Lords Sitting of 6 May 1872

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Appellate Jurisdiction, nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Reformatory and Industrial Schools (No. 2)* (98).
Second Reading—Pensions* (93).
Report—Royal Parks and Gardens* (79); Church Seats* (97)

PACIFIC ISLANDERS PROTECTION BILL. MURDER OF BISHOP PATTESON
  EXPLANATION
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he wished to make an explanation in reference to a few words used by him on Friday evening, when moving the second reading of the Pacific Islanders Protection Bill. He was understood to have said that the commander of the Rosario had fired on the Natives in the Island of Nukapu in order to avenge the death of Bishop Patteson. That statement was not correct. The commander entirely disclaimed the idea that he went to the island to avenge the death of Bishop Patteson. What occurred after the arrival of the Rosario was stated to have taken place in consequence of a poisoned arrow from the shores having wounded one of the boat's crew. The Papers on the subject would shortly be laid before the House, and their Lordships would have an opportunity of arriving at their own conclusions.
TREATY OF WASHINGTON. TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA).

  THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.
  ADDRESS (EARL RUSSELL). POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, before going to the Orders of the Day I hope your Lordships will allow me to renew an appeal I have already made to my noble Friend (Earl Russell) whose Motion stands first on your Minutes. Your Lordships will remember that last Monday my noble Friend postponed his Motion till to-day, in order to give your Lordships time for more consideration. Your Lordships will not have forgotten that on Thursday I stated to your Lordships that we had received from Mr. Fish an answer to my Note of the 20th of March. I described the character of that answer; and I also added that although I could give no positive assurance to the House, yet Her Majesty's Government had grounds for hoping that a settlement would be arrived at which would be satisfactory to the country. At that time, my Lords, I acknowledged the great forbearance shown by this House—and certainly I might have added the great forbearance which the House of Commons had also shown—and I expressed a hope that for a short time
  268
  longer that forbearance would be extended. I had some hope that my noble Friend (Earl Russell) would give an intimation that he intended to postpone, at all events for a few days, the Motion of which he had given Notice. I appealed to my noble Friend in private, as I now do in public, not to press his Motion to-day. My Lords, it is a very painful thing for me personally, as your Lordships will understand, that there should be a Motion on your Minutes in the name of my noble Friend that Motion being a Want of Confidence in Her Majesty's Government. I may add that it is also extremely painful that such a Motion being on the Minutes of your Lordships' House, I should be in the position of trying to have that Motion postponed instead of being in a position to encourage its being brought forward at the earliest possible moment. But we are dealing with a very large and a very important question of an international character, and personal feeling is entirely out of the question. It is our bounden obligation to act as we think our public duty requires; and therefore I do not scruple to tell my noble Friend that in my opinion, and in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, it would be adverse to the public interest that the matter should be discussed to-day, when your Lordships have not got that information which the Papers that must be in a short time presented to your Lordships will give, and also when Her Majesty's Government, through a sense of duty, would be prevented from taking a full part in the debate. My noble Friend has been good enough to answer me that it is already announced that this House will adjourn on the 13th of this month and will not meet again till the end of the month; and he remarked that a fortnight after the latter time has been appointed for the meeting of the Arbitrators at Geneva. Your Lordships will remember that on Thursday a noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) put a Question to me as to what day I could fix for laying the Papers on the Table, or making a statement. He asked that Question without Notice—under the circumstances it would have been impossible for him to give Notice—I answered—what indeed was obvious—that in negotiations of this sort it was impossible to specify the exact day on which we should be prepared to make an announcement

  269
  to Parliament. My Lords, I believe your Lordships did not think that was an unreasonable answer. On the other hand, I do feel that it was not a mere phrase when I thanked your Lordships for the forbearance you have shown. But there are limits to that reticence which we think it our public duty to observe, and which we think, so far, has been useful to the public service—and we doubt whether it would be fair to ask Parliament to separate for any long time at this moment, while leaving you entirely in the dark with regard to the state of affairs. I have therefore to state to your Lordships that I shall be prepared before Parliament separates either to present Papers or to make a statement as to the position and prospects of the negotiations now going on. I can hardly think that under those circumstances my noble Friend will refuse to listen to my appeal—for I am confident that noble Lords on both sides of the House would rather pique themselves on their fairness to the Government, and would be disposed to give it their best assistance when it has to deal with grave international questions.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I gave Notice of my Motion for the 22nd of April. I then put off the Motion to that day week—the 29th. On the latter day, when I found that the despatch had only just arrived, I further postponed my Motion till this day. In the interval before this day arrived I found my noble Friend (Earl Granville) had given Notice that on the 13th—which is just one week from this time—he would propose the Adjournment of the House for more than a fortnight. Now he tells us that on the 13th he will either make a statement or lay the Papers on the Table of the House. My Lords, I am sorry to say that I do not think such an announcement meets what is due to Parliament. It appears to me that if the Papers were laid on the Table, or any arrangement were come to that they should be produced on the 13th, it would be quite impossible that the House, adjourning on the same day for more than a fortnight, could pronounce any opinion on the arrangement come to or on the nature of the Papers produced. It might happen that your Lordships would agree with the arrangement made, or that you might think it a compromise which did not appear to be consistent with the
  270
  honour and the interests of this country. If my noble Friend would say that he will not propose the Adjournment till some later day than the 13th, I imagine the House would approve the arrangement proposed. This is a very important question, and one on which the Government have expressed a very decided opinion. If they were now to give way and make an unworthy compromise such a course would occasion great anxiety and, I may say, would excite great indignation in the country. Unless, therefore, my noble Friend proposes to alter the day for the Adjournment, I shall feel it my duty to proceed with my Motion.
  EARL GRANVILLE: In any difficulty I have ever experienced in the course of my long connection with your Lordships' House, I believe I may say that I never have been guilty of anything that could be thought unfair; and I have no hesitation in saying that if it is the generally expressed wish of the House that after any declaration which I hope to make, or after laying the Papers on the Table, we should not adjourn for a few days later than was suggested, I, for one, as a matter of convenience to your Lordships, should not be disposed to throw any obstacle in the way.
  EARL GREY: Before my noble Friend's Motion is postponed, I hope my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary will give some assurance that in the meantime no course will be adopted by the Government which will pledge the country to any mode of proceeding inconsistent with the course sketched out in the Motion of my noble Friend (Earl Russell).
  LORD REDESDALE: I think it would be a great convenience if your Lordships were to come to a decision as to whether the discussion on this subject should be taken before the holidays or after. You might say that you would not adjourn before Friday week, in order that the debate might be held on Thursday week. I cannot help referring to the Notice which I have given on the subject of these Claims, and to which I called the attention of the Government last year, and also since the commencement of the present Session. If the question which I raised were brought into the Arbitration, it would precede the consideration of any question of damages whatever.

  271
  It is one as to the right of the American Government to demand damages for acts committed by or on behalf of the South during the war now that the North and South have united. I have abstained from any interference in the hope that something would be done to render it unnecessary; but I think this negotiation is now drifting into a hopeless state, and I beg to say that I have not relinquished my intention of bringing the question again before your Lordships.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: May I ask the noble Earl (Earl Granville) whether he can undertake, for himself and his Colleagues, that the Papers shall be delivered on Monday next? There is now a proposition that we should not adjourn till Friday week; and if the Papers were produced on Monday, so as to be distributed on Tuesday morning, we should still have time to consider, and, if necessary, to discuss them before the holidays. That is an arrangement which I think everyone would feel to be satisfactory. A shorter interval than that would not be convenient. It is certainly desirable to discuss the question with the Papers rather than without them. At the same time, it is clear that if we only had them 24 hours before the Adjournment that would be useless for the particular purpose we have in view.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I will either present the Papers or make a full statement of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, so that the House may be in full possession of the state of things before it is called upon to express any opinion.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What we desire is, not only to be in possession of the Papers, but to have time to discuss them before we separate for the holidays. I hope my noble Friend will assure the House that he will not only present the Papers on Monday, but that they will be in such a state as to be ready for distribution on Tuesday morning.
  EARL GRANVILLE: At the earliest moment I will either submit the Papers or make a statement as to the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government. I beg your Lordships not to suppose that I have the slightest wish to preclude the House from discussing the question should it think fit to do so.
  LORD CAIRNS: There is still some difficulty, notwithstanding that the noble
  272
  Earl has replied to more than one Question. When the noble Earl first addressed your Lordships I understood him, while adverting to the circumstance that the House was to adjourn on Monday, to undertake that he would either lay the Papers on the Table or make a full statement with respect to the negotiations before we separate. Now, if it is proposed that the question of the Adjournment of the House should be kept open, and that the House, if necessary, should sit until Thursday or Friday in next week, I ask him whether he will adhere to his original promise and either make his statement or put us in possession of the Papers on Monday. If he does that, then I think there will be ample time to propose any Resolution that may be necessary.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I have to apologize to the House if I did not make myself understood. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the answer which the noble and learned Lord assumes to be my answer is the correct one; but I wish your Lordships to understand that I do not propose to postpone the Adjournment unless it should be the general wish of your Lordships.
  EARL RUSSELL: As I understand, my noble Friend (Earl Granville) is prepared to say that before the House is adjourned he will either produce the Papers or make a statement as to the negotiations; and that if your Lordships should be disposed to think that you ought not to separate immediately for so long a period as he proposes, that then he will yield to the wish of the House, and allow a discussion upon the new terms which, we imagine, are to be proposed by the Government. If that is the understanding, I think I should be taking too much on myself if I were to bring on my Motion to-day, and not allow my noble Friend the short time he asks for in order to make a statement which may be an announcement of the termination of this unfortunate difficulty. However, it is always to be recollected that my noble Friend, on the 12th of June last year, declared to this House solemnly and decidedly that the whole of these Indirect Claims were swept away, and that they no longer formed part of the new agreement, although they might have been admissible under a previous one. It should also be recollected

  273
  that my noble Friend was one of the Ministers who advised Her Majesty in a document of the gravest form—in her Speech to Parliament at the opening of the present Session—to declare that Claims were put into the American Case which we understood not to be part of the Treaty. If my noble Friend will say that he adheres to those words—if he will abide by the assertion that the Treaty of last year put an end to the Indirect Claims—and if he will say that, adhering to those declarations, the Government will make no engagement inconsistent with them, I shall be prepared to postpone my Motion.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I have answered a good many Questions to-night; but in reply to my noble Friend, I may say that I am not aware that there is anything in the statement he has just made to which I object. I am perfectly ignorant myself of any intention of departing from any declaration I have made either last year or this on the subject of the Washington Treaty. The only thing I wish to guard myself against is the idea that I shall produce anything new at the end of this week or the beginning of next.
  EARL RUSSELL: I only wish, with your Lordships' leave, to refresh my noble Friend's memory as to what he said on the 12th of June last year. These were his words on that occasion—
  "These were pretensions which might have been carried out under the former arbitration; but they entirely disappear under the limited reference—which includes merely complaints arising out of the escape of the Alabama."—[3 Hansard, ccvi. 1852.]
  If my noble Friend adheres to those words, I am content, and am quite ready to postpone my Motion.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I do not wish to seem wanting in the slightest degree in respect to my noble Friend, and therefore, even at the risk of wasting your Lordships' time, I beg to repeat the answer I have already given, that there is nothing I said, either last year or this, which I wish to retract or in any way modify.
  EARL RUSSELL: I will, then, postpone my Motion until this day week, on the understanding that either then or before that time my noble Friend will be prepared to state the exact condition of the negotiations.

RAILWAYS—TELEGRAPH BLOCK SYSTEM.

  MOTION FOE RETURNS.
  LORD BUCKHURST, in moving for returns relating to the use of telegraph block systems on Railways, said, he would ask their Lordships' attention for a very few moments to the subject in connection with railway accidents. In the Report of the Board of Trade laid on the Table of their Lordships' House last Session, and which contained an investigation into a considerable number of railway accidents, very frequent allusion was made to the telegraph block system as a great safeguard against accidents. Their Lordships were probably aware that the object of what was known as the telegraph block system was to secure intervals of space between trains following one another instead of intervals of time; and it is worthy of remark that out of 61 accidents by collisions of following trains noticed in the Report, 36 were more or less attributable to a want of securing better intervals of space. He might, perhaps, read the words of Captain Tyler in the Report—
  "The principle of securing intervals of space in place of time intervals between trains, which has now become generally known as the block system, is one improvement on which much has of late been said, and the extension of which the inspecting officers have had occasion constantly, and too much in vain, to recommend during many years,"
  It was also very noticeable in the Report—though he did not wish to lay too much stress on this point, as there might be other causes—but it was certainly remarkable that on those lines where this system was most completely adopted there were fewer accidents by collisions of trains. On the South-Eastern line, where this system was made use of, no accident was mentioned as requiring investigation; while on some other lines which had not this mode of securing intervals of space, a very large number of accidents were recorded. As their Lordships were so frequently engaged on questions relating to railways, he had ventured to suggest that the information which this Return would supply might not be without its use. He begged to move for a Return of Railways in the United Kingdom, showing those which are worked by telegraph block systems.
  Motion agreed to.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

  NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  LORD CAIRNS LORD CAIRNS moved that the Lords following be named of the Select Committee on Appellate Jurisdiction:—

  Ld. Chancellor.

  L. Rosebery.

  Ld. President.

  L. Chelmsford.

  D. Somerset.

  L. Lyveden.

  D. Richmond.

  L. Westbury.

  M. Salisbury.

  L. Houghton.

  E. Derby.

  L. Romilly.

  E. Stanhope.

  L. Colonsay.

  E. Powis.

  L. Cairns.

  E. Grey.

  L. Penzance.

  E. Morley.

  L. Acton.

  E. Beauchamp.

  L. O'Hagan.

  L. Brodrick.

  L. Blachford.

  L. Redesdale.

  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not reasonably object to the name of any noble or learned Lord who took an interest in the subject; but he could not help remarking that the Committee as proposed by his noble and learned Friend would have 14 noble Lords from one side, against 11 from the other. The crowded state of the benches on the Opposition side of the House indicated that the subject was treated more as a party question than as a matter for deliberate judgment; and he could not but remark further that of the Members selected from the Government side of the House there were two noble and learned Lords who had expressed themselves strongly against his proposition.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, the list of the Committee had been prepared after the usual communications between the two sides of the House. There was no intention on his part to do anything unfair.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought the objection made by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack a reasonable one, and suggested that the nomination of the Committee should be postponed till to-morrow.
  LORD CAIRNSprotested against three things which had been done by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. First, it was out of Order to speak a second time in the same debate. In the second place, his noble and learned Friend was out of Order in referring to what occurred in a former debate. In the third place, his noble and learned Friend had no right to say that the crowded state of the Opposition benches on Tuesday evening showed that the opposition
  276
  to his Bill was a party one. He now told his noble and learned Friend that he conscientiously believed he could not have found 20 Peers on the Government side of the House who did not disapprove his Bill.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would like to know how the noble and learned Lord had arrived at that result if he had not made any inquiries as to who were likely to oppose the Government on this question?
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he was sorry the noble Earl should have interrupted him by so irrelevant a question. He repeated that the list of names had been prepared in accordance with the usual custom in such cases.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he must join in the protest against the accusation made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The Opposition had not regarded the question of appellate jurisdiction as a party subject—the Bill of the noble and learned Lord had been condemned because it appeared to noble Lords to be an objectionable and a bad measure. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) and those who supported him were justified by the fact that not a single noble Lord on the Government side had said a word in favour of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYhoped it would not be assumed that every Member of the Committee who came from the Opposition side of the House would oppose all schemes for the improvement of appellate jurisdiction. He also trusted that the practice adopted when "packed juries" were required would not be introduced in that House.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the very thing he objected to was a jury packing system. He thought the proposed Committee bore a party complexion.
  THE EARL OF DERBYobjected to the assumption that this question of appellate jurisdiction was one of a battle between two parties. The inquiry of the Committee was not to be limited to the scheme of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but was to embrace the whole subject of appellate jurisdiction.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had to express his gratitude for the information the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had just given him and the House—namely, that this was not a

  277
  party question. Certainly, from the state of the Opposition benches on the Tuesday night, and from the speech of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns), in which it was suggested that his Bill would be regarded as the first step towards the abolition of the House of Lords, one might have been pardoned for supposing that the debate on his Resolution and his Bill was a party one, and that the subject itself was looked upon in the same light by his noble and learned Friend and those who usually acted with him.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, he would remind the noble Duke that at an early period of the discussion his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack accepted the proposal to refer the subject to a Select Committee.
  LORD CHELMSFORDdesired to ask what was the Question now before the House? It was a mistake to suppose that noble Lords on the Opposition side were opposed to an inquiry into the subject of appellate jurisdiction; but the great majority of their Lordships were determined to retain for that House its appellate jurisdiction till something better was devised.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, the Constitution invested their Lordships' House with an appellate jurisdiction, and he did not see why that jurisdiction should not be retained. He trusted that there would be no foregone conclusion, and that the ancient appellate jurisdiction of this House, which had worked well, and in which the people had full confidence, would not be abolished in a hasty and summary manner.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, their Lordships would be glad to learn that a noble Lord (Viscount Ossington) of the highest competency was willing to serve on the Committee, and he should therefore have great pleasure in moving that Lord Ossington's name should be added to the list of names proposed.
  Motion agreed to.
  And, on Tuesday, the 7th instant, The Viscount Ossington added.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.