Lords Sitting of 11 June 1888

MINUTES.
SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT—The Lord De Tabley, after the death of his father.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Elections, appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Select Committee—Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, Amendment * (112), nominated.
Third Reading—Suffragans' Act Amendment* (83), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Local Government (No. 3)* (139); Local Government (No. 4)* (140); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 6)* (141); Local Government (Gas)* (142); Tramways (No. 1)* (143); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries (West Loch Tarbert)* (145).
Committee—Report—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); Metropolitan Commons (Farnborough, &c.)* (104); Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse)* (105).

ELECTIONS (INTERVENTION OF PEERS, &c.)

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in rising to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed 'to consider the Sessional Order with reference to the intervention of Peers and Prelates in Parliamentary elections,' "
  said, that at the beginning of last Session the junior Member for Northamp-

  1655
  ton (Mr. Bradlaugh) moved that the usual Sessional Order passed annually by the House of Commons with regard to the interference of Peers at elections should be discontinued, on the ground that it was never enforced, and was therefore useless. That Motion was not agreed to; but the matter was referred to a Select Committee, presided over by the Postmaster General. In their Report the Committee stated—
  "That the Sessional Order appears to be a declaration by the House of Commons of its privileges, as well as of what, in the opinion of the House, is the Common Law of the land; that such declaration was first made in 1641, and since 1700 has been renewed annually in almost identical terms; that, so far as can be ascertained, this declaration of the Common Law has never been controverted by the House of Lords or any judicial tribunal; that it has been recognized by the Courts as a declaration of the law; and that, although a rescission of the order would not alter the Common Law, it would be calculated to give rise to an idea that the law had been incorrectly stated, or had become obsolete. The Committee therefore recommend that the Sessional Order be continued."
  He feared that if their Lordships kept silent after the publication of this Report they would be held to accept the conclusions arrived at by the Committee. This, in his opinion, they ought not to do, because the conclusions were not only not in accordance with the evidence that was given, but in direct conflict with it. The Sessional Order of the House of Commons declared that it was an infringement of the liberties of that House for a Peer to concern himself in the election of a Member, and this the Report stated to be a declaration of the Common Law, and so recognized by the Courts. To those statements he demurred. He did not deny that for a Peer to vote had been declared to be illegal, but he absolutely denied that for a Peer to "concern" himself in an election had been so declared. To this word "concern" he took great exception, because its significance was so very wide. In the present day it behoved the Peers to take care to retain any rights and privileges connected with Parliamentary Elections which they might possess. The House of Commons had never been backward in arrogating rights to itself. It had arrogated to itself the sole right to tax the nation, and the sole right to make and unmake Ministries; and not a year passed but it solemnly, and without
  1656
  reprimand from the Speaker, debated the question whether their Lordships' House should or should not continue to exist as a part of the Constitution, a question which he took the liberty of telling them that they had no more right to discuss than that of the existence of the Monarchy. This being the attitude of the House of Commons, they ought not to part lightly with any of the rights which were left to them. If the Commons Sessional Order was a declaration of the Common Law, it must be consistent with immemorial custom; but it was not so. Ever since we had had any history of Parliament it abounded in instances of the interference of Peers at elections. And the interferences were not such as might have occurred at modern elections, but they were interferences vi et armis, Peers being attended by soldiers and retainers, and interfering in a forcible way with the elections. Up to 1586 disputed elections to the House of Commons were tried not by the Commons, but by the King, the Chancellor, or the House of Lords, and for 100 years afterwards the practice was not settled as to who was or who was not the proper authority to try them; nor was it till the Revolution that it was finally conceded by their Lordships' House that the House of Commons had the exclusive right to settle their own disputed elections. It would be allowed that this was a tolerable amount of interference with the elections to the other House. But there was a stronger custom still. It was customary for the return to the Writs to be signed not by a Sheriff, but by the great Lords, or by their attorneys in their names. Many examples of such return will be found in Prynne's Parliamentary Writs. What was more remarkable was that if this interference of Peers was inconsistent with the Common Law, there was no instance of any Peer having suffered on account of the practice, nor was there any record of its having been declared illegal by a Court of Law. If it was not contrary to the Common Law, was it contrary to Statute Law? The only Statute bearing upon the question was 3 Edward I., c. 5, which was directed against interference by force of arms or menace with freedom of election; and which is to this effect—"The King commandeth upon great forfeiture that no

  1657
  nobleman or other (nul haut homme n'autre) by force of arms, or malice, or menacing, shall disturb any to make free election." And by no process of reasoning could it be made to apply specifically to Peers alone. No Statute could be cited that had any bearing upon the question of the legitimate interference of Peers at Parliamentary Elections. As to the instances of a Sessional Order of similar character on which the Committee founded their Report, the first occurred by the Long Parliament, in 1641, and it could hardly be cited as a Constitutional precedent. And the Resolution passed was not the least in point, because it was directed against the practice of Peers sending letters to the constituencies to nominate Members, not merely to recommend them. Froude gave an instance of what these letters were, and it is not to be wondered at that the Commons protested against such a practice; its existence, however, proves the custom of the Peers to interfere most seriously at elections. The only case in which the House of Commons succeeded in inflicting a certain amount of injury was the case of the Bishop of Worcester and Mr. Lloyd, his son, who was not a Peer. Sir John Packington complained, among other things, that the Bishop solicited his clergy to vote against him; and the Resolution which was passed by the House of Commons was to the following effect:—
  "That it appears to this House that the conduct of the Bishop of Worcester and his son, in order to the hindering of the election of a Member for the County of Worcester, was malicious, un-Christian, and arbitrary, and was a high violation of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of England."
  There was nothing in the Resolution referring to improper interference by the Bishop as a Peer. A Petition was presented to Queen Anne, asking that the Bishop might be dismissed; and the Queen, having expressed her sorrow at what had happened, ordered that the Bishop should no longer hold the office of Almoner. The House of Commons thus succeeded in depriving the Bishop of a certain portion of his income. The charge against the Bishop, however, was not that he had acted improperly as a Peer. The noble Earl, having referred to other cases mentioned in the Report, in which Peers were charged with interfering at elections, but where no action
  1658
  was taken in consequence, although the interference was proved, quoted the opinions of Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, and Sir Robert Peel upon the subject. The noble Earl, having also quoted the opinions expressed in 1813 in connection with the Stamford election Petition by Mr. Page Wood, Mr. Joseph Hume, and Lord John Russell, in favour of the just and legitimate influence which Peers might fairly exercise, went on to remark that it was now for their Lordships to decide what action they should take on that subject. For himself, he had come to the conviction that their duty was clear. He thought it was their duty to take up the challenge which had been thrown down by the House of Commons, and to ascertain by a strict examination what their rights were. If the contention of the House of Commons was correct, and if their Lordships were to take no part whatever in the political contests which were surging on all sides around them, and on the result of which the fate of this country and of the Empire depended—if they were bound to look on, as it were, with the serene indifference with which from their Olympian heights the gods of Epicurus gazed on the struggles and misfortunes of mankind, without having any influence whatever upon their issue, then they would bow to the inevitable, and submit with what grace they could to their singular destiny. But if, as he thought, they could show that that arrogant assumption of the Lower House was a vain and foolish thing, fondly imagined, warranted by no just principle, sanctified by no precedent, encouraged by no law, then their Lordships could, with a clear conscience and a firm hand, inscribe on their Journals their confident and earnest repudiation of so audacious a claim. The noble Earl concluded by making the Motion standing in his name.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed To consider the Sessional Order with reference to the intervention of Peers and Prelates in Parliamentary Elections' which has been communicated to this House."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the remarks of my noble

  1659
  Friend, but I do not propose to follow him into the contentious portion of his observations. It is not necessary at this stage that we should deal with them. The question is rather what are we to do with the Resolution of the House of Commons which was passed last year, and which has been communicated to your Lordships, and whose existence we cannot pass over. The Sessional Order of the House of Commons, to which reference has been made, is an Order which has existed for a great many years without having exerted any perceptible influence on the proceedings of the House, and had it been left in that position I should have much preferred it. It is an interesting piece of archaeology; it refers to a state of things which no longer exists, and is directed against abuses which in their day were very real, but which are prevented in our day by the action of the new police. If the House of Commons think it right to continue a historical protest against evils from which they suffered in earlier times, no one can object to it. The proceedings of both Houses are full of these strange antiquarian relies, which are interesting and not noxious. At the beginning of every Parliament we solemnly and formally constitute a Committee of your Lordships' House to hear appeals from Guienne. I do not know that that Resolution has ever done any harm. But if we were to found upon it the doctrine that, as the French Government has taken no notice of it for 400 years, it has acquiesced in it, and that, therefore, Bordeaux is placed under the English Crown, I think we should very soon receive from the French Government a diplomatic communication on the subject. We are in some such position as this. A Committee of the House of Commons has put on record that we have not challenged the fact that that Sessional Order is good law, and that, therefore, we must be taken to have tacitly assented to the fact that it is good law, Now, I think we can speak for ourselves, and must not allow others to speak for us. When they have said that we have admitted a particular formula as good law, I think we shall do well to ascertain what that formula is, and what is the meaning of the admission that we are taken to have made. What decision the Committee which your Lordships may appoint will come to
  1660
  I do not attempt to forecast. All I can say is that I think it would not be consistent with the practice of this House, or with the respect which is due to the other House, to pass this Report over in entire silence; and, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the contentious matter to which the noble Earl has alluded, I would advise your Lordships to accede to the suggestion he has made, and to appoint a Committee to consider the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons.
  Motion agreed to.

REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, he rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, When the promised Bill amending the Acts dealing with reformatory and industrial schools will be introduced? He trusted that he should not be considered as needlessly occupying the time of the House if he prefaced his Question with a few explanatory remarks. On March 1, 1882, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the condition of the certified reformatories, industrial schools, and day industrial schools of the United Kingdom. Of that Commission he had the honour to be Chairman. It included in its numbers, besides many persons of political eminence and of special experience in the question, the present Secretary of War, the President of the Board of Trade, and Lord Norton. It visited many parts of England, Scotland, and Ireland, examined many witnesses, and inspected many institutions, and sent in its Report in the autumn of 1883, nearly five years ago. The inquiry had been strongly urged, not by the adversaries, but by the earliest and best friends of these institutions, who alleged that abuses had crept into them which were impairing their usefulness, and would before long damage their credit and imperil their existence. It was impossible to doubt that those institutions had played a very large part in producing that extraordinary decrease of grave crime which had been so frequently remarked upon of late. This must be apparent from the comparative number of juvenile committals in England and Wales between the years 1856 and 1882, the date of their inquiry. These com-

  1661
  mitments in 1856 amounted to 13,981; in 1882 they had fallen to 5,700, in spite of the enormous increase of population. Their Lordships would probably expect to hear of some corresponding reduction in the number of those institutions and their inmates. But that was far from being the case. The number of reformatories, indeed, in Great Britain had decreased from 62 to 61, while the number of children committed to reformatories, which had attained its highest number in 1887—namely, 1,896—had in 1881 decreased to 1,508. In 1864 there were 4,286 inmates in reformatories. In 1882 the number had increased to 6,601. The number of industrial schools at the time of their inquiry was 120, with every prospect of a rapid increase. In 1864 the number of inmates was 1,668; in 1882 it was 17,614—a more than tenfold increase. Looking at the increase of cost, they found that in 1864 the cost of the reformatories was £96,883; in 1882, £134,204. In the same time the cost of industrial schools had increased from £58,000 to £338,000. He would first deal with the case of reformatories. He had shown the immense decrease in the number of juvenile commitments; and evidence was given by experienced persons, not only of the decrease in numbers, but of the altered character of the youthful offenders—those now committed being, as a rule, of a far less hardened and violent character than formerly. Those committed in recent years, being less deeply steeped in crime and criminal association, were found far more tractable and amenable to discipline and instruction. Yet the numbers committed showed no very sensible diminution, and the Commissioners found themselves compelled to confirm the prevailing impression—that a very large proportion of those committed might have been either treated with slight punishments not involving imprisonment, or, at the worst, committed, when of fitting age, to industrial schools. Among their recommendations would be found the measures they had suggested for securing this object, which he did not think it expedient to enter into at that moment. Turning now to industrial schools, the Commissioners found that the enormous increase in the numbers of these admitted was mainly due to two causes—first, lax administration of the law; secondly, the Elementary Education Act
  1662
  of 1870, which authorized the committal to industrial schools of obstinate truants. That the administration of the law was not only lax but uneven was strikingly shown by the state of things in England and Scotland. While in England the proportion of the population in industrial schools was one in 7,975, in Scotland it was one in 3,757. No possible reason was averred, or could be averred, why twice as many children should be committed to these schools in Scotland as compared with England. They were informed by numerous witnesses that in Scotland children were admitted simply because their parents were in straitened circumstances; and some of these witnesses expressed themselves as being alarmed at the facility with which parents divested themselves of the care of their children and got them into industrial schools. He did not wish to convey the impression that, because Scotland was the greater offender in this case, England was altogether free from the same mischievous weakness. He now turned to the effect of the Education Act of 1870. In the year 1869 the number of those in industrial schools was 6,974. The numbers steadily and rapidly increased until, in 1882, they reached 17,614—an increase largely due to the committal of truants, who, for this, were frequently condemned to five years' detention in industrial schools, where they were supported almost entirely at the public expense. No doubt it was better for the children, and possibly for the State, that they should be so confined rather than be allowed to run wildly about the streets, subjected to every sort of evil influence. But the question was whether the same objects might not be attained by some form of punishment less disproportioned to the offence and equally efficacious. In the opinion of the Commission, these effects had been attained by the establishment of truants schools, which were established under the Elementary Education Act of 1876. At these schools there was no solitary confinement, but a temporary deprivation of liberty, subjection to regular hours, daily school, much drill, some industrial occupation, and very little play. They were, consequently, intensely disliked. In the excellent truant school established at Upton House by the London School Board the average detention of each boy

  1663
  was 10 weeks and two days, and it was found that when these boys were released such had been the effect of this brief and stern discipline that their attendance at school became far more regular than that of other boys. He might add that the managers had the power of releasing such boys upon licence after the detention of only one month. Only six such schools had been established at the date of the Commissioners' inquiry. The results were not in all of them equally good, but they came to the conclusion that, in the great majority of cases, they offered a far better form of reformation than the industrial school. Another useful substitute for long detention in industrial schools was provided by the same Act of 1876, which authorized the establishment of day industrial schools, of which there were 10 in England and two in Scotland at the time of the Commissioners' inquiry. In these the detention was longer than in the truant schools, but the discipline was far less severe. The children were fed and instructed; they were detained from an early hour in the morning to 6 p.m., when they returned home; and the Commission were of the opinion expressed by one of the witnesses that that must be a very bad home which was no better than no home at all. The limitation to the usefulness of these schools was, of course, that they were only applicable to large cities, where the population was near at hand. This objection did not apply to truant schools, where the children were lodged. He might enlarge upon the various substitutes which had been suggested and which were, indeed, partly acted upon at the present moment, and which might be extended with promising results, such as the boarding-out system, which largely prevailed in Scotland, emigration far away from former vicious associations and haunts, training ships by which street Arabs were being converted into young sailors. He might insist upon the great attention given by the Commission to the best means of compelling parents to contribute to the support of their children while detained, fed, and educated in these institutions; but he thought he had said enough to convince their Lordships of the pressing necessity for early legislation in the interests of good government, economy, and public morality.
  LORD NORTONasked, if any Bill to be introduced by Her Majesty's Government on the subject of reformatory and industrial schools would be proceeded with this Session in good time, so that the judgment of Parliament might not be anticipated as to the desirability of a continued separation of such schools from the Education Department by any new arrangement of local government? The separation of these schools under the Home Office as matters of police, distinct from other schools, was seriously counteracting the great good which, nevertheless, they have done, and which any care of neglected children must do. With respect to industrial Schools for neglected children no reason could be given for their separation from the School Department. If after due punishment had been inflicted for any crime committed by children, the education in Reformatories was so given that the whole term of education was treated as a police detention, the main object of this very costly rescue from criminal life, in obliterating all criminal association and freely opening employment in industry, was frustrated. The child grew up as a criminal, and even the State threw away and wasted the training which it had been giving at great cost. In 1882 a Royal Commission was urged by Government to look into the working of these Home Office schools, on account of the abuse and waste they were incurring. For four years the Report, so pressed for, had lain neglected, while its object had become more pressing than ever. The Report recommended a transfer to the Education Department of the inspection and aid of these schools. It deprecated the great disadvantages the teachers laboured under in consequence of their detachment from the Education Department. It suggested that only a few special reformatories were wanted for serious juvenile criminality, and that industrial schools should be wholly free from criminal taint. The Managers of these schools seemed inclined to suffer this injury to their work to continue, because they feared the too literary kind of education of the Education Department, and many of them, therefore, would put up with separation from it to keep the schools in their own management. It was curious that

  1665
  at the same time the Education Department was turning to the more industrial and technical sort of education given in these schools. Surely it were wiser to make the School Department suitable for all publicly supported schools than to separate some of the more important schools from the Department as unsuitable for them. Let schools be schools, and prisons prisons, and complete the amended treatment of reformatory and industrial schools, in the Bill proposed, before stereotyping their separation from the School Department by placing them under the new Councils.
  EARL BROWNLOWsaid, the Government were fully alive to the vast importance of the subject which had been brought before the House by his noble Friends. At the end of last Session the Government had undertaken to deal with the subject, and with that view two Bills had been prepared which would be introduced before long. He could assure his noble Friend that he need have no fear of the judgment of Parliament being anticipated on this matter by any provision of the Local Government Bill, and he could promise that the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Bills would be introduced in time to enable any necessary Amendments to be moved in order to make the two Bills coincide. While not able authoritatively to make an announcement on the point, he might say that unless some financial considerations rendered it necessary that the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Bills should be introduced in "another place," looking at the state of Business in the House of Commons, he thought it probable that they would be brought forward in their Lordships' House.

METROPOLIS—INSPECTION OF THEATRES AND MUSIC HALLS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF STRAFFORD, in rising to call attention to recent proposals for the better inspection of theatres and other places of amusement in the Metropolis, and to put a Question on the subject, said, that as there were 50 theatres, 473 music halls, and 35 concert and other halls in London, in which a capital of £4,000,000 was invested, he thought that all would agree that adequate supervision over them was necessary. In the early part of the present Session
  1666
  the Metropolitan Board of Works brought in a Bill asking for further powers with regard to the inspection of such places of amusement, but that Bill was rejected by 115 to 17 votes. Afterwards the hon. Member for the Uxbridge Division of Middlesex (Mr. Dixon Hartland), who had also introduced a bill on this subject, attended at the Home Office with a deputation in which many members of the theatrical profession took part. The proposal of that deputation was that the Home Office should undertake a proper official inspection of theatres and music halls in the Metropolis, and he had been informed by the hon. Member for the Uxbridge Division that the Government more or less promised, if he did not persevere with his Bill, that they would introduce a measure on the subject. He now wished to be informed whether Her Majesty's Government were going to bring forward such a Bill; whether they would give the hon. Member for the Uxbridge Division of Middlesex facilities for proceeding with his Bill; and whether they thought it advisable that the inspection of theatres and other places of amusement in the Metropolis should be postponed until they could be placed under the new County Council?
  EARL BROWNLOWsaid, that the question raised by the noble Earl was undoubtedly a very difficult and complicated one, because the machinery for the inspection of theatres was under several over-lapping and occasionally conflicting jurisdictions. The responsibility for their regulation was divided between the Lord Chamberlain, the Justices, the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and no doubt it was advisable that the various powers now exercised by those different authorities should be concentrated. The present state of affairs was most unsatisfactory, and some change would have to be made. The noble Earl had referred to two Bills on this subject—one which had been introduced by the Metropolitan Board of Works had been thrown out on its second reading, and another Bill, which was now in the other House, was awaiting consideration. The principle of the latter Bill was to throw the work of supervision on the Secretary of State for the Home Department. They were aware, however, that great changes were contemplated in Local

  1667
  Authorities, which, if constituted with great powers and the confidence of the people, might be asked to undertake the duty. He very much doubted whether it would he desirable to at once throw the duty upon them. At the same time, he could not help feeling with Her Majesty's Government that the time might come, and before very long, when it would be desirable that these Local Authorities should undertake the duty of supervising and regulating theatres.

IMPERIAL DEFENCES—DEFENCES AT VANCOUVER'S ISLAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the position and defences of our naval head-quarters and coaling station at Esquimault, in Vancouver's Island, and the superior advantage of Burrand Inlet. This coaling station is of immense importance to us; as your Lordships are aware, it is the only naval station and the only coaling station which we possess in the Pacific Ocean. On the whole of that very large area this is actually the only place where our ships can go for coal, for shelter, and for repair. Its strategic value has of late been increased tenfold. Within the last two or three years Western Canada has been developed at a very considerable rate, and a great railway has been thrown right across from end to end of Canada with its terminus at Burrand's Inlet, inside Vancouver's Island, creating simultaneously a large mercantile traffic, which bids fair year by year to steadily increase. This commercial progress has multiplied our responsibilities, and unfortunately this development has not been with us alone. Russia has slowly but steadily increased her great resources at Vladivostock, and has now a powerful naval arsenal, and a harbour which is described as one of the finest in the world. From this place, if a war were to arise, there could not be the slightest doubt that our great mercantile fleet in the Pacific Ocean would be in the utmost peril, and our naval yard at Esquimault would be the object of immediate attack. The Canadian Pacific Railway is now complete, and, besides its great commercial importance, is our alternative route to India in the event of the Suez Canal becoming blocked; and, if for no
  1668
  other reason, it is of the most urgent Imperial importance that there should be a proper and satisfactory defence of its terminus. Esquimault is the harbour of Victoria, the capital town of the Island of Vancouver. It is land-locked, and a good harbour for a small number of ships. A naval arsenal was established there by us during the Crimean War, when the French and English ships joined there for the purpose of making the disastrous attack on Petropaulovski. Since that time the naval yard has grown, and it is now in a most unsuitable and exposed place. One old gun is to be found on what is called Brothers' Island, and I believe there are a few other guns in front; but I do not think that anyone would venture to declare that this is any security whatever. At the present moment it is, for all practical purposes, absolutely undefended. Any vessel could completely destroy it from the outside. If my noble Friend argues—as undoubtedly he will—that provided we had a large Fleet and good torpedo boats we could prevent vessels from entering the Straits, and that the place is, therefore, practically secure, I would venture to assert that, to whatever extent our Fleet might be increased in time of war, it would be impossible to keep sufficient ships tied down to look after the defences of that coaling station and dockyard. It would be necessary for them to be scattered about, convoying and looking after merchant ships, and the other interests which, on this station, are so terribly scattered. I would also point out that, whatever we might do in that way in time of war, our Fleet is extremely small, and that the speed of the ships composing the Fleet is very inadequate. The so-called dockyard buildings are at present only sheds; and up to this time very little money has been spent upon them. Recently, however, a dock has been made by the Colonial Authorities jointly with our Government, and this seems to be the only reason in favour of keeping the dockyard where it now is. In Vancouver's Island, about 50 miles further up the Straits, are the coal mines of Nanaimo, which it is of the very utmost importance should be guarded, as from it, in case of war, we should have entirely to depend for our coal supplies, not only for the Pacific, but also for the China Station. Immediately opposite the coal fields at

  1669
  Nanaimo is Burrand Inlet. It is a great natural harbour, 20 miles in length, perfectly land-locked, in which there would be room for the whole Navy of Great Britain; and it is here that I venture to think that our Naval Establishment ought undoubtedly to be. It is here that the Canadian and Pacific Railway has got its terminus. The entrance to it is only a few hundred yards wide, and could be easily defended. With two or three torpedo boats in the Straits, the position would be absolutely impregnable. If a naval station was being selected, no naval man and no engineer would dream of placing the naval dock and arsenal at Esquimault, but would at once make it at Burrand Inlet. In face of the necessity of having the best possible base for our Navy, we ought at once, I think, to move our arsenal, notwithstanding the cost that might be thereby entailed. It may be said that the present harbour of Esquimault is capable of being defended by proper batteries being erected, and by proper torpedo boats being kept in position; that it is in a better position for ships coming and going, being only six hours from the sea; whereas, if they had to come to Burrand Inlet, they would have very difficult Straits to go through, and the distance from the sea would be a great disadvantage. It may also he urged that, having already expended a considerable sum on the dock, it would be foolish to go elsewhere; and there is also the argument that, if war with America at any time were to arise, Burrand Inlet would at once be captured, and that our ships would be taken like rabbits in a hole, as it is so close to the ninth parallel of latitude. In answer to the first argument, I venture to doubt whether, with all deference to the high authorities who may have been consulted, it is possible, without an immense and needless outlay, to defend this place, and even then I do not see anything to prevent men being landed on the East side of Vancouver's Island, and being marched across and taking the harbour in the rear. In regard to the second argument, it must be remembered that Esquimault was only selected when sails were the principal motive power, and that now, with steam power, the case is entirely altered. Nor do I think that the distance of Burrand Inlet from the sea is a very strong argu-
  1670
  ment, having regard to the fact that it was proposed to make this the starting point for our mail fleet. With regard to the argument of expense, I do not think it worth consideration, in face of the tremendous importance of the question. A war with America would be a fratricidal contest, and is so improbable as not to come within practical politics; but if such a war were to arise, I apprehend that Esquimault Harbour Dockyard could be as easily taken as Burrand Inlet, and a filibustering expedition could be very easily drawn across the mainland, so that the harbour would be very difficult to defend. These are the considerations which are thought by many very great authorities strong reasons why our naval base of operations should be established at Burrand Inlet. But I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government this question—If you decide on remaining where we are, how are you going to defend Esquimault? Have you done anything whatever there? Some years ago certain plans were drawn up, and arrangements entered into for properly defending the harbour, the work to be done partly by the Colonial Government and partly by ourselves; but, as far as I can ascertain, nothing whatever has been done, and the defences consist of two old-fashioned torpedo boats, which were purchased from the Chilians, and are entirely out of date. This subject has been dealt with on previous occasions by Sir John Colomb, who has written many able papers upon it, and by Major General Lawrie, late Deputy Adjutant General of Canada, who, in 1883, read a most able paper before the Royal United Service institution upon it. In the last few months the following weighty words had been written on the subject by the author of Greater Britain, a gentleman who was well known to their Lordships, and who had given very great attention to this subject:—
  "It is vital to us that we should have a coaling station and a base of operations within reach of Vladivostock and the Amoor at the beginning of a war, as a guardhouse for the protection of our China trade, and for the prevention of a sudden descent upon our Colonies, ultimately as the head station for our Canadian Pacific Railroad trade, and at all times, and especially in the later stages of the war, as an offensive station for our main attack on Russia. But it must be, of course, a defended station, and not one to which our Fleet would be tied for the purpose of its defence. Englishmen are

  1671
  hardly aware of the strength of Russia in the Pacific, where, if we are to attack at all, we must inevitably light her, and where, if we are to adopt the hopeless policy of remaining only on the defensive, we shall still have to meet her for the protection of our own Possessions. While talking about their European Fleets, the Russians are paying no real attention to them, and are more and more concentrating their strength in the North Pacific."
  Then we have the views of Admiral Sir Leopold M'Clintock, who is another very considerable authority upon this subject. He says—
  "I think we can hardly over-estimate the importance of this subject. We know the extreme importance of fortifying the Canadian Railway terminus on the Pacific, by means of which war material could be brought for our forces on that shore in about 14 days, instead of going by sea and occupying four months in its passage. But what I wish to bring prominently before you is the absolute necessity of having our one coal depot in the Pacific Ocean defended. We have but this one, and on it our Fleet would be dependent for supplies, and also our trading steamers, in time of war. If we lose it we must relinquish our trade in the North Pacific, and if we lose our trade in that sea we lose just so much of our daily bread. I wish to emphasize the vital importance of fortifying our coal depot out there, and of having our naval position, now at Esquimault, capable of resisting an attack. We may at times temporarily lose the command of that sea, and if such an event should happen Esquimault would be exposed to attack. I presume it is the intention of the Government, in the event of war, to at once withdraw from Esquimault; and I fully agree as to the great importance of having a fortified naval station at Burrand Inlet."
  Well, my Lords, I could read other quotations; but I think that what I have read shows the very strong feeling that exists upon this subject amongst the greatest naval authorities. Undoubtedly, on an important question like this it is quite possible that there may be a difference of opinion as regards whether I am right or not in saying that our naval station ought to be at Burrand Inlet instead of Esquimault; but of this I am certain—that all are agreed as regards our coaling station and naval station, wherever it is—whether it is at Esquimault or at Burrand Inlet—that it ought to be defended. There must be a proper system of fortifications; and, above all, you must have some first-class torpedo boats ready to defend the Strait. You must remember that in time of war your ships would be required elsewhere. There is no doubt that in the present day wars are very short. They come upon you suddenly; and you must
  1672
  bear in mind that your Naval Fleet out there is naturally a very small one; unfortunately, too, I am afraid that it will be found that the speed of those vessels is very inadequate. But, however that may be, of this I am quite confident—that long before you would be able to strengthen that Fleet largely you would have your naval station, your coaling station, and the terminus of the Canadian Pacific Railway taken away, or, at any rate, placed in a position of very great jeopardy. Some years ago I spent two years myself on that station, and although we had orders to go and meet the Admiral's ship, for certain reasons, during the whole of those two years we were away from the Admiral, and we came home without ever having seen the Admiral; and that shows you how scattered our Fleet is on that station. My Lords, this is no impossible question. Your Lordships are, no doubt, aware that a few years ago, when there was a scare of war with Russia, a squadron of Russian ships assembled at San Francisco, and their intention, undoubtedly, was to make an attack upon Esquimault. What is there to prevent this squadron of Russian ships, being only three and a-half days from Vancouver's Island, from starting off immediately they hear the declaration of war, and at once capturing Esquimault Harbour, our coal stores at Nanaimo, and the terminus of the Canadian Pacific Railway? Supposing there was a declaration of war, you might possibly have one or two ships; but, with that exception, the harbour is absolutely open and absolutely undefended. Perhaps I ought to mention that there are two old Chilian torpedo boats; but I apprehend that my noble and gallant Friend would not place much reliance upon them. My Lords, I shall not take up your Lordships' time any longer; but I am sure that when you consider the great interests we have there, and when you remember the vast and increasing arsenals of Russia, and when you reflect how important a naval and coaling station is, I am sure you will agree with me that if Her Majesty's Government neglects in some form or other to fortify this station they will have incurred very serious responsibility.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, I wish to join with my noble and gallant Friend in impressing upon

  1673
  Her Majesty's Government the great importance of this question. It was, perhaps, a misfortune that Burrand Inlet had not been originally selected as a naval and coaling station; but, whether that place or Esquimault is to be made the permanent naval station, no time should be lost in putting it into a proper state of defence. It is really deplorable to see the defenceless condition of our naval station in the Pacific. My noble and gallant Friend has not said too much upon this question, which is of the greatest importance; and I hope that, whatever decision Her Majesty's Government may come to, they will take steps at once to provide a safe harbour of refuge there.
  LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, this question as to the condition of the naval station in the Pacific is one to which attention has been from time to time directed, and more particularly since the completion of the great Canadian Pacific Railway, and it is a question about which there is a great difference of opinion among officers of high standing in both Services. On the one hand, you will get officers of both Services, officers of high standing, whose great experience carries great weight—and justly carries great weight—who will tell you that Burrand Inlet is the proper place for a naval station; while, on the other hand, you will get officers of equal standing who will tell you that Esquimault is the only place fit for a naval station, and that Burrand Inlet in the case of a war would be little better than a rat-trap. The noble and gallant Lord (Lord Sudeley), who introduced this question, appears to have been struck with the superior advantages of Burrand Inlet as a naval station; but the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Huntly), who has recently seen the country for himself, is not so decided in favour of one station or the other. And the two noble Lords who were out with me last Autumn were greatly struck with the advantages, as it appeared to them, of Burrand Inlet; and I know that they entertain that opinion strongly at the present moment. It will be my business to show—and I think I shall be able to show—that Burrand Inlet is not a desirable place for a naval station, and that Esquimault in every respect is superior. I visited Burrand Inlet last Autumn, and I remained the greater part of two
  1674
  days in Esquimault; and the impression which I formed during my visit was that in some respects Burrand Inlet was superior to Esquimault—first, because of the railway communication; secondly, on account of the expense of sending stores from the terminus of the railway to Esquimault in the event of our trade routes being interfered with in the case of war; thirdly, on account of the magnificent site for a naval station at Port Moody, 11 miles up the Inlet, and safe from the fire of an enemy's ship; and, lastly, because in the event of Burrand Inlet being threatened from the West, the whole military strength of Canada could be brought by the railway for its protection. However, since this question has been put down upon the Notice Paper, I have gone more thoroughly into the matter, and I have come to the conclusion that it is not desirable to transfer our naval station from one place to the other. The noble and gallant Lord described the position of the two places; but, although I have no desire to detain your Lordships, I cannot make my point good without entering a little more minutely into the situation of the two places, and I shall, therefore, endeavour to give an explanation of their relative positions and characteristics for the information of such of your Lordships as may not be acquainted with that district. To begin with Burrand Inlet. Burrand Inlet is an arm of the sea at the South-Western extremity of British Columbia, within 20 miles of the boundary line of the United States. It is 12 miles in length—not 20 as the noble Lord thought—and its average breadth is two miles. It has good anchorage, along the whole length of the Inlet, and its entrance is about a quarter of a mile wide. When once you are inside it is perfect. I say, "When once you are inside," because the harbour has this drawback, that the tide runs so strongly in the narrow entrance—from eight to nine knots an hour—that sometimes it is a matter of difficulty to attempt to enter with a large ship, except at certain states of the tide. I think my noble and gallant Friend will understand what I mean by "attempt to enter," when he recollects that the entrance to the harbour is only a quarter of a mile wide, and that with a 9-knot tide running the slightest touch of the

  1675
  helm would be sufficient to run a ship ashore; so that, except at certain states of the tide, it is not safe to enter. Along the Southern shore of this Inlet runs the Canadian Pacific Railway, having its terminus near the sea at Vancouver. I think the City of Vancouver is, perhaps, the most marvellous city in the world, the small pioneer town having been destroyed by fire two years ago. Now, the forest has been cleared away and a granite city has sprung up upon the ruins of the former wooden village. The Railway Company have covered several acres of ground with warehouses, workshops, and other buildings, and a large trade is being carried on with China and Japan. Steamers are running North to Alascar and South to San Francisco; and I hope that in a short time there will he another line of steamers running from there to Australia and New Zealand. Opposite the harbour, 35 miles distant on Vancouver's Island, is the coaling station of Nanaimo; and with these advantages Vancouver has already become a place of great and rapidly increasing commercial importance, with a population of 7,000 inhabitants and Burrand Inlet, a harbour of no less importance. Steaming to the South, 70 miles through the channel between the Island and the Mainland, you reach the Port of Victoria. Victoria is the capital of British Columbia, with a harbour small and shallow; and two miles further West is the Port of Esquimault. And here we have a naval station, naval stores, hospital, and magazine; and joining the naval station is the dry dock, built by the Dominion Government at a cost of £230,000, of which £50,000 was contributed by the Imperial Government. Beyond Esquimault is the Juan de Fuca Strait, a long arm of the sea, 60 miles long and 10 miles wide. That Strait loads into the Pacific Ocean. That is a short description of the geographical position of the district. From Esquimault there is also railway communication with the coal fields at Nanaimo, our only coaling station in war time. The Committee on Colonial Defence have set forth in their Report their reasons for preferring Esquimault to Burrand Inlet as our naval headquarters. As is stated by Admiral Sir Cooper Key, and concurred in by the other Members of the Committee, Esquimault is better situated
  1676
  and better adapted for naval purposes, and the Admiralty have expended a large sum of money there on permanent improvements and docks. It is also observed that the defence of Esquimault would so enhance the security of the whole sea-board of British Columbia that no separate defence of Burrand Inlet or Esquimault would appear, for the present, at any rate, to be required. Well, now, my Lords, passing from the recommendations of the Colonial Defence Committee to some of the other reasons that appear to render the retention of Esquimault absolutely necessary. In the first place, the entrance to Esquimault can be defended by mines, whereas the entrance to Burrand Inlet, on account of the strong tides, could not be so defended. Then, again, Esquimault is accessible at all time, either by day or by night, and situated as it is at the entrance to the inner waters, its strategic position is of the greatest importance, because no ship would attempt to pass Esquimault (supposing our Fleet to be in existence), for the purpose of attacking Burrand Inlet or Nanaimo, leaving a fortified place in their rear. Were we to make Burrand Inlet our naval station instead of Esquimault, Esquimault would be made the base of operations against us. Our ships would in all probability be blocked in Burrand Inlet, and. Vancouver's Island be lost to us. Then in the event of war with the United States—we must take into consideration the possibility of such a war, though I hope it is a bare possibility—but in the event of war with the United States, what would happen? The great value of Burrand Inlet is the existence of the railway; the very first thing the Americans would do would be to cut that railway; and then what would be the value of the Burrand Inlet? Burrand Inlet and our naval station would in a very short time fall into the hands of the enemy. A few men would be quite sufficient to cut that communication. We could not successfully defend Burrand Inlet in case of a war with America, but we could successfully defend Esquimault. The very fact of it being on an island is to us, as a Naval Power, most important, as it is on the sea that our strength lies. We must endeavour to meet our enemy in the Juan de Fuca Strait. It is from there the enemy must be stopped by our Naval Forces

  1677
  blockading the Strait. If war broke out to-morrow the Naval and Military Authorities would not go to Burrand Inlet. Esquimault is accessible at all times, either by day or by night. The noble and gallant Lord said that four days after a declaration of war with Russia the Russians might seize Esquimault; but I do not see how that could be done, because in the Pacific Squadron we have seven ships, whilst I see that the Pacific Squadron of Russia is nil. There is no ship there at all. We have also 17 ships on the China Station, while Russia has 12; so that how the Russians could take Esquimault on the first declaration of war I confess I do not see. As I have said, we have at Esquimault a dock, and if it be found necessary for mercantile purposes as trade increases, another dock, no doubt, will be made at Burrand Inlet. The plans for the defence of Esquimault are all completed. They are cut and dry, so to speak, and most of the guns are ready to be sent out to-morrow. I think these are all the points that were referred to by the noble and gallant Lord.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I just wish to say a few words upon this question. In the first place, I wish to express my thanks to my noble and gallant Friend (Lord Sudeley) for having brought this question forward. I think he has done a useful service in bringing it forward, and in having it discussed. But, as regards the reply of my noble and gallant Friend (Lord Elphinstone) on behalf of the Government, I cannot say that I am altogether satisfied with it. He has told us what ought to be, what might be, and what ought not to be, defended; but I failed to gather from what fell from the noble and gallant Lord whether any fort of any sort or kind, whether at Esquimault or any other place in that district, is at this present time defended, and I would like to ask for some information on that point from my noble and gallant Friend, because the object of my noble and gallant Friend (Lord Sudeley) in bringing forward this matter was not to show whether this or that spot should be defended, but that, at any rate, there should be some defence for the great interests of this country in that quarter of the world. Then the noble and gallant Lord talked about the number of ships in the Pacific. I would like to point out that those ships might
  1678
  be employed, when the occasion arose, in defending our commerce, rather than in defending places which ought to be capable of defending themselves. Perhaps the noble and gallant Lord would say whether it is intended in any case to defend our naval and coaling stations; and whether it is the intention of the Government to put Esquimault in a sufficient state of defence?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS): I think, my Lords, that if the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss) had listened to my noble and gallant Friend, and had not been carrying on a conversation with his noble Friends behind him when he was speaking, he would have heard that plans were actually cut and dry, and that some of the guns were ready to be sent out to-morrow.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Yes; but that is not the question. The question is whether at the present moment we have got any guns there?
  LORD HARRIS: Yes; there are some guns there, but they are not of a modern type; and there are some batteries there ready for the guns to be placed in them. But the noble Earl will understand that the Royal Commission on Coaling Stations did not in the original instance select the North Pacific Coast as one of the stations to be defended. It was not until 1885 that it was decided to defend this point. The reason why Esquimault has been preferred over any other has been fully shown by my noble and gallant Friend, I think, who answered the question of the noble and gallant Lord; and it only remains for me to say what the armament is to be. The armament has been slightly altered from that fixed in 1885, which included four 9-inch guns. The armament will now consist of six 6-inch guns of 5,000 yards range, four 9-inch guns for high angle fire of 7,000 yards range, two quick-firing guns, six 16 pounders for general use, and six rifle machine guns. The Imperial Government are prepared to spend £31,000 upon the armament, £10,000 upon submarine stores, and about £10,000 upon submarine buildings. The works, as in the case of all the coaling stations, had been undertaken by the Colonies. The guns, as my noble and gallant Friend has said, are nearly all ready to be sent out tomorrow; and there will be sent

  1679
  out with them a suitable supply of ammunition, and I believe that the real question at the present moment between the Imperial and the Colonial Government is the question of garrison. I should like to refer to one point mentioned by my noble and gallant Friend opposite with respect to the land defence in Esquimault. This whole question of the defence of the naval station upon that particular shore was considered most carefully by the Colonial Defence Committee, and by the Inspector General of Fortifications, at that time Sir Andrew Clarke. I do not question in any way whatever the advisability of any noble Lord asking a question for information upon a subject so important as this; but I venture to deprecate, very humbly, the calling in question the opinion of experts upon questions of this kind, because I do not see how we are to depend upon the opinion of anyone else except experts. These cases were carefully considered by experts to whom they were referred, and suggestions were made to them by officers of the Royal Engineers and the Royal Artillery who were on the spot. The advice of these officers was considered, and ultimately they came to their decision. If the decision is to be called in question by persons who would not put themselves forward as experts on questions of that kind, then all I can say is that the same questions might be raised with regard to all our other coaling stations. The Royal Commission must depend upon the opinions of experts in dealing with every one of these questions; and for that reason, I think, for good or ill—and I hope it is for good—it would be wise to rely upon the opinions given to the Royal Commission and adopted by them.
  LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to explain one matter to which the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Elphinstone) has referred. The noble and gallant Lord was, no doubt, technically right in saying that Russia has no Fleet in the Pacific Ocean, but it is absurd to say that Russia could not send a Fleet there. When a few years ago there was a Russian scare, a large Russian Fleet, as I have already said, came up at once and concentrated at San Francisco for the purpose of taking action.

RULES OF DEBATE IN THIS HOUSE— PRECEDENCE OF SPEAKERS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE, who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack a Question as to a statement which had appeared in the Spectator, representing that on the occasion of two noble Lords rising at the same moment to address the House, and neither of them giving way, the Lord Chancellor had called upon one of them to speak. Having himself been for 40 years a constant attendant in that House, he must say he had never seen that done, either by the present occupant of the Woolsack or by any of his Predecessors. The practice which he had always seen followed in the case supposed was that the House itself decided which of the two Lords rising at the same time should be heard. As the matter appeared to be one which exercised some people's minds, he had been requested to put a Question to the noble and learned Lord as to the facts.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that the noble Earl had justly anticipated his reply, which was that, so far as he was concerned, nothing had happened in regard to the matter which the most perverted or the most perverse imagination could present in the light in which the writer, not in The Spectator, but in The Saturday Review, had presented it. He wished that he could suppose that the way in which the statement was made arose from simple misapprehension of something that had taken place. But the subtlety of it was in the phrase used by the writer, which referred to no one in particular, but only to the office. Yet no one reading that statement would doubt that it referred to the present occupant of the Woolsack, though it was cited as a recent example. He had a suspicion that if he contradicted the statement the writer of the article would probably say—"Oh, the noble Earl and the Lord Chancellor are very ignorant, because over 40 years ago an incident of that sort did take place." That was in 1846, in the discussion on the Corn Laws. He dared say that the writer would defend himself, if called upon to justify his statement, in that way; but certainly, as far as he himself

  1681
  was concerned, the writer's statement was utterly and entirely without foundation.

  OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERIES (WEST LOCH TARBERT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm an order made by the Secretary for Scotland under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868, relating to the West Loch Tarbert Oyster and Mussel Fisheries—Was presented by The Duke of Buckingham and Chandos (for the Lord Ker [M. Lothian]): Then it was moved that the Sessional Order of the 6th of March last, "That no Bill originating in this House confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a first time after Friday the 11th day of May next," be dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read la; agreed to: Bill read 1a accordingly, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 145.

  PHARMACY ACT (IRELAND), 1875, AMEND- MENT BILL [H.L.]
  Select Committee on; The Lords following were named of the Committee:

  E. Milltown.

  L. Chaworth (E. Meath).

  L. de Ros.

  L. Lingen.

  L. Foxford (E. Limerick).

  L. Basing

  The Committee to meet To-morrow, at half-past Three o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.