Lords Sitting of 7 March 1889

Preamble
The Lord Clarina, Took the Oath.
LEE-ON-THE-SOLENT (LIGHT) RAILWAY BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS): I will state to your Lordships briefly the ground on which it has been thought necessary to take the somewhat unusual course with regard to a Private Bill of opposing its Second Reading. The course is unusual for this reason—that, as a rule, when the Government thinks it necessary to oppose a Bill on the ground that it would interfere with the national defences, the promoters withdraw it. On this occasion there was no intimation of intention to withdraw the Bill, and the Secretary of State and his military advisers considered that this line, as proposed in the Bill, would be a standing menace to the Gosport Forts, and, therefore, felt bound to oppose it. I am happy to say that clauses have been agreed to which, to a great extent, remove these military objections; but the Secretary of State also agrees to an adjournment on the understanding that consideration will be given to the possibility of the line taking another route. It is not necessary now to state what the direction is, but, if your Lordships look at the map which has been circulated, it is obvious that it will
  1106
  be possible to construct a line which will reach Fareham by such a route that the danger I have indicated will be obviated.
  Second Reading put off to Thursday, the 14th inst.

SERVIA—THE ABDICATION OF KING MILAN.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF CAENAEVON: My Lords, as I see my noble Friend the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary in his place, I would ask permission to put to him a question on a matter of considerable public interest, and of which I have given him private notice. We have been startled within the last twenty-four hours by the news of what has occurred in Servia—a very strange and dramatic proceeding. I think that probably my noble Friend will not really be in a position to give this House any very detailed information on the subject, looking to the very recent character of the events. At the same time, it is a case where, both as Foreign Secretary and as Prime Minister, he may be in a position to tell us something which will be of advantage. I look upon this matter as one of importance, not that Servia in herself is an important country, and not that the past career of the Sovereign of that country has been a very distinguished one, but, as my noble Friend knows well, she is the centre, we may say, of Eastern Europe; she is the country which is a nucleus of political ambition and intrigue; and it is hardly possible that anything that occurs there will not, at a moment like this, react, and possibly react upon the stability of the whole European fabric. For these reasons I think it would be very satisfactory that my noble Friend

1107
should give us any information, however slight, on this serious and important question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand the desire of my noble Friend, and I should be very glad to give him any information if I had any. But the only knowledge I have is that which is possessed by all your Lordships. It is not a subject upon which, in the absence of facts, I could allow myself to satisfy my noble Friend by speculation, and I can give him very little explanation of what has occurred. I can only say that, as far as I can judge, it belongs rather to the domain of domestic character than to that of political change.

IRELAND—PROCEEDINGS OF THE CORK TOWN COUNCIL.
THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANS, in rising to call attention to the payment of car hire, printing, and posting bills calling a meeting to protest against Mr. O'Brien's prison treatment, out of public rates, by the Cork Town Council on the 8th February, and to inquire whether such a proceeding was legal, and, if not, whether any means exist to prevent such an illegal expenditure of public money, and whether the Law Officers of the Crown are prepared to put the remedy in force, said: My Lords, I hope I may not be considered unduly pressing in drawing your Lordships' attention to this matter. I would have brought it forward at an earlier period of our proceedings, but that I fell into an error which may be excusable—namely, that I thought the matter to which the question refers would be rectified on the Government audit. It seems however, that the cities of Cork and Waterford and the town of Kilkenny are for some reason exempt from any legal or Government audit of their municipal accounts. True, an appeal is allowed to the Irish Court of Queen's Bench, but in the present state of Ireland it is obvious that no private individual would incur the odium and expense of such an appeal. I think, therefore, that in justice to the ratepayers and in the interests of those who wish that public bodies in Ireland should properly perform their duties, the Government may fairly be asked to express their opinion on this case, and to say whether there are any means in their
1108
power by which this illegal application of public rates can be rectified.
LORD FITZ GERALD: My Lords, The subject which has been brought to our attention by the noble Lord is very wide and very important, and deserves serious consideration. This act of the Cork Town Council, in applying the funds of the ratepayers to purposes for which they were not applicable, is an act done in open defiance and contempt of the law. The order made by the corporation was illegal, and the parties who made the order would be personally responsible for the money illegally applied. It is necessary that such practices should not be allowed to continue with impunity. Any ratepayer injured by the Act can go to the Court of Queen's Bench and ask for an order quashing the order of the Town Council by summary process, under the Municipal Corporation Act. But there are great difficulties in the way. The process is slow and expensive, and it is impossible to conceal the fact that the ratepayer who entered upon it would be subject to all the terrors of exclusive dealing. The Government has in every county in Ireland a Crown Prosecutor, and surely the Crown Prosecutor could, at the suit of any ratepayer, bring up the illegal order and have it quashed. If that is not done, the only alternative is for the Government to repeal the statutory powers by which the City of Cork, among others, is exempted from the Government audit. Then the Government Auditor can determine whether the expenditure is legal or not, and if it is held to be illegal, and he refuses to pass the accounts, the money would have to be refunded by those who had illegally expended it.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): I have just been put in possession of the answer sent by the Local Government Board in Ireland to a request for the information necessary to give a reply to the Question of my noble Friend, and I think I cannot do better than read it—
"The Local Government Board have no information on the matter referred to. The Board have no power over the expenditure of the Cork Town Council, and the Corporation accounts are not audited by auditors of the Board, but by auditors appointed by the burgesses under Section 70 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1840. Under Section 23 of the

1109
Cork Improvement Act, 1852, any person interested in the accounts, either as a creditor or a ratepayer, may object to any part of the accounts, and the auditors may make such abatements as to them shall seem just, subject to an appeal to the Recorder by a certain number of the Council. It appears, therefore, that any ratepayer aggrieved by the expenditure referred to in the question may object thereto at the audit."
That is all the information which I have at present; but I have no doubt the matter will be further inquired into.

FIREARMS.
Information as to what laws are in force in the various States of Europe with regard to the carrying of firearms by private persons in populous places—Address for.—(The Earl of Milltown.)

NAVAL DEFENCE.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN, in rising to ask what opportunity will be given to this House for considering the proposals which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, are necessary for "an increase in the precautions which have hitherto been taken for the safety of our shores and our commerce," said: My Lords, I do not know that the Question which I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government may not be somewhat unusual; but, at the same time, it certainly is not singular, and, even if it be unusual, I venture to think that the circumstances that lead to it are also unusual. Your Lordships will well remember that there is a paragraph in the Speech from the Throne of very great—I might almost say supreme—importance; I mean that paragraph which alluded to the defensive condition of the Empire. In that paragraph Parliament was informed that, in view of the potential strength for offence of other European countries, the defensive strength of the Empire was insufficient. My Lords, I do not think it is possible to conceive an announcement of much greater importance than that. In some ways it is more important than if Parliament had been told that an increase in Her Majesty's forces was required either because war was imminent or to protect British interests in some distant portions of the globe; because what we are told is that our own shores, the integrity of these islands—the heart of the Empire—and
1110
the safety of our commerce, which is the blood and the life of the Empire, are not secure against the ordinary vicissitudes of war. And more than that even—that the defensive condition of the Empire is not such as can be considered satisfactory in view of our position and our circumstances even in a time of profound peace. My Lords, I apprehend that whatever the proposals of Her Majesty's Government are, they will be proposals of a permanent character; that is to say, I presume that the paragraph in the Queen's Speech announces that Her Majesty's Government have arrived at a new estimate of the defensive requirements of the Empire; and that, therefore, whatever the proposals may be, whether they affect the Army or Navy, or both, or whether they include the armament of the Coaling Stations, and so on, they will be of a permanent character. Now, it appears to me that in a case of that kind it will be a great misfortune if your Lordships' House have not ample opportunity of expressing its opinion. I do not know, of course, in what shape the proposals of Her Majesty's Government will be made in another place; but I should imagine that they will come before this House in one of two ways—either in the Appropriation Bill on the last day of the Session, which I need hardly say would give this House no opportunity whatever for discussing this matter, or they will come before the House in the shape of a Money Bill. Of course, the right of this House to deal with a Money Bill is not disputed, but your Lordships I am sure will agree with me that it is the universal practice of this House not to reject or amend Money Bills unless in matters of the most supreme and vital importance; and, therefore, I should be right in saying that this question of the defence of the Empire and of the adequacy or inadequacy of the proposals of the Government could not be discussed by this House in a proper manner on a Money Bill. I cannot of my own recollection go very far back, but I remember two cases somewhat similar to this. I remember when a Vote for six millions was asked for; and on that occasion the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) asked a Question somewhat similar to mine; that is to say, he asked whether a statement would be made

1111
by the Government in this House, or something to that effect. The then Prime Minister (Lord Beacons-field) said that the ordinary and proper course was to wait until the statement had been made in the other House; and the result was, that when the Bill came up to this House there was no discussion upon it at all. I think the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) said at the time that after the Vote of the House of Commons he would advise this House not to discuss the Bill. But, my Lords, the case is not entirely on all fours with the present, because at that time the causes which made the Vote of six millions necessary were perfectly well known to Parliament and to the country. The situation which involved that Vote had been debated over and over again in this House, and there had been Ministerial statements made about it; and in consequence the Vote was merely the carrying into effect of decisions which had been come to by both Houses of Parliament. Then, my Lords, I remember also the occasion when a much larger Vote was asked for by Mr. Gladstone, the Vote for 11 millions. On that occasion the noble Earl (Lord Carnarvon) asked whether a statement would be made in this House before any statement was made in the Other House of Parliament, and the noble Earl opposite (Lord Granville) replied that he would make a simultaneous statement, and that was the course which was adopted. But in that ease also, my Lords, this House knew perfectly well the reasons why the Vote for 11 millions was asked for. We had had it debated; we knew all about the Penjdeh incident, and had had frequent debates about the operations in the Soudan; so that the House had practically expressed its opinion, and there was no very urgent necessity for any further debate or any farther expression of opinion upon the Vote of Credit itself. But in the present case we are in almost complete ignorance as to the necessity for these additional precautions which are to be placed before Parliament, and we are in absolute ignorance as to what the proposals of the Government are to consist of. We have had no discussions—no full discussions at any rate—in this House as to the defensive condition of the Empire. I do not think that Parliament has any full information as to
1112
the Report of the Royal Commission that was appointed to inquire into the subject. I do not think we have any knowledge in this House of what has been done with the £2,900,000 that were voted for the defence of the Empire. Therefore, my Lords, it appears to me that on the present occasion there is great necessity for a full debate and understanding of this matter. I venture to say that this question of the defence of the Empire is one with which your Lordships' House is pre-eminently capable of dealing. It is often said that one of the great functions of this House is to deal with large Imperial questions. An immense number of Members of this House have served in Her Majesty's forces—a considerable number in the Army and a considerable number in the Navy. There is the noble Earl to whom I have already alluded (Lord Carnarvon) and other noble Lords who sat on the Commission, and a great many of your Lordships have on various occasions occupied places of great importance, that would render their opinion on a subject of this kind of the greatest value to the country. It would be matter of regret for this House itself if it had not an opportunity of expressing its opinion on such a subject. That, perhaps, is comparatively a small matter, but it would be a matter for the very deepest regret if the country should be deprived of the advice and opinion of this House on a question about which it is so well qualified to judge. If I am mistaken in the notion that there will be no ample opportunity for this House to express an opinion, I can only apologize for taking up your Lordships' time, but I do not myself see how it can be done. I sincerely hope that some opportunity will be given us to discuss this question of the defence of the Empire, and the adequacy or inadequacy of the proposals that Her Majesty's Government intend to make, and that that opportunity will be given at such time and in such a manner that the opinion and decision of this House, whatever it may be, may have some practical effect upon the issue in hand. My Lords, I wish to guard myself by suggesting that I not only do not disapprove in the smallest degree of what Her Majesty's Government have said in the Queen's Speech; on the contrary, I approve of it. I think it is a matter on

1113
which the country may congratulate itself that Her Majesty's Government understand the situation, and that they have the courage to grapple with it, and have not hesitated to come forward and tell the people of this country that the defence of the Empire is inadequate, and to ask for money for the purpose of making it adequate, and I have not the faintest doubt in the world that the people of this country will back up Her Majesty's Government in anything that they do in that way, provided always that they feel sure that the proposals are sufficient, that the work is to be thoroughly done, and that the money voted is to be laid out to the best and greatest advantage. My Lords, as I said before, if I have troubled your Lordships unnecessarily in this matter, I am sorry for it, but at the same time, as I think it is only right that this House should have a proper opportunity of discharging and expressing its opinion on this point, I put the Question on the paper which I now beg to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think my noble Friend, in reading the debates of the other House, has allowed himself to be affected by the language which naturally prevails there. We know that in the other House of Parliament Members are anxious to obtain opportunities for discussing various public questions, and the reason of that anxiety is that the time of the other House is all taken beforehand, either by the Government or by private Members. But I do not think that a noble Lord, even of the most despairing frame of mind, need be at all fearful that there will be want of opportunity for discussion owing to the scarcity of time here. There is abundance of leisure, and my noble Friend is certainly not a man of that timorous order that he would shrink from bringing forward any question in which he might feel an interest. My first answer, then, is that the time of the House is abundant; that the subject is eminently congenial to your Lordships; and there is no person fitter to make the opportunity than my noble Friend. But with respect to the other portion of the noble Lord's speech, I do not quite understand what he expected us to have done. He called attention to the passage which occurred in the Queen's Speech; but I wonder whether my noble Friend
1114
has noticed that the passage is addressed to the House of Commons, and that therefore it was quite natural that the House of Commons should first give it its consideration. My noble Friend complains that he does not know what we are going to do; but does he seriously expect me to give a small rehearsal of Lord George Hamilton's speech this evening? Does he really expect that I should make here the very statement which the First Lord is probably giving in the other House at this very moment? I think I must refer my noble Friend to the ordinary sources of information to-morrow morning, when he will receive ample information. With respect to the suggestion that there has not been any discussion in this House on the subject of the defences of the Empire, I think that the memory of my noble Friend must have betrayed him. I remember three nights last Session on which the subject occupied a very prominent position in our debates, and on one of them, when Lord Wolseley spoke, I do not remember ever seeing the House, either on the Benches or in the Galleries, so full as it was on that occasion. I am sure the subject was very fully debated on that occasion, and it received great attention from various Members of your Lordships' House. I do not in the least doubt that an opportunity can be found for my noble Friend, if he wants one, but I may add that I believe that the proposals of Lord George Hamilton will take the shape of a Bill, which will not be purely a Money Bill. That Bill will come up here, and, according to all Parliamentary precedent, will be subject to as much discussion and criticism, excepton the mere point of money, as any measure which is introduced to this House.
House adjourned at Fire o'clock, till To-morrow, aquarter past Ten o'clock.