Lords Sitting of 27 June 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act (1855) Amendment* (131); Commons Regulation (Shen-field) Provisional Order * (132).
Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Acton, &c.) * (121); Summary Procedure (Scotland) Amendment (99).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Askern, &c.) * (115); Local Government Provisional Orders (Horfield, &c.) * (116); Bankruptcy and Cessio (Scotland)* (128); Post Office (Land)* (114); Newspapers * (101), and passed.
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (No. 3) [44 & 45 Vict. c. 15]; Land Tax Commissioners' Names [44 & 45 Vict. c. 16]; Tramways (Ireland) Acts Amendment [44 & 45 Vict. a. 17]; Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland) [44 & 45 Vict. c. 18]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Berwick-upon-Tweed, &c.) [44 & 45 Vict. c. lxi]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor L,aw) (No. 2) [44 & 45 Vict. c. lxii]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Brentford Union, &c.) [44 & 45 Vict. c. lxiii]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Con-
1338
firmation (Clay Lane) [44 & 45 Vict. c. lxiv]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Bandon, &o.) [44 & 45 Vict. c. lxv]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Halifax, &c.) [44 & 45 Vict. c. lxvi]; Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order [44 & 45 Vict. c. lxvii]; Local Government Provisional Order(Birmingham) [44 & 45 Vict. c. lxviii]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Ballymena, &c.) [44 & 45 Vict. c. lxix]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Cottingham, &c.) [44 & 45 Vict. c. lxx].

BALLYCLARE, LIGONIEL, AND BELFAST JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
THIRD READING.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN,in moving that the Bill be read a third time that day three months, said, that the rule which had been laid down by the House was that no new railway should be sanctioned by any Committee which was proposed to run alongside, or in close proximity to, an existing line of railway, unless it could be shown that the circumstances of the country imperatively required a new line. He contended, from his knowledge of the country through, which this line would pass, that it was not required, the present railway affording all the accommodation which was necessary for all purposes. He had never heard any person say that this new line was wanted. It would also be an injustice to the existing line, as that line was constructed on the broad gauge, while it was proposed to construct the new line on the narrow gauge, at considerably less expense. For these reasons he should oppose the Bill.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the motion ("this day three months.")—(The Viscount Templetown.)
THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, as Chairman of the Select Committee who had approved of the Bill, he thought that the noble Viscount had taken a most unusual course in moving the rejection of this Bill at this stage of its progress through the House. He would not complain of the Vote of Censure proposed to be passed upon the Committee. Whether they had fallen into an error of judgment in taking the course which they had done was a matter of opinion; but they had, he might say, fully inves-

1339
tigated all the circumstances of the case during the four days on which they sat. As to the character of the opposition, he wished to point out to their Lordships that no landowner and no owner of property opposed the Bill. It was opposed only by two Railway Companies, of one of which the noble Viscount was Chairman, and of the other a Director. He complained of a statement which had been circulated among their Lordships by the opponents of the Bill, and pointed out that this statement was calculated to leave a false impression on the minds of their Lordships. The opposition of the noble Viscount now went much further than that of the learned counsel before the Select Committee, who desired that the section to Ligoniel should be made, as it would be of great public advantage to the country. The noble Viscount had not referred to the evidence given before the Committee, but had stated his own impressions of what he thought was necessary for the locality. It was contended that no narrow gauge line should be allowed to be made which would come into competition with a broad gauge line; but he could point to the fact that Parliament had allowed that to be done on several occasions. Again, although it was said that the new line would run very near to the existing line, yet the evidence showed that, from the peculiar character of the country, the district through which the new line would pass was not now in some oases served at all, and in other cases was very imperfectly served, by the existing line. The opponents of the Bill had also attempted to prove that the proposed line could not possibly pay; but their case on that point had entirely broken down. Another allegation was that the line was not to be made by local subscriptions, but by the money of a speculative company in London. That, however, was a strange objection to come from Irishmen, who were always asking for the development of the resources of their country by means of English capital.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, he trusted he should be able to show, in the few observations he had to make, exactly how this matter stood. Their Lordships, he thought, were much indebted to the noble Earl the Chairman of the Committee which had sat on that Bill for stating so clearly the view he took on
1340
that Question. He also acknowledged that their Lordships' House in ordinary cases of Private Bills exercised a wise discretion in not canvassing the decisions of the Committees to which they were referred, and in accepting those decisions as being probably the best that could be arrived at under the circumstances. But their Lordships had always reserved to themselves, whenever those Bills involved a matter of national and Imperial importance, the right of reviewing, whether at the third reading or at any other stage, the conclusion to which the Select Committee had come on the question. More especially had they done so on that very matter of the gauges of Irish railways. In 1846, after a Royal Commission had considered most deliberately the question of the difference of gauges, a general Act of Parliament was passed requiring that every railway constructed in Ireland should be constructed on a certain gauge; and it was made a penal offence to construct a railway on any other gauge, any Company which did so being subject to a very heavy penalty. It was not now a question whether the gauge decided upon was the best; but the fact was that all great undertakings had been carried out on such gauge, and it would be highly inconvenient if a change were made. He reminded their Lordships that the owners of the great systems of railway were put to great expense, both in the construction and the working of the railways, and it would be very unjust to them if, after they had gone to great expense to construct a line in a poor country, others should be allowed to construct a cheaper description of line in competition with them. He thought that his noble Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee would not like to take the responsibility upon himself of altering the general law of the Kingdom. The whole principle upon which these narrow-gauge lines were permitted to be made in Ireland was settled by the discussion which took place upon the subject in 1879, which led to certain railways being exempted from the general law. The national gauge was 5 feet 3 inches; but in mountainous districts, where the physical character of the country was such as to render the adoption of the national gauge impracticable, or where the district through which the railway ran wag too poor to support it, there these nar-

1341
row 3-feet gauge lines might be made; but he never heard that they could be made in districts where a wide-gauge line was already in existence. The question then arose as to who was to be judge of the circumstances of the district that were to justify the adoption of the narrow gauge; and in the debate on the Donegal Railway Bill it was arranged that an Inspector of the Board of Trade should visit the district and report to the Board of Trade whether the district was such as to justify the adoption of the narrow gauge; but no such inspection had been made in this case, and no Report whatever had been made. He understood, too, that the Select Committee had not been unanimous in agreeing to the Preamble of the Bill. There were, undoubtedly, places in Ireland where they could not have the wide-gauge railways; but to have them where there were already broad-gauge railways in existence would be a positive national evil. If this measure were to become law, a most dangerous precedent would be established, and it would be impossible to restrict this difference of gauge to Ireland alone. It would be extended, in course of time, to England and Scotland; and by doing so, they would abandon the principle which they had established by their general legislation. He, therefore, hoped that their Lordships would agree to his noble Friend's Amendment, and reject the present Bill.
LORD WAVENEYsaid, he should support the Bill on the ground that the peculiar circumstances of the case warranted a departure from the rule requiring all Irish railways to be made on one gauge. He contended that the existing lines and the proposed line were not side by side, but separated by a considerable extent of ground. The new line would tend to develop the trade of the district. With reference to the Reports from the Board of Trade, lie would remind their Lordships that they had been frequently set aside for inaccuracies; and as regarded the general law, the Chairman of Committees almost every day set it at nought in respect to the baronial guarantees.
THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES),in opposing the Bill, said, he was convinced that nothing could be more unfortunate for Ireland than that the contests between broad and
1342
narrow gauges involved in this Bill should be allowed to commence.
LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he supported the Bill, believing that the opposition to the introduction of narrow-gauge railways into Ireland made by the noble Earl was due to a misconception on his part of the wants of the country. He was also of opinion that the opposition to the Bill rested upon no grounds of public policy whatever; but was merely the opposition of one Railway Company to a scheme carried out by another. The line which would be constructed if the Bill were passed would form, a link of 13 miles, connecting two narrow-gauge lines. If, therefore, the line were to be made at all, being, as it was, largely desired by the neighbourhood, it must be on the gauge set down in the Bill. He held that the Bill did not violate any principle of public policy, and maintained that it would be very unwise for their Lordships to override the decision of the Select Committee by whom the subject had been considered.
THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, he regretted that this question had not been debated on the second reading, because they were now placed in a most difficult position, their own Committee having reported in favour of the Bill. He did not think that the reasons offered by the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) were sufficient to override the deliberate decision of the Committee.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he entirely agreed with the opinion expressed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Limerick). The general principle ought to have been contested on the second reading of the Bill if it were objected to, and not at this stage, and their Lordships then ought to have refused either to sanction the second reading or have given some general instructions to the Committee. The rejection of the measure now would inflict great injustice on the promoters of the scheme and on those who seemed to profit by it. He had been told that a Parliamentary summons, announcing that the noble Viscount intended to move the rejection of the Bill, had been issued. If his information was correct, he must say that he deprecated the step that had been taken in issuing a summons of that kind on such an occasion. When first he entered the House of Commons canvassing on Private Bills was the practice was the cause of

1343
great scandals, and was put down with difficulty. The House would be ill-advised if it should agree to the Re-solution of the noble Viscount, the Chairman of the defeated railway. The Bill had been passed by a Select Committee, before whom counsel had represented both sides of the case; whereas, on this occasion, they had had one of the ablest counsel, well instructed to speak on one side with no learned person to reply. Ever since he had been in their Lordships' House he had supported the authority of the Committees; and he was afraid that, if their Lord-Ships were to develop a habit of throwing over their Committees, great reluctance would soon be shown by individual Members of their Lordships' House when asked to serve on Select Committees.
On question, that (" now ") stand part of the motion, resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ARMY—BRITISH CEMETERIES IN THE CRIMEA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF HERTFORD,in rising to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the state of the cemeteries and monuments of those who fell in the Crimean War; and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any addition will be made to the annual allowance now granted for their maintenance, the present sum being found quite inadequate for the purpose? said, that the subject of which he desired to speak concerned the treatment of the revered remains of our fellow-countrymen who died in the Crimea in the service of their Queen and country, and he was sure would therefore enlist their Lordships' sympathy. He had no intention of casting blame on the Government or on their Predecessors. On the contrary, he had reason to be satisfied with the courtesy with which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had treated the representations he had thought it his duty to make to him. During the summer of last year, when at Constantinople, he visited the British cemetery at Scutari, and had reason to admire the beauty of the place and the perfect manner in which the
  1344
  graves and monuments were preserved. From Constantinople he went to Sebastopol, and visited the cemeteries on Cathcart's Hill; but there he found a different state of things; the gravestones and monuments in the smaller cemeteries had been greatly neglected, they were broken in various places, and the graves presented an aspect of lamentable desolation. He did not, however, wish their Lordships to think that there was anything very serious the matter; but he certainly found even the principal cemetery which contained the remains of Sir George Cathcart, General Strangways, General Goldie, and many other distinguished officers, much overgrown with weeds, and it was evident that nothing had been done even there for months. He could not see the guardian, who was a German; but his wife informed him that they had no tools to work with, and she assured him that the £25 allowed them by the Government hardly enabled them to keep their children in food, and that they could buy no more tools. He then went to the two neighbouring cemeteries devoted to the Light Division, and there he found the same neglect, although, as there was no pretence of keeping up a garden there, it was not necessary to mow the weeds; but many tombstones were displaced, and the outer walls beginning to crumble away. The French had a fine cemetery not far distant, for which they allowed £144 for the guardian, and £50 for the maintenance of the walls and tombs; while the Russians had a magnificent Greek church, 100 feet high, on the north side of Sebastopol, for which they had paid £40,000, and for the monuments £14,000 more. Why, he would ask, should this country be behind those two nations in taking care of the remains of those who had died in their country's service? When he came home he placed himself in communication with the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and also with General Sir John Adye, the present Surveyor of the Ordnance, who had been sent out to the Crimea in 1872, with Colonel Gordon (Chinese Gordon), to report upon the graves. Sir John Adye afforded him every assistance, and he found that by their advice £4,000 had been expended in removing the tombstones from about 130 ceme-

  1345
  teries into six or seven, the principal ones on Cathcart's Hill, and that there had been an allowance of £30 for maintenance, and of £25 for the guardian, making altogether £55 a-year. That, he was happy to say, had now been increased by £25, making altogether £80 per annum. Grateful as he felt for that increase, he must still maintain that it was not sufficient. It was ample for the principal cemetery; but it was not enough to keep up the Light Division cemeteries, for which a lump, sum was required on them of, say, £500, or even £1,000, for building stone walls, strongly cemented with mortar, or an iron railing, or for digging a deep haha ditch round them to keep out the herds and flocks. There was also no garden for the custodian, and a well to be sunk, all of which would cost money. For what had already been done he tendered his thanks in the name of the Army; but he must maintain that it was insufficient, and he hoped that the allowance would be increased.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he hoped the noble and gallant Marquess would forgive him if he answered his Question instead of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It was perfectly true that the management of the cemeteries was under the control of an officer who was attached to the Foreign Office; but the subject was more connected with the Office which he represented in the House than with the Foreign Office. He was sure that no one in that House would be surprised at the anxiety manifested by the noble and gallant Marquess that the cemeteries in which their brave soldiers were laid should be maintained with reverence and care. That was a feeling shared by himself, and, he thought, by all his countrymen, and not least by the present Government and the Secretary of State for War, who had a deep personal interest in those cemeteries. The noble and gallant Marquess had spoken from personal experience. But he would remember that Questions had been asked in the course of last month of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War as to the condition of these cemeteries. Certain accounts, which appeared to be exaggerated, had been published in the newspapers. His right hon. Friend promised to make inquiries
  1346
  of the Consul General at Odessa. Since that Question had been put to his right hon. Friend he had received a letter from the Consul General, dated May 11, and addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He need not read the letter, as a letter from the Consul General containing the same information had appeared in The Times of June 6. Mr. Stanley in that letter said that the accounts which had been given were absolutely inaccurate. Mr. Stanley had visited the cemeteries, and especially Cathcart's Hill, and described them as in good condition. The wall, which had been broken down in one or two places, had been repaired. One monument was slightly and another seriously injured by the action of the frost; but he had taken care that all proper repairs should be executed. Considerable sums had been expended in improving the condition of these cemeteries after Sir John Adye's visit in 1875. In all, some £4,000 had been spent. The annual sum paid as salary and for annual repairs to the custodian had this year been raised from £55 to £80, and the Consul General at Odessa was of opinion that that sum was sufficient for the purpose. He fully sympathized with what had fallen from the noble and gallant Marquess, and he could assure him that everything would be done by the Government to maintain the cemeteries in good order; but he did not think there was any necessity, at the present time, to vote any additional sum for the purposes mentioned in his Question.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, he had no doubt that one feeling only would be entertained by all classes of the community, and that was that these cemeteries should be properly maintained. A great deal depended upon those who looked after these cemeteries; there was more in this than in anything else. A small sum judiciously laid out at the proper time, with proper supervision, was what was required. He was quite sure that if any further sum was needed it would be cheerfully given to show honour to the dead who had fallen in the interests of their Sovereign and the country. He was satisfied that if the Consul General at Odessa were called upon to exercise the necessary supervision, very little additional money would be needed,

SUMMARY PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 99.)
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of the Bill was to make the Law of Summary Procedure in Scotland more uniform, to regulate the amount of costs payable on conviction, and also to confer on the Courts of Summary Jurisdiction a certain amount of discretion to mitigate the penalties in the various cases which might be prosecuted. The Summary Procedure Act of 1874 revised the machinery applicable to all cases of summary procedure, but not so completely as should be the case, and the result was that prosecutions took place under a variety of Acts as well as Common Law, consequently the proceedings were not uniform. The Bill was also to enable a limit to be placed upon the costs of conviction, for the reason that at present they were frequently excessive, and there was no power on the part of the Judge to diminish the costs which were incurred. For instance, the other day a man in Aberdeenshire was fined £1, and the costs amounted to no less than £5 6s. 2d., and as the man was unable to pay that sum he was committed to prison. Again, three persons were convicted at Peterhead for offences against the Weights and Measures Act. The offences were very venial, as was shown by the amount of the fines, the total for the three defendants being only £2 15 s. 6d.; but the amount of costs came to no less than £57 6s. Under such circumstances as that, their Lordships would readily understand that the difference between the amount of the fines and the costs created great discontent amongst the people. There was also very great discontent about the present state of the law, because if the offence was serious enough to have the prosecution taken at the instance of the Lord Advocate, the defendant was not cast in any costs whatever. Another object of the Bill was to assimilate, to some degree, the Scotch and English law by adopting the several provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879, which gave great discretion to the
1348
Courts with regard to the mitigation of punishment. That was very much wanted, because, as he had said, the law was so defective now that if an offender under the Act; however venial the offence, were convicted, he must be sentenced to the exact amount of imprisonment prescribed by the Act. The Judge had no power to vary it, or even to dispense with hard labour and sureties for future good behaviour. The draft of the Bill which he asked their Lordships to read a second time had been considered by all the Sheriffs in Scotland, and they had one and all reported favourably upon it.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.