Lords Sitting of 23 July 1883

Preamble
MINUTES—PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Summary Jurisdiction (Repeal, &c.) * (153).
Committee— Report—Poor Relief (Ireland) * (140).
Third Reading — Factories and Workshops Amendment * (113), and passed.

SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL—THE PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT WITH M. DE LESSEPS.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, seeing the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, I wish to ask him, Whether the Government have come to any decision as to the course which they intend to adopt in respect to the Suez Canal; and, if so, whether it will be convenient to the noble Earl to state it to the House?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in reply to this Question, which I am not at all surprised the noble Marquess has put to me, I may say that I had an opportunity last week of making a short statement in answer to a Question in reference to the proposed arrangement. On reflection, I am not aware that there is anything that I said then, or which was said by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, which, on my own behalf or on behalf of my Colleagues, I should wish to retract or withdraw from. Indeed, I think I could say a good deal to strengthen some of the arguments I used then, and more especially with regard to the obligation which, it appears to me, falls upon this country to consider, from reasons of justice, policy, and feeling, any claims possessed by the Suez Canal Company, and by the great nation which it represents, and which is a neighbour to ourselves. I believe this
  116
  is the feeling of all your Lordships; and I think it is better that I should merely state the course Her Majesty's Government mean to pursue, instead of going into any unnecessary discussion. Your Lordships will readily understand that Her Majesty's Government were placed in a position of considerable difficulty last week. They proposed and announced a plan, after very long negotiation, which appeared to them the best, under the circumstances, that could be arrived at. That plan was received, I need scarcely tell your Lordships, with very general disapprobation. I think we have somewhat to blame ourselves for not having presented Papers and given fuller explanation at the time the plan was proposed, for it is quite evident to me that very considerable change of opinion has taken place. There is, however, opposition on the part of nearly, but not exclusively, all the great Bodies who represent commerce and navigation; and, besides that, the position has been further complicated by the opposition, not only of the Home Rule and the Fourth Party, but also of the great Conservative Party. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government thought it was only courteous to send over one of the English Directors to communicate with M. de Lesseps—not with any view of proposing any fresh negotiations, but to ascertain his views on the subject. The result of this negotiation, as received from Sir C. Rivers Wilson, is to the following effect:—

  London, July 21, 1883.
  "My Lord,—Upon communication to the MM. de Lesseps of the object of my coming to Paris, they stated in the most friendly terms that they thoroughly understood the situation, and that, so far as they were concerned, they regarded us as in no way bound under the existing circumstances to press the Agreement on Parliament.
  "There were, however, two parts of it, the spontaneous adoption of which, notwithstanding the abandonment of the Agreement (if such should be decided upon), they announced their determination to propose to their shareholders.
  "In the first place, immediate measures would be taken so that the second Canal during the greater part of its length might be rapidly constructed within the limits of the land already conceded, although they might at the proper time have to apply to the Egyptian Government for additional ground where the present width was insufficient.
  "Secondly, the proposed reduction of dues pari passu with the increased profits would be maintained.

  117
  "As to all the other arrangements contemplated in the Agreement, both sides would be free.
  "Her Majesty's Government would be thus under no obligation to use their good offices to obtain for the Company the extension of the Concession beyond 1068, or any other privileges.
  "The capital required for the second Canal would be raised as the Company might determine, either by the issue pro rata of more shares, in which operation England would have the option of subscribing in respect of her 176,602 shares, or by way of debentures, with the like option.
  "It is my duty to observe that the former course would have the obvious effect of retarding the fall in the rate of dues.
  "The conversations with the MM. de Lesseps, like those which we had on former occasions, were of a confidential character, and I am, therefore, only able in this despatch to report their result.
  "I conveyed to M. do Lesseps the appreciation by Her Majesty's Government of his straightforward and friendly spirit during the negotiations, an assurance which he cordially reciprocated.
  "I have, &c.,
  (Signed) "C. RIVERS WILSON."
  Now, my Lords, this was the position in which we found ourselves. We considered that, although MM. do Lesseps would have had no right whatever to complain if Parliament had rejected the Agreement we have made, yet that they had claims upon Her Majesty's Government to take Parliamentary opinion before abandoning it; and we would not have consented to waive that application to Parliament if M. de Lesseps had chosen to hold us to our bargain. But your Lordships will see that the position is very different when we are left to take free action. Your Lordships will remember the time of the year in which we find ourselves. You are aware that there are a large number of orthodox Notices on the Paper, and you are aware of the difficulty that would exist in passing this scheme if it were seriously opposed. Your Lordships have also to remember the very great probability, in the long debates on such a question as this, of other irritating topics being introduced and other questions being raised, which I think might be very offensive, not only to France, but to other nations. I think it also clear that on a matter of this sort—a commercial matter of great difficulty, complicated with political elements, as it has been in the manner that I have described—it is very desirable that it should not be attempted to be forced
  118
  through Parliament unless there were a more or less general approval of it. Under these circumstances, I hope your Lordships will admit that the Government have not been ill-advised in coming to this decision, and in stating that it is not their intention to ask Parliament to assent to the Agreement.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I cannot but congratulate the noble Earl on the wisdom of the course lie invites us to pursue. I am sure the news will be received with a feeling of relief, in all centres where the commercial and shipping interest is strong, that this disastrous scheme has been abandoned, and that England has abstained from raising up a barrier to her own commercial progress, which might, under the proposed Agreement, have extended to the term of a century. My Lords, I presume the noble Earl will lay on the Table some Papers with reference to this scheme—[Earl GRANVILLE: Hear, hear!]—and its abandonment. No doubt those Papers, when laid before us, will throw light on many dark places in the negotiations which have passed. Still, there are some things with respect to which I confess I should like to have heard a fuller explanation from the noble Earl. he says that M. do Lesseps proposes to cut a new Canal without the assistance, or, as I understand it, the sanction and countenance of the English Government; but to do that he must take Egyptian soil. He must take some land which has been, conceded to him for other purposes, and which, if I mistake not, he is precluded by the tenour of the existing Instruments from using, except for the purposes named in it. For that object he must obtain the consent of the Egyptian Government, and the consent of the Egyptian Government, in the view of most persons, under existing circumstances, will be held to pro-suppose the consent of the English Government. I shall be glad to know if the noble Earl has formed any conception in his own mind of the terms upon which that consent will be given? Shall we be prepared to give M. de Lesseps another Canal without taking any security that the passage of British commerce will be more free, the administration more impartial, and the facilities offered more complete than they are now? Shall we accept such bad terms as those which have driven the shipping interest to so marked a

  119
  demonstration of dissatisfaction at the present time? Again, I feel it will be necessary for us, after this strange history, to press the noble Earl rather more earnestly to be frank with us as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to Egypt. Now that such doctrines have been advanced with respect to the power of piercing the Canal, such difficulties have been raised up to the future development of British commerce in that direction that the power which England holds on the Isthmus at this moment becomes to us an object of greater interest and significance. And the precise intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the occupation of Egypt will become a matter on which, I think, Parliament will require to be informed before it separates. Those six months which Lord Hartington said would see the end of the British occupation are now nearly expired—we are in the sixth month. I presume that by this time the Government have come to some resolution as to the course they intend to pursue. Again, I should like to know precisely how all this history leaves the alleged and assumed right of monopoly of M. de Lesseps and his Company? I quite agree with the noble Earl that we ought to treat the Company with all good feeling and equity; but I do not agree with him in the reason he gave for that opinion. He spoke as if the Company was in some sort a representative of France. I cannot admit that doctrine for a single moment. It is a private Company, and nothing more—a private Company in which England is nearly as large a shareholder as France. But, of course, it is entitled, like every other Company, to just, equitable, and considerate treatment. But, hitherto, Her Majesty's Government have entertained what has seemed to me a strange idea—namely, that that considerate treatment involved the necessity of a recognition of monopoly, not justified certainly on the surface of the Instruments we possess, not assigned by any unanimity of legal opinion, refused to them by many distinguished authorities, and obviously inconsistent with the first interests of this country. I hope, now that this scheme has been abandoned, all that has happened in connection with the scheme is abandoned too; that we are to take the whole incident as not having occurred;
  120
  that all those gravely imprudent admissions which were made in the House of Commons are to be banished from our recollection as if they were a dream; that nothing which has been said, either hero or elsewhere, implies an admission of a monopoly which this country, by the authorized channels for the expression of its will, has never yet sanctioned; and that the admission of that monopoly shall not be held to have been established by the unfortunate expressions of certain Ministers of the Crown, especially as they themselves have said that those expressions were only drawn from thorn by the exigencies of debate. My Lords, these are important questions. I do not know whether the noble Earl will spontaneously give us any further information as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in this respect. At all events, when we see the Papers, and have fuller means of considering the history and incidents of this almost unexampled diplomatic transaction, we shall be able to judge how far it is our duty to take further measures for ascertaining, it may be, the views of Parliament, or of Her Majesty's Government, in respect to the interests of England, which appear, in this instance, to have been so severely compromised.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION REPEAL BILL.—(No. 153.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
SUMMARY JURISDICTION REPEAL BILL.—(No. 153.)

  SECOND READING.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNcomplained of the rapidity with which this Bill was being hurried through the House. It was only introduced a few days since, and appeared to be a most important measure, as it proposed to repeal no less than 137 modern Acts of Parliament. He hoped the Motion for the second reading would not be persevered with.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, inasmuch as the Bill dealt with such a number of Acts of Parliament, and as the noble Earl desired to look into details, he would not ask their Lordships to go into Committee on it for a week or 10 days. With regard to the principle, the Bill was one of a series, some of which had already been passed, which had for their object the repeal of ob-

  121
  solete Acts of Parliament. The Acts it was now proposed to repeal had been carefully considered by the gentlemen who had drawn the Bill, and the questions raised by them during its preparation had been considered by himself, either alone or with the assistance of other Judges. He hoped their Lordships would assent to the second reading.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole Muse on Thursday the 2nd of August next.

FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 113.)
(The Earl Granville.)
FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 113.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  On Question, "That the Bill do pass?"
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSproposed to add to Sub-section 3 of Clause 7, as an Amendment, the following Proviso:—
  "Provided always, that this sub-section shall not apply to adult males employed in white-lead factories."
  The noble Earl remarked, that this Amendment raised a question which caused considerable discussion when the Bill was in Committee—namely, whether the provisions of the Bill should extend to adult labour—and on that occasion an attack was made upon an Association with which he was connected—the Property and Liberty Defence Association. That Association was not of a Party character, and it had been formed because the legislation of the last few years had given rise to the notion that it was necessary that something should be clone to safeguard individual liberty, and protect property from confiscation. This Bill was promoted for a sanitary purpose to render a very noxious trade less hurtful to those who engaged in it. Nothing could be further from the intention of the Association to which he had referred than to countenance the doctrine that the public health was not a proper subject for the State to legislate upon. There were many cases in which the State ought to interfere, such as where a person was carrying on a trade which was a nuisance to the whole neighbourhood. In such cases the State proceeded upon the principle that no man was entitled, in his pursuit of gain, to endanger the lives of
  122
  his fellows. These were legitimate cases for the interference of the State, provided the State could interfere effectively. The recent Mines Regulation Act and Mr. Plimsoll's Merchant Shipping Act were instances in which the State had interfered, though those Acts had not met with the success that had been anticipated. So much for the general question. He would now address himself to the particular point to which he wished to call the attention of their Lordships, and which was altogether an individual matter, involving, not the general subject of the public health, but the conduct of each particular workman. Looking at it in that point of view, he should say it was the first Bill ever introduced into Parliament which proscribed how a man should be dressed, what kind of boots he should wear, how he was to wash and brush himself, and what beverage he should drink. All that was perfectly novel and lay outside the scope of legislation. The noble and learned Lord sitting on the third Bench opposite (Lord Bramwell) justified the proposal, not on the ground of the workman's health, but in order to prevent his coming upon the rates, when the rateyayers would have to pay for his care and nursing. If that argument were to be followed, it would be necessary to have an Inspector to look after the workman night and day to see that he did not do anything which might load to his being thrown upon the rates. In fact, if the Bill passed in its present shape the state of things would be this—that a full-grown English workman would be subject to be examined as to his dress, his habits, and his drink. Nay, more; the Bill provided that the Secretary of State might make special rules, which were to be complied with with the same amount of obedience as were the requirements of the Schedule. Whoever did not act up to these requirements and special rules would at once become a criminal, liable to be called upon to pay a fine of £2, or else be sent to prison. It should be noted that by a disregard of the rules in the Bill a workman could only jeopardize his own health, and could in no way harm that of the community. If the programme shadowed forth by a Cabinet Minister, who hailed from Birmingham, and who appeared to ride roughshod over his Colleagues and everybody else—if that programme

  123
  were realized, and the working men had complete control over the situation, they would certainly never assent to such provisions as were contained in the present measure; and on those grounds he submitted his Amendment for the acceptance of the House.
  Amendment moved,
  At end of Clause 7 to add ("Provided always, that Sub-section (3) shall not apply to adult males employed in white-lead factories.")—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not wish, in the slightest degree, to wring the noble Earl's withers, and he wished him every possible success in establishing on a firmer basis than they had managed to do in this country the principles of liberty and the rights of property. At the same time, there were noble Lords in whose efforts in the cause of liberty he had more confidence than in those of his noble Friend on the Cross Benches. There were clearly cases in which it was within the province of the State to prevent a man from becoming, not only a burden to himself, but a burden to others; and, in his opinion, the case with which the Bill dealt was one of them. That the proposed regulations were necessary was proved in many ways. He had received a copy of the finding of a Coroner's Jury in the case of a woman whose death was ascribed to the result of a neglect of such regulations as the Bill would enforce. The regulations to which the noble Earl objected were observed in all the best white lead factories already; and the Home Office authorities had sent a copy of the Bill to every employer engaged in the particular trade to which it referred, and not one objection had been made to it. It would be a great evil to encourage the burden to the poor rates caused by the persons disabled in white lead factories, owing to the absence of these essential yet simple precautions. The noble Earl's Amendment, he might remark, did not extend to women, who, if they were convicted of failing to observe the provisions of the Act, would still be liable to a penalty. He trusted their Lordships would not sanction the Amendment.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 11; Non-Contents 36: Majority 25.
  Resolved in the negative.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved an Amendment which, he said, would be of some importance in its bearing upon Scotland as regarded the employment of children. Under the Act of 1878 children were employed ill the morning or the afternoon set, and the time was regulated by the dinner hour, which in England practically came to 1 o'clock. Now, in Scotland, there were certain factories where the dinner hour was 2. or 3 o'clock; therefore, the compulsory division of the day in the manner now prescribed had been found to be attended with some inconvenience, He proposed that the division in the eases he had alluded to should be made at 1 o'clock.
  Moved, in page 4, after Clause 14, to insert as a new clause—
  (Amendment as to period of employment of children in certain cases.)
  "Notwithstanding anything in section twelve or section fourteen of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, the period of employment for a child in an afternoon set in a factory or workshop, where the dinner-time does not begin before two o'clock in the afternoon, may begin at noon; provided that in such case the period of employment in the morning set shall end at noon."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  Clause agreed to.
  THE EARL OF PEMBROKEmoved, in Clause 15, to insert words which would enable the local authorities or au Inspector, by express permission, to license a werkshop underground. He said that a well-ventilated place underground might be better than a stuffy little shop abeve ground. The Amendment was perfectly harmless, because there was nothing in the Bill to compel either the local authorities or the Inspector to grant a licence.
  Amendment moved, Clause 15, page 4, line 21, after ("lawful") insert ("without the express permission of the local authority of the district or an inspector.")—(The Earl of Pembroke.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Government could not agree to the Amendment. He thought that the matter ought to be decided in ono way. It was not desirable to leave it to the local authorities, who might give different decisions.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsupported the Amendment.
  EARL FORTESCUEobserved, that when they found so much inconsistency in high quarters on the subject of the Contagious Diseases Acts, they need not be very much alarmed at the notion of a few local authorities coming to different decisions as to the exact description of places to be sanctioned.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that no answer had been given to the argument of his noble Friend that a well-ventilated place below ground might be better than a stuffy little shop abeve ground.
  THE EARL OF PEMBROKEsaid, that he was willing to strike out "the local authority" from his Amendment, and to confine the power of sanctioning the places in question to the Inspector.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 18; Not-Contents 28: Majority 10.

  CONTENTS.

  Cowper, E.

  Bramwell, L.

  Devon, E.

  Forester, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (B. Hopetoun.) [Teller.]

  Milltown, E.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. [Teller.]

  Leconfield, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Redesdale, E.

  Sandwich, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Lifford, V.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selberne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Aberdare, L.

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

  Bedford, D.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Grafton, D.

  Westminster, D.

  Carlingford, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Derby, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Hothfield, L.

  Granville, E.

  Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Morley, E.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Northbrook, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Robartes, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Resolved in the negative.

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

  (NO. 140.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked what the objects of the Bill were? He could not understand it.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)explained that some Unions in the West of Ireland, for the purpose of relieving distress, exceeded their legal borrowing powers with the permission of the Government; and the clauses to which the noble Earl referred were for the purpose of giving them a legal indemnity.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.