Lords Sitting of 21 June 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Standing Orders of the House of Lords, The Earl Sydney added.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Customs (Wine Duty)*(169).
Second Reading—North Sea Fisheries (158).
Third Reading—National Debt (Supplemental) (155), and passed.
Report—Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, Amendment* (112–168).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Tramways (No. 2)* (166).
Third Reading—Elementary Education (Birmingham)* (101), and passed.

METROPOLIS (OPEN SPACES)—PROVISION FOR SEATS IN PARLIAMENT SQUARE.—QUESTION.
In reply to the Earl of MEATH,
LORD HENNIKERsaid, he had asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he could put any seats in Parliament Square, in the vicinity of Canning's statue, and he had instructed him to say that he was prepared to do so.

NORTH SEA FISHERIES BILL.—(No. 158.)
(The Earl of Onslow.)
NORTH SEA FISHERIES BILL.—(No. 158.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of ONLOW), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of the Bill was to carry out a Convention entered into with the Government of other Powers interested in the North Sea fisheries. The Bill sought to prevent what was becoming a very grave scandal—namely, the sale of spirituous liquors on board vessels known as "coopers." The measure was identical with the legislation proposed by the other countries interested, and the penalties were the same as those imposed by the Sea Fisheries Act of 1883.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

METROPOLIS (STREET IMPROVEMENTS)—PROPOSED NEW STREET FROM PALL MALL TO TRAFALGAR SQUARE THROUGH SPRING GARDENS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD THURLOWsaid, he rose to ask the Government whether, now that the public were freely admitted to the Mall by Storey's Gate and that the plans for the new Admiralty and War Office were under revision, they would re-consider the question of opening a new street from the Mall to Trafalgar Square through Spring Gardens? This subject had, on a previous occasion,
  784
  been under consideration by their Lordships, and he felt that he ought in some sense to apologize for again bringing it forward. Circumstances, however, had changed, and two of the objections that were urged against this proposal then could not be urged now. Eighteen months ago Storey's Gate was thrown open to the public. It had previously been urged that if this plan were adopted the traffic would increase to such an extent that the approaches to Parliament and the quietude of the park might be seriously prejudiced. The experience with regard to Storey's Gate had shown how groundless this fear was. The second objection had been removed by the postponement and revision of the plans with regard to the War and Admiralty Offices. If the Mall was continued in a straight line as far as Trafalgar Square, the cost would be comparatively trifling, and a great improvement in the Metropolis would be accomplished. He hoped the Government would favourably consider this proposal.
  LORD LAMINGTONasked, what were the present plans of the Government with regard to the War and Admiralty Offices which were to have been erected in the Park?
  THE EARL OF MEATHsaid, he hoped the Government would look with favour on this proposal. It would be greatly to be regretted if the opportunity were lost of carrying out the improvement suggested, and so making a magnificent avenue. He trusted the Government would be able to give a satisfactory answer to the question of the noble Lord (Lord Thurlow).
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he would not follow his noble Friend behind him (Lord Lamington) into the question of the Admiralty and War Office, as he had a short time ago explained to the House the position of affairs with regard to the proposed New Offices. The plans for the War Office depended entirely upon what Parliament settled as to the Admiralty. As to the proposal of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Thurlow), that a road should be made connecting the Mall with Trafalgar Square, when Messrs. Leeming and Leeming's plan was under consideration, the question of making a road had not been forgotten, and in the plan now proposed it had been thought of, in case it was decided to make a road there. To make a road,

  785
  it would be necessary to pull down some of the houses in Spring Gardens, now occupied by different Departments of the Admiralty. Their Lordships would see that no decision could be come to on this question at present. Until these Departments were provided for in the new buildings, they must remain in their present quarters. When the new buildings were finished, it would be the best time to consider how the surplus land in Spring Gardens should be dealt with, when, too, it would, no doubt, be the best time to consider whether a road should be made as proposed by his noble Friend opposite.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he trusted that the noble Lord would be able to tell the House at no distant date that the proposal had been favourably considered. Not only would the general appearance of Trafalgar Square and the Park be improved by the new road, but the congested traffic in the neighbouring streets would be greatly relieved.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, that he was unfortunate, as he thought his noble Friend opposite (Lord Morley) had misunderstood him. The question had not been forgotten or unfavourably considered, and would, no doubt, be considered again at the proper time.

DEFENCES OF THE EMPIRE—FORTIFIED PORTS—ENTRY OF FOREIGN SHIPS OF WAR AND TRANSPORTS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON,in rising to ask whether Her Majesty's Government proposed to issue instructions to naval commanders or colonial governors with regard to the entry of foreign ships of war and transports carrying troops into fortified ports in Her Majesty's dominions? said, there were few questions of greater importance from a military and naval point of view. We possessed first-class harbours in various parts of the world, some of them being under Imperial control, and others under Colonial control. Among the former were the harbours at Singapore, Hong Kong, and Malta, and among the latter such harbours as those of Sydney and Melbourne. Some of these ports were centres of much commerce and wealth, and were of great political importance; others were in the nature of coaling
  786
  stations for the Navy, and on these in time of war the safety and success of our maritime operations would depend. But whether merely centres of wealth or merely coaling stations, they were alike places of immeasurable importance. That was the first point to be borne in mind. The second point was that the world had arrived at a stage when all the conditions of naval warfare were enormously altered. Foreign squadrons now consisted of heavily-armed ironclads. While the armour a few years ago probably did not exceed some five or six inches, its thickness was now at least twice as great and the armament carried was proportionately stronger. In the event of hostile operations, if an enemy's squadron, consisting of such iron-clads, were to be within the waters of one of our great colonial ports, the place would be absolutely at its mercy. It might be said that an operation such as he contemplated could only be carried out at the outbreak of a war and in circumstances of surprise amounting almost to treachery. He did not desire to impute any unfairness or treachery to any nation, least of all to any of the great European Powers; but, on the other hand, they were bound to remember that the stake in such a case would be enormous, that the history of wars was a history of surprises, that certain grave theories had been deliberately published by eminent foreign military critics, and that modern warfare was, in all its operations, essentially rapid. Therefore, it was the bounden duty of those who were responsible for the safety of these ports to leave nothing to chance. What, he asked, was our practice with respect to the entrance of foreign warships into our colonial ports? We had, he believed, no rule upon the subject. But what was the practice of other great Powers? The Italians admitted ships into their ports in certain numbers only, and he doubted whether this privilege of limited admission did not depend upon the nationality of the vessels. The Germans excluded ships of war altogether, and the French excluded them from their chief ports—Brest and Toulon. The Russians, who at one time did admit a limited number of foreign cruizers into the port of Vladivostock, now excluded them absolutely. We alone, with everything to lose, with far

  787
  more at stake than any other nation—we alone had no fixed rule, unless it was a rule permitting free entry into every one of Her Majesty's ports. By making and enforcing a rule of prohibition we should not be laying ourselves open to any charge of lack of international amity, for we should be following simply the practice of other nations. In thinking over the subject and in talking to experts it seemed to him that there were only three courses possible. The first would be to limit the number of foreign men-of-war entering a port; the second would be to assign to foreign ships particular waters within our harbours; and the third would be to exclude them altogether. A great deal might be said in favour of each one of these three courses, but his own view was that the last would be the best because it was the simplest and suited the practical and strategical conditions of every port. There was more than one port in which the presence of one single powerful ship of war might render of no avail all the fortifications around it. The last course he had named would be by far the best. At all events, it was the duty of the Government to lay down some distinct rule on this subject, and he would urge that such a rule could not be in contravention of the comity of nations. This was the time for making such a regulation. When we were on good terms with every other nation of the world, there could be no offence in following their example, but if once relations were strained between us and any other Power, such a regulation would have the semblance, at all events, of unfriendliness. He hoped Her Majesty's Government might be able to show that this matter had been under their careful consideration, and that before long they would be able to take some action upon it.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, the noble Earl would hardly expect him to enter into the details to which he had referred, many of which were still under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. So far as the matter had gone, it was not convenient, consistently with due regard to the interests of the Public Service, to make any statement, and that being the case, no instructions had been issued to naval commanders on the subject.

TRADE OF INDIA AND THE COLONIES.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,in calling attention to Parliamentary Paper "Commercial, No. 8, 1888," said, he intended to invite the attention of the House to two points only in connection with the Paper referred to. Firstly, Mr. Bryce, on the 4th of June, 1886, in answer to a Question in "another place," had denied that commercial treaties, containing Most Favoured Nation Clauses, precluded preferential treatment being given by the United Kingdom to the Colonies. Now, that answer, which was given as the opinion of Her Majesty's Government of that day, was completely contradicted by the Return Commercial, No. 8, which had just been laid before both Houses of Parliament, and which contained a memorandum from the Foreign Office which must be considered as authoritative. The only explanation he could offer for Mr. Bryce's answer was that either he gave it from his unassisted judgment, or else that he consulted the wrong person. Secondly, the Return mentioned treaties with the countries named in the Notice which were not terminable for several years—that with Greece would not be terminable till 1898; and until those treaties were worked off, or abrogated by the consent of the countries with which thay were made, all the other countries having a Most Favoured Nation Clause would retain the advantages enjoyed by the countries named in the notice. Now, the Conservative Party were pledged to the policy of drawing closer the Colonies to the Mother Country, or of Colonial federation; but, with one or two exceptions, it must be said that the Leaders of the Liberal Party were fully as desirous of securing that end; and although Her Majesty's Government had concluded the affair of the New Hebrides, yet the Australian colonists were most indebted to the efforts both in and out of office of the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) in their behalf. It is now well understood that there could be no Colonial federation without fiscal preferential treatment of the Colonies. The carrying out of this preferential treatment was therefore certain sooner or later. In April last, Mr. MacNeill, M.P.,

  789
  moved a Resolution, which was carried unanimously by the Ottawa branch of the Imperial Federation League—
  "That the agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial interests of the Colonies and the Mother Country would be greatly promoted by such modification in the various fiscal policies adopted within the Empire as would give to each of its members advantages in the several markets withheld from foreign countries; and the meeting respectfully suggests that Parliament should in its wisdom consider the advisability of entering into negotiations with the Imperial authorities for carrying out such a policy."
  Under these circumstances, and seeing that the United States had been offering similar advantages to the Canadians in order to detach them fiscally from the Mother Country, it was unfortunate that in negotiating these recent treaties, greater care had not been taken to avoid tying the hands of this country for a further term of years. For instance, what was the good of negotiating a Treaty with Montenegro, a country which had no seaports, and no emigrants, except a few gardeners who went to Constantinople, with the result of adding to the number of treaties by which we were hampered. The ease or difficulty of obtaining a release from those engagements would depend very much upon the amount of trade between the Colonies and the countries with which treaties had still several years to run. The country had a right to be informed on this point, and the knowledge of it would be useful to the Government; he would therefore move for the Return according to the Notice.
  Moved for,
  "Return showing the amount of trade between India and each of the Colonies on the one hand, and the following countries;—Equador, Greece, Italy, Montenegro, Paraguay, Portugal, Roumania, Salvador, Servia, Uruguay, during the year 1886."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)said, that so far as India was concerned there was no objection to the Motion if the words "as far as practicable" were introduced.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD)said, on behalf of the Colonial Office, he should offer no objection to the Return, provided the words suggested by the noble Viscount were inserted. The Colonial Office desired to do everything
  790
  possible to strengthen the ties between the Colonies and the Empire; but he doubted whether preferential and protective trading arrangements would have that effect.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he would accept the qualification suggested.
  Motion, as amended, agreed to.
  "Return showing, as far as practicable, the amount of trade between India and each of the Colonies on the one hand, and the following countries:—Equador, Greece, Italy, Montenegro, Paraguay,Portugal, Roumania, Salvador, Servia, Uruguay, during the year 1886."
  Ordered to be laid before the House.
  House adjourned at quarter-past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.