Lords Sitting of 11 March 1878

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading — Metropolitan Board of Works (Election of Members) (1), negatived; Exchequer Bonds (£1,000,000) *.

THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE CONFERENCE— GREECE.—QUESTION.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can confirm the statement—which to me appears satisfactory—that Her Majesty's Government have proposed to the other Powers that Greece should be represented at the forthcoming Congress or Conference?
THE EARL OF DERBY: Yes, my Lords, I am in a position to confirm that statement.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (ELECTION OF MEMBERS) BILL.
(The Earl of Camperdown.)
METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (ELECTION OF MEMBERS) BILL.

  (NO. 1.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to alter the mode of the election of the members of the Metropolitan Board of Works. At present, under the Metropolis Local Management Act of 1855, the Metropolitan Board of Works was elected by the vestries, which, in their turn, were elected by the ratepayers. The proposal now before their Lordships was to abolish the intermediate election of the Board by the vestries, and to substitute in its stead the direct election of the Board by the ratepayers. Last year he introduced very nearly the same measure; but in the Bill of last Session, there was a rather important proposal which in the present Bill was omitted. That was a proposal for the increase in the number of the Board to 100 members. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp), who, on the part of Her Majesty's Government opposed the Bill of last Session, while admitting that some alteration was necessary, took exception to the proposal for the increase in the number of the Board, and in that objection he was followed by other noble Lords who took part in the debate on the second reading of the Bill. The measure, therefore, now came before their Lordships as a simple proposal to substitute direct elections for the present system of vestry or intermediate secondary election. He did not make the proposition because he had any abstract
  1022
  predilection for one mode of election rather than another; but because he thought there were practical reasons in its favour, and for abandoning the system of intermediate election. At the present time, the ratepayers had in reality no control whatever over the members who represented them on the Metropolitan Board of Works. There was but a very small amount of interest taken in vestry elections, and the electors even who assisted in taking part in them scarcely appeared to realize the fact that they were taking part in the election of a fractional part of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Yet the functions of that Board were annually increasing, and for that reason it was desirable that the ratepayers should be brought as much as possible in contact with their representatives on the Board. The Metropolitan Board of Works in the present Session was promoting a Bill for the purchase of all the Metropolitan Water Companies. That Bill, which involved the borrowing of a sum of £30,000,000, had been referred to a Select Committee, and it was being argued before that Committee by a large array of gentlemen of the long robe. The expense of promoting the measure would, of course, fall in some shape or other on the ratepayers of the metropolis. He passed no opinion whatever on the measure itself; but he believed the Motion for its promotion was carried in the Metropolitan Board of Works by a close division, and during the last fortnight several meetings of ratepayers had been held to protest against it. In Liverpool, or any other of our large towns except the metropolis, such a Bill would have been submitted to the ratepayers before it was brought into Parliament. Was there any valid reason why a system of representation which was held to be good for our other large towns should not be applied in the metropolis? Members of Parliament, who control general taxation, are elected directly in London as well as in the other large towns. Why, then, should not the Board which controls local taxation in London be elected in the same manner? There was even a greater necessity for it in the case of the latter taxation than in that of the former. An Amendment for the rejection of the Bill had been placed on the Paper by a noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) whom he (the

  1023
  Earl of Camperdown) did not see in his place. He had hoped that the noble Earl would have been present to explain what system he would substitute; for, though the noble Earl did not agree with the proposal contained in the Bill, he (the Earl of Camperdown) had heard him on several occasions express his strong discontent with the system of local government in the metropolis. He anticipated that an objection usual on such occasions would be put forward—namely, that the Bill proposed a change so large and revolutionary that it ought not be proposed by a private Member, but should come before the House with nothing less than the authority of the Government. If that objection were thought to have any weight in this case, he would be only too glad if the Government undertook to deal with the question, or with any part of the system of local government in the metropolis. On the other hand, it might be said that the change was so small that it only touched the fringe of a great question, and would have the effect of unsettling matters. In answer to that, he would only point out that the change which he proposed was of the simplest possible character. It neither interfered with the number of members of the Metropolitan Board nor with the areas of election; it simply substituted direct election by the ratepayers for the present system. The Bill contained a provision that, instead of one-third of the Board retiring every year, the whole Board should be elected once in every three years. It also provided that, in future, the voting might be cumulative, and that the votes should be taken by ballot. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON,in the absence of the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) who had given Notice of the Amendment, rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. In doing so, he had to complain that the noble Earl the Mover of the Bill (the Earl of Camperdown) should have presented such a revolutionary measure without any previous explanation upon the first reading of the Bill. After so decided an expression of the opinion of the House against his Bill of last year,
  1024
  the noble Earl might at least have been warned, and have modified more than he had done the proposals it contained. The jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works extended over an area of 123 square miles, while the area of the old City of London was little more than one square mile. The population of the area of the Board's jurisdiction was estimated at a little more than 3,250,000, and the rateable value of property closely approached £23,500,000. The amount which the Board raised by taxation, which amounted to an average of 4d. and four-fifths of 1d. in the pound, was no less than £477,000 a-year; while it had funds provided by Parliament for a certain term of years, and raised by the wine and coal duties, amounting to £250,000 per annum. In other words, the actual revenue for the expenditure of which the Board was responsible was about £723,000 a-year. Besides the Thames Embankment and the Main Drainage system, the opening of various new streets and two Parks; besides numerous other works of great importance and utility, which everyone would allow were carried out very much to its credit, at the present time, it still had various other extensive works in progress. A Board possessing such resources, and exercising such functions, ought at all times to be open to criticism, and he was not aware that the Metropolitan Board had ever shrunk from it. On the contrary, it had always invited it. When the question of the election of its members was being considered, it should be remembered that it was simply a body entrusted with the exercise of important powers by the Legislature. As he had said, the Bill before the House was one of the most revolutionary measures ever brought forward, and the sting of it was to be found in the 2nd and 3rd clauses. By the 2nd clause of his Bill, the noble Earl proposed to abolish the whole of the existing Board on the 1st of December next, and by the 3rd clause he proposed to substitute an entirely new mode of election for that prescribed by Parliament. He (Viscount Midleton) took distinct issue with the noble Earl on both points. He denied that the noble Earl had made out a case for the necessity of legislation of this character, and also that the mode of election proposed was desirable or would conduce to the public benefit. He

  1025
  would ask whether a body of men who had done such good service ought to be turned to the right-about in order to suit the theory of representation entertained by the noble Earl? The next proposal in the Bill was that the whole of the Board should be changed at one time every three years. This was a still more astonishing proposal than either made in the previous clauses. He (Viscount Midleton) supposed that that part of the Bill had been borrowed from the recommendations of a Select Committee which had sat upon the subject; but the noble Earl had only taken such recommendations as suited his purpose, and had not embodied in his Bill others to the effect that a safeguard should be given by representation of property through the introduction of an ex-officio element, that, if the Crown were taxed, the Crown should have the power of nominating some representatives, and that other important bodies ought also to be represented. It was scarcely fair to take a portion of the recommendations of the Select Committee and ignore the remainder in a Bill on this subject. Let Parliament adopt the proposal for an election of the whole Board at one time, and, if the Board did anything unpopular under the Bill, there would be a clean sweep of the members of the Board, without a moment's warning, and a new Board constituted, with the absence of all the stability and experience which the present Board had acquired by 22 years of patient work, and inexperienced persons might be returned in their stead. The machinery of election provided by his noble Friend was almost identical with that of the school board; but that was a system of election which their Lordships were not likely to adopt, inasmuch as it was notorious that such elections involved enormous expense, and that they were made the occasion of political contests. It would be the same in the case of the election for members of the Metropolitan Board of Works under the triennial Parliament system of his noble Friend. The Bill only touched the fringe of a much larger question, and if his noble Friend said that the time was coming when the whole system of local government in the metropolis must be taken up by the Government, he should be disposed to agree with him, though he would not envy the Government which
  1026
  had to undertake that task. He thought the time was coming when Her Majesty's Government would have to consider what new form of government should be established for the whole of the metropolis; but, in view of the necessity of a measure so important as one by which such government would be established, it would be most unwise to sanction bit-by-bit legistation, because it would be a serious obstacle to such a measure. He begged to move the rejection of the Bill.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Viscount Midleton.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsupported the Amendment. He was glad to see that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camperdown) proposed to omit the objectionable clause he offered last year, to increase the number of the Board; but, at the same time, he confessed that it seemed to him that all the arguments in favour of the Bill which were proposed last year, and of which this was a re-production, were conspicuous by their absence. He would have been content to leave the Motion for the second reading of the Bill in the hands of their Lordships after the speech of the noble Viscount who had just sat down (Viscount Midleton), were it not that the noble Earl who proposed the Bill seemed to think that he (Earl Beau-champ), when last year opposing the Bill, had admitted the necessity of some alteration in the constitution of the Board. He did not think that anything which fell from him on that occasion justified the noble Earl in making that assertion. What he had said was, that although a Select Committee had recommended this change, securities for the due representation of property and intelligence formed an integral part of the series of representations. lie also observed on that occasion that other proposals contained in that Bill made the measure more open to objection than it would have been, if it were simply one to change the mode of election, in which case he should find it more difficult to construct an argument against it. But it was clear that it was more difficult to construct an argument against a Bill containing one objectionable proposal than against a Bill bristling all over

  1027
  with objectionable provisions. He was glad to bear from the noble Earl that he had no abstract predilection for one system of voting over another; because that statement amounted to an admission that he had no ground for the change which he proposed. He could understand the proposal coming from a person who had the abstract predilection which the noble Earl disavowed. The noble Earl had made out no case. He had advocated his Bill on the ground that direct representation ought to go with local taxation; but the fact was that when he talked of the position of the ratepayers in the matter, he overlooked the fact that the Metropolitan Board of Works had no power of taxation, and that it was purely an administrative body, which, when it desired to execute works involving taxation, had to apply to Parliament by Bill; and the powers given to the Board in that way had been given gradually, carefully, and with great jealousy. The question of the transfer of the Water Companies was one that would have to be settled by Parliament and not by the Metropolitan Board, and he did not know that if the ratepayers were appealed to personally on that subject, the opinion on it of the Board would differ materially from what it was at present. The business which the Board had to transact required much delicacy and great experience; and if the members wore elected by the ratepayers at large, disturbing elements, arising from the topics of the day rather than the business of the Board, would be sure to be brought into play to influence the result of the contests. He did not know that the noble Earl made any complaint against the Metropolitan Board of Works; but even if he had, he (Earl Beauchamp) could not see how any shortcomings on the part of the Board would be remedied by his proposals. It was to be borne in mind that the members of the Metropolitan Board were of the same class as the members of the vestries, as nearly everyone who had sat upon the Metropolitan Board had been elected to sit at the vestries. The total number of members who had sat upon the Board since its constitution was 132. The number of members of the Metropolitan Board was 45. Of the 132, 23 had died; 21 had retired from ill-health; 27 had had given up attendance in consequence
  1028
  of having other business to look after; three, who were Aldermen of London, had, when they became Lord Mayor, left the Board; 13 had not been re-elected to the Board by the vestries; and of the 45 present members only 24 were elected to the Board at the time of its original formation. That showed that it was a sufficiently changeable Board, one which he contended had done much good, and which deserved well at the hands of the ratepayers. Believing that the proposals in the Bill as regarded the triennial election would lead to confusion and impair the efficiency of the Board, the Government would support the Amendment.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, that despite all the Reports of Committees on the subject, London stood alone of all cities in the Empire in its system of local government. London alone of all the great cities of the Empire had an un-reformed Corporation, upon which to lay hands would be considered a violation of the principle of local self-government; and, in addition to that, London had a second system of local administration in the shape of the Metropolitan Board of Works, under which enormous sums were spent by persons chosen, not by the ratepayers, but by the vestries. His noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown) had been told that he made no complaint against the Metropolitan Board of Works. He (Lord Aberdare) was not there to make any complaint; but he would point out that two Select Committees of the other House had sat, and both had reported that the Board wanted strengthening, and great dissatisfaction was expressed by the inhabitants that the Board was unable to deal in a satisfactory manner with the gas and water supply of the metropolis from their not possessing the necessary powers; and, on the other hand, it was said it was useless to give them these great powers unless they were strengthened by altering their mode of election. No one could doubt that the supply of water was of the greatest importance to the health of the metropolis. London was the only city of the Kingdom in which one had to ask himself whether he would not be endangering his health by taking a drink of water. A few days ago he heard a noble Friend of his ask a medical authority whether one ran more risk in Lon-

  1029
  don by drinking a glass of water or a glass of beer, and the reply of the medical gentleman was that he thought it far safer to drink a glass of beer. That gentleman said he never drank beer or plain water, but soda water made with the purest spring water. One great object the Bill had in view was that a body should be elected who possessed the confidence of the ratepayers; and that, when constituted, power to deal with these matters might be safely entrusted to them. In the election of members by vestries, it was impossible to judge beforehand that they were selecting men with enlarged views, who were capable of putting them before their brother members and of enforcing them by argument. All the members had been selected by the vestries save in the one instance of their excellent Chairman. The noble Viscount who had moved the rejection of the Bill (Viscount Midleton) had urged that if all the members were turned out at the first election great inconvenience would and must result from the newly elected Board not being familiar with the business they would have to transact; but that was not the case with the Education Board, who were re-elected every three years. The same thing might happen in an election for Members of Parliament; and a new set of Members, Ministers, and all, might be elected to whom the Business might be entirely now. But he hoped their Lordships had too much practical good sense to be frightened by any such fears. In conclusion, he entreated the House by passing the Bill to sweep away the anomaly of an indirect mode of election for the members of a Board which had such important public duties to perform as the Metropolitan Board of Works.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, the noble Viscount who moved the rejection of the Bill (Viscount Midleton) had characterized it as a measure of the most revolutionary kind ever submitted to their Lordships' consideration. He (Earl De La Warr) was at a loss to discover it, for the principle on which it was founded was a sound Constitutional one—a principle which prevailed in the election of the humblest parish officer, and in that of the highest Assembly in this country—he might say in the world —namely, that those who paid taxes should have a voice in the election of
  1030
  those who imposed them. He saw no reason why that principle should not be applied to the Metropolitan Board of Works as well as to the House of Commons. There could be no doubt that the Metropolitan Board had done great things since its establishment, and would doubtless do more as time permitted. His (Earl De La Warr's) objection to the Bill was that it did not go far enough and touch the weak point of metropolitan local management—the division of authority, which so interfered with all unity of action from the number of parishes having distinct jurisdiction, and which prevented the Board from, doing what it otherwise would. He should have voted with more readiness for the second reading of the Bill if it had dealt also with the question of one central authority in the metropolis.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion?
  Their Lordships divided: —Contents 36; Not-Contents 54: Majority 18.

  CONTENTS.

  Bedford, D.

  Carlingford, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Crewe, L.

  Westminster, D.

  Dorchester, L.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Ripon, M.

  Foley, L.

  Gwydir, L.

  Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

  Hatherton, L.

  Keane, L.

  De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

  Kinnaird, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Granville, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Selborne, L.

  Minto, E.

  Sherborne, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Cardwell, V.

  Strafford, L. (V. En-field)

  Halifax, V.

  Stratheden and Camp-bell, D.

  Abereromby, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Waveney, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cairns, L. (L.Chancellor.)

  Bathurst, E.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Beanchamp, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Bradford, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Cadogan, E.

  Derby, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Hertford, M.

  Graham, E. (D. Mont-rose.)

  Salisbury, M.

  Winchester, M.

  Harrowby, E.

  Redesdale, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  1031

  Stanhope, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Gerard, B.

  Gordon of Drumearn, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Templetown, V.

  Hampton, L.

  Harlech, L.

  Airey, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Alington, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Ashford, L. (V.Bury.)

  Rivers, B.

  Bagot, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Sackville, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Silcheater, L. (E. Longford.)

  Clinton, L.

  Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

  Colchester, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Crofton, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Denman, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  de Ros, L.

  Zouche of Haryng worth, L.

  Dunmore, L. [E. Dun-more.)

  Bill to be read 2a this day six months.

CATTLE PLAGUE—TRANSIT OF CATTLE BY LAND AND SEA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARR,in asking if Her Majesty's Government would consent to lay on the Table of the House, the Orders issued by the Privy Council to regulate the transit of cattle by land and sea, said, it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that such Orders had been issued by the Privy Council, and his object in asking that the Papers should be laid on the Table was to see how far they would be affected by the measure which was then under the consideration of the House, and which touched, though lightly, upon the subject, and did not materially alter the existing law. He believed that there was a large amount of suffering, and not unfrequently, inflicted upon cattle which were brought from foreign countries, as well as for some parts of Her Majesty's Dominions—he alluded especially to Ireland. He would not go into details at that time, but wait till the Papers were before them. If he were asked to propose a remedy for the existing state of things, he should say that there ought to be embodied in an Act of Parliament very stringent and penal regulations with regard to the accommodation on board those ships which were provided for the conveyance of cattle, and that under no circumstances should more than a certain number be permitted to be conveyed in a ship, the tonnage of which did not exceed a given amount. Under the
  1032
  regulations which now existed, it might sometimes happen that cattle were allowed to remain for 30 hours without a supply of water. He was quite aware that railway companies had made some important arrangements, tending to alleviate the sufferings of the animals carried over their several lines of railway, in supplying each with a sufficient cubic space and with a supply of food and water; but he thought it would be quite possible to make further improvements; and there ought to be an Act of Parliament to regulate everything connected with the subject, as it was a very important one, when they considered how large a number of cattle was brought to this country both by land and sea.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON,in reply, said, that he sympathized in the noble Earl's views. The Government had no objection to produce the Orders to which the noble Earl had alluded, and which were contained in the "Animals Order, 1875,"issued under the Statute intituled the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869. If the noble Earl would move for their production, there would be no objection to the Motion.
  EARL DE LA WARRmoved for Copy of Orders issued by the Privy Council to regulate the transit of cattle by land and sea.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered to be laid before the House.

CRIMINAL LAW—ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A CAT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD TRURO,in asking if the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been called to a case of alleged cruelty on the part of six students at The Yews, Beaconsfield, and whether they were prepared to institute additional inquiries into the circumstances attending it?—said, that it was a case which, at the first blush, appeared to be of the gravest character, the cruelty alleged such as they could scarcely conceive. An impression had got abroad, whether rightly or wrongly, that there had been been a miscarriage of justice with regard to this case. The statement which had appeared in the newspapers, and which led him on Friday last to mention

  1033
  the subject, warranted him in asking their Lordships to give a few moments to the consideration of the case—which was that six youths, who were students at the Rev. Mr. Chambers's, The Yews, Beaconsfield, were seen going towards the parish mead with a bag, which was supposed to contain one or two cats; and that, on arriving at the mead, one of them took a black and white cat out of the bag, and that while one of them held the legs, by another its eyes were extracted. Subsequently the poor animal, it was said, was released and two dogs set upon it. One of the youths hunted it with a whip, and it was eventually killed, and its body thrown into a holly plantation. The conduct of the students would appear to have excited the indignation of a man who was passing by, who said that if he saw anything of the kind again, he should call the attention of the police to it. The case was afterwards brought before the magistrates, and a little child between 10 and 11 years of age gave evidence to the effect that he was between 40 and 50 yards from the scene of the alleged cruelty when it occurred, and that he had seen a man passing at the time who made some observation. No report was given of the evidence of the child, neither was the cat produced, nor the evidence of the man obtained. There was, however, a statement made which he could hardly credit, to the effect that the uncle of one of the youths sat on the bench and adjudicated on the case, and he had received between 20 and 30 letters expressing indignation at what had occurred. Indeed, he believed that that statement had given rise, at least, partially, to the feeling which prevailed in the country on the subject. The evidence given was not, perhaps, altogether satisfactory. The gardener of Mr. Chambers, a man who might be supposed not to be disinclined to make out the best case on behalf of the students, was one of the first witnesses called. Then a second child, who it was also stated had witnessed the occurrence, contradicted before the magistrates the evidence which he had given previously in writing to the police. Then there was the evidence of Mr. Chambers himself, who said that his pupils remained with him until 20 minutes to 2. That, however, was perfectly consistent with the statement of one of the witnesses that the alleged act of cruelty occurred be-
  1034
  tween 1 and 2 o'clock. There was also some discrepancy in the evidence as to whether the animal on which the cruelty was inflicted was a cat or a rabbit; but, so far as regarded the cruelty, that would not make any difference. The statement of facts might or might not be true; but if it was true that the uncle of one of the boys was on the bench when the case was tried, the country would think, very rightly, that the etiquette or habit usually followed by magistrates of taking no part in cases personally affecting themselves had been disregarded. If this were so, a most unusual course was taken. He hoped that such conduct would be condemned in a marked manner by the head of the Legal Profession. He had thought it right in the interests of humanity and of the public to bring the matter before the notice of the House, and though he regretted occupying the time of their Lordships, even a short time upon such a matter, yet he felt that the circumstances of the case ought to be inquired into. He, however, trusted that the circumstances of the case were not such as he had been led to believe.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he was glad the Question had been postponed, because it had given time to make inquiry into the circumstances. Everyone would agree that the story as it was first told was, no doubt, if it occurred, one of considerable atrocity; but the one question was, whether it was true or not. and their Lordships were placed in a position of some difficulty, in being asked to proceed with the discussion of a question when they had no evidence before them and no means of obtaining information in regard to it. The noble Lord (Lord Truro) had mentioned what was to him (Earl Beauchamp) a new feature of the case — the relationship, namely, between one of the magistrates and one of the boys accused. He had no means of ascertaining the particulars of that part of the case; but this he could say, that the magistrates were presided over by a gentleman of great legal experience, who had held the office of a Judge in India. The main point was, that the magistrates who tried the case were of opinion that the charge had not been made out; and it would be remembered that the prosecution relied entirely on the evidence of the boy 10 years old. It would not be

  1035
  convenient to review the evidence on which the decision was given; but the House might be satisfied that it had been given by a competent bench of magistrates, and that there had been no failure of justice. Nor had the case been conducted hurriedly; the summons was granted on February 5 and heard on March 5, while handbills inviting corroborative evidence were posted in various public places for a fortnight before the trial. Altogether, the case had been managed in a competent and leisurely manner.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that he was by no means surprised the noble Lord (Lord Truro) should have taken up the matter, because the reports that had appeared were of a character to rouse the indignation of every Christian. For himself, he had no personal knowledge of the matter, and would not discuss it; but he wished to say that he had received a letter upon the subject from a gentleman whom he had not the pleasure of knowing, and it stated that the writer and the parent of one of the boys had gone into the case and were convinced that there was an utter want of foundation for the story-—at the same time, there was a desire that there should be a full and ample inquiry into the matter. There was the statement of the solicitor who attended for the boys in the papers, but all the evidence was not reported. As there was a great deal of feeling upon the subject, it was desirable that an inquiry, if the Home Office would grant one, should take place; and it was important to the boys themselves that the truth should be fully known.
  LORD COTTESLOEsaid, that he was personally acquainted with the business of the county of Buckingham and knew all these magistrates. The case was one for summary conviction, and that circumstance made it necessary for the magistrates to feel absolutely sure of the truth before they inflicted a penalty. Those gentlemen, however, were satisfied that the evidence would not justify a conviction. He had seen the depositions of the witnesses in the case, and he thought that the noble Lord (Lord Truro) and every Member of their Lordships's House would come to the conclusion, if they saw them, that on the statement before the justices no jury would convict. One statement made by the noble Lord was, no doubt, of some im-
  1036
  portance—that, namely, relating to the connection between one of the magistrates and one of the accused. He was glad to be able to offer an explanation of it, as he had received a communication from that gentleman; and he said that he was not an uncle, but that he had been, through a sister, who had died, connected with the boy's family—yet, though living within a mile of the school, he had never seen the boy, and never invited him to his house, and, consequently, he felt indignant at the supposition that he had exhibited favouritism in the case. He (Lord Cottesloe) would not go into any details; but he must say that an inquiry would be satisfactory to the young gentlemen, and he thought one should take place.
  LORD TRUROsaid, he had expressly stated that there was an impression abroad that a miscarriage of justice had taken place; but he did not presume to give an opinion upon it. It would be rather unfair to the young gentlemen if the matter were allowed to remain in its present position. They ought to be relieved in the fullest manner from the charges and reflections brought against them in connection with the charge, if they were innocent.

THE EASTERN QUESTION —THE CONFERENCE—THE PRESIDENCY.

  QUESTION.
  EARL STANHOPE,in rising, according to Notice, to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the event of the ensuing Conference taking place at Berlin, he will urge that under no circumstances is it desirable that the Representative of either of the Belligerents should preside?—said: My Lords, I am aware that it is the general practice, when a Conference or a Congress takes place abroad, that the Representative of the country in which the Conference is held should preside. We have heard that the coming Conference —if it is to be held at all—will take place at Berlin. It follows, therefore, that Prince Bismarck will preside. My Lords, I saw on Thursday last, in The Allegmeine Zeitung, a statement to the effect that the condition of the Prince's health is such that he is not likely to fulfil this arduous duty; and, in that case, supposing he does not, what will happen? I think,

  1037
  my Lords, it is possible—nay, even likely—that the senior Representative of the Great Powers, Prince Gortchakoff, the senior in age, and therefore in experience, may be called upon to take the Chair. I might be told this is most unlikely; but when we consider how long and intimate a friendship has existed between the German Chancellor and Prince Gortchakoff—an intimacy commencing 28 years ago at Frankfort —when one reflects how it has produced the most tremendous results which have ever altered the map of Europe, it is very important that some attempts should be made to avert such a contingency. Not only are the two Chancellors intimate; but I must also remind your Lordships of the friendship which exists between the Czar and the Emperor, and that after the Franco-German War the first announcement of the conclusion of peace was sent to the Czar from the Emperor, and that announcement concluded in these words—
  "Never will Prussia forget that to you it is due that the war did not assume larger proportions. May God bless you for it.—Your grateful friend for life."
  "We are told now that this peace has been signed between Russia and the Porte, and the first telegram containing the news has been sent by the Czar to his uncle the Emperor of Germany. I shall be told, perhaps, that such a contingency as a Russian Councillor presiding over the Conference has never been contemplated by Her Majesty's Government, nor by any other Power. But have we forgotten the Conference of Constantinople? Will anyone say that a Chairman does not exercise great influence over the deliberations of any assembly whatever? Can anyone say that the Presidency of the Russian Representative at Constantinople was not fraught with great results? And can anyone say that the results of that Conference, if it had been presided over by any other Minister but General Ignatieff, might not have been widely different, and that Turkey might not have accepted its proposals? Russia had more than half drawn her sword—it is as much unsheathed at the present time as it was during the sitting of that Conference. It seems to me that the contingency I have pointed out may arise, and therefore I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that if this had been a Question asked by the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) without his having previously given Notice, he (Lord Campbell) should not have been in Order in interposing between it and the reply of the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs; but, inasmuch as the ordinary Notice of the Question had appeared on the Paper in such a way as to invite remark, he would take the opportunity of offering a few observations, and he hoped the Government would not complain of his so doing. First, he would state how thoroughly he concurred in the opinion expressed by the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope)—that the Representative of neither belligerent should preside at the Conference. According to the last accounts, it appeared that Prince Gortchakoff was going to Berlin, and that the Conference would sit there. Everyone who knew anything of Berlin, locally or politically, must see the great advantage which Russia would derive from that circumstance, even although her Representative might not preside at the Conference. He should, therefore, like somewhat to enlarge the inquiry which the noble Earl had addressed to the Foreign Secretary. If the coming Conference was to attain the objects of Europe and of this country, it appeared to him that it was essential that it should differ altogether from that Black Sea Conference which, although it led to some practical results, was almost without dissimulation a register of a decision previously arrived at. There had been some solicitude about the terms now arranged between Russia and the Porte. That solicitude was legitimate as regarded the question—a more important one than the question of the Presidency of the Congress—whether the approaching Conference would have a thorough power to endorse or to reject upon a basis that was entirely provisional? In order to that purpose, full information should be given to the Representatives upon all the points submitted to the Conference. If Her Majesty's Government could give the House some assurance on that point, it would not, he thought, be inappropriate.
  LORD DENMANsaid, it had been stated in 1871 by the late Premier—
  "It will he beyond the power of any Government adequately to discuss the subject (the limitation of the Black Sea) while the

  1039
  Conference is sitting."— [3 Hansard, cciv. 1505.]
  He, therefore, thought it would be very much to the interest of the country if noble Lords would abstain from constantly asking Questions in reference to the approaching Conference. Those Questions were so embarrassing, that, as an hereditary Adviser of the Crown, he would recommend Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament during the whole of the time the Conference was sitting. It was perfectly dreadful to see youthful Peers getting up in their Lordships' House and presuming to advise their Sovereign or the Ministers as to the course they should pursue when this country was invited to take part in a great International Conference. What had the House to do with the internal arrangements of an International Conference? The remarks which had been made were an insult to the Nations which were to be represented at the Conference. They were not to assume to dictate to Sovereigns, to Nations and their Representatives. Parliament had now been sitting for seven weeks, having been hurried up to London; and. a very uninteresting sitting it had been for them to listen to Questions which appeared to him not to be worthy of a Legislative Assembly. He considered that Her Majesty owed them seven weeks, and instead of an Ambassador waiting, as Sir Robert Murray Keith did at Sistova, in Bulgaria, five months for instructions from his Government, we, who had the same confidence in our Plenipotentiary which was felt in 1791, would by that time—seven weeks—pro-probably hear that the Conference had come to a satisfactory issue, from constant communication with Her Majesty and her Ministers, and be able to see its provisions ratified.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My noble Friend behind me (Earl Stanhope) has asked me, whether we will urge that under no circumstances is it desirable that the Representative of either of the belligerent Powers should preside at the Congress? My noble Friend is no doubt aware that generally—I believe invariably—at all Congresses and Conferences that have been held in recent times, the rule has been that the Representatives themselves, on their first meeting, should elect the person who should be their President, and settle the course of their
  1040
  future proceedings. A further custom has also grown up which, by lapse of time, has acquired almost the force of a rule, that, unless there be a special reason to the contrary, the Representative of the Power in the capital of whose country the Conference or Congress is held is the person elected for the purpose. It would, therefore, follow that if the Congress was held at Berlin, the Presidency would probably be offered to Prince Bismarck; and I have no reason to suppose that, if he attends the Congress at all, it would be his intention to decline it. If he were to do so, I apprehend that, according to usage, what would happen would be this—that the Congress would proceed in the same manner as before to choose another President. I ought to add that, as far as I am aware, or can learn, there is no special power or authority attached to the position of the President on such an occasion. He is primus inter pares. It is simply an honorary distinction. He has precisely the same rights and powers of dealing with subjects submitted to the Conference that any other Member has. Under these circumstances, I do not think it would be desirable to do that which certainly would be a very unusual step—to make it a condition of going into the Congress that special rules of exclusion from the Presidency should be applied to the Representatives of one of the Powers principally concerned. I am not aware that there is any precedent for a course of that kind being followed, and it is clear that no general rule can be laid down for the exclusion of the Representatives of the belligerents. There have been cases, and there maybe so again, of Conferences attended by the Representatives of the belligerent Powers alone, and if a universal rule of exclusion were to be applied to them, there would be no person to preside at a Conference. With regard to the further Question put by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Campbell), I understood him to ask whether the Congress would have full material to form a judgment on the whole question which is to be submitted to it. That is undoubtedly a matter of great importance. I hold, as I believe everyone does, that it would be useless and foolish to go into a Congress unless that Congress is to have a real and not merely a nominal power of dealing with the various matters

  1041
  before it. We are in communication with other Governments upon the subject, but I am not in a position at present to say anything more on that subject.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.