Lords Sitting of 8 May 1884

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, Earl of Camperdown, added.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Colonial Attornies Relief Act Amendment* (78); Secretary for Scotland* (79).
Second Reading—Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order (Dundalk Waterworks)*.(69); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* (68); Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders* (70); Marriages Legalization (76).
Committee—Report—Public Health (Confirmation of Bye-Laws)* (76).

CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIAN ADVANCE—SARAKHS.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I rise to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It is, Whether the Government are in a position to confirm or deny the report that a Convention has been concluded between Russia and Persia for the cession of Sarakhs by the Shah to Russia?
EARL GRANVILLE: Her Majesty's Government have no confirmation of this report; and, unless it should be confirmed, I can hardly believe it. Sarakhs is garrisoned by Persian soldiers, and as lately as last September our. Chargé d' Affaires at St. Petersburg assured us that Sarakhs would be always outside the Russian line. I do not like to make a guess about a thing I do not know; but I think it is very likely that some confusion has arisen from the fact that there are two places bearing the same name—Sarakhs.

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—RELIEF OF GENERAL GORDON.

  QUESTION.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to a telegraphic despatch to Mr. Egerton, dated Foreign Office, 23rd April, 1884, in which occur the following words:—
  "That we do not propose to supply him (General Gordon) with a Turkish or other force for the purpose of undertaking military expeditions,"
  Whether Her Majesty's Government' are in a position to co-operate with the Government of the Porte in sending Turkish troops to the Soudan with a view to the relief of General Gordon and the Egyptian garrison of Khartoum, if the Sultan should be willing to do so? said, he had put the Question with no desire to obtain information which it might be inconvenient for Her Majesty's Government to supply, but only to draw attention to the fact that General Gordon, in
  1658
  his most recent despatches, more than once urged the sending of Turkish troops to the Soudan as an effectual means of putting down the insurrection. He (Earl De La Warr) noticed with some surprise that, in the Papers just laid upon the Table of the House [Egypt, No. 13], no mention whatever was made of any communication between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Porte. He was, therefore, at a loss to understand the meaning of the words—
  "We do not propose to supply him (General Gordon) with a Turkish or other force for the purpose of undertaking military expeditions against the Mahdi, such expeditions," it was added, "being beyond the scope of the commission he holds, and at variance with the pacific policy which was the purpose of his mission to the Soudan."—[Egypt, No. 20 (1884).]
  It was clear that Turkish troops could only be sent to Khartoum, or any part of the Soudan, with the consent of the Sultan; but they had not been informed whether any communication had been made to the Porte on that subject. In the despatch of the noble Earl it was stated that General Gordon was not to be supplied with Turkish troops for the purpose of undertaking military expeditions; but that did not necessarily imply that they might not be sent for other purposes, it might be of relief or defence. In a telegram received at the Foreign Office on April 9, from Sir Evelyn Baring, it was stated that General Gordon said—
  "If you could get, by good pay, 3,000 Turkish infantry and 1,000 Turkish cavalry, the affair, including crushing of Mahdi, would be accomplished in four mouths."
  Sir Evelyn Baring, in a telegram from Cairo, dated April 11, added—
  "The only Turkish forces which would be at all possible to send are regiments of the Sultan's army."—[Egypt, No. 13 (1884), pp. 9,10,11.]
  Those were the words of Sir Evelyn Baring. General Gordon repeated again his former telegram, dated April 8, and received at Cairo April 18, in which he said that 3,000 Turkish troops from the Sultan "would settle Soudan and Mahdi for ever." A telegram to the same effect was received at Cairo the following day, April 19, in which it was added—
  "Do you think that an appeal to the millionaires of America and England for the raising of £200,000 would be of any avail?"—[Ibid. p. 13.]

  1659
  Such being the views of General Gordon in repeated telegrams, he felt he was not putting a Question to the noble Earl which could be considered inopportune.
  EARL GRANVILLE, in reply, said, that on reading the Question as it appeared on the Notice Paper, it seemed to him rather doubtful whether it was one for more information about General Gordon's safety, or was of an argumentative character. But, after hearing the noble Earl's speech, he had only to say that the Government had no more information to give than they had already supplied. It was not opportune at the present moment, he considered, to go further into the matter.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS—HYDE PARK CORNER—STATUE OF THE LATE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STEATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is intended to remove the equestrian statue of the late Duke of Wellington from London before the proposed fund for another statue is collected?
  LORD THURLOW, in reply, said, that the precise date for the removal of the statue was not yet fixed, but that it would be fixed as soon as the minor details connected with the matter had been settled. As to the subscription for raising the necessary funds for the new statue, it had been already set on foot, and several promises of large sums had been given, as well as several subscriptions actually received. In fact there was every reason to believe that an ample fund would be forthcoming before it was possible to remove the equestrian statue from its present position. No time, however, would be lost in carrying out the plans which had been decided upon.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, that as he had not an opportunity of addressing their Lordships when this subject was before the House on a former evening, he would like to make a few observations now, because his Father—the late Duke of Rutland—took an extreme interest in placing the statue upon the Arch, and for 10 years of his life it was his principal object. He (the Duke of Rutland) had sent some facts in a
  1660
  letter to The Morning Post, which might or might not have been read by their Lordships. One fact was, that the Duke of Wellington refused to sit for his likeness to Wyatt until he received the sanction of the Queen that the statue should be placed upon the arch. The second was, that the Duke did sit to Wyatt, and several times; and that he expressed to Wyatt that ha (the Duke) would like him (Wyatt) to see him upon horseback, as he was naturally proud of his seat on horseback. The third fact was, that the Duke was annoyed at the idea of the statue being taken down; and the fourth was, that the Committee in their final Report—when the statue was placed upon the Arch—said that it was a likeness of the Duke of Wellington as he appeared at the Battle of Waterloo. He did not know whether he ought to trouble their Lordships by reading extracts upon which he based this statement. With their Lordships' permission, however, he would read them. The first extract was a Minute of the Sub-Committee, dated December 2, 1846, and it was as follows:—
  "When Her Majesty the Queen was graciously pleased to approve of the Arch as the position of the intended statue, she was so good as to express a most ready acquiescence in the wish of the Committee, and even went so far as to say that she should consider that the statue on the summit of the Triumphal Arch would be an object of great ornament to that part of the Metropolis, and she should rejoice to see upon it the memorial of so great a man as the Duke of Wellington."
  The next extract was from a letter from the Duke of Rutland to Mr. Croker, dated June 1, 1847, detailing an account of an interview with Lord John Russell, and it ran thus—
  "I said that I was not aware that his Lordship knew the Duke, who had hitherto avoided the expression of any opinion on the subject, had lately evinced the strongest desire that the statue should remain where it was, and that I and my Colleagues felt that if we did not follow up his wishes, by directing the artist to remove more of the scaffolding, we should actually offend His Grace."
  The third was an extract from a Minute of the Sub-Committee, under date of June 28, 1847, and was signed by the Duke of Rutland, the Chairman of the Committee. It was to this effect—
  "And all these objections are fortified by knowing its removal to be distasteful to the illustrious individual whose achievements it was their object to commemorate, and whose consent

  1661
  to sit to the artist they obtained on the express statement that the Arch had been granted by the Queen in the terms before quoted for the site of the Statue."
  The following was an extract from the final Report of the Sub-Committee, dated June 3, 1848:—
  "They rejoiced at having completed their anxious labours by the erection of a memorial surpassing in magnitude every other equestrian statue in the world, and conveying to posterity a faithful similitude of His Grace as he appeared on the great day of Waterloo."
  In the second volume of The Life of Bishop Wilberforce, at page 412, dated October 17, 1858, this passage occurs—
  "I asked Lord Aberdeen—'Do you believe a story Brougham told me, that the Duke meant, if the equestrian statue were taken down, to resign his commission?' And that he said—'I fear I cannot the Peerage.' 'I do not believe that; but it might be true.'"
  He felt wonderfully strongly about its being an indignity. A lady had informed him that, at the time the statue was put up, she was very anxious to know whether it was a correct likeness of the Duke, and she asked an old Peninsular veteran what he thought of it, and his reply was—"Well, mum, it is the likeliest thing I have ever see'd (sic). I have over and over again see'd the Duke in that attitude giving the word of command." He (the Duke of Rutland) was aware that a Vote for the removal of the statue had been agreed to in the House of Commons; but he implored Her Majesty's Government, and the country as well, before the final step was taken, to consider what it was they were really going to do. If they were to remove this statue, because they thought it was not of an artistic character, he wanted to know what statue in London would remain where it was? What statue was there that some critic or artist would not find fault with, and say that some blunder had been made in executing it? This statue embodied all the memories of the great man who had passed away, and was it to be removed merely because the artist had happened to have made a blunder? He did not doubt that Mr. Boehm would make a very fine statue, but it could not be the commemorative figure, showing the Duke on horseback, as he appeared at the Battle of Waterloo, that pleased the Duke, who did not wish it to be removed from its present position. Therefore, it should not be so removed; for even if it were, and even if Mr.
  1662
  Boehm did make what might be called a fine statue now, and which should be put in the place of the old one, what security had they that some 20 years hence the Royal Academicians and the Art critics of the day might not arrive at the conclusion that it was not an artistic piece of sculpture, and that they could do much better. This was really a very serious matter, and it was one that should not be decided by a number of gentlemen upon a Committee; it ought to be decided by the feeling of the country. As yet, however, the public had had very little opportunity of expressing their opinion on the matter. He hoped, therefore, that even at that eleventh hour, the subject might be reconsidered by Her Majesty's Government. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales had taken great interest in this subject, and with that patriotism and loyalty for which he was distinguished, when he heard that this statue was to be melted down and done away with, he had come forward, and had proposed the plan which, at all events, saved the statue from destruction. The whole of the Correspondence had been presented by the Committee to his Father, and both His Royal Highness and the Government were ignorant of the facts he had then stated. In conclusion, he would appeal to the Government and the nation, whether, knowing the sentiments of the noble Duke, as he the (Duke of Rutland) had now explained them, they would still insist on removing the, statue to Aldershot, because such removal would be an outrage on the memory of the illustrious dead?
  LORD DE ROSsaid, he had not, during the discussion, heard a single word as to the opinion of the officers of the Army on the subject. He was certain that if the sentiment and feelings of the British Army had been consulted, it would have been in favour of preserving the statue, if not in the present locality, at any rate, in the vicinity of Apsley House, whether it was replaced on the Arch or not. He did not see where it could be placed at Aldershot, and he hoped the appeal of the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) would have weight with Her Majesty's Government.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, that the matter had been discussed ad nauseam. This was the sixth or seventh time it had been brought before the House,

  1663
  and he wished to know how often these discussions were to take place? The noble Duke complained that public opinion had not been fully tested; but it had been so far tested that in both Houses the scheme had been approved by a majority in its favour. His noble and gallant Friend asked whether the Army had been consulted. The Army was well represented on the Committee, and it was understood that the officers at Aldorshot had asked for its removal there. As to the expense of a pedestal for it, when it arrived there, the funds of the Prince of Wales's Committee would be ample to meet any expenditure. He must now protest against further discussion in the matter.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, it was very true, as the noble Viscount had said, that the subject had been discussed from time to time; but it had now come forward in quite a different phase, and information had been brought forward which had not come before their Lordships in previous discussions. The House having now been put authentically, and for the first time, in possession of the facts of the case, an Address to the Throne ought to be moved for at once in reference to it, the other House having passed a Motion on the subject without anything like a full knowledge concerning it. He denied that the House of Commons had decided in favour of the removal of the statue. They had been told that the statue was to go, and were asked whether they would vote the money for the construction of another equestrian statue to take its place, to which they assented.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would not by one word prolong the argument. He rather agreed with the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Hardinge), that the subject was one which had already been pretty well ventilated both in and out of Parliament. It had been suggested by the noble and gallant Lord opposite (Lord De Ros) that an appeal should be made to the Army; while, as far as he (Earl Granville) could understand him, the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) had suggested a plebiscite of the nation; but, in view of the fact that the question had already been settled in both Houses, he was at a loss to understand what machinery could be necessary for making the test. Her Majesty's Government were not
  1664
  yet so Radical that, after the discussions which had taken place in both Houses of Parliament, they would submit the matter to a plebiscite of the people.

SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in rising, according to Notice, to present a Bill for the reform of the Local Government of Scotland, said: My Lords, the House will not be surprised that Her Majesty's Government should again this year introduce a measure dealing with the Government of Scotland. Not to go further back in the history of this question than the Bill of last year, I may remind your Lordships that, at the end of last Session, a Bill dealing with the Local Government of Scotland passed through the House of Commons, with the support and approval of the great majority of the Scottish Members of Parliament, and came up to your Lordships' House. Your Lordships saw fit to reject that Bill on the second reading; but I may remind your Lordships that, with scarcely an exception, all the speeches that were made on both sides of the House agreed upon this—that, however faulty the measure might be, nevertheless some measure of the kind was urgently needed, and ought to be passed. The Bill of last year, so far as I could understand the facts, was thrown out, partly on the ground of detail, but partly because, as observed by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), there was not time then to consider the Bill, but partly, also, on the ground that the Scottish people were not sufficiently urgent in pressing for the Bill. Well, now, as regards the desire of the Scottish people to have a Bill of this kind, I need only refer to the great public meeting held at Edinburgh at the beginning of this year—a meeting presided over by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lothian), and at which my noble Friend opposite (Lord Balfour) and several other noble Lords attended and spoke. I also attended that meeting; but I attended it only as a looker-on, and chiefly in the hope of the profit and instruction that I expected to derive from the speech of the noble Marquess. Although I was certainly au interested spectator in one sense of the word, I was in another a perfectly impartial one, and I can only

  1665
  assure your Lordships that I was very greatly impressed by the magnitude and the character of that great assembly. In the opinion of many whose judgments are much more worth having than mine, such a meeting has rarely, if ever, taken place either in Scotland or any other country of the world. There were representatives of every class, representatives of every section of the nation, representatives of every shade of opinion, political and religious. The discussion lasted for some three hours, and I think there were some 30 or 40 speeches; and, so far as I recollect, there was not one single discordant note from beginning to end. After that, I think it would be impossible for any opponent of this measure to say that the Scottish people, as a nation, do not strongly and urgently require a Bill of this nature. The Government have also been anxious to meet the wishes and criticism of the noble Marquess opposite. They have, therefore, introduced this measure in the House of Lords at this early period of the Session; and though, of course, it is very possible that the ingenuity of the noble Marquess in discovering reasons for the rejection of measures proposed by Her Majesty's Government may not be baffled by this simple precaution, still, the noble Marquess will admit that, if this Bill is to follow the fate of the Bill of last year, it must be on some other ground than that of want of time. Then, as to the details urged by my noble Friend opposite (Lord Balfour), the Government have taken pains also to meet the objections which he raised last year, and I hope that when he sees this measure he will be of opinion that they have not been unsuccessful in their attempt. I ought to say that, in the Notice that stands on the Paper in my name, there is an error in the title of this Bill. Instead of "A Bill for the Reform of the Local Government of Scotland," it ought to be called "A Bill for appointing a Secretary for Scotland." This Bill appoints a Secretary for Scotland—not of a Scottish Local Board—who is to hold Office during Her Majesty's pleasure, and who is to have a permanent Assistant Secretary. The Secretary for Scotland, if he is not a Member of your Lordships' House, must, at all events, be a person eligible for a seat in the House of Commons; and he will be in this position—
  1666
  that if he be a Member of Parliament, on acceptance of the Office he will be required to vacate his seat, and seek reelection at the hands of his constituents. This Bill also transfers to the Secretary for Scotland all the powers and duties which are vested in the Secretary of State in relation to the Universities of Scotland; also, all rights of patronage relating to offices and appointments in Scotland which are vested in the Secretary of State; also, all powers and duties vested in the Secretary of State by certain Amendments specified in the Schedule. I will not go through the Schedule; because I think I should have an undue advantage over your Lordships in doing so, and some difficulty in making your Lordships understand my meaning if I attempted it. This Bill reserves to the Lord Advocate all the rights, powers, and privileges which he has hitherto enjoyed. The difference between the Bill and the Bill of last year, to put it very shortly, is this—that the authority to be constituted is that of a Secretary, and not that of a Local Board. Provision is made in this Bill, as in the Bill of last year, for the appointment of an Assistant Secretary—a permanent officer—and the powers and duties of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to the Universities were not in the Bill of last year, but will, by this Bill, be transferred to the Secretary for Scotland. The administration of the Education and Endowments Acts is also transferred from the Education Department to the Scottish Secretary. My Lords, to give you a sufficient description of all the alterations this Bill will make would require a great length of time, and could hardly be satisfactorily made until the measure is in your Lordships' hands. I will, therefore, defer that to a later stage of the Bill, and content myself by moving that it be now read a first time.
  Bill for appointing a Secretary for Scotland—Presented (The Earl of DALHOUSIE).
  LORD BALFOUR: I do not desire to make any criticism of the measure which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) has laid on the Table of your Lordships' House, for the simple reason that I have not been able from his explanation to really gauge the scope of the measure. I will not deny the

  1667
  necessity for the measure, and I am very glad indeed that he has introduced it at a much earlier period of the Session than was the case last year, and has, therefore, given us time to give it a fair and full consideration. I am glad to be able to corroborate almost entirely what he said in regard to the meeting which was held in Scotland, and I would add tbis—I do not think, between him and myself—in fact, between him and almost anyone who has spoken in public on this subject—that there is any difference in principle. This measure is obviously one the details of which require the most careful consideration; and I am quite certain that, if there is any point of difference, it will be on points of detail, such as, perhaps, can be best considered before a Select Committee, where arguments can be exchanged, and that without making sot speeches. I therefore would venture to suggest that, as we have plenty of time before us, some time should be given before the second reading is taken; or an engagement should be entered into by the Government that they will not oppose the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. In saying that I would like to add this—that I do not propose this course with any intention of delaying or obstructing the progress of the measure, because I know that there is a strong feeling in favour of something of the kind in Scotland. But I am sure anyone who has held high Office will corroborate me, when I express my opinion that, in changing the Department which has to conduct Business, and the details of Business, it is most necessary to be very careful as to the way in which that is done. It would be, in my opinion, a great misfortune if there was a separation in the management of those affairs which are regulated by the same statutory authority for England and Scotland. The noble Earl did not say whether such things as the regulation of factories and mines was to he transferred to the new Office. Now, that was one of the principal objections I urged—that those things which are regulated by the same statutes for England and Scotland should not be transferred from the Home Office. I shall not, however, attempt to criticize the measure further at this stage, but shall confine myself to asking the Government whether they can now fix a
  1668
  day for the second reading, or to express an opinion as to the proposal I make for the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only wish to assure the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) that I am not in the least degree unfriendly to the object of this Bill. I should be very glad to see some such Bill passed, as I am convinced it is the wish of the people of Scotland; but, on the other hand, I concur with my noble Friend who has just spoken that the details should be carefully scrutinized, in order to avoid any inconvenience arising.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) stated that the Bill has come with an inexact title; but he did not say what the title was. He says there is to be a Secretary for Scotland. I presume he means a Secretary of State. As to the request of my noble Friend (Lord Balfour) that the second reading should be deferred for some time, I quite agree that that is desirable; but to ask Her Majesty's Government now to say that they commit themselves to refer the Bill to a Select Committee seems to me to be a strong demand. I think it would be better for us to see what the Bill is, and then, on the second reading, decide for ourselves whether it should go to a Select Committee or not.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE: Perhaps I might ask whether the new Secretary is intended to be a Member of the Privy Council, like the Chief Secretary for Ireland?
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE: I must defer giving an answer to the question just asked by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Belmore). I am glad to be able to express agreement w7ith the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Galloway), that to ask, at this stage of the proceedings, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee is rather a strong request. I thought of putting down the second reading of the Bill for the 20th instant; but I do not know whether your Lordships would consider that too early a period. As to the question whether or not the Secretary for Scotland is to be a Secretary of State, I have emphatically to say that he will not be a Secretary of State, and it is not so intended he should be. The Secretaryship for Scotland will be a Secretaryship

  1669
  altogether inferior to that of a Secretary of State.
  Bill read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 79.)

  COLONIAL ATTORNIES RELIEF ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Colonial Attornies Belief Act—Was presented by The Earl of ABERDEEN; read 1a. (No. 78.)
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.