Lords Sitting of 22 May 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Boiler Explosions (85).
Committee—Union of Benefices (London) (61–101); Pluralities Acts Amendment (74–102); Railways (Continuous Brakes) (21), negatived; Imprisonment for Contumacy* (91–103).
Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Order (Highways)* (82); Commons Regulation Provisional Orders* (88); Public Health (Scotland) Act Amendment* (84).
Report—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* (56); Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (West Ham, &c.)* (55).
Third Reading—Militia Storehouses* (76); Commonable Rights* (73); Documentary Evidence* (87); Military Manœuvres* (86), and passed.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92. and 93. be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess.
UNION OF BENEFICES (LONDON) BILL.
(The Lord Bishop of London.)
UNION OF BENEFICES (LONDON) BILL.

  (NO. 61.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that, when the Bill was read a second time, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) had spoken in strong terms of the non-residence of many of the City incumbents. Now, it was difficult to define residence; but it was the fact that a large proportion of the City clergy were non-resident, and that was a very great evil. Probably, there were many clergy houses which, for a long time past, had been used for business purposes, and it was impossible now to buy them back, except at enormous prices. It was one of the main objects of the Bill to deal with this difficulty, and, as far as possible, to do away with the evil complained of.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he agreed with the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) that it was desirable, as far as possible, to reduce the evil of non-residence. He hoped, also, that by judiciously arranging the times of the various services to meet the requirements of those who frequented the City another evil, the scanty attendances at some of the churches, might be removed.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Constitution of Commission for purposes of Act).
  On the Motion of The Earl of ONSLOW, Amendment made, in page 1, line 21, by leaving out ("seven,") and inserting ("nine.")
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW, in moving to insert words providing that one Commissioner shall be nominated by the Council of the Royal Institute of British Architects and one by the Bishops of Rochester and St. Albans, said, the object of the first was to protect the interests of Art and Architecture in the City churches, and of the second to secure that the proceeds arising from any union of benefices should be applied where most needed in the suburban dioceses of Rochester and St. Albans.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 4, after ("College") insert ("one Commissioner shall be nominated by the Council of the Royal Institute of British Architects; one Commissioner shall be nominated by the Bishops of St. Albans and Rochester.")—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he saw no objection to the insertion of the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Proceedings of the Commissioners).
  On the Motion of The Earl of ONSLOW, Amendment made, in page 2, line 35, after ("present,") by inserting—
  ("And in the event of an equality of votes, shall have a second or casting vote.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Functions of the Commissioners).
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, that the area of distribution laid down by the Bill—that of the Metropolitan Board of Works—was much too limited. It would exclude Wimbledon, Croydon, Edmonton, Tottenham, Finsbury Park, and other suburbs. Having in view the enormous increase shown by the recent Census, some allowance ought to be made for the probable increase of population in the suburbs during the next decade. They ought also to recognize the fact that 20 minutes' run in a fast train brought

  1227
  a residential suburb as near to London as one that was but a mile or two away, without railway communication. He, therefore, proposed to substitute for the area defined by the Bill that of the Metropolitan Police District, as laid down by 2 & 3 Vict., c. 27.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 3, line 30, to leave out from ("London") to the end of clause, and insert ("and all parishes and places forming part of the Metropolitan Police District as defined by the Act of the second and third years of Victoria, chapter forty-seven.")—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Regulations as to making schemes for union of benefices).
  On Motion of The Earl of CARNARVON, Amendment made, in page 4, line 10, by inserting after ("house") the words ("within the area of such new benefice.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Regulations as to schemes for application of surplus ecclesiastical revenues).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 5, line 29, to insert after ("benefices") the words ("(5.) The maintenance of the fabric of such churches as, in the opinion of the Commissioners, are not needed for Divine worship, but which, for architectural or historical reasons, ought to be preserved.")—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  Lord LAMINGTON and The Earl of SHAFTESBURYsupported the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Proceedings in respect of schemes).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 7, line 17, to leave out from ("shall") to end of sub-section, and insert ("Be laid in print before both Houses of Parliament, and if neither House of Parliament within twelve weeks, exclusive of any period of prorogation, presents an address praying Her Majesty to withhold her consent, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty in Council by order to approve the same.")—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONthought the Commissioners, who would be a Con-
  1228
  servative body, might be trusted to carry out the objects for which they were appointed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the Commission would he invested with very despotic powers; and, therefore, he was glad that some check was proposed to be put upon them, for he did not think they would necessarily be of so Conservative a character as the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) thought. It was true there was an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; but that could only be on questions of law, as the Privy Council would not interfere on questions of policy. The Commissioners had power to deal with rights of property and other rights which the inhabitants of London had enjoyed for a very long time; and he hoped and believed that they would deal with those rights in a judicial and Conservative spirit. Still, when he recollected the way in which the despotic powers confided last year to the Commissioners under the Irish Land Act had been used, he was not disposed to place despotic powers in the hands of any Commissioners. He, therefore, supported the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Earl of CARNARVON, Amendment made, by the insertion in the clause of a new sub-section, as follows:—
  ("7. Every such scheme shall, from the date specified in the scheme, or if no date is specified, then from the date of the Order in Council, have full operation and effect in the same manner as if it had been enacted in this Act.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Compensation for vested interests of incumbents).
  On Motion of The Lord Bishop of LONDON, Amendment made, in page 8, line 25, by the insertion of the following Proviso:—
  ("Provided also, that if any such incumbent embraces any religion other than that of the Church of England, the aforesaid annual payments shall cease.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Sites or portions of sites may be given for improvement of public thoroughfares).
  On Motion of The Earl of ONSLOW, the following Amendments made:—In page 9, line 26, after ("public") insert ("auction or"); in line 29, after ("to") insert ("public improvements.")
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  The Report of the amendments to be received on Tuesday the 6th of June next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 101.)

PLURALITIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Bishop of Exeter)
PLURALITIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 74.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Construction and interpretation).
  On the Motion of The Lord Bishop of EXETER, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 14, leave out ("not only"); line 15, leave out ("but also ") and insert—
  ("The visiting and private monishing and exhortation of the sick and the whole, the religious instruction of the young and the preparation of them for confirmation and");
  and leave out from ("as") to ("and") in line 19 and insert—
  ("Any spiritual person holding a benefice is bound by law to perform or which may lawfully be required of him by the bishop of the diocese, and shall have been so required.")
  Moved, after Clause 2, to insert as a new clause—
  (Celebration of Holy Communion.)
  "The incumbent of every benefice or his curate shall celebrate holy communion in every church or chapel belonging thereto (if there shall be a sufficient number to communicate with him) on one Sunday at least in every month throughout the year after morning prayer, or oftener, if the bishop, having regard to the population and circumstances of the benefice, shall so require; and shall give due warning of every such intended celebration."—(The Lord Bishop of Exeter.)
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, he strongly opposed the adoption of the clause, because he considered that the object in view would not be nearly so well accomplished as it was now being accomplished by the efforts of the Bishops and the goodwill of the clergy. The
  1230
  clause was not in pari materie with the rest of the Bill. The proposal of his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Exeter) was, in fact, to introduce a new Rubric, which would be exceedingly unsatisfactory.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, he could not agree with his right rev. Brother; but, in deference to his views, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause 3 (Repeal of so much of s. 77 of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, as relates to the persons to act as commissioners on inquiries as to inadequate performance of ecclesiastical duties. Persons to act as commissioners on inquiries as to inadequate performance of ecclesiastical duties).
  On the Motion of The Lord Bishop of EXETER, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 11, leave out ("and the remaining two") and insert ("one other"), and after ("be") insert ("a"); line 12, leave out ("clergymen") and insert ("clergyman"); line 13, after ("provided") insert—
  ("And one other of such commissioners shall be a magistrate in the commission of the peace for the county wherein the benefice is situated and a member of the Church of England, nominated for the purpose of such commission on the requisition of the bishop by the person who presided as chairman of the quarter sessions for the county or division of the county last preceding such requisition, or if there be no such person then by the lord lieutenant of the county.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Beneficed clergy of every archdeaconry to elect triennially two beneficed clergymen of the archdeaconry to act as commissioners for the purpose of inquiries as to inadequate performance of ecclesiastical duties).
  On the Motion of The Lord Bishop of EXETER, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 41, leave out ("two") and insert ("a"); line 42, leave out ("clergymen") and insert ("clergyman") and leave out ("commissioners") and insert ("a commissioner"); page 3, line 3, leave out ("names") and insert ("name"), and leave out ("persons") and insert ("person"); line 6, leave out ("persons") and insert ("person").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 6 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Lord Bishop of CARLISLE, the following new clause was agreed to, and added to the Bill, after Clause 10:—
  (Saving as to certain cases.)
  "Provided always, that nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice the provisions of the fifteenth section of the Act of the session of the first year of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter twenty-three, or the provisions of the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act, 1871, or any mortgage or charge duly created under any Act of Parliament upon the profits of any benefice which may come under the operation of this Act."
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  The Report of the said amendments to be received on Tuesday the 13th of June next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 102.)

RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES) BILL.—(No. 21.)
(The Earl De La Warr.)
RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES) BILL.—(No. 21.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSS, in rising to move the Previous Question, said, he had no intention of entering into the controversy on the continuous brakes system, or to inquire whether the Westinghouse system or any other was or was not the best. He would admit that he was strongly of opinion that every passenger train in the country should be provided with a continuous brake; and was sorry to have to admit that some Companies were very tardy in adopting it. But the Bill before their Lordships aimed to impose upon Railway Companies the application of a new principle altogether—that of the automatic brake. He was strongly of opinion that any legislation on such a subject ought not to come from a private individual, but from the Board of Trade, that Department of the Government which attended particularly to railway matters and the safety of the public in connection with railways. His noble Friend would, no doubt, say that the Bill was
  1232
  founded on the recommendation of some officer of that Department some five years ago. Perfect unanimity, however, it was well known, did not exist in the Board of Trade on the subject. The Report of the Committee who had sat on the matter in 1877 had also been largely quoted by the supporters of some such measure as the present; but if the experience of 1882 had existed in 1877, he did not think the recommendations of that Committee in favour of an automatic brake would ever have seen the light. He attended a few days ago a deputation which waited on the President of the Board of Trade, when Mr. Chamberlain stated that he was adverse to any legislation for bringing Parliamentary pressure on Railway Companies which could be avoided. The right hon. Gentleman particularly instanced the blocking system and the interlocking system as inventions which, he said, were adopted without any Parliamentary pressure whatever. Railway Companies had not any object in killing or maiming people; their great desire was to carry their passengers with the utmost safety, not only on the ground of humanity, but because of that very ugly word, compensation. No doubt, a great many accidents must occur in the management of railways, a great many of which must be fatal; but, according to the Report of the Board of Trade for 1880, the last which had been issued, he found that no fewer than 603,884,000 railway journeys had been made in this country in the course of that year, and only 29 persons were killed from circumstances beyond their own control, being at the rate of one in 20,927,034 persons who travelled on railways, or, including season ticket holders, one person in every 24,600,000. That, if compared with walking in the streets of London, was comparative safety. The Bill required the adoption of a kind of brake which would only act when the couplings were broken. An eminent engineer had informed him that this automatic brake would give no warning in cases where an axle broke, or where the train jumped off the line; for it would not act of itself so long as no severance took place. In the face of such testimony, he could not support the Bill, which made the automatic brake compulsory, and which came from a private Member of their Lordships' House, and not from the Board

  1233
  of Trade, which ought to assume the responsibility of legislation of such a nature; and he trusted their Lordships would support him in moving the Previous Question.
  Previous question moved.—(The Lord Colville of Culross.)
  THE DUKE OF SUTHERLANDsaid, that he strongly objected to the Bill as unnecessary, considering the progress that had been made of late years by the Railway Companies in the adoption of these brakes. If the noble Earl opposite (Earl De La Warr) had brought forward the Bill five or six years ago, there might be some reason for it. All Railway Companies were convinced that continuous brakes were necessary, and did not seem in any way to be slow in adopting adequate measures of precaution; and he could quote figures to show at what rate brakes were being fitted on the different trains. It was his belief, indeed, that after a very short time no trains would leave London without this system of brake—in fact, hardly any left without them at present. The interference of Parliament with the Board of Trade in respect of the brake question would be most mischievous, as it would relieve the Companies of a great deal of responsibility, and would work in a way prejudicial to great improvements. It seemed to him, from some experiments that had been carried out within the last few months, that the Railway Companies were now convinced that the proposed brake was not the best that could be adopted. It was an American invention that was supposed to be the best at the time it was proposed; but better brakes had now been provided. He thought much responsibility would attach to the Government if they supported a Bill like the present, being convinced that much the better course would be to leave the matter in the hands of the Railway Companies themselves, who were progressing very satisfactorily in the application of improved brakes.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, he hoped the House would not support the Motion for the Previous Question, but would allow the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee. The noble Earl who had introduced the Bill (Earl De La Warr) deserved great credit for the perseverance
  1234
  with which, year after year, he had pressed forward this important question; and it would hardly be a courteous act to him if the Bill was shelved at this stage. It must also be remembered that continuous brakes were brought to the notice of the Companies as far back as September, 1858, and it was as long ago as the year 1874 that the Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the best means of preventing railway accidents. That Commission, on which the noble Earl sat, after careful investigations for three years, reported, in 1877, that they considered it desirable that the Railway Companies should be compelled to adopt some system of continuous brakes; and, while they thought at that moment that the question was not sufficiently ripe for them to state which brake should be used, yet they indicated in general terms that they concurred in the conditions necessary for a good brake which the Board of Trade had recommended in the general Report on Railway Accidents in 1874. The Commissioners, in their Report in 1877, expressed—
  "Their decided opinion that no train could be considered properly equipped which was not furnished with sufficient brake power to bring it, at the highest speed at which it will be running upon any gradients within its journey, to an absolute stop within 500 yards."
  So convinced were they of the absolute necessity of having sufficient brake power for the security of life and prevention of accidents that they went on to state—
  "That there are ample means of accomplishing this object with certainty and safety, and we recommend that this be made obligatory by statute."
  He (Lord Sudeley) need hardly say since that date the urgency of the case had been greatly strengthened by the enormous increase in traffic, and by the invention of improved forms of brakes. He found that the increase in the amount received for traffic had been for passengers, in 1870, £19,300,000; 1880, £27,200,000; for goods, 1870, £24,100,000; 1880, £35,700,000. The Board of Trade had felt most unwilling to interfere with railway management, or to impair, in the slightest degree, the responsibility of the Companies for injury or loss of life by accident on their lines, by any legislation which would have laid down a stereotyped form of brake. They had limited themselves to

  1235
  laying down certain conditions, which they concluded, after full consideration, were necessary for continuous brakes to comply with, and they had endeavoured steadily to press upon the Companies the necessity of carrying out these requirements. Attempts had also been made, at different times, by private individuals during recent years to obtain legislative authority to compel all Railway Companies to adopt a continuous brake; but, on each occasion, the Board of Trade had advised that the measures should not be proceeded with, relying as they did upon the assurance of the Companies that they were actively engaged in fitting their stock with brakes which would comply with the suggestions shadowed forth by the Report of the Royal Commission and recommended for adoption to the Companies by the Board of Trade in 1876. In 1878 an Act was passed compelling all the Companies to make Returns showing what description of brakes were in use on their lines, what amount of stock was fitted, and what failures (if any) had occurred in the use of the brakes. From those Returns, he was sorry to say, it appeared that the action of the Companies generally had been very slow and inadequate; and, up to the present time, there was no general concurrence as to what form of brake should be universally adopted. Some Companies (two in particular) were bright exceptions to the rule, and their action in the matter and the result of their experience proved that the conditions of the Board of Trade were not only, as they obviously must be, desirable, but perfectly practicable and capable of being carried out without any inconvenience to the Companies concerned. Other Companies had partially and very slowly fitted their trains with brakes which did not comply with the suggestions of the Board of Trade; and, again, other Companies had wholly neglected their duty in this respect. On December, 1881, the Returns showed that the amount of stock fitted with continuous brakes was 2,393 engines and 24,749 carriages, leaving stock unfitted, 2,894 engines and 20,486 carriages. There was thus supposed to be fitted—of engines 45 per cent. and of carriages 55 per cent. Unfortunately, of this number, a large amount of rolling-stock did not comply with all the conditions
  1236
  contained in the Circular of the Board of Trade of 1877, for the numbers which complied with all the conditions were only 1,423 engines and 10,403 carriages. The noble Lord who had moved the Previous Question (Lord Colville of Culross), and who represented several of the large Railway Companies, would not deny that that was a most unsatisfactory state of things; indeed, he had already stated that he thought every railway ought to adopt some sort of continuous brake. The Board of Trade had, up to the present time, been in hope that the force of public opinion and the moral pressure which they were able to bring to bear upon the Companies, with these Returns before them, would have induced them voluntarily to take up and deal thoroughly with this important question. Such a course was, in every way, far more desirable than to compel them by legislation to do so; but, after the experience of the last five or six years, it was difficult to maintain that anything short of legislative enactments would induce the Companies thoroughly to grapple with it. In those circumstances, and while the Board of Trade would not, perhaps, have initiated a measure of the kind which was now before the House, they could not help thinking that the time had arrived, in the interests of the travelling public, when some pressure should be put on the Companies. While he did not wish for one moment to go into the rival merits of various brakes, or to imply that it was desirable to stereotype by Act of Parliament any particular form of brake, yet the Board of Trade, after the experience of six years, and after having given the fullest consideration to the subject, were of opinion that there was no reason to withdraw or modify the suggestion which they had previously expressed as being necessary for providing brake-power for passenger trains. It had been constantly urged that automatic brakes were too complicated and were liable to get out of order. On that point the most conclusive evidence had been given to the Board of Trade that, while it was undoubtedly true that all mechanical contrivances were at times liable to get out of order, and that continuous brakes were no exception to this rule, yet careful instruction to those who were in-

  1237
  trusted with brake duties minimized and almost removed all chances of failure. That had been shown on one railway, where a van was specially fitted up and all the guards and engine-drivers were made to go through a course of instruction, the result being that slight accidents and failures in the brake had been almost entirely prevented. When it was remembered that enormous speeds were now attained by express trains, the desirability and urgency of having efficient brakes that could be used instantaneously was brought vividly before everyone's notice. The Board of Trade felt sure that if their conditions were carried out a continuous brake would be given which would work with thorough efficiency. There could be no doubt of their practicability, for brakes complying with them had been adopted by the French Government and on the Belgian railways, and, he believed, in Austria, and were largely used in America. At the same time, he admitted that there was still considerable divergence of opinion on the matter; and the Board of Trade, while still unwilling to force legislation on the railways, saw no objection to the Bill going to a Select Committee, believing that further inquiry might tend to stimulate the Railway Companies to greater exertions.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, that he was quite certain the noble Earl who introduced the Bill (Earl De La Warr) was actuated by the best intentions; but, looking to the character of the measure, he (Earl Cairns) could not support it. He was himself quite as anxious as anyone could be upon the matter, and agreed that it was very desirable that a system of continuous brakes should be adopted; and if the Board had made up their minds as to the best system, and had come to Parliament for powers to compel its adoption, he, for one, should be very much disposed to grant their request. But that was just what they had not done. By the Bill under notice Parliament was asked to stereotype now and for ever, or, at any rate, until the Act was repealed, a sort of ideal brake; and, what was still more objectionable, to submit the question whether the brakes of the various Companies answered the requirements of the Act, and other questions not of a judicial character, to a body of gentlemen—the Railway Commissioners—who were
  1238
  utterly unfit to determine such matters. Such questions were altogether foreign to the business the Commissioners were appointed to transact, and he held that duties of that nature ought not to be thrown upon them. The first condition of the Board of Trade was that the adopted brake
  "Must be efficient in stopping the train, must be instantaneous in its action, and capable of being applied without difficulty by engine-drivers and guards."
  But the Commissioners who were to decide this point were not supposed to be mechanics, and knew nothing of the structural formation of the rolling stock of a railway. The next condition was, "in case of accident, it must be instantaneously self-acting." He presumed that, as "in case of accident" meant in case of any accident whatever, no brake could conceivably satisfy such an impossible condition. Then, again, "the brake must be capable of being easily put on and taken off the engines every day with the train;" and the question of the case with which this could be done was to be left to the arbitrium of the Railway Commissioners. And, lastly, the materials of the brake must be "of a durable character, so as to be easily maintained and kept in order." How, he might ask, were the Railway Commissioners to estimate the case with which all these various operations could be performed? Under the provisions of the Bill any crochety person who might be travelling on a railway would be able to bring a Railway Company before the Commissioners on the most trivial complaints with respect to the brake. The Commissioners were appointed in 1873 to settle legal questions connected with the administration of railways and the relation of one Company to another; but they were in no way qualified to pronounce an opinion on questions of practical mechanics, and it was most unfair to put upon them, after the lapse of some years, additional duties quite different to those for the discharge of which they were appointed, and among them the duty of issuing an injunction against a Railway Company on the ground that their brakes were bad, or that they did not comply with the conditions laid down in the Act of Parliament. He must object, therefore, to the proposal to impose these new duties on a tribunal which had already enough

  1239
  to do to attend to its own proper functions. Indeed, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Sudeley) had himself condemned the Bill, when he spoke of the unwillingness of the Board of Trade to relieve the Railway Companies of their responsibility. But what could be done if the Bill passed? The noble Earl in charge of it (Earl De La Warr), believing the brake of a Railway Company to be a bad one, might proceed against the Company before the Commissioners, who might give judgment and impose a penalty. The Company might then adopt a brake of the pattern recommended by the noble Earl, and if it turned out to be a bad one and a serious accident ensued, and if the Company were sued for damages, the answer would be—"It is not our doing, but the doing of the noble Earl and of the Railway Commissioners." If the Board of Trade asked Parliament for further powers, their Lordships would probably entertain the request and give it full consideration; but this measure, or any measure of a similar character, seemed to him to be full of danger, and one that would get them into difficulties; and he, therefore, hoped that the Bill would be withdrawn. If that course were not adopted, he should feel bound to support the Amendment for the Previous Question.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, the course taken by the noble Lord (Lord Colville of Culross) was rather an unusual one—to move the Previous Question on the Motion to go into Committee on a Bill which had been read a second time without opposition, and more particularly so, when it was considered that the noble Lord had, to a certain extent, on that occasion, approved of its objects. The only inference he (Earl De La Warr) could deduce was that the noble Lord did not wish that the Bill should be considered on its merits, as it might be, in Committee. He could not see why the Bill should be objected to by a noble Lord who was identified with one of the largest of the Railway Companies, which for some time had had continuous brakes in use. He demurred to the assertion that there was any new principle in the Bill; the principle was adopted in America in 1869, and in this country in 1871; consequently, it was not a new one, and it was rapidly spreading. In France, all the principal lines used a
  1240
  brake with automatic action; in Belgium, and, he believed, also in Holland, a similar brake was adopted; and it was being gradually employed in Germany and Austria. There would be ground for objection if the Board of Trade were to insist upon a particular kind of brake; that would be far too great a responsibility for the Board of Trade to assume, and it would relieve the Railway Companies of the responsibility of arriving at a decision for themselves. But that was a very different thing from merely laying down certain requirements, which was all that the Bill would do. There were many brakes in use which were admittedly not efficient, and that notwithstanding the pressure which had been put upon the Companies for several years. It had been said that the block and interlocking systems were adopted without pressure; still, a Bill was introduced and referred to a Select Committee, and that of itself did amount to considerable pressure. And such pressure might be useful in the case of continuous brakes, by which he meant brakes attached to every wheel of a carriage, and all capable of being applied instantaneously. There were some brakes that it took several seconds to apply, and that was a matter of great importance in the case of a train travelling about 60 miles an hour, for it would run 30 or 40 yards in a second, and that might make all the difference between danger and safety. There was only one kind of continuous brake—the automatic—capable of the instantaneous action required in such a contingency. The noble Lord who moved the Previous Question had asserted that only 29 persons were killed on the railways in 1880; but he forgot to take into account the servants of the Companies, 700 of whom, on the average, were annually killed. In conclusion, the noble Earl expressed the hope that their Lordships would not hesitate to allow the Bill to go into Committee.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the matter to which the Bill referred was one of great importance, involving as it did the public interests, so far as their safety was concerned. The Board of Trade were anxious that the measure should be referred to a Select Committee; but as no encouragement had been given to the adoption of that course, he could not help suggesting to the noble Earl (Earl De La Warr) that he would

  1241
  not further what he had so very much at heart by pressing the Motion to a division.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwished to say, with reference to the observation of the noble Earl (Earl Granville), that the objection taken was to referring the Bill to a Select Committee. If the Government thought a public object could be served by referring the whole question to a Committee of the Whole House, he was sure no objection would be made by noble Lords sitting on that side of the House.
  Previous question put, Whether the said question shall be now put?
  Resolved in the negative.

EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS).

  MOTION.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, who had given Notice of his intention to "call attention to the Ministerial position;" and to move for further correspondence upon Egypt, said, that he had proposed to address the House at some length upon the Notice he had given; but he well knew that after the long and unexpected time absorbed in legislative Business it would be impossible to do so. He would, however, take the opportunity of referring for a moment to the state of Egypt. The House had seen the Ottoman despatch upon the naval movement of the Western Powers. The variance with the Western Powers it displayed might lead to the impression that some further measure would be necessary. Having given long attention to the subject, he would hazard the opinion that military occupation would only be admissible, if carried out by the Ottoman Empire. The Western Powers seemed inclined to that view, and it agreed with the language which a noble Marquess on the other side (the Marquess of Salisbury) had recently made use of. It was not only that such an occupation would be less unauthorized than any other. It would be far more easy to control it and to limit it. It would be controlled by the influence of the Western Powers at Cairo. It would be controlled by the influence of Germany at Constantinople. The difficulty of every military occupation was to restrict it to the aim and to the period which had been originally contemplated. An occupation wholly un-
  1242
  attended by the hazard of surviving its true object ought to recommend itself; and, all the more, when it was the only one which could be upheld as authorized and regular. As the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) might wish to make some declaration upon Egypt, he would now move for further correspondence with regard to it.
  Moved, "For further correspondence upon Egypt."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, some time before Easter a Notice appeared in your Lordships' Minutes, to call the attention of the House to the Ministerial position, and to move for a Return. M. Thiers, the late President of the French Republic, when appointed Minister of the Interior under Louis Philippe, revisited his native place, and called on the old schoolmaster and asked him whether he knew him? The old schoolmaster said he did not. "Do you not remember the little Adolphe?" asked M. Thiers. "Oh!" said he, "you were the little boy that was always playing tricks. What are you now?" "I am a Minister," answered M. Thiers. "Why, you don't mean to say that you have become a Protestant!" exclaimed the schoolmaster. When I read the Notice I do not go the length of saying I thought it referred to a minister of the Established Church or of the great Nonconformist Body; but I was absolutely in the dark as to what was the intention of the noble Lord. There is one day—the first day of the Session—a terrible day for the Government, one on which they are expected, more or less, to explain anything they may have done during the Recess; but afterwards, according to Parliamentary tactics, and the courtesy of Parties, some indication is generally given of any question or attack about to be made. For several days this sword of Damocles was held over our heads; but it was always silently and suddenly withdrawn a day or two before the day for which it was fixed. After Easter, however, the Notice suddenly reappeared; but although it was changed, it was not in a shape that made it much clearer. The only alteration was that the intention to move for a Return was omitted. The House adjourned on the day fixed, and the Motion did not come

  1243
  on, and then the Notice re-appeared with a specific allusion to Egyptian Papers. This, of course, gave a sort of inkling of the intention of the noble Lord, though I can hardly understand what it had to do with the position of the Ministry in general. The Notice is one which is really no Notice at all. It does not disclose the object in view, and it does not seem to indicate the subject on which the noble Lord would speak. The Motion stood in that form for several weeks. I had, in reply to the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), to address to your Lordships last week a statement with regard to the position of Egyptian affairs. That statement the noble Marquess opposite was good enough to say did not appear to be altogether unsatisfactory; and he expressed strongly an opinion, in which your Lordships seemed to agree, that this question of Egypt was one of extreme importance and delicacy, and one in regard to which it was desired not in any degree to embarrass the Government. This seemed to strike my noble Friend too, for he withdrew his Motion; but in a few days it re-appeared in exactly the same form. I am very anxious to give your Lordships information about Egypt. I gave you a perfectly accurate statement of the position the other day, and I should like now to give your Lordships more information, and particularly to dispel various conflicting rumours which are going about; but I think it would not be for the public advantage for me at this moment to go further into the matter, and I must, therefore, decline to agree to the Motion.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, as there was still a Motion before the House, he might be expected to answer for a moment some of the remarks the noble Earl (Earl Granville) had offered. It might be satisfactory to learn that the troubled aspect of events in various directions inspired the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with nothing but unlimited hilarity. The House might well have exclaimed as he went along, in a well known phrase—Quam facetum Consulem habemus. The noble Earl objected greatly to the term "Ministerial" as ambiguous. He (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) would not contend that it could never be employed in different senses. In an hotel abroad, some years ago, where the Leader of
  1244
  the Opposition in this country had been passing, the question was referred to him (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) whether such a personage ought to be entered in the books of the police as a Minister of State or a minister of religion. Amongst ourselves long consecrated usage in Parliamentary proceedings might relieve the noble Earl from any doubt as to what was meant by "Ministerial." As to what could he said against the present Ministerial position, it was probable that the noble Earl would have, after Whitsuntide, sufficient opportunities of learning. He would, in deference to what had been said by the noble Earl, withdraw the Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

BOILER EXPLOSIONS BILL.—(No. 85.)
(The Earl of Derby.)
BOILER EXPLOSIONS BILL.—(No. 85.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the econd Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DERBY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had received the general assent of the other House of Parliament. The Bill provided that notice of every case of boiler accident should be given to the Board of Trade, after which an inquiry would be instituted if the Board of Trade thought it necessary. The Board had an option in the matter. Boiler explosions were of frequent occurrence in manufacturing districts, and it had been ascertained without doubt that out of 1,000 accidents from boiler explosions, all but an inappreciable minority arose from the badness of the boilers. Some, no doubt, also from carelessness or negligence. But there was no doubt that in most cases they were preventible. If inquiries were more generally made, defects might be discovered—whether they were in the original construction, or from wear and use, and these inquiries might lead to better boilers being used. Since 1865 1,051 persons had been killed, and 1,519 injured by boiler explosions. A striking proof of the preventibility of these accidents was afforded by the operations of an association called the Manchester Steam Users' Association. That Association provided for the in-

  1245
  spection of the boilers of its members. It also undertook to guarantee against accidents, and not a single loss of life bad occurred during the time that he had mentioned to the boilers of persons belonging to that Association. He thought that that was ample proof of the truth of what he had said, that these accidents were preventible. As things were now, there was only a Coroner's inquest in case of death. But the inquiry ought to be rather one of scientific experts than of a Coroner's Jury. It had been suggested by some persons that the Board of Trade should hold periodical examinations of boilers; but that might be too onerous and too inquisitorial a method, and the Bill provided an appropriate middle course. If it were found that the Bill did not go far enough it would be open to either House of Parliament to introduce a more stringent measure. He, therefore, begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Derby.)
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that the Board of Trade thoroughly approved of the Bill, and was very glad to see that the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had charge of it; but, in Committee, some Amendments would have to be made.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 12th of June next.

IRELAND—IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT—RELEASE OF MR. PARNELL AND OTHERS.

  POSTPONEMENT OF QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD, who had a Notice on the Paper—
  "To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the negotiations connected with the understanding known as the Treaty of Kilmainham have been brought to a conclusion; and whether Her Majesty's Government will, according to the usual practice, lay Papers on the Table of the House,"
  said, that in consequence of the statement which he understood had been made by the Prime Minister in "another place," he wished to postpone his Question until after the Whitsuntide Recess. He hoped, however, that by that time, when he should again put the Question, information on the two points raised would be forthcoming.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I wish to ask the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Waterford) whether his Question after the Vacation will be in the same terms as the one standing in his name on the Notice Paper, inasmuch as a precisely similar Question has been placed on the Notice Paper of the House of Commons, and has not been allowed to be asked by the Speaker?
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: I have given Notice of another.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It seems to me to be irregular on the part of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) to discuss the terms of a Motion which has not been brought before the House.
  EARL GRANVILLE: In order to put myself in Order I shall move the adjournment of the House. I think we ought to have the Notice before us. I must say I read the Notice on the Paper with intense surprise, especially as coming from one who has addressed the House several times within the last two years on the subject of Ireland, sometimes with warmth, but always with earnestness and dignity. I certainly was surprised, then, at the terms of the Notice, and I asked whether it was one which would have been permitted to be presented in the House of Commons; and the answer I received was that a Notice in exactly the same terms as that proposed by the noble Marquess had been prevented by the Speaker from being presented in such terms. Therefore, I think I am quite in Order in the course I have taken, and that I am doing a service to the dignity of this House in making a remonstrance against the Notice of the noble Marquess as it stands. I do not believe the noble Marquess to be the author of the Question. I feel pretty sure that it proceeds from other quarters.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it appears to me to be a most unfortunate and irregular proceeding for the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) to raise this discussion at a time when the Notice itself is not under the consideration of the House. I am entirely unable to agree with the noble Earl in the estimate he has formed of the terms of that Notice. I will not undertake to answer for every word of it; but it appears to me that it expresses very fairly the very anomalous position in which the House and the country

  1247
  have been placed by the action of Her Majesty's Government. It points out, as far as I can judge, an analogy which, it appears to me, is quite applicable, and which it is important, I think, that the country should not forget, and which the Government itself has been unwittingly drawn into in this matter. The inconvenience of the course taken by the noble Earl is that the remarks he has made open up the whole question of the policy and conduct of Her Majesty's Government, which requires serious and careful discussion in a House very differently constituted from that we now see before us, when there are very few Peers present. But I confess that it appears to me that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Waterford) is quite right in speaking of this as an understanding, as he has done, and in pointing out that it is a Treaty that has been made with an alien Power—made with a Power that, at any rate, relies upon alien support for its resources—with a Power whose objects are not the objects of England, but whose objects are inconsistent with the interests of England. I demur entirely to the irregular course which, it seems to me, the noble Earl has taken, and I am bound to say that I am unable to concur with him in saying that the terms of the Question inadequately represent the real facts of the case, or are in any way inconsistent with the ordinary form observed by your Lordships' House. I do not desire to deal at any greater length with the whole of the questions which the terms of the Notice raises. They are fitted to be brought before a larger House, and to be commented upon with more detail and ceremony than can now be bestowed on them; and, when we consider their numbers, to be brought fully before the attention of the people whose interests they are intended to preserve.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise to move that this House do adjourn until Thursday, the 1st of June; and I will take this opportunity of stating that it appears to me that I was perfectly regular, and that the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) has committed exactly the same irregularity of which he complains. We have no one here to regulate the proceedings of this House, or guide us in difficulties. In the House of Commons the Speaker discharges that function with great ad-
  1248
  vantage; but here the proceedings are regulated by the order of the House itself. I was perfectly entitled, in regard to a matter which had been ruled by the Speaker in the House of Commons, to say that the Notice was one which was improper to be given, and I was perfectly in Order when I asked the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Waterford) whether his Notice was in the same words as the Notice ruled by Mr. Speaker to be improper or not. Because, certainly, it would have been my duty, if he had answered in the affirmative, to have given Notice that I should move the House not to allow the Question to be put in that shape. I do not see what other course I could have taken. I was perfectly regular in the course I was taking; but the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) rushes in and takes upon himself the paternity of the objectionable Notice and defends it, and then he reproaches me with the irregularity which he alleges I have committed, when he himself has been guilty of the grossest irregularity. I must say that, in my opinion, I should be entirely justified and supported by the good feeling and good sense of the House in taking the steps I proposed to take in regard to the Question, of which the noble Marquess is himself, possibly, the author, and to which he seems to have not the slightest objection, but rather to be desirous to give it his full and cordial support. I must also say, when I just now said that I thought the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Waterford) had put the Notice on the Paper inadvertently, and that he was not the author of it, I was quite justified in my statement. The noble Marquess has had the good feeling and good sense to change his Notice, and give one which is entirely unobjectionable.
  Moved, "That this House, on rising, do adjourn to Thursday the 1st of June next."—(The Earl Granville.)
  On question, agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly at half past Seven o'clock, to Thursday the 1st of June next, at a quarter past Four o'clock.