Lords Sitting of 8 August 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Beerhouses (Ireland)* (306); County Boundaries (Ireland)* (307); Elections (Parliamentary and Municipal) (308).
Second Reading—Prince Arthur's Annuity (300); House of Commons (Witnesses) (198); Reductions ex capite lecti Abolition (292); Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes* (102); Telegraph (Money)* (293); Summary Jurisdiction, &c. (Ireland)* (301).
Committee — Limited Owners Residence Act (1870) Amendment* (280); Sunday Observance Prosecutions* (290–305).
Committee — Report — Industrial and Provident Societies Amendment* (279); Local Government Board* (291); Public Libraries Act (1855) Amendment* (269).
Report—Friendly Societies Commission* (284–304); Lodgers Goods Protection* (302).

PRINCE ARTHUR'S ANNUITY BILL.
(The Earl Granville.)
PRINCE ARTHUR'S ANNUITY BILL.

  (NO. 300.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  EARL GRANVILLE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he thought it unnecessary, after

  1065
  the Address unanimously adopted by their Lordships last week, to make any observations upon it.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Granville.)
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he had felt it his duty at the beginning of the present Session to address a few remarks to their Lordships with regard to the Message from Her Most Gracious Majesty touching the proposed allowance to Her Royal Highness the Princess Louise. He had then asked their Lordships to contradict or correct him if he had not conveyed himself with that respect and attachment to the person of Her Majesty, as well as to the high position she filled, or if he had not expressed what was the public opinion in regard to Her Majesty's retirement. None of their Lordships had then called in question what he had stated, and he thought himself perfectly entitled to infer from their silence that they gave their assent to his remarks. Having arrived at that point, their Lordships might think that he would show better discretion in not going further; but the question was now very difficult and serious, and was ventilated in every public paper, as well as in the other House of Parliament; and as public opinion was becoming stronger every day in regard to it, he thought that if their Lordships ignored the matter altogether the public would say that they had no sympathy with what people were saying, and that they thought more of convenience and etiquette than the real interests of the country. But the matter was worthy of very serious consideration, and he regretted that it was not brought before their Lordships by some one whose expression of opinion would give more weight to it. As the restrictions of party prevented others from doing so, he deemed it his duty, to the best of his power, to call their Lordships' attention to this all-important subject. There was one reason why the public would think their Lordships were less able than the younger generation to appreciate the public feeling in connection with this subject. Most of their Lordships, like himself, had attained a middle age, and would remember the time when Her Majesty came to the Throne, and by her presence amongst them, and by the exercise of her public virtues, how she attached
  1066
  all classes of the community to her person. This was not a mere matter of form, but a matter of deep feeling. Her Majesty was accustomed then to be seen constantly in public, and no one returned more gracefully or more graciously the salutations of the people who came to greet her. He knew—as all their Lordships must know—that everyone of a large crowd went home to their families and said they had seen the Queen, and that she had bowed to them; each took the compliment to himself, and henceforth there was a personal interest which connected them with their most gracious Sovereign. Unfortunately, circumstances occurred which obliged Her Majesty to retire from public for a certain time; but the public had long been most anxious that she should return amongst them and be known of them, for the rising generation had no personal knowledge of Her Majesty, and knew her only through the reports of the public papers. There was another matter which arose in connection with this subject, and they saw it daily touched on in the public papers. They saw Imperial and Royal personages in this country lodged in hotels about the town, and going about in hired carriages, while the public were asking whether we had become so parsimonious that the Royal visitors coming to this country could not be properly entertained? Now, the question here arose with whom did the blame lie? Did it lie with the Sovereign, or with the constitutional advisers of the Sovereign? There was no doubt in the world that the blame lay with Her Majesty's Government, with Her Majesty's Ministers, because Her Majesty had no responsibility except through her constitutional advisers. But, while acknowledging this constitutional doctrine, the public desired that the personal opinions, and the personal wisdom of the Sovereign, should have some bearing, as one of the great powers of the State, on public matters; and the result of Her Majesty's total retirement was that she was now so shut up in one political atmosphere that none other approached her, and she was totally unaware and uninformed of what was the public opinion on this and other important matters. If Her Majesty were mixing, as she had formerly done, in the world, she would meet statesmen and men of all parties, and know what the public

  1067
  opinion was, and not merely the opinion of one political party. Nor were these times when this question could slumber; it was a question which must be met; and when they considered what was the character of that great statesman who was at the head of Her Majesty's affairs, they must be more careful in doing their utmost to make Her Majesty acquainted with public opinion. The Prime Minister was a man of undoubted and, perhaps, unbounded ability; but he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) had heard that his (Mr. Gladstone's) best friends had often said of him—and he spoke of the Prime Minster specially and not of Her Majesty's Government, because he was held to deal with his Colleagues with not much more consideration than he dealt with this House—that his mind was so enlarged by the quantity of information he had acquired on every matter that he had the greatest possible difficulty in making up his mind as to what was right or wrong. At any rate one thing was certain; the Prime Minister had shown that he had not great respect for any of our institutions, for there was not one institution of the country which had not been shaken since Her Majesty's present Government came into power. Through an Act of the Session before last a shake was given to the Protestant institutions under which Her Majesty sat on the Throne. By an Act of the last Session a shake was given to the security of property; and the other day, by the manner in which the Prerogative was exercised, another shake was given to the privileges of this House and to the Crown itself, for the statement in the other night's debate that the Royal Warrant abolishing purchase, however unintentionally on the part of Her Majesty's Government, was brought about, by misrepresentation to the Sovereign, had not been denied. It was brought about by representing to the Sovereign that she acted under statute, whereas she acted solely on her Prerogative. There was a slur inflicted by the exercise of this Prerogative on the decision which had been arrived at by this House, so thus another shake had been given to another institution of the country. They knew that the Army was in a disordered state; they knew the Navy was in the same state; they knew the disorder which prevailed in the other House of Parliament,
  1068
  which was wanting the exercise of a mind that could govern men. When they considered that all our institutions had been more or less disturbed or shaken, it was most important that they should endeavour to secure that public opinion should reach the Throne. If Her Majesty's Ministers had conveyed public opinion to the Throne, there was not the least reason to doubt that Her Most Gracious Majesty, with that conscientiousness which she had always shown, would sacrifice her own pleasure for the public good, and that she would before that have acceded to the strong and earnest desire on the part of the people that she should be more among us, and that she should thereby secure the continuance of that cordial goodwill which had so long existed between her and the people of this country, and which was the solidest foundation of the Throne itself.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I venture to protost against the doctrine laid down by the noble Lord at the beginning of his remarks, that whenever he makes observations, however relevant or irrelevant they may be to the subject before the House, if other Peers do not immediately challenge the view which he takes your Lordships unanimously acquiesce in it. With regard to the relevancy of his speech on the second reading of a Bill introduced in pursuance of an Address unanimously and cordially agreed to by your Lordships on both sides of the House, the noble Lord apparently thought it his duty—being, as he told us, almost the only organ of public opinion that could reach Her Majesty—to read a lecture to the Sovereign, to discuss in terms which I might almost say were offensive and impertinent the personal character of Mr. Gladstone.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I rise to Order, and to ask whether that is a word which can be used consistently with the Rules of the House?
  EARL GRANVILLE: If there is any word more Parliamentary meaning the same thing, I will use it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Earl, who so constantly appeals to the Standing Orders, should withdraw the word "impertinent."
  EARL GRANVILLE: I am quite ready to withdraw the term impertinent; but I certainly cannot substitute pertinent

  1069
  for it. The noble Lord chooses to discuss Mr. Gladstone's personal character, and to announce to these benches that he treats his own Colleagues with a want of consideration. He then, in the playful manner which has become so natural and easy to him, describes Mr. Gladstone as absolutely without the power of making up his mind, in consequence of the vast amount of information stored in his head. I can only say that, on nearly every point on which he has touched, the noble Lord has shown that it is not that vast amount of information which prevents his taking a line which is quite his own. With regard to the Sovereign, the noble Lord has himself acknowledged that it is a very delicate question to discuss the personal character of the Queen, and what Her Majesty ought or ought not to do. He talks of Her Majesty only getting information from one political party. Now, one of the characteristics of the Sovereign, to which I am sure all who have ever been called to her councils will testify, is that whatever party may be in in power, she ever holds the most open and confidential communications with them; and, more than this, without in any degree acting in a manner liable to misconstruction, she does see the Leaders of the party in opposition to the Government. I do not know anytime of her life when Her Majesty has given more attention than she does at present to the current business of the State, or when the interest she takes in all Parliamentary and administrative measures, the knowledge she takes care to possess on all important measures, whether home or foreign, and the supervision she exercises ever all appointments to be made and honours to be distributed, have been more strikingly shown. I quite admit—and we as much as anyone regret it—that she does not show herself as much among us as we should wish; but I think it is a great thing to say of any Monarch that that is the only reproach which her people have ever addressed to her. That, moreover, is a thing which depends very much on Her Majesty's own estimate, and that of her medical advisers, of her bodily strength and power, and of how far she can do it. To introduce the subject, however, I think your Lordships will agree with me, would have been unbecoming, particularly this year, when Her Majesty made an effort which
  1070
  even in the happiest times, and under the guidance of her late Consort, was always an immense effort, and one made with great difficulty—I mean the opening of Parliament in person, and when Her Majesty has on other public occasions shown herself to her people. I can only say that I trust as time goes on Her Majesty will have increased opportunities of showing herself to the public; but I am quite sure that without previous inquiry, and with only the very superficial information which the noble Lord possesses, it is not for this House to lay down precise rules for the personal conduct of Her Majesty.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: I have no intention of going into the merits or demerits of the Prime Minister, the condition of the Army and Navy, or the general topics to which the noble Lord (Lord Oranmore and Browne) has referred; but I am bound to corroborate most distinctly the noble Earl's (Earl Granville's) statement by testifying to the great cordiality with which we on this side of the House are always received by Her Majesty. I was not a very long time in office, but I can say this—and I think I am speaking the opinion of all with whom I had the honour of acting—that on all occasions, from the time we took office to the time we left it, Her Majesty treated us invariably in the most frank and open manner possible.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (WITNESSES) BILL.
(No. 198.) (The Lord Chancellor.)
HOUSE OF COMMONS (WITNESSES) BILL.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE RESUMED.
  Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate [August 3] on the Motion for the Second Reading, read; debate resumed accordingly.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the withdrawal of the threatened opposition to the measure, made it unnecessary for him to explain it at great length. This House had always possessed the power of administering an oath to persons examined, whether by the Whole House or by Committees, though in the latter case it was long necessary to administer it at the Bar of the House. The House of Commons,

  1071
  feeling the want of this power very inconvenient, claimed it on more than one occasion; but after much controversy it was abandoned, if it had ever existed, and was not exercised for a considerable time, till, on Controverted Elections being referred by the Grenville Act to Committees of the House, power was given to them to administer an oath. Now on local Bills, discrepancies were found to arise between the evidence of witnesses given before the House of Commons' Committees without an oath, and that given before Committees of this House on oath. A Bill was accordingly passed not long since, enabling House of Commons' Committees to administer an oath in such cases, as also to enable witnesses before the Lords' Committees to swear witnesses themselves, instead of at the Bar of the House. In 1869 an Act of Pains and Penalties, introduced into the other House, raised the question whether it was right to take unsworn evidence in support of it. It was consequently referred to a Committee, including Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Henley, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Hardy, Mr. Bouverie, the Lord Advocate, the Attorney General for Ireland, Colonel Wilson-Patten, Mr. Kinglake, and others. Persons better acquainted with constitutional usages could hardly have been selected. Sir Erskine May, Colonel Wilson-Patten, the Speaker, and Viscount Eversley were examined, and the Committee unanimously recommended the introduction of a Bill of this kind, pointing out in their Report that, in cases of personal liberty or privilege, and of charges against Corporations, Judges, and Members of Parliament it was not expedient that the House of Commons should receive evidence not on oath. The opposition to the Bill in this House was founded on an apprehension that the jurisdiction of the other House might thereby be extended to other subjects, and to meet any such misgivings he proposed to add in Committee a clause in these words—
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall be held to confer any additional power or privilege on the Commons House of Parliament with reference to impeachment or other criminal jurisdiction or otherwise howsoever than is herein expressly enacted."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYjustified his original opposition to the Bill on the ground that had it been urgent it would not have been delayed two years
  1072
  or laid six weeks on the Table without any intimation that the Government intended to adopt it, and that the usual course of communicating to their Lordships the evidence on which it was founded not having been taken, he had not been aware of the existence of any grievance. He should have been satisfied with moving an Amendment in Committee, but for the fact that Amendments in this House, not made at the instance of the Government, were generally rejected by the other House, and not insisted upon by the few Peers who attended at the close of the Session. The House of Commons had for many years carefully kept within the limits of constitutional usage; but he had feared that the wide phraseology of the Bill might, under different circumstances and in different times, be made the basis of a new power or Prerogative, and a claim to criminal jurisdiction. There could be no objection to removing any impediment in the way of the numerous and onerous duties of that House; but he complained of the Bill having been pressed at this period of the Session, and without information. The clause proposed by the Government would not be of much value as an operative one, nor, indeed, would any enactment if ever the House of Commons were inclined to exceed its jurisdiction; but it would be a protest against any misuser of this new privilege, and he should therefore not persevere in his opposition to the measure.
  EARL GRANVILLEremarked that the noble Marquess's Motion for the rejection of a Bill founded on the unanimous recommendation of leading men of both sides of the House of Commons, and designed to give that House a power already possessed by their Lordships, was a somewhat unlucky sequence to the eloquent, and, doubtless, sincere eulogium passed, on that House by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) who, perhaps, with a view of remedying some observations of a different character recently made in this House, took great care to explain that their Lordships' opposition was directed against the Government and not against the Commons. Whether or not an oath was the best way of eliciting the truth, it was obviously unjust for their Lordships to continue to exercise the privilege and to deny it to the Commons,

  1073
  who had 20 times as many Committees, on the Reports of which legislation constantly proceeded. Such a course would have shown extraordinary jealousy, and he was therefore glad that the Bill was to pass with an Amendment which appeared to him to be worth very little one way or the other, but meant, if anything, that the noble Marquess could not let it pass without some superficial show of jealousy lest the power should be misused. The delay, of which the noble Marquess complained, arose from one of the most occupied men in the House of Commons forgetting to send a message to the most occupied man in this House, the noble Earl expressed surprise at the noble Marquess considering their Lordships unable to carry any Amendment they thought necessary in Committee. On a recent occasion, 162 Members of the Conservative majority presented themselves, a considerable portion of whom had not voted in the House twice, while a still larger proportion had not done a stitch of Parliamentary work. Considering what power their Lordships had to defeat the Government or obstruct legislation, it was strange that the noble Marquess should think them so impotent.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that the noble Earl had remarked that a large majority of the Peers who voted against the Government the other night never came to the House. He hoped the noble Earl would allow him to say that the majority was composed to a considerable extent of noble Lords who sat on the Liberal side, and who usually supported the Government, and that its largeness was owing not so much to the number of the Conservative Peers as to the number of Liberal Peers who declined to vote.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, this was not a small matter, and if the proposition had been made 20 years ago it would have been rejected. The Constitution had gone on hitherto without the Commons possessing the powers proposed to be granted, and they did not seem to have suffered much. Under these circumstances, he thought it could not have been expected that the Bill should pass without comment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORobserved that there had been mutual concessions in regard to this power. He had abstained from saying anything about the
  1074
  value of oaths in obtaining testimony, for that was a subject on which there might be differences of opinion; but he thought the House of Commons would do well to exercise this power rarely in the examination of witnesses before Committees on Local Bills, and that this House should also pursue a like policy.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, it should be remembered in justification of the course taken by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) that at the time he gave Notice of his Motion their Lordships had received no evidence of the necessity of this power being given at this particular time to the House of Commons. That House had endeavoured to obtain such a power in an indirect way for a considerable time. They used to get the oath administered by any Member of the House who was a Justice of the Peace, but that was an irregular proceeding. Then they tried to get the oath administered by one of the Judges; and next they wished to have their witnesses sworn before their Lordships' House. That proposal was not consented to, and from 1757 down to the present time there had been no attempt made to obtain the power of examining witnesses on oath. He was very much disposed, until he saw the Report of the Committee on the evidence on which it was founded, to follow the noble Marquess in the course he proceeded to adopt; but he was now perfectly satisfied, that this was a proper power for the House of Commons to possess, and he was glad to consent to the second reading.
  LORD LYVEDENregarded the noble Marquess's (the Marquess of Salisbury's) notice to throw out the Bill as an interference with the House of Commons in the management of its own concerns, and was glad the question had been amicably settled. As to what had passed between the Leaders of both sides of the House, he presumed it was a preliminary skirmish to the engagement of Thursday next, when it would be seen whether the Conservative Peers again mustered.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he thought noble Lords on the back benches, as well as those on the front benches, should protest against the observations of the noble Earl (Earl Granville), who seemed to think their Lordships ought not to vote against him. He knew it

  1075
  was assumed in some quarters that all public virtue and political sagacity rested with the Government side of the House; he could not hold out hopes that those who differed would withdraw their opposition; in fact, he rather thought that the noble Earl would have an early opportunity of seeing that the Conservative Peers were prepared to support their opinions.
  Motion agreed, to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

REDUCTIONS EX CAPITE LECTI ABOLITION BILL—(No. 292.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
REDUCTIONS EX CAPITE LECTI ABOLITION BILL—(No. 292.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, stated that its object was to alter the law of Scotland, under which a person who being ill executed an instrument affecting any heritable property, could only hope to have it carried into effect in the event of his surviving its execution by 60 days. This law had doubtless been intended to prevent undue influence being brought to bear upon persons weakened by illness in regard to the disposition of their property; but he apprehended that those other provisions of the law existing in Scotland as well as in England, by which, on proof of undue influence of that kind, deeds might be set aside, was much more satisfactory than this crude arrangement. This Bill, which would place the law on a surer basis by leaving it to others to prove the exercise of improper influence, had, as he was informed, the sanction of the present Lord Advocate and the Lord Advocate of the last Government.
  LORD COLONSAYpointed out that this law, which had long existed in Scotland, was intended not only to protect the heir-at-law against the influence which might be exercised upon his dying ancestor to induce him to make unfair dispositions of his property in favour of religious communities, charitable institutions, or other relatives, but also to protect the dying man from being disquieted by the importunities of selfish or designing parties. He quoted the opinions of Lord Hardwicke and Lord Eldon in favour of the law, and stated
  1076
  that, while he thought there were particulars in which the law should undergo alteration, he desired to see the principle of it retained, and hoped that the Bill would be so amended as to afford some protection to absent heirs and dying persons. In Scotland there was no other law of mortmain.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he thought this a very serious question. The feeling in Scotland was very strong on the subject. The present law protected death-beds from importunities which might otherwise be used, greatly to the injury of relatives, for augmenting the resources of an unendowed church.
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEconsidered the law a most beneficial one, and the country was well satisfied with it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORobserved that under the present law a person apparently in articulo mortis, and really desirous of providing for younger children, had no means of doing so unless he recovered from the disease with which he had been stricken, for if he died of that disease within 60 days his testamentary disposition was utterly void; but, as if to show the anomaly of the law, if he recovered from that disease and died of any other disease or by accident the will was good. What uncertainty and litigation must not such a state of the law produce; and was it reasonable or desirable that it should be maintained? He should be happy to consider any clause which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Colonsay) might propose.
  LORD ROMILLYsuggested that in Committee his noble and learned Friend (Lord Colonsay) should introduce a clause similar to that adjusted in the law relating to successions in India, when the noble Viscount (Viscount Halifax) was Secretary of State, to this effect—that if any person who had relatives, as near as a nephew or niece, made a will in favour of any charity or public institution, and did not enrol it 12 months before his death, the will should be void. He was informed that provision had been attended with considerable success in India, and was very much approved.
  On Question? "That the Bill be now read 2a" agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

THE IRISH CHURCH ACT.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF LIMERICKasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the propriety of any alterations in the terms for the sale of tithe rent-charges laid down in the Irish Church Act, and whether commutations of tithe rent-charges under the provisions of the Irish Church Act will all be calculated from one day, provided that there has been no unnecessary delay on the part of the persons commuting, and, if so, from what day?
LORD DUFFERIN, in reply to the first Question of the noble Earl, said, that the subject referred to was under the consideration of the Government; but he thought that they would not be able to deal with it in the present Session. Two Bills relating to the subject had been introduced into the other House that Session; but he was instructed to say that neither of them proposed to solve the difficulty in a satisfactory manner. In regard to the second Question of the noble Earl he had to say that arrangements for the payment of the borrowed money by instalments would take effect on the 1st May preceding the day on which the application should have been made at the office of the Tithe Rent-charge Commissioners.

NAVY—LOSS OF THE "MEGÆRA."

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT MELVILLErose to put a Question to Her Majesty's Government on the subject of the loss of Her Majesty's troop-ship Megæra. The noble Viscount said, it might be recollected that at an early part of the Session a discussion arose in the House of Commons as to the capacity of the Megæra to undertake a sea voyage, it being then alleged that she leaked from stem to stern, and was altogether unfit to make the voyage for which she was destined. That statement was contradicted, and the Megæra proceeded to Plymouth, making such a dreadful passage that her decks were completely covered with water. From Plymouth the Megæra went to Queenstown, and the officer commanding the ship reported the state of the vessel to the Admiral there, representing that the water was passing over the main-deck, that the ports leaked, and that the discomfort on board was very great. The
  1078
  Admiral, under these circumstances, inspected the vessel, and ordered 100 tons of her stores to be discharged from her, with a view to lightening her. It appeared that in 1866 Mr. Reed inspected the Megæra, and it was reported from Woolwich that she might be seaworthy for eighteen months or two years, and for only short service, and not for a distant voyage. At the time when the complaints to which he had referred were made, Mr. Baxter—who, it had been stated, was responsible, and not the First Naval Lord, for the administration of the Navy in the absence of the First Lord of the Admiralty—declared that the statement of the unseaworthiness of the Megæra was totally untrue. However, the result was now known, and it appeared that the vessel was excessively worn out, and had on board somewhere about 300 seamen and officers beyond her regular crew at the time of the disaster. The number of men was altogether beyond what she was calculated to carry, and it now appeared that a report was made to the effect that her boilers were only fit for service for one year. Notwithstanding that report, she was sent out on a long voyage, in the course of which she somehow or other sprang a leak, and the crew and passengers were cast upon a volcanic island, with what means of subsistence he did not know. He had seen a letter in the newspaper stating that there was plenty of fish there and hot water to cook them in, and he hoped to hear that that statement was accurate. He should like to know who signed the order, and who was responsible for this vessel being sent to sea. On the occasion of a Court Martial being held on account of the loss of the vessel, their Lordships were aware that it was not the persons who sent the vessel to sea who were tried, but it was the unfortunate officer commanding the ship who was made to suffer all the obloquy, annoyance, and expense, attached to a trial by Court Martial. He should be glad to know what was the condition of the unfortunate crew and passengers, and what steps had been taken to relieve them?
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNadmitted the extreme gravity of the matter brought under their Lordships' notice, and if he did not discuss it at great length it was because their Lordships had an opportunity of seeing all the

  1079
  documents connected with it in the newspapers of that morning. But the Admiralty were not in a position to form a proper opinion as to the causes of the disaster which befell the vessel. On the 13th of January the Admiralty telegraphed to Sheerness to ascertain whether, if the Megæra were wanted for nine months' service, she was in a fit state to undertake it, and what time would be required before she could receive her crew and a large body of supernumeraries. She had on board 342 men, and more than once she had carried about 400 men, and one occasion 424, and therefore could not be said to be excessively overloaded. On the 17th of January the Megæra was reported to be a good seaboat, and, although more than 20 years old, sound and strong, her boilers, however, being described as only fit for one year's service. On the 23rd of January the Commander-in-Chief at Sheerness was asked whether she could take 300 men, and he replied that she could, and 350 tons of stores. The Commander-in-Chief at Queenstown telegraphed stating that the Megæra had put into that port in consequence of leaking from her main-deck ports. He was afterwards directed to use his discretion in lightening the vessel, and, having taken out 127 tons from the 350 on board, and landed four of the officers who were proceeding in her, he reported that she was fit to undertake the service on which she had been ordered. Admiral Codrington was also requested to report upon certain statements which had appeared in the newspapers, and said he had heard nothing about the alleged leaking or unseaworthiness of the vessel. When the cargo had been removed, the Commander-in-Chief at Queenstown telegraphed—"Shall she proceed?" and the Admiralty replied—"Certainly, if you approve." It was not correct to suppose that the draught of water of the Megæra on this occasion—16·6 forward and 17·1 aft—was greater than it had been on many previous occasions; and as to the two defects which had been then brought to the notice of the Admiralty—leakage at the main-deck ports and the presence of too much cargo—both were dealt with, and it was with the approval of the officer commanding at Queenstown that the Megæra finally went to sea. Of course, such a matter as the sufficiency of the iron plates of
  1080
  the vessel could not be examined by the Commander-in-Chief there, who would naturally look to the Construction department of the Admiralty at the port from which the ship sailed. 127 tons were taken out of the ship at Queenstown, three more at Ascension, and 55 at the Cape. The vessel could not, therefore, have been too deep in the water when she left the Cape. As to the general character of the ship before her employment upon this service, the Admiralty had reports since 1865 from three captains and two staff commanders, who all agreed that she seemed to be strong and well-built, and that she was a good seaboat in heavy weather. The last of these reports was given in 1870. Admiral Forbes and the captain superintendent at Sheerness both said they had not the slightest doubt as to her seaworthiness, and should have no objection to take a voyage in her themselves. Of her seaworthiness no doubt appeared to have ever been entertained. The noble Viscount had asked what amount of provisions the Megæra was likely to have on board when she left the Cape. The vessel was well provisioned when she left Queenstown; she would replenish at the Cape, and would probably then have as much as when she left Queenstown. She had also on leaving Queenstown her full complement of coals, and would take in more at Ascension and the Cape, so that she would probably have her full complement on leaving the Cape. The noble Viscount had asked who signed the order sending her to sea. He could not undertake to say with precision, and thought he had better defer an answer to this Question. The Admiralty calculated that assistance would reach the crew on the 24th of this month, at which time it was expected the Rinaldo would reach the island from Singapore with provisions; but in any case the Peninsular and Oriental steamer Malacca would arrive at St. Paul's from Hong Kong on the 29th, so that help would certainly arrive at about the end of the month. Fortunately, in addition to her own sails, there were on board other sails for vessels on the Australian station, so that the belief at the Admiralty was that the officers and seamen would find no want of canvas under which to encamp. The important point in connection with the unseaworthiness of the vessel was the thinness of the plates, and Mr. Reed

  1081
  had written a letter in which he stated that in 1866 he inspected the Megæra, and reported her fit for 18 months' service, after certain repairs were executed, arguing that the Admiralty ought, therefore, to have understood that, at the end of the period thus mentioned, the Megæra was not fit to be retained any longer in the service. Now, it frequently happened that estimates were made for the repairs of vessels, and it was said that they would be serviceable for a certain time; but when that time had expired the ship was not condemned, she was put into dock and again reported on; and it was not till then that the question was discussed whether she was or was not worn out. On this particular occasion the officers at Woolwich sent in a supplementary estimate amounting to £250, reporting the bottom to be in good condition, and the plates there three-eighths of an inch thick, but adding that the plates between wind and water all round the vessel were very thin, and that although the officers considered she would, with the repairs recommended, be fit for temporary service, she would require to be doubled in the parts above named. That was the report to the Constructor's department from Woolwich, and upon it the Chief Constructor reported that he had made a careful examination of the ship, and was of opinion that this supplementary estimate should be allowed, as the ship might remain fit for service for eighteen months or two years longer when repaired. Mr. Reed did not say that at the end of that period she would be unfit for further service, and at the end of that term, in the natural course of things, the vessel would be reported on again. What happened? Did Mr. Reed, at the end of 1868, call the attention of the Admiralty to the fact that she was not fit for service any longer, and ought to be condemned? Not at all. In 1868 the Megæra went from Devonport to Rio, from Rio to Ascension; again from Plymouth to Rio, and from Rio to Ascension. In 1869 she went from England to Rio, from Rio to the Falkland Islands and Ascension, and also went to Sierra Leone. In 1870 an estimate was sent from Sheerness for her repair, and £954 was asked for, the officers at Sheerness reporting that the vessel required to be docked, and that her bottom was said to be very thin in many places. They were asked to revise
  1082
  their estimate, which was thought a large one. They did so, and then reported that the bottom was in a better condition than was expected, so that they would be able to reduce the estimate to £787, and that reduced estimate was approved by Mr. Reed. In 1870 the Megæra came into collision with another vessel. Again Mr. Reed directed repairs, and from Sheerness the report came that there were no defects in her machinery, and that she was ready for another year's service; and, in fact, in the course of 1870 she made several voyages to and from Malta. It was much to be regretted that the attention of the Admiralty was not specifically called to the report of the Sheerness officers upon which Mr. Reed said that, if certain repairs were executed, the Megæra would be fit for 18 months' service. It was also to be regretted that this report was never mentioned between 1866 and 1870, during all which years the attention of the Admiralty was called on no one occasion to the fact that her plates were thin. No doubt a Court Martial would be held upon Captain Thrupp; but it had been already stated in "another place" that a most strict inquiry would be made into this most unusual and extraordinary calamity. Of course, at present nothing could be known with certainty as to the cause; but assuming that a hole had come in the centre of one of the plates of the vessel, that was a most unprecedented circumstance, and would form the subject of a most careful and considerate investigation. Until, however, they know with certainty what had caused the leak and the loss of the vessel, it would not be right to indulge in conjectures. He had now stated the facts of the case exactly as they were in the possession of the Admiralty, and in due time he would be prepared to defend the course which they had pursued. In conclusion, he had simply to ask their Lordships to suspend their judgment, for they were as yet unacquainted with the actual circumstances which had led to the loss of the ship. It must be borne in mind that the report of 1866 related to the plates which were near the water-line, and he thought it might be assumed that the defect had occurred somewhere near the bottom of the vessel. If it had occurred near the water-line it would in all probability have been remedied in some such way as to enable

  1083
  her to proceed on her voyage, unless, indeed, it happened to be of a very serious character.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthanked the noble Earl for the candid and straightforward manner in which he had answered the Questions which had been put to him by his noble Friend (Viscount Melville.) He did not, he might add, propose on the present occasion to enter into a discussion on the supposed or probable cause of the very lamentable accident which had befallen the Megæra. He must, however, observe that he thought the conduct of the Admiralty—he would not say what part of it—was most unsatisfactory as regarded that ship. He had not read anything which had been published in the newspapers on the subject, so that he could comment with the utmost impartiality on the statement which their Lordships had just heard. According to the noble Earl's own showing, the Megæra had been examined in 1866, and was then reported to be capable of eighteen months' or two years' service with repairs. That would bring her down to the middle of 1868, and she afterwards performed voyages in various parts of the globe, and the noble Earl had read several reports to show that up to 1870 she was considered to be seaworthy. In 1870, however, so far as he could see, was to be found the origin of the whole mischief. In that year a report was sent to the Admiralty describing certain defects in her, it being stated, among other things, that she was thin in various places.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It was said that her bottom was stated to be very thin in various places; but that when she was put into dock it was found to be better than had been expected.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDobserved that the impression which had been conveyed to him by the statement of the noble Earl was that a report had been sent into the Admiralty to the effect that the vessel was believed to be thin in various places. That being so, an estimate was made for her repair, but that estimate was pronounced to be excessive.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It was simply ordered to be re-considered.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: But with a view, he apprehended to its being reduced, not increased. The estimate was reduced and the repairs were effected,
  1084
  and then she was looked upon as being capable of doing only one year's service. Now, that he regarded as an unfortunate circumstance, and as one which might perhaps have led to the disaster which their Lordships and the country now so much deplored.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXpointed out that the estimate was reduced in 1870 because it was found that the whole of the repairs for which it had been made were not necessary. When the vessel was taken into dock it was discovered that her bottom was in a much better condition than had been expected, and she was, after the repairs had been executed, reported to be fit for special service and quite seaworthy. It was, of course, impossible at the present to say what the precise cause of the accident was, and he hoped their Lordships would therefore suspend their judgment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it was quite clear the Megæra was a suspected vessel in 1870, and that when it was reported that her bottom was thin, and an estimate was sent in for the purpose of repairing it, the officers of the department were instructed to re-consider that estimate. He must also remark that throughout the course of the discussions on the subject the duty of the Government, or the responsible officers of the Crown, appeared to be thrown on the irresponsible or permanent officers. The Government tried to defend themselves by referring to the reports of competent men, on whose advice they contended they were bound to rely. The weakness of that defence would, however, be at once perceived when it was remembered how matters really stood. The permanent officers were made distinctly to understand that they must reconsider their original estimate; it was re-considered, and a year after a hole was found in the bottom of the ship. Of course the work might be done at a cheaper rate and yet done well; but it was not at all improbable that the reports of the officers were biassed by the knowledge that they would best please their superiors by reducing the estimate. The case, indeed, afforded another instance of that false economy which, at an early period of their existence, the Government deemed it necessary to pursue. He could not help thinking that the course of retrenchment on which they had entered in consequence of the

  1085
  pledges which had been given when they were last before the country had had a very injurious effect on the two services, the Megæra being one of the subjects on which they operated. It was but too probable that the political necessities of noble Lords opposite in 1868, and the unfortunate policy which resulted from them, were the causes which led to the present disaster.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the original estimate for repairing of the Megæra was £954, and the revised estimate £787, and the noble Marquess assumed that the small difference between these two sums led to the loss of the Megæra.

ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENARY AND MUNICIPAL) BILL.
(The Lord President.)
ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENARY AND MUNICIPAL) BILL.

  FIRST READING. NOTICE.
  Bill brought from the Commons; read 1a.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I beg to give Notice that on the Motion for the second reading of this Bill I shall move that it be read a second time that day six months. I shall do so, not on the merits of the question, but because the Bill comes up to us at a time of the year when it is impossible we can give it fair consideration.
  Bill to be read 2a on Thursday next. (No. 308.)
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, 'till Thursday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.