Lords Sitting of 8 June 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Habitual Drunkards Act (1879) Amendment (No. 2) * (138).
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, Amendment (112).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Ballymoney, &c.)* (97); Elementary Education (Birmingham)* (101); Elementary Education (London)* (102); Local Government* (113); Local Government (No. 2)* (114); Local Government (Poor Law)* (115); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 2)* (116); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 3)* (117).
Committee—Report— Metropolitan Commons (Farnborough, &c.) * (104); Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse) * (105).
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Dublin Markets) * (85), and passed.

PHARMACY ACT (IRELAND), 1875, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 112.)
(The Earl of Milltown.)
PHARMACY ACT (IRELAND), 1875, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 112.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he had received an intimation that the Government would not oppose the second reading, provided the Bill were referred to a Select Committee, and he was most anxious that it should be so referred. The Bill was similar in its objects to one which he recently carried through that House for Great Britain. The main object was to protect the public against the uncontrolled and indiscriminate sale of poisons. The condition of things in Ireland was worse than it had been in Great Britain; the sale of poisons was practically uncontrolled, because defects in legislation rendered it almost impossible to secure convictions for illegal sale. By the Act of 1791 the Apothecaries Hall was constituted, and the making up of medical prescriptions was confined to members of that Body. It did not, however, restrict the sale of poisons which were not so made up; and that sale was restricted only by the provisions of an Act relating to arsenic. By the Act of 1870, strict provisions were made for regulating the sale of poisons, but no attempt was made to confine the sale to particular persons. A schedule of poisons was affixed to the Act, and the sale of them, except as provided by the Act, was a matter subjecting the vendor to severe penalties. But it had been found practically impossible to enforce the Act through the College of Physicians acting under the Privy Council, on whom the responsibility of enforcing it devolved. The Irish Pharmaceutical Society was constituted by the Pharmacy Act of 1875, which provided that all qualified persons should have their names inscribed on a register of chemists and druggists, and the 31st clause protected the rights of all existing dealers in poisons; but there was no provision for registering the names of those who had been formerly engaged in the indiscriminate sale, and it was impossible to identify those who had secured the right to continue in the trade. To remedy this defect was one of the objects of the Bill. Complaints had been made of the lax enforcement of the law by the Pharmaceutical Society, which had not money to carry on prosecutions. It had been suggested that some of those who had taken advantage of the lax state of things should be allowed to
  1500
  continue their trade if they passed a modified examination, and should have their names inscribed on the register A similar provision was made for the protection of assistants. There were also provisions for removing uncertainty as to the proprietorship of establishments where the sale of poisons was carried on, and requiring that they should in all cases be under the personal management of qualified persons.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)said, that the subject of the Bill was not only one of great importance, but also one of great complexity. It was extremely difficult to unravel the various differences which had arisen between the several Bodies who produced poisons in Ireland. The Government of Ireland were anxious that the Bill should not pass without further examination, but they had no prejudice against it. They were determined to ask the House to read the Bill a second time, on the understanding that it should be referred to a Select Committee. To that course his noble Friend had assented, and he now begged to recommend their Lordships to adopt it.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.

  ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GAR- DENS—THE ROEHAMPTON GATE OF RICHMOND PARK.—QUESTION.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEasked, Whether it was not the case that the owner of the road from Barnes Common to the Roehampton Gate of Richmond Park had offered to make a present of that road to the public; and whether her Majesty's Ministers did not consider that the offer should be accepted, and thus a much nearer entrance be afforded from London to Richmond Park?
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, that he could not add anything to the answer which was given by the First Commissioner of Works on this subject on the 19th of March in the House of Commons. Perhaps he might be allowed to read part of that answer. The First Commissioner said—
  "No Vote has ever been taken in Parliament for the purchase of Clarence Lanes. In 1869

  1501
  the Treasury authorized negotiations for their purchase at the price of £2,000; but the negotiations came to nothing, as the then proprietor held out for a larger sum. In 1874 the matter again came up; and the office of Works asked the Treasury whether they were still willing to propose that Parliament should contribute £2,000 towards freeing the roads, as there was a movement among residents in the neighbourhood to raise by subscription the balance of the sum demanded by the proprietor (£2,500); but that suggestion was not adopted."—(3 Hansard, [323] 1636–7.)
  It was true that the road had been offered as a gift to the Office of Works. That Department had refused the offer, because the Treasury would not undertake the expense of maintaining the road. The cost of maintaining it would be about £100 a-year, but £200 would be required to put the road in order. It would not be possible to save that amount out of the sum allowed by Parliament for the maintenance of the roads in Richmond Park, particularly as this year the Estimate for the maintenance of the Park had been considerably cut down. The Government were not, as he had said, willing to undertake the maintenance of these roads; but if the roads were otherwise made available, they were prepared to maintain and keep a gatekeeper to look after the road and see that it was properly protected.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—SENTENCE N MR. CONDON, M.P.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD COLERIDGEasked her Majesty's Government, Whether there was any objection to lay upon the Table of the House copies of the summons and of the indictment or information on which Mr. Thomas Condon, M.P., was recently sentenced to one month's imprisonment, together with any copies which might exist of the passage or passages in his speech which were the subject of the indictment, or information of any evidence which was given upon his trial, and of the judgment; also whether her Majesty's Government were aware, or could inform the House, whether the judgment was founded on any previous decision of any competent Court? His attention was drawn to the proceedings in this case as they were reported in the newspapers, but he would not state what impression the newspaper reports pro-
  1502
  duced on his mind, because he knew by experience that newspaper reports of legal cases were very often necessarily, and very often when they need not be, inaccurate. The case was an important one, and he had taken care to put the Question in such a form that it should not interfere with any proceedings that might be pending. Whether it was intended to draw attention to it in the other House he knew not. He simply asked for information, because he knew perfectly well that if he said anything on the case in the present state of his information he would invite at the hands of the Government the very proper answer that he had interfered in a matter about which his information was perfectly unreliable. He did not think that he would be justified—and he did not intend doing so—in expressing any opinion on the case whatever. He would only say, as regards the last portion of his Question, that he took it for granted that the proceedings—though it did not appear on the Paper, because he had taken it for granted—were taken under the Crimes Act, and he supposed under Section 2 of that Act. He did not know whether that was so or not, but he took the liberty of assuming it; and what he meant by the last portion of his Question was, he wished to know whether the noble and learned Lord opposite (the Lord Chancellor of Ireland), or any other noble Lord, could inform him whether there had been any previous decision on that section or not?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)said, he had considered the Question placed upon the Paper by the noble and learned Lord with all the care and attention which was due to one holding so high a position as the noble and learned Lord in the House and in the Legal Profession. He gathered from the few observations which the noble and learned Lord had made that his attention was called to this case by some statement in the newspapers, and that his desire was to obtain information, the giving of which would not interfere with the course of justice. If the noble and learned Lord had lived in Ireland, or had been in the habit of reading Irish newspapers even at irregular periods, he would have been tolerably familiar with every aspect of this case, and he would know that all the points upon which he desired infor-

  1503
  mation, and that every matter having the slightest connection with this case had been mentioned at length and fully reported in the Press. He said frankly that all the information which he had to give on the subject was only what any person could have made himself acquainted with through the ordinary channels of information. On the 2nd of April, 1888, a meeting was held at Mitchelstown at which Mr. Condon took an active part and made a speech; and it was in reference to a portion of that speech, which was held to amount to an incitement to persons to commit a breach of the law, that the sentence of one month's imprisonment was inflicted. As their Lordships would recollect, a police constable named Leahy was very seriously and dangerously maimed and wounded in the riot at Mitchelstown last autumn, where this meeting had been held, on the 2nd of April, and the Grand Jury of the county of Cork at the last Spring Assizes, under the Grand Jury Act passed in the reign of William IV., awarded to Constable Leahy for those injuries that he had sustained the sum of £1,000. In accordance with the ordinary requirements of the law that was fiated in the usual way by the Judge of Assize afterwards at the Spring Assizes at Cork. On the 2nd of April that meeting was held, and the Attorney General for Ireland, whose business it was to consider those matters, arrived, not unreasonably, at the conclusion that the meeting was an unlawful meeting, that it was held to support the Plan of Campaign, and also to induce the ratepayers not to pay the tax for the compensation awarded to Constable Leahy by the Grand Jury and upheld at the Spring Assizes. At the meeting held on April 2, Mr. Condon made a speech in which he said—
  "You have heard from Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Healy that a tax of £1,000 is being levied off the barony for his unconstitutional conduct in being the first to lead the baton party that broke through your meeting on the 9th of September last. I hope the men of the barony of Condons and Clongibbons will do in the future as they have done in the past—namely, organize themselves to make the collection of that tax as difficult and expensive for these landlords and for the taxgatherers. All this may be illegal. I do not know whether it is or not, and, furthermore, do not care. It is quite possible that you will have policemen out in a day or two, but I will ask you to feed yourselves
  1504
  your families before you part with this money for Constable Leahy. It is one of the most infamous acts that was ever perpetrated by a Grand Jury. It was not out of love for Leahy, but it was poor revenge for the triumph that you had over them and their class on the Kingston property; not that one shilling will come out of their own pockets. If you contrast their action in the Grand Jury room in Cork with their action in the country you can see the motive that actuates the Grand Jury of the County of Cork in levying this infamous tax. I hope that you will send back a message to the Grand Jury of Cork that by the time this tax is collected it will cost them ten times more than the original tax levied. I have not the slightest doubt but that you will make the collection of this tax impossible, and that before a few months they will have reason to remember it. This is no time to be mealy-mouthed in speaking on these subjects."
  The Attorney General for Ireland and the Executive Government could not, consistently with their duty, allow those words to pass unnoticed. They had to discharge their duty; and they directed that Mr. Condon should be prosecuted for those words and for his action at that meeting. The charges preferred against Mr. Condon were four in number—namely—
  "That the defendant did take part in a criminal conspiracy to induce certain persons not to fulfil their legal obligations, to wit, to pay a certain tax, to wit, county cess or grand jury cess, in respect of a certain presentment of the Grand Jury of the County of Cork, made at last Spring Assizes for said county, whereby a sum of £1,000 was presented to be raised off the barony of Condons and Clongibbons, in said county, in pursuance of Section 106, 6 and 7 Will. IV., c. 116, for the maiming of one Constable James Leahy at Mitchelstown, in said barony. 2. That defendant did at same time and place incite certain persons to unlawfully take part in a criminal conspiracy to induce certain other persons not to fulfil their legal obligations, to wit, to pay a certain tax, to wit, county cess or grand jury cess, in respect of said presentment hereinbefore mentioned. 3. And also that defendant did at same time and place aforesaid take part in an unlawful assembly. 4. And also that defendant at same time and place aforesaid being a district, to wit, within the barony of Condons and Clongibbons, in said County of Cork, and specified by an Order of the Lord Lieutenant in Council dated the 17th of September, 1887, made in pursuance of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, by which Order the association named and described as the Irish National League in said district was suppressed, and which order was, after a special Proclamation in pursuance of the said Act, made by the Lord Lieutenant by and with the advice of the Privy Council, did knowingly take part in a meeting of the said association."
  The case came on at Mitchelstown before the tribunal constituted under the recent

  1505
  Act and presided over by Mr. Irwin, gentleman of character, experience, and knowledge. Mr. Deasy, a Member of Parliament, and also a member of the Bar, represented Mr. Condon, and he asked that the hearing of the charge against his client for taking part in a criminal conspiracy to induce certain persons not to fulfil their legal obligations in regard to payment of the tax for providing the compensation awarded to Constable Leahy should be adjourned until after the decision of the Queen's Bench Division in Ireland had been given upon the legality of the presentment of the Grand Jury of the County of Cork, that presentment having been removed upon certiorari to the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin. The counsel for the Crown, Mr. Ronan, who represented the Attorney General, a lawyer of great experience and ability, in order to prevent all possibility of complaint that the defendant was unfairly treated, assented to the proposed adjournment until the Court of Queen's Bench had given its judgment on the legality of the presentment. The Queen's Bench Division afterwards gave judgment, upholding the legality of the presentment, and the liability of the ratepayers to pay the rate out of which Constable Leahy was to receive compensation was clear and manifest. The case against Mr. Condon then came on at Mitchelstown before Mr. Irwin and his colleague. The defence made by counsel for the defendant appeared to be that the words which Mr. Condon had spoken at the meeting only suggested and recommended that the people should not pay the tax until they knew what the action of the Court of Queen's Bench would be, and whether it would affirm the presentment, or set it aside as being illegal. The case was heard fully, and Mr. Irwin gave judgment against Mr. Condon. In passing sentence, Mr. Irwin was reported by The Freeman's Journal of May 22 to have said—
  "There were two charges against the defendant, the evidence with regard to which they already heard, and they had only to pronounce judgment. The first was that the defendant did at Mitchelstown on the 2nd of April last take part in a criminal conspiracy to induce certain other persons, being ratepayers and cesspayers in the barony of Condons and Clongibbons, not to fulfil their legal obligations to pay a certain tax assessed at last Spring Assizes by the Grand Jury, when a
  1506
  sum of £1,000 as awarded to Constable Leahy to be levied off the barony of Condons and Clongibbons. In that charge they would make no rule. The next charge was one of inciting certain persons to take part in a criminal conspiracy to induce the ratepayers of the barony not to fulfil their legal obligations. Now, it appeared from the evidence which was laid before them that at the last Assizes of Cork, all the necessary preliminaries having been gone through, the presiding Judge, Mr. Justice Gibson, fiated the presentment to Constable Leahy for the most serious injuries he received while in the execution of his duties in Mitchelstown in September last. Now, that fiat or decree of the Judge imposed upon the ratepayers of that barony of Condons and Clongibbons the strict legal obligation of paying that tax. No doubt it was open to the ratepayers to seek relief from that tax by appealing, if they thought fit, to some Superior Court. There would be nothing wrong and certainly nothing criminal in that. But they had searched and searched in Mr. Condon's speech on that occasion for any remark or expression that would go to show that he had in his mind the idea, of inducing the ratepayers to appeal to a Court of Law. If they had found any such expression in his speech they should have dismissed the charge. Mr. Condon told the people to organize themselves to make the collection of that tax difficult and as expensive as possible to the landlord and taxgatherer. Again, he said he had not the slightest doubt that they would make the collection of the tax impossible, and before a few months they would have reason to remember it. There was not one word in his speech about the Court of Queen's Bench or any other Court. They then came to consider what was the real and obvious meaning and construction to be put upon these words. Evidently they were uttered to encourage and induce the ratepayers to enter into combination so as materially to induce one and another not to fulfil their legal obligations in respect to this tax. Resistance to the payment of public taxes was perhaps the very next thing to rebellion. They had considered the matter very carefully, and they thought that they would be discharging a public duty in sentencing the defendant to one calendar month's imprisonment without hard labour."
  That was the case to which the noble and learned Lord opposite had called attention, and about which he had asked for information. He had endeavoured to confine his observations to the circumstances which had led to that sentence, to the charge upon which it passed, to the speech upon which that charge rested, and to the judgment which the Court had pronounced in the case. He apprehended that the noble and learned Lord had not suggested that the charge on which Mr. Condon was convicted was not a clear and manifest offence, and he thought there was no possibility of question in reference to that

  1507
  matter. It was an offence so obvious and so patent that the laws of no country could exist if words recommending that taxes and rates should not be paid were allowed to pass without notice, and if such language was not to be punishable the laws of no country would be able to keep civil society together. The advice of Mr. Condon had, unfortunately, been taken, and efforts were being made to make the collection of that tax, as Mr. Condon had advised, as difficult as possible. He would not refer to that matter further than to say that if noble Lords looked at the Irish Press they would at once see that the advice was being acted on. Placards had been posted within the last few days actually quoting portions of the speech just read, showing the danger of using such language and the necessity of bringing those persons who employed it to the test of legal examination before properly constituted tribunals like those which existed in the present case. He thought that every fact he had stated had appeared in the public Press. The facts were well known, but as the noble and learned Lord had put the Question on the Paper, he thought it only right and becoming to give this information, at more length, perhaps, than some of their Lordships might think right or necessary, and give all the information which the noble and learned Lord appeared to desire. He did not think, however, that it would be expedient to lay Papers on the Table. He had not much experience of that House, but he did not believe it was in accordance with precedent that he should do so; he believed it might be a precedent which would lead to very mischievous results, because to lay such Papers on the Table would be making their Lordships' House and the other House of Parliament a sort of irregular Court of Appeal in a matter which would be decided by debate, and not according to the canons which regulated and controlled the actions of Courts which had to consider such cases on appeal. If, however, there was any point in reference to which the noble and learned Lord desired any further information, he would endeavour to supplement what he had already stated. He had endeavoured to avoid the language of prejudice and comment in stating the
  1508
  facts as fully and as clearly as he could, and he trusted that he had given all the information which could reasonably be desired.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he thought that the noble and learned Lord had given ample reasons for not laying. Papers on the Table, because he had laid before their Lordships all the information bearing on the case. He took exception, however, to the closing observations of the noble and learned Lord. He could not at all admit that in all such cases as this it would be improper to have Papers produced. Their Lordships had to bear in mind that the cases in which such Papers were asked for were cases in which the Government had created a special tribunal to try them under certain conditions. He therefore could not imagine that in all the circumstances it would be improper that tribunals so constituted should be subject to review by their Lordships' House or by the other House of Parliament, if they were deemed to have exceeded their legal functions. He merely rose to make that remark by way of protest.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he did not say that it would never be proper to present Papers in such cases. "Never" was a very big word. It would certainly not be expedient on the present occasion to produce the Papers. The noble and learned Lord who asked the Question did not question the legality of the action of the tribunal in this case. At the hearing before the Resident Magistrates, they were not asked to state a case, and it was not sought to be questioned that the charges disclosed a legal offence.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that the Motion of the noble and learned Lord appeared to him very like "maintenance." It had always been the endeavour of the noble and learned Lord's last Predecessor but two, when at the Bar and on the Bench, to make an appeal to law rare, and to put a speedy end to litigation; and under the exceptional state of the law in Ireland, he thought it unbecoming of any Judge to ask for that which might hinder reconciliation and keep up discord, and he was sure that his noble and learned and lamented Predecessor would rather have cut off his right hand than sign such a Notice as that on the Minutes of this House.

AUSTRALIAN COLONIES—ADMISSION OF CHINESE IMMIGRANTS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I rise to move for—
  "Copies or extracts of correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Governors of the Australasian Colonies on the subject of the admission of Chinese immigrants to such Colonies."
  There is no question affecting the Australian Colonies which is of more serious import than this, and I think the Colonial Secretary will agree with me in thinking that the importance of it is not confined to Australia, but that it is very important as regards this country, our Treaty obligations, and our relations with a powerful State. In Australia there has been from time to time very considerable difference of opinion and of action with regard to it. The question is not a new one; it has arisen at different times. The Australian Continent has been alarmed at the sudden invasion of large numbers of Chinese, and legislation has been adopted in different Colonies with the view of meeting the evil. It is to be observed that on almost every occasion on which that legislation has been introduced the number of Chinese immigrants has sensibly fallen off. Now, in the present case there has been a diversity of action. In Now South Wales a Bill was passed by the Assembly in very hot haste, but which has been since delayed in the Council. Certain Chinese immigrants who arrived in ships were also refused the right to land. That was a decision taken by the Executive Government, but it has since been over-ruled by the Judges. In New Zealand, on the other hand, the Government have adopted the very questionable course, as it seems to me, of declaring the Chinese ports whence the immigrants have sailed to be infected, placing the ships arriving from them in quarantine. Lastly, Victoria and South Australia have desired to meet this difficulty by means of an Intercolonial Conference. The genesis of the agitation in Australia is briefly this:—A despatch was sent by the Chinese Minister here in London to my noble Friend the Prime Minister requesting that greater facilities should be given for the admission of Chinese to our Colonies. Meanwhile the Chinese
  1510
  themselves appearing in great numbers in the Northern districts, created alarm and agitation. That agitation, I am sorry to say, has spread far and wide. It is a matter of public feeling which can no longer brook delay. Now, there are two sides to this important question. There is the Chinese view of the question and also the Australian view. Let me give your Lordships a summary of what those views are. The Chinese Government might complain, and perhaps with some justice, of the precipitancy which has characterized the action of the authorities in New South Wales. I think the result of that has undoubtedly been bad, and much evil has been inflicted on trade on account of persons leaving China with the full conviction that they would be allowed to land in Australia having been sent back. It must not be forgotten that Chinese subjects can come from any of our Colonies, such as Singapore, as British subjects, provided only that the certificates of naturalization they bring with them are right. On this point great complaint has constantly been raised. It is said that those papers of naturalization have often been forged, and that the difficulty of detecting one Chinaman from another is so great that practically no exclusion exists. Your Lordships must not forget what the general relations of this country with China are. I am quite aware that the general tradition of the Chinese Government has never been to force emigrants upon any other country. On the contrary, the tradition has been to keep them at home; but whether or not that tradition holds good now it is impossible to say. About 25 or 30 years ago we compelled the Chinese, at the mouth of the Canton, to receive our traders; and, of course, there does seem to be an inconsistency that they are refused leave to land on British soil. I do not know how far the Treaties which we have with China affect this question; but I am not sure that the Treaty of Pekin does not contain clauses which would be rather awkward to construe in reference to the present case. On the other hand, the Australian Colonies have a very strong case. During many years, whenever their grievance has become great, they have passed prohibitory laws and have issued warnings to Chinese labourers; and they might claim with perfect truth

  1511
  that, on the whole, their treatment of Chinese immigrants has been good. Compared with their treatment in Cuba, in America, and in other parts of the world, the treatment of the Chinese in Australia has been of a mild and satisfactory character. The real difficulty of the question is to be found in the fact of the excessive population of China. They are not merely alien in blood, but their habits are different from those of the Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of Australia, and they live in quarters by themselves which they frequently make notorious. If ever a large swarm of these people found their way to Australia I can well understand the consternation and dismay which would be created. Almost without exception, every Australian statesman is of one mind on the subject, not to allow the unrestricted immigration of these aliens. To a large extent I sympathize with them, because, although I am disposed to uphold Treaty rights to the utmost, nothing will ever induce me to run the risk of peopling the Australian Colonies with Mongols instead of with Anglo-Saxons. The Secretary of State must have thought this question over both in regard to the wishes of the Australian Colonies and the claims and requirements of the Chinese Government. The matter may easily be placed upon a Treaty footing. Quite recently the Government of the United States arranged such a Treaty. A Conference, at which the Australian Colonies are to be represented, is to be held shortly at Sydney to consider this question. Nothing could be better or wiser than to hold such a Conference; but I must ask, with reference to one very important particular, who is to represent our Imperial interests, and who is to expound the views of her Majesty's Government at that meeting? I sincerely hope and trust that the noble Lord is not going to allow this Conference to be held without sending over someone to attend it who is in the confidence of, and who knows the mind of, her Majesty's Government, and can speak their opinions with regard to this question. This question is essentially an Imperial one, and it involves responsibilities from which no English Government can possibly escape. I hope that my noble Friend will recognize the fact that her Majesty's Government are bound to take
  1512
  part in the solution of this question, and will give their hearty assistance in bringing it to a satisfactory solution. I will further say that it is essential, as it appears to me, to both England and Australia that a friendly solution of this question should be brought about. I should like to ask your Lordships whether it has ever occurred to you to note how great has been the advance of the Chinese Empire during the last few years, both as regards their domestic and their external affairs? They have adopted steamers, railways, and telegraphs, while their trade has increased enormously. The Chinese Empire is, in fact, year by year, for better or worse, taking its place in the family of civilized nations, while her material force in our Colonial waters enables her to make her views respected. These are all serious facts which Her Majesty's Government will do well to consider. China has had her disputes with France and Russia, but our relations with her have recently been of a peculiarly friendly character. I would also ask the Australian Colonies to remember that their interests and those of China are by no means antagonistic, and that friendship with that Empire is well worth purchasing, even at the cost of some little sacrifice. This, therefore, is a question in which there must be, on the one side, co-operation and friendly offices, and on the other great forbearance. I beg, my Lords, to move for copies of the Correspondence of which I have given Notice.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, for copies or extracts of correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Governors of the Australasian Colonies on the subject of the admission of Chinese immigrants to such colonies."—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he begged to move the addition of the following words to the Motion of the noble Earl:—
  "And for a Return of all Acts passed by Colonial Legislatures affecting Chinese immigration."
  His reason for wishing for a Return of these Acts was that a great mass of Colonial legislation dealing with Chinese immigration existed, but was very little accessible, and it was very desirable that Parliament and the country should clearly understand the views that the various Colonies had from time to time

  1513
  taken on this subject. On the general question raised by the noble Earl he only proposed to say a word or two. The noble Earl had thoroughly explained to the House the universal desire expressed by statesmen and the public generally in Australia that some check should be placed upon Chinese immigration. No doubt at various times broader views had been held by different Colonies, but the sudden influx of Chinese into the Northern part of South Australia had brought about a different state of feeling. It was of great importance to preserve a friendly feeling with China, and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would use as much expedition as possible to arrive at a conclusion on this subject.
  Amendment moved,
  To add, at the end of the Motion, the following words:—"And for a Return of all Acts passed by Colonial Legislatures affecting Chinese immigration."—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, with respect to the Amendment of the noble Earl who has just sat down, I will only say that I am prepared to give the information he desires. I understand him to wish for the production not only of the existing Acts, but of any that may have been passed within recent years, although since repealed, so as to show generally the lines of legislation upon this subject. I am satisfied that your Lordships have listened with great interest to the statement of the noble Earl who introduced this subject, and with greater interest, perhaps, because he has so recently come from Australia, and, therefore, is far more in touch with the feelings of the Australians than I can possibly be. I hope the noble Earl will acquit me of discourtesy if I reply to his speech rather briefly, because, as has already been stated, an Intercolonial Conference is to consider the whole of this subject on June 12, at Sydney. The more fitting time, therefore, to make a full statement on behalf of the Government, and to produce Papers, will be when the Conference has concluded its labours, and when we shall have in our possession the Report of its proceedings. As at present advised, I am unable to agree as to the advantage of sending an Imperial delegate to that Conference. The noble Earl who sug-
  1514
  gested that a delegate should be sent is well aware of the jealousy that is still entertained of anything approaching to what is called Downing Street spirit or Imperial influence, and I think it far better that the Colonial Governments should express and discuss their views upon this matter free from the presence of an Imperial delegate. If I answer briefly, it is not because I do not recognize the importance of this subject. The Government are, indeed, fully alive to its importance and to the strong feeling that has very naturally sprung up in Australia. The Government are as anxious as any of the Colonial Governments to secure that proper checks should be put upon this Chinese immigration, and proper precautions taken to prevent the Colonies from being swamped by it. The noble Earl has shown very clearly, and, indeed, it cannot be disputed, that the character of Chinese immigration is totally different from that of immigration from any other country. There are certain special evils, or rather defects, inherent in Chinese immigration, from which the other class of immigration is free, and therefore it is absolutely necessary that Australia should be protected from unchecked Chinese immigration. The Australian Government have shown for many years their sense of the difficulties, and, I may say, dangers, arising from unchecked Chinese immigration, and, as your Lordships are aware, there have already been many Colonial Acts specially directed against this immigration. In some Colonies a poll tax, varying from £10 to £30, has been imposed, and in all the larger Australian Colonies, I think, there are legislative provisions for limiting the number of immigrants by enacting that there shall be only one Chinese immigrant, not being a British subject, to 100 tons. I leave promised the production of Papers, and stated my reasons for not now entering upon a full discussion of this very important question, but as attacks have been made not only in this country, but, unfortunately, in the Colonies also, upon the action of her Majesty's Government, and as we have been accused of neglecting the interests of the Colonists, perhaps your Lordships will allow me very briefly to explain the position of affairs and to show that these charges are unfounded.

  1515
  The feeling of distrust and alarm at Chinese immigration was very greatly intensified at the beginning of this year by the large and unexpected influx of immigrants into the Northern territory of Australia. Great fear was entertained lest the Chinese, whose presence might possibly be very useful and unobjectionable in that territory, if they could be confined to that territory, should spread from there over other portions of the Australian Colonies. The report of this sudden influx of Chinese into the Northern territory was received by me on April 7, and I received at the same time a telegram from New South Wales referring to the rumour of a Treaty between the United States and China, and asking for some similar protection. I rather fancy that that Treaty has not yet been ratified in the Senate, but, at all events, its terms were published, and I sent them out to the Australian Colonies. Upon receiving the telegram from New South Wales I replied at once that the matter was under consideration, and I learnt by a telegram that that reply was received with satisfaction. During April, therefore, there was no pressure upon the Government to lead them to take immediate action. In fact, at the end of April we received a telegram from the Governor of Victoria asking us not to take any decision adverse to opening negotiations with the Chinese Government until we should have received despatches which had been forwarded. I mention this to show that during April there was no delay on the part of the Government and no disinclination to act. In the last days of April and the beginning of May vessels with an unusual number of emigrants on board arrived at Melbourne and Sydney, and then followed the action of the New South Wales Government. There is some defence to be made for that action in the sudden panic and great alarm which sprung up at Sydney. It resulted in the prohibition to land, and in hasty legislation. That I regret, because it made any opening of negotiations with the Chinese Government at the time impossible. It certainly would have been useless to begin negotiations then. The charge against the Government of having before that time refused to negotiate is absolutely unfounded. It was unfortunate that not only that re-
  1516
  port but many other unfounded reports appeared in the Colonial newspapers, because they tended to excite feeling and to spread the belief that the Government did not desire to meet the wishes of the Colonies. I have more than once contradicted the reports; but, perhaps, as a proof of the desire of the Government to meet the wishes of the Colonial Governments, I may be permitted to read a telegram which I sent to Lord Carrington on May 11—
  "Referring to your telegram of April 26, no foundation for report that the Government refuse to negotiate with Chinese Government. Negotiations being carefully considered. Before arriving at conclusion against negotiations, Australian Colonies would have been consulted further. Her Majesty's Government fully recognize strength of feeling."
  The fact is that we have been always ready to negotiate, but it was necessary before beginning negotiations that we should thoroughly understand the case. Exact information as to the state of Colonial legislation with respect to Chinese immigration had been called for by a Circular Despatch early in the year; and it would have been useful to have had that information, and to have learned whether the Colonial Governments were all agreed upon total prohibition, or upon carefully restricted immigration, and the nature of such restrictions. We should have been unwise to enter upon negotiations at once in a hurry, and with imperfect information. So much for the charge, which, I trust, I have fully disposed of, of refusal of her Majesty's Government to negotiate. Let me add, as another proof of the unfounded character of the charge, that we did not regard the strong feeling existing in Australia upon this subject, that although, as I have before said, we regretted the action of the New South Wales Government in passing through the Assembly a very stringent law against Chinese immigration, we gave the Governor leave to assent to the measure, without prejudice to Her Majesty's power of disallowance should the provisions prove inadmissible. I shall not now enter upon the Treaty question which has been touched upon by the noble Earl, but I may say that there is no reason to suppose that legislation restricting the immigration of Chinese and imposing certain limitations upon it is opposed to the Treaty of Tien-Tsin. I

  1517
  have now sketched the action of the Government up to the middle of May, and shown that there was no disinclination, but that there was, on the contrary, a desire to co-operate with the Colonists. Early in May we were informed of the proposal to hold a Conference, and from the very first we readily assented to the plan. We offered at once to communicate points which we thought were deserving of special consideration and discussion, and, within the last few days, we have formulated and sent over certain questions which we think might usefully be brought before the delegates at the Conference. The object of these questions is to discover how far an effective restriction of Chinese immigration can be secured in a manner conducive to the general interests of the Australian Colonies and the Empire at large. I have great confidence that the whole subject will be most carefully discussed at this Conference, and that all its bearings, political and commercial, will be considered. But until that Conference has reported, it would not be right for the Government to take any further step or to make any more definite declaration of policy. I cordially concur with what the noble Earl said as to our position with China, and I need hardly assure your Lordships that it is our earnest desire to maintain and strengthen our relations with that great country. Her Majesty's Government will do all in their power to secure a friendly solution of this very important question, whether by Treaty or otherwise. With the co-operation of the Australian Colonies, we hope to come to some arrangement beneficial and honourable alike to all interested. I feel that the answer I have given to the noble Earl does not meet many of the points to which he refers; but he is more in the position of a chartered libertine than I am. Speaking for her Majesty's Government, I should desire to express our sympathy with the views and wishes of the great Australian Governments, our sense of the importance of the question, and our hope that we may arrive at a speedy and satisfactory solution of it.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of criticizing the conduct of the Government, as to which I was not aware that they
  1518
  had been subject to attack, nor do I wish to find any fault with the very wise caution and reserve which my noble Friend has exercised in his present announcement. I think he is quite right not in any way to anticipate the discussions or decisions of the Conference which is about to be held; but we who are not responsible, we who have simply the position of interested lookers-on, are not under the same restraint; and I do not think that a plain and frank expression of opinion on the part of Members of this House can do any harm or increase the present complications. There are two questions involved. One is whether the line of conduct which the Australian Governments have pursued, are pursuing, and evidently intend in the future to pursue upon this question of Chinese immigration, is in itself an altogether wise and reasonable one; and the other is whether, supposing we entertain some doubt upon that point, it is any part of our business to interfere to prevent their taking their own course. The former, to my mind, is really an abstract and theoretical question as to the latter, the question, What is our duty? is a practical question. I apprehend there may be some shades of difference between individuals; but, speaking generally, there will be an almost unanimous feeling in this country that, in point of fact, and to put it plainly, we have no option. Supposing we were to veto any anti-Chinese legislation on the part of the Colonies and to announce that any similar legislation would be similarly vetoed in future, what would be the result? Can we suppose that that veto would be submitted to? You know perfectly well that you would have an agitation spreading through every one of the Australian Colonies, and even if the prohibition of Chinese immigration could not be obtained by legal means, we know very well that popular feeling would be translated into action and whether by legal means or by means beyond the law, the immigration would soon be stopped. We are in the hands of the Colonists, and they must do in this matter as they please. If there is in Australia any opinion which is universally held, it is that Australia belongs to the Australians, and that it is not for us to regulate the conditions for the admission of the Chinese or other

  1519
  immigrants into their country. I do not for a moment conceal that certain inconvenience may arise from what is being done in Australia with regard to the Chinese; but I do not think it will interfere with our general relations with China. I do not believe that at any time it has been the policy of China to encourage emigration. The Chinese have plenty of room at home; and, if we know anything of their way of thinking, those among them who have most considered the matter seem to be anxious to see the stream of Chinese emigration directed towards their own interior Provinces rather than to foreign countries. But the matter does touch us in this way. We have for many years past been trying to obtain admission for our merchants, traders, missionaries, and whoever may have business of any kind into the interior of China. I am afraid that what our Colonial friends are doing will cut the ground from under our feet. We can have no locus standi to claim the right of unlimited admission into China for our people when the Chinese are practically excluded from Australia. But if this is a question which touches us, it is not a question which greatly concerns Australia; and it is childish to suppose that in a matter in which their own feelings and, as they suppose, their own interests are very much concerned, they will sacrifice their own wishes to considerations of Imperial policy. I believe that upon this question of the keeping out of the Chinese, the Australians are practically of one mind. I quite agree with my noble Friend the Colonial Secretary in his reason for declining to send a delegate to the Conference now being held in the Colony—that he wishes the discussions of that Conference to be uninfluenced or unbiassed from home. As to the merits of the Colonial policy itfelf, perhaps the less said the better. I have seen articles in the newspaper Press about the alleged immoral habits of the Chinese; but, taking them in the mass, I believe the Chinese population are quite as moral as any similar number of Europeans. Nor can I treat seriously the supposed danger to Australia of becoming a Mongol rather than a white community. Some 10,000 or 100,000 Chinamen pouring into Australia would not make it a Mongol community any more than the negroes
  1520
  imported into the United States have made the United States a black Republic. It really is, to speak plainly, a question of wages. The Chinaman is exceedingly industrious; he works very hard for very low wages; he does not spend his wages when he has earned them, but he takes them home; and that course of conduct is naturally not popular in a country which is governed by its working class. The rate of wages all over Australia is one which we in England should think abnormally high; those who have the power in their hands do not desire that it shall be lower. The strongest objection that I see—and it is one that may really cause some practical difficulty—is the exclusion of those who are formally British subjects from our own Colonies. There are immense numbers of Chinese naturalized or Colonial-born in Hong Kong, Singapore, and the Strait Settlements; and it is not easy to justify upon any general ground the absolute exclusion of British subjects belonging to one Colony from another Colony. Whether any concession will or can be made on that point I do not know, but I think it is a matter to which attention should be drawn. One moral I draw from this agitation. We hear a great deal in these days about large schemes for pouring out our surplus population upon the Colonies. If we were to do it upon such a scale or in such a manner as to materially lower the rate of wages, we should find that the immigrants being Englishmen and not Chinese would not prevent them from being almost as unpopular among the working class as the Chinese are. The whole question of immigration is really in the hands of the Colonists, and the sooner and more thoroughly we recognize that fact the better.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I agree with my noble Friend that, practically, when the Australian Colonies are united upon a point of this kind it is impossible that they should not have their own way; but I should like to call attention to the fact that the interests of the Australian Colonies are not the only interests that have to be considered. There are the interests—and they are not small—of the rest of the British Empire; and a portion of that Empire which is specially concerned is India. No one can deny that it is

  1521
  most important as affecting India that the relations of this country with China should be not only friendly but cordial. It is of the highest moment to this country that China should be our cordial ally. It is impossible not to feel that this question of Chinese immigration places us in difficulty in the conduct of our foreign relations. Although I do not profess to be able to suggest a solution, yet if my voice could have any influence in Australia I would say I hope that in discussing this question they will take into serious consideration our relations with other countries of the world and with China. I would deprecate strongly—I trust it is not likely to happen—that this question should be left simply to the Colonists to settle by legislation of their own, and that it should not be settled by some distinct and, I hope, satisfactory agreement with China. I trust that the Australian statesmen will so conduct this matter that, while doing justice to the strong feeling of their countrymen in Australia, they will do everything in their power to facilitate the negotiations with China which have to be conducted by Her Majesty's Government.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he readily assented to what the noble Lord had said as to the ground for delaying the production of the Papers on the assumption that as soon as that reason ceased to operate they would be produced. He wished to impress upon the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies not to leave this matter to be decided entirely by the Australian Colonies. He did not think that that represented at all the view of the Government or their wish in the matter. The arguments used that night as to the complexity of the interests involved, not merely Colonial but foreign also, showed how important it was that there should be someone in the Colonies who could speak on behalf of her Majesty's Government, who could indicate the view of the Government, and who could remind the Colonies that ultimately the management of affairs must rest with her Majesty's Government. He wished, therefore, to impress upon his noble Friend the great importance of not abdicating in any degree the Imperial responsibility and the Imperial power in this matter. Australian statesmen, in dealing with this question, would prefer
  1522
  to know the views of Her Majesty's Government, and once they were assured of the sympathy of this country with them, he believed they would not be found to be in the slighest degree unreasonable in their demands.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: What I intended to say, though I fear I may not have expressed myself clearly, was that Her Majesty's Government did not wish to interfere with free discussion at the Conference, and that when they had the result of the Conference and the views of the Colonial Governments before them, and not till then, they would decide what course should be taken. Her Majesty's Government are aware that the responsibility of finally dealing with this question rests upon them, and the power is also in their hands, because, as the noble Earl is aware, they could disallow Colonial legislation, though they would be very unwilling to take such a step. This responsibility will devolve upon her Majesty's Government when they have received in a concrete form the views and wishes of the Colonies.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Then the original Motion, as amended, agreed to.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.