Lords Sitting of 17 February 1890

Preamble
The Earl of Effingham took the Oath.

AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION.
THE EARL OF BELMORE, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any Correspondence in his Department on the subject of Australian Federation, and, if so, whether it can be laid before the House without public inconvenience, said: My Lords, before putting this question, I would like to say a few words on the subject of Australian Federation. I have great pleasure in expressing my gratification at the progress which has been made so far at the Conference, or by whatever name it may be called, which has within the last week been sitting upon this question. It is very gratifying to me, both in its results and in the lines upon which it has proceeded. Sir Henry Parkes, the Prime Minister of New South Wales, a gentleman with whom I at one time had the pleasure of working when he filled a very important office, though not the first office in the Government there, has gone upon the lines not only of a Federal Parliament, but also of a Federal Executive, and I have long been strongly of opinion that it is only upon those lines that what is desired can be effectively carried out. I recollect as long ago as 1871, on the occasion of opening a railroad, when I had, of course, to make a speech, venturing to dive into futurity and prophesying that some day or other something of this sort would come about. But this subject had engaged people's minds at an earlier period than that. Sir Henry Parkes has told us that 35 years ago, before what is called Responsible Government was conceded to the colonies, he had advocated this measure, and I have lately learned that the late Mr. Wentworth also advocated for the future something of the sort. My noble Friend near me (Lord Norton) will remember Mr. Wentworth. He is probably not well-known in this country to the present generation, but he was certainly a
406
foremost statesman in New South Wales, and without disrespect to anybody else, I may say with truth he is, perhaps, the foremost statesman they ever had in Australia. Mr. Wentworth was in his earliest days one of the pioneers of the colony; he was one of the first to penetrate the Blue Mountains and to find the plains of the interior; he was afterwards engaged in public life; he took a very active part in the abolition of transportation, and he may be called the father of the Constitutions of the Australian Colonies. I believe the shape in which those Constitutions now exist is very much the creation of his own mind. Mr. Wentworth never, I believe, held ministerial office; after accomplishing the great work of his life he very soon retired from public life, and he ended his days in this country. To come, my Lords, to the more immediate question before us. In the subject which is under consideration, the colonies will have to deal, in the first instance, with three important questions. The first question will be, supposing that a Federal Parliament and Executive is established, whether there shall be a Federal capital. It might be arranged that the Federal Parliament should meet alternately in some of the existing capitals, but I see it has been suggested by Sir Henry Parkes that the town of Albury on the River Murray would make a suitable metropolis. I remember the town of Albury. It is situated in the colony of New South Wales, on the banks of the Murray; it is within about a mile of the border of the colony of Victoria; it is nearer to Melbourne than. Chester is to London; it is on the main line of railway which runs up through the continent; and it is a most delightful and healthful place of residence. Not very far from the mountains, it is in a rich country abounding in vineyards and with every advantage for being constituted the town where a Federal Parliament might hold its sittings. My Lords, the next queston which would have to be considered would be the question of contributions by the different colonies for defence. That is a very important, question. I well remember the time, when Her Majesty's troops were withdrawn from the Australian Colonies about 19 years ago. I need not go into

407
what is now an old story, but personally I regretted that that step was taken. Probably it was inevitable, but I always felt that in case of a war breaking out very great difficulties would arise from the want of some directing mind and some General Officer to direct operations. Fortunately, a period of profound peace has existed since that time. But we cannot always count upon a profound peace, and if we were to go to war with Russia or some other great Power we might be for a time entirely cut off from our Australian Colonies. There is nothing like taking time by the forelock, and I am extremely glad to find that this great and important question is now in a fair way of being settled. My Lords, the remaining point which will present itself for the consideration of those who have to deal with this matter will be the question of a common tariff. It is not necessary that this question should be decided before a Federal Parliament is brought into existence; indeed, one of the first things that that Parliament would have to do would be to revise the tariffs. It is very desirable to have some system of Inter-Colonial Free Trade, so that the vexatious lines of posts between the colonies might be abolished. At one time that object was effected in a way by the Colony of Victoria, for instance, handing over a certain sum to the Colony of New South Wales, and at the time I left the colony there was considerable popular excitement. All the great excitement and strong Party feeling which unfortunately existed at that moment was caused by the first arrangement having come to an end, whilst the efforts which had been made for its renewal had failed. I have always thought that the difficulties might have been overcome which led to the re-instating of the line of Custom houses. My Lords, if they abolish the collection of duties between the different colonies they must necessarily sooner or later have a uniform tariff, because where tariffs vary so much as they do in Australia, of course it must be obvious that as regards all foreign trade everything would be landed at the ports where the duties were lowest, and would find their way overland to the other parts of the group of colonies. This would sooner or later necessitate a uniform tariff. My Lords, I will not at this time pursue the subject further.
408
Having been for a time connected with these great colonies, although it is nearly 18 years ago since I left them, and. although it is quite possible I may never see them again, I cannot help taking a great interest in them, and feeling great gratification that what I have always looked upon as so desirable is likely now to come to pass. I beg now, with those few remarks, to ask my noble Friend whether any correspondence has passed in his Department which can be laid on the Table of your Lordships' House?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, with respect to the special question which the noble Earl has asked me, I have to say that we have no public despatches or information which could be laid before the House. With respect to the general observations of my noble Friend, he has expressed a feeling which is shared by the great majority, if not by all people in this country. Her Gracious Majesty, in the Speech from the Throne, assured us of the lively interest with which she awaited the result of the Conference which was being held to discuss the important question of the federation of the Australian Colonies; and how warmly and keenly Her Majesty's subjects in these great colonies appreciate that interest is well shown by the loyal terms of the Address, which was unanimously agreed to by the Members of the preliminary Conference. With your Lordships' leave, I will read a few words from that Address:—
"We, your Majesty's loyal and dutiful subjects assembled at Melbourne to consider the question of creating for Australasia one Federal Government, desire to approach your Most Gracious Majesty with renewed expression of our devoted attachment to your Majesty's Throne and person on behalf of your Majesty's subjects throughout Australasia."
The results of the Conference will be accepted as most satisfactory by all who believe, as I do, and as I am sure my Colleagues do, that the prosperity, the welfare, the strength and importance of these great colonies will be materially increased and secured by a closer union amongst themselves under some form of Federal Government, which will be for them to decide upon, leaving full powers to the local Legislatures. The different colonial Legislatures will now be asked to sanction the holding of a second Conference, at which not mere than

409
seven Members will attend from each responsible self-governing colony, and four from each Crown colony. That difficult questions will be raised before that Conference I have no doubt. Some of those questions have been pointed at by the noble Earl, who speaks with experience on this subject, but I would not even deal with them so far as he has done, because I think no good purpose would be gained now by our offering any opinion on those questions which are essentially for the Members of the Conference to decide. I am quite satisfied that the difficulties of those questions will be overcome by the tact and the judgment of the statesmen who are to take part in that Conference. I will conclude by saying that we do in this country most heartily wish success to their work.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me, after the satisfactory statement of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to add anything to what I had the opportunity of saying the other day on the Motion for the adoption of the Address; that is, to express on behalf of myself and my friends our entire sympathy with the feelings of the Government on this subject. I think the noble Lord has followed a judicious course in not going into the details of this matter. There is no doubt he is right in saying there are very great difficulties to be contended with, but they are difficulties which ought to be solved, and, 1 believe, will be solved. On behalf of those with whom I act I can only say that, in the most hearty agreement with him in what has been and is being done, we look forward to what is going to be done in the future, and I cannot help anticipating that there will be exactly the same success in regard to these colonies uniting themselves as attended the federation of our North American Colonies.

REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.—QUESTION.
LORD NORTON: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Bill relating to Reformatory and Industrial Schools is to be re-introduced early this Session and in this House?
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I should be glad to add a few words upon
410
the question put by Lord Norton. In connection with one of the largest Industrial Schools in the country I have made it my business to ascertain the views of those concerned in the management of these schools. I find there is no dissentient voice among them, but on the contrary a general concourse of approval with regard to what has been proposed by Her Majesty's Government. They consider that the measure is not only necesary but urgent.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount Cross): I beg to answer both questions in the affirmative.

HARES PRESERVATION BILL (No. 6).

  SECOND READING.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, the Bill to which I am going to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading is the same Bill as your Lordships passed last year. It is probable that few of your Lordships have suffered from the increased scarcity of hares. Indeed, one of the noble Lords who took part in amending this Bill has told me that since the passing of the Ground Game Act, he has found that the number of hares on his property has very much increased: and my own experience has been similar. But your Lordships must have heard from your neighbours, and read in the sporting papers, of the great diminution of hares throughout the country. They have almost disappeared from Devonshire, and I hear the same complaint from Lincolnshire. If your Lordships give a Second Reading to this Bill, as it is the same Bill that passed through the Standing Committee, perhaps it would be your pleasure that it should not again go through the Standing Committee, but that it should go before a Committee of the whole House.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: I do not know whether my noble Friend has considered the advisability of amending the Bill; but there is one portion of it which I think requires amendment, and that is the portion of the Bill which makes it penal for any person to have a dead or wounded hare in his possession. I think it would

  411
  be very hard upon any of my noble Friends' gamekeepers, who might happen to find hares under such conditions, if a policeman should pounce upon them and take them up-under those clauses.
  On Motion agreed to.
  Bill Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IRISH LEGISLATION.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN, in rising to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take the judgment of Parliament this Session upon their proposals for increasing the number of occupying owners in Ireland, and for extending to that country the principles of local self-government; to what extent, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, those measures are connected with and dependent upon each other; and whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the propriety of introducing the latter measure in the House of Lords, said:—It appears to me most desirable for many reasons, and especially from the point of view of the supporters of the Government, that there should be no misconception as to the policy and intentions of the Government in respect to Ireland as foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. Your Lordships will recollect the action of the Unionist Party in 1886, and you will also recollect the utterances of many of the leaders and prominent men in that Party since. It may be easy for you to put a proper interpretation upon the paragraph in the Gracious Speech from the Throne which relates to Ireland; but it may not be quite so easy for the people outside Parliament; and I think it is of great importance that some clearer delineation of the main line of the Government policy in this respect should be given us, than is possible to be given within the limits of the Queen's Speech. There were four questions relating to Ireland dealt with in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech. We were told that, owing to the improved state of the country, it was possible considerably to limit the area over which exceptional criminal procedure had to be maintained. I have nothing to say about that, except that it must be a matter of the greatest satis-
412
faction to every one who has the welfare of Ireland really at heart to find that so great progress has been made in so short a time, in spite of exceptional difficulties. Then we were told at the end of the paragraph that measures would be taken to ameliorate the condition of the people in the poorer districts. I do not know what that means, but I hope the means adopted will be successful. However, I am not concerned in that matter now. What I am interested in, and what I venture to ask some information about, is in regard to the questions of land purchase and local self-government. Those are matters of the very greatest importance, and the Unionist Party is very deeply pledged against the principle of advancing public money, or engaging the public credit, for the purchase of the landlords' interest in Ireland except under certain circumstances. What 1 am anxious to know is whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take the judgment of Parliament upon both those subjects; whether both are to be passed through Parliament; and whether they are to be considered, and to what extent they are to be considered, as united and inseparably connected with each other? I should like to know whether the scheme of local self-government is dependent upon the creation of a larger number of persons-in Ireland with a stake in the country —with a financial interest, which is only to be obtained by ownership—whether it is dependent upon the substitution of real ownership for what, in my opinion, is the most absurd system of dual ownership which at present exists; and whether it is dependent upon Ireland's being relieved to any considerable extent from the friction between classes which, for many reasons which 1 need not particularise tot a great degree exists at the present time. Farther, I should like to be informed; whether the purchase scheme is considered necessary in order to give the local self-government scheme a reasonable chance of success. Again, I am desirous of hearing whether the advance of Imperial money, or the use of the Imperial credit, is dependent upon the creation of some local authority derived from the scheme of local self-government? Your Lordships w ill recollect that a good deal of discussion took place in Parliament when the last advance was made under Lord Ashbourne's Act,

413
the operation of which has been so beneficial. It was then clearly laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that further advances would not be asked. My Lords, what practical difference can be made? It appears to me that the only important practical difference is that an advance of money would be necessary for political reasons, in order to make the local self-government scheme successful, and also that some security should be provided between the British taxpayer, who finds the money, and the occupying owners in Ireland. Judging by the position of the two sentences in the Gracious Speech in reference to those matters, and by the utterances of the leaders of the Unionist Party, the natural supposition is that the two measures of local self-government and land purchase are to be considered as united questions. On the other hand, Notice of Motion for the introduction of one measure only has been given in another place. These matters, my Lords, are, in my opinion, so important that they ought to be lifted out of the realm of supposition and placed upon the solid ground of actual fact. As to the last part of my question, I would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider the advisability of introducing the Local Self-Government Bill in this House. Of course, it would be impossible 4x> introduce the other Bill hero, as it is practically a Money Bill, and the House would have no effectual means of discussing it. But it is difficult to see any constitutional reason why the Local Self-Government Bill should not be introduced into your Lordships' House. If that course can be adopted without any detriment to the public business, I hope it may be, and it would have this practical advantage—that both Bills would be before the country, and would be proceeded with concurrently, and Parliament and the country would be in possession of the full policy of the Government on both these important points. I hope the Government will be able to pursue that course; but if that is impossible, I hope they will be able to give the House such details of the general lines of their policy, as to remove all doubt with regard to the relationship existing between those two Bills, and as
414
to whether the Land Purchase Scheme can become law should Parliament reject the scheme for local self-government.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I hope my noble Friend will permit me to answer this question on behalf of the Prime Minister, who is unavoidably absent. I am afraid it will net be in my power to follow my noble Friend in the various remarks which have fallen from him—remarks which I venture to think might perhaps have boon with more advantage uttered in the Debate which took place a few days ago on the Speech from the Throne. I will content myself, however, with replying to the questions my noble Friend has asked. Undoubtedly, my Lords, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to do their best to lay before Parliament and to obtain the judgment of Parliament on those measures which were announced in the Speech from the Throne, and especially may that statement be made with reference to the proposals for increasing the number of occupying owners in Ireland and for extending to that country the principles of local self-government. I can hardly think that my noble Friend intended to ask me to give any particulars with reference to the two measures to which he has referred. I think his ingenuity would have led him to have spread his net not quite so obviously in the faee of his victim had he intended to "draw" me to that extent. It is obviously impossible for me on this occasion to make the statement which he has endeavoured to obtain from me; and I can only further say with reference to the next question, namely, "to what extent those measures are connected with and dependent upon each other," that if my noble Friend will wait for a few days longer he will, when he has heard the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland on introducing the Bill of which he has given notice, be able to judge for himself how far those two measures are dependent on each other, and how far the passing of the one is dependent on the passing of the other. Then my noble Friend asks whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the question of introducing the Local Government Bill for Ireland in the House of Lords. I can admit that in the idea of simultaneous discussion of the two Bills, one in one House and the other in the

415
other House, there might perhaps be, in the opinion of my noble Friend, some advantage. It is no doubt true that the conduct of one measure would be in the hands of one Minister in one House and the other measure in the hands of another Minister in the other House; but both those measures relating to Ireland and affecting Irish interests are practically measures promoted and guided by one Public Department, and I cannot agree with my noble Friend that it would be advisable or even possible that Parliament or the country should take into consideration two measures of such magnitude affecting the same portion of the Empire and largely affecting similar interests at the same time and during the same portion of the Session. I shall be glad if any arrangements can be made which will, by economising time, promote and forward the passing of those two measures; but I am bound to confess that I do not think the fact of the Local Government Bill being introduced in the House of Lords at the beginning of the Session would in any way promote its ultimate success in passing through Parliament. Her Majesty's Government trust that Parliament will approve the programme which they have announced and the order in which they have shown it to be their intention to pass those measures; and I hope my noble Friend will, on consideration, be satisfied to allow the Government to make their own arrangements for the guidance of Public Business.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Select Committee appointed: The Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal and the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

D. Richmond.

E. Beauchamp.

D. Saint Albans.

E. Camperdown.

D. Bedford.

E. Granville

M Salisbury.

E. Kimberley.

M. Bath.

E. De Montalt.

M Ripon.

V. Hardinge.

E. Mount Edgcumbe. (Ld. Steward.)

V. Oxenbridge.

L. Willonghby de Eresby.

E. Lathom. (Ld Chamberlain.)

L. Boyle. (E. Cork and Orrery)

E. Jersey.

E. Carnarvon.

L. Foxford. (E. Limerick).

E. Belmore.

E. Harrowby.

L. Colchester.

E. Bradford.

L. Ker. (M. Lothian.)

L. Colville of Culross.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE
Appointed. The Lords following, with the-Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

E. Cadogan. (Ld. Privy Seal.)

L. de Ros.

L. Clinton.

M. Bath.

L. Balfour of Burleigh

E. Lathom. (Ld. Chamberlain.)

L. Boyle. (E. Cork and Orrery)

E.Winchilsea and Nottingham.

L. Thurlow.

L. Foxford. (E. Limerick.)

E. Lindsay.

E. Waldegrave.

L. Colchester.

E. Bathurst.

L. Wigan. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

E. Carnarvon.

E. Milltown.

E. Belmore.

L. Poltimore.

E. Powis.

L. Sudeley.

E. Harrowby.

L. Wenlock.

E. Amherst.

L. Belper.

E. Camperdown.

L. Houghton.

E. Wharncliffe.

L. Hartismere. (L. Henniker.)

E. de Montalt.

V. Sidmouth.

L. Sandhurst.

V. Gordon. (E. Aberdeen)

L. Monk-Bretton.

L. Sudley. (E. Arran.)

V. Hutchinson. (E. Donoughmore.)

L. Colville of Culross

V. Hardinge.

L. Kensington.

V. Oxenbridge.

House adjourned at Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter-past Ten o'clock-