Lords Sitting of 22 June 1876

MINUTES.
Public Bills—First Reading—Local Light Dues (Reduction)* (132); Waterford, New Ross, and Wexford Junction Railway (Sale)* (133), and referred to the Examiners; Wild Fowl Preservation* (134); Slave Trade (135); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bingley, &c.)* (136), and referred to the Examiners; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bilbrough, &c.)* (137), and referred to the Examiners.
Second Reading—Bankruptcy (106); Metropolitan Commons (Barnes)* (119); Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse) Improvement Scheme Confirmation* (120); Local Government Provisional Orders, Aberavon, &c. (No. 7)* (108); Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Wemyss)* (109); Coroners (Dublin)* (102); Admiralty Jurisdiction (Ireland)* ( ).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Army Corps Training* (128).
Committee—Burghs (Division into Wards) (Scotland) Amendment* (116); Smithfield Prison (Dublin)* (117); Kingstown Harbour* (103).
Committee—Report—Trade Marks Registration Amendment* (121).
Third Reading—Ecclesiastical Offices and Fees* (123), and passed.

PRIVATE BILLS—GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNcomplained that there was not sufficient Notice of the second reading of Private Bills. It was only by accident that he found this Bill in the list of those set down for second reading on Monday last. It stood on the Paper as practically an unopposed Bill, but it was one which deserved, their Lordships serious attention. The Companies to be amalgamated under the Bill as the Gas Light and Coke Company had attained very large dimensions; in the course of a few years it had contrived to absorb almost all its neighbours, and would now extend its operations over three-fourths of the metropolis. Its capital was at present very considerably over £8,000,000 sterling; and in the Bill power was taken
  228
  to increase that capital by £2,000,000—one-half in share capital and one-half in the form of loan or mortgage. The standard rate of dividend under this Bill was fixed at 10 per cent. That was provided by Clause 10. By Clause 19 it was provided that the initial standard price of the gas should be 3s. 9d. per 1,000 cubic feet. Regard being had to the price charged for the gas, the Company would be enabled to pay a dividend beyond the standard of 10 percent; for it had been shown by competent authority that 3s. 9d. per 1,000 cubic feet would give a dividend of 10 per cent; and it might be that by lowering the price below the initial standard of 3s. 9d. there would be a consumption which would enable the Company to pay much more than 10 per cent—perhaps 15 or even 20. Therefore, the effect of raising so much of the additional capital by the issue of new shares instead of by loan would be to raise the amount on which compensation must be paid by any public body which at a future time and in the interest of the public might purchase up the Gas and Water Companies. It was true there was a provision in the Bill that the new shares must be put up to public auction, and that would afford some protection to the public, but it was not a sufficient safeguard. If, as was very possible, the new shares should be sold at a premium, he could not see why the amount required by the Company should not be raised by loan. The Board of Trade addressed a letter to Mr. Forster, the Chairman of the Committee that was inquiring into this subject, recommending that the borrowed capital should not exceed one-third of the share capital of a Company. It was not for their Lordships to say how the Company should raise additional capital, but he thought that what they now did would be used as a precedent for the future; but why should they in this Bill guarantee a fixed dividend? The Board of Trade pointed out that it was as much to the interest of Companies to increase their capital as it was the interest of the public that they should not increase it. But if a dividend was to be guaranteed, why should it be at so high an initial rate? It might be said that 3s. 9d. was the sum sanctioned by Mr. Forster's Committee; but he maintained that their Lordships' House was in no way precluded from expressing an opinion, on the point, and that as

  229
  Bills such as this formed precedents it would be advisable for the House to do so. On looking through the Gas Bills from various parts of the country which had come before their Lordships' House recently, he observed that where the supply of gas was in the hands of private Companies the tendency was to raise additional capital by the issue of shares; but when it was in the hands of public corporations the tendency was to raise additional capital by way of loan. The Board of Trade recommended that where additional capital was required it should be raised by loan and not by the issue of new shares; and he (the Earl of Camperdown) was of opinion that articles of the first necessity, like gas and water, should be supplied in as pure a form and as cheaply as possible, and that this end could best be attained by their being supplied by bodies that had no interest in making a profit out of them. In any case they had a right to demand that these articles should not be supplied at a rate of profit which appeared to be extravagant. Having brought the matter before the House, he would suggest that a Committee of their Lordships' House ought to draw up resolutions expressing the views of the House as to the way additional capital should be raised by Gas and Water Companies and as to minimum or maximum rates of dividend.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he did not concur with the noble Earl in the opinion that there was not sufficient Notice of the second reading of Private Bills, but he did concur with him in most of the observations he had made on the Bill now before their Lordships. When it first came before him he made a note on the clause providing for the raising of further capital, that the Company should not be allowed to raise money otherwise than by borrowing. If raised by shares a much larger sum might have to be paid in the way of dividends—which by the Bill were allowed to exceed 10 per cent—than would be paid upon it if it were borrowed:—money could be obtained by this company readily at 4 or 4½ per cent. He thought the arrangement by which the metropolitan Companies were allowed to have a guaranteed dividend very objectionable. That, however, could not be helped now, because the precedent was laid down years ago; but it was quite open to their Lordships to
  230
  object to the mode in which it was proposed under the Bill to raise the additional capital of the Company. To limit the issue of further shares for this purpose would in no way damage existing shareholders. On the contrary, it would be much to their advantage that additional shares should not be issued, as they would sooner be able to get the larger dividend, whereby the public were to gain by a reduction in price.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONthought the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) had done good service in calling attention to this question; but, at the same time, he hoped he would not interpose any further obstacle to the progress of the Bill. The object of the Bill, which had come up to their Lordships as an unopposed Bill, was to enable the Chartered Gas Company to purchase additional land. When the project was brought forward the President of the Board of Trade saw that it was likely to give rise to protracted and expensive litigation. He accordingly invited the Companies concerned—the Imperial Gas Company, the Independent Gas Company, and the Chartered Gas Company—to meet and discuss the question. He also invited the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Corporation of London, as the representatives of the public and the consumers, to join in the deliberations, and the result of the negotiation and discussion was the compromise embodied in the Bill then before their Lordships. He thought, therefore, that it would be unwise, and he might say unjust, to now stop the further progress of the Bill. The passage of this Bill would secure one point of considerable importance. It was very inconvenient and a great disadvantage to consumers that gas should be supplied in one district by several different Companies: the premises of one firm in the West-end of London were at present lighted by three different Companies. Now this Bill would place three-fourths of the metropolis under one Company. Moreover, purity, uniform pressure, and illuminating power were all promoted by the amalgamation of Gas Companies. He could not go the length to which his noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown) went in the advocacy of raising additional capital by loan rather than by the issue of additional shares. He was

  231
  not sure that it was in all cases advisable to encourage the execution of undertakings by borrowed money—the principle might be carried too far, because Companies, like individuals, lowered their credit by going into the market to borrow money. Hitherto it had been the practice to limit the borrowing powers to one-fourth of the capital, and with regard to Railway Companies to one-third. He was far from saying that in cases of this kind the money should not be borrowed; but they ought not to adopt such a resolution in the present state of things without great care and caution. Again, it must be remembered that if in this Bill the limit of a 10 per cent dividend fixed by the Act of 1847 would be done away with as far as this Company was concerned, the Company could only raise its dividend beyond that sum when it lowered the initial standard of price, and therefore the consumer would benefit by the provisions in the Bill. He doubted whether it would be for the benefit of the consumers that the Gas and Water Companies should be bought up by public corporations. Under all the circumstances, he trusted their Lordships would read the Bill a second time.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEthought that a case had been made out for the postponement of the Bill. The arrest of the Bill at this stage of it would not interfere with the vested interest of the Company, as they now came only for new powers; but he would suggest to his noble Friend that he should move for a Committee to draw up regulations which should be followed when any of these Bills came before the House; and that this Bill should be either postponed or referred to a Select Committee to consider it more fully; and that any other Bills of the same nature should be treated in the same manner.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that for a long time Parliament considered that the public were sufficiently protected by the principle of competition; but that idea had been exploded, and now Private Bills were, to a certain extent, watched by the Government, acting on behalf of the public. Still, from the case brought forward by his noble Friend it appeared that the interests of the public in the metropolis were not sufficiently watched by any public authority. He did not
  232
  think that the Board of Works need have acquiesced in the creation of this very large number of new shares, but that they should have insisted on the Company borrowing the money required, which they could have easily done at 5 per cent. The creation of new shares would impose a great liability upon the consumers, and on the ratepayers when the time came for the purchase of these Companies. He preferred having one large Gas Company to a number of smaller ones, who could break up the streets at any time they might please to do so.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, from what he had heard he could not believe that the Board of Trade and the Metropolitan authorities had so completely failed to protect the consumers as that it should be necessary to take the unusual course either of postponing or rejecting this Bill at this stage of it. At the same time, as considerable doubts had been expressed with regard to some of the provisions of the Bill, and particularly on the question as to the best mode in which authority should be given for raising this large amount of capital, he submitted that was a question which could be considered in Committee. He hoped that his noble Friend would not press his opposition further, but that he would allow the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that he understood that the Bill was unopposed.
  LORD CARLINGFORD: No, there were two Petitions against it.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that these Petitions related to the taking of land only, and not to the principle of the Bill, and it would be perfectly competent to their Lordships to deal with the Bill when it came back from the Select Committee. The Company had already borrowed all the money allowed under their Act in proportion to their capital, and he thought that the Bill required to be narrowly watched whether it came before himself or not. The House should declare how the Company was to raise the money required.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the analogy which had been drawn between Companies lowering their credit by borrowing like individuals did not seem quite correct, since the Gas Companies would borrow in

  233
  order to increase the area from which they would raise dividends.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, in reference to the statement of the noble Duke that this Bill was a compromise between the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Company in the presence of the Board of Trade, he would remind their Lordships that they were not a party to that compromise, and that they had power to say whether the terms of that compromise were objectionable or not. It was also said that the dividends would not be at a fixed rate; but he would observe that they were not to be less than 10 per cent unless the gas should be supplied at a figure higher than 3s. 9d. per 1,000 feet—therefore, practically, they were sanctioning minimum dividends at the rate of 10 per cent, and those dividends might be very much enhanced. He contended that the consumers were not sufficiently protected, and believed that gas could be produced at a much cheaper rate. Their Lordships could now sanction a scheme which would enable the Company to raise the money which they wanted at 5 per cent, and that would be far better than sanctioning a scheme which would give the Company power to create shares and pay dividends upon them at the rate of 10 per cent. The Company asked to be allowed to raise their capital by the sum of £2,000,000 sterling He was willing to withdraw his opposition to the second reading provided it were distinctly understood that their Lordships were to have an opportunity of considering this Bill at a future stage. In that understanding he would also include the South Metropolitan Companies Bill, which was almost as objectionable as the present one—orperhaps more so. To refer this Bill to a Select Committee would be almost useless; and the question was one which would be more properly dealt with by their Lordships than by a Select Committee. It really raised the whole question of gas legislation. He thought that the question of raising capital by these Companies might be raised by submitting Resolutions to the House, where they might be discussed and settled.
  Motion agreed to:—Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed; The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

BANKRUPTCY BILL.(No. 106.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
BANKRUPTCY BILL.(No. 106.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD HATHERLEYsaid, that there were two grievances connected with the former law on bankruptcy—one was that a bankrupt was allowed to be discharged upon payment of a very moderate dividend, or no dividend at all, through the influence of some favourable creditors; and the other was that a bankrupt's property was entrusted to hands unworthy of that trust, and who took care to retain for their own benefit a large proportion of the bankrupt's property. There was also the grievance that bankrupts could take the initiative, and by good management and the influence of friends easily become "whitewashed." As he mentioned on the last occasion, of 8,000 or 9,000 only 200 or 300 had paid any dividend at all. The Act of 1869, therefore, left every initiatory step in bankruptcy to the creditors, and no man could be discharged from his debts until he paid 10s. in the pound, unless the majority in number and three-fourths in value of his creditors passed a resolution, at a properly convened meeting to the effect that his inability to pay his debts was the result, not of his own fault, but of unavoidable misfortune. He wished to point out that one clause in his noble and learned Friend's Bill proposed to restore to the bankrupt the power of initiating bankruptcy proceedings in his own behalf for the purpose of putting his affairs in liquidation—a proceeding which he was afraid would revive all the old evils that were so rife before the Act of 1869 was passed. He thought, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord would do well to omit that clause from his Bill. With regard to the administration of the assets of the bankrupt, that duty before the Act of 1869 was entrusted to the officers of the Court with very unsatisfactory results; by that Act it was handed over to the official trustee, who was to be chosen by the creditors at a public meeting called for the purpose. Under such circumstances the creditors had no right to complain if the trustee whom they themselves had

  235
  chosen acted improperly. The Act of 1869 contained some very severe provisions regulating the conduct of the trustee, under which he was required to account to the officer of the Court for his administration of the assets, and was bound to pay all sums over £50 in the aggregate he received in his capacity as trustee into such bank as the creditors should select within a very short time of his receiving them. Under the Bill it was proposed that the provisional Committee of Inspection should consist of the five creditors resident in England by whom the largest amounts appeared by the debtor's list of creditors to be provable. The objection to that proposal was that the creditors of a bankrupt who had lost largely by his failure were seldom desirous of coming forward, and thus proclaiming that they had incurred bad debts to a considerable amount in the course of their business. Great complaints had arisen that the dividends paid under the Act of 1869 on bankrupts' estates were very small; but the fact was that compositions were much favoured by the existing law. The clause which directed that unclaimed or undistributed dividends should vest in the Crown at the expiration of five years, would afford a very efficient check upon those empowered to administer bankrupt estates. He was, on the whole, anxious that the measure should pass, believing that it would prove a very useful amendment of the present law; but whilst it seemed a large measure, it was, in truth, with the exception of four or five clauses, a mere re-enactment of the Act of 1869, and he doubted whether his noble and learned Friend would be able to pass it during the present year in that shape.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would not repeat the observations he had previously made in introducing this measure, and expressed his obligation to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Hatherley) for the criticisms he had made upon the Bill, and the suggestions of amendment that he had offered. He might point out that although the present Bill looked rather formidable in its dimensions, it was in reality mainly a re-enactment of the Act of 1869, with some new clauses and amendments. He admitted that by proposing to repeal the Act of 1869 and to re-enact the greater part of its provisions in the present mea-
  236
  sure he ran the risk of extending the surface of opposition; but at the same time, having always advocated the principle of repeal and re-enactment, instead of patchwork legislation, he should not like to shrink from carrying out that principle in the present instance. The noble and learned Lord had correctly stated that the object of the Act of 1869 was to transfer the power of initiating proceedings in bankruptcy against himself from the debtor to his creditors; but, unfortunately, that Act allowed the debtor to initiate proceedings in liquidation and composition, and the consequence was that bankruptcy proper as compared with liquidation and composition had become a mere trifle. He had thought it preferable, therefore, to abolish the distinction between those methods of procedure, and to place all proceedings in bankruptcy under proper control, and under a uniform system. It was true that under the Act of 1869 a bankrupt was not entitled to his discharge without the assent of the majority in number and three-fourths in value of his creditors unless he had paid 10 s. in the pound; but that provision only applied to bankruptcy proper, and not to liquidation or composition. He quite agreed in the views stated by his noble and learned Friend who had recently addressed the House in reference to the appointment of trustees in bankruptcy, and the period within which estates should be wound up when liquidation had been resorted to.
  Motion agreed to:—Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

INDIA—SLAVE TRADING OF SUBJECTS OF NATIVE PRINCES IN INDIA. SLAVE TRADE BILL.

  OBSERVATIONS. FIRST READING.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in calling attention to the expediency of making provision for the more effectual punishment of the subjects of Native Princes in India who are guilty of the offence of slave trading, and presenting a Bill upon the subject, said: My Lords, the Bill of which I have given Notice is one of considerable importance, and its object may be shortly explained; but I must apologize for not bringing it for-

  237
  ward at an earlier period. I postponed doing so, because I hoped the Report of the Royal Commission on the Slave Circular might be in your Lordships' hands before I introduced the Bill, and that I might be certain that in the provisions of the Bill there was nothing that required to be amended in consequence of that Report. The case is this—the slave trade on the coast of Africa had been pointed out by Dr. Livingstone to be in the hands of agents of British Indian subjects. This was not strictly correct. It was in the hands, to some degree, of those who were under British rule; but, speaking more exactly, it was in the hands of the subjects of Native Princes, who are under the protection of the Queen. Until lately it was believed that the laws against the slave trade at Mozambique, Zanzibar, and other places in those seas applied as much against the subjects of Native Princes of India as against those who were under the direct protection of Her Majesty. But in 1874 the case of a Cutchee, the subject of the Rao of Cutch, was brought before the High Court of Bombay. A charge of slave-dealing was preferred against him at the instance of the Consul at Zanzibar; and it appeared by the decision of Mr. Justice Gibbs that the Court had no legal power to try a subject of a Native Prince for offences against the English law; and the result was that he was released. Now, this was an obvious failure of justice. In the case of independent Princes negotiations might have been set on foot, and the subjects of those Princes might have been bound by Treaty between the Sultan of Zanzibar and the other Native Princes. But we have bound the Native Princes in alliance with the Queen not to enter into Treaties with foreign Powers. They have surrendered their foreign relations into our hands, and that remedy, therefore, is not practicable; and it is necessary, as you give them protection and undertake all the duties which fall to the Foreign Office with respect to their subjects, to undertake also the duty of punishing them if they commit crimes against the law. The proposal of the Bill, therefore, is to remedy the defect which was discovered by the judgment of Mr. Justice Gibbs, and to enact that the laws against the slave trade—we propose to limit it to that—shall be enforceable in the High
  238
  Court of Bombay against the subjects of Princes in alliance with Her Majesty, just in the same way as they are now enforceable against British subjects. Another defect which was brought to light by the judgment I have referred to we also propose to remedy. It turned out that there were no means of taking evidence by commission at the distant places where the offence was committed. If a slave trader is discovered at Zanzibar and sent to Bombay for trial it is almost impossible to send with him the actual witnesses necessary to prove the case. Some may be sent, but all cannot. In the case of British subjects there is a law under which evidence can be taken by commission, and we propose to extend that law by the Bill to the cases with which it deals. Another power we propose to take which, though it is not of very great importance, I think it right to mention. By the existing law all subjects of the Queen committing those offences are tried in the High Court of Bombay, but only Native subjects are tried under the law of England. The result is that the High Court of Bombay has to administer another law in the case of other subjects of the Queen not coming under the denomination of Native Indian subjects. I need not say that there is no difference in substance between the two laws; but there are differences of detail, and inconvenience sometimes arises in the case of persons guilty of the same offence but of different extraction. They are tried under two different laws, and the Court has to administer a law with which it is not familiar. We propose that all subjects of the Queen in custody in India and tried for the offence of slave dealing shall be tried at Bombay under the Indian Criminal Code. That Code is recited in the Bill, and provision is made for its amendment, should amendment be found necessary. These may seem small provisions to attach importance to; but any person who has studied the subject will know that it was necessary to remedy the defects I have pointed out. If Africa were left to herself the slave trade would very rapidly disappear. The very want of civilization, the very savagery which exposes the populations of that Continent to the ravages of the slave dealer—would cure the evil by preventing the appearance of persons of sufficient enterprize and capi-

  239
  tal and still to carry on those nefarious operations. The great evil comes from the fact of there being men of a higher stage of civilization, of Arab or Indian extraction, possessed of sufficient knowledge, arms, and organization to enable them to make victims of the helpless populations of Africa. If you reach those men of a superior civilization by the penalties of the law, you will do more to stop the slave trade than you can in any other way; and we who have under our rule, directly or indirectly, 250,000,000 of Orientals, furnish no small contingent of the capitalists—if I may call them so—by whom this traffic is carried on. It is essential that the arm of the law should reach the crime they commit. Especially after the judgment which has been pronounced in Bombay there would be no security for the administration of the law; for not only would you be exposed to slave dealing on the part of the subjects of the Native Princes, but it would be impossible to distinguish between those who had been born on their soil and ours, which would practically leave the traffic open to the whole of the Indian population. There is one thing I ought to mention—namely, that the Rao did his best to check his subjects in these nefarious operations, but the Court of Bombay was unable to give effect to his Proclamation on the subject. I believe, my Lords, that if this measure be passed, a great and beneficial advance will be made, and that other Sovereigns and Chiefs will be led to give us power to deal with their subjects, and that we shall come nearer and nearer to the object of deterring from this traffic all those races whose superior civilization now enable them to engage in it. The noble Marquess then presented" a Bill for more effectually punishing offences against the laws relating to the Slave Trade," and moved that it be now read the first time.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he had no objection to the objects of this Bill; but unless the consent of the various Indian Sovereigns whose subjects it was proposed to punish by the Bill, had been given, the measure would propose to enact that which was contrary to the law of nations and an usurpation. The Bill was apparently intended to operate against the Banyans, who traded principally at Zan-
  240
  zibar, and probably they belonged to a very small number of States, and the consent of their Rulers might easily be obtained; and unless that consent were given this country had no right to inflict penalties on those subjects, and he would feel bound to offer all the opposition to it in his power.
  EARL GRANVILLEobserved that it would not be convenient at that stage to discuss the provisions of the Bill. From the information the noble Marquess had afforded them he felt convinced that the inclination of the House would be to give the Government all the power they required to carry out the object they had in view.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read la; and to be printed. (No. 135.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD'S PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BINGLEY, &c.) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 136.)
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Improvement Act District of Bingley (Two), the Borough of Brighton, the Districts of Chatham and Gillingham, the Special Drainage District of Norton, the District of North Bierley, the Borough of Nottingham, the Improvement Act District of Ramsgate, the Borough of Stoke-upon-Trent (Two), and the Rural Sanitary District of the Ulverstone Union: And

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD'S PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BILBROUGH, &c.) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 137)
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the District of Bilbrough, the Improvement Act Districts of Bournemouth and Cirencester, the Districts of Claylane, Eccleshill, Felting, Nelson, and Normanton, the Improvement Act District of Runcorn, and the Districts of Stow-on-the-Wold, Sunderland, and Tormoham: Were presented by The Earl of Jersey; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.