Lords Sitting of 14 July 1890

DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT BILL. (No. 106.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
WESTERN AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION BILL.—(No. 184.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *THE SECRETARY of STATE FOB THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, the Bill of which I ask your Lordships to grant a Second Reading is, with the exception of two clauses, which have been omitted, to which I shall soon call your attention, the same as that which your Lordships passed last year. The Bill went down to the House of Commons, but, owing to the lateness of the period of the Session, to the pressure of business, and to the threatened opposition on the ground that sufficient land was not reserved for the control of the Crown, Her Majesty's Government, though with regret, were unable to proceed with the Bill, and they withdrew it, on the pledge that it should be brought in at an. early period this Session, and then referred to a Select Committee, who should thoroughly consider and thresh out all the different questions arising upon the Bill. That pledge was redeemed, the Bill was read a second time, and was referred to a very strong Select Committee, who went most fully and thoroughly into all the matters that were brought before them. They had the advantage of hearing a considerable body of evidence, and amongst the witnesses who gave evidence before them were included the late Governor, Sir Frederick Broome, the future Governor, Sir William Robinson, who has already once administered the Government of the colony, and they also had the advantage of the evidence of two delegates from the colony, men of high standing and position, who were members of the Legislative Council, and were chosen from that Body to give evidence before the Committee, and to state the views of the
  1578
  Colonial Government. I think I need only now call your Lordships' attention to the two clauses which were, by the decision of the Committee, a decision subsequently approved by the House of Commons, omitted from this Bill. They were Clauses 4 and 8. By Clause 4 your Lordships will remember the control and management of land to the north of the 26th parallel of latitude was reserved to the Crown. The reasons why I pressed upon the colony this reservation, in spite of their wishes to the contrary, were embodied in a Despatch dated December 12, 1887; and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read a passage from it. In that Despatch I pointed out that—
  "Representations have been already made to Her Majesty's Government urging that the northern portion of the Colony should not be placed under the unrestricted control of a Legislature elected by the present small population residing, for the most part, in the Southern districts. It might, therefore, not improbably happen that a measure for giving effect to the Resolution of the Legislative Council might not receive the assent of Parliament, and the wishes expressed in the colony would thus be frustrated."
  I am free to admit that it seemed to mo that the principle of granting responsible self-government to this colony was so important that I was ready to adopt any measure, not unreasonable in itself, which would disarm opposition. The restriction, as I stated last year in this House, did not appear to be unreasonable, though, as I also added, I personally did not believe there would be any danger that the land would be wasted or mismanaged. My chief reason for so thinking may be shortly stated as follows: It may be admitted that what Sir Charles Dilke calls "the noble dowry" which we gave to the colonies when we handed over to them the control of all their land, has been somewhat wasted and mismanaged. It may be admitted that the best mode of dealing with land for the benefit of the colony was not thoroughly understood, and could only be gained by experience; and that out-and-out sales of land at low prices no doubt did cause loss to the community and waste. But to those who find fault with Her Majesty's Government for handing over the control of so much land to the responsible Government, and who urge upon us that we ought to

  1579
  profit by the experience gained in the past, I would answer that if we look back to the history of the land question and of land management in these Australian colonies we shall find that the waste and mismanagement of land mainly took place in the earlier years of the life of these colonies, and when the land was under the control of the Crown, and before responsible Government was conceded. Since responsible Government has been given to the colonies, the Colonial Government have, with more or less success, improved the land system which previously prevailed, and they have largely diminished the waste resulting from such system. At all events, Western Australia has profited by the experience gained in the other colonies, and the Rules and Regulations which have been passed in that Colony for the management of the land are eminently calculated to favour emigration; the creation of agricultural areas; and the cultivation by small settlers occupying the land. The evidence given before the Committee in favour of this view, and also of some practical difficulties which would arise in the management of the lands in the northern district if reserved to the Crown, to which, perhaps, I had not given full weight, was so clear that, without a Division, they agreed to the omission of this fourth clause. This view, I may add, is in entire accord with the opinion of one who was most competent to form an opinion upon this point and one whose loss we so deeply deplore—I refer, of course, to Lord Carnarvon; and perhaps, in passing, your Lordships will allow me to say a few words in addition to those which Lord Rosebery spoke on Thursday last. Lord Carnarvon twice held the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies with dignity and with honour to himself and with great advantage to the colonies. I had the honour of twice serving under him when he was Secretary of State, and I can, therefore, speak undoubtedly and with certainty of the entire devotion that he gave to his work and the ability with which he administered that office. I can also speak of the great respect and esteem, I had almost said the affection, with which he was regarded by the colonists; and I can assure your Lordships that his death will be
  1580
  most deeply regretted by thousands of our fellow-subjects in all parts of Her Majesty's possessions. Lord Carnarvon said last year that if you give responsible Government to the colonies you must be prepared to give the Crown lands with it, and he very much doubted the desirability—and I rather think the noble Earl opposite rather doubted the desirability—of the reservation which, for the reasons I have stated, I thought it well to insert in the Bill of last year. There was one argument advanced—I think by the Earl of Derby—in favour of our reservation of land, which, no doubt, had weight; He pointed out that in his opinion the reservation of land north of the 26 parallel would materially simplify and facilitate the creation of a separate colony in the northern portion of the territory, which he then anticipated must take place in a few years. There would be considerable force in that view if it was likely that the separation would be so shortly effected. But the evidence given before the Committee distinctly pointed to this: that it must be many years before that separation can take place, if ever; and I would add that the great movement in the Australian Colonies towards federation has also, I think, militated against the chance of the northern portion of the colony being separated from the southern, and made into a separate colony. At all events, my Lords, I think that the matter has been most thoroughly examined into by the Committee; and, for these reasons, I trust your Lordships will not think fit to dissent from the omission of the fourth clause. With regard to the other clause (Clause 8), which provided that any Bill restricting emigration should be reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure, the omission of that clause was only decided by a majority of two in the Committee; but Her Majesty's Government decided that they would take the sense of the House of Commons on the matter find abide by their view of this clause; and, after Debate, the House of Commons affirmed the omission of the clause without, I think, a Division. I myself entirely concur in that decision, and I think the evidence that was brought before the Committee showed three things: first, that upon the introduction of responsible Government into a colony emigration has always increased, and that the increase has continued for many

  1581
  years; secondly, that the Colony of Western Australia has been one of the Colonies which has been most ready to promote immigration, and most' desirous to secure emigrants; and, thirdly, that this feeling in favour of immigration will be certainly increased and not diminished, because, as Lord Derby observed last year, every, immigrant who enters Western Australia will be regarded as an addition to the wealth, the resource's, and the development of the country. This being the case, it seemed to me un necessary to retain this clause, and un-desirabfe if unnecessary, because in no other case where responsible Government has been granted to a colony has such a clause been inserted. It has been admitted in both Houses that this Bill is of vital importance to the Colony of Western Australia, and I may add that it is most strongly supported by the other Australian Colonies. I trust, therefore, your Lordships will grant it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Knutsford.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBEELEY: My Lords, I wish simply to say that I am extremely glad the Bill has come to us in this shape. I think it is a decided improvement on the Bill of last year. With regard to the control of the Crown over the land, I will not again go over, what the noble Earl has already stated. My opinion was last year as, it is now, that it was entirely unnecessary and very impolitic to introduce the restrictions which the Bill of last year contained. The evidence given before the Committee of the House of Commons has shown very clearly what the feeling in Western Australia is on the subject; and even if I were of opinion that there I was some particular advantage to be gained from such a restriction, I should still strongly deprecate our introducing restrictions of that kind in face of the feeling in the colonies generally. With regard to the other matter of emigration, I may venture to [say the same thing as was said last year, namely, that it is entirely an illusion to suppose that the Colony of Western Australia will not favour emigration. On the contrary; for a long time they must look to immigration for their progress. When the time
  1582
  arrives for the Colony of Western Australia to have a large labouring population and a system of manufacturing industries like Victoria it may so happen that a feeling will grow up against the introduction of immigrant labour to compete with the labouring population of the colony. But if that time should come, and if that feeling should grow up, as it has grown up in other places, I feel perfectly certain that it would be impossible for Parliament or Government to interfere in the matter to override the feeling of the colony, and that such a clause as that in the Bill of last year would not in the least strengthen the position of the Government of the day. I therefore strongly approve of the alterations which have been made in the Bill, and am very glad to find that it now meets not only with the approval of the Government and the Party who support it, but also with the approval of many who think with me here and in the other House.
  *LORD NORTON: My Lords, as one who for a very long time was much engaged in what I may call the restoration of our colonial policy, I desire to address a few words of congratulation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies on his successful conduct of this Bill. Borne, the mistress of Empire in the old world, certainly did not show much acquaintance with the details of her distant provinces. The Romans, no doubt, cared little at home for the details of distant administration. I fancy a Roman senator troubled himself very little about the government of Dacia. But it did astonish me that legislators in England, the greatest modern mistress of Empire, should, in dealing with a matter of this sort, show so little acquaintance with the subject, as was shown in the Debates in the other House, and even in the Committee on the Bill. We do not make dependencies, as the Romans did, in distant parts of the world; we make extensions of Empire, settlements of fellow-subjects as free and with precisely the same rights as those at home. When I saw, both in the Debates of the other House and even in the Select Committee, the matter was discussed by many as if Western Australia was a Crown Colony, and as if they were not aware that this Bill only developed a Representative

  1583
  Government into a Responsible one, I was not surprised to hear the waste lands of the colony talked of as the patrimony of our people at home, and as if the right of dealing with waste lands was not just as much vested in the Government there as the right of dealing with common lands was vested in our Parliament here in England, both Governments being under the one Sovereign. I am, therefore, extremely glad that any restriction upon their perfect control of their own waste lands has been removed from the Bill; and I think, also, that the fears that the colony will pass Acts restricting English immigration, and that they may ill-treat the aborigines smack of the old Mother Country colonial policy, which for a time overlaid the free and successful colonisation by England of her earlier colonies. I can only say that I think now that the Bill as it has passed, almost, but not quite, free from those blots in the first Bill, does meet the wishes of the colonists, and does recognise the rights of responsible Government in Australia, besides consulting the best interests of the country at home. The Bill itself is, I think, exactly in the right shape, and not something in substitution for the Constitution drawn up by the colonists themselves. I, therefore, as one who has for a long time been engaged in the subject, do offer my hearty congratulations, and I consider that our thanks are due to the noble Secretary of State for the Colonies for the service he has done in conducting the passage of this Bill through Parliament to so satisfactory a conclusion.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

RURAL POST OFFICE APPOINTMENTS.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government if they could not arrange for rural Post Office appointments being made by the General Post Office instead of by the Treasury and the County Members, said: My Lords, although recent events might suggest that this is a fitting time to ask Her Majesty's Government to in some
  1584
  measure free the General Post Office from the incubus of the Treasury, Twill on the present occasion confine myself to a minor point. It is now the practice that if a vacancy occurs in a country Post Office the Treasury are first communicated with; the Treasury then ask the County Member to nominate someone. Very often the County Member may not be acquainted with the circumstances of the case, of what the requirements may be, or suggest a really fitting appointment. Moreover, since the Secretary of the Treasury has been deprived of his patronage, and as patronage in general has been abolished by competitive examination, it is no use taking away the substance and preserving the shadow by giving to the County Members these small appointments. As I have said, the County Members are very often really unacquainted with the circumstances of the place; they may even reside at a great distance from it, and they are liable to give the appointments to some supporter of their own without regard to qualifications or circumstances. In addition to these hypothetical objections to the present system, I may as well give your Lordships instances from my own experience. Some years ago in a village in Cheshire there was no Post Office. I asked for one to be established. At the same time, I put up a small building in the centre of the village which I intended to be used for the Post Office. For some time I heard nothing more about the matter, and at last it turned out that the Post Office had been established in some other less convenient place, and the building has now been let for the purposes of the County Constabulary. The man who holds the Post Office is now desirous of throwing it up. I have been asked to build another house, but I declined, as I did so once, and no notice was taken of it in consequence of these Treasury and Post Office arrangements. "It would, in fact, be useless for anyone to build a house for a Post Office unless he is tolerably certain by communication with the Post Office through their Inspector that the house will be made use of. I will mention another case which occurred many years ago. A County Member wrote to me saying, "Your Post Office is vacant; I know nothing about it myself; tell me whom you recommend." I wrote back

  1585
  to him: "Please do not move until I settle it with the General Post Office." I then wrote to Sir John Tilley and said, "Why is this Post Office vacant? I think I ought to have been consulted first." He answered that "it was vacant because the person who was appointed to it had never gone there." I said it "had been managed by his sister, and had never been better managed; and the person appointed did not wish at present, for family reasons, to leave the neighbouring town; that his father and grandfather had long been supplying contracts for the Post Office, and did not deserve such summary treatment, and I asked to have things left as they were." But supposing this County Member had not been an acquaintance of mine, he might have appointed somebody else, and then there would have been an unnecessary complication. I hope, therefore, Her Majesty's Government will arrange that in future the General Post Office, through their Inspectors, will manage these matters and make the appointments. I can only speak of the Cheshire and North Wales district, but I wish to say that the Postmaster General and his Inspector have introduced a good many reforms, and if the rest of the country is equally well served, the people should be very well satisfied.
  *THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (The Earl of JEHSEY): I am sorry for my noble Friend's experience in his dealings with respect to this Post Office. However, I can only say that I do not think that is everybody's experience. I do not think it will be necessary for me to follow the noble Lord through the history of his dealings with the Post Office; but I may toll him that the present system has been in vogue for a long time. Still, some representations have been made to the Treasury on the subject, and they are carefully considering what they will do in the matter.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASE (PREVENTION) BILL.—(No. 117.)
  Amendments reported (according to order); further amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  INLAND REVENUE REGULATION BILL.—(No. 166.)
  Read 3a and passed.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Report from, That the Committee have added the Lord President (V. Cranbrook) to the Standing Committee for General Bills for the consideration of the Sheriffs (Assizes Expenses) Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.