Lords Sitting of 12 March 1877

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Beer Licences (Ireland) * (23); Open Spaces (Metropolis) * (24).
Second Reading—Exoneration of Charges (16); Contingent Remainders [17]; Irish Peerage [15].
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (£350,000) [40 Vict. c. 1].

EXONERATION OF CHARGES BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
EXONERATION OF CHARGES BILL.

  (NO. 16.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that according to the law of this country, up to a very recent period, a state of things might happen which he should best describe by an illustration. The owner of a landed estate worth £5,000 a-year, which was mortgaged to the extent of £50,000, had also personal property to the extent of £50,000; on his death he left the real estate to one son and the money to another. It was, of course, the intention of the testator to divide his property equally between the two sons. But up to the period to which he had referred it would have been in the power of the son to whom the real estate was devised to call upon the son who had the personal property to apply the latter to paying off the mortgage;—and in that way he would become the possessor, not merely of the estate, but of the £50,000 applied to paying off the mortgage. In 1854 an Act—the 17 & 18 Vict., c. 113—amended in 1867, was passed, which provided that unless there was specific direction by the testator to that effect, this right
  1736
  to have the real estate exonerated out of the personal property should not exist. Those Acts, however, extended to freehold property only; and as, in some recent instances, the same injustice had arisen in respect of leasehold property, the object of the present Bill was to extend the former Acts to leaseholds.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

CONTINGENT REMAINDERS BILL.
(The Lord Chanccllor.)
CONTINGENT REMAINDERS BILL.

  (NO. 17.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the measure had been introduced, like the preceding Bill, to remedy any injustice in the operation of the existing law. As the law now stood, if a man left an estate to Brown for life with remainder to the first son of John Smith who attained the age of 21 years, and if Brown died before any son of John Smith attained that age, the contingent remainder would be void. The Real Property Commissioners reported on that state of things in 1833, and strongly recommended that the law should be altered. Since then an attempt had been made to revise the law, and put it in a more satisfactory shape, but that attempt had not been successful. The object of the Bill before their Lordships, which was a very short one, was to limit the operation of the law. The necessity for this had been forcibly illustrated by a recent case in the Courts of Law, which showed that the present doctrine of law had worked serious injustice in the devolution of family property.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF THE METROPOLIS.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  EARL DE LA WARRrose to call the attention of their Lordships to the operation of the law with reference to the local government of the

  1737
  Metropolis; and to move for certain Returns relating to the expenditure of Vestries and District Boards within the Metropolitan District. He desired to bring this matter before their Lordships, having observed that the discussion which had recently taken place in their Lordships' House with reference to the Metropolitan Board of Works did not embrace some important points connected with that subject. The question as submitted to their Lordships by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camper-down) was confined to the constitution of the Metropolitan Board and the mode of its election. That was, doubtless, a matter of considerable importance, and he regretted that what was proposed by his noble Friend had not been assented to by their Lordships. The subject to which he now wished to call attention—namely, the operation of the law in the local government of the Metropolis—included, he was aware, many interests, and was one which, perhaps, could not be approached without awakening a certain amount, he might say, of prejudice, as touching upon what might be considered ancient custom and long-existing practice. These considerations threw some difficulties round the question. But at the same time they could not shut their eyes to the fact that changes must sometimes be made in local as well as in other institutions to adapt them to the requirements of the times. Now it seemed to be a want of this policy which had kept back improvements in the Metropolis, which consequently had only been partially carried out. It had been attempted, to unite the ancient form of local government, when the population was counted by hundreds, with what was rendered necessary by the increasing wants of a population almost unexampled in number and in the vastness and variety of its occupations. This work was attempted in the year 1855, when the Act was passed which constituted the Metropolitan Board of Works. Previous to the passing of this Act the Metropolis had been mainly under the government of Vestries—with the exception of the comparatively small area which, as now, was under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of London—and as might be expected, there were hardly two parishes which were governed alike. The object of this Act was to produce greater uniformity of local government.
  1738
  No doubt a great deal had been achieved, but the evil had only been partially cured. Before the appointment of the Metropolitan Board the subject had been for many years under the consideration of the ablest and most practical men; Parliamentary Committees and Royal Commissions had sat and reported upon it; Bills were introduced by the Governments of the day and by private Members of the Legislature, which were afterwards withdrawn; and the question seemed to be beset with difficulties—one of which, and he thought not the least, was the attempt to amalgamate the City of London with the surrounding boroughs and parishes. It was, therefore, wise in the Metropolis Management Act of 1855 to exclude almost entirely from its operation the City of London. He admitted that the City of London had been well governed — for, while the rights and privileges of that ancient Corporation had happily been respected by Parliament, they had adapted their practice to the wants of the present time, and had set an example of local government which was worthy of being followed. But the area and population included within the City boundary were comparatively small and were numbered by thousands, while outside they came to millions. Excluding, then, as he proposed to do in this discussion, the City of London, what did they find existing under the Metropolitan Act? There was a divided jurisdiction in many important matters affecting public interests and public convenience. If they looked outside the City boundaries there was a population approaching 4, 0 00,000. with an area extending into four counties, and inclosing nine Parliamentary boroughs. Under the Act of 1855 this immense district covered with houses was placed under the joint government of 38 Select Vestries or District Boards and the Metropolitan Board of Works. The smaller parishes were grouped together and formed District Boards; the larger ones being divided into wards having members according to their size. These Vestries or District Boards had under their management branch drainage, buildings to some extent, streets, water supply, lighting, and sanitary arrangements. The Metropolitan Board had entrusted to it the main drainage, the control over the construction of sewers by the Vestries, over the forma-

  1739
  tion of new streets and buildings, and general metropolitan improvements. The larger works were carried on by committees: thus there was the Building Committee, the Fire Brigade Committee, the Open Spaces and Commons Committee, the Cattle Diseases Committee, and others. Now he was at a loss to see how it could be for the advantage of the ratepayers or the public that there should be this divided jurisdiction, and these numerous centres of management. He would mention an instance—that of drainage. Could it be a good, or convenient, or economical arrangement that the main drainage should be under the Metropolitan Board and the smaller drainage under Parochial or District Boards? Or to take the water or lighting. Was it desirable to leave important matters like these, which required unity of action, in the hands of different Boards, with perhaps more or less different interests. It was argued" You will interfere with the parochial system if you take away the jurisdiction of Vestries." But was not that done already? They had District Boards formed by the union of parishes instead of Vestries, and it was but a small step further to unite these in one central Board, to be elected by the ratepayers, who would thus be directly represented, and would exercise more the rights which they were intended to have than they did under the present system. He came now to the practical results of this divided authority as existing in the Metropolitan Board of Works and the 38 Vestries or District Boards. And here he wished distinctly to state that in the remarks which he might offer ho desired in no way to attribute maladministration either to the Metropolitan Board or to the different Vestries and Local Boards. He regarded the defects in practice to which he might ask their Lordships' notice as the natural and in many instances unavoidable consequences of the existing divided authority and jurisdiction. Take the street question. The Metropolitan Board of Works had no control over many of those matters which materially affected public interests and public convenience; but in the work of the Local Boards streets were continually disturbed and broken up in different districts for gas or drainage pipes or other reasons at inconvenient seasons of the year, new paving was
  1740
  sometimes laid down in one street and not in another which equally required it; the paving of one street was often of a totally different kind from that in the other adjoining—so that horses suddenly passed from a macadamized street to a slippery wood or asphalte pavement; large masses of broken granite were laid down in some streets at a time when the carriage traffic most required an even road. Now, if they had one central authority there would be one kind of paving for all alike. Again, steam rollers were worked at all hours of the day: streets in the summer were frequently imperfectly watered; and he had heard of an instance where one parish insisted upon watering its side of the street in the morning, while the other watered it in the evening, thereby having dust all the day. These, he believed, were the words of the Act giving power to the Vestry to water the streets —"as often as they think fit." This, of course, admitted of very wide interpretation. So also as regarded crossing-sweepers to be distinguished by their dress as public servants, the Act allowed them to be appointed, but did not make it compulsory; consequently it was never done. And with reference to clearing the streets of dust or snow, the Act required it to be done at "such hours as fixed by the Vestry." It was too well known how imperfectly this was carried out; and as to cleaning the streets it was frequently done by aged and infirm persons instead of by the improved machinery now in use. And here he could not omit to notice the subject of the gas and water supply of the Metropolis. These were, as their Lordships knew, in the hands of Companies, and consequently Vestries and District Boards were dependent upon those Companies, both as regarded the quantity and quality of what was supplied. The gas of London, as was well known, was inferior to what was used in many other large towns; and there were instances of successful management, as in Manchester, where the gas was made a source of income to the town. In like manner, the quality of a considerable portion of the water as now supplied was not what it ought to be, and what it might be, in such a City as London. He believed both would be better if the supply was in the hands of a central authority. Then, what an unfavourable

  1741
  contrast did London and other large towns of England afford when compared with towns on the Continent with regard to markets? Where were our meat markets, our fish markets, our general markets? The few which we had were frequently small and ill-managed, and were not accessible to a large portion of the population, and the poor as well as the rich had often no choice but dealing with tradesmen at a disadvantage. These were some of the inconveniences, and others might be enumerated, which arose from the divided jurisdiction of so many Vestries and District Boards; and he could not but think that what he had ventured to suggest would in a great measure afford a remedy—that was, if the management of the Metropolis were placed under the control of a central Board such as or similar to the existing Metropolitan Board, and to be elected in a direct manner by the ratepayers. He believed it would be more economical, that the work would be better done, and that it would be greatly to the advantage of the public. He had to thank their Lordships for listening to what he felt was but an imperfect statement of a large question, and which he trusted might be supplemented by other remarks, in the hope that Her Majesty's Government might be induced to give their attention and consideration to that important subject. As he proposed to move for a Return of the sums expended by Vestries and District Boards of the metropolis during the past three years, he might mention that there was, he believed, a Return of the period between 1856 and 1870, showing a total expenditure of upwards of £7,000,000.
  Moved, That there be laid before this House—
  "Returns of the sums expended by vestries and district boards within the Metropolitan district, exclusive of the City of London, upon paving, lighting, drainage, water supply, sanitary arrangements, and other works not under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board, during the years 1874, 1875, and 1876.—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, there was no objection to the production of the Papers for which his noble Friend had moved. Their Lordships would, no doubt, expect that he should say something in answer to the observations of
  1742
  his noble Friend; but he had some difficulty in doing so, because he had been unable to find from the Notice on the Paper, to what particular point his noble Friend intended to address his remarks. Now that his noble Friend had made his observations, he (Earl Beauchamp) desired to point out that the main proposition of that speech had been, perhaps, sufficiently discussed when the Motion for the second reading of Lord Camper-down's Bill was before their Lordships. No one could contend that there were not imperfections in the present system of managing metropolitan affairs; but he thought that if regard was had to what had been accomplished, since the passing of the Metropolis Management Act, it must in candour be admitted that the Vestries and District Boards had not laboured without success, and that, on the whole, the management of the Metropolis would compare favourably with that of Continental towns. The Metropolis Management Act of 1855 contained the provisions in accordance with which the Vestries were elected and transacted their business. In 1870 a number of questions were addressed to the various Vestries of the Metropolis relative to the sanitary condition of their districts; and the answers to those questions showed that between the date of the passage of the Metropolis Management Act and that year the sanitary condition of the Metropolis had changed very considerably for the better, that the gas and water supply was improved, and that much property of an inferior and insanitary condition bad been replaced by dwellings of a more modern and healthy sort. Rome was not built in a day; but, considering the vastness of the work they had to do, the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Vestries might congratulate themselves on having taken most effective and successful steps in embellishing the Metropolis of this great Empire. He was far from denying that much remained to be done; and those who had done so much would be far from denying it; but still the improvement and beautifying of the City had proceeded to a considerable extent. The death-rate also of the Metropolis had been considerably diminished, but there was no reason why it should not be diminished still more. He could not very well follow the noble Earl through all the details of his

  1743
  speech—there seemed nothing too great, or too small for his criticism. As to what his noble Friend had said with regard to the pulling up of streets for the purpose of laying and repairing gas and water pipes, all that, no doubt, was disagreeable, but the Vestries had no jurisdiction to enable them to prevent it. Then his noble Friend had complained that there were different descriptions of paving in adjoining streets; but in reply to that, it was to be said that as yet no one kind of payment was acknowledged to be the best, and it must be remembered that the sort of pavement which answered very well in one street might not be suitable to another in which, perhaps, there was much more traffic. As to markets, it would be very hard to hold the Vestries accountable in that matter—they had no power over the markets; and if they had, it was not certain that they would act prudently or economically. A noble lady, whose name was always mentioned with respect (Lady Burdett Coutts), had founded a market in the densely populated district of Shoreditch, which, for some reason or other, did not command the approval of the population of the district and had proved a failure; and if they were to take that instance as a guide, they could not argue that the erection of markets for the various districts of the metropolis was the best thing to advocate. The noble Earl complained of the way in which dust and snow were removed from the streets. During the last great snowstorm the possibilities of the various Vestries were strained to the utmost. So that they must not take that as a fair sample of their normal capacities. But Mr. Hayward had shown by statistics, that to make provision for the immediate removal of the snow, after a heavy fall of snow in the Metropolis, would involve an expenditure out of all proportion to the object to be achieved. It was impossible for the very best arrangements to succeed in a season of great emergency; but, if it were found that the general working was efficient, he thought that was all they could fairly ask of any public body. There was, as he had said, no certainty that a central Board such as that suggested would produce more favourable results. The more they inquired into the manner in which the duties of the various local authorities
  1744
  were performed, the more it would be found that they redounded to the credit of those to whom they were entrusted.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETthought that if he took his "intelligent foreigner" through the West-end of London, that personage would be very much astonished at the way the public thoroughfares were dealt with by Vestries and by Gas and Water Companies. In dealing with our streets the Vestries ought to act under the control of a central authority, such as the Metropolitan Board of Works. They ought to be placed by law under such an authority; and, if that were done, a great deal of local inconvenience would be spared.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that a system could not but be defective, under which, not only the Vestries, but Gas and Water Companies had power to take up streets. The Companies acted independently of the Vestries. Two Companies might be pulling up different portions of a street at the same time; and he had known instances in which no sooner had one Company taken up a street and put it down again, than another Company entered and performed the same operation over again. He was glad to find that the noble Earl who had spoken on behalf of the Government (Earl Beauchamp) did not speak of the management of the Metropolis as being absolute perfection; but he regretted that the admissions of the noble Earl were so very qualified. He could not agree with the noble Earl that things had been done so well. On the contrary, he held that at the present moment the state of the Metropolis was far from creditable to the greatest capital in the world. It was very far from being equal to Paris in its pavements, though, when he first knew the French capital, it was far behind London in that respect, as well as in its sanitary arrangements. He was of opinion that as the duties of the Vestries were administrative, the members of those bodies were too numerous. He must, in conclusion, solemnly enter his protest against regarding the present state of administration in the Metropolis as being either satisfactory, efficient, or economical.
  Motion agreed to.

CAPTAIN BURNABY—RECALL FROM RUSSIA AND ASIA.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD DORCHESTERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, By whose authority—and for what reasons, the leave of Captain Burnaby, of the Royal Horse Guards, granted by Her Majesty to travel in Russia and Asia, was rescinded; and by whom the cost of a telegram conveying an order to that officer to return was borne? He said that in putting these Questions, of which he had given Notice a week ago to the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he wished to disclaim all intention of raising any political question or causing any controversy between the two sides of the House. He was aware that the discussion in reference to the atrocities perpetrated in Bulgaria had created a great deal of interest, and he only regretted that, side by side with the compendious Blue Books on the subject and the able Report of Mr. Baring, they had not a list of the horrors that occurred in Poland in 1863, and the like of which he believed had also occurred in Circassia. He had read a letter from a remote town in Asia Minor in which it was stated that Bashi-Bazouks had returned from Bulgaria, and the vindictive propensities which were displayed in Bulgaria had been aroused by the remembrance of what took place in their country when it was subjugated. But it was not his wish to open up a sore which they all hoped was in process of being healed; and speaking from those (the Opposition) benches, he believed that the Government were entitled to the greatest consideration and a favourable verdict for the firmness and moderation and dignity with which they had conducted the affairs of the Conference at Constantinople. It had been said by a great master of the English tongue that "it is not in mortals to command success;" but he felt sure that the Government had done what they could to deserve it. He had not, however, risen to address their Lordships on that subject, but to ask two Questions which affected, he thought, the basis of the individual and personal liberty of every Englishman who sought recreation abroad, and liberty to travel under the passport of the British Foreign Secretary. In this instance they had a British
  1746
  officer who applied to the commanding officer of his regiment, that application was forwarded to the Brigade office, thence to the Divisional office, and thence to the Horse Guards, and from the Horse Guards to the War Office. [A laugh.] That, at least, was the system when he knew it, and he had some experience; and he did not know that the recent alterations in our military system had had the effect of simplifying matters —he should rather say the reverse. Well, this officer openly and avowedly sent in his application, which passed through all the necessary channels, and eventually what was called "Queen's leave" was granted to him to proceed to Russia and Asia. The officer left in the most undisguised manner and proceeded to St. Petersburg, where he took up his quarters at one of the principal hotels. He took letters of introduction from the Russian Ambassador here to his brother at St. Petersburg, and called upon the British Ambassador and the military attaché; and he (Lord Dorchester) could not imagine how more publicity could have been given, or a more open announcement of his intentions made than were made by Captain Burnaby. He proceeded by railway as far as the last station on the route, at Orenburg, and finally rode some 900 miles across the Desert. He was not bound, either as a British officer, or a man of honour, to specify to the Russian Government at what precise point he was going to emerge from their Empire into the neighbouring territory of the Khan of Khiva—but what he did, he did without taking advice or permission from the Russian Minister. In that consisted the sin and offence of Captain Burnaby. When he was at Khiva, he received a message by two Tartars telling him that he was to return to the fort of Petro Alexandrovsk, where a message was awaiting him from His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief. That he (Lord Dorchester) believed was the tenor of the message; but, at any rate, a message awaited him from England. Believing in the honour and truthfulness of the parties from whom he received this message, he accompanied the Tartars back to Fort Alexandrovsk. The two Tartars never allowed him out of their sight; and, further, he learned at Khiva that the Khan had heard of his enforced departure, and that a party was to escort him to

  1747
  the fort. It was little more than an open arrest—it was very like sending a common soldier with a file of men to the rear. At Petro Alexandrovsk a communication was made to him by the commandant, stating that he was to return to his country by the way which he came, and that he had strict orders to refuse him permission to proceed as he wished, either through Tashkend or by the Caspian Sea—than which he (Lord Dorchester) could not imagine more harmless routes. There might be some difficulty in determining the precise limits of the leave granted to Captain Burnaby, but he was not aware that he exceeded the limit permitted when he went to travel in Russia and Asia; and he did not think that the Commander-in-Chief would punish him for exceeding it by about 20 miles, the extent to which he travelled beyond the Russian boundary. Captain Burnaby had a great knowledge of Arabic, and was a first-rate Russian scholar; and he regretted that when he (Lord Dorchester) was in the Crimean War in 1854 he had not that knowledge, for he might say that the number of Englishmen in the Crimea who could speak the Russian language might be counted on their fingers. He did not think that the knowledge of languages was an objectionable acquirement to officers of the British Army—he thought that nothing could be better than that English officers should learn modern languages — it would be much better for them than the new-fangled examinations of officers. If they could only put them through their facings as a drill-sergeant did the recruits, it would be more useful than so many examinations. A very curious thing happened to him that day. He went to a certain scientific society to ascertain the exact distance that Captain Burnaby had travelled under his passport. The gentleman with whom he conversed said—"Of course, you have not come for the purpose of making the examination paper public—but your inquiry bears directly upon a question which is going to be put in an examination in one of the Departments." That gentleman gave him the distance from St. Petersburg to Khiva as about 2,300 English miles. The Questions he desired to put to the noble Earl were of serious importance, and he only put them from the sense of dignity which was due
  1748
  to officers in the English Service. No British subject should have been treated in this manner, far less a British officer so accomplished a linguist, and so conversant in the manners and customs of Oriental nations, who had such a laudable spirit of inquiry and so great intrepidity as had been exhibited by Captain Burnaby, who, travelling quite alone without any English servant, with merely those servants whom he could pick up in the country through which he was attempting to push his way—travelling in the East as Edwards, Burns, Abbett, Stoddart, and Conolly had done before him. Such an expedition was not considered a crime in the days of Lord William Bentinck, and he did not see it should be considered a crime now-a-days. He should not have put the Questions if he had been able to discover the reasons for the conduct that had been pursued. If their Imperial Ally had thought it necessary to stop Captain Burnaby, he should have done this before he left the Russian territory. It could only be for one of three reasons that Captain Burnaby had been sent back—having misconducted himself in this country; or secondly, having misconducted himself in that country; or thirdly, that the exigencies of the public service of this country required him at home. Those were the only three reasons which he could find for what had been done. He had no doubt the noble Earl would enlighten their Lordships on these points. He should regret if it were spread abroad in the East that a captain of the Queen's Guard—a man of high rank, who had become friendly with the Khan of Khiva, and, indeed, upon the best possible terms with him, for on the very morning he was recalled he had received as a present a dressing-gown from that Chief—should have been sent home in a manner in which a guardsman left a public-house with a corporal's picquet. He begged to ask the Questions of which he had given Notice.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I think your Lordships are much indebted to the noble Lord for putting these Questions, and for the amount of entertainment which he has extracted out of matter extremely simple, and not of very large or general interest. I am glad that the feelings which seem to exist in the noble Lord's mind are not shared in by your

  1749
  Lordships generally, or, as I hope, by other persons out-of-doors. The noble Lord has spoken in high terms of the merits of Captain Burnaby; but he has evidently put a construction upon what has been done which is entirely different from that which the War Office, or those who are aware of all the circumstances, can accept as just. The noble Lord has spoken of the high character of Captain Burnaby, and with that I entirely agree. I have always heard him spoken of as a very efficient officer; and—though I am not acquainted with him personally—I believe that he is a very popular officer; and to these qualifications he adds the distinction of being an adventurous traveller and a successful writer. And, I may now say, once for all, without enlarging on the point, that there is absolutely no offence charged against him, nor the slightest stigma put upon him by the course which has been adopted. The noble Lord speaks of Captain Burnaby having been treated—as I understand—in an ignominious manner by Russian officers, or other persons in the Russian service who were appointed to accompany him on his return home. He also spoke of the conduct adopted towards Captain Burnaby by the Russian authorities, and of his being placed under arrest; and he likened the manner in which, he says, Captain Burnaby was brought back to this country to the taking away of a soldier from a public-house by his comrades.
  LORD DORCHESTER: I read it from his book.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I have not had the pleasure of reading his book, and therefore cannot decide how far these remarks are justified; but what I can say on the subject is this—that if Captain Burnaby has any complaint to make against the Russian authorities, small or great, with regard to their treatment of him, let him make it to the Foreign Office, and we will take care that if he has in any way been improperly treated reparation shall be asked for. More than that I cannot promise. I cannot hold myself and the Government responsible for acts done by foreign Governments or their agents, when no complaint of those acts has reached us at the Foreign Office. The noble Lord went out of his way to vindicate the conduct of Captain Burnaby in matters in which I have never
  1750
  heard it attacked. I never denied that he had gone on his journey publicly, and not in a secret or underhand manner. I cannot, however, agree with the contention of the noble Lord when he says that the recall of Captain Burnaby from his travels was a personal slight put upon him, and that because the route he contemplated following was laid down, and he had permission to travel on leave, we had no right to interfere with his movements. If Captain Burnaby had not held an appointment under the State, but had been a private person, we should have had no right to interfere with his movements; but he was an officer of the Queen, to whom leave had been granted, and it is impossible to say of a person so situated, when political considerations render it necessary or desirable that he should be recalled, that it can be considered in the light of a violation of his personal liberty to require his return. The simple facts are these: —The first we heard of Captain Burnaby was from our Ambassador at St. Petersburg on the 18th December, 1875. He stated that a British officer had passed through St. Petersburg without communicating with the Embassy. There may have been some misunderstanding about that, as there is contradictory evidence on the point, but that is the statement which I received. Of course he had a right to report himself or not at the Embassy as he thought fit. But he applied direct to the Russian Minister of War, who promised to give him facilities for travelling throughout the Russian dominions, but said he could not give his consent to his crossing the Russian frontier into the independent Central Asian States, inasmuch as it would be impossible for the Russian Government to guarantee his personal security beyond the Russian lines. It was afterwards reported from St. Petersburg that Captain Burnaby had passed over the Russian frontier into Central Asia, and was then travelling among the independent States, visiting on his way the capital of Khokand, which country was at that time at war with Russia; and it seemed to us undesirable that a journey of that kind should be undertaken through those independent provinces bordering on the frontier of Russia by a person who was known to be a British officer; because it was certain to lead to misconstruction by Russia on the

  1751
  one hand, and by the native populations on the other. Captain Burnaby was a British officer, and I need hardly tell your Lordships that the notion of a man in that position travelling through a wild and dangerous country on his own account, without orders, for the mere love of information and adventure was a thing entirely unintelligible to Oriental people. He would be regarded as a political agent, and any denial of the fact, so far from causing it to be disbelieved, would only have created greater belief in its truth; any outbreak occurring in those parts would have been ascribed to the intrigues of this British agent; the mere presence of such a person amongst them would have led to rumours of foreign interference, and these rumours again, probably, to disturbances amongst the people. But more than that; if any mishap had befallen Captain Burnaby himself the Russian Government would have disclaimed all responsibility, and the British Government would have found it practically impossible to interfere with effect. The noble Lord says it will not redound to our credit when it is stated all over Asia that a British officer has been turned back on a journey of this sort; but I think it would be much less to our credit if a British officer, known to be such, had been murdered, or detained for ransom, by a barbarous people not far from the Indian frontier. It would not have been possible to have allowed such an insult to pass by without notice; yet it would have been practically impossible to send an expedition to release him or to obtain redress. That has been felt so strongly by the Indian Government on similar occasions that they have done, more than once, precisely what the Russian authorities did—they have discouraged and tried to prevent to the utmost of their power a British subject adventuring without permission amongst the semi-barbarous frontier tribes. I have nothing more to add; but will repeat that Captain Burnaby was not a private tourist, but an officer on leave, who was recalled for reasons of a political nature. As to the message sent to him, it was simply a message to return home. Of what was done to him by the local authorities I know nothing. As to the question by whose authority was he recalled, of course it was by the act of the military authorities; but the re-
  1752
  sponsibility rests with the Foreign Office. As to the last part of the Question—by whom the cost of the telegram conveying the order to return is to be borne—I am not prepared to answer it further than this—that the telegram between London and St. Petersburg was on the public service, and will be charged upon the public funds. As to what was the precise mode of transmission between St. Petersburg and Khiva I am not aware; but I have no doubt that information can be obtained if the noble Lord wishes to have it.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYasked how the information reached Captain Burnaby at Khiva?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I do not like to answer that question offhand, but my impression is that it reached him either through the Russian War Office, or direct from the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg. I may say, once for all, that I have never received at any time any communication on this subject from the Russian authorities.

IRISH PEERAGE BILL—(No. 15.)
(The Lord Inchiquin.)
IRISH PEERAGE BILL—(No. 15.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD INCHIQUIN,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the present measure was confined to the single object of putting an end to the further creation of Irish Peerages—a power which their Lordships were aware was vested in Her Majesty, with certain limitations, by the Act of Union. He had confined himself to this single object because, however desirable it might be to make other alterations in the laws relating to the Peerage of Ireland, he thought that after the discussion which took place last year on the Bill which he then introduced, considerable diversity of opinion had been shown to exist as to what alterations ought to be made. And even if their Lordships were to agree to any changes in respect to these laws, he thought it would be undesirable at the present moment to include them in this Bill, as the effect would very probably be to endanger its passage through the other House. There was sufficient reason why it was desirable that this Bill should become law. because at the present time there was one, if not

  1753
  two, vacancies which it was in the power of the Crown to fill up. If their Lordships agreed to the Bill as it now stood, the effect would be to place the Scotch and Irish Peerage on the same footing. Under the circumstances, he would not trouble their Lordships further. but would conclude by expressing a hope that Her Majesty's Government would be able to see their way to assist the passing of the measure through the other House of' Parliament.
  Moved," That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Inchiquin.)
  LORD DENMANsaid, that having last year opposed the Bill, he was sorry to speak against it as he had done on the 4th April, 1876. He could not easily change his opinion. He thought the whole subject should be dealt with; and if, unfortunately, the number of Irish Peers should fall so low as 28, there would be no electors left. He felt that his opposition would be useless.
  LORD CARLINGFORDcomplained of the mode in which the Bill of last Session had been treated in the other House. He thought that, considering the circumstances that then occurred, the question should have been taken up by Her Majesty's Government. It was a measure of considerable constitutional interest, materially affecting the Act of Union, and its introduction had been sanctioned by the Crown in accordance with an Address to the effect which had been presented by their Lordships' House. In these circumstances, he was of opinion that the measure should have been brought forward under the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, and should not be left this year, as it was last year, hanging about the two Houses of Parliament in a doubtful manner, resulting in a very lame conclusion. If the Bill was not to be in the hands of the Government, he hoped at least that they would give some assurance that it should be supported by the Government—he did not say in this House, but in the other House of Parliament—so that the House might feel an assurance that the change which the Government were, of course, now as much committed to as his noble Friend (Lord Inchiquin), or any who sat on the Opposition side of the House, should no longer be delayed; and that this mea-
  1754
  sure, which, though a small one, was of great importance in its purpose, should become law.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.