Lords Sitting of 23 May 1876

MINUTES.
Public Bills—Second Reading—Burials in Churchyards (77), negatived; Local Government Provisional Orders, Briton Terry, &c. (No. 4)* (87); Local Government Provisional Order, Skelmersdale (No. 5)* (88).
Report—Partition Act (1868) Amendment* (52); Statute Law Revision (Substitute Enactments)* (82);Pier and Harbour Order Confirmation (Aldborough, &c.)* (78).
Third Reading—Poolbeg Lighthouse* (79), and passed.

BURIALS IN CHURCHYARDS BILL.
The Earl Grey.)
BURIALS IN CHURCHYARDS BILL.

  (NO. 77.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  EARL GREY,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he did not propose to enter into any argument on the general question whether Dissenters had a grievance with respect to churchyards—that question was sufficiently discussed on the Motion recently made by his noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition in that House (Earl Granville), and he did not intend to revive the discussion which had followed that Motion. It was quite unnecessary for him to do so, because it had been distinctly admitted on that occasion, both by the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council on behalf of the Government, and the most rev. Primates on behalf of the Episcopal Bench, that there did exist a real grievance on the part of the Dissenters, which required to be remedied. All he (Earl Grey) now proposed to attempt was to show in what manner this admitted grievance would be redressed by the Bill he had laid on the Table of the House, and that it did not deserve the somewhat severe strictures which had been passed upon it in the late debate, both by the noble Duke opposite and by the most rev. Primate. Not very long ago a Motion was made in the other House of Parliament on this same subject, and every one who read the debate on that Motion must have remarked that the two Ministers who spoke on behalf of Her Majesty's Government took great pains to show that the grievance of the Dissenters was not the only thing that required redress in connection with the churchyards of this country. They both contended that the sanitary condition of many churchyads also called urgently for attention. He believed that to be perfectly true—no doubt, many of our churchyards were in a most unsatisfactory state. Many of them were inadequate, as regarded extent, to the wants of the present population; and others, while not too small, were so badly arranged as to be injurious to the health of the living. Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Cross had ample grounds for their assertions on that matter; and he

  1085
  presumed the inference they intended to draw from the facts they stated was that, any measure for amending the law with respect to churchyards ought to provide for protecting the public health from the dangers to which it was now exposed, as well as for the relief of a large number of our fellow-subjects from a hardship of which they complained. He presumed that must have been the inference they meant to draw from what they stated as to the defective condition of churchyards, since otherwise the statement would have had no bearing whatever on the subject that was under discussion. Assuming that he was right in his understanding of the conclusion they sought to establish, he had to express his entire concurrence in it, and the Bill now before their Lordships was an attempt to give effect to that view of the subject. If provision was to be made for the sanitary improvement of churchyards it seemed clearly necessary that local authorities should be created for that purpose. Whatever was required, whether it were the enlargement or any other improvement of a churchyard must cost money, and he did not know how that was to be obtained except from a rate paid by the parishioners; and if the ratepayers were to provide the money for such purposes, it followed that the ratepayers must have the control of the churchyards for which they were called upon to pay. Accordingly in his Bill he provided for the creation of Burial Boards in parishes. He was aware of the great objection that would be raised to the creation of Burial Boards for this purpose—namely, that this course would be unjustifiable because the freehold of the churchyard was vested in the clergyman. Technically it was quite true that the freehold of the churchyard was vested in the clergyman; but it was shown by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Coleridge) in the recent debate that the freehold in the incumbent was qualified by the rights of the parishioners, and had in it very little of the nature of property; that, in fact, the position of the parish clergyman in relation to the churchyard was much better described by the term "trustee" for the benefit of the parishioners than, by that of "freeholder." If that were so, no injustice, or hardship, or injury of any kind, would be inflicted on the clergy by transferring to other hands the management of the
  1086
  churchyards. He also ventured to say that in the proposal he made there was nothing of a novel or strange character; for it would be merely a return in principle to what up, to a few years ago, had from time out of mind been the actual state of things in this country. Up to the time of the abolition of church rates the law required the cost of maintaining the churchyards to be provided for out of these rates by the authority of the Vestry. The Vestry was composed either of all the ratepayers of the parish, or of a number of them chosen to represent the general body of the ratepayers. Thus, the ratepayers, either personally or by their representatives, provided the funds for keeping up the churchyards, and, as in other cases, the power of the purse carried with it the control of the service for which the money was provided, so that in fact, in the management of the churchyard the clergyman had to consider what were the wishes of the parishioners. What the Bill proposed was a mere return in principle to this ancient arrangement only substituting a Burial Board composed of a small number of members for the more cumbrous Vestry, which formerly controlled the mode of keeping up of the churchyard. In this manner provision would be made for effecting improvements in churchyards where such improvements were required, without obliging the Board to incur any expense when nothing was required to be done. The appointment of Burial Boards would also afford great facilities for removing the grievance so loudly complained of by Dissenters. In resisting the demand of the Dissenters to be allowed to have their funerals performed in churchyards by their own ministers one of the main topics insisted upon had been the risk that abuses might arise from their having this right conceded to them. There was, in his opinion, but little ground for this apprehension; at the same time he admitted that it would not be right or proper to open the churchyards to Dissenters entirely without check or restriction. For instance, it would be impossible to allow Dissenters to select for the interment of a relative or friend any spot in a churchyard which they might think fit to choose. At present the clergyman had the power of deciding as to where the grave was to be placed: he could object either on

  1087
  sanitary grounds or from a regard to the just claims of others to any particular selection made by the friends of the person to be interred. If Dissenters were admitted to the churchyards, it would be manifestly inconvenient that the clergy should have the task of making such decisions in their case. He had no doubt that in the great majority of cases the good feeling and good sense of the clergy and of the friends of the deceased would prevent any unseemly altercation from arising; but, unfortunately there had been examples of wrong-headedness in a few both of the clergy and of the Dissenters to warn them of the evils which might occasionally arise unless there existed some authority to check ill-advised proceedings either on the one side or the other. For instance, it would be highly inconvenient, to say the least, that a Church and a Dissenting funeral should be appointed to take place at the same hour in the same churchyard, and perhaps close together, all risk of such difficulties would be averted by giving the control of the churchyard to an independent authority as proposed by the Bill. He trusted that he had now sufficiently explained to their Lordships the principles on which he desired to proceed. As he knew that there was no chance of the Bill passing in the present Session he thought it would be a waste of time if, after having explained its principle, he were to proceed to discuss its provisions at greater length. He wished, however, to defend himself against one or two charges with reference to these provisions which had been brought against him. The most rev. Primate said, on the occasion to which he had already referred, that in bringing forward this measure he had shown a want of due consideration for the feelings of the clergy. He could assure his most rev. Friend that he had not proposed the clauses for which he had censured him in any such spirit, but on the contrary with the strongest desire to provide for the opening of the churchyards to Dissenters in a manner the least calculated to wound the feelings of the clergy and the most likely to promote the success of their ministrations and their own comfort. He had believed, and believed still, that this would be best accomplished by relieving them from all responsibility with reference to the management of
  1088
  the burial grounds. In a great majority of town parishes, cemeteries having been established, the clergy had nothing to do with the management of the burying grounds. They had neither authority nor responsibility with regard to it; they had merely to bury the dead of their own congregation when called upon in graves of which the position had been determined by another and independent authority. He had never heard that the instruction of their flocks by the town clergy had been interfered with, or their usefulness diminished by their being thus relieved from any charge of burying grounds. He was totally at a loss to understand why the result should be different because the burying ground happened to be adjoining the church instead of a distance from it. He could not therefore see how any insult or injury to the clergy would be involved in the change he proposed, but he did see how much they would gain by being relieved from a state of things which at least occasionally had the effect of involving them in angry contentions with some of their parishioners. Similar considerations had led him to believe that it would tend to the comfort of the clergy themselves, and prevent them from being mixed up in harassing altercations, that they should be disqualified from becoming members of Burial Boards, and the same disqualification ought, he thought, to be applied to the ministers of Dissenting congregations in the parish. The question, however, was one which might fairly be left to be determined according to the judgment and the wishes of the clergy. There was one other point to which he thought it right to call attention. Their Lordships were aware that it had often been complained that the clergy were now required by law to perform the funeral service of the Church over the bodies of persons with respect to whom they thought it ought not to be used. It might be doubted, perhaps, whether this objection was altogether a reasonable one, and whether it might not be chiefly founded on an incorrect interpretation of the words of their Service. But, be this as it might, as in point of fact many clergymen had a conscientious objection to performing the usual funeral services in such cases, he could have no doubt that this objection ought to be respected. He had accordingly introduced a provision into the Bill by which clergymen

  1089
  would be relieved from the obligation complained of, with the condition he considered indispensable, that when the incumbent of a parish declined to perform the funeral service for a deceased parishioner he should have no right to object to its being performed by another clergyman. The cases would probably be exceedingly rare when another clergyman would consent to perform a funeral service refused by an incumbent, but unfortunately they knew that some few cases had arisen—as when a regular service had been refused in the case of a person held to have been insufficiently baptized by a Wesleyan minister—in which the precautionary regulation would be highly necessary and effectual. He had only to add that if an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months should be moved to his Motion for the second reading he would offer no objection to it as he was aware that a person of such little authority as himself could not hope to settle such a question as that of the amendment of the law of burial; still his object would have been answered by laying the Bill before their Lordships with a view to the future consideration of the subject, and he could not sit down without expressing his strong conviction that it was the duty of Parliament and of Her Majesty's Government to take care that another Session should not pass without some measure being brought forward for settling the question in the only manner in which it could be settled—namely, by giving complete relief to the Dissenters from the grievance under which they now suffered.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Grey.)
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that what their Lordships had heard from the noble Earl who had moved the second reading was only another proof that the settlement of this most serious question should be undertaken by the authority of the Government. His noble Friend the noble Earl (Earl Granville) who introduced the subject the other night did great service by so doing; and the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) gratified the House and the country at large very much by his statement that the Government would undertake the settlement of the question. One word more. He would be presumptuous
  1090
  enough to give a word of advice to the clergy. He counselled them to listen seriously to what the present Government might say to them on this matter; for he very much doubted whether they would ever again have such good friends as they now had on the Ministerial bench.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, that the Bill would never receive his assent—the clause which would disqualify the clergy from even a share in the management of the churchyards was especially objectionable. As the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), in his eloquent speech the other night, narrated some telling and amusing anecdotes, he (the Duke of Rutland) would follow the noble Earl's example so far as to illustrate his objection to this Bill by an anecdote relating to one whom he would not name. The person in question was an excellent man and gave good dinners, but he was by no means brilliant in conversation. He wished, however, to give a dinner at which should be assembled a number of the most celebrated wits of the town; but there was this difficulty—that he knew none of them. In his embarrassment he applied to a noble Lord, who said—"I will manage it; I will ask the company, which ought not to consist of more than twelve." Well, after a few days the noble Lord presented his friend with a list of the names of those whom he had asked. His friend, on running through the names, remarked, "These will do well; but you have made one omission which is easily rectified; you have left myself out." The noble Lord replied—"Oh, that is impossible; you would spoil all." "That is a hard case," observed his friend. "Not at all; don't you see you will have all the credit of entertaining those wits to dinner, and of paying for the dinner besides?" Such was the comfort given to the host, and similar comfort was offered to the clergy by the Bill now before their Lordships—everyone was to have an opinion in his own churchyard except the unfortunate clergyman. He would ask the noble Earl (Earl Granville) whether the churchyards of England belonged to the Church of England or not? He believed they did:—if so, where was the difference between the Church and the churchyard—the only difference he could see was that one had a roof over

  1091
  it and the other was open to the air. The common law gave to Dissenters the right to enter the churchyard, and to hear the services and receive the ministrations of the Church of England; and the same common law gave them the right of interment in the churchyards, but it was on the same conditions, that the churchyards were open to the members of the Church of England. He was glad, however, that the Government proposed to consider the whole subject; and he trusted that in any measures they might introduce they would be careful to keep inviolate the churchyards of the country. He believed that the Dissenters suffered under no grievance—some hardships there might be; but the Dissenters were well able to provide graveyards for themselves. He believed that the great mass of them were not sensible of any hardship, and that this agitation was got up by a small band of persons, some of whom were of no religion, partly with a view of vexing the members of the Church, and some with the view of overthrowing it altogether. Therefore he hoped that neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Episcopal Bench would yield to these demands.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDthought that the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who had now left the House, had spoken to the clergy in a somewhat minatory tone—he had told them solemnly to receive the counsel of the Government, lest they should never have a similar favourable chance. He (the Bishop of Oxford) hoped the clergy would receive good counsel coming from any Government, and should be sorry to think them incapable of accepting good counsel on this long-vexed subject; and he thought they had shown a decided disposition to entertain the subject of the law of burial, to which great prominence had been given in the present Session of Parliament. But he appealed to their Lordships to say whether the clergy had had fair play in this matter. Had any really practical plan ever been proposed for their adoption? Sometimes the clergy were spoken of as if they had stolen a march upon the English people, and had somehow obtained, to their prejudice, possession of the churchyards. But this was certainly contrary to the fact. It should be remembered that neither Parliament
  1092
  nor the State had ever provided churchyards in any parish in England. This Bill, for the first time in the history of England, would enact that a parish should be obliged to provide its own burial ground. At this moment, if, for example, a burial ground on the coast were swept away by the encroachments of the sea, there was no law to compel the people of the parish to provide another burial ground. Rights of interment were freely spoken of; but Englishmen as such had no right to a place of interment. Churchyards had been provided ages ago by pious laymen—usually the lords of manors—under the advice of the clergy, and therefore it was unfair to charge the clergy with having gained possession of the churchyards to the exclusion of others who had an equal right to them. He trusted that when the clergy had any proposal put before them they would listen to it—not because it was made by the Government, but because their own feelings would teach them to show kindness to their neighbours and manifest the large and generous charity of the Church towards all mankind.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would not have spoken had not the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) made a direct appeal to him on the points of law, whether the churchyards belonged to the Church of England. In answer, he would first of all ask the noble Duke whether the Church of England as a whole was, by law, the owner of any property at all? He believed not. Next, he believed the fee of the churchyard was vested in the clergyman of the parish, to hold in trust for the whole parish, under conditions prescribed by the common and ecclesiastical law.
  LORD HOUGHTONwas strongly in favour of a settlement of the question. It was one on which the Dissenters felt strongly; and Churchmen could not be surprised at this, remembering that burial services and interments in particular places had given rise to much warm feeling in this and other countries on the part of Churchmen and Roman Catholics, as well as Dissenters. The fear that the churchyards were likely to be "desecrated" ought to be removed by the consideration that in all our large cemeteries, where the greater part of the dead were now interred the burial service was performed by Dissenting

  1093
  ministers of all denominations; yet he was not aware of a single complaint of indecency or indecorum; and this afforded a strong presumption that they might be trusted to perform the service in country churchyards. In the course of his literary life it had happened to him to deliver two funeral addresses over the graves of literary men; and he trusted that nothing unbecoming or unsuitable to the solemnity of the occasion had been said either by himself or others at such times—on the contrary, he thought, they had promoted good and amiable feelings. With these analogies the present question might be decided in a simple manner, and in no spirit of antagonism to any body of Dissenters whatever.
  LORD DYNEVOR: As an incumbent of nearly 50 years' standing, may I be allowed to make a few remarks? I was early led to act in a friendly manner towards Dissenters. Two persons from whom I received the greatest respect when I first went to the parish which I still hold, were two venerable Dissenting ministers. I remember walking at the head of a corpse with one of them, when he said, "I have been 40 years in the wilderness," meaning he had been a minister therefor 40 years. About the same time I became acquainted with several members of the Society of Friends, whom I much esteemed. About seven years ago I went down to live part of the year in South Wales, and there I found the benefit of having been always on good terms with the Dissenters, for almost all the people about me were Dissenters; quite eight out of 10 in the rural parts. I cannot indeed say that I approve of the noble Earl's Bill. I should not like to be left out in the cold, and I believe that the clergyman might still remain in his present position with regard to the churchyards, and yet that Dissenting ministers might be allowed to bury their own people in our churchyards without anything irreverent or unbecoming occurring. There are four bodies of Dissenters in my own parish in Gloucestershire; two have burial-grounds, two have not. I should have no objection to allow the ministers of those denominations to perform funeral rites over their own people. I know them, and have confidence in them all that there would be nothing unbecoming the solemnity of the occa-
  1094
  sion. I think it is a matter for grave consideration that the refusal to allow Dissenting ministers to officiate implies that they are not fit to be trusted. I believe it is this which stirs them so deeply at the present time. Thousands of them are officiating every Sunday in their own chapels; they preach, they perform funeral services in their own graveyards and in cemeteries, and yet they cannot be trusted to do so in our churchyards. The question has now assumed graver proportions, and the Wesleyans, who have always been most friendly to the Church of England, are being alienated from her. I will not now say what has been the cause of this, but it is the fact. About three years ago, I asked a Wesleyan minister what he thought of the Burial question. "Oh," he said, "we do not move in it; we are quite satisfied with things as they are." And it is the case that in Wales there are hardly any burial-grounds attached to their chapels, because they were content with the Church of England service, but it is not so now. A case occurred the other day in Forest of Dean, when the circuit minister asked permission to officiate at the funeral of a Wesleyan. It was refused, and the vicar had not legal power to grant permission. But what the Wesleyans complain of is, that the curate allowed an official of the Order of Foresters to read a kind of service at the grave. I would mention one or two cases to show how persons feel on this subject. A man asked the clergyman of my parish in Wales to be allowed to be buried in a particular spot. It was represented to him that the part was very full. "Oh," he said, "I hope you will allow it, for my family have been buried there for 300 years." Again, an old firm Churchman was asked to sign a petition against the Burial Bill. He said, "I cannot now, for I wish to do as I would be done by, and I should like to be buried near my own people. Besides," he said, "I am getting old, and I should like to draw nearer to the Dissenters before I die." What I desire is, that concessions should be made to Dissenters without injury to the Church of England. We cannot ignore the Nonconformists. Look at their missionary operations. The Wesleyans collect near £180,000—more than the Propagation Society does. The London Missionary Society collects above £100,000; the Baptist, above

  1095
  £58,000; and the Primitive Methodist, £12,000. Ought men who are doing all this to be disregarded when, having baptized their people, administered the Holy Communion to them, attended them on their sick-bed, they asked to be allowed to offer a prayer or give an address at their graves? The Church of England will never suffer from pursuing a conciliatory course, and conceding what may be called a just claim. I am glad to hear Her Majesty's Government intend to take the subject into consideration. It cannot be advanced by private Members. It is an open sore injurious to the Church and religion in this country, and the sooner it is stayed the better. I think also our burial laws require revision, and that the clergy ought not to be compelled to use our present service over persons of whom no charitable hope can be entertained. I have myself had the pain of reading the Burial Service over a person who did not believe in a future state. We know what scandal occurred at Cowley, where the people broke into the Church, and what a painful scene occurred at the funeral of Baron Pigott.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he would not detain their Lordships, as in the former debate on this subject he had offered some remarks on what he considered was the purport of the Bill. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) now stated that he did not anticipate there would be any desire to proceed with the Bill; and, in accordance with the hint thrown out by the noble Earl, he would content himself by simply asking their Lordships to read the Bill a second time that day six months.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day six months").
  On Question that ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day six months.

THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON RAILWAY ACCIDENTS—BRAKES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSSsaid, that two years ago, on the Motion of a noble Earl (Earl de la Warr), a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the causes of railway accidents, and
  1096
  perhaps, considering the magnitude of the inquiry, we must not be astonished that the Commission had not yet reported. It appeared, however, very desirable that the Commissioners should, with as little delay as possible, give the public the benefit of their opinions on the subject of continuous brakes. In the month of June last several of the leading railway companies, at great expense and inconvenience, conducted for the Commission a series of experiments which extended over a week. On that occasion 10 or 11 forms of brakes were submitted to the tests that were applied; but, up to this time, not a single word had been published by the Railway Accidents Commission as to the results of the experiments. No doubt a continuous brake was a valuable appliance for the prevention of railway accidents, and some companies had adopted it to a certain extent; but it could hardly be expected that pending the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission the companies would go to the very considerable expense of applying continuous brakes to all their rolling-stock. The Great Northern Railway Company were trying Smith's vacuum brake; but the application of it cost £50 in the case of an engine and £15 for every vehicle, and, therefore, the adoption of the brake for every engine and carriage would involve a very serious outlay. He was under the impression that it would be very desirable that a uniform brake should be adopted by all railway companies in the United Kingdom. Every day "through" carriages were run from London to Inverness and Aberdeen, passing over the systems of four or five different companies, and if one adopted Smith's vacuum brake, another Westinghouse's, and a third the chain brake, great confusion would arise in the management of through trains. He thought he had stated enough to justify him in putting the Question of which he had given Notice; and he would, therefore, ask the noble Earl sitting behind him (the Earl of Aberdeen), as the present Chairman of the Railway Commission, Whether, with reference to the experiments upon various descriptions of continuous brakes provided for them by a number of the leading railway companies in June, 1875, the Royal Commissioners upon railway accidents intend to recommend any particular

  1097
  brake for adoption by the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom?
  LORD HOUGHTONdesired to ask the noble Chairman of the Royal Commission, Whether there was any prospect of the conclusion of the important labours of the Commission, by which the railway interest might be seriously affected? Before the appointment of the Commission many serious accidents had occurred, and it was hoped that the Commission might be able to make suggestions by which a recurrence of such accidents might be prevented. The public and the railway world had anxiously waited for such counsel and advice as the Commission might be able to give; but two years had elapsed without the satisfaction of that anxiety. Doubts were expressed at the time as to the utility of appointing a Commission at all, and whether any practical good would come of it, and those doubts seemed to derive some confirmation from the long delay which had occurred in the making of a Report; which delay suggested that the Commission had had great difficulty in coming to any conclusion, and that, after all, the question of preventing railway accidents must remain much as it stood before the appointment of the Commission.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: I should have been glad to give an answer to the Question of the noble Lord near me, were it not for the obvious consideration that since it is the business of a Royal Commission to present the results of their investigations in the form of a humble Report to the Queen, it would be not only premature, but irregular, if any statement were made in your Lordships' House for the purpose of disclosing any portion of the probable contents of that Report. As to the experiments to which my noble Friend has referred, they were of an extensive character, the necessary materials and appliances being provided by an association of the leading railway companies in a very liberal and complete manner. The Commissioners, on their part, were enabled to secure the valuable services of two eminent engineers, assisted by a detachment of Sappers, under the command of officers of the Royal Engineers; so that everything had been conducted in the most accurate and reliable manner. The trials were public, they were witnessed by a very large
  1098
  number of gentlemen professionally connected with railways, and the general experiments were witnessed by the representatives of the Press, and appeared at the time in the newspapers. I am not aware that any statement or intimation was made by the Commissioners to the effect that those experiments were made for the purpose of enabling them to pronounce an opinion as to which of the various brakes was per se the best. In answer to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Houghton), I may add that, though every effort will be made to complete the Report, it is impossible to fix the exact date when it will be presented; the magnitude of the subject to which both the noble Lords have alluded making it necessary that the whole matter should be gone into with completeness.
  EARL COWPERsaid, the remarks of noble Lords impressed him with the advantage of leaving, as much as possible, the adoption of inventions and appliances for the prevention of railway accidents to the Railway Companies themselves. He thought if it had not been for the appointment of the Commission, it appeared probable that some effective form of brake would have been adopted before this by the Railway Companies. As it was, they were waiting for the Commission, fearful lest they should incur great expense and then find that they had all to do over again. He felt strongly that the great thing was to make railway directors feel that they were responsible for the safety of the public, and to leave them to adopt the best plans for preventing accidents. A great stimulus to railway directors to provide for the safety of passengers lay in the fact that they were liable to very heavy damages in the event of an accident.
  EARL DE LA WARRdesired to say, in answer to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Houghton), that some excuse must be made for the non-production of the Report of the Commission, for when it had almost come to the close of its labours in the taking of evidence, and was about to prepare the Report, the noble Chairman (the Duke of Buckingham) was appointed to a high office in India, and this led to very considerable delay; for the noble Chairman, in order to complete as far as possible the draft Report, took it with him to Port Saïd; and not

  1099
  only took the Report, but also took the Secretary, so that the Commission was for two or three months not only without its Report, but also without its Secretary.

DOVER HARBOUR.

  PETITION. QUESTION.
  EARL GRANVILLErose to present the Petition of Inhabitants of Dover of which he had given Notice. It was a Petition from the owners of property in Dover, numerously signed—indeed, no Petition could more completely represent all classes and all political parties in that town. It urged on the Government the pressing necessity of meeting the rapidly increasing traffic between Dover and the Continent; it gave a correct history of the last attempts at legislation, and prayed their Lordships' House to express such an opinion as would induce Her Majesty's Government to obtain powers to construct at an early date such an extended harbour at Dover as would provide for the naval and military requirements of the country, and afford ample accommodation for the rapidly increasing traffic between Dover and the Continent. Their Lordships might look with some suspicion on representations which might be biased by local interests; he would therefore add a few words to show that the Imperial grounds which they alleged, both for times of peace and for war, were not to be doubted. He would not enter into antiquarian or historical details, or ask why hundreds of years ago Dover was called "Clavis Regni;" or why £80,000 was spent on it by Henry VIII., and further large sums by Queen Elizaboth. James I., in his charter to the town, spoke of it as "for many ages a most noted and famous port and harbour," the ruin of which "would be the greatest damage and loss to this kingdom." Charles II. ascribed his successes at sea to his ships using Dover harbour to refit and revictual. Sir Walter Raleigh, in his Memorial of Queen Elizabeth, said:—
  "No promontory, town, or haven in Christendom is so placed by nature and situation, both to gratify friends and to annoy enemies, as this town of Dover; no place is so settled to receive and deliver intelligence for all matters and actions in Europe from time to time; nor is there in the whole circuit of this famous island any port either in respect of security or defence,
  1100
  or of traffic or intercourse, more convenient, needful, or rather of necessity to be regarded, than this of Dover, situated on a promontory next fronting a puissant foreign King, and in the very straight, passage, and intercourse of almost all the shipping in Christendom. And of that our renowned King, your Majesty's father (Henry VIII), found how necessary it was to make a haven at Dover (when Sandwich, Rye, Camber, and others were good havens, and Calais also was then in his possession), and yet spared not to bestow of his treasure so great a mass in building that pier, which then secured a probable means to perform the same, how much more is the same now needful; or rather of necessity (those good havens being extremely decayed), no safe harbour being left in all the coast almost between Portsmouth and Yarmouth. Seeing, then, it hath pleased God to give unto this realm such a situation for a port and town, is all Christendom hath not the like, and endowed the same with all commodities both by land and sea that can be wished, methinks there remaineth no other deliberation in this case, but how most sufficiently, and, with greatest perfection possible, most speedily the same may be accomplished."
  He believed that every line of that was as true at the present moment as when it was originally written—only Dover had become the more important from the invention and improvements of steam. The subject had been inquired into at various times, from 1836 downwards, by Committees and Commissions. In 1840 the Commission appointed to survey the South-Eastern Harbours reported—
  "The situation which appears to us to be of the greatest importance, and at the same time offers the most eligible position for a deep water harbour, is Dover Bay. Independently of its proximity to the Continent, this bay possesses considerable advantages."
  The Commissioners of 1844 in their Report said—
  "Dover, situated at a distance of only four and a half miles from the Goodwin Sands, and standing out favourably to protect the navigation of the narrow seas, is naturally the situation, for a squadron of ships of war. Its value, in a military point of view, is undoubted; but the construction of a harbour of refuge there is, in our opinion, indispensable to give to Dover that efficiency as a naval station which is necessary in order to provide for the security of this part of the coast and the protection of trade. The Commission cannot close their Report without expressing in the strongest terms their unanimous opinion and entire conviction that measures are indispensably necessary to give to the south-eastern frontier of the kingdom means and facilities which it does not now possess for powerful naval protection. Without any except tidal harbours along the whole coast between Portsmouth and the Thames, and none accessible to large steamers, there is now, when steam

  1101
  Points to such great changes in maritime affairs, an imperative necessity for supplying by artificial means the want of harbours throughout the narrow part of the Channel."
  There were few of their Lordships who were not aware of the miserable accommodation which now existed for the important traffic between Dover and the Continent. During the last seven years the Harbour Board had made several attempts, in addition to those proposed by others, to remedy this great deficiency. In July, 1872, the Board made an agreement with the two railway companies to construct a water station for Continental traffic at a cost of £200,000. In the autumn he (Earl Granville) learnt that their Bill would be objected to by the Government Departments on the same grounds as on former occasions—namely, that it might interfere with the larger plans which were supposed to be under consideration. He brought the matter before his Colleagues, and represented that the position of the Government was untenable—that it could not continue indefinitely this dog-in-the-manger policy, obstructing all proposed improvements, without moving one step in proposing a plan of its own. The result was that a Committee of the Cabinet was formed, consisting of the President of the Board of Trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for War, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and himself, who most carefully investigated the subject. They commissioned Sir Andrew Clarke, R.E., of the Admiralty, and Sir John Hawkshaw to report on a larger harbour. After considerable negotiation with the Harbour Board and the Railway Companies this scheme was adopted, the Harbour Board dropped their Bill and obtained a vote of £10,000 towards the preliminary expenses of the works. In November, 1873, the Harbour Board gave the necessary notices. A change of Government occurred, and their successors very reasonably requested the Harbour Board to drop their Bill, as they had not had time to consider the question. By this time the Harbour Board was nearly £1,500 out of pocket. In 1875, after 12 months' consideration, the Government themselves promoted a Bill to carry out the same plans. The Bill was opposed by Mr. Rylands and others. Some on the ground of economy, but by more on account of the plan not being
  1102
  sufficiently matured. The second reading was carried, and the Bill was referred to a Select Committee. What was the evidence given before that Committee? The Duke of Cambridge said—
  "I do not know of any other part of the Channel so important as regards defence as Dover. The plan commends itself as an advisable mode of enlarging the harbour accommodation of Dover. The position of Dover, being, as it is, in the narrowest part of the Channel, I look upon as of the greatest possible importance. There is no harbour of any importance between Portsmouth and quite the North of England, with the exception of Sheerness, and you can hardly call that a harbour, but rather the mouth of the Thames; but with that exception there is no other harbour on the coast of any magnitude excepting Dover. The Duke of Wellington always considered Dover of the greatest importance. The military works at Dover are very important and extensive. I look upon it that there is no scheme so important as the one before the Committee. Quite irrespective of any commercial question, it would be desirable to carry out the works at Dover now. But if I were asked if it is an important point of communication on general principles between this country and the Continent, I conceive, on that ground alone, there would be great importance attached to it, quite independent of any strategical ground. There is another great advantage at Dover, that there will be no outlay of public money required for the protection of the proposed harbour. A harbour without works would be valueless. The two best stations we have in the country are Portland and this new harbour at Dover. I consider the advantage of Dover very great, from the great facility of concentrating troops by railway from any part of England."
  Colonel Charles Nugent, R.E., Deputy Director of Works, gave the following evidence:—
  "It is geographically the most important point in Great Britain for having a military harbour. The fortifications at Dover would command the whole of the harbour."
  In a confidential Report of the Duke of Wellington in 1843 the Duke particularly recommended Dover as a spot for a harbour of refuge, and as a salient military spot in connection therewith. Major-General Collins on, R.E., commanding for several years the South-Eastern District, gave this evidence—
  "Dover is an eminently advantageous point for the embarcation of troops and stores….Very extensive accommodation for this purpose is wanted beyond that which now exists….Dover is the most important strategical point for naval and military operations in the kingdom….I think it is really absolutely necessary for strategic purposes and for military operations."
  Sir Alexander Milne, First Naval Lord of the Admiralty, gave this evidence—

  1103
  "I consider the position of Dover a very important one connected with naval affairs. In case of any operations of a warlike nature, it will become a necessity to have coal in some position in the neighbourhood of Dover. There is no place better suited for it than a harbour at Dover. I attach importance to it as a position for the embarcation of troops. There is no position more central or better adapted for the embarcation of troops than at the end of two railways connected with the interior of England. It is an absolute necessity that this country should have a harbour in that position, that our fleet may have the means of coaling, and that small vessels that are not able to keep the sea in the Downs in very heavy weather should have a place where they can be concentrated."
  The evidence of Captain Evans, Hydrographer to the Admiralty, agreed with that of Sir Alexander Milne. Colonel Pasley, R.E., Director of Works at the Admiralty, said—
  "I consider it of the utmost importance to the country that the harbour should be provided at Dover. Between Portsmouth and Sheerness there is at present no place where the fleet can coal, and there ought to be a place where the fleet can coal, and Dover being in the narrowest part of the Channel, and at the same time close both to the German Ocean and to the English Channel, is a most important point for the fleet to rendezvous if there be any danger of invasion, and in order that the Fleet may rendezvous there and be there, it is absolutely necessary that a place of coaling should exist. This is a necessity of modern growth. Now, as the Navy consists almost exclusively of steamships, it has become a primary necessity that facilities for coaling should exist. The importance of Dover has accordingly grown very greatly as compared with what it was in those times. If a harbour were to be made anywhere in the neighbourhood, you would have to start afresh and construct fortifications, which at Dover you have already done. At present there is no place where a large force could be embarked in a short time—absolutely none."
  Sir John Hawkshaw gave strong evidence as to the feasibility of the plan, of his confidence in the moderate character of the estimates, and of the almost certainty of the estimated increase of traffic. With regard to the last point, he said that engineers had made mistakes as to the cost of their works—an error which, probably, it did not require Sir John's high authority to convince their Lordships—but that he had never known an instance when, with reference to the probable growth of traffic, they had been large enough in their estimates. Mr. Druce, another eminent Civil Engineer, with, special experience, corroborated Sir John Hawkshaw's evidence. Mr. W. H.
  1104
  Smith, Secretary of the Treasury, said—
  "We inherited the scheme from our predecessors. We found it in the form of a Bill last year, and it was delayed in order that the present Government might give it a more full consideration before they committed themselves to it….The Treasury would not have assented to the scheme—I am speaking of the present Treasury—unless it had felt that there were public grounds, grounds of national interest, which justified the scheme as a whole."
  After hearing this evidence, what did the Committee report?—
  "The evidence adduced before them leaves no room to doubt that, in the case of this country being obliged to engage in warlike operations, the proposed harbour would be of the greatest value and importance, both in a naval and military point of view. At the present moment, it may be said that there is no place between Sheerness and Portsmouth at which vessels of Her Majesty's Navy can obtain a supply of coal if required. The Downs are, no doubt, an admirable naval station, both in point of security and convenience of position, but coaling there would have to be carried on from sea-going vessels or floating depôts, which in time of war would be exposed to attack by the enemy, unless protected by works which at present do not exist. If the proposed harbour is successfully constructed, iron-clads of the largest class can be moored alongside the existing Admiralty Pier, or the Eastern Pier, if modified with that view; coals from any part of England or Wales may be brought by railway in trucks direct to the side of vessels, and shipped with facility, safety, and despatch. In a military point of view, the advantages of the proposed harbour in time of war are not less apparent. Hitherto no proper facilities have been provided either at Woolwich, Chatham, or Sheerness for the embarcation of troops, while at Portsmouth the length of wharf in the dockyard is quite insufficient, and in time of war would probably be required by the Admiralty for naval purposes. On the other hand, Dover is in communication by two railways with the military stations of Canterbury, Maidstone, Sheerness, Chatham, Woolwich, London, Aldershot, Portsmouth, and Shorncliffe; and, as the lines of rail come down to the pier, alongside of which the transports would be lying, a very short time would suffice for the embarcation of a large force. To these considerations must be added the important fact that the proposed harbour will be under protection of great military works, which it would be necessary to provide in any other position where a harbour for naval and military purposes could be constructed. With regard to its capabilities as a harbour of refuge, the Committee, while of opinion that some advantageis likely to be derived by the commercial marine in this respect, yet do not wish to lay too much stress upon this advantage, and were that the only object in view would not feel justified in recommending its construction. Lastly, with regard to the advantage of the proposed harbour, with regard to Channel communication, there is no doubt that the convenience of embarking and disembarking in any weather in the smooth water of

  1105
  a sheltered harbour is of great public importance. That this is fully appreciated by the great companies which carry the postal and passenger traffic from the port of Dover to the Continent, is sufficiently evidenced by the proposals which have in past years been made by them for the construction of a smaller harbour specially designed for that purpose. In conclusion, the Committee desire to draw the attention of the House to the evidence which has been submitted to them, and by which they have been much impressed, to the effect that a considerably increased extent of deep water space might be secured by a slight modification of the present designs, at an increased cost of moderate amount. It appears, however, to the Committee that it would be beyond their functions to recommend such an increase of expenditure, and they therefore content themselves with bringing the evidence referred to specially to the notice of the House."
  The Bill was dropped, and in answer to a Question from him, the Duke of Richmond said—
  "With regard to the intention of the Government in the matter, he might state that they, after reading the Report of the Committee to the effect that larger works were advisable, and finding that these larger works would cost more money than the tolls would readily cover, thought it better to withdraw the Bill for the present Session in order that they might in the autumn thoroughly sift and digest the evidence, and prepare a plan to submit to Parliament next Session. In making this statement he did not pledge the Government to any particular scheme, but wished to show their Lordships that the Bill was not withdrawn with any view of shelving the matter in any way whatever."—[3 Hansard, ccxxv. 1367.]
  Believing the Government intended to proceed with the Bill in the next Session the Harbour Board took no action prior to November, 1875; when on the 10th of that month a letter was received from the Board of Trade stating that the Government had decided not to proceed with the Bill next—that was, this—Session. The delay of the Government in communicating their intention prevented the Board taking any step in the matter. He was sure it was not an intentional want of courtesy, but the inconvenience was not the less. After all that had passed, it would seem as if it was a money difficulty, and increased taxation showed how pressing that money difficulty was. He was the last person to undervalue economy; he belonged to a Government which was supposed to have pushed that virtue too far, and yet, after full deliberation, they resolved that the enlargement of Dover Harbour was a necessity in peace and in war. He was certain that Her Majesty's present Go-
  1106
  vernment would not raise the objection of economy in any case where State necessity justified expenditure. The expenditure on the shares of the Suez Canal was justified solely on the necessity of securing the shortest of three routes to India for our commerce and our troops. But surely if that were a necessity—and it was generally admitted to be an advantage—it was, at least, an equal necessity to improve our means of communication with the Continent of Europe in time of peace, and to do that which all the naval and military authorities said was essential, not only for sending out our troops from home, but for the purpose of defence from invasion, and no one would, he presumed, say that the chance of a due pecuniary return was less for the improvement of Dover Harbour than for the purchase of the shares. He sincerely hoped Her Majesty's Government would be able to give some explicit assurance on this question.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, it was very natural that his noble Friend, from his official connection with that part of the country and his position as Chairman of the Harbour Board, should put the Question he had just put, present a Petition, and ask for information on this subject. He could assure his noble Friend that the last thing he would think of would be to decry the Petition which he stated to have been so numerously and respectably signed, or to suggest that the persons who had signed it were not acting in a bonâ fide way, or that they did not believe the allegations set forth in it. Neither did he rise to undervalue the importance of the harbour of Dover, whether in a strategical, national, or commercial point of view. He accepted the high authorities which his noble Friend had quoted, from His Royal Highness the illustrious Duke the Field-Marshal Commander-in-Chief, down to Sir Walter Raleigh. He was satisfied with the views expressed by the present illustrious Commander-in-Chief and by the late Field-Marshal the Duke of Wellington, either of whom would have been sufficient for him, and his noble Friend need not have travelled so far back as the worthy Knight of the time of Elizabeth. His noble Friend had left him very little to say—he had with such perfect accuracy described the whole course which the late Government had

  1107
  taken on this subject, the Bill which had been introduced, and the position in which Her Majesty's Government found themselves with respect to that Bill during the last Session. Her Majesty's Government at that time thought it advisable that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee of the other House of Parliament. In consequence of the recommendations of that Committee, and what occurred before it, it was not thought advisable to proceed with the Bill. It was therefore withdrawn, and the Government intended to consider the whole matter during the last autumn. They did consider it; but, as the noble Earl would admit, the subject was one of very high importance, of considerable gravity, and required very great consideration. The Government were not able during the autumn to arrive at a conclusion in time to give the notices which would have been required in accordance with Parliamentary practice. The undertaking also was very large, and one which required a very considerable outlay from the public funds; there was a very important person to be convinced—a person no less important in this Government than in the last, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and the result was that it was not found possible to proceed with so large a scheme during the present Session of Parliament. He was not going to follow his noble Friend into an inquiry whether it was as important from a commercial point of view to improve Dover Harbour as it was to purchase the Suez Canal shares. He would content himself with saying that the Government were perfectly satisfied that Dover Harbour was of very great value from a national point of view. Mr. Smith, indeed, said so in the course of his evidence. The matter was still under the consideration of the Government; but the increased Estimates for the Army and Navy during the present year had rendered it impossible for them to proceed during the present year with a work which must naturally be attended with expense.
  THE DUKE OE CAMBRIDGEsaid, he was glad to gather from the answer of the noble Duke that the Government were perfectly alive to the importance of Dover; and, as his opinion had been referred to, he wished to take the opportunity of stating that he adhered to every word of what he had expressed on
  1108
  a previous occasion. It was not that he attached much importance to his own views, but they were the views of the Duke of Wellington and of every military man who had considered the question. Difficulties might, no doubt, have arisen to prevent the works from being pushed on in the present year; but he hoped that, whenever it was possible to do so, these works might be undertaken, for they formed one of the most important military undertakings which could be carried out. We had a position there very capable of defence. A harbour might be formed such as could hardly be formed on any other part of the coast, yet there existed there no satisfactory means of embarking or disembarking troops. We were a great maritime nation; and, as the possibility of such requirements must be provided for, it was of national importance that no time should be lost in making Dover available for military and naval purposes.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that having had charge of the Bill of the late Government on this subject in the other House, he had listened with some anxiety to the answer of the noble Duke. He was glad to hear that the Government had not changed their minds as to the national gravity of this question. The reasons given by the noble Duke for not doing anything in the present year were not convincing, but he hoped that this year's delay would be the last, and that next year they would undertake the completion of this great national work. One peculiarity of the case already mentioned by his noble Friend (Earl Granville) was that a large sum of public money had already been spent at Dover both in the water and on the land. He would not say that this expenditure was wasted; but in the present state of the works it brought in a very inadequate return. A great fortress had teen placed there to command and protect the harbour; was it not worth while, then, even at some considerable cost, for the country to complete what it had begun, and make Dover Harbour really safe and adequate for such purposes as the coaling of Her Majesty's ships in time of war, and generally as a naval station, while at the same time they thereby greatly promoted the convenience and safety of the cross-Channel traffic? While at the Board

  1109
  of Trade he had regretted that it was necessary to refuse the assent of the Government, and thus put a stop to plans for the improvement of the Channel intercommunication, because they might stand in the way of the plans of the Government and injure Dover as a naval harbour. He trusted that after the present year the works would be no longer postponed.
  THE EARL OR FEVERSHAMsaid, that Dover was, no doubt, an important harbour; but he thought that, in considering the expediency of completing the works there, the Government should not lose sight of the larger question of harbours on the North-East coast. A Royal Commission appointed not many years ago to inquire into this subject reported in favour of Filey Bay as a harbour of refuge, but no action had ever been taken by any Government to carry out this recommendation, although every year a great loss of life occurred on this coast. Nor was there a harbour of defence on the east coast; and before coming to any decision upon the completion of expensive works at any one point of the coast the Government should take into consideration the whole question of harbour refuge and defence upon the east coast.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that Dover stood on a different footing from other harbours. He rose, however, to ask the noble Duke opposite for a more precise answer to his Question. The noble Duke said that the Government were alive to the importance of this subject. So had other Governments been, but nothing had been done. As Chairman of the Harbour Board at Dover, he wished to know what the Government proposed to do. As the noble Duke knew, this Board had powers to raise £500,000 for improving and enlarging the harbour, but they could not act without the permission of the Government.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he had admitted the gravity of the question, and the great importance of Dover Harbour. The Government also had shown their desire to do something by taking up the Bill brought forward by their Predecessors. That Bill, it was true, had been withdrawn, but from no desire to stop the further progress of the works. He was not now, however, in a position
  1110
  to pledge the Government as to the exact course they would take next year on this subject.
  Petition to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, to Friday next, half-past Ten o'clock.