Lords Sitting of 24 April 1879

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Poor Law Amendment Act (1876) Amendment (34); Great Seal* (38); Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland)* (40); Assessed Rates Act Amendment (55).
Committee—Report—Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment* (25).
Select Committee—Report—County Courts [No. 61].
Report—County Courts* (60).
Third Reading—Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages (Army)* (27), and passed.
Withdrawn—Courts of Justice Building (44).

POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT (1876) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 34.)
(The Lord Norton.)
POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT (1876) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 34.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD NORTON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that this Bill had been sent up last Session from the other House of Parliament, and had received Amendments in their Lordships' House; but those Amendments not being acceptable to the other House, the Bill dropped. Since then, very numerous meetings had been held and many Petitions presented to Parliament in favour of the measure; and the Bill having been again introduced, it had passed again with unanimity through the House of Commons. The character of the measure had, he believed, been misunderstood. The Bill did not propose to alter but to restore the Poor Law of 1834, by ridding it of an interpolation introduced by a section of the Act of 1876—the very same Member who introduced that section being the author of this Bill to get rid of it. The Bill proposed to amend the 23rd section of the Poor Law Amendment Act (1876) so as to allow moneys to which any pauper having a wife or other relatives dependent upon him might be entitled to as a member of any friendly or benefit society to be paid to, or applied to, the maintenance of such family. The 23rd section of the Act consisted of four paragraphs; the first, enabling trustees to pay over to guardians annuities due to paupers, had no application to friendly society payments; the second, enabling guardians to recover from a pauper lunatic member of a friendly society their expense in relieving him from benefit payments due to him, had no application to any paupers except lunatics; the third enabled magistrates to enforce the previous provisions by their order; and the fourth restricted those provisions to relief given on loan. The Bill proposed to prevent the section from applying to money due from a friendly society to paupers or pauper lunatics having a wife or other relatives dependent on them. But the section did not apply to friendly society payments to any paupers except lunatics, and their Lordships agreed last Session to accept its

  963
  application to pauper lunatics. So far, therefore, as the Bill applied to that section they were all agreed. But the Bill went on to say that moneys due to paupers with wives or dependent families should be applied by the friendly or benefit societies to the maintenance of the wives and families, and so met the special complaint of the petitioning societies, which was principally against the interference of Poor Law authorities with friendly societies of 1876, which gave a litigious authority to guardians to attach their members' insurances. There was also another reason for this Bill. The innovation of 1876 had been mistaken by some justices to give them power, under the 3rd paragraph, to force friendly societies to pay their members' money over to guardians, under the 1st paragraph, which had nothing to do with friendly societies. It was better not to leave this mistake to be set right, at great cost of litigation, by Courts of Law, but to make the law clear. At first sight, it appeared that allowing any moneys payable to paupers to go to their families was a violation of the principle of the Poor Law that relief should be given only to destitution. But such had not been in practice the interpretation put on the principle of the Poor Law, but the reverse. The original Act expressly invented the mode of relief by loan to meet cases of contingent income. The idea was that a man receiving weekly income, if temporarily he became in need of relief, should not pauperize his whole family, and might repay his own relief by subsequent earnings. Sick pay subscribed for through life by a poor man against occasional incapacity had never been considered as exclusively for his personal benefit, but a provision for his family at moments when he was unable to provide them with bread. Guardians also were by express instructions bound to consider the necessities of the family. They had, indeed, always the power as well as duty to take all the resources of the family into their account in apportioning their relief to any applicant; but not so as to be exhaustive of all provision for the family. He had it on the best authority that the usual practice of guardians as to sick pay due to an applicant for relief was to estimate it at one-half if there were a wife and family. For instance, if the society paid a pauper 10 s. a-week and the guardians
  964
  thought the family required 10 s., they would allow the applicant 5s., leaving 5s.to go to his family—estimating the payment due to him from the society at one-half its actual amount in consideration of the wife and family. Their motive in adopting this version of the law was that it operated in the encouragement of these societies. The Poor Law Commissioners, in their first Report, said that the best influence of the new Poor Law was that it had increased provident societies and deposits of labourers who had been previously paupers; and the guardians had not only the sense now, but the express instructions, not to change the aspect of the law in so disastrous a manner as to discourage these societies. But was sick pay, which the poor subscribed for against a day of incapacity to work, and which was only to be paid them on their associates' judgment of their claim duly accruing, by any stretch of interpretation capable of being considered actual property or assets, such as the Poor Law required to be exhausted before relief was given? It was a payment contingent on the case and on the judgment of the society of the case being made out, and was in every sense precarious, and certainly incapable of being exhausted before it was even paid and was only possibly due. But he might press this argument much further, and say that the subscriptions of the poor to a provident association were of the nature of a voluntary poor rate. They were ejusdem generis and only distinguishable from a legal poor rate as self-imposed and not enforceable by law. It was also material to consider that this voluntary poor rate was undertaken by many who were too poor to be liable to the legal rate. It was really a voluntary rate-in-aid and so much in relief of the legal rate, and a present to the ratepayers of the country to an amount which had been estimated at £2,000,000 a-year, besides the still greater gain to the country that it came from the very spirit of self-reliance which the Poor Law sought to rally against the fatal spirit of pauperism, which it tried to the utmost to reduce. If, then, this Bill, so far from violating, redeemed the spirit of the Poor Law from its violation in 1876; if it removed a most mishievous irritation between the guardians of the poor and their best allies the provident societies; if it left the guardians as able

  965
  as ever to adjust their relief with the resources of the poor, but not by attacking the societies; if it restored the law's letter to its most successful practice and did justice to the most precious efforts of the poor to supply their own relief, he hoped their Lordships would not hesitate to give a second reading to a Bill so fraught with good.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Norton.)
  THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, he still felt the objections to this Bill which he expressed last year. Its principle was in contravention to the whole system on which Poor Law relief was granted—namely, that they were only to tax others for relief when the persons to be relieved were in such a state as to be unable to maintain themselves. When a man had the means of maintaining himself, it was most unjust and unfair to call upon others to contribute to his maintenance. The case had been put of a pauper whose wife or family had some means independent of him. He could not see why money due to him from the friendly society should not be paid to the guardians to be applied towards his relief. It was true the House last Session went to the extent of allowing it in the case of pauper lunatics; but why? Because the cost of maintaining a pauper lunatic was so great. But there was no adequate reason for carrying the principle any further. He did not intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill, because he thought it was possible, as was done last year, so to amend it in Committee that the objectionable features might be removed. He should, when the Bill reached Committee, move such Amendments as he considered reasonable and just; and he trusted their Lordships would not be induced to depart from the well-established principles of Poor Law relief.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he took some part in the opposition to this Bill last year, and, without going into the question again, would say that his objections to its principle had not been removed.
  On Question? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday the 2nd of May next.

COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING BILL. (No. 44.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING BILL. (No. 44.)

  SECOND READING. BILL WITHDRAWN.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, owing to the pressure of Business in the other House, it had been thought desirable that this Bill should be initiated in their Lordships' House; but it had since been discovered that there were considerable difficulties involved in that course, and he therefore proposed that the Order should be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

ASSESSED RATES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Earl Stanhope.)
ASSESSED RATES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 55.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  EARL STANHOPE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was intended to remedy a grievance in the Electoral Law by which householders might be disfranchised owing to the notice with regard to compounding for rates not being in writing. He had been informed that 250 persons had lately been disfranchised at Windsor owing to this informality. The Bill, which consisted of a single clause, provided that no qualification or franchise, depending on rating or payment of rates, should be defeated by reason of any deficiency in any proceeding necessary for the validity of the composition under the Act of 1869, or by reason of any defect or informality in the making thereof. The Bill, he might add, had passed the other House with the sanction of both sides.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

RAILWAYS (IRELAND).—RESOLUTION.
VISCOUNT LIFFORD,in rising to move a Resolution of which he had given Notice, relative to the construction of narrow-gauge Railways in Ireland—

967
"That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that facilities should be given for the construction of railways in Ireland on a gauge narrower than five feet three inches in mountainous or thinly populated districts where the construction of railways on the standard gauge would be difficult or unremunerative,"
said: My Lords, it is not altogether of my own motion that I again trouble your Lordships as to a matter most important to Ireland, so I trust your Lordships will bear with me while I bring forward as a general principle a matter I brought forward as touching a particular railway but a short time ago. Now, your Lordships may not be generally aware that the railway gauge of Ireland—a poor country—is broader, and, consequently, more expensive, than the standard gauge of England. The standard gauge of England is 4 feet 8½ inches, the Irish gauge is 5 feet 3 inches, and the English gauge earns nearly three times as much per mile per annum as the Irish gauge—£4,212 per mile; £1,296 per mile. When the Irish Act 9 & 10 Vict., c. 57, was introduced, it was near the close of the battle between the Great Western gauge of 7 feet and the London and North-Western of 4 feet 8½ inches, which, as we all know, ended in the general adoption of the latter. In short, the Irish gauge of 5 feet 3 inches was a sort of compromise—the feasibility of the narrow gauge, which has proved so successful, was, of course, then unknown. The effect of this in so poor a country as Ireland was very unfortunate. I do not mean to say that railways there were at first made with the strictest economy; but I do mean to say that they were made quite as economically as the early lines in England; and yet, for a long time, many of them paid the shareholders absolutely nothing. I had the honour to be the spokesman of a meeting of Irish railway directors who went to the late Lord Derby to lay before him the expediency of Government buying the Irish lines. Lord Derby, who could say as much in a few words as any man, answered very quietly—"Will you tell me what is the multiple of nothing?" I myself, being anxious to have the power of speaking at the half-yearly meetings of a very important railway into which a small line in which I was interested ran, bought a £30 share for 5s.—the best investment I ever made; for afterwards an amalgamation with another
968
company took place—and £30 shares being turned into £5 shares, and then paying some dividend, I found that I got nearly cent per cent for my money. But your Lordships will observe that the sacrifice was five-sixths of the original property. Such was the effect of an expensive gauge in the poorer parts of Ireland. Now, there are two ways of meeting this. The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees conscientiously objects to pass Bills, on his sole responsibility, in the teeth of an Act of Parliament. I entirely sympathize with him. I trust, even when I differ from him, I do justice to his high motives. One of these courses would be to repeal the Act 9 & 10 Vict., c. 57, which would entirely relieve the noble Earl. I confess, though I am here to-night to advocate a break of gauge when absolutely necessary for the opening of a poor district, I value uniformity when it is possible much too highly to advocate a measure which would impose no check on any amount of differences of gauge. I therefore adopt the second course, and propose to your Lordships the Motion of which I have given Notice, which confines the adoption of the narrow gauge to districts so poor or so difficult that a railway on the normal gauge could not be made with any hope of profit to the shareholders. And yet, while I grant this principle of avoiding, if possible, break of gauge, I must remind your Lordships that the evil is one more of appearance than reality. The inconvenience to passengers—especially passengers who carry little or no luggage, as do the vast majority of Irish passengers in the poorer districts—of stepping across a narrow platform is small; the cost of trans-shipment of goods varies from ½d. to 2d. a-ton. But the economy of a narrow gauge is far more than at first sight appears. It consists in the power to run lighter rolling stock; but, above all, in the power to run safely round sharper curves, thereby obviating the necessity of expensive cuttings—especially in a country consisting much of granite rock. As to the rolling stock, a waggon weighing 2 tons 7 cwt. will carry a load of 6 tons, which load would require a waggon of 5 tons on the broad gauge; while a first-class carriage on the narrow gauge carries six people in a compartment just as comfortably as they are carried on the London and

969
North-Western line. All this has been proved on three narrow-gauge railways in the County of Antrim, and vouched for by the Duke of Marlborough, who opened one of them. At the half-yearly meeting of one of them—the Ballymena and Lame Railway—Mr. Chaine, the Chairman, said—
"One of the most striking things in their accounts was the cost of their train mile. They would see that cost was 1s. 7d. a-mile. If they took the cost of the leading lines of England, Ireland, and Scotland, they would see that the cost of the train mile was about 3s."
I trust I have now made out a case for applying this cheap and convenient gauge to the wilder parts of Ireland. But it may be asked, how is it to be ascertained that the districts through which a proposed railway is to run is of such a nature that the standard gauge would be difficult or unremunerative? The Duke of Sutherland took his usual practical view of the subject when he said that no railway ought to be made in Scotland north of Inverness except on the narrow gauge. The County of Donegal—the county more immediately, at the moment, connected with this matter—contains 1,197,154 acres. Its valuation is only £294,181. The same acreage in England, towns included, would be valued at several millions. Surely it is obvious that to force on that extensive but poor county a gauge broader and more expensive than that of England would be a monstrous proceeding; and yet the alternative is its being deprived of railway accommodation. The noble Viscount then moved his Resolution.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that facilities should be given for the construction of railways in Ireland on a gauge narrower than five feet three inches in mountainous or thinly populated districts where the construction of railways on the standard gauge would be difficult or unremunerative.—(The Viscount Lifford.)
THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, he was sorry the noble Viscount should have proposed this Resolution. The noble Viscount, being himself a promoter of a 3 feet gauge line, came there and endeavoured to pledge the House in favour of a narrow-gauge system. What was the practical meaning of the Resolution? It was that this House should pass a Resolution declaring it desirable
970
that facilities should be given for the construction of lines upon a 3 feet gauge. He did not wish their Lordships to do anything to prejudge the question one way or the other, therefore he did not propose to negative the Resolution—what he did propose to do was to move the Previous Question. As the House had no information before it, it would not be justified in coming to any resolution upon the subject. When the question was raised early in the Session, with regard to a Bill now before the House, and another Bill which had been thrown out, he (the Earl of Redesdale) proposed that they should have a Report of the Board of Trade on both those lines as to whether it was expedient that narrow gauges should be allowed; but his proposition was not adopted. It was not well to alter a general Act of Parliament by a side wind; and the noble Viscount was now asking the House to pass a Resolution, without information and without inquiry, which would have the effect of an Instruction to the Committee as to the Bill that might come before them. He thought it was not right that a Resolution of that sort should be adopted. Their Lordships must recollect that a Public Act had been passed sanctioning a particular gauge for Ireland; and they were now asked to alter that gauge without any information being laid before them. He thought he had said enough to show that it would not be a proper thing to accept this Resolution, and, therefore, he moved the Previous Question.
Then, a Question being stated, the Previous Question was moved.
LORD WAVENEYsaid, that this question appeared to him to be one of national importance. When it was brought before the House last Session it was supported by the best and most direct evidence their Lordships could obtain—that of the noble Duke the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who said that the opposition to the introduction of the narrow gauge into Ireland was not the best way to promote the interests of the country. Speaking from his own experience, he could testily to the advantage of the narrow gauge. Two railways ran in his own immediate neighbourhood which it would have been utterly impracticable, on engineering grounds

971
alone, to have carried up steeps and across bogs, as they were now carried to the great advantage of the country, if the broad gauge had been adopted. Speaking, again, from his own knowledge, he could say that the narrow gauge was equally valuable in a district where mineral wealth was to be found. The great ore district of Antrim had been developed by the aid of the narrow-gauge system alone. Everyone acquainted with Ireland knew that the sanction of a narrow-gauge system was essential to the extension of railways in that country. The noble Viscount had shown good grounds in favour of his Motion, and he should therefore support it.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he should support the Resolution proposed by the noble Viscount, as he considered it was very desirable that the House should express an opinion as to the advantage of making railways on the narrow gauge in such cases as those mentioned. He was certain that the whole railway traffic of Ireland could be conducted on the 3 feet gauge without difficulty. Intersecting systems of railway on different gauges could not be sanctioned, and nothing of the kind was proposed; but smaller feeding lines on narrow gauge might properly be introduced.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONalso supported the Resolution. He was acquainted with two railways constructed on the old system—the Cork and Macroom and the Cork and Bandon—and the former, speaking from an experience gained unhappily only a few days since, having failed to pay at the higher speed, was now going at the rate of 12 miles an hour; while the latter, which used to go at the rate of 25 miles an hour, had reduced its speed to 16. If the principle of the narrow gauge were adopted, whole districts in the South and West of the County of Cork might be opened up; but a railway constructed on the ordinary principle would not pay in Ireland. It was essentially an Irish question; and he believed if the voice of the people of Ireland could be in any way elicited, it would be found to be in favour of the construction of the only lines which would open up the country.
LORD CARLINGFORDagreed with the noble Viscount who had last spoken (Viscount Midleton), that there were
972
many districts of Ireland which, if a narrow gauge were not sanctioned by Parliament, would be left entirely without communication. He was, however, not satisfied with the form of the Resolution, though he would be sorry to vote against it. It did not in all cases follow that because a district was thinly populated a narrow gauge was therefore necessary. All that it was necessary for the House to affirm was that a Railway Bill should not be rejected merely on the ground that it proposed a narrower than the ordinary gauge. But this had been, in fact, already done before Easter, when the House referred to a Select Committee a Bill containing a proposal for a narrow gauge; and he was not sure that it was necessary for the House to express an opinion in a more formal way.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, there was no person in that House who had a greater respect for the opinion of his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees upon all matters connected with the Private Bill legislation of the House than he had. He did not think that any persons who had not been connected with the Private Bill legislation in that House could have any knowledge of the very difficult and responsible position in which his noble Friend was placed upon almost all occasions of dealing with Bills of this character. They were much indebted to his noble Friend for his trouble in these matters, and they ought to view with some suspicion any cases in which they might be compelled to differ from his opinion. He agreed with the noble Lord who had last spoken (Lord Carlingford), that the form of the Resolution was not altogether a happy one—and in that respect he also agreed with his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, who did not wish such a vague and general Resolution as that of the noble Viscount to be passed—although he (the Duke of Richmond) by no means desired to assert that no narrow-gauge railways should be constructed. He fancied that the real point at issue was the same as that in the Letterkenny Railway Bill and the West Donegal Railway Bill, which were formerly under discussion in that House. He understood that the Letterkenny Railway Bill had been before the Committee presided over by the Chairman of Commit-

973
tees, and that the West Donegal Railway Bill would be referred to a Select Committee, and was only waiting for the Members to be named. It seemed to him that when it came before the Committee the promoters would be required to bring forward such evidence as would satisfy the Committee that the district really required narrow-gauge railways. He would venture to propose, if his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees would give his consent, that an inquiry upon the points raised in the Resolution should be made by the Board of Trade in the case of the Letterkenny and West Donegal Railways; that a Report should be made upon both these railways; and that the noble Viscount who had brought forward this Resolution should be satisfied with having called the attention of the House to the point, without asking their Lordships to agree to the more general terms of his Resolution. This, he thought, would be a just way of meeting the difficulty. It would not pledge the House to a universal system, and yet, at the same time, it would do substantial justice to those parts of the country which would be intersected by the railways he had referred to.
THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, he could not altogether agree with what had fallen from the noble Duke in reference to the Letterkenny Railway Bill. He had proposed the very inquiry which the noble Duke now suggested in reference to that Bill, in order that the Board of Trade might report upon the question of the Irish railway gauge, and his proposal being opposed by Her Majesty's Government, it was rejected by a very small majority. The Letterkenny Bill, consequently, came before him in his capacity of Chairman of Committees as an unopposed Bill, in the usual manner. He desired further information and adjourned its hearing in order to give the promoters an opportunity of bringing over from Ireland witnesses in its favour. And what was the result of that evidence? It was shown that the original Bill for the construction of this line had been obtained 16 years ago, with a capital of £100,000; that about £80,000 had been expended in the purchase of land and in the construction of works on the broad-gauge system; that a few years ago the Company had again come before Parliament for powers to in-
974
crease their capital by another £100,000. That also was granted—they got the second £100,000, more land had been purchased, and some further work done. How did the matter stand last Session? In the last Session of Parliament they came forward asking for an extension of time for the construction of the line—but they said nothing about an alteration of the gauge—this Session, however, the promoters had come before Parliament for the third time—and now, for the first time, sought leave to adopt the narrow gauge. He thought that he should have been taking a very odd course if, under those circumstances, he had passed the Bill authorizing a 3-foot gauge; and he, therefore, felt it his duty to report to the House that it was inexpedient to proceed with the Bill, and that measure was now dead. He must remind the House that he had arrived at that decision after a full consideration of the evidence brought before him, and with that evidence before him he did not think that he could have come to any other conclusion. Did the noble Viscount who had brought forward this Motion (Viscount Lifford) suppose for a moment that he had arrived at his decision on the matter without having carefully considered the question referred to in his Resolution? It was an insult to him to suppose that he had done so. If he were not to be trusted to deal with a Bill of this nature, he was not fit to hold his present Office. If, therefore, any Resolution were passed which should have the effect of directing the Letterkenny Bill to be re-committed, he should at once resign his position as Chairman of Committees.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETthought it would be most unjust to compel all Irish railways, in all circumstances, to adopt the broad-gauge system, simply because, some years ago, that system was thought to be the best. They remembered the battle of the gauges in this country, and they intended to avoid the contest in Ireland; but, unfortunately, they imposed an expensive gauge on a poor country, and experience had now proved that the narrow gauge was not only the cheaper to construct, but by far the cheaper to work.
VISCOUNT LIFFORDexpressed his willingness to adopt the proposition of the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEinquired whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared with any alternative proposal in lieu of the Resolution of the noble Viscount? If not he should certainly vote in favour of the Previous Question.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOKthought that a Resolution to the following effect might be conveniently adopted by the House:—
"That in the opinion of this House the construction of railways in Ireland on a gauge narrower than fire feet three inches where the construction of railways on the standard gauge would be neither remunerative nor practicable is desirable."
THE EARL OF REDESDALEhoped the Government were prepared to bring in a Bill to that effect, for then there would be statutory provisions on the subject.
VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, he would accept the Resolution of the noble Viscount, and withdraw his own.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he thought it an unusual proceeding to pass a Resolution which would have the effect of setting aside an Act of Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, of course, no Resolution could override the Act regulating the gauge of railways—it was simply an expression of opinion of the House that a departure from the strict letter of the law was desirable in a particular case. It seemed to him that the Resolution pointed, not to general legislation, but to a particular case. He had not forgotten what had passed some time before, or what had been done to show the opinion of the House that there should be, in cases of necessity, departures from the law; while it had been understood that for the future, whenever application was made for the introduction of the narrow gauge, there should be a Report by the Board of Trade. That was the understanding to which both sides of the House had come, though it was not in the form of a Resolution. Now, there had been two Bills relating to narrow-gauge railways before the House; and it had been their Lordships' opinion, as shown on a Division, that, as the Bills were already before them, it would be harsh to tie the hands of the promoters till the Board of Trade had made their Report. For that reason, in those two cases, there had been no Report; but it was perfectly
976
consistent for the House to express its opinion, as a general principle, that, in future, there should be a Report of the Board of Trade. The only question was, what was to be done with the two Bills? and, perhaps, it would be well to agree to the proposal of his noble Friend.
EARL GRANVILLEasked if the Report of the Board of Trade was awaited in one case, what course would be followed with regard to the other Bill? Was the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees willing to accept the proposal of the Government in respect to the Letterkenny Bill.
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELDsaid, that, as far as the procedure of the House was concerned, the fate of one Bill was decided; and if the course were adopted of referring the other to the Board of Trade all would be done that was really necessary. He believed that it was not usual in either House for general legislation to follow in consequence of such a Resolution as that to which they were now asked to agree.
LORD CARLINGFORDhoped that the noble Earl was not correct in saying that the fate of the Letterkenny Railway Bill was already decided, and trusted that if the Resolution were carried the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees would still consent to take back the Bill. Evidence could be given to show that the Bill came within the terms of the Resolution, and the case for it was much stronger than that for the West Donegal Railway Bill, which had been read a second time before Easter.
THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, that the case of the West Donegal Railway Bill was not entirely similar, and that, with regard to the Bill now under their consideration, ample time and the usual opportunities had been afforded for giving evidence in its favour. He had heard the evidence adduced, and had decided on the evidence before him. If the Bill were re-committed now, it would be tantamount to saying that he had come to a wrong conclusion on the evidence brought before him on that occasion.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he understood the proposal of the Government was that the Letterkenny Bill should be re-committed.
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: We proposed that the Bill should be re-committed with the consent of the

977
Chairman of Committees—and that we have not obtained.
THE LORD CHANCELLORhoped that after the intimation of the opinion of the House to-night the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees would consent that the Letterkenny Bill should be re-committed, and that it and the West Donegal Bill might be considered by the same Committee.
THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, he was unable to agree to that proposal. The Bill had come before him in the ordinary course, and if it were referred to another Committee the inference would be that the House was dissatisfied with the conclusion at which he had arrived. If the House passed a condemnation of his action in the matter, he should not be fit to occupy the position which he held.
Then the said Motion and original Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Then it was moved—
"That in the opinion of this House the construction of railways in Ireland on a gauge narrower than five feet three inches, where the construction of railways on the standard gauge would be difficult or unremunerative, is desirable."
On Question? Resolved in the Affirmative.

ARMY—RANGE-FINDERS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD TRUROasked, Whether the Government had decided to adopt range-finders throughout the Army; and if so, what steps, if any, had been already taken to provide them and insure their efficient and careful use? It was highly desirable that no time should be lost in adopting range-finders and furnishing them to the troops, as we were all aware that success in war could no longer be achieved simply by discipline, by numbers, or by courage, but that we must in future look for our success to scientific appliances and the precision of the arms supplied to the men. Therefore, it was important to ascertain from Her Majesty's Government whether they had adopted this new invention.
  VISCOUNT BURY,in reply, said, that two kinds of range-finders had been adopted in the Service. They had been ordered in considerable quantities, a great many
  978
  had been served out to the troops, and the regiments now serving at the Cape had range-finders in their possession under the charge of the musketry instructors. Range-finders on the Nolan and Watkin system had also been supplied to the Artillery—one to each battery. His noble Friend had also directed his inquiry as to the mode in which the range-finders were to be kept in order and used. The Committee on Range-finders recommended that men should be specially told off for this purpose. That recommendation had not, however, been carried into effect. It had been thought that the skilled officers in command of batteries and the musketry instructors might be properly intrusted with these duties; therefore, no special non-commissioned officers and men had been told off to work the rangefinders, and no special pay was given to the persons who worked them. This was a matter of military detail and economy. He could give no information as to how the range-finders had worked in practice; but he thought that what he had just stated would be a sufficient answer to the Question of his noble Friend.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To morrow, half past Ten o'clock.