Lords Sitting of 24 March 1879

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation* (32).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—District Auditors* (30).
Third Reading—Debtors Act, 1869, Amendment* (9); Bankruptcy Law Amendment*(8), and passed.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—SIR BARTLE FRERE.

  ALTERATION OF RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNgave Notice that to-morrow evening the Marquess of Lansdowne, in moving his Resolution on the subject of the Zulu War, would add to it the words—
  "And the House regrets that, after the censure passed on the High Commissioner by Her Majesty's Government in the Despatch of the 19th of March, 1879, the conduct of affairs in South Africa should be retained in his hands."
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: The Motion to be proposed by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) having now lost its ambiguity, and being a censure on Her Majesty's Government, I, as representing the Government, need not say that I shall not move the Previous Question, but shall meet the Motion with a direct negative.

SOUTH AFRICA—LORD CHELMSFORD.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to make a statement with reference to a despatch which is in your Lordship's hands. It is one from my noble and gallant Friend, Lord Chelmsford. I am personally alluded to in it, and, unless I make some explanation, it may lead to inconvenience and also to misapprehension with regard to myself. I have no doubt that your Lordships are a ware of the despatch to which I refer. It is Enclosure No. 1 in No. 13 of the Papers, and is dated Durban, Natal, February 9, 1879. In that despatch there is this sentence—
  "In June last I mentioned privately to His Royal Highness Commanding-in-Chief that the

  1495
  strain of prolonged anxiety and exertion, physical and mental, was even then tolling on me. What I felt then I feel still more now."
  Well, my Lords, on reading that despatch, I was extremely struck by the circumstance that I had no recollection whatever of any such letter having been addressed to me. I have made every endeavour in my power to ascertain whether any such letter was received by myself or in the Department over which I have the honour to preside. As far as research has gone—and we have been two days about it—we can find nothing of the kind. My memory is good, and I remember nothing of the sort. I have questioned every one of the high Officers of the Department; but none of us know anything with reference to this letter. It is only just and fair to myself, and I hope your Lordships will so consider it, that it should not be supposed for a moment that I was either aware of there being any such despatch or letter from my noble and gallant Friend, Lord Chelmsford, or that I had withheld the information as to his health which that communication is said to have contained, or that Her Majesty's Government ever received such information from me, or that both myself and Her Majesty's Government had received such information and had taken no notice or action on it. There are two letters in March from Lord Chelmsford. The first is dated the 11th of March, 1878, and the only thing we can find in them is that he had just arrived and had assumed the command, and had found a good deal of duty thrown upon him, but had such good relations with Sir Bartle Frere, and had such a well-organized staff, that he felt satisfied he should be able to perform his duties to my satisfaction as Commanding-in-Chief, and, of course, I should say to the satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government. That is the only allusion I can find in that letter. He refers now to the month of June, but I can find nothing in that month. There is a letter dated the 1st of July, in which he states that he has just arrived at Cape Town; that the war had been concluded and an amnesty declared; and that he was able to say it had been brought to a successful conclusion. He ends that letter thus—
  "I cannot be sufficiently grateful to your Royal Highness for having given me the opportunity of commanding a force which, by its excellent conduct, has enabled me to bring a difficult war to so speedy a close."
  1496
  After reading such a sentence as that, I could never have supposed that the state of his health was such as to justify the idea that he would break down under the strain that was put upon him. From that date up to the present day I have learnt nothing more, and I was under the impression then that a more robust man, or a man in all respects more capable of doing his duty in trying circumstances, could not be found than my noble and gallant Friend, Lord Chelmsford. And that was my impression up to the moment I saw the Despatch of the 9th February. I had a private letter from him, which is dated February, 1879, but without the day of the month; and I beg your Lordships especially to mark the mode in which this sentence is expressed—
  "Might I suggest to your Royal Highness the advisability of sending out a Major General who will be competent to succeed me, not only as commanding the Forces, but also as Lieutenant Governor and High Commissioner should anything happen to Sir Bartle Frere."
  I ask your Lordships' attention to the words "might I." If a man felt that he was unable to carry on the duties intrusted to him, he would hardly say "might I." I think he would use a stronger expression. Then comes the next extract, which is from a private letter dated February 10, 1879. I believe it came by the last post which reached us—
  "I trust your Royal Highness will be able to send me out a second in command. I do not anticipate breaking down, but I feel that the strain is very great on me in every way, and that such an event may occur suddenly."
  Certainly, I confess that, reading those sentences, I should have supposed it to be the most natural and proper thing for an officer situated as my noble and gallant Friend was, that he should have thought it right to indicate to myself as the head of the Army and to Her Majesty's Government that the circumstances were so grave that it was necessary to look forward to the possibility, either by ill-health, or by accident, or in action, of something happening which might require some other officer to take his place. All I can say is, that Her Majesty's Government—and I venture to say myself in conjunction with them—had already anticipated Lord Chelmsford'swish—which

  1497
  we think very natural—by sending out four General Officers on the first opportunity that we could possibly have despatched them to those distant lands. As far as I am concerned, I am in total ignorance of any such reference to me as that of June. I do not say that such a letter never was written. It is possible that it may have been, and may have been lost in the post, or may otherwise have miscarried; but I can only assure your Lordships that if it had reached my hands, I should have felt it my duty to put the Government in possession of it at the earliest possible period.

HIGHWAY ACT, 1878—DISTURNPIKED ROADS.—OBSERVATIONS.
EARL DE LA WARRrose to call attention to the Highway Act of last Session, with special reference to Clause 13, by which roads disturnpiked previous to the 31st December, 1870, are excluded from becoming main roads; and to move for a Return of highways which have been disturnpiked since the year 1870. The noble Earl said, that the objects of the Act seemed to have been to afford relief to ratepayers in districts and parishes where turnpike roads formerly existed but which had since been abolished, the effect being to throw additional burdens upon ratepayers for the maintenance of highways. This end was proposed in the Act to be attained by making disturnpiked roads main roads, and paying half the expense of their maintenance out of the county rate. No one could question that this was an object much to be desired—especially in agricultural districts where the heavy and often increasing burdens upon land were already much felt. But by the operation of Clause 13 of the Act, the expected benefit appeared in only a comparatively few instances to have been realized. Under that clause, it was confined to roads which had been, or should be, disturnpiked since the year 1870, and no others were entitled to the benefits provided for in the Act—namely, that one-half of the expenses of the maintenance of the road should be paid for by the county, unless there were exceptional circumstances. Now, it was difficult to understand why this limitation should have been made, and why a road which was disturnpiked, say in the
1498
year 1868, should not receive the same advantages as roads disturnpiked in 1871, or afterwards. There were many instances of that inequality being much felt. He would mention one of which he happened to have the particulars. It was a parish in an agricultural district of Sussex. The trust of a turnpike road running through the parish was abolished in the year 1868; and to show the effect upon the rates in consequence of that, it appeared that during the time the trust existed the average sum paid annually for the maintenance of highways by the ratepayers was £215; since the abolition of the trust the average sum had been £351—being an increase of more than one-half. In the adjoining parish the trust was abolished after 1870, and they were consequently in a position to claim the benefit of the Highway Act. There seemed to be some hardship in this; and as a large number of trusts were abolished previous to the year 1870, there were many cases similar to that to which he had referred. It was true that Clause 15 of the Act gave power to a highway authority, such as the Quarter Sessions, to make any road a main road; but it was only in limited and exceptional circumstances, such as being a thoroughfare to a railway station or a medium of communication between great towns, and was not likely to be of extensive application; and it was evident there might be important highways to which those conditions would not apply. He had brought this subject under their Lordships' notice, as he thought it was unadvisable to put additional charges upon ratepayers, especially in agricultural districts where the land was already heavily burdened, and among the burdens the maintenance of highways was not one of the least. In existing circumstances, and in regard to the changes which were being made in local administration, they might look to advantages which would arise from extending rather than limiting the area of taxation, and thus include property which was now exempt in a great measure from the burdens which fell upon land. He ventured to hope that the subject would receive the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, whether further relief might not be afforded to ratepayers by an extension of the provisions of the Highway Act of last Session. The noble Earl then moved for a Return.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONreminded their Lordships that the Act was but a recent one, and probably had not been worked out in all its details. He did not agree with his noble Friend that whole districts had been left out of the Bill; but he did think that the Act applied to roads of which the noble Earl had alluded, because it was in the power of highway authorities to declare a road a main road and bring it within the operation of the Act. The Government were not prepared to bring in an amending Bill; but there might be eventually a necessity to bring in a Bill to consolidate the various measures relating to highways. Some of the information moved for by the noble Earl was already available, having been laid before the House of Commons on the Motion of Lord George Cavendish. To the other Returns asked for there was no objection.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYhoped the noble Duke would not be too hasty in his conclusions. If he would study the Returns, he would see that an amendment of the Act was a necessity.
Motion amended, and agreed to.
Return of the names of the several turnpike roads which have become disturnpiked between 31st December 1870 and 30th June 1878 in each county in England and Wales, with the number of miles of each such road, and a statement of the cost of maintaining the same as shown by the last published account; similar Return with respect to the turnpike roads the trusts of which have been fixed by the Turnpike Continuance Acts to expire within five years from 30th June 1878; and Return of the number of turnpike roads the trusts of which will expire within the same period under the Acts by which the same were constituted, if not extended by any of the Turnpike Continuance Acts: Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Earl De La Warr.)

TREATY OF BERLIN—THE BRITISH FLEET.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid: My Lords, it is not in order to address the House on any new phase the Eastern Question has arrived at that I have put this Question on the Paper; but only with a view to the two inquiries it contains, and which it seems to me the present moment calls for. It has been alleged in a variety of quarters, and according to the ordinary channels of intelligence in the other House of Parliament—that the Fleet has left the Sea of Marmora where it had so long continued. It will hardly be denied that your Lordships

  1500
  are entitled to an official declaration on a matter so important, and one which in this House has been so seriously canvassed. Should the answer be that the Fleet continues where it was, the second Question has not any special urgency at present. But should the answer be that it has gone back to the Mediterranean, the second Question unavoidably suggests itself. The presence of the Fleet in the vicinity of Constantinople tended on many grounds, which this is not the moment to go into, to promote the backward movement of the Russian Armies, according to the stipulation I have mentioned in the Notice, in nine months over the Danube, in three months more across the Russian frontier. Should the Fleet have therefore been withdrawn—a step on which I offer no opinion—it seems desirable to know how far, in other ways, the execution of the 22nd Article in the Treaty of Berlin may be depended on. In a despatch dated January 26th, which cannot be too widely known or accurately studied, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has explained, that Russia has neglected to conform to other portions of the Treaty. As regards the Article in question, it is evident that there are many motives to leave it unperformed, and a variety of pretexts for neglecting to adhere to it. There are even symptoms of reluctance to observe it, if it is true, as I have lately seen in a Constantinople journal, that 40,000 troops have lately come from Russia, to replace those which seem to be departing. In that respect, the distant wars in which we are engaged must add to what we may perhaps consider the temptations of St. Petersburg—first, because they carry off and occupy the military power of this country; next, because they lull the vigilance with which the events of Eastern Europe used to be regarded in it. Whatever may be the case with individuals, the public at large are not inclined to the labour of keeping three considerable subjects in the memory together. The House may therefore wish to know whether the Fleet has been withdrawn; and, if it has, whether the complete evacuation on the part of Russia of a position menacing to Europe, is secured?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, your Lordships will have seen, by the Papers which are on the Table, that in the course of last autumn

  1501
  —I think in September—Her Majesty's Government caused it to be signified to the Russian Ambassador at Constantinople that as soon as the Russian troops evacuated what I shall call, for convenience sake, Southern Roumelia—that is to say, the Turkish Empire outside Eastern Roumelia—the British Fleet would retire from the Sea of Marmora. The reason for so doing was obvious. The presence of the British Fleet in that sea was for the protection of Constantinople; and as soon as the Russian Forces had retired beyond Adrianople, it could not be said that the presence of the British Fleet in the Sea of Marmora contributed effectually to the protection of Constantinople, or that Constantinople was any longer the subject of pre-occupation on the part of the signatory Powers. It was for these reasons that we gave the undertaking which will be found in the Blue Book. The evacuation of Southern Roumelia was delayed much longer than we expected—much longer, perhaps, than we had a right to expect; but it was not possible for us to remonstrate with what was, at all events, a departure from the Treaty; because Russia placed it in a parallel line to a similar departure from the Treaty of which Turkey was guilty in not evacuating the fortresses of Spütz and Podgoritza. As soon as these fortresses were evacuated, the movement of Russian troops out of Southern Roumelia commenced. It is perfectly true that there are still other obligations of the Treaty which Russia has in due time to fulfil. She will have, at periods indicated in the Treaty, to evacuate Eastern Roumelia, Bulgaria, and Roumania. The noble Lord asks, as I understand, what provision we have taken for insuring the performance of these obligations? We have taken the only provision by which it is open to us to insure the performance in the future of any particular act by any particular Power—namely, a Treaty engagement from her that she will do so. That Treaty engagement Russia has repeatedly acknowledged, and she has told us, in the most formal terms, that she is fully resolved to execute it. It is not open to us—and certainly it is not open to me—to suggest a doubt that that promise will be fully performed. Even if it were so, I do not suppose that the waiting of the British Fleet in the Sea of Marmora would be of any
  1502
  use in respect of the performance of that particular portion of the Treaty. If that portion of the Treaty is not executed, and if the Sultan thinks that the presence of the British Fleet, either in the Sea of Marmora or in the Black Sea, will tend to secure the execution of the Treaty, he is authorized to ask for the assistance of his Allies; and when that request is made, it will be open to any of the maritime Powers that are signatories to the Treaty to send their Fleets through the Straits, through the Sea of Marmora, or the Black Sea. But I certainly do not contemplate any such contingency. I only allude to it for the purpose of showing the noble Lord that to have left our Fleet in the Sea of Marmora merely for the purpose of anticipating a contingency which is not likely to arise, would not have been an advantageous proceeding—it would in no way have forwarded the end we have in view, and might have exposed our own motives and actions to misconstruction.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.