Lords Sitting of 15 May 1874

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Thurlow, after the death of his brother.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Parochial Records (Ireland) * (68).
Second Reading—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation* (52).
Report—Real Property Limitation * (39): Land Titles and Transfer* (17); Real Property Vendors and Purchasers * (55); Boundaries of Archdeaconries and Rural Deaneries* (28); Betting* (47).
Third Reading—Colonial Clergy * (43); Consolidated Fund (£13,000,000),* and passed.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS—GELLIGAER SCHOOL.

  HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
  THE LORD STEWARD OF THE HOUSEHOLD (The EARL BEAUCHAMP)reported The Queen's Answer to the Address of Friday last, as follows:—
  "MY LORDS,
  "I have received your Address, praying that I will refuse my assent to the proviso in the 56th clause of the Scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, for the management of the Foundation of Edward Lewis for a school at Gelligaer, in the county of Glamorgan, and for other charitable objects.
  "I will withhold my assent from the proviso in conformity with your desire."

SLIGO, LEITRIM, AND NORTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY BILL.

  MOTION FOR RE-COMMITTAL.
  THE EARL OF BANDONmoved that the Bill be re-committed. The Select Committee before whom it had been sent, felt, in the absence of any Standing Order on the subject, that they were not entitled to inquire into the nature and extent of the opposition to the guarantee clauses which the Bill contained. It had, however, been the practice of Parliament for the last 25 years to sanction such guarantees in all cases in which they were in accordance with the wishes of the counties interested. Without them some of the most useful railways in Ireland would not have been made, and he therefore hoped that the House would allow the Bill to be re-committed in order that the Committee might inquire into the nature and extent of the opposition to the guarantee proposed to be given by it.
  Moved to resolve, That whereas the Committee to which the Sligo, Leitrim, and Northern Counties Railway Bill was referred, have, in the absence of any Standing Order on the subject, not felt themselves bound to inquire into the nature and extent of the opposition to the guarantee clauses; and whereas the practice of Parliament for twenty-five years has been to sanction such guarantees in cases where they have been shown to be the general wish of the counties interested, it is expedient that the said Bill be re-committed with a view to further inquiry into the nature and extent of the opposition to the guarantee.—(The Earl of Bandon.)
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, that he was a member of the Select Committee before whom the Bill came. When they came to the consideration of the guarantee clauses, they found that in no case had any guarantee been sanctioned to which opposition of a bonâ fide character had been offered. They further found that the opposition to the guarantee in question was of that kind. Nevertheless, looking to the importance of opening up railway communication in Ireland, he was quite prepared to vote for the recommittal of the Bill, if it should appear to their Lordships that such a course was desirable.
  LORD WAVENEYquestioned whether the Irish grand juries had any legal power to bind the ratepayers to guarantees. He thought the House should not consent to the re-committal of the Bill unless the consideration of the Committee were limited to the merits of the Bill.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he fully admitted the usefulness of guarantees in the case of Irish railways, but he thought that if this Bill were re-committed for the purpose of inquiry into the nature of the opposition to the guarantee clauses, they were bound to give the ratepayers, who were to be made liable to the guarantee, every opportunity of making known to the Committee their opinions in respect to it. Further, he thought their Lordships would do well to establish some principle on which these guarantees might be given, so as to have some rules to guide them when Bills of this nature came before them for their sanction.
  LORD REDESDALEwished to point out that in all cases where it was proposed to re-commit a Bill the form of the Motion simply was that the Bill be re-committed to the same or some other Committee. The Preamble of the Resolution was, therefore, objectionable, and the admissions of the noble Lord (Viscount Enfield) furnished the strongest arguments that could be urged against it. He had every desire to conform to the wish of the House, but at the same time they should be extremely cautious how they upset the decision of a Committee when once arrived at after due inquiry.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not think that their Lordships ought to recommit this Bill. Many of them, no doubt, differed from the conclusion to which the Committee had come; but, on the other hand many railways in Ireland would not have been, nor would be, made but for a guarantee. He wished, however, to guard himself against expressing any opinion on the important question whether guarantees should be sanctioned or not. He would suggest that the Government should institute an inquiry as to whether guarantees should be given or not in any case, and if so, under what conditions. He thought that the Select Committees should have some general principles to act upon when they had to consider the question of guarantees.
  LORD COLCHESTER, as a member of the Select Committee, who considered the Bill, said, he thought the re-committal of the Bill would be advisable. The Committee came to a Resolution that there ought to be strong reasons on the ground of public policy for sanctioning a guarantee; and the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp) who presided
  308
  over the Committee said that interest ought to be national, and not merely local. The Committee did not hear the evidence of the opponents of the Bill, and he himself was strongly in favour of a re-committal of it.
  LORD CARLINGFORDconsidered that the action of the Committee was unsatisfactory, mainly because it proceeded upon principles and assumptions which appeared to be erroneous, and which had never been accepted by Parliament. The Committee seemed to have been afraid of making a precedent, while in fact they had made one, and this, a precedent which, if followed, would render the system of guarantees, in constructing Irish railways quite impossible. He felt bound to express his conviction that the majority of the Committee had for the first time laid down a new principle for application to Irish railways—namely, that the ratepayers of a county should be almost or quite unanimous in favour of a guarantee before it should be sanctioned.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that he regretted he had to trouble their Lordships again in reference to this Bill, but he must repeat what he said on a former evening, that it did appear to the majority of the Committee that there was a great difference of opinion amongst the ratepayers in regard to this guarantee, and that therefore it should not be sanctioned. The Committee had made no new precedent; but if they had reported in favour of the Bill they would have made a novel and dangerous precedent. He considered that the ratepayers should be protected, and that the ratepayers who had opposed this Bill should not be put to the trouble and expense of opposing it a second time. He could see no reason why the Bill should be re-committed, and therefore he hoped that their Lordships would not agree to the Motion.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMpointed out that the county town of Leitrim would be 35 miles distant from this proposed railway, and that in fact the railway would be of little or no advantage to the county. He should oppose the Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Then it was moved that the said Bill be re-committed to the same Select Committee.
  On Question? their Lordships divided; Contents 59, Not-Contents 54: Majority 5.
  Resolved in the affirmative: Bill recommitted accordingly.

  PAROCHIAL RECORDS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make provision for keeping safety certain Parochial Records in Ireland—Was presented by The Earl of BELMORE; read 1a. (No. 68.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.