Lords Sitting of 16 May 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Bankruptcy Frauds and Disabilities (Scotland) * (101).
Committee—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) * (68).
Committee—Report—Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order (Dundalk Waterworks) * (69).
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (The Labourers Act) (Carrick-on-Suir) * (54); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Naas, &c.) * (55); Married Women's Property Act (1882) Amendment * (60); Colonial Attornies Relief Act Amendment * (78), and passed.

AFRICA (WEST COAST) — THE INTER NATIONAL AFRICAN ASSOCIATION AND FRANCE-RUMOURED TREATY.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF FIFE: I beg to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Aflairs a Question of which I have given him private Notice. The Question is, Whether it is true, as reported from Brussels this morning, that a Treaty has been signed between France and the International African Association, eventually ceding the territory of the Association to France; and, if not, what is the object of the Treaty?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I do not think the statement of the noble Earl is quite correct. I am placed in rather a difficulty in speaking on the subject, because all the information I have respecting it is of a confidential character. But I hope soon to get it in a form in which I can give an answer to the noble Earl.

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS — IRREGU LAR DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he desired to call the attention of the House to a matter which he mentioned to their Lordships some days ago, with regard to the delay in the delivery of Papers. It was a very serious grievance. That morning he saw that an important Report of the Royal Commission on Technical Education had been delivered to the newspapers before being distributed to their Lordships. He noticed that The Times had received a copy, and that there was a leading article upon it. He would not have complained of that; but having made inquiry at the Paper Office of the House, he found that copies of the same Report had been distributed to the Members of the other House, and yet, when he asked for a copy, he was told there was not one to be had. He thought that the two Houses should be placed on an equality in this respect.
  EARL GEANVILLEsaid, he regretted that he could give no information upon the matter at present other than that he had already given.
  LORD BALFOURgave Notice that he would, on an early day, call attention to this matter, and move that inquiry be
  530
  made into the practice by the Committee recently appointed upon the office of the Usher of the Black Rod.

THE METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE— WEATHER REPORTS—RETURN OF UN WARNED STORMS.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  THE BISHOP OF CAELISLE, in rising to move for—
  "A Return of the storms which have visited the British Islands between 1st January 1874 and 31st December 1883, and of which no warning has been issued from the Meteorological Office; with a notice of the quarter from which each unwarned storm has reached the coast,"
  said, that if this were a mere question of science, some surprise might be felt at a Motion regarding it coming from that quarter of the House. He moved, however, in the matter on much higher ground—the ground of humanity. The Government had undertaken to supply the whole world with meteorological information; and it was quite clear that, having undertaken the work, the accuracy of these reports became a matter of national importance, and involved the lives of many of our seafaring population. As these warnings were much depended upon by people connected with nautical affairs, storms, in respect of which no warnings were issued, were, in a certain sense, more dangerous than formerly. He did not intend, by his Motion, to cast blame upon anyone connected with the Meteorological Office, the head of which he knew to be a man of much knowledge, who was animated with a keen enthusiasm for his work; but this he did say, that if it could be shown that there were any considerable number of storms in respect of which no kind of warning was issued, then it was a matter for serious consideration whether some improvement should not be made in the management of meteorological affairs as regarded that Office. He would especially instance a great storm of which no warning had been given, and which occurred in October, 1882. It was a storm of first-rate magnitude, of the most dangerous character, and it visited with especial severity the part of the country where he lived, and from inquiries he had made he had found that it was perfectly impossible to have foretold that storm from Valencia, or any other of

  531
  the meteorological stations around the coasts. He had an interview with Mr. Scott at the Meteorological Office soon after that storm, and Mr. Soott recommended him to consult a clergyman in his own diocese, who was as well acquainted with the subject as any man in England. This clergyman, had written him two letters, in which he strongly recommended the establishment of a station towards the south - south - west, which his correspondent thought would be the means of saving many lives. The conclusion he (the Bishop of Carlisle) had formed, from statistics furnished to him by the gentleman in question, was this —that a certain number of storms, estimated at nine or ten annually, crept through the present line of defences, with regard to which it was impossible for the Meteorological Office to supply warnings—that was, a storm about every six weeks. It might be hoped that the establishment of new stations and the adoption of other improvements would reduce the number of unwarned storms. He apprehended that there would be no difficulty, barring the expense, in increasing our staff, and in having a constant system of telegraphing, so that there might be no danger of a storm creeping unexpectedly on to our coasts, merely because it was crafty enough to come in the night time. From the two letters to which he had already referred, it appeared that in the south-south-west direction we had at present no observing station, and consequently any storm which came in that direction was pretty sure to arrive upon our coast unwarned. The Americans, in his opinion, managed things much better than we did, for in that country there was a chief signal officer belonging to the Army who made annually an interesting and a valuable Report to the military authorities on the whole subject of meteorology; and it was well worthy of consideration whether we might not take a hint from the American way of managing these affairs. The fact was, we required more stations and a more complete system of telegraphing; and, consequently, a greater expenditure would be rendered necessary. The increased expense constituted a difficulty which might be got over, and he hoped it would not prevent this great nautical country from doing her duty with regard to the question of storms. The right
  532
  rev. Prelate concluded by moving for the Return of which he had given Notice.
  Moved, "That there be laid before this House* Return of the storms which have visited the British Islands between 1st January 1874 and 31st December 1883, and of which no warning has been issued from the Meteorological Office; with a notice of the quarter from which each unwarned storm has reached the coast."—(The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.)
  LORD THURLOWsaid, the question was one of great importance, but he was not able that evening to give the right rev. Prelate a positive answer on the part of the Treasury as to what they would do in the matter; but he could assure him there was every desire on the part of the Treasury to take steps to compile such a Return, if it could possibly be done, and of meeting the necessities of the case if funds could be found for the purpose. It was not long since the Meteorological Office came under the control of the Treasury, as it used to be under the Board of Trade. If the right rev. Prelate would postpone his Motion for a few days, he hoped to be able to inform him definitely whether it was in the power of the Treasury to grant the Return for which he had moved.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he would suggest to the right rev. Prelate, that in order to make the Return more complete he should consider the desirability of enlarging the scope of his Motion so as to include storms of which warnings had been given, in order that they might be able to ascertain the percentage of failures.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, he should be happy to consider the suggestion thrown out by the noble Earl, and would consent to postpone the Motion. He must, however, remark that it did not refer to prognostications which came from America, which were not, properly speaking, scientific, but to storms which had actually reached our coasts, but of which no warning had been issued from the Meteorological Office.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACTS AMEND MENT BILL—PIGEON-SHOOTING.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether, having regard to the cruelties

  533
  stated to be practised, with a view to fraud, at pigeon-shooting matches, the Home Office will endeavour to ascertain how far these statements are true; and, whether, if found to be so, steps will be taken for the prevention of the said cruelties? said, that he was one of those who voted against the Bill which would have practically put an end to pigeon-shooting. He had no interest whatever in that kind of sport, and had only shot one pigeon in his life, and that was in Germany some 40 years ago. No more cruelty, he was bound to say, was practised in pigeon-shooting than in many other things which were as likely to continue so long as the world lasted; and it was his firm belief that in every butcher's yard and in every poulterer's shop more cruelty took place than was perpetrated by the practice referred to. The special grounds why he introduced this question were these. A Bill upon the subject, which had been rejected by their Lordships recently, had been advanced by the Home Office upon general grounds; but at the close of the debate the other evening, the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury), who spoke last, specified the acts of cruelty which were not only cruel in themselves, but which were perpetrated for the purpose of fraud. Such cruelty, if practised, all must deprecate; and he felt sure that not one of their Lordships who had voted against the general tenour of the Bill but would, as heartily as the most rev. Primate, and as he (the Earl of Wemyss) would, deprecate and express their detestation of cruelties of the kind which had been described; but he ventured to say that the cruelty mentioned was by no means general, and the most rev. Primate did not contend that it was, because he said that it was committed for the purpose of fraud. This being so, and the cruelties complained of being special cruelties, and for a special purpose, it did not form a sufficient cause for legislation for the general suppression of pigeon-shooting, although it might be a subject for special legislation in regard to the particular kind of cruelty which, under exceptional circumstances, was inflicted. The Bill to which he had referred partook too much of the character of a great deal of the legislation of the present day. An abuse was seen, and, instead of calling in the police, or dealing with the abuse by
  534
  means of the present laws, everybody was put under the legislative harrow and the ban of a fresh Act of Parliament. Take, for instance, the recent Irish land legislation. The question was started as one of abuse of power by the bad landlord; but, instead of the bad landlords being dealt with, good and bad were all placed under the same legislative harrow, and both had equally been robbed of a fourth of their income. Then, again, the legislation for drunkenness partook of the same character. Because a certain number of men were unable to control themselves, and abused their privileges by getting into a state of intoxication, there were sweeping propositions for placing sober men also under restrictions. He was thankful to say that their Lordships, in rejecting the Pigeon-Shooting Bill, had rejected a Bill dealing with the general question; though, in saying that, he would add that he was certain everyone who voted against the measure deprecated special acts of cruelty, and would willingly do all in their power to put them down. The noble Earl concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that had the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Wemyss) stated that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had adequate means at his disposal for inquiring into a matter of this kind, he (the Earl of Dalhousie) should have stated that he had no means by which he could possibly enter upon it. As, however, it would not be polite for him to contradict the noble Earl, he would change his answer and state that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had no intention whatever of instituting such an inquiry as that suggested. The House, he was sure, had listened to the speech of the noble Earl, which might have been appropriately made on the second reading of the rejected Bill, with a great deal of admiration and enjoyment.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that, inasmuch as he had moved the rejection of the Bill, he came under the censure of those who had introduced it. The feeling that had been excited in the minds of some people in reference to this subject was testified by one among the several communications which he had received since the rejection of the Bill.

  535
  It enclosed a newspaper extract, and a statement in which the writer said— "By your cruelties, you will come under the wrath and vengeance of God." He mentioned this, merely to show the way in which people looked at these things; how they were misled; and how they persuaded themselves that, to kill anything, must necessarily be cruelty. He would tell their Lordships that in an article which had appeared in an Irish newspaper on the subject, the writer, after commenting upon his (the Earl of Redesdale's) speech, went on to state that all pigeons were mutilated before they were put into the traps, and that they made vain attempts to fly with their broken wings. Their Lordships knew perfectly well that this was not the truth. He wished that what was and what was not cruelty could be exactly defined. The question was, what was sport and what was cruelty? And he denied that shooting a bird for sport was cruelty in itself. Judging from the "crying evils," as stated by those persons, he thought that the real object of this agitation was to put down all kinds of sport.
  EARL GRANVILLE: We have all of us heard of the lines describing the feat of Alexander the Great, and how he went forth, "and thrice he slew the slain." I will not say that of my noble Friend (the Earl of Wemyss); but his proposal reminds me of the old Joe Miller story of the soldier who was asked after the battle what he had done. He replied—"I cut off the enemy's legs." On being asked why he had not cut off the enemy's head, he replied—"That was done already." I cannot help thinking that we are only adding insult to injury in reference to this poor Bill, for we are now attempting to cut off its legs, although it was so very effectively decapitated the other night. I cannot help thinking, also, that it is very unusual, after a considerable majority has voted against a Bill, for noble Lords to take the opportunity some days later of apologizing for the votes they had given.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE, in supporting the proposal for an inquiry, said, the Bill to which reference was made was a specimen of what was called grandmotherly legislation. Certain statements had been made as to special cases of cruelty, and what the opponents desired was that proof should
  536
  be given of the charges which had been made.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYremarked that, as his position in regard to the Bill had been misrepresented by the leading journal, he desired to say that he wished to make no apology for what he had done. He wished that it should be known that he had not only spoken against the Bill, but had acted as one of the Tellers of the majority. He entirely agreed with what had been said by his noble Friend on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss), and did he not think it came very well from the Government, who supported the Bill, to make light of his request, and to put it off as they had done. There had been a great deal of talk of the cruelties attendant on pigeon-shooting, and he thought the Government should make some inquiry to see whether the charges were well-founded.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that proof should be given of the insufficiency of the existing law to meet the cases of cruelty stated, before fresh legislation was asked for. The pigeon was a domestic bird; and if the eyes were put out, or the wings mutilated, as stated, the persons offending could unquestionably be severely punished under the existing law.
  THE EARL of WEMYSSsaid, he had asked the Government to take the matter into consideration on account of what had passed during the debate of the other night; but he understood them to refuse to make any inquiry as to whether the statements were or were not true. As the Government seemed so desirous of washing their hands of the whole matter, he would ask his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees to look into the present state of the law and ascertain whether it was sufficient to deal with the atrocities which were said to be committed in connection with pigeon-shooting; and, in the event of that not being the case, whether he would bring in a short Bill dealing with the subject?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that there could be no possible doubt about the existing law being sufficient to deal with the matter, so far as it related to punishment, if the offenders were found out. The difficulty was in finding them out and getting the necessary evidence. The great contention was

  537
  this—that many cases of cruelty occurred —that this particular practice of pigeon-shooting was attended with cruelties which were carefully concealed, and with regard to which evidence wag not easily forthcoming. He understood the opinion of those who advocated the Bill lately before the House to be that, therefore, the only way to prevent these cruelties was to strike at the practice of pigeon-shooting itself.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he should be very glad if the matter were taken in hand, and dealt with in some more efficient way than he could be supposed to deal with it owing to his want of legal knowledge. He thought, therefore, that if the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) and his noble Friend (the Earl of Redesdale) would do so, it would be of great advantage. As the reporters had not happened to report his remarks on this particular point on the previous occasion, he wished to repeat that he had been informed by the Secretary to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that his officers were frequently warned off the grounds for fear they should obtain evidence of cruelties.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he thought the matter was of such importance that he would take it into his very careful consideration, in order to see whether something could not be done to prevent the cruelties connected with the practice of pigeon-shooting, together with the suggestion of the noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack, in order to see if the existing law was sufficient for detecting cruelty if practised. If it was not, he would undertake to introduce a short Bill dealing with the matter. After what the noble Lord who had just spoken (Lord Balfour) had stated, perhaps something might be done to prevent cruelty, when it was expected to be practised, by providing means for the presence of those who desired to detect it. Special powers might be given to the police for dealing with cases in which there was ground for supposing that cruelty would be practised.

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN) — GENERAL GORDON—THE FRESH TELEGRAM.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wish, before the House adjourns, to
538
ask the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), Whether any information has been received at the Foreign Office in regard to General Gordon?
EARL GRANVILLE: We have no news from General Gordon; but we have received this afternoon some information which I do not think is dated, but which is to this effect: —A party of refugees arrived yesterday at Assouan from Berber and Korosko. They reported that the route between these places was quite clear, and stated that they had had no trouble, and that they had heard that Gordon had made successful sorties and was well.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON: When was that news received?
EARL GRANVILLE: To-day.
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.