Lords Sitting of 29 June 1877

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First, Reading—Tramways* (124); Municipal Corporations (New Charters) * (125).
Second Reading—Trade Marks* (106).
Committee—Metropolis Toll Bridges * (45); Metropolis Improvement Provisional Orders Confirmation (Great Wild Street, &c.) * (81); Local Government Provisional Orders (Bridlington, &c.) * (107).
Committee—Report—Public Works Loans* (88).
Report—Norfolk and Suffolk Fisheries* (104); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Belper Union, &c.) * (87).
Third Reading—Game Laws (Scotland) Amendment (97); Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (Abingdon, &c.) * (66), and passed.

RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE WAR—EXCESSES BY THE RUSSIAN ARMY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYrose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If instructions have been given to Colonel Wellesley or to
  478
  other British officers holding similar appointments to report any excesses committed by the Russian Army? Inputting the Question the noble Lord said:—Notwithstanding Mr. Bright's silence at Birmingham, and notwithstanding that the Reform Club by its invitation to Midhat Pasha has disassociated itself from the frenzy of last Autumn and repudiated the assertion that the Turk is "unspeakable" and that the Ottoman Parliament is not worthy of respect and confidence, it is possible that there may yet be a few persons who adhere to the wild opinions disseminated last Autumn. I will therefore preface the Question of which I have given Notice with a few observations. After reading the Papers respecting the treatment of the United Greeks in Poland it will hardly be denied that the Russian soldiers are not wholly incapable of committing excesses. Still less, after what has been reported of the massacre by the Russian troops of the sick and wounded in the hospitals of Ardahan, can it be held improbable that the Wallachian peasants will be exposed to great oppression by the Russian soldiers, when German subjects have been the victims of Russian ill-treatment in Bucharest itself. And it must be admitted that the Russian Army is more deserving of censure for acts such as those at Ardahan than the Army of any other nation, when it is remembered that but a few years ago it was Russia which summoned the nations of Europe to a Conference at Brussels for the avowed, and it may now be said hypocritical, purpose of humanizing warfare and prohibiting explosive bullets. It will also be remembered that, thanks to the wariness of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, this country was not entangled in the snares that were prepared against the Maritime Powers, for the Brussels Conference came to bought, and separated without being able to carry out the design of its promoters, which was to cripple the offensive and defensive capacity of the Maritime Powers by exempting private ships from the effects of war. What, then, is to be thought of the conduct of Russia in sinking four small Turkish merchant brigs by torpedoes? Instead of following the usage not only of civilized nations, but of all nations, and calling on these vessels to surrender, the Russians destroyed them and sent their

  479
  crews out of the world without notice, by treacherous engines more repugnant to humanity than the explosive bullets used to blow up ammunition waggons. The recent declaration of a leading St. Petersburg paper was therefore very opportune when it stated that Russia is not the mandatory of Europe, and would not accept interference with its conduct of the war; though this declaration is inconsistent with Russia's previous unfounded assumption that she is acting for Europe, and with the sanction of Europe. Apart from motives of humanity, this question has become necessary in consequence of what has recently been said with regard to Sir Arnold Kemball. That officer, in the exercise of his discretion and in accordance with the gallantry that was to be expected of him or of any British officer charged with reporting on military events and with gaining military experience, exposed himself to considerable danger, and his doing so does not require to be excused; indeed, the gist of Colonel Wellesley's complaint, and the indignity put upon him, was that he was kept in the rear; and it was hardly necessary to state, by way of giving a sop to those who cavilled at Sir Arnold Kemball, that he was charged with the duty of reporting any excesses against the civil population. But if Sir Arnold Kemball received instructions on this point, it is evident that they are equally necessary in the case of Colonel Wellesley, and of any British officer accompanying the Russian Army near Ardahan. I will not ask my noble Friend the Secretary of State to follow me through all the matters I have touched upon; but I will ask him if our neutrality will not be infringed if similar instructions are not given to the British officers in both of the opposing armies?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: In answer to the Questions of the noble Lord I should say that no special instructions have been given to Colonel Wellesley, or to other British officers holding similar appointments, to report any case of outrage or violence committed by the Russian Army. No special instructions of that kind have been addressed to Colonel Wellesley; but it is well understood that the duty of Military Attachés accompanying foreign armies is to send home reports of any operations of war or any circumstances connected with the
  480
  campaign or other matters which they may think important or interesting to their Government. I have no doubt that if any act of the kind referred to came under the observation of a British officer he would send home a report of it. With regard to the special case to which the noble Lord has referred—that of Sir Arnold Kemball—it was thought that civil war, attended with outrages, might break out in the provinces to which he was sent, and that Her Majesty's Government might, by timely representations, prevent the recurrence of them. It was with that view that special instructions were given to Sir Arnold Kemball.

  GAME LAWS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.—(Nos. 44–97–118.)
  (The Earl of Rosebery.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order.)
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that in Committee he had proposed an Amendment to the 4th clause, with the view of remedying some complaints which had been made with respect to "compensation for game harboured on the lands of the lessor," and he promised to consider the matter. After having given it that consideration, he had come to the conclusion that the complaint would be remedied by leaving out the words which had reference to game that might be harboured on the lands of the lessor to which the reservation or retention applied. He therefore proposed that those words should be omitted.
  Motion agreed to; clause amended accordingly.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRKmoved to insert a new clause to follow Clause 7—
  "Where in any lease made subsequently to the passing of this Act a lessor and lessee have agreed that any claim of damage arising under this Act shall be referred to arbitration, the same shall be referred to arbitration in the manner, and subject to the provisions mentioned in the lease, but if the lease contains no provisions as to the manner of arbitration, or if for any reason such provisions cannot be observed, then the arbitration shall be conducted in the manner hereinafter in this Act mentioned."
  As he had already pointed out, if the clause were left as it now stood there would be two sets of arbitrators, one

  481
  appointed under the Act, and the other named in the lease. The effect of this would be that the former would supersede the latter, who had been chosen by the parties.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that when on a former occasion the noble Earl brought forward his Amendment, he used the argument that where there were general clauses of arbitration in the lease it would be more convenient and would cause less confusion if the arbitration under this Bill were confined to those general clauses. But under this new clause, as proposed by the noble Earl, the ground for his previous contention obviously disappeared, because the clause spoke of a particular arbitration in the lease. The arbitration in the Bill was therefore to be set against an unknown arbitration, composed of unknown words. What would they gain by the clause? They would not gain under it the convenience of referring to general arbitration the particular arbitration of matters affecting game. They simply gained the substitution of particular words of the noble Earl's unknown arbitration for the particular kind of arbitration laid down in the Bill; but it stood to reason that no one would wish to change simplicity and uniformity for needless variety; and no one would wish to exchange a known method of arbitration for an unknown method. It might be in the case of a bad landlord that his own factor would be appointed arbitrator; and in that case the clause would have no effect at all. The main object of the Bill was to set at rest the agitation that now existed on the subject in Scotland; but if they allowed persons who were carrying on that agitation the possibility of availing themselves of the noble Earl's Amendment, they would be far from settling the agitation, as it was hoped they would be able to do by the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there seemed to be some misunderstanding as to the exact position of the question. His noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) said that when in any lease there was an arbitration clause there was no reason why any disputes which arose under this Act should not be settled by the arbitrator appointed by the lease. But his noble Friend had forgotten that the Bill did not apply to any existing lease, but only to future leases, and
  482
  therefore they might put aside all reference to cases where there was at present a machinery for arbitration. With regard to future arbitration, if there was to be any arbitration at all, he was bound to say that there could not be a fairer machinery than that which was provided by the Bill. Each party chose their own arbitrator, who, in case of disputes between themselves, appointed an umpire who would decide between them, and to such an arbitration as that he did not think that any objection could be made. The Bill, as it stood at present, only provided that arbitration should take place after disputes had arisen, and only in case the landlord and tenant agreed to refer it to arbitration, instead of going into Court. He stated on a former occasion, when the noble Earl on the cross benches (the Earl of Selkirk) proposed his Amendment, that it appeared to him that it would be a very reasonable alteration to make in the Bill, and that it would be an improvement if, instead of providing that any disputes that might arise should be settled by arbitration, a provision could be introduced into the Bill by which the landlord and tenant could stipulate once and for all that, in case of any disputes arising between them under the Act, they might be referred to arbitration under the arbitration clause of this Bill; and he was bound to add that he was to some extent responsible for the drawing of the clause, and he put in those words to give effect to the views of the noble Earl. At the same time, it might be said that they went too far and prescribed a mode of arbitration, and also that some of the subjects of arbitration might be different from those described in the Bill. He thought that the real remedy would be some slight amendment to the 6th clause. He proposed to add the words—
  "In any lease made subsequent to the Act, such question should he referred to the arbitration provided in the Bill."
  That would make the landlord and tenant coming under the operation of the Act say at once whether they chose to have any disputes referred to the arbitration under the Act or not, and he thought that if those words were inserted they would meet the views of the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYquite agreed with the Amendment proposed

  483
  by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRKsaid, that all he wanted was that there should be no doubt as to the power of the landlord and tenant to refer any disputes that might arise under a lease to the arbitrators appointed by the lease, and he understood that when the Bill was passing through the House of Commons there was no objection to such a provision being made; but, to his astonishment, when the Bill came into their Lordships' House, he found it was not inserted. He did not think that the Amendment suggested by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would meet the case as completely as the clause he proposed.
  EARL GRANVILLEpreferred the words suggested by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to the clause now suggested.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONexpressed himself of the same opinion. The only objection of the noble Earl was that the Bill set up an unknown system of arbitration in Scotland; but he thought their Lordships would agree to the proposal of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and reject the clause of the noble Earl.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Then the Lord Chancellor's Amendment put, and agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to authorise the experimental use of Mechanical Power on Tramways—Was presented by The Lord DE ROS; read 1a. (No. 124.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (NEW CHARTERS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Law with respect to the grant of Municipal Charters—Was presented by The LORD PRESIDENT; read 1a (No. 125.)
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.