Lords Sitting of 9 July 1867

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Patriotic Fund (201); Real Estate Charges Act Amendment* (191); Railways (Guards' and Passengers)' Communication) (197).
Referred to Select Committee—Railways (Guards and Passengers' Communication) (197).
Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (187); Galway Harbour (Composition of Debt) (176); Blackwater Bridge* (178); Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)* (207); Linen and other Manufactures (Ireland)* (186); Public Records*(210); Edinburgh Provisional Order Confirmation* (198).
Report—Galway Harbour (Composition of Debt) (176)* Blackwater Bridge* (178); Linen and other Manufactures (Ireland)* (186); Edinburgh Provisional Order Confirmation* (198); War Department Stores* (209).
Third Reading—Limerick Harbour (Composition of Debt)* (138); Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland)* (177.)

ABYSSINIA—IMPRISONMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.—QUESTIONS.
VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE: Seeing the noble Earl at the head of the Government in his place, I wish to ask a Question of which I have given him private notice. It relates to the fate of the Emperor Maximilian and the alleged unhappy termination of his career. I wish to ask my noble Friend, Whether he or the Government have received any official account of that Emperor's death; and whether, if such account has been received, it is the intention of the Government to move your Lordships to take any notice of the event, or to propose that the House should offer its condolence to Her Majesty on what must be to Her a subject of much affliction?
There is also another subject to which I wish to direct the noble Earl's attention—I mean the condition of the unfortunate Captives in Abyssinia. If I remember rightly, the noble Earl, in reply to a Question put by me some time since, said that the Government, before giving an answer, wished rather to wait until the result of a communication to the Emperor of which Mr. Flad was the bearer, should be known. I learn from the public papers that Mr. Flad was sent out as far back as the month of September, and that he is supposed to have arrived in Abyssinia. I

1253
should like, therefore, to know, Whether the Government have received any further information with respect to the Captives; and, Whether they intend to take any steps in the matter?
THE EARL OF DERBY: I received from my noble Friend within the last half hour an intimation that he wished to ask me two Questions. I should be obliged to him to postpone the one relating to the Captives in Abyssinia, as I have no information to communicate with respect to them. With regard to the first Question—that relating to the fate of the Emperor Maximilian—I have to state that I received within the last two hours a telegram from Paris which, unhappily, leaves it no longer a matter of doubt what the fate of Maximilian has been. This despatch has been received this day from Mr. Fane at Paris, and is dated at half past one. It is as follows:—
"FROM MR. FANE.
"Paris, July 9.—d., 1 30 p.m.; r., 3 30 p.m.
"Moustier has just received a telegram from French Minister at Mexico, dated 27th June. It reports that the Emperor Maximilian was shot on the 19th, in spite of every effort made to save him; the tone of the victorious party was defiant towards all foreign Powers, including United States; they refused to give up the Emperor's body; the French Minister was preparing to depart with his legation, but although hitherto unmolested, he thought he might be detained as a hostage for the surrender of General Almonte."
My Lords, I must say that I share in the feelings of all your Lordships at this most unnecessary, most cruel, and most barbarous murder—a murder which must excite horror in every civilized country. It is a murder purely gratuitous; and so far from producing any beneficial effect, can only add to the miseries of which that unhappy country has been for so many years the scene—and I fear it is only too probable that it will have to sustain similar miseries for many years to come. I hope my noble Friend will excuse me at the present moment for declining to give any opinion as to whether your Lordships will be invited to express your feelings on the subject by any public act.
VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, that he had nothing to complain of in the answer of the noble Earl; but his own feelings on the subject were so strong that, using his right as a Member of that House, he begged to state that he would bring forward some Resolution on the subject in case Her Majesty's Government should hereafter decline inviting an expression of opinion
1254
from the House with regard to the matter on grounds which might appear insufficient to his judgment.

ORDER—NOTICE OF QUESTIONS.
LORD REDESDALEhoped the noble Viscount would formally give notice when he had other questions to put in that House. The noble Viscount was much in the habit of giving private notice to a Minister of his intention to ask Questions, but that course was attended with this inconvenience, that other noble Lords, who might feel an interest in the matters to which those Questions related, were not prepared to take part in any discussion that might arise, and were not induced even to come down to the House upon those occasions as they might otherwise have done. Such a course was extremely inconvenient both to the Government and the House, and he hoped the noble Viscount would take care for the future that due notice should be given, and that the Notice should appear on the Paper.
VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEwas, no doubt, greatly obliged to the noble Lord for the lesson which he had given him as to the proper mode of proceeding but it appeared to him that the noble Lord had overlooked the very obvious difference which existed between giving notice of a Question for the purpose of raising a discussion, and giving notice of one which was put merely with the view of making it the subject of consideration upon some future occasion. It was only for the latter purpose that he had that evening asked for certain explanations from his noble Friend at the head of the Government.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, with regard to those Questions which the noble Viscount thought so slight and unimportant for want of due notice, one had not been answered at all, and only half of the other had been replied to. He thought that in both of these cases notice should have been given, as there was no urgency with respect to either.
VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEwished to be allowed to say that he had given only a private notice on this occasion because it would have been impossible for him to attend on Thursday next, owing to business elsewhere of a very urgent character. He rather apprehended that the noble Earl opposite had received his intimation later than was intended, as he had written that morning.
LORD LYVEDENsaid, that the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees was quite justified in taking notice of this matter, as the Committee upstairs had come to the conclusion that it was desirable that due notice of Questions should be given.

PATRIOTIC FUND BILL—(No. 201.)
(The Earl of Longford.)
PATRIOTIC FUND BILL—(No. 201.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDmoved the second leading of this Bill, the object of which, he said, was to regulate the proceedings of the Royal Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund. Hitherto they had acted entirely under the authority of a Royal Commission; but it was thought advisable that there should be an Act of Parliament applicable to them. Last year, therefore, a short Bill on this subject received the Royal Assent; but it was found insufficient for the purpose. It was now necessary to bring in an amended Bill, repealing the Act of 1866, and providing, among other things, for the appointment of official trustees, in whom the property might be vested, and for an official audit. The re-constitution of a Commission and the appointment of new Commissioners to replace those who had died would be proceeded with when authority was given by this Act. It was intended also to extend somewhat the original intentions of the Commission.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

GALWAY HARBOUR (COMPOSITION OF DEBT) BILL—(No. 176.)
(The Earl of Devon.)
GALWAY HARBOUR (COMPOSITION OF DEBT) BILL—(No. 176.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE EARL OF DEVONmoved that their Lordships should go into Committee on this Bill, the general object of which, he said, was to enable the Treasury to compound a debt now amounting to about £20,000 for a sum of £10,000, and also enabling the Commissioners of Works to advance a certain sum for the construction of a graving-dock and the improvement of Galway Harbour. The Bill came recommended not only by the authority of the Treasury; but after having passed the ordeal of a Select Committee of the other House, who had carefully investigated the
  1256
  measure and unanimously approved its provisions.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, the Bill was one of so singular a character that he thought it ought not to be allowed to pass without a close scrutiny of its provisions. He did not object to the proposed composition, for he presumed that the Treasury could not get the money, and the proverb applicable to his own countrymen no doubt was good also in Ireland—that you could not take from a man a nether garment which he did not possess. But he found in the Report of the Irish Board of Works that they said they did not feel called upon to express an opinion upon the construction of a graving-dock; and that statement, coming from an Irish Board upon a proposal to spend English money in Ireland, struck him as a very significant one. Large sums had already been expended in the improvement of the Harbour of Galway, and the present scheme looked like the suggestion of some engineer who expected to have something to do with the carrying on of the new works. The Report of the Select Committee of the other House in favour of the Bill had been referred to, but it had not been laid before their Lordships.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he was surprised at some of the recommendations which came from the other House. It seemed to him most extraordinary that, at the time they were compounding a debt, they should be advancing more money to be expended, with the probability that part of the new debt would have to be forgiven at some future time. It was said last evening in support of the Limerick Harbour Bill that it was of immense importance that there should be a graving-dock on the west coast of Ireland. Now, it was proposed that there should be another graving-dock at Galway. These were matters which required careful consideration. Indeed, he did not know why the public money was to be advanced for these works in Ireland without further consideration than appeared to be generally given to the matter. Other places were obliged to find money on their own credit. When a debt due to Government was redeemed, it might fairly be expected that the next money to be expended would come from another source, and not from the source that it had been found so convenient to draw upon.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he was surprised at the fault found with this Bill, which he understood was

  1257
  last night spoken of as a just Bill. ["No, no!"] The Limerick Harbour was charged with a bridge. In this case, so far from there being such a charge, there was to be very good security for the money advanced; the Grand Jury had agreed to assess a rate upon the comity of the town for a considerable portion of the interest, provided it should not be available from the Harbour funds. Another circumstance not mentioned was the high rate of interest upon which the money was originally advanced by the Government. Had it been lent at the present low rate of interest, the amount due to the Government would have been much less than it was. The question involved was not merely one of compounding a debt, but also of giving some chance of recovering the money which had already been spent. With regard to the graving-dock to be constructed at Galway, that was urgently needed; and it was a fact that ships had ceased going to Galway simply because they were placed under the disadvantage of having no graving-dock for repairs there. It was true, it was said last night, it was important to provide a graving-dock at Limerick; but that was no reason why there should be only one graving-dock on the west coast of Ireland.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE, on the question of interest, quoted the Report of the Irish Board of Works, to the effect that there was considerable misconception as to the length of time and the amounts for which the higher rates of interest have been paid.
  Bill considered in Committee; and reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

RAILWAYS (GUARDS' AND PASSENGERS' COMMUNICATION) BILL—(No. 197.)
(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
RAILWAYS (GUARDS' AND PASSENGERS' COMMUNICATION) BILL—(No. 197.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, on moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it was beyond question that if the railway companies would provide means of communication between passengers and the guards of trains many disastrous accidents would be prevented. The want of such communication had been universally recognized as an evil; but, whenever it had been proposed that the railways should be required to provide the
  1258
  proper means of communication, the objection invariably raised was that the various companies would not agree to adopt a uniform system. Now, it certainly was extremely difficult to prescribe any particular mode of communication which would be considered efficient by all the railway companies, and, therefore, the present Bill provided that every railway company should adopt such mode of communication as was in their opinion the best. In every case where no machinery of communication had been provided a fine of £5 could be inflicted. Two of our great railway companies—the South Western and the South Eastern — had adopted a means of communication which had proved efficacious; and abroad, all over the Continent, the railways had means of communication between the passengers and guards, which worked very successfully. The only objection to the measure was, that it was unfair to call upon the companies to adopt certain means without specifying the precise means which were to be adopted. He thought, however, that, in regard to this matter, the onus lay upon the railway companies, who ought to be compelled to take some steps, in order to prevent the recurrence of accidents.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONentirely agreed with all that the noble Lord had said, and agreed with him that the measure was a very useful and satisfactory one. As the noble Lord had remarked, means of communication between passengers and guards had been provided by two railroads in this country, and by a great many on the Continent. There was, however, a proviso in the Bill that it should not take effect wherever the distance to be traversed by each train without stopping did not exceed fifteen miles. He presumed the meaning of that was, that where the stations were less than fifteen miles apart from one another, there would be no necessity to provide for communication between the passengers and the guards. If that were so, the North London Railroad would not come under the operation of the Bill, although, if he were not mistaken, public opinion had been first directed to this subject by a horrible murder committed on that very line. It seemed to him that the necessity for having a mode of communication was quite as great when the stations were within a mile or half a mile of one another as it was who they were upwards of

  1259
  fifteen miles apart. Unless a satisfactory reason was given for the introduction of this provision, he should move, when they went into Committee that it be expunged.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, while agreeing with most of the remarks of the noble Lord who had moved the second reading, suggested that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, in order that the parties interested might have an opportunity of showing what difficulties would arise if the Bill were curried in its present state. He had been informed that the means of communication at present in use were not satisfactory. That on the South Western had been tried on the short journeys of the local traffic only, and should not be taken as a guide for the effectiveness of the same communication on long journeys. The 3rd clause required that some communication should be made between each carriage, horse-box, and truck, and the guard and engine-driver, and failing this the proprietors of the railway would be subjected to the severe penalties set forth in the 4th clause. In a journey from Euston Square to Inverness, no less than ten different systems of railway would be passed over, and possibly ten different systems of communication would have to be provided for by that train. To carry out the 3rd clause would be practically impossible, and, therefore, it would be most improper to pass the 4th imposing penalties. He accordingly repeated his recommendation to refer the Bill to a Select Committee in the hope of securing an altogether unobjectionable Act to secure the object so much desired by all.
  LORD CAIRNSfeared that if the Bill were referred to a Select Committee at that period of the Session, and if that Committee were to take evidence, that legislation on the subject this Session would be impossible. A measure of the kind proposed had been long required; and it would be a subject for regret if it were postponed after having passed the Commons, where it had been subjected to the scrutiny of many interested in studying the interests of railway companies. It was certain that nothing had contributed more to railway accidents than the absence of communication required by the Bill. The fact that the measure insisted on no particular means of communication, but left it to the railway companies to choose the best suited for the purpose, was, in his opinion, a merit. The Bill simply laid down the principle, and imposed penalties for non-observance;
  1260
  that was the fullest extent to which legislation should go. Railway companies were well represented in the other House, and that House having passed the Bill, he hoped their Lordships would also agree to it.
  LORD DENMANthought the Bill would prove very useful, and hoped it would pass.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the third reading of the Bill in the House of Commons was carried by 43 against 5. He objected to sending it to a Select Committee, as it was not a question of detail, but of principle; and if sent before a Committee, all the railway officials in the kingdom would be prepared to give evidence against it and obstruct its passage. To refer the Bill to a Select Committee would he simply incurring expense and trouble for no good purpose.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMbelieved the principle of the Bill was a right one, but contended that it contained matters of detail which could be better settled by a Committee than in the House. The expenditure of two or three days in Committee might produce a satisfactory measure, and he was sure that result would be better than the hasty enactment of an imperfect one. No railway company, he was sure, would feel it to be its interest to oppose the principle of the Bill; but information could be given by railway officials touching the existence of stock not owned by companies, but rented by them, and which under the Bill would have to be filled up by the companies at their cost, with the means of communication. The principle of the Bill was to throw on railway companies the duty and the expense of providing sufficient means of communication between passengers and guards and guards and drivers and he could not believe that companies would oppose such a Bill provided that it contained provisions which would enable them to carry it out. The company which had to work the train would be compelled by the Bill to provide means of communication; but there was no provision to compel private owners of rolling stock to adapt their carriages to the improvements which the company might find it necessary to make.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwas willing to refer the Bill to a Select Committee on the condition that no evidence would be called. He could understand that Amendments might be better arranged in Committee.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, he did not mean that no evidence whatever should be called; he admitted that if all who asked were examined the Committee might sit for the next seven years; but he wished that the Committee should sit and take only such evidence as its Members thought necessary to elucidate the points he and the noble Duke beside him had mentioned.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthought it desirable that the Bill should be referred to ft Select Committee, in order that it might be made as useful a measure as their Lordships desired it to be—a result which could only be attained by hearing evidence as to the success of the experiments to which the noble Lord had alluded, and as to the possibility of carrying out the system in every case.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he had no objection to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee upon the understanding that such a course, was only to be adopted for the purpose of putting the Bill into a better shape, and that the different plans invented were not to be discussed or evidence taken; because if either of the latter courses were to be pursued the delay would be endless. The Bill as it at present stood allowed the railway companies to adopt whatever plan they pleased.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly: Then it was moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee; objected to; and, on Question, Resolved in the Affirmative, and Bill referred to a Select Committee accordingly.
  And, on July 11, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  D. Richmond

  E. Kimberley

  D. Sutherland

  V. Sydney

  E. Carnarvon

  L. Stanley of Alderley

  And, on July 12, The Lord Steward, E. Lucan and Lord Ponsonby added.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.