Lords Sitting of 4 May 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Medical Act (1858) Amendment* (52); Local Government Provisional Orders* (54).
Committee—Representative Peers (Scotland) (5–53).
Committee—Report—Isle of Man (Harbours) (50).
Report—Court of Chancery of Lancaster* (43).
Third Rending—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Orders Confirmation* (33), and passed.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 5.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
REPRESENTATIVE PEERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 5.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in the discussion on the second reading of this Bill, I stated to your Lordships that I would give respectful attention to all Amendments which might make it more acceptable to any noble Lords who had special interest in the subject. I am happy to inform your Lordships that I have been in communication with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland, who presided over the Committee of 1882, and I hope that we have come to a substantial agreement as to those points that were thought of importance. I will state to your Lordships the particular modifications in the Bill to which I think I can properly assent, and I will then ask your Lordships to allow it to be passed pro formâ through Committee, and to be reprinted, with the Amendments which I propose to introduce. My desire has been to deal with this matter in a manner which would secure the greatest amount of concurrence and meet all reasonable suggestions on the part of noble Lords from Scotland. Some of the proposed modifications I have already given Notice of, and the only material one, I think I may say, is this. I have adopted that part of the Amendment of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Huntly) which is founded on what fell from my noble and learned Friend (Lord Watson) on the second reading of the Bill—namely, that the power of reference to the Court of Ses-

  1829
  sion should not be quite so limited as I had proposed to make it. I had proposed that the Court might, if the Committee of Privileges thought fit, be consulted on matters of law, or for the purpose of taking evidence of facts. But my noble and learned Friend (Lord Watson) suggested that it would be better to leave it more wide, and to enable the Committee, in what it might think a proper case, to refer the Petition itself for consideration and report to the Court of Session, the House of Lords still reserving its own jurisdiction. This does not appear to me to affect the principle of the Bill, and I accordingly propose to adopt, in substance, that portion of the Amendment to the 7th clause of the Bill of which the noble Marquess has given Notice. The only other material point is this. I have proposed by the 5th clause to adopt, in substance, the same mode of determining the right of succession to Peerages on the death of a Peer which Parliament thought fit to adopt with regard to Irish Representative Peerages in the year 1857. The reference to Ireland was, I think, misunderstood. I stated, on the second reading, that I would substitute for any such reference words distinctly specifying the manner of proceeding intended, which was that in those cases where an application might be made by a person claiming to be the successor of a Peer, the House should cause inquiry to be made by the Lord Chancellor or Keeper of the Great Seal. But in certain communications which I have since had with the Lord Justice Clerk, he has led me to understand that it would be acceptable to many Scottish Peers that the mode of proceeding should undergo a modification which, in my opinion, involves no principle, and which, therefore, I shall willingly adopt, since it is acceptable to noble Lords from Scotland; and that is, in the same cases of succession for which my clause was intended to provide, an application should, in the first instance, be made by the successor to the Lord Clerk Register, accompanied by the production of a decree of service, finding the applicant to be heir to the person or persons through whom he professes to make out his title, together with the evidence on which such service has proceeded, and also a record, duly authenticated, of the proceedings. The
  1830
  Lord Clerk Register, on receiving such application, will refer it to the House of Lords, and the House of Lords will refer it to the Lord Chancellor, and he will report. These are the principal Amendments, and I now beg to move that the Bill be committed pro formâ, and reprinted with Amendments.
  Moved, "That the Bill be committed pro formâ, and reprinted with Amendments."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, it seemed to him that Clause 7, as it was proposed to be altered in regard to reference to the Court of Session, would be open to very great objection; and he wished to know if it would be competent to discuss the clause when the Bill again came up?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he wished it to be understood that the clause would be entirely open to consideration after it was reprinted.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he was sure that he might state, on the part of a large number of Scottish Peers, that the announcement made by the Lord Chancellor was a most satisfactory one. He did not now consider it necessary to proceed with the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES), said, he must express his dissent from the modification proposed by the Lord Chancellor with regard to dealing with succession claims. He believed there had been a misunderstanding among the Scottish Peers as to what the proceedings had always been upon the subject. The practice hitherto observed was much less expensive than that would be which was now proposed. In the case of successions it was absolutely necessary that precautions should be taken against anyone but the proper successor being admitted.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he should like to hear a clear statement from the Lord Chancellor as to whether the effect of the Amendments he was to propose would be to give the Court of Session any jurisdiction in the matter of Peerage eases?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwas understood to convey that this would not be the effect of his Amendments.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he was glad to be assured on the point, because he thought that giving such jurisdiction to

  1831
  the Court of Session would be a most unwise step.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee (according to order); amendments made; Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 29th instant; and to be printed as amended. (No. 53.)

BRITISH POSSESSIONS ABROAD—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government could give any assurance that they were taking any measures with a view to carrying into effect at an early date the recommendations of the Royal Commission "for the defence of British possessions and Commerce abroad?" The Commission, he explained, of which he had the honour to be Chairman, was appointed nearly four years ago, and consisted of Lord Camperdown, Sir Henry Holland, Sir Alexander Milne, Sir Lintorn Simmons, Sir Henry Barkly, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Hamilton (now in Dublin), Mr. Childers, and Sir Thomas Brassoy—gentlemen eminently qualified to conduct an inquiry of this kind. They eat for throe years and reported at very considerable length, as was known to the Government. They reported by instalments in order to enable the Government to take action upon those questions which they considered to be of the greatest and most urgent importance. The Report of the Commission had not been laid on the Table of the House. It was of a strictly confidential character, and he should not be justified in bringing the recommendations before the House, nor in saying anything to induce the Government to take that course. But those recommendations, based as they were to an extraordinary extent on professional evidence, were very important, and it was with regret that he had not seen any action taken by Her Majesty's Government on the subject. He trusted that he was mistaken in this, and that the Report had not been consigned to the pigeon-hole. At any rate, the time might come when it might be said to the Members of the Commission—"Why did you, knowing the vast interests involved and what the recommendations were, sit absolutely silent and passive while you thought or saw no action was being
  1832
  taken?" He would not have that on his conscience, and after this he should place the whole responsibility on the shoulders of the Government. There were some things which he might say without indiscretion, because the facts to which he should refer were already in a great measure public property. He would not read many figures to the House, but he would lay a few before their Lordships in order to show the enormous stake which the country had in this matter, although those figures would hardly convey a full impression of it. In 1878, since which year there had, no doubt, been a considerable increase, the value of British shippings—ships alone—was estimated at £88,000,000, and of Colonial shipping £20,000,000, a total of £108,000,000. To that must be added the annual value of the foreign trade of the United Kingdom, which amounted to the sum of £620,000,000; and of the Colonial trade, exclusive of trade with the United Kingdom, £190,000,000, or a total of £810,000,000 sterling. It might be added that a great deal of trade nominally foreign was English, and that some of the shipping that was nominally foreign was also English. In round numbers, £900,000,000 might in 1878 be taken to represent the value of our stake in commerce abroad. No other country had such a large stake in commerce. But, enormous as the figures wore, they barely represented the entire value of the interests at stake. The value of the trade of the United Kingdom, and of the ships engaged in it afloat at one time, was close upon £150,000,000 sterling, and not only was there no other country or people in the world which had as large a stake as this, but it was a stake so large that, as he had said, the figures gave really little idea of it. Further, he would compare the merchant navy of England with that of the rest of the world in 1880, the latest figures he had. The total tonnage of the British merchant navy was 6,500,000 tons, of which the steam tonnage amounted to no less than 2,700,000 tons. On the other hand, the total foreign tonnage of ships of every nation included amounted to only 8,000,000 tons, and their steam tonnage was considerably less than ours. He would go one step further and remind the House of that which was no secret, that during

  1833
  the last few years sailing ships had been to an enormous extent superseded by steamers. The increase that had taken place in steam vessels during the last 20 years would be seen from the followingfiguros:—In 1860 the total of British tonnage engaged in the home and foreign trade was 4,250,000 tons; and of that only 400,000 tons represented steam. In 1879 the total tonnage of British ships in the home and foreign trade had increased to 6,250,000 tons, of which steamers represented no less than 2,300,000 tons. It was no exaggeration say that a complete revolution had been effected by this supersession of sailing ships by steam. Many questions arose on this matter, into which he need not enter; but there was one point the vital importance of which no one would dispute who had looked into the subject—the defence, at all events, of our coaling stations abroad. It was vitally necessary for this reason, that unless our coaling stations were in an effective state our fleets could not operate against an enemy, we should not be able to shelter our merchantmen, to repair and refit our ships, and, in short, we should not be able to make use of the superior powers of steam which we possessed as a nation. The House would remember the amount of mischief that was done by a few ships, such as the Alabama and Florida, in the time of the American War; but great as that mischief was, it would be nothing compared to that which might be done to our shipping in a time of war if those coaling stations were not properly cared for. We stood in a totally different position in this respect from any other nation in the word. Trade was the sinew of this country, and our trade, unlike that of every other nation, was scattered over the surface of the globe. Germany had few or no Colonies. Spain had Colonies and little commerce. Italy had a small foreign trade, and Russia had not much. France was the only country besides ourselves that had Colonies and a considerable amount of commerce, and he would point out to the House that the French had thought it expedient to take steps for the defence of their coaling stations at Senegal, La Réunion, and other places. At Martinique also they had spent considerable sums, and were building a dry dock there capable of holding the largest ships that passed through the Suez
  1834
  Canal. He would read to the House an extract from a speech made by the French Minister of Marine two or three years ago, when he brought his Estimates before the French Chamber, and their Lordships would see that it was very applicable to the matter in hand. He said—
  "Our Colonies ought to be rendered safe from insult, by which I mean that a single ship should not he able to place itself in front of one of the towns on the coast and summon it to furnish either coal or provisions on pain of bombardment. If there were no works capable of resisting and replying with guns to this sort of requisition we should be obliged to submit, even though we were masters at sea. It is said that ships of war should supply the want; but they could not be everywhere, and it is possible that a hostile cruiser taking advantage of their temporary absence might descend upon an important port and levy contributions which would far exceed in value the cost of the defences we propose. In conclusion, it is necessary for you to decide whether the Colonies are or are not to be defended; and let me say that if you decide that they are not to be defended, you will probably lose far more by the disasters which may ensue than the cost of the fortifications. I have done my duty by laying the matter before you as I thought was right, and thus relieved myself from the responsibility which must have rested upon me if by my silence I had been the cause of an insult to the French flag, You wish to keep the Colonies. You are right—but I consider it is absolutely necessary to defend them,"
  Those words might be applied to our own case. If the French Minister thought it right to speak in those terms, he thought this was a question which, at all events, might engage the attention of Parliament. There was one other point to which he would like to call the attention of the House. There was a constant tendency out-of-doors to confuse the Colonies with merely stations; but he thought the Colonies were doing their duty very fairly in this matter. In Australia, at Sydney, at Adelaide, and at Melbourne, very large works were being constructed, and so keen were they upon the subject that they had anticipated some changes in the construction of guns, and in addition to that many of them had already created considerable land forces. The responsible Colonies were doing all that was necessary in the matter, and were doing it without putting us to one shilling of expense. The principle on which they were acting was, that if we with our squadron protected them, they, on the other hand, would give shelter to our ships by placing their ports in a state of

  1835
  defence. He now went to the military stations, and of them, of course, a principal part of the expense fell, and must fall, on this country; but, at the same time, they were absolutely essential, and if they were placed and kept in a sufficient state of defence, there was every reason to hope we might clear the sea of our enemies. He considered that he should say nothing with regard to the recommendations of the Royal Commission; only he would say that some of those recommendations made involved comparatively very little cost. And this further he would say, that in any recommendations they made they were most careful to avoid recommending any multiplication of garrisons or forces. He would only add one word more, to get rid of the idea that because we held Egypt we were therefore to dispense with taking any other securities. He believed there could be no greater mistake or a more dangerous one than that. There were many contingencies even in lime of war, which would make it absolutely essential for us to maintain the Cape route to India, and, therefore, he trusted that whatever her Majesty's Government did, there would be no saving or false economy in placing the Cape station in a thoroughly effective state of defence. He would now ask the noble Lord the Question he had put upon the Paper.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that in answering the Question he should like, in the first place, to state that Her Majesty's Government felt greatly indebted to the Royal Commission, over which the noble Earl had presided, for the very able manner in which they had performed the confidential and important duty intrusted to them by the late Government. He could assure his noble Friend that he had read the Report with the greatest attention, and that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to give it that consideration to which the importance of the subject entitled it. In respect to the Question put by his noble Friend, he assured him that the Board of Admiralty, being, he might say, more interested in the matter than any other Department, had followed, and were still following, in one or two important particulars, the lines which the Commission had indicated. With regard to the part of his noble Friend's Question which referred to fortifications, he thought that
  1836
  he must feel that such recommendations required very careful consideration. The recommendations had, therefore, been referred to practical authorities for consideration, both with respect to the works themselves and to another most important matter, the strength of the garrisons required for the works recommended by the Commission. He could only say that the labours of the Commission would not be fruitless, and he hoped his noble Friend would be satisfied with this answer. He would like, however, before sitting down to express his hearty concurrence in the manner in which the noble Earl had spoken in respect to the Australian Colonies, for the great public spirit and great wisdom they had displayed in providing both sea and land defences for their most important ports.

EGYPT (EXPEDITIONARY FORCE)—FIELD ALLOWANCES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDrose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the officers of the 1st Battalion Manchester Regiment (late 63rd) and the 1st Battalion Seaforth Highlanders (late 72nd), having received six months' field allowance during service in Egypt, in common with officers of other regiments, had since been called upon to refund the same; and whether those officers ceased to receive the usual rates of Indian pay and allowances after their arrival at Suez in August last, although the regiments to which they belonged were not placed upon the English establishment till the 10th of October? The noble Viscount said, these two regiments landed at Suez in the latter part of the month of August, and on the 10th of October were placed on the English establishment. It was contended that they should not receive higher pay and allowances than other officers; but they had received six months' pay and allowance for duty in the field as well as the other officers who formed part of the Egyptian Expedition; but the six months' field allowance which was issued to the 63rd and 72nd Regiments had been withdrawn. With regard to the 63rd Regiment, he was informed that although the quartermaster had in his hands six months' allowance for the officers, it was not issued to them; but the officers

  1837
  in the 72nd Regiment had received the six months' pay and allowance and had since been compelled to refund it. Either these regiments were entitled to receive Indian pay and allowances, or they were entitled to receive six months' field allowances. He was quite certain that an unintentional oversight had occurred, and that there was no intention on the part of the Government to deprive the officers of these two distinguished regiments of any allowances to which they were justly entitled.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the fact is the officers referred to were not considered entitled to the field allowance on quitting India, because up to the date of their landing in Egypt they continued in receipt of those higher rates of Indian pay and allowances which include the provision of field equipment, to meet the cost of which the advance in question was given to officers proceeding on service from England. From the date of their landing in Egypt, however, they received the War Office daily rate of field allowance. The regimental authorities of the Seaforth Highlanders drew the whole of the six months' field allowance, and have been called on to refund. A similar claim by the Manchester Regiment has been disallowed. On representations, however, subsequently received, the India Office has under immediate consideration the claims of the officers to the whole six months' advance.

FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it would be possible to obtain returns of the number and valuation of the Scotch coast and river salmon fisheries; and, if so, whether instructions would be sent to the Scotch Fishery Board in accordance with the 5th section of the Fishery Board Act, 1882, to procure and include these returns and valuations in their annual report to be presented to Parliament; and when the report would be presented? The noble Lord said, there were certain districts which were not under the District Salmon Fishery Boards; but he believed that that difficulty would be obviated if the Home Department sent instructions to the Fishery Boards to get the valuations
  1838
  from the assessors in each county in Scotland. If the complete Report could not be obtained this year, he hoped the Under Secretary would be able to state when it was likely to be ready. He thought it was most important in dealing with questions connected with salmon fisheries that the most complete information should be given to Parliament.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he could answer the Question of which the noble Marquess had given Notice, but he could not answer the Question of which the noble Marquess had not given Notice. On seeing this Question on the Paper, he wrote to the Secretary of the Fishery Board in Scotland, who informed him that the returns of the number and valuation of the Scottish coast and river salmon fisheries could only be obtained in those fishery districts where there were District Boards, but that it would be impossible, or nearly so, to obtain them were there were no Fishery Boards. There were three-fourths of the fishery districts in Scotland without Boards. The Secretary added that it would be very desirable to procure these returns, and that they would be given this year, but only to a certain extent, as the rivers on the East coast alone had as yet been inspected, and a Report thereon was in preparation. He was unable to answer the Question of the noble Marquess as to when the Report would be presented.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he should like to be quite certain as to what the noble Lord understood by the word "valuation." He did not think there was anything in the 5th section of the Fishery Board Act that had to do with valuation.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYreplied, that he took it for granted that the secretary of the Fishery Board, on whose authority he relied, meant the rental of these Scottish fisheries; but he spoke under correction.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it was an unusual proceeding to go behind a valuation roll, which was the basis for rating, and was open to everyone. To give returns of the annual rental of private property was entirely without precedent. If these were granted it would be found that questions of a very inconvenient character would follow.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, there could be no difficulty in giving the returns from the valuation roll. The difficulty, he thought, was in ascertaining the rental.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he did not think that the noble Earl had quite apprehended the point. It was whether the information which was to be given in accordance with the 6th section of the Fishery Board Act was the valuation according to the valuation roll? That, of course, was a public document. If it was meant that inquiry was to be made into the rental and value of the different fisheries in Scotland, then it struck him that that would be a most inquisitorial proceeding, and one to which he should certainly object if any application was made to him.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYwas understood to say that he only wanted the returns from the valuation rolls.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORGES)—THE MUSKETRY REGULATIONS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEasked the Under Secretary for War, Whether it was intended to revise the musketry regulations of the Volunteer Force? The noble Lord said, that the War Office Committee had lately reported on the whole question of musketry instruction, and had made recommendations, most of which had already been adopted in the Regular Army. They stated in that Report that although the Volunteer Forces exhibited excellent shooting at Wimbledon and elsewhere, they believed that the majority of the Force were not superior to the Line as marksmen. He fully endorsed this opinion, and attributed this to a great extent to the system which enabled them to earn the capitation grant by merely firing the regulated number of rounds. They often fired off nearly the whole of this number without the supervision of an officer. The consequence was that they knew they could earn nothing extra for their corps; they fired carelessly, and failed to get into the 2nd class. He thought a portion of the grant might be made to depend on their getting into the 2nd class, or else that some additional inducement should be given. He was sure the noble Earl would agree with him that it was abso-
  1840
  lutely necessary to encourage good shooting amongst all branches of the Auxiliary Forces.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKasked whether there might not be some difficulty in applying the new regulations to the Militia?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, with regard to the Question of the noble Earl (the Earl of Limerick), they were anxious to keep the Militia at as high a standard as possible. The only solution of the difficulty referred to by the noble Earl was by extending the period of training; but that would mean a considerable increase of expenditure, and would cause great inconvenience to the men and those who employed them. As to the Question of the noble Viscount (Viscount Hardinge), he was ready to admit its great importance. It was essential that the Volunteers should be efficient, not merely in drill, but also in shooting. From statistics of the shooting of Volunteers for the year before last—the latest he could obtain—he found that out of 154,000 efficients in Infantry Volunteer Corps, 16,000 men shot away their 60 rounds each, and failed to get into the second class. That was about 10 per cent of the whole number of efficients; 70 per cent passed into the second class, and 20 per cent into the first class. Those figures did not give so unsatisfactory an account of the shooting of Volunteers as he was led to expect. There were several questions affecting this part of the Volunteers' training. In the first place, they were very anxious to do nothing to press unduly upon the time and labour of Volunteers. In recent years they had increased the qualifications required for efficients, and he was bound to say that to all the new demands they had made the Volunteers had responded in a spirit of the greatest loyalty and energy. They were, therefore, unwilling, unless it were absolutely necessary, to press the qualification to an extreme length. In the second place, he thought that if all Volunteers were required to reach the second class before they could obtain their qualification of efficiency, it would act somewhat unequally on different corps, because while some corps had adequate and convenient ranges, others might have have to go long distances, and could only shoot as occasion offered. Another difficulty was with regard to supervision,

  1841
  It was impossible that they could have the same supervision in the case of the firing in the Volunteers as they had in the Line. He mentioned these facts to show the difficulties which surrounded the question; but he admitted that the present test was unsatisfactory, and he thought it very desirable that a greater number of Volunteers should be encouraged to take sufficient trouble with their shooting to enable them to obtain a place in the second class. When the Martini-Henry rifle could be issued to the Volunteers—and he could give no definite information when that would be—the present musketry regulations for Volunteers would require revision, and that would be a very convenient time for also taking up the question to which the noble Viscount had called attention.

ISLE OF MAN (HARBOURS) BILL.
(The Lord Sudeley.)
ISLE OF MAN (HARBOURS) BILL.

  (NO. 50.) COMMITTEE.
  Order for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)asked for some explanation as to the object and scope of the measure.
  LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to enable further duties to be levied on vessels using the harbours of the Isle of Man. By the Isle of Man Harbours Act of 1872 full power was given to impose harbour dues on all vessels using the port; but as these tonnage dues would act as an import duty, and raise the cost of everything throughout the Island, and, at the same time, act prejudicially on vessels merely calling on their way across from Ireland, it has not been found desirable to impose duties in this form. About £300,000 has been spent in improving the harbours, and as further sums will have to be spent for the special purpose of improving the harbours for passenger steamers bringing tourists, it has been decided to obtain additional powers so as to place a tax of 1d. to 3d. on each passenger carried. As there are now about 120,000 persons visiting the Island in each year, it is intended, by means of a tax of 1d., to raise £1,000 a-year towards the repairs and the interest on the loans. This tax will practically be paid by the steam companies. The House of Keys has
  1842
  passed a strong resolution in favour of this Bill, and the feeling of the Island is strongly in favour of it.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; and to be read 3ª on Monday next.

  MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Medical Act (1858)—Was presented by The Lord O'HAGAN; read 1ª, (No. 52.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.