Lords Sitting of 21 July 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Parochial Assessments; Charity Commissioners Jurisdiction; County Surveyors (Ireland); Excise Duties; Recovery of Poor Rates, &c.
2a Companies, &c,
3a Harbors Transfer; Salmon Fisheries (Scotland); Poor Relief (Ireland); Petroleum; Elections (Ireland); Gunpowder Act Amendment.

KENT COAST RAILWAY BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
  LORD CHELMSFORDcalled attention to the powers conferred by this Bill, and inquired whether their Lordships considered that the Board of Trade were entitled to exercise such authority, under a private Bill, as would issue in the granting of a complete monopoly, with respect to the harbour of Ramsgate, to a private company. The attention of the Steam Shipowners' Association had been called to the subject, and the Board of Trade had expunged the 6th clause, which especially bore upon this question, but
  582
  by the 4th clause powers of a more extensive character were conferred than could have been exercised under the abandoned clause. Under the powers granted by this Bill the Kent Coast Railway Company would be entitled to run a tramway on to the pier at Ramsgate, and would practically obtain a monopoly of the harbour traffic. As the Bill was first introduced this clause was in the Bill, and in consequence the second reading was opposed by the Steamship Owners' Association; but upon a written undertaking being given by the Member who had charge of the Bill in the House of Commons that the clause should be expunged, the opposition was withdrawn. Subsequently, however, by an arrangement with the Board of Trade the same powers were given by the eleventh clause, upon the ground, he believed, that the proposed works were necessary, and that that Department had not funds to execute them. That, however, was no justification for a public Department handing over its functions to a private company, even were it the case; but that was not so—the Board had ample means from the rents, tolls, and accumulated capital derived from the late Harbor Commissioners. Two reports had been made to the Government on the subject; from the first of which, made by Sir John Rennie, it appeared that £7,000 a year would be sufficient to maintain the harbour in repair; but desires being expressed for further inquiry, Sir William Cubitt prosecuted one, and reported that the annual expenditure of £7,500 would be amply sufficient for the proper maintenance of the harbour, while the annual revenue derivable from various sources applicable to the keeping up of the harbor was £9,000. Under all the circumstances of the case he thought that their Lordships ought to pause before they agreed to pass the Bill as it stood. There was no ground whatever why the Board of Trade should transfer the powers it possessed over Ramsgate harbour to a private railway company, and he objected to the mode in which it was attempted to be done—namely, by the insertion of a clause in a private Bill instead of by bringing in a Bill for that purpose, which must needs attract the attention of Parliament. He was of opinion that the 11th clause ought not to stand part of the Bill, and therefore he should move that it be struck out.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that all the Board of Trade undertook to

  583
  do was to oppose any clause which transferred the harbour to the railway company, and the Bill merely gave power to the Board of Trade and the railway company to construct such a tramway as the Board of Trade might think convenient for the public in coming down to the harbour. The opposition was chiefly got up by a steam-packet company, who desired to deprive the public of the advantage of going to Ramsgate by railway, in the hope that they would continue to go by water. That company appeared before the Committee, and were declared to have no locus standi, and he trusted their Lordships would affirm the decision of the Committee. To show that the Board of Trade had not the ample funds mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, he would state that the harbour had been a losing concern, and that it had coat the public £3,000 a year. There were, in truth, no funds available for making a tramway or other works. It would be doing great injustice if their Lordships rejected this clause, which the town council of Ramsgate had approved of, and to which no opposition at all had been raised. He would appeal to their Lordships to stand by their Select Committee and to retain the clause.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSE, as Chairman of the Committee, wished to say a few words on the subject. He entirely disagreed with the remark of the noble and learned Lord that the clause would transfer the harbour to a private company and create a monopoly. The Board of Trade was answerable to Parliament if it did anything detrimental to the public interests. Could any one say that enabling railway passengers to ride in their carriages to the pier was an act contrary to the public interests? Public steamers only could use the pier. The railway company possessed no steamers. The town was greatly in favour of the scheme, and the whole question resolved itself into thia:—Should the Board of Trade put down this tramway themselves, or allow this railway company or any other company to do so? As regarded a breach of faith, he did not think that any had been committed.
  LORD KINGSDOWNsaid, that being a shareholder in the company, he should be unable to vote on the question. He might, however, observe that the clause would only enable the Board of Trade to enter into an arrangement with this company
  584
  or any other company for the laying down of a tramway.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that the Board of Trade, as trustees for the public, had no right to transfer their powers over any public property without coming to Parliament for such a purpose, and it was most objectionable that they should have done so by a clause in a private Bill.
  EARL GRANVILLEexpressed a hope that the House would give its assent to the clause, and support the unanimous decision at which the Select Committee to which the Bill had been referred had arrived.
  LORD REDESDALEalso recommended that the House should not overrule the decision of the Committee.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he knew nothing more of the Bill than he had heard in the course of the debate; but having listened attentively to the discussion which had taken place, he was of opinion that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford) was fully justified in bringing the matter before the House. A Bill containing such extensive powers ought to have been brought forward as a public measure. He hoped that his noble and learned Friend would not give their Lordships the trouble of dividing, and that the noble Lord opposite would consent to the addition of a proviso for the more effectual protection of the public.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he would not press the Motion for the rejection of the clause; but he thought that they ought to add to it a proviso for the purpose of protecting the right of the public in that matter.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that it would be a special duty of the Board of Trade to take the necessary steps for protecting the rights and interests of the public.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ACTS OF UNIFORMITY.—PETITION.
LORD EBURYsaid, he rose to present a petition to which their Lordships' House would, he was sure, pay due respect, not only on account of the high position of the individuals who had signed it, but also from their being peculiarly well qualified to understand and appreciate the grievance they complained of. It was a petition from

585
Fellows and Tutors of Colleges at the University of Cambridge, stating that in their opinion the provisions of the Act of Uniformity of Charles II., requiring a declaration of conformity to the Liturgy before admission to a fellowship, was injurious and ought to be repealed. The petition was signed by seventy-four Fellows and Tutors of Colleges. The petitioners respectfully called attention to the provision of the Act of Uniformity of 1662, which required all Fellows of Colleges to make a declaration of conformity to the Liturgy. Up to the year 1856 a University statute, passed as long ago as the reign of James I., compelled every graduate to make a declaration of membership; but in the year 1856 the Universities Act was passed, which broke down the barriers to the education of Nonconformists in these ancient foundations, permitting all degrees, except those in theology, to be granted without any religious test, and scholarships to be held. It appeared as if the framers of the Universities Act had made an oversight in not repealing this provision of the Act of Uniformity, because in those colleges where, by their college statutes, a declaration of conformity was required (and there are some in which no such declaration is required), that Act gave power to the college to relax that restriction. A willingness to enter into a declaration of conformity was, no doubt, a passport to a social position and to the emoluments of those wealthy foundations; but it did not appear to be by any means a Royal road to academical distinctions, inasmuch as, out of proportionably a small number of Undergraduates, the senior wranglership was won both in 1860 and 1861 by a Nonconformist; and the House could not be surprised if the tutors who had instructed and prepared them, entertaining a respect both for their conduct and abilities, regretted that these distinguished young men could not be retained for the ornament and advantage of the University. The House would remark that this was no attempt on the part of Nonconformists to obtain additional privileges, but a spontaneous act of a distinguished body of Churchmen, who felt and declared the injury produced by the present restrictions. He was happy to say that a right hon. Friend of his, who had presented a similar petition in the House of Commons, had given notice of his intention to propose legislation upon the subject.

COMPANIES, &c. BILL— [BILL NO. 132.]

  SECOND READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of this Bill, explained that similar measures had been introduced in 1858, 1859, 1860, and 1861, but from various causes had not passed the Commons, although they had been agreed to by their Lordships. This year, however, he had thought it more desirable to commence in the House of Commons, where the measure had been maturely considered before coming up to their Lordships. The great difficulty hitherto had been to provide facilities for the formation of companies, combined with proper safeguards, and another difficulty was to provide in a satisfactory manner for winding-up and dissolution. Another circumstance was that there were many statutes upon the subject, some of which were found difficult of construction and even conflicting, and with the whole of the matters to which he had referred this Bill dealt.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PARKHURST PRISON.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONrose, according to notice, to call attention to certain recent Occurrences at Parkhurst Prison; and to inquire whether full Information has been received on the Matter by Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, what Course has in consequence been adopted? The facts were shortly these. Some time ago one of the warders was assaulted in Parkhurst by one of the convicts, and he remained for some time in a dangerous state in consequence of the injuries he received. As far as he could ascertain, no punishment had been inflicted on the man for that assault. About six months ago another warder was assaulted by several convicts, in consequence of which he had to resign his situation, and soon afterwards died, leaving a widow and children. No steps had been taken to punish these men; and when the period of their sentence had expired, they were let loose upon society. Application was made on behalf of the widow and children of the warder to the directors of the prison for compensation; but that application was made in vain. He thought this was a state of things which required to be amended, and he

587
hoped the noble Earl would give a satisfactory answer on the subject.
EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say, that he was not then in a position to give the noble Lord such an answer as would be satisfactory to him, but would make further inquiry on the subject.

WORKS ON THE SHANNON.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF LEITRIMasked, If it is the Intention of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to advance Money to the Board of Public Works in Ireland, to enable the Board to finish the Works on the Upper Shannon, which were omitted, or were only partly executed, by the Shannon Commissioners?
EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say, that it was the intention of the Government to appoint some competent gentleman to inquire into the circumstances of the case, but upon the distinct understanding that Her Majesty's Government did not thereby pledge themselves to advance any money to the Board of Public Works in Ireland.
House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.