Lords Sitting of 17 November 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Poor Law Guardians (Ireland)* (6).
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL — REDISTRIBUTION.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I beg leave to make a short statement on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. I presume that we are all agreed that the action to be taken this week by your Lordships' House is of vast importance, affecting not merely Party issues, but interests of a national character. There is no question as to the principle of the Franchise Bill. It is understood, and, I believe, not without reason, that your Lordships intend to give a second reading to that Bill. But I am not entitled to assume that this step will terminate the difference between your Lordships and Her Majesty's Government. I do

  1807
  not propose to enter into the merits of this difference. It is sufficient for my present purpose to remind your Lordships that while the procedure adopted by Her Majesty's Government has been supported last Summer, and again this Autumn, by unusually large majorities in the House of Commons, it has been condemned by a majority of your Lordships in this House. I will not now refer to offers which at different times have been made by Her Majesty's Government, and which are generally known as having been rejected. I am not aware of any intimation having come from the Opposition, apart from an intention to reverse in some shape or other the procedure adopted by Her Majesty's Government, and supported by the House of Commons, in order to adopt that which has been favoured by your Lordships. The result is a state of things which, although it may be far from disagreeable to extreme politicians on both sides, is deplored by all moderate men, and, I sincerely believe, by a majority of your Lordships. Under these critical circumstances, I am authorized by my Colleagues to state how we would propose to meet the objections which have been raised by some of your Lordships. To those, if there are such, who may desire to force on an immediate Dissolution I have little to offer. But the case is different with those who desire a settlement—a desire which we claim ourselves, and with which we are quite willing to credit noble Lords opposite, whose objections we honestly desire to meet. I understand that the objections are principally these. Your Lordships think that, although you are ready to support a Franchise Bill, it is dangerous to do so unless you are acquainted with the character of the Redistribution Bill which is promised, and which will affect its working. You are afraid that it may be of a revolutionary character, or, as some have put it, dangerous to the prospects of the Conservative Party. You also fear that there may be no Bill at all, or, at all events, that there may be none till the 2,000,000 new voters have acquired the right of voting. My Lords, I will now proceed to state how, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Government, without sacrificing our own object, we may best meet these objections. Our object is to secure the passing of the Franchise Bill without delay.
  1808
  We cannot jeopardize it. Your Lordships must be aware that we could enter into no understanding or take any steps as to the immediate introduction or prosecution of a Redistribution Bill, or as to anything connected with it, unless we have a sufficient assurance that we should thus secure our principal object—namely, the passing of the Franchise Bill without delay—that is to say, during the Autumn Session. In that case, I may tell your Lordships that the Bill will come into effect on January the 1st, 1886. If we were sufficiently assured in the manner I have stated, I am not aware of any demand or suggestion that will be made with regard to the procedure affecting a Redistribution Bill to which Her Majesty's Government will not be ready to accede. If we get that sufficient assurance we should be ready to submit the main provisions of the Redistribution Bill — we should be ready to make even the draft Bill a subject of immediate friendly communication before its introduction, and to make every reasonable effort for the purpose of accommodation, and any difficulties in the way of accommodation I think I may say would not come from Her Majesty's Government. We should be ready, if it is possible, and I do not see any impossibility in it, to present a Bill framed in the spirit of that sketch given by Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons, and which, on the 7th of November, seemed to be received as satisfactory by Sir Stafford Northcote. Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to push that Bill on with all legitimate speed. Mr. Gladstone has informed me that he will be willing to undertake to move the second reading of that Bill simultaneously with the Franchise Bill going into Committee of your Lordships' House. I am afraid that there may be a difficulty about this, because there is an understanding that if the second reading of this Bill is taken on Tuesday, the Committee is to stand for Thursday. Be that as it may, Mr. Gladstone would be ready to move the second reading of the Redistribution Bill in the House of Commons simultaneously with any future stage of the Franchise Bill in your Lordships' House. Her Majesty's Government are prepared to use their utmost efforts to pass their Bill through the House of Commons in the early period of next year. And I

  1809
  am further authorized by them to state that they would consider the passing of their Bill through the House of Commons a question vital to themselves. My Lords, I submit this proposal to the favourable consideration of both sides of the House. I trust that those who so cordially supported us last Session will not think we have retired too much from the exact course of procedure which we had drawn for ourselves. And I do with considerable confidence appeal to the noble Lords opposite to receive this proposition in the spirit in which we have made it. We have made it in a spirit of earnestness and of conciliation, and as tending to settle a difference which every dictate of statesmanship, and, indeed, I may say of common sense, makes it desirable, in the interest of all concerned, should be brought to a final and satisfactory close.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it would not be in accordance with usage that I should express, at the present moment, any opinion upon the proposals made by the noble Earl. I shall confine myself to questions designed to elucidate his statement. I wish to know whether I am to understand that the passing of the Franchise Bill during the Autumn Session is a condition precedent to the proceedings with respect to the Redistribution Bill of which the noble Earl has spoken; and, further, I wish to know whether the agreement between the two sides of the House on the question of Redistribution is a condition precedent to the introduction of the Redistribution Bill in the other House, and within what time he contemplates it possible for such procedure to take place?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, my answer to the first Question is in the affirmative; my answer to the second is in the negative.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hope I shall be excused if I add a word for the purpose of endeavouring to supplement the answer of the noble Earl. As I understand it, if in any satisfactory way we have the assurance which we think indispensable, the Redistribution Bill may be laid on the Table of the House of Commons and read a first time as early as anyone can desire. If those communications which we invite, desire, and are willing to enter into, in order to arrive, if pos
  1810
  sible, at a common understanding as to the material substance of the Redistribution Bill, take place, of course, a reasonable time must be allowed for those communications. If it is thought inexpedient that such communications should take place, and if those who have determined that matter desire us to produce on our own responsibility the Bill which, without assistance, we should produce, that can be done at the earliest possible moment after we have that assurance which is the necessary condition of our proposals.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD WAVENEY, in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Prerogative be not interposed to prevent the substitution by Statute of a more suitable form for securing the presence of Irish and Scottish Peers in the House of Lords than is afforded by the existing modes of election,"
  said, that this question dealt with the somewhat anomalous manner in which the ranks of their Lordships' House were recruited from the Scotch and Irish Peerages. He believed that it never could have been intended that one-half, or even more than one-half, of the Members of the Scotch and Irish Peerages should be incapable of entering into the service of the country to which they belonged because they might profess particular political opinions; but though there was a vast and considerable distinction between the two Peerages in many respects, they both had the special defect of representing one Party only, and not the genuine force of national thought. It never should be necessary, as frequently happened under the present system, that the Government of the day should find themselves called upon to summon Peers of undoubted position and merit to their Lordships' House. In his opinion, if an Irishman were worthy of a Peerage at all, he was worthy of being made a Peer of the United Kingdom. The circumstances of the present time, he thought, lent point and force to the consideration of the matter; and, looking at what had taken place in the country during the last three months, he thought something should be done. There had been a vast amount of exaggeration as to popular opinion against their Lordships' House; but he

  1811
  considered that such a moderate change should be made in its constitution as would seem calculated to bring it more into consonance with the present state of public sentiment. There could be no doubt that the elections under the present system resulted in favour of one particular Party; and, therefore, he would propose to substitute for the present system the system of summoning Irish and Scotch Peers as British Peers. He begged to move the Motion that stood in his name.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Prerogative be not interposed to prevent the substitution by Statute of a more suitable form for securing the presence of Irish and Scottish Peers in the House of Lords than is afforded by the existing modes of election."—(The Lord Waveney.)
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, that the Motion of the noble Lord was not required, for in connection with Scotch Peerages no such Prerogative existed as the Motion implied. If the House should think fit to alter by Statute the existing law in regard to the election of Scottish Peers, the Prerogative could not be interposed. With regard to Irish Peers the case was rather different; for at the time of the Union a power was reserved to the Crown to fill up, in certain circumstances, vacancies among the Irish Peers in their Lordships' House. It would not, therefore, speaking generally, be regular to interfere by Statute with that power, without presenting an Address to the Crown praying for leave to do so. In 1875, however, an Address was presented to the Crown praying that the statutory power reserved to the Crown in connection with Irish Peers might not be allowed to stand in the way of any legislation on the subject of the election of such Peers to the House of Lords, and the prayer of that Address was granted.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he agreed with what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns). The subject was a very important one; and whenever a proposition was made to the House, submitting any convenient way of dealing either with the subject of the Scottish or Irish Representative Peers, it would, he had no doubt, receive that consideration and attention from their Lordships, which were justly its due. But to proceed by this method of Address was, it humbly appeared to him,
  1812
  for the reasons stated by the noble and learned Earl, quite unnecessary in the case of either the Scottish or Irish Peers.
  LORD WAVENEYthought the objections ought not to weigh against his Motion. However, he was willing to have the Motion negatived.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, he considered that, instead of negativing the Motion, the House ought to adopt the Previous Question.
  Previous Question moved.—(The Earl Cairns.)
  Previous Question put, whether the said Question shall be now put.
  Resolved in the negative.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT — HIGHER EDUCATION IN BOARD SCHOOLS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD NORTONsaid, he rose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to a reply made by Mr. Mundella to two deputations from Harborne, one from the School Board asking for the establishment of a higher school, the other from 2,373 ratepayers, deprecating such a charge on their rates—namely, that—
  "He assented to the principle that if a majority of ratepayers were against the introduction of higher education it should not be forced upon them."
  He wished to ask whether such a principle had been adopted, and under the authority of what Act of Parliament the provision of higher education in any locality depended on a majority of ratepayers being willing to undertake it? He had two reasons for asking this question. First, because the Vice President's answer implied that, wherever a majority of ratepayers agreed to it, a School Board might depart from their authorized work of supplying elementary education to those who wanted it to undertake higher education in a Government groove for the middle class, who would get it more wholesomely by private enterprize, and without robbing the poor of their elementary provision; and, secondly, because such an unauthorized dictum must discourage, by Government and rate-paid competition, the corporate or private undertaking of middle-class schools now largely and more usefully going on. The Government were, apparently, stealing this

  1813
  march upon Parliament, and even technical instruction was lately proposed to be added to their province.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that if his noble Friend's premisses had been correct he should have had to adopt his conclusion. But his noble Friend was entirely misinformed as to the nature of the case. This was no question of middle-class education. What his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) said referred to higher elementary education, which meant simply education in the higher Standards of the Code—that was, in Standards above Standard IV. His right hon. Friend received two deputations, one from the School Board of the district, and the other from a large number of ratepayers who did not like the proposal of the School Board. It was not a case in which the Education Department could interfere. It was strictly a question for the decision of the School Board itself. The case was this. There was a very considerable deficiency of education in the district; and the School Board proposed to supply it, not in a novel way, but by a course which had been taken by a good many other more important places. They proposed, instead of building a large new school of the ordinary kind teaching children in all the Standards, to erect a school which should be confined to children above Standard IV. They believed that that would be a very great improvement in the education of the district. That district was in the neighbourhood of Birmingham, and there were in it a considerable number of boys who were in Standards above Standard IV. They proposed to collect those boys in a single school, so as to provide a better education for them, and to enable the teachers in the ordinary schools to give their undivided attention to boys below Standard V. It was a mere question of organization. The school district lent itself very easily and conveniently to such an arrangement, because, as he was informed, there would be no child further than a mile and a-half from the new school, and most of them would be within a mile. It was a mistake to suppose that the plan would lead to increased charge on the rates. On the contrary, by drawing the higher standard children together into one school and giving them a teacher qualified to give them instruction in
  1814
  those Standards, the result would be economical. There was, as he had said, nothing novel in the matter—nothing in which the Education Department could be said to have sprung a mine on Parliament. It was a question for the School Board, and he believed they had come to a wise decision. With reference to a Question which a noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had put to him some days ago, he might read the following letter—
  "Fulshaw House, Wilmslow, November 10.
  "Dear Sir, — With reference to Harriet Straker, whose death is said to have been due to over-pressure at school, I have to state that she attended the above school, but had no home lessons given her this year. If she worked at lessons at home she did it voluntarily, and the work was not shown at school. She was rather dull, and failed in two subjects in Standard I. at the examination in January, 1883, so was again presented in Standard I. at the examination in January, 1884, when she passed in the three subjects, being nine years of age. The mistress was not told that the child was delicate, but the child was kept away from school occasionally for a week. She made 219 attendances during the present year, her last attendance being on Monday morning, August 25. I visited the child several times during her illness, and she was usually more or less unconscious. I do not remember having heard her muttering about her lessons, but once she repeated when I was present a portion of her daily prayers. I believe the child was delicate, at times she was somewhat deaf, and at times had delicate eyes; but as she was, I believe, 10 years old and was only being instructed in the subjects of Standard II. and had no home lessons given to her, it can hardly be considered that her case was one of over-pressure at school, unless, of course, her health was in such a state that she ought not to have been sent to school at all.
  "Yours faithfully (Signed)
  "W. S. BARNES-SLACKE, M.A., Correspondent of Lindow School.
  "P. Cumin, Esq., Education Department."
  He thought the noble Lord would see that it was not a case of over-pressure at all.
  LORD NORTONasked whether he understood that it was the intention to make the higher schools entirely separate from the elementary?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the school was entirely and absolutely within the Code, and therefore elementary.

TREATY OF BERLIN—OUTRAGES IN MACEDONIA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,

  1815
  Whether he had any recent information to lay on the Table of the House respecting the fulfilment by the Government of Turkey of those provisions of the Treaty of Berlin which were directed to secure the good administration of the European Provinces of the Turkish Empire; and, whether, in particular, Her Majesty's Government had any information as to alleged outrages by the Turkish authorities on the people of Macedonia? He was very sorry to have to call the attention of the House, for a few moments, to a very painful subject. He hoped their Lordships would not think that he was in too much haste, or eager to ask the House to plunge again into their old friend the Eastern Question. They had enough on their hands at present in Colonial and foreign affairs and in other directions. But there were certain duties incumbent upon them as a nation and as Members of both Houses of Parliament in respect to obligations into which this country had entered. Whatever had been the differences of opinion which had existed in their Lordships' House as to the circumstances which led up to the Treaty of Berlin, he had been disposed to rest on that Treaty, which he held to be not an unsatisfactory settlement of a very difficult question. At all events, the Treaty supplied certain securities, or professed to do so, for the good government of the European Provinces of Turkey, and also of the Asiatic Provinces. He had always been of opinion that, irrespective of that Treaty altogether, this country and the other nations of Europe had heavy obligations with regard to the people of those Provinces. The Treaty of Berlin put its seal on those obligations, and by a considerable number of Articles it provided, or professed to provide, certain securities for the people of the Provinces. The safety of Bulgaria was provided for by the creation of an autonomous State, while Eastern Roumelia had an administrative autonomy and a Christian Governor General given to it. Then, with respect to the Asiatic Provinces, the provisions were very specific; and he believed that repeated remonstrances had been addressed by Lord Dufferin to the Sultan as to the non-fulfilment of those parts of the Treaty relating to the country inhabited by the Armenians. With regard to the whole of the Provinces in the one matter of
  1816
  religion, the Treaty professed to secure complete religious toleration. But he now came to a clause which was less satisfactory. Eastern Roumelia, Roumania, Servia, and other places had been cut off, and there remained that Western portion of European Turkey, which comprised Macedonia and certain other portions of the country. Article 23 provided that a Constitution should be given to those countries analogous to that given to the Island of Crete. He had not heard anything until lately of the grievous abuses complained of with regard to Armenia and the Asiatic Provinces of Turkey. Many of their Lordships must have been horrified by statements which had appeared in an evening paper on this subject. He should not have brought those statements to the notice of their Lordships had they been anonymous; but they were avowedly the production of a very distinguished man whose name was known in literature all over the world—M. Emile Laveleye. Things really seemed to be almost as bad in the Turkish Provinces of Macedonia as they were before the last Russian War, when the horrors going on in Bulgaria roused the indignation of this country and the world. It appeared that, during the month of July, in one district of Macedonia alone there were 45 murders committed by Turks, and in other parts there were 60 murders. M. Emile Laveleye had given names of districts, names of victims, and names of murderers, and had stated that in some cases the victims had had their noses and ears cut off, the skin of their arms torn away, their eyes pecked out, and had then been cut to pieces. There were nine instances of the most horrible and atrocious murders given by M. Laveleye in the paper to which he had referred—The Pall Mall Gazette. What he wanted to know was, whether this country had Consuls in the district, and whether they had reported to the Foreign Office anything with regard to these alleged atrocities? The Province was near to Greece and to this country, and our sympathy must be more excited than if those outrages were committed in the Asiatic Provinces of Turkey. He hoped the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would be able to assure their Lordships that the eyes of the Government were fixed upon the matter, and that they would take such steps as

  1817
  were necessary to put an end to the condition of things now existing. If these atrocities continued, the Government would have another Eastern Question on their hands, which would be intolerable to the people of this country and to the other European Powers. The Turkish Government rested solely on the guarantee of the European Powers; and it would be high time to put an end to that Government and make the whole of the Provinces autonomous if atrocities were not put down.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I quite agree with the policy laid down by the noble Duke with regard to the Treaty of Berlin. There may be things in that Treaty which may be approved or disapproved, yet it is a great Treaty, agreed in by all Europe; and we have acted as much as possible, and shown we have a wish to act, consistently with the provisions of that Treaty. We have been successful with regard to some of the provisions; but we have been quite unsuccessful as to others. I am quite certain that your Lordships will feel that we could not have had a better Representative for the purpose than Lord Dufferin. He had instructions, which will be continued to his successor, to press, in the manner the most likely to attain the end, for the faithful carrying out of the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin. With regard to the Question of the noble Duke, this country has Consuls in European Turkey, and Reports have been received from them, and I do not think there will be any objection to lay them before your Lordships. With regard to the particular atrocities in Macedonia to which the noble Duke has referred, they are not fully confirmed by the Consuls. On the contrary, Macedonia was reported to be in a better condition than it has been for some time, owing to the present Governor, though the borders of Bulgaria and Roumelia are disturbed. Her Majesty's Government wished to do everything in their power, and they desire that the other Powers will act in concert with them—to carry out all the obligations imposed upon them. I am also bound to state that only five minutes before entering the House I received a communication from the Turkish Ambassador, repudiating very warmly the attacks made upon the Turkish Government who, he said, were extremely de
  1818
  sirous to carry out the reforms stipulated by the Treaty.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have no doubt the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is taking all the measures that can be taken for executing the Treaty of Berlin and securing the happiness of these Provinces. I entirely concur with him that probably no one could have been chosen better fitted and more anxious to see the Treaty carried out than Lord Dufferin; and I think we may rest perfectly assured that, so far as diplomatic action could have the effect of securing the good government of these Provinces, Lord Dufferin would take every measure possible. I rose mainly to point out to the noble Duke that the case of Eastern Roumelia and the case of Macedonia are not so different, in the eyes of the Treaty of Berlin, as he seems to think. For both provision is made for a certain amount of autonomous government. Eastern Roumelia, no doubt the most elaborate, was first taken in hand; an International Commission was issued; and I think Sir H. Drummond Wolff was the Representative of this country; and the provisions that were drawn up with regard to Eastern Roumelia have proved eminently successful. I do not know so much of the provisions that were drawn up for the government of Macedonia; they were drawn up after I left Office; but the noble Earl opposite sent out as the Representative of this country the noble Lord who is now the very able Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I believe that every precaution was taken to provide for Macedonia an adequate and stable government. What are the causes which prevented the same success following in Macedonia as in Eastern Roumelia? I do not know. Perhaps the country is more mountainous, more difficult to manage, and the bulk of it further from the centre. There is less revenue, perhaps, for carrying out the government. There are one or two remarks I would make upon the horrible details which the noble Duke has brought before us. I think the experience of everybody who has looked into these matters is that, with the lamentable substratum of truth, there is almost in the very horror of these recitals something which leads to exaggeration; and unless these recitals are confirmed by

  1819
  the official authorities at the Foreign Office I should hesitate to give full credit to them in all their details. The other remark I would make is that I am afraid Macedonia is not the only place in the world over which we have influence where terrible cruelties are inflicted. There is, for instance, the Empire of Burmah, which lies on our Indian Frontier, and, as it were, in the hollow of our hand, which by a letter from Whitehall could be brought into order at any moment, and in which there is constant perpetration of horrors on a scale and characterized by an atrocity before which anything which can be related with regard to Macedonia would pale. We cannot accept the doctrine that we are responsible for all these things, because by certain extreme measures it might be possible to prevent them. I would not do or say anything to weaken the appeal of the noble Duke to the Foreign Office, that they would do their utmost to prevent these cruelties and atrocities, and to promote the good government of Macedonia; but I cannot accept the doctrine, which in one sentence the noble Duke seemed to lay down, that we are to shrink from no political measures by which the object he has in view would be attained.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the noble Marquess could not have understood the distinction he made as between Eastern Roumelia and Macedonia. The noble Marquess could not have remembered the exact terms of the Treaty of Berlin, otherwise he would not have said that the same provision applied to both. There was this enormous difference between them. As regards Eastern Roumelia, there was an administrative autonomy and a Christian Governor General. That made the whole difference between it and Macedonia, where there was no such provision. As regarded horrors all round the world, he repudiated the doctrine that they were the same to us as those in Macedonia. His view was that there was no parallel between the horrors of Burmah and those of Macedonia, because we had not guaranteed the safety of the Burmese Government, and were not responsible for its existence.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.