Lords Sitting of 19 May 1884

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Marquess of Donegall, after the death of his brother.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading —Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Cornwall) * (102).
Second Reading— Gas Provisional Orders* (81); Land Drainage Provisional Orders* (82); Public Libraries Acts Amendment * (95).
Report —Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) * (68).
Third Reading —Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order (Dundalk Waterworks)* (69), and passed.
Royal Assent —Freshwater Fisheries Act Amendment [47 Vict. c. 11]; Public Health (Confirmation of Byelaws) [47 Vict. c. 12]; Contagious Diseases (Animals) [47 Vict. c. 13]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Provisional Order [47 Vict. c. xiii]; Marriages Legalisation (Wood Green Congregational Church) [47 Vict. c. xii]; Electric Lighting Provisional Order [47 Vict. c. xiv].

WESTERN PACIFIC—DEPORTATION OF FRENCH RECIDIVISTS.

  POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, who had a Notice upon the Paper to call attention to the proposed deportation of recidivists from France to the Western Pacific, and to move a Resolution, said: My Lords, it is an open secret that I am about to postpone my Motion, and I have only kept it on the Paper that I might offer a few words of explanation. Your Lordships will remember that this is the second time that I have been obliged to postpone this question, and, therefore, I think I should be wanting in respect to the House if I were to refrain from saying a word of explanation on this occasion. I have postponed the Motion, because, acting on the best advice that I can obtain, it is said that a discussion might cause a false impression in France, where it is most desirable to avoid misunderstanding. And it would be affectation to deny that at the present moment among the promoters of this Bill in France it is felt that such a discussion might do harm, and resemble an attempt to interfere in a matter of purely domestic concern. I need hardly say that no idea of the sort has crossed my mind. But what is felt in France is this—that there is a wish in Great Britain to prevent her establishing a convict depot on her own territory. I disclaim any such idea. It never occurred to me to protest against the erection or constitution of a prison by the French Government in French territory. My apprehensions are widely different. I deprecate a proposal to place the worst characters in France at liberty on a small island within an easy sail from some of our noblest and most attractive Colonies, to which these criminals must, in the nature of things, make their way with all convenient speed. There is a great difference between the two propositions. Lot me illustrate it by a familiar analogy. Suppose one is in lodgings, and the lodger on the next floor takes lessons on the flute, we may suffer but we have no right to complain. But if, on the other hand, he has a nest of favourite snakes at liberty in his room, as some eminent naturalists have, I think one has a right to say that he is not acting in a very neighbourly manner. And so it is with New Caledonia.
  644
  It is not precisely the neighbour that one would choose; criminals escape constantly and land oil Australian shores, and expirees also. But so long as due diligence is observed in endeavouring to guard them there is nothing to be said. On the other hand, a proposal to turn the crime of a great nation loose and free on Now Caledonia, with an occasional leave on parole of six months, may well cause some concern among the neighbours of New Caledonia. But there is another point on which I wish to offer a word of explanation. I am deeply impressed with the Australian feeling on this subject. I think it is both justifiable and dangerous. But I certainly do not wish to hold out Australian feeling on this subject as any matter for the consideration of France. If the Bill passes, her trade with and through Australia will probably suffer, if not cease, from the restrictive measures which it will be almost the duty of the Australians to adopt. That is, however, a comparatively small matter to a great nation like France. But I do hold out Australian sentiment on these points as a great danger for this country. If the Bill passes, Australia, as two statesmen so cautious as M. Barthélemy St. Hilaire and the Secretary for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby) have admitted, must pass measures to protect herself. There is such a measure already which only needs the addition of a few words to render it applicable. I do not presume that the Imperial Government would veto the addition of those words. If it allows them, there is an almost unavoidable risk of collision or ill-feeling in the penalties they impose on captains, knowingly or unknowingly bringing convicts or expirees to the ' Colony. If it does veto them, such a veto would provoke a feeling in Australia as regards the Imperial Government of which I, for one, decline to calculate the consequences. I do not I doubt that Her Majesty's Government ore fully alive to all this, and have laboured assiduously in the matter. But I thought it advisable, in postponing the Motion, to say at least this much to show our fellow-subjects in Australia that even in postponing the discussion we are mindful of their interests.
  Motion postponed.

AFRICA (WEST COAST)— ANGRA PE QUENA AND WALLFISCH BAY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, What national flag was now flying at Angra Pequena and Wallfisch Bay; whether sufficient measures were being taken for the protection of British interests on those coasts pending the negotiations with Germany; and, whether the Government would inform itself before making a final settlement of the question what views were entertained on the subject by the newly-formed Government at Cape Town? said, that he hoped that the noble Earl would not state that these were purely Colonial questions, but that they would be looked at from an Imperial point of view. With respect to Angra Pequena, it was for us to assert and establish our claim to its possession if we thought it worth our while. At this moment there was an English magistrate exercising jurisdiction on that coast at Wall-fisch Bay. The harbour was as fine a one as there was on the whole Coast of Africa. With regard to Delagoa Bay, he was informed that, though the arbitration went in favour of the Portuguese Government, that Government was not very anxious to retain it, but was in treaty for its cession to the Dutch Government; and if that were done the whole of the trade in that part of South Africa—which would prove most valuable in the course of a few years—would go into the hands of the Dutch and Germans, who would be in possession of Delagoa Harbour on the East and Angra Pequena on the West Coast.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, in answer to the various Questions which have been put by the noble Lord opposite, I wish, in the first place, to say that, as far as I am aware, no controversies have arisen, and no controversies are likely to arise, with regard to Wallfisch Bay. It has been claimed and taken possession of as British territory, and it has been administered by officers appointed under the authority of the Cape Government, and I am not aware that our claim has ever been disputed. We have been in possession of Wallfisch Bay for some years past, and no objection has been taken to our possession. With regard to Angra Pe-
  646
  quena, there are, as the noble Lord is aware, two separate questions involved —the question of the islands outside the harbour, and the question of the harbour itself. The islands are, I believe, unoccupied.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: I think they are occupied by English merchants at the present time.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: They may be occupied for temporary purposes; but what I meant to say was that there is no Settlement there and no representative of any Colonial or Imperial authority. They have been claimed as British possessions, but I do not know whether any flag is flying there. If there is, it is undoubtedly ours. As to the harbour and mainland, the question is one of greater complexity. We have never formally claimed it as far as I am aware. We have never established any Government there. I am not forgetful of the fact that nearly 90 years ago a British vessel, under Captain Alexander, touched there and took possession of the place in the name of the British Crown. But, as that transaction took place 90 years ago, and was not followed by any notification to Foreign Powers, the question might fairly be raised how far a nominal claim of that kind would be held to be valid now. The language we have held with regard to that territory is that, although we have not formally claimed the Bay, we have claimed the right to exclude Foreign Powers on the general ground of its nearness to our Settlements, and the absence of any other claims; but we have never set up any Government there, and never attempted to make it a Settlement or a Colony. There is, as the House is aware, a German Agent lately established there. But the establishment of trading stations does not in itself constitute any claim to the territory, and has nothing to do with the question of Sovereignty. With regard to the second Question of the noble Lord, I have to say that we are in correspondence with the German Government. During the progress of negotiations, I am not aware that any special protection has been shown to be necessary for British interests. As to the third Question, I have, by anticipation, acted on the suggestion embodied therein. I sent a telegram on the 3rd instant, asking whether there was any probability of the Cape Government being prepared to take possession of

  647
  Angra Pequena, in the event of its being declared British territory. I received a reply requesting that the matter should be kept open, as the general elections were then in progress, and the Ministers were absent from Cape Town. In addition to that, it was well known that the fate of the then existing Ministry was very doubtful. On the 7th of May, having received no answer, I telegraphed again in the same sense. In the meantime, as the noble Lord is aware, a change of Government took place at the Cape; and on the 15th, four days ago, I received a telegram stating that the new Government were considering the subject, and promising an answer within the next 10 days. I shall, therefore, receive the answer within about a week from now. Having taken these stops, and having consulted the Colonial authorities on the subject, we shall do nothing at present that can bind our future action.

PARLIAMENT—PALACE OF WEST MINSTER—HOUSE OF LORDS— INTERIOR ARRANGEMENTS.

  RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDrenewed the suggestion that he had made when the "Black Rod" Committee was named, and many times previously, that the Royal Gallery, a large room adjacent to the House, now unused, should be partially furnished for the convenience of Peers. He understood that the objection to this proposal came from the noble Chairman of Committees, to whose judgment the House willingly bowed, except when he opposed a useful reform.
  Moved, "That it be an instruction to the Select Committee on the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, or other authority having charge of the arrangements of the House of Lords, to furnish in a substantial manner a portion of the Royal Gallery as a writing room for the use of Peers during the sittings of the House."—(The Earl of Longford.)
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, he supported the proposal of the noble Earl, and would like to know to what authority application should be made in such matters, as whenever he had applied to anyone he had always been referred elsewhere? He thought there were some other matters which were also entirely neglected in their Lordships' House. In
  648
  the first place, no post-box was placed in the Library. Again, the stationery supply to the House was inferior to that supplied to the House of Commons; and the lights on the reading tables were quite insufficient. He felt grateful to his noble Friend for starting this subject, and hoped that it would not be lost sight of.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)was of opinion that there was no great desire on the part of Members of that House to have the Royal Gallery turned into a writing-room. The noble Earl first brought this subject forward in 1867. At that time the Committee were not disposed to accede to his request; but when the Irish Church Bill was before the House it was thought desirable that some tables should be put into the Gallery, and to a very small extent they were used. After that period the room was not used at all; but in 1872 the noble Earl renewed his application to the Committee, who directed the Board of Works to partially fit up the Gallery, and accordingly four tables were placed there. They were still there in 1877, when the noble Earl renewed his application, because there were no chairs. Accordingly, chairs were placed there; but during the three years 1877, 1878, and 1879, not a single pen was used at any one of the tables. He thought, after that, their Lordships might be satisfied that there was no great demand for having the Royal Gallery turned into a writing-room.
  LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSSremarked, that he had just been into the Library, where there were 12 writing tables, capable of accommodating eight persons each, and nobody was using them at present.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that those tables might as well be placed in Palace Yard for all the use they were; and he saw no reason why his proposal should not be considered, except for the crotchets of the noble Earl.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEhad at first intended to support the Motion; but he now thought the noble Earl opposite had conclusively shown that the room was not required.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONremarked, that although on ordinary occasions there might be no need for additional accommodation for correspondence, yet when large measures were

  649
  discussed there was great difficulty in finding room, and, therefore, he did not think the question of providing increased accommodation was unworthy of consideration.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUN DAY (CORNWALL) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday in Cornwall—Was presented by the Earl of MOUNT EDGCUMBE; read 1a. (No. 102.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.