Lords Sitting of 5 March 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Second Reading—Electric Lighting Act (1882) Amendment (1).
ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 1.)
(The Lord Thurlow.)
ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 1.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD THURLOW, in moving that the Bill be now read, a second time, said, that if he could have had an assurance from the Government that they would be willing to take this matter in hand he would not have troubled their Lordships on the present occasion. He desired their Lordships to regard this question, from the point of view of health, of science, of more light, of safety, and of the preservation of property. The object of the Bill was to remove what had proved to be prohibitive restrictions upon an industry which was deserving of every support. The restrictions imposed by the Act of 1882 were certainly most unusual, if not altogether unprecedented, and they had acted very harshly. The President of the Board of Trade, replying last week to a Question in the House of Commons, said that since the passing of the Electric Lighting Act of 1882, 59 provisional orders and five licences had been granted to Companies, and 15 provisional orders and two licences to Local Authorities. The President of the Board of Trade was not aware that in any single case where these powers had been obtained they had been exercised. Such was the crushing effect of the Electric Lighting Act of 1882. Still he wished to say a few words in praise of that measure, which it was the object of this Bill to amend in only one or two small but important particulars. The Act of 1882 was a most elaborate measure for dealing with a then almost unknown science. It successfully prescribed safeguards against dangers which had only since become manifiest, and its object was to impose checks on rash and ill-considered schemes. It now only required trifling
  140
  amendment to allow the industry to proceed, and he claimed that the time had arrived for action in that direction. In the United States there were 120 electric Light Companies, paying dividends from 6 to 14 per cent. In the German and Austrian Empires there were over 600 local Companies, and in almost every large town in Italy electric lighting was making great progress. It was only in England that the science was comparatively at a standstill, and he hoped that state of things would not be allowed to last much longer. The present time was propitious for several reasons. There never was a time when a larger amount of capital was lying idle, or when there was a larger army of unemployed seeking work and finding none, and by passing this Bill lucrative work might immediately be provided for thousands of men, women, and children. He thought it would not be too much to call upon the Board of Trade to make incandescent electric lighting compulsory in all mines, factories, schools, churches, theatres, hospitals, and other places where human beings congregated together, and where, under existing conditions, gas-jets consumed the lion's share of the oxygen. He ventured to say that when such a demand was made the Government of the day would be neither willing nor able to resist it. Many of their Lordships had no doubt visited factories lighted by gas full of toiling men, women, and children from 6.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m., and had noticed the vitiated state of the atmosphere. The difference between that and a factory lighted by electricity was manifest in a moment. It was like being transported suddenly to another planet. Workmen who had been employed in factories lighted by electricity had told him that nothing short of starvation would induce them to work again in factories lighted by gas. It was the same in the case of mines. Electric lighting would minimize the dangers which now occurred through naked lights or faulty lamps. Then, as to fires in the Metropolis, Captain Shaw's Report showed that the total number of fires in 1887 was 2,363, and no less than 671, or 30 percent, were directly attributable to causes connected with existing systems of lighting. These figures did not include 691 fires, the origin of which was uncertain, and of these a

  141
  least 30 per cent might fairly be said to be due to the same cause. Then as to destruction and damage to property. Some of the first tradesmen in London had told him that they had effected great saving since they had substituted the electric light for gas in their showrooms and shops. It was also well-known that the use of gas was very prejudicial to pictures and books, and the employment of electric light in libraries would be a great advantage. The Bill was precisely similar to the Bill which was passed by this House last Session, and it proposed to extend the licence granted by provisional order to any Company from 21 years to 42 years. The period of 21 years fixed by the present Act was found to be too short and to be insufficient to allow electric lighting companies to recoup themselves. The Board of Trade acceded to this view, and this extension of the life of the provisional order would render the clauses with regard to the terms of purchase of loss importance. He would therefore be willing to strike out of the Bill all reference to the purchase of "the goodwill" which, he understood, had hitherto been a stumbling block and a cause of opposition to the Bill. In bringing forward this measure he was solely actuated by a desire for the public interest. There existed at present a great want of employment, and yet, as was well-known, there was a vast amount of capital waiting for investment. His connection with banks enabled him to say that, if the present Act was amended as this Bill proposed, he believed that of the £100,000,000 of capital now lying idle many millions would thereby find useful employment.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, the Bill did not appear to contain any regulations as to the laying down of the electric cables. At present these lines were growing in number and were being run over everybody's house without the assent or consent of householders, and he thought that it should be defined in any Bill dealing with this subject what the rights of Electric Companies exactly were. There had, so far as he knew, been no decision in the Law Courts upon the point. At present a quantity of telephone wires were to be
  142
  seen running in every direction in the Metropolis. The cables for electric lighting would be still more dangerous. They would in time become a great nuisance, and if the Acts dealing with electric lighting were silent on the point it would hereafter be said that Parliament had unreservedly conferred on these Companies the right of running these cables over houses as at present. In New York, where electric lighting was more developed than here, the Electric Companies were bound to place their cables underground. If it were found impossible to make a similar provision in this country, still some regulations ought to be made as to the course they should follow so as to prevent them crossing and recrossing public streets as at present.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORDsaid, he agreed that the Electric Lighting Act required Amendment, but he thought it was desirable, if they were to legislate in the direction of Amending an Act, that they should do so thoroughly, and not simply amend a single clause, which, in his opinion, would effect no good change. Besides, the Act of 1882 was really obsolete so far as the present position of electric lighting was concerned. Where an electrician six years ago would hesitate to supply a place a mile away with light, he would now undertake to supply houses 30 miles off. In 1882, when the first Act was passed, a determination was formed that the promoters of electric lighting schemes should not enjoy a monopoly, and was accordingly resolved that when cables were laid in the streets of any town by an electric company, its work should be purchase-able by the Local Authority. Another provision of the Act laid down that no work should be undertaken by a Company without licence from the Board of Trade, or a special Act, or a provisional order. These two provisions had been fatal to the measure. Licences and provisional orders had been applied for, but no work had been done. He suggested that the promoters of a scheme ought to be allowed to make their own arrangements with the Local Authority. Let the Company pay rent for the use of the streets in which they placed their mains, and let them be absolved from the obligation of supplying light to every corner of a given district when there might be no chance of a reasonable

  143
  return for their outlay. He looked forward to the day when Companies would be able to lay their cables underground with a good prospect of success; but he asserted that the risks attending exposed electric mains were fewer than the risks which attended either telephone or telegraph wires. When snow fell upon an electric light main it inevitably melted, but it accumulated on other wires with the result that serious accidents were not uncommon. He hoped that the Bill before their Lordships would be read a second time. Hereafter he intended to place before them a Bill of his own, and he hoped that his proposal would have the effect of removing a great many of the disabilities and disadvantages under which the Electric Lighting Companies at present laboured.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of ONSLOW)said, that the Government were not disposed to introduce a Bill upon this matter, because they had already announced a number of measures upon which it was desirable to legislate. They would consider themselves exceedingly fortunate if they were able to carry all those Bills, and they did not consider it wise now to add to the number. The Bill, as explained by the noble Lord opposite, was much less important than it was as printed. There was a long clause in the Bill which repealed some of the provisions of the existing Act; but he understood that when the Bill was considered in Committee the whole of that clause would be withdrawn in order that to the term of 21 years during which Provisional Orders must now run, a further term of 21 years might be added. The Bill, as it was amended, did not appear likely to be productive of great harm, and he was prepared to assent to the second reading on the conditions the noble Lord had suggested. He did not know whether the reason given was the only reason why electric lighting had not been more extensively adopted; but there could be no doubt that public expectation had been greatly disappointed in the matter. We had all hoped that electric lighting would have been much more largely used. Whether it was on account of the limitation in the number of years allowed to Companies and not to the fact that promoters found themselves unable to supply the electric light at prices that
  144
  would compete with gas, or whether it was on account of difficulties in carrying out the supply of electricity, he did not know; but of this he was certain, that if a small alteration in the law was likely to facilitate the adoption of the electric light in London and other large towns the Government would have no objection to it. He understood the noble Earl behind to intimate that he would introduce another Bill, and if that was the noble Earl's intention it would be well that they should be in possession of both Bills before this one was considered in Committee, and that both should be considered with reference to the provisions of the Bill of the Government dealing with Local Authorities, which would soon be produced in the other House, and which must naturally affect the powers of Local Authorities in this as in other matters.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid he was not quite sure he understood what it was the Government was prepared to assent to. As far as he could gather, it was that the Act of 1882 was to be amended by substituting 42 years for 21 years. If no other alteration was to be made, he much doubted whether the Bill would have the effect desired. It was very much to be regretted that in this country we had not made the advance in electric lighting which had been made in other parts of the world. He had long desired to avail himself of this important improvement; but he had found it to be utterly impossible, for the reason that the Legislature had put impediments in the way of the spread of this invention which was not put in its way in any other country. He believed that in the South Sea Islands the electric light was more used than it was in London. This was not altogether to our credit. Nobody could suppose that there was not plenty of capital in this country to be invested in this new enterprize, and that there were not plenty of people who would be desirous of availing themselves of it. Why, then, had they not electric lighting in this country to the same extent as on the other side of the Atlantic? There could be only one answer. The terms which had hitherto been imposed on those prepared to undertake the enterprize had been such as to render it impossible for them to obtain the necessary capital. The terms had been made too onerous. He quite

  145
  sympathized with the desire to prevent undue interference with the control of Local Authorities, and it might be expedient to provide that Local Authorities should ultimately, if they wished, be allowed to become purchasers of electric lighting apparatus, and to supply the electric light as they now supplied gas. He did not personally feel very strongly on that point; but he was not at all sure whether the balance of advantage was not against allowing Municipal Corporations to become trading bodies. With regard to the electric light, there was danger in doing this, because in some cases their conduct might be affected by the fact that they were owners of a gas business, and the electric light would be a serious rival to gas. At all events, the power to acquire apparatus ought to be conferred in such a way as not to cripple the progress of invention and improvement. It was too much to ask the present generation to forego the advantages of electric lighting because their doing so might render it cheaper 30 or 40 years hence. There was no difficulty, he thought, in arriving at a basis of purchase. They had gained experience in India with relation to railway matters. There the Government had been empowered to purchase railways on paying the value as indicated by the average price of shares during the preceding seven years. It had been found that capitalists were prepared to risk capital on these terms, and possibly a similar arrangement might be found satisfactory to the promoters of electric lighting. He would urge the Government to consider whether on some such terms the adoption of electric lighting might be facilitated.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I sympathize entirely with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord; but I cannot help remembering that he was a Member of the Government which passed the Act that he has denounced with so much vigour. When I sat exactly where he is sitting now I pleaded in vain for a greater extension of the number of years, and I prophesied the results which have actually occurred. I rather think the noble and learned Lord opposite is imitating those sectaries of the Middle Ages, who went about laying stripes on their own shoulders for the
  146
  sins they had committed. The noble and learned Lord has held up to our admiration the example of the South Sea Islands in this matter; however, I am too delighted to see that the noble and learned Lord recognizes the difficulty in which we find ourselves to be critical as to the precise means by which his conversion was brought about. It is matter of regret that we have not been able to make a greater use of this invention, considering the vast amount of capital we have at our disposal, and the great need in our smoky towns of diminishing the unconsumed carbon in our atmosphere. Although the Board of Trade has, acting under the guidance of the distinguished statesman who presided over it during the term of Office of the noble and learned Lord, to some extent, lam afraid, since that time, exaggerated the danger of liberty in this matter, it is fair we should remember that we have had very severe lessons in respect of leaving uncontrolled powers to municipalities and public authorities to make binding bargains with trading companies. On the subjects of water and gas we have had very severe lessons, and we are now struggling under the difficulties that have arisen. The noble Viscount near me (Viscount Cross) was said some years ago to have wrecked the Government by the proposals he made for the purchase of the undertakings of the London Water Companies. We now only wish that the proposals which were then denounced could be revived with success and carried into effect. We have bound ourselves by promises to the Water Companies which give them a hold upon us that I do not know we shall ever shake off. Undoubtedly, the price at which this essential article may be furnished must have very considerably affected the progress of sanitary measures so much required in many parts of the Metropolis. We have contrived to make some agreement with the Gas Companies. Twenty years ago we woke up to the fact that we had allowed most improvident agreements to be made with them, that we had allowed them, on the faith of competition which did not exist, to charge enormous prices. At the present moment, in regard to Gas Companies, we are under difficulties which could not have been foreseen by our forefathers when these terms were made, or I am convinced that the mea-

  147
  sures which they allowed to pass would have been seriously modified. The truth is that in both these cases we have made exceedingly bad bargains, and we are bound by them; and, therefore, it is not wholly unreasonable that in dealing with this new element we should approach it with some amount of caution. I quite believe we may have been too cautious, and may have run into an opposite extreme, and, by hindering the production of the electric light at the cheapest prices, may have prevented the development of this new industry. If the noble and learned Lord can show us that the terms we ask can be reason-ably modified, no feeling of self-love will prevent us from making any alteration which your Lordships may think desirable. I think we ought not to be misled by the desire to give the municipalities control over these matters. We have a sufficient number of examples as to the capacity of the municipalities to carry on the business of traders on a large scale. We know the temptations are enormous, and the danger we have to face is not that the municipalities themselves will administer these trading concerns, but that they will be in the hands of paid officers wielding an enormous and irresistible power, exposed to temptations to which the municipalities themselves will not be liable, and at the same time not having the responsibility which rests upon the municipalities. I feel that the whole question of the expediency of giving this power to the municipalities has of late years been too much assumed without sufficient proof, and we should be cautious about surrendering ourselves wholly to them, and preventing that protective competition of private Companies which has proved of so much benefit, and which is so desirable in the interests of the community at large.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he remembered perfectly well that the noble Marquess objected to the Bill of 1882 as being too stringent; but the latter part of the speech of the noble Marquess answered the preceding part, namely, that the Government and the House in 1882 had before them evidence of the previous mistakes that had been made with regard to gas and water legislation. The Board of Trade, which was then presided over by Mr. Chamberlain, was extremely anxious that in
  148
  the matter of this new invention they should not fall into their former errors. In the discussion on the Bill in 1882 he admitted that it was an experiment, and that they might possibly, by future legislation, be compelled to amend the Bill if they found that they had erred on the side of severity. It was much safer to err on that side than on the side of indulgence. With regard to the municipalities, they undoubtedly ran the risk of having too much officialism; but he would point out that there was likely to be a most severe pressure put upon the ratepayers in the carrying out of improvements, and it was a matter worthy, in his opinion, of very careful consideration whether by giving the municipalities the power to work this large invention, which provided what was, in fact, one of the necessaries of life, they should not be affording them the means of relieving themselves to a considerable extent of the burdens under which they laboured. It was on the whole reasonable, he thought, that the terms in this matter of electric lighting should be made somewhat less stringent.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

BRITISH AND OTHER FOREIGN COLONIES—SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO NATIVE RACES—CORRESPONDENCE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to ask, Whether Her Majesty's Government can lay upon the Table of the House further Papers and Correspondence relative to the sale of intoxicating spirits to the Native population in British and other Colonies, especially in the Islands of the Western Pacific and in the Congo and Niger countries of Western Africa; also Papers and Correspondence relating to the Berlin Conference in 1884–5, with regard to an International agreement on the question; also whether any information can be given as regards the prospect of effecting an International agreement? said, that, in a large number of instances where there were British and other settlements engaged in trade with Native races, there was a vast amount of traffic in intoxicating spirits, which was working ruin and destruction to the Natives both morally and physically. He was aware

  149
  that the subject had been for some time past under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. He was also aware that attempts had been made to remedy, or at least to check, the evil. At the same time, he knew the difficulties which existed. Other countries besides England were concerned in the matter; but he could hardly think it possible that the Government of any civilized country could be so forgetful of the responsibility resting upon it as not to endeavour to repress an evil which was converting commerce into a degrading and demoralizing agent. On referring to Correspondence which was laid upon the Table of the House in September last year he found a despatch, dated April, 1884, from Mr. Thurston, now Sir John Thurston, Assistant High Commissioner in the Western Pacific. Mr. Thurston says—
  "The nationality of the persons found in charge of trading stations in the Western Pacific or trading from vessels is, as a rule, British, German, French, or American, and it is men subjects of these nations principally who, by the sale of arms, ammunition, and alcohol in its most ardent and poisonous forms, are demoralizing the Natives of the Pacific and bringing about their rapid destruction."
  He goes on to speak of the Natives of Samoa as being an interesting race of people, appreciating the advantages of civilized life. "But," he adds—
  "Notwithstanding these advantages, the history of Samoa is sad in the extreme. The Native inhabitants are decreasing rapidly, and their lands are passing into the hands of Europeans and other foreigners."
  He further says—" Arms, gunpowder, and alcohol are the solvents under which Native life disappears." In the same year, 1884, when the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) was at the Colonial Office, communications were made to other Powers with a view to effect an International agreement for the purpose of putting an end to this nefarious traffic. This course was strongly urged also by Sir W. Des Vœux, the Governor of the Fiji Islands. Further communications seemed to have been carried on in August last, in consequence of some difficulty raised by the Government of the United States with reference to an International agreement. The noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office would, perhaps, be able to say whether this difficulty had been removed, and whether the result of the negotiations
  150
  with the European Powers with reference to the Western Pacific was a favourable one? There were not any recent Papers, so far as he knew, before Parliament on the same subject relating to the Congo and Niger countries; and he wished to remind their Lordships that a similar evil existed in those parts of Western Africa, if possible in a greater degree than in the Western Pacific. It appeared by the evidence of travellers and persons who had visited that country that spirits, especially rum and gin, constituted the principal medium of currency in dealing with the Natives. It was related by Mr. J. Thompson, a well-known traveller up the Niger, that—
  "At each port of call, the eye becomes bewildered in watching the discharge of thousands of cases of gin and hundreds of demijohns of rum."
  Mr. Tisdel, Special Agent of the United States, said, as appeared in the Consular Reports—
  "Of this variegated currency, gin is the most valuable; indeed, it may be said to be worth its weight in gold.… Unfortunately, a few bottles of trade gin will go much further in trade with the Natives than ten times its value in cloth."
  A well-known Lutheran missionary said—
  "The vilest liquors imaginable are being poured into Africa from almost every quarter of the civilized world."
  He might also add the forcible words of the Belgian Plenipotentiary, Count Van der Straten, at the Berlin Conference in 1884. He said—
  "The Native races of the free zone will be sober, or will soon cease to exist.…If the Powers do not save him (the negro) from this vice (drunkenness), they will make of him a monster which will swallow up the work of the Conference.… He would wish the Powers to take the moral engagement to continue their work as they took it formerly in the Treaty of Vienna in regard to the suppression of slavery."
  Statements to the same effect could be given almost without number. He wished now to refer for one moment to the Berlin Conference of 1884. That Conference of all the principal Powers of Europe, including also a Representative of the United States, was assembled with the view of settling trading and commercial questions relative to the Niger and Congo Free State, and at the same time as to furthering the moral and material well-being of the Native

  151
  populations. Among other matters, the liquor question was introduced; and although opinions were strongly ex-pressed in favour of restrictions upon that traffic, no satisfactory results were arrived at. The evils which were going on were admitted, and the wish was expressed by some members of the Conference that an International agreement should be arrived at in "such manner as to conciliate the rights of humanity with the interests of commerce." He did not think, however, that he was wrong in saying that the deliberations of the Conference, so far as that question was concerned, resulted in little more than a recognition of the evil and the expression of a wish. He might draw their Lordships' attention to the words of Prince Bismarck, who presided over the Conference. Prince Bismarck said, in his concluding address—
  "In another series of regulations you have shown much careful solicitude for the moral and physical welfare of the Native races, and we may cherish the hope that the principle adopted in a spirit of wise moderation will bear fruit, and will help to introduce these populations to the advantages of civilization."
  He was sorry to say that he could not see that any course had yet been adopted which was likely to produce those happy results; and if no change was made it was certainly a somewhat novel mode of introducing populations to the advantages of civilization, and it was to be feared that hopes and wishes would avail but little unless something further was done. How, it might well be asked, could civilization or moral progress be promoted while unrestricted traffic in liquor was carried on and gin and rum were the chief medium of currency with the Natives? He believed he was supported in what he had said by the most rev. Prelate in a letter dated August, 1887, addressed to the Bishops of the British Colonies and Dependencies, from which he would ask permission to read a few words—
  "The attention of the Church has been recently drawn to the widespread and still growing evils caused by the introduction of intoxicating liquors among the Native races in the Colonies and Dependencies of the British Empire and in other countries to which British trade has access.… Uncivilized people are weaker to resist, and are utterly unable to control temptations of this kind. The accounts given of the numbers that perish from this cause and of the misery and degradation of those who survive are painful in the extreme,
  152
  and besides the grievous wrong thus inflicted on the Native races, reproach has been brought on the name of Christ. … It is asserted by travellers of repute that in many parts of the world the moral character of the Native gains more by the preaching of Mahomedanism than by the preaching of the Gospel, for the former tends to make them sober."
  He would say no more. He appealed to Her Majesty's Government in the hope that they would be able to give such further information as might show how that question stood at the present moment and what progress had been made in the direction of an International agreement. There would doubtless be an increase of commerce, especially in the Niger and Congo countries; but whether that commerce was to be civilizing or debasing would greatly depend upon the future course that might be adopted by the Governments of Europe and of the United States with regard to the traffic in intoxicating spirits; and he did not hesitate to say that unless some restrictions, and those very stringent ones, were put upon the liquor traffic, there might be commerce—there might be an increase of commerce—but that commerce, instead of promoting, would be crushing to civilization, and would make Christianity a byword among the nations of the earth.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he had nothing to add to the statement which had just been made to their Lordships on that subject; but as the traffic which had been described was demoralizing in the extreme, he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would not wait for an opportunity, but would renew the attempt to obtain the assent of the United States Government to the International Agreement already assented to by the European Powers. It would seem that the present was a favourite moment for approaching the Government of the United States on the subject. When, two years ago, that Government declined to assent, no reasons were given for that course; but the United States Secretary of State said that "he was not entirely prepared to join in the International Agreement," but at the same time he offered to take measures in the sense of the International Agreement. Now, a man who was not entirely prepared to join in an agreement was more likely to join in one than a person who was asked to do so for the first time, and he hoped Her

  153
  Majesty's Government would not, by delay, run the risk of having to treat with a successor of Mr. Bayard. Her Majesty's Government must be in possession of new facts since two years ago to place before the United States Government; and he gathered from the Blue Book that the assent of the German Government had been given since that date. There was a subsidiary reason for renewing these negotiations—namely, the maintenance of continuity of action of the Foreign Office, which had been so beneficial, and that the time and trouble taken by the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should not be lost. Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's subjects were not alone, nor entirely responsible for what took place in the Pacific Islands; but they were responsible for India, and from the papers circulated by the Committee for the Prevention of the Drink Traffic it appeared that the Excise Duties on spirits had trebled in Assam in the last 10 years, and that they had more than doubled in Bengal since 1868. Her Majesty's Government were probably aware of the correspondence in the papers at the beginning of this year on the failure of Christian missionaries. Various causes might be given for that, but it was certain that the missionaries complained of being handicapped by the Government encouragement of the sale of drink.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY (Dr. BENSON)said, that he had received a visit lately from a leading member of the Representative Council of one of the Crown Colonies of Africa, who informed him that some of the oldest Christian families in Sierra Leone had subscribed recently to the building of a mosque. The reason they gave for doing so was that they knew no better means of putting a stop to the spread of intoxication, which was destroying their own race, while their own Government gave them no aid or support, and Mahomedanism forbade the use of intoxicating drink by positive precept. Wrong inferences had hence been drawn, as if Christianity were less able to grapple with the vices of Native races than Mahomedanism; and Mr. Bosworth Smith, the very authority relied on for proofs of this, had himself come forward and very fully exposed the misconstructions and misrepresentations on that
  154
  head. Christianity was the better able to deal with the temptations of those races, because it taught the principle of temperance and self-control, which did far more than positive precept to elevate mankind. But these Christians felt that Christianity had not fair play while it was not backed by the Christian Government which represented it and rested on it. The facts had been placed before us by our own agents, and appeared in our own Blue Books. Such a pamphlet as that of Mr. Weller, and the facts observed by Mr. Thomson, placed all in possession of the true state of the case. Mr. Weller had seen hundreds of Native girls lying in a state of deathly intoxication round the waggons of spirit sellers. There were districts in which payment of wages was made only in rum, until at length such a state of degradation was reached that many refused to receive payment in any other form. Ships put into harbour freighted with the goods of civilization, but were obliged to sail away undischarged because the people were so drunken, or so anxious to be drunken, that they had no taste or care for articles of commerce. We knew the agonizing efforts which had been made by the Queen of Amatongaland and by many Chiefs to save their people. By the course we were now pursuing we were not only injuring our commerce, to take a material view, but we were ruining the very tribes and nations who in that climate were absolutely essential to that commerce. Their Lordships must not suppose that the kind of liquor sold in London was sold to those people. There was a "trade rum" and a "trade gin," which were neither more nor less than liquid fire, mere poison, which absolutely destroyed in a very short time the men and women who consumed it. They consumed it and were consumed without stint. This liquor went among the people themselves by the ordinary name of "Death Itself." For his own part, he declined to believe a sentence which had fallen from one of the noble Lords who had spoken on the subject that evening; he declined to believe in the correctness of the information, which, however, was spread very widely, that our Government would in the slightest degree, for the sake of increased revenue, promote or encourage a practice so destructive to humanity. But he must say that we had been waiting for a long time for our

  155
  Government to take firm steps in the right direction. We were proud to hear of the action of our Representatives at the Berlin Conference, and of what the Congo Company itself desired. This nation had been celebrated in past times for the self-sacrifice of its great efforts for the suppression of the Slave Trade, efforts which had raised the tone of all nations. But at no time was the Slave Trade so destructive in its effects as this vice, fatal alike to the prospects of Christianity and to the future prosperity of the commerce of England. He would ask why, if nothing could be done elsewhere without the co-operation of other Governments, should not a beginning be made at least in our own Crown Colonies on the West African Coast? We had these entirely in our own hands. If it were not possible at present to effect an International arrangement, we would wait patiently, believing that our Government, with that continuity of action abroad which was so beneficial, would do what could be done in time. But why wait for ourselves? We could prevent the sale of this fire poison. We could put upon wholesome liquor such duties as would make it undesirable to pay or to receive wages in that shape, and check many other evils. He joined the noble Lord, therefore, in asking what progress had been made, and in pressing for Papers which might throw some light upon the subject. The Bishop of London who, as their Lordships knew, had done so much for the cause of temperance in this country, had asked him to explain how deeply he was interested in the question, and to state that nothing but an official engagement would have caused him to leave the House that evening.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD)said, that Her Majesty's Government were fully alive to the terrible mischiefs created by the importation and sale to the Natives of spirituous liquors, and he must state that it was only within the last few weeks that he had addressed a Circular to all the Crown Colonies, asking for full information as to any laws or ordinances existing on the subject and for any reports on this important question. He had also sent a Circular to all the responsible-government Colonies, asking them for any information to supplement that which bad already been presented to Parlia-
  156
  ment in 1872, 1882 and 1883. When the answers to those Circulars had been sent in they would be laid upon the Table, and then there would be a full opportunity for discussing the action of the Government in the Crown Colonies and elsewhere. He would, before he sat down, point out very briefly what restrictions had been placed in Crown Colonies upon the sale of spirituous liquors to the Natives, but he must remind their Lordships that though Her Majesty's Government could, as a general rule, secure the passing of the laws or regulations required to prohibit such sale, they were not and could not be held directly responsible for any failure to give effect to those laws and regulations. In the meantime he could assure the House that Her Majesty's Government were bestowing their best attention on the subject. As regards the Western Pacific, there were no Papers at present to be presented other than those presented in September, 1887. Her Majesty's late Government invited the nations interested in the Western Pacific to arrive, if possible, at some International arrangement for prohibiting the liquor traffic in the Islands. That proposition was received favourably by all but one country—namely, the United States. It had been urged that the United States Government had given no reasons for their refusal to join in the arrangement, and had probably formed no decided opinion; but on that point he would read an extract from a letter from Mr. Bayard to Sir L. Sackville West, dated the 11th of April, 1885. Mr. Bayard said—
  "While recognizing and highly approving the moral force and general propriety of the proposed regulations, and the responsibility of conducting such traffic under proper and careful restrictions, the Government of the United States does not feel entirely prepared to join in the International understanding proposed, and will, therefore, for the present restrain its action to the employment in the direction outlined by the suggested arrangement of a sound discretion in permitting traffic between its own citizens in the articles referred to and the Natives of the Western Pacific Islands."
  It was perfectly clear, therefore, that the United States Government were not inclined to modify their decision. He was, however, authorized to state that Her Majesty's Government, being fully alive to the importance of the question, would not allow any favourable opportunity to pass of bringing this matter

  157
  again under the consideration of foreign nations, including the United States. Beyond that it was impossible for him to give any undertaking. As regards South Africa, there were strong restrictions in force in the Cape against the supply of liquor to the Natives. He was quite aware that there was a large importation of a very harmful liquor called "Cape smoke" into the parts of the country beyond the English Protectorate, but Her Majesty's Government could in no way check that, though they had pointed out to the Native Chiefs the necessity of exercising all the power they had to prevent that importation; and they hoped that their advice might effect some good. There was no question that there was legislation in Natal by which very stringent restrictions against the supply of spirituous liquors to the Natives could be enforced, especially in the case of repeated offences. In 1886 some correspondence, originating in suggestions by the London Chamber of Commerce, took place as to the desirability of regulating the importation of alcohol into South Africa by means of a uniform and high duty, but on consideration the late Government thought it better to wait until the result of the Western Pacific negotiations was known. In April, 1887, the attention of Her Majesty's present Government was again directed to this question, and Circulars were sent to all the Colonies in South and West Africa. Unfortunately, the replies received from the Cape and Natal were not very favourable; and it should be remembered that the Imperial Government had no power to interfere with the acts of the Cape Legislature. The Cape Ministers pointed out that an Excise duty being placed on corn-made brandy, and not on spirits produced from grapes, a higher import duty would only increase local manufacture. They were of opinion "that the traffic should be regulated rather by internal regulations than by import duties," and they finally "declined to take part in the proposed International agreement." As regards the words "local manufacture," it was only fair to state that we were not responsible for all the drinking that went on among the Natives, for they had extraordinary and carefully composed drinks of their own, which were very intoxicating. The Natal Government stated that if the
  158
  Cape and Portuguese Governments discontinued the facilities they now gave for passing spirits beyond their frontiers, they would impose higher transit duties and raise the import duties to the rate agreed upon by the others. But they pointed to the stringency of the law in Natal for preventing the sale of liquor to the Natives, and they considered that the question would best be solved by adopting similar arrangements elsewhere. So much for the Cape and Natal. He would now turn to those territories immediately under British rule—namely, Zululand, Bechuanaland, and Basutoland. In all these territories there were very stringent regulations against supplying any kind of spirituous liquors to the Natives; and, as far as he knew, those regulations were bonâ fide observed. As far as the Imperial officers in those territories could do so, they had enforced those regulations, and in the case of Basutoland he was gratified to note that in the report ending the 30th of June, 1887, there was the following statement—"Drink traffic has ceased to exist." He thought, therefore, that it might fairly be pointed out that in those territories great efforts had certainly been made to restrict this traffic. Turning then to West Africa; in 1887 the Royal Niger Company pressed on the noble Marquess at the head of Her Majesty's Government the importance of checking the supply in West and Central Africa, and suggested an arrangement with France and Germany to levy a uniform rate of duty from Senegal to Cameroons. The noble Marquess at once expressed his willingness to negotiate, but suggested, he thought with good reason, that the views of the Colonies interested should first be ascertained. A circular was accordingly sent round, but only one Colony, Lagos, had replied, and the Government would press for answers from the other Colonies. The proposal was thought impracticable by the Governor of Lagos, as the coast line was not at present completely under the control of civilized Governments, especially at the mouths of rivers. And both with reference to this case of West Africa, and the case of the West Pacific, he must point out that very partial, if any, good could be expected by the agreement of two or even three countries to prohibit the importation and sale of spirituous liqueurs to Natives, so long as

  159
  other countries could supply them, and he was afraid that as long as there was a demand the supply would come from those countries which declined or did not care to be parties to such agreement. He regretted that he was unable to give more information to their Lordships on this subject, but he would conclude by assuring noble Lords that Her Majesty's Government were fully alive to the importance of the subject, and were most anxious to deal with it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in rising to move the following further Standing Order, namely—
  "That in the event of two or more Peers rising to address the House at the same time, the Lord Chancellor or Chairman of Committees may call on one of them to speak, and the Peer called upon shall then proceed to do so,"
  said: My Lords, these Standing Orders are a part of Resolutions which were submitted to the House in 1884, and of which one was disposed of in that year, on the 4th of December. The urgent reason for going back at least to some of them at present is to be found in the two Notices of two noble Earls, for a Committee, to aim, as I understand them—as indeed they have avowed—at fundamental changes in the Upper Chamber. One of their Notices, having been fixed for to-morrow, bound, me to this day as the only day on which such Standing Orders could be properly considered. It is true that Notice has been since withdrawn, and I am not under the same necessity of going on this evening. But as the hour, although advanced, is not yet very late, your Lordships may, perhaps, approve debate upon the first with the adjournment of the others. Let me assure the two noble Earls that I have no wish to anticipate in another shape the general discussion they have meditated. Such a course would be unjust to them; it would be repugnant to myself, and I entirely repudiate it. I stand on the position which I did in 1884, and which your Lordships will admit to be a strong one. It is that, when organic change is likely to be mooted, it is desirable to rectify anomalies which depend upon the House itself and not upon the Legis-
  160
  lature, which require a Standing Order but not an Act of Parliament to alter them. If that position was correct in 1884, after the agitation in that year as to the House of Lords, which quickly passed away, it is more correct just now, when two distinguished Members of our Body are prepared, in some degree, to reconstruct it. Now, as to the point itself I need not long detain your Lordships. It was explained in 1884, and previously in 1870. It is familiar to all who have attended our proceedings. In 1870 it was insisted on by the noble Marquess, now Prime Minister, in a speech I shall not try to emulate. To sum it briefly, the practice which exists is calculated to prevent many in the House—above all the right rev. Bench—from rising to address us; it places men who rise in an undignified position; but, what is graver—since it affects not only individuals—it exposes the House itself at any moment to the chance of a Division in the midst of a remarkable and critical debate for which the time already is inadequate. It is, besides, a practice which exists in no political Assembly you can mention. The only question is as to the remedy. In 1884 it was proposed to attach the duty of calling on noble Lords when two or more rose together to the Lord Chancellor or Chairman of Committees, whichever was presiding. On much consideration and conference with other men, I am inclined to something rather different. Some of the objections to increasing the power of the Lord Chancellor for this end are thoroughly untenable. It could not be abused in any Party sense, as no one could be excluded by its action, and there would only be a question of priority. But it is true that, as one Session—in the vicissitudes of history—may give us many Governments and so many Lord Chancellors, the Lord Chancellor might not have the personal and local knowledge necessary for the function. I venture to suggest, therefore, that either the Lord Chancellor or Chairman of Committees should close the difficulty when it happens. If the Lord Chancellor was conscious of being equal to the task, he would perform it. If not, he would devolve it on the Chairman of Committees, who is appointed by the House, who represents the House, and knows it well from daily intercourse with many in it. No conflict would

  161
  arise between them. On any given night it would be previously arranged which had to exercise the function. To devolve it wholly on the Lord Chancellor was the course in 1884 rejected by your Lordships. To devolve it wholly on the Chairman of Committees might be thought to give too much a secondary aspect to the Lord Chancellor, who is the Speaker of the House, although debarred from nearly all the power of that Office. As we have been frequently reminded by the illustrious Duke who often sits on the Cross Benches, everything is tentative. We should soon see how the Standing Order worked, whether it was wise to keep or proper to amend it. But nearly all depends on Her Majesty's Government. If they wish to bring in the words "whichever presiding," and thus leave the power to the Lord Chancellor in the House, the Chairman in Committees, I willingly accept them. If they would restrict the power to the Chairman in both cases, I see no practical objection to it. If they desire the House to have a final veto, as the noble Marquess did in 1870, they may recall his own expression—" unless the House do order otherwise." The only thing essential is that a remedy should be adopted before the merit and demerit of the Upper Chamber is examined. One point ought to be mentioned. In 1881 it was remarked as an objection that the Woolsack is sometimes occupied by the noble Lords who manage the Divisions, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees. By this Standing Order no new power is bestowed upon them, and no new power is wanted. It is only when the House is nearly empty and there is little competition for its ear or chance of two Peers rising that such a circumstance can happen. Moreover, if that recent system leads to inconvenience, there is no occasion to preserve it. Once more I ask the House to guard itself upon a vulnerable point against the hour of arraignment.
  Moved, as a new Standing Order,
  "That in the event of two or more Peers rising to address the House at the same time, the Lord Chancellor or Chairman of Committees may call on one of them to speak, and the Peer called upon shall then proceed to do so."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said,
  162
  he rose to speak on this subject with some diffidence in the presence of much older Members of the House than himself. From his experience, however, there did not seem to him to be so great a rush of Members to speak in this House as to require any stringent legislation on the subject. The Standing Order suggested by the noble Lord would in its working prove very inconvenient. For instance, it was customary for the Lord Chancellor in that House, unlike the Speaker in the other Assembly, to take part in the debates; but it would put him in a very difficult position, for he would not like to call on himself when other noble Lords rose. The Lord Chancellor was imposed on the House, and was not elected by their Lordships. It ought also to be borne in mind that the Lord Chancellor was not necessarily a Peer, and it would be a strange anomaly if the Order of the House was entrusted to one who might not be even a Member of the House. If the grievance sought to be remedied were a great one, or part of a scheme of reform which was to render the House of Lords better adapted to the exigencies of the present time and its debates of greater weight and influence in the country, the case would be very different. Under the circumstances he thought the House would hesitate somewhat before they surrendered the power of keeping order in their own Assembly; and, in his opinion, it would be far better to adhere to the present Rule without introducing the complications that would flow from the noble Lord's suggestion.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he quite agreed with the observations of the noble Viscount. His objection to placing this power in the hands of the Lord Chancellor was that, although the Lord Chancellor from his high Office was entitled to the greatest respect, yet he was a Member of the Cabinet and a politician, and was not in a position of impartiality. No doubt any Lord Chancellor would, as an English gentleman, act as he conceived impartially; but he would not, as he ought to, be free from the suspicion of acting partially. The question was not one of much importances; it was comparatively seldom that there was any difficulty about the matter, and no reform on this point would do anything to increase the weight of public interest in the debates of that House.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, he would point out that the noble Viscount who had just spoken wholly misapprehended the nature of the Standing Order he objected to. It was not to give the Lord Chancellor a general authority on Order, like the Speaker in the House of Commons, but simply the power to name the Peer who would continue the debate. The two functions had no species of identity. The noble Viscount who represented Her Majesty's Government had also quite forgotten the proposal now before them. It did not give the House a final voice, but left the whole decision to the Lord Chancellor or Chairman of Committees. However, it was useless to divide the House if the Government determined—as he thought most unfortunately—to oppose all alteration. According to his previous statement, he would not go on that evening with the further Standing Orders.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.