Lords Sitting of 30 April 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Heading—Local Authorities (Expenses of Conferences)* (93); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 6)* (94).
Committee—Report—Federal Council of Australasia (69).
Report— Criminal Law Amendment* (92).
Third Reading—;Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 2)* (64); Infants (78), and passed.

CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—RUSSIAN ADVANCE—OCCUPATION OF MARUCHAK.

  QUESTION.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I beg to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private Notice—Whether there is any truth in the report of the occupation of Maruchak by the Russians, and also of a further advance towards Herat?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, Sir Peter Lumsden, on the 23rd of April telegraphed—
  "Just received from Governor of Herat intelligence that Russians have advanced a post 30 miles south of Pul-i-Khisti to Maruchak, on the Murghab."
  On the 25th Sir Peter Lumsden merely alludes to the recent occupation of Maruchak. Her Majesty's Government are averse to giving publicity to mere reports; but the matter was so important that an answer was given yesterday in the House of Commons with regard to the information which had thus been received, and on which we had thought it right to make inquiries at St. Petersburg. The Russian Ambassador informed me that his Government knew nothing of the Russian advance to Maruchak. Sir Edward Thornton, to whom I had addressed inquiries, replied on the 29th that the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs said that he could state positively that no Russian troops had advanced to Maruchak. Sir Peter Lumsden, in a telegram which arrived late yesterday evening, said that an Afghan express just in declared the report of a Russian occupation of Maruchak to be quite unfounded.

FEDERAL COUNCIL OF AUSTRALASIA BILL.—(No. 69.)
(The Earl of Derby.)
FEDERAL COUNCIL OF AUSTRALASIA BILL.—(No. 69.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved," That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill."—(The Earl of Derby.)
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, the House would remember the general substance of the discussion which took place the other evening on this Bill, and that the question at issue turned upon the adhesion of certain Australian Colonies to the 31st clause of the Bill; but since the second reading a very important Paper had been laid on the Table of the House. He had been criticized in a public paper for having said that the Colony of New South Wales had expressed its adhesion to this 31st clause, and had refused to enter the Union unless it were retained. The exact position was that neither New South Wales nor New Zealand had expressed any formal opinion on the subject. He thought that it was understood that if that clause did not remain a portion of the Bill there was no probability that either of those Colonies would come in. There was another very important point in the matter. His statement the other night was that there were four Colonies — Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and Tasmania—in favour of the omission of that clause, and that two Colonies — New South Wales and New Zealand—were in favour of its retention. But from the Paper to which he had alluded he gathered that South Australia had expressed an opinion in favour of the retention of the clause. On the 17th of April a telegram arrived from the Governor of South Australia in which he said the Government there were satisfied with the Amendments agreed upon, one of which Amendments was the insertion of this particular clause. That was a very important matter, because, in the first place, it would be noticed that instead of there being four Colonies adverse to the clause and two favourable to it, there were three in favour and three adverse to it; and, secondly, in the 30th clause of the Bill it was expressly provided that the consent of four
  1084
  Colonies should be required in order to make a Confederation, and the result would be that no confederation under the Bill might take place, which was greatly to be deplored. The precise position of the Australian Colonies was that Victoria, Queensland, and Tasmania were all in favour of the omission of this clause, and New South Wales and New Zealand required to give the matter more consideration, and, in fact, declined to express any formal opinion. There was, he thought, on all sides of the House a desire to encourage to the utmost and to facilitate the union and federation of the Colonies, believing it to be highly desirable in all respects; but, on the other hand, the difficulties which appeared were many, the delicacy of the position was very great, and it required great delicacy of touch in order to carry the matter through successfully. Therefore, while he had endeavoured to correct his statement of the other night so as to bring it in accordance with the exact and precise state of the case, he still adhered to the opinion that it was, on the whole, best to retain the 31st clause in the Bill, as leading to the consummation they all desired—namely, the adoption of this Federation.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, it was quite true that Victoria, Queensland, and Tasmania were against the retention of the clause, that South Australia and West Australia accepted the Bill as it stood, and that New South Wales and New Zealand had not yet expressed any definite opinion.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3ª To-morrow.

INFANTS BILL.—(No. 78.)
(The Lord FitzGerald.)
INFANTS BILL.—(No. 78.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order). On Motion, "That the Bill do pass?"
  LORD NORTONsaid, he rose to move an Amendment on Sub-section 2 of Clause 3, which gave a mother power to appoint provisionally, by deed or will, a guardian or guardians to act jointly with the father after her death. He proposed to insert the following Proviso:—

  1085
  "But no such provisional appointment of guardians to act with the infant's father shall take effect unless confirmed by the Court upon evidence sufficient in its judgment to prove that the father is unfit to be the solo guardian."
  As the clause stood, a mother might appoint guardians to act with the father, unless the sanction of the Court should be refused. He thought it better, conversely, that such appointment should be invalid unless confirmed by the Court. Every father should not be obliged to void a formal appointment by proving himself fit to be sole guardian. The hostile guardian should be made to show cause for his appointment at all.
  Amendment moved,
  In line 25, to leave out from]"infant" to the end of the sub-section, and insert, "But no such provisional appointment of guardians to act with the infant's father shall take effect unless confirmed by the Court upon evidence sufficient in its judgment to prove that the father is unfit to be the sole guardian."—(The Lord Norton.)
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he hoped their Lordships would not accept the Amendment, as it involved an essential inroad on the principle of the Bill, which was based on what was for "the welfare of the infant." The Amendment sought to substitute "the moral unfitness of the father." A dying mother anxious for the welfare of her children would naturally wish to nominate a guardian to act with the father if she knew that the latter was not a fit person to whom alone to intrust the welfare of his offspring. If the Amendment were agreed to, a guardian so nominated would not be able to act unless a Judge should be satisfied that the father was absolutely unfit to fulfil his paternal duties, and this condition precedent might fail to be established in cases where it would yet be of the greatest importance for the welfare of the children that the mother's guardian should be accepted as the father's coadjutor. It might be greatly for the welfare of the infant that the father should not be the sole guardian without imputing to him any moral delinquency.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he should support the Amendment. If it were inserted in the clause the principle would be recognized that the father was the person primarily responsible for the welfare of his children, and that he had a right to be their sole guardian unless
  1086
  proved before a Court of competent jurisdiction to be unfitted to exercise the right. If this principle were not established in the Bill, a guardian nominated by the mother would in almost every case be confirmed in his position by the Courts of Law if appeal was made to them, for Judges would be loth to disregard the wishes expressed by a mother on her death-bed. The dual control of father and guardian which the clause contemplated would work well in very few cases indeed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that if this sub-section of the clause had been omitted an important class of cases would have been left wholly unprovided for. He was bound to admit that the present Amendment would not have that result; but the reason why it was better to provide for that class of cases in the manner proposed by the clause might be stated very shortly. In the first place, it was not plain how the Court would deal with the word "unfit," and whether it might not lay on the person making the application a burden greater than ought to be done. Secondly, and connected with the same idea, there might be circumstances not of the gross character to which reference had been made, and not necessarily involving moral unfitness on the part of the father, which might make it highly desirable and almost necessary for the welfare of the infant that a guardian should be associated with him. Suppose there was a father not a profligate or drunkard, but impecunious, hiding here and there to avoid his creditors, and unable out of his own means to provide for his children. In the present state of the law with regard to the property of married women that case was much more likely to occur than before. The mother might have to provide out of her own means for the maintenance of the children, and at her death might dispose of those means for that purpose and desire to appoint a guardian to act with the father. He was not at all sure that the Court would say that such a case came under the meaning of the word "unfit." But he was quite sure that the Court would say that it was desirable that the guardian, if a fit and proper person had been appointed by the mother, should in such a case be associated with the father.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he felt that in discussing this question

  1087
  they were likely to fall into a fallacy if they were to imagine that it was possible in the majority of cases for the guardian to act with the father. He would be appointed against what the father conceived to be his rights, and would be received as an invader in the house. The children would be subjected to what had been called, with reference to political events, "dual control," and to all the evils attributed to that form of government. On every point the two influences would struggle. If there was a question of religion they would have the father teaching Protestanism and the guardian Roman Catholicism, or vice versä, or the father teaching Low Church doctrines and the guardian High Church doctrines, with the effect not that the child would take its choice, but that he would learn to disbelieve both. Again, with regard to morals. One view of life would be presented by the father, another by the guardian, and the child would not adhere to one or the other, but would take the negative result, and treat the question of morals as unimportant. The noble and learned Lord told the House that "unfitness" was a thing very difficult of proof, and, therefore, the father was to be ousted of his rights, not upon proof, but upon suspicion. Then his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack spoke of the uncertainty of construction to which words would be exposed. That was true. The Court often applied to words a very different construction from what might have been intended by their author. Lord Cairns passed one of the most important measures with respect to real property which had been passed for many years. That measure was brought before the Court in a case which had attracted general attention, and Lord Cairns told him that the decision at which the Court had arrived in that very carefully-drafted Act of Parliament was the reverse of what was intended. When the noble and learned Earl told the House that the interpretation of the word "unfit" would occasion very great difficulty, would not the interpretation of the word "desirable" also be difficult? He was old-fashioned enough to believe that by the law of Nature and the law of God the father was the person who ought to have the care of his child, and that to disestablish the father altogether of his
  1088
  rights and to say that the Judge should act solely with reference to his own view of the welfare of the infant would be to disregard rights held sacred from the beginning of our polity, and resting on far deeper foundations than most of those which we deemed firmly established. He hoped that the Amendment, which had been drawn in a spirit of compromise, would be accepted by the House.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Amendment moved,
  In subsection (2.), line 25, to leave out from ("death") to ("infant") in line 26, and insert ("if it be shown to the satisfaction of the court that the father is for any reason unfitted to be the sole guardian of his children.")—(The Lord Inchiquin.)
  On question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill? Their Lordships divided: —Contents 53; Not-Contents 69: Majority 16.
  Clause 5 (Court may make orders as to custody).
  EARL BEAUCHAMPthought that Clause 5 ought to be carefully considered, as it gave the Court an unlimited power respecting the management of children, even in the lifetime of the father. As the clause stood, a quarrelsome or vindictive wife might take proceedings against her husband with respect to the children, and heavy costs might be incurred. How were those costs to be borne? The clause would be productive of much mischief and tend to promote matrimonial differences, unless it were safeguarded as Lord Cairns had proposed to safeguard it. He would, therefore, move as an Amendment the introduction of words limiting the operation of the clause to cases when the husband and wife were separated either by decree of the Court or by deed. Their Lordships had divided on this question last week; but he would take the sense of the House again on the subject.
  Moved to insert at beginning of clause ("Where the father or mother of any infant are living separate under a separation by deed or decree of the court, or otherwise.") — The Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he objected to the Amendment on principle. It was not necessary that there should be a quarrel between husband and wife

  1089
  for the intervention of the Court to be invoked. There might be reasonable differences of opinion, not inconsistent with amicable relations between the parties, which could only be satisfactorily settled by the Court. The Amendment was not only contrary to the spirit of the law of the Church, but was also against the policy of the law, which did not encourage, and, indeed, for a long time did not recognize, separation of husband and wife; and it was a hard thing to impose as a condition precedent to the grant of relief in such cases to a wife that she should leave her home and children.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he was surprised at the arguments of his noble and learned Friend. The clause was a mischievous one as it stood. There might be nothing wrong in the husband's conduct; yet, because his wife entertained different views from him as to the bringing up of the children, or had a trifling difference with him, which good sense and good temper would have got over, a permanent quarrel was to be established between them, and the man was to be subjected to the annoyance and expense of legal proceedings. There was no justification for interfering with the present law. No doubt, there were Petitions in favour of this clause; but, as he had often said, it was the discontented who petitioned, and though those who were satisfied with the existing law might be the overwhelming majority, they were not heard of. He had asked the opinion of a learned Judge who had thought and written as much about our laws as any man, and his learned friend said—"If two men ride on one horse one must ride in front." He declared that rather than pass the clause in its present form he would hand over to the mother the whole government of the house and children. He did not intend to say anything uncivil of women, or to suggest that they were particularly prone to mischief; but undoubtedly this clause would give a wife great power of worrying her husband. He might not only have to pay his own costs in proceedings which she instituted, but probably the costs of his wife, for counsel and solicitors were in divorce proceedings regarded as "necessaries," for which the husband was liable. This would really add another to the terrors of matrimony.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that it was his duty to make an earnest appeal to their Lordships not to accept this Amendment, which those who promoted this measure considered well-nigh fatal to it. Of this the House might be assured, since he (Lord Brabourne) had received many letters and communications to that effect from different parts of the country. He would respectfully entreat their Lordships not to consider the question now before them as if it was one affecting only or principally the class to which they themselves belonged. In that class the clause might, indeed, not be required, and the Amendment might be innocuous. But in the poorer ranks of life such cases as the following sometimes had to his knowledge occurred. A husband would leave his wife either to get work elsewhere, or to go on what was known as "a drunken spree." During his absence the wife supported the children by her hard-won earnings. Then the husband would return, and it was more than doubtful whether the couple could in a legal point of view be held to have been living "separately." As the law now stood, the husband could use the threat of removing the children from the custody of the mother to some place or person disapproved by her, as a means of extorting from her money to squander upon himself. By this clause as it stood, the wife could in such a case apply to the Court for an order as to the custody of the children. The Amendment of the noble Earl would enact that before she could so apply she must separate from her husband. But she might not wish to do this, and might still cherish a hope to reclaim him. He (Lord Brabourne) would leave the two noble and learned Lords who had spoken to discuss the question of costs. To his mind, there was a higher question involved; here was a remedy which it was admitted on all sides that the wife should have, and he protested against its being made a precedent condition that she should separate from her husband. It was all very well to talk of a "dual control;" but all the legislation of late years upon these subjects had been in the direction of elevating the status of the woman, and giving her some share in the direction of her children and household; and having presented many Petitions from wives and mothers who took a deep interest in this

  1091
  question, on their behalf and in their names he earnestly asked the House to reject the Amendment.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 35; Not-Contents 69: Majority 34.
  LORD DENMAN,in moving, as an Amendment, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause:—
  "In case of the conduct of any father making it wrong for him to have the custody of his infant children or child, and if his wife, their mother, should have a separate household, she, by the order of the Probate and Divorce Court or other court of the High Court of Justice, or of the nearest county court, shall have all the rights which other householders possess, or may in future possess, at every election of Members of Parliament and at all other elections,"
  said, he could not expect their Lordships to admit a disfranchising clause in the Bill; but as on December 4, 1884, he alluded to the case of "The King v. Greenhill," 1836, referred to by his lamented Predecessor on July 28, 1839, he wished to show that some married women ought to have votes.
  Amendment negatived.
  On the Motion of The Lord FITZGERALD, the following new Clause was inserted:—
  "In England and Ireland the High Court of Justice, in any division thereof, and in Scotland either division of the Court of Session, may, in their discretion, on being satisfied that it is for the welfare of the infant, remove from his office any testamentary guardian, or any guardian appointed or acting by virtue of this Act, and may also, if they shall deem it to be for the welfare of the infant, appoint another guardian in place of the guardian so removed."
  Amendment moved,
  After Clause 10, to insert as a new clause— ("Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the sole authority of the father, as now recognized by law, in the matter of the religious education of his children.")—(The Lord Braye.)
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment, as he thought it would be introducing into the measure a dangerous element. It was a well-settled principle, and he hoped it would not be shaken, that the children should be brought up in the religion of their father. There was nothing at all in the Bill to derogate from that, and he thought the Amendment entirely unnecessary.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, if the framers of the Bill had no intention of altering the existing state of the law, why should they hesitate to affirm it by this Amendment? The tendency of the Bill appeared to be of an opposite nature, and to leave it to a County Court to decide what was most for the welfare of a child; and this might include the religious bringing up of a child.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided—Contents 7; Not-Contents 56: Majority 49.
  Clause disagreed to.
  Motion, "That the Bill do pass,"agreed to; Bill passed accordingly, and sent to the Commons.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 92.) REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 2 (Procuring woman to be a common prostitute or to enter a brothel).
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE moved an Amendment to the clause, so as to make the offence of procuration punishable under the clause in all cases. As the provision stood, the offence was limited to cases in which the woman or girl, with respect to whom the crime should be committed, was under 21 years of age.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, lines 10 and 11, to leave out ("under twenty-one years of age.")—(The Earl of Dalhousie.')
  Amendment agreed to; words left out accordingly.
  LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved to insert the following clause after Clause 5:—
  "Where, in case of any charge under this Act, any girl under 15 years appears to have solicited the offence, such solicitation shall be deemed an offence, and on conviction thereof the Court may require such girl to find securities for good behaviour, or sentence her to be sent to a certified reformatory school or such other certified institution as may hereafter be provided for the reception of such juvenile offenders."
  It had, he said, as their Lordships knew, been proved before a Select Committee that there had been eases in which girls had been enticed abroad for immoral purposes. It had been also proved that a considerable amount of juvenile im-

  1093
  morality existed in this country, for the cure of which some provision ought to be made. But there were none of their Lordships prepared for the revelations made before the Committee. A short paragraph of their Report stated that the evidence proved beyond doubt that juvenile prostitution, upon an enormous scale, was increasing in England, and especially in London. It also said that the Committee were unable adequately to express their sense of the magnitude, both in a moral and physical point of view, of the evils thus brought to light. The object of his Amendment was to suggest the application to those miserable children of that system of reformatory treatment which had obtained such success in the case of juvenile thieves. He thought the proper way of dealing with this subject would be by a Bill; but he was anxious to take this opportunity of bringing it before the House, if only by way of suggestion. He hoped his noble Friend would give an assurance that the question should be dealt with. Such an assurance would be satisfactory to the House and to the country.
  Amendment moved,
  After Clause 5, insert as a new clause:—"Where, in case of any charge under this Act, or any charge of indecent assault, any girl under the age of fifteen years appears to have solicited an offence under this Act, or an indecent assault, such solicitation shall be deemed an offence, and, on conviction thereof, the court may require such girl to find securities for good behaviour, or sentence her to be sent to a certified home within the meaning of this Act."—(The Lord Aberdare.)
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that the noble Lord himself did not consider the clause was drawn in such a shape that the Government could consent to its insertion in the Bill. He need not, therefore, enter into any criticism of its wording. He would only say that his noble Friend had called attention to a most grave subject, with regard to which a very important recommendation had been, made by a Committee of their Lordships' House. There was nothing in this Bill to carry out that recommendation. It was not thought advisable to introduce into so short a Bill a matter for which such elaborate and complicated provisions would be required, as the establishment of those homes would involve. But he would bring to the notice of the Secretary of State what had been said by his noble Friend.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Bill to be read 3ª To-morrow.

EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)— THE EXPEDITION UP THE NILE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGErose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether he could give the House any information with respect to the present transport arrangements for conveying clothing and stores to the troops on the Nile? His noble Friend, he was sure, felt that the comfort and welfare of the troops on the Nile was a matter well worthy of his attention. He had heard from sources on which he could rely that the troops were in a very bad state as regarded their clothing. In some cases the clothing was all but falling off the backs of the men, and the troops were in an equally bad condition with regard to boots. Officers seemed to suffer alike with the men. So far as he was aware, no fresh clothing had reached thorn yet; and he should like to know what prospect there was of the troops getting the necessary stores? No doubt the transport difficulties were very great, for he was quite aware of the great loss of camels which the Army in the Soudan had sustained. In the march from Gubat to Korti the loss of camels was enormous, and it would appear that there had been no margin left for casualties in this respect. He had heard that the stores of clothing had not got beyond Assouan, and he should be glad to be informed that his information was incorrect. He hoped his noble Friend would be able to say what the present and future transport arrangements were, and whether the troops were to wait for the rising of the Nile before they obtained fresh clothing. He might be told that all these matters were left to the General commanding, but the War Office was ultimately responsible; and they should know accurately and be able to impart such information, where the stores actually were, and what prospect there was of these stores reaching the regiments. Large sums of money had been subscribed in this country for the purchase of stores; but these would be useless if they did not reach their destination. If the health of the troops was to be secured, there should not only be

  1095
  sent out comforts of every description, but books and newspapers were invaluable to men who were cooped up all day in straw huts, and who, after the excitement of a campaign, were so liable to sickness. It was stated that four weeks ago our men were entirely destitute of clothing and other necessaries.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he was not at all surprised that the noble Lord should have asked this Question; and he could assure him that anything which conduced either to the good health or to the comfort of the troops in the Soudan occupied the serious and earnest attention of the authorities who had to supply their needs. With regard to transport, the position was this. They knew generally that certain means existed of conveying various articles to the troops; but those means were entirely in the hands of the General who commanded the lines of communication and the commanding officers. They, and they alone, determined what were the particular articles which were most in demand; and the orders of those officers, who were perfectly acquainted with the most pressing demands of the troops, must regulate what articles were sent out. The noble Lord was quite wrong in stating that the clothing had not got beyond Assouan. The stores of clothing and boots in Egypt were enormous, and there had been for a long time considerable stores at Wady Halfa. In the last detailed Report he observed that a steamer was now plying above Dongola, and had started more than four weeks ago with a large supply of clothing and necessaries required by the troops; and a distinguished officer, who had recently returned from the upper regions of the Nile, had informed him that at the time he left the General in command of the communications had stopped all supplies except those required for pressing needs, and those were forwarded without delay. He trusted that by this time the clothes and boots had reached the men who required them. He might mention that since the time referred to by the noble Lord some of the [troops had descended the Nile, and had, no doubt, met the supplies halfway. He could assure him that the difficulties of transport were very great indeed, and that the greatest efforts had been made to keep up the lines of communication by steamers and
  1096
  boats, and where these were not available by camels. Everything that could possibly be done had been done to keep the troops supplied with what was necessary for their health and comfort.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE CAPE COLONY— CAPE TOWN AND SIMON'S BAY RAILWAY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHrose to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government has undertaken or intends to undertake the completion of the railroad between Cape Town and Simon's Bay and the Cape of Good Hope? The value of this railway, he submitted, had been pointed out by various Military Authorities; and it was entirely upon military, and not upon commercial, grounds the undertaking should be completed. The communications by sea from Simon's Bay to Table Bay were very long. If the line of railroad were completed it would be possible to establish barracks halfway, and the troops could be moved backwards and forwards, and it would be a good line of defence. He understood that the Government proposed to expend £90,000 upon the fortifications at Simon's Bay; but the works of defence there would be absolutely useless unless they had the means of conveying troops to Simon's Bay by railway. The only assistance asked in the matter was a sum of £50,000 for the construction of six miles of railway. He hoped the noble Earl would take the question seriously into consideration, as from the best information he could obtain our defences were in a most imperfect condition.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that he had gone closely into the question of the defences of these two places, both with good maps and also by having personally ridden over the ground; and he had come to the conclusion that it was absolutely impossible to separate the defences of Simon's Bay from those of Table Bay. The two must be considered as part of one defence, and it was absolutely necessary that the railway should be completed. He was glad, to find that his opinion was corroborated by that of the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Napier of Magdala).
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he did not think the noble Lord would expect

  1097
  him to enter into controversy on the subject. He believed the noble Lord's statement of facts was quite accurate, and he was very willing to defer to the high authority of the noble and gallant Lord opposite. There was no doubt that it was very desirable to connect these two places. But the question was—who was to make the railway, and who was to bear the expense? Within the last few days he had received a communication from the Agent General of the Cape Colony conveying a proposal on the part of the Government of that Colony, which he intended immediately to refer to a small Departmental Committee appointed by the Colonial and War Offices and the Admiralty. The subject would be at once taken into consideration. He had not seen the details of the proposal, and could not, therefore, express an opinion upon it; but he was quite sure that whatever decision was arrived at that communication would not be lost sight of.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that it was extremely difficult to discuss these questions openly, because so many military considerations were involved. He quite agreed with the noble and gallant Lord behind him as to the great necessity of completing this railway. He was glad that the Colonial Secretary had undertaken to examine the subject; but he was disposed to regret that it was to be referred to a Departmental Committee, and that reference would involve a loss of precious time. No further facts could be ascertained, and there did not seem to be two opinions on the subject. The railway ought to have been taken in hand long ago; and he, with other noble Lords, had on several occasions urged the importance of this and other similar undertakings at a time when they might have been prosecuted more effectively, and at a less expense than was possible now. He urged with all the force in his power that there should be no unnecessary delay on the part of the Government in taking action in the matter.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHwished to add that means should be taken for the conveyance of torpedoes from one port to the other.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.