exert.
  EARL GRANVILLE: In reply to the Question of my noble Friend, which is of so great importance, and in which he takes a great interest, I am glad to find that he has already had an opportunity of reading a most interesting and able Report by Colonel Stewart on this question as regards Egypt at this moment. The noble Earl must be aware that the state of disorganization in which the Soudan is now is most unfavourable for any active measure on this subject; but I am happy to say we have recently appointed two able men as Consuls at Souakim and Khartoum, and I believe they will be able to give valuable assistance to the endeavours which the Government are most anxious to make in regard to these matters.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.