Lords Sitting of 22 June 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Inclosure Provisional Order (Hildersham) * (115); Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2)* (116); Local Government Provisional Order (No. 10)* (117); Metropolis Improvement Provisional Order * (118); Metropolis Improvement Provisional Order (No. 2)* (119); Metropolis Improvement Provisional Order (No. 3) * (120); Metropolis Improvement Provisional Order (No. 4) * (121).
Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Order (No. 2) * (87); Pawnbrokers (79).
Committee — Report — Lord Alcester's Grant * (95); Lord Wolseley's Grant* (96).
Third Reading — Gas and Water Provisional Orders "(76); Water Provisional Orders * (77); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2) * (80), and passed.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS—PETITION FROM ALDERSHOT FOR RENEWAL OF PROVISIONS FOR COMPULSORY EXAMINATION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in presenting a Petition from the Local Board
  1246
  of Health of Aldershot, in favour of the continuance of the above-named Acts, said, that the Petitioners deprecated the course that had been taken by the Government, and set forth the good results that had followed the enforcement of the Acts. They also stated that, at Aldershot, there had not been one single case of hardship caused by the application of those measures since their introduction. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) feared that the Bill which had been brought forward for the better protection of young girls could hardly become law this Session; and, if it did not, the state of the towns which had formerly been, but were no longer, subject to the operation of the Contagious Diseases Acts would be very deplorable.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, with regard to the apprehension expressed by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon), the Bill for the protection of young girls was to be considered in Committee on Monday, and that there were reasonable grounds for supposing that it would, at any rate, pass through their Lordships' House during the present Session.
  Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PAWNBROKERS BILL.—(No. 79.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
PAWNBROKERS BILL.—(No. 79.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that for some time great difficulty had been found, under the existing state of the law, in tracing stolen goods, and discovering the persons who had received them, and the present Bill was intended to obviate some of those difficulties. Their Lordships were aware that there were various local Acts in force in different parts of the Kingdom, and notably in Glasgow, under which there existed powers which had been found considerably more efficient than the general law as it existed in England, and in London in particular. Under these circumstances, a Bill on the subject was introduced in their Lordships' House the Session before last, and referred to a Select Committee, which prosecuted its labours during that Session; and in 1882 the Bill was again

  1247
  introduced and passed through that House, but too late to become law. In that Bill there were a number of clauses relating, among the rest, to pawnbrokers. He believed the profession of pawnbrokers was carried on by a large number of persons, the majority of whom were of the highest respectability; and there could be no doubt of their great importance in many ways, especially to the poorer classes. Nothing, therefore, could be further from the intention of Her Majesty's Government than to show disrespect to any of the upright and honourable men engaged in the business, or to impose upon them any unreasonable, or unnecessary and inconvenient restraints. But, on the other hand, it was a matter of notoriety that, even without any guilty connivance on the part of pawnbrokers, the most respectable of them might sometimes have stolen articles put off upon them, which, at the time, they had no means of knowing to be such; and if sufficient means had been furnished of tracing those articles, a discovery of the guilty parties might have been made. There could, also, be no doubt that in so very numerous a class of persons there were, and necessarily must be, some less scrupulous than others, who might wilfully wink at suspicious circumstances, and take pledges without proper precautions; and it was, therefore, impossible, in dealing with this subject, not to make provision for such cases. In the Bills which were introduced in the two preceding Sessions the whole subject of stolen goods was dealt with together, and in them were certain clauses made especially applicable to pawnbrokers as well as the other and different class of dealers aimed at—the secondhand dealers, or marine store dealers. The pawnbrokers, however, did not like this association in a Bill relating to stolen goods, and that clauses applicable to other persons, not exactly on the same footing, should be applied to them, and a considerable desire was felt, as far as possible, to meet their views; but their objections were not altogether overcome. On the 12th of February this year, the Home Secretary, who was desirous to do everything reasonable to meet the views of respectable members of the trade, received a deputation from that body; and in consequence of what passed at that interview an opportunity was given to the Secretary of the Pawn-
  1248
  brokers' Association, a very able and respectable gentleman, Mr. Hardacre, who had given valuable evidence before their Lordships' Committee, to meet the Director of Criminal Investigations, and to consider, with an Inspector appointed by the Home Secretary, the provisions of a separate draft Bill; for the Home Secretary at once determined to sever the provisions respecting pawnbrokers from the others contained in the Stolen Goods Bill, and to have a perfectly separate Bill for pawnbrokers, for the purpose of amending the Pawnbrokers' Act of 1872. The Secretary of the Pawnbrokers' Association attended at the office of the Director of Criminal Investigations on the 15th of February, and the draft prepared at that time was communicated to him. The Secretary carefully went over it, and various important alterations were made in deference, at least in part, to his suggestions. On the 19th of February Mr. Hardacre wrote to say that he, and the Committee with whom he was acting, were not authorized to represent the entire trade, and requested, on their behalf, that the draft Bill should be made public to the trade generally. But it was not thought convenient that before it was introduced into Parliament it should be circulated in that manner, or that such a course would be conducive to the speedy passing of the measure. The earlier part of the clauses in the present Bill were similar to those passed last year by the House, and the clauses dealing with information to be given to the police were in accordance substantially with the rules which had been approved by 588 out of 617 pawnbrokers of the Metropolis as desirable to be generally followed by the trade. They were to the effect that there should be a careful searching of the police lists of property lost or stolen, that prompt information in suspicious cases should be given to the nearest police station, that there should be a prompt production of articles similar to those described as being stolen, that a search of their books and stock should be made at the request of the police, and the institution of a close inquiry concerning property of special value or bearing distinctive marks, corresponding with those of the articles alleged to be stolen. There were, also, some clauses inserted as to pawnbrokers' licences, which provided that certain

  1249
  convictions should be endorsed on the licences; and that, after. a given number of convictions, followed by penalties of a certain amount, the licences should be forfeited. The difference between this Bill and the Bill of last year was rather in the direction of mitigating than of increasing the stringency of the provisions; for instance, the power originally given to the police to search pawnbrokers' books, under certain circumstances, was withdrawn. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the Bill, as he thought that everyone must sympathize with its objects; but as it was to facilitate the discovery of crime, he feared that some of the provisions of the Bill would be found too stringent, and would tend to defeat themselves, and to suppress the business of pawn broking. The noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack had borne testimony to the good character borne by the majority of pawnbrokers, and was amply justified in doing so, by some rather curious statistics that had been published in the January number of The Quarterly Review, in which it was shown how dependent the poor were upon pawnbrokers for their existence. Those figures showed that something like 300,000 families in the Metropolis were in the habit of pawning small articles, and that if they did not do that they would have, to quote the words of The Review—
  "Neither fire in the grate, nor lamp on the table, nor, indeed, be able to keep the wolf from the door."
  The pawnbroker was, in fact, the poor man's banker; and this question, therefore, was a poor man's question. In fact, if the pawnbrokers in the East of London were, from any cause, to suspend business for a time, it would thud to nothing less than a revolution. He believed there was a great deal of exaggeration in the notion that they were in the habit of grinding down the poor, and it was only in a very small proportion of cases that stolen goods got into their possession. In what relation did pawnbrokers stand to stolen goods, and how often did they receive them? Ac-
  1250
  cording to the statistics, there were no less than 207,780,000 pledges taken in the course of the year throughout the United Kingdom, and the proportion of stolen goods was only 1 in 14,000. In the Metropolis more than 6,000,000 unclaimed pledges were sold by auction in the course of the year, and at those sales the police were able to identify articles that had been stolen, and the proportion of stolen goods was only as 4 to 250,000. They should take these facts into consideration, together with the one that the poor could not get on without the assistance of pawnbrokers; and if these figures were at all correct—and he saw no reason to doubt them—the character of the pawnbroking trade ought to stand very high; and it was to be hoped, considering the importance of pawnbrokers to the poor, that no unnecessary restriction would be placed on their business. He hoped in Committee the greatest care would be taken to modify what he considered the unduly stringent provisions of the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had willingly acknowledged that the majority of pawnbrokers were very respectable and honourable men; but the fact remained that a great many stolen articles found their way to the pawnbrokers' shops, which, under the present state of the law, could not be traced; while the small number of cases in which they were discovered was the strongest possible evidence in favour of the necessity for the Bill.
  THE EARL OF CARNARYONsaid, he agreed with the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss). He would suggest that the clauses of the Bill should not be made too stringent. In his opinion, the House would do well to pause before so interfering with the pawnbroking trade; and, at any rate, not to do so more than was absolutely necessary. The pawnbrokers were, in several parts of London, the poor man's bankers. He would admit that there were good and bad pawnbrokers; but thought it would have been extremely unfair to have placed pawnbrokers in the same category with secondhand dealers and marine store dealers.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he would point out that competition left the pawnbrokers only small profits, which would be still further reduced by every legislative requirement which gave them ad-

  1251
  ditional trouble; therefore, the greater the demands that were made upon them with regard to preparing daily lists, the greater would be the charge made upon the poor who had to resort to pledging their goods.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, he fully concurred in the suggestions that had been made by his noble Friend (the Earl of Wemyss) and the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) that the clauses of the Bill should riot be made too stringent. As an instance, he would ask their Lordships to look at Clause 6, which he considered enabled "suspicion" to be carried too far, and that innocent persons would suffer injury under it.
  LORD TRUROsaid, he sympathized very much with what had been said on behalf of the pawnbrokers by the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss); but, on the other hand, he thought the general public would thank the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor) for bringing in a measure that would aid the police in the recovery of stolen goods. He supposed that legislation was considered desirable, because the police did not receive the amount of assistance they thought they ought to receive in their efforts to trace stolen property. He was glad to hear that the number of instances of the discovery of stolen goods followed by conviction was so very small; but still there was a class of cases in which it was difficult to obtain convictions, and in which the goods stolen did pass into the hands of pawnbrokers. While there wore some who carried on large businesses reputably, there were others who did not restore stolen goods as they might do; and the additional powers conferred on the police by the Bill would probably be exercised with advantage to the public, who would not have any cause to regret the introduction of the measure.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, although only the last speaker (Lord Truro) and his noble and learned Friend upon the Woolsack had expressed opinions favourable to the Bill, the general tone of the discussion had been in its favour. The argument of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Wemyss) that the transactions of the pawnbrokers were very large, and that there were few discoveries of stolen goods in their hands, was one
  1252
  that cut two ways, and, while proving the inadequacy of the existing law, suggested that some additional powers might be required. When it was said that there ought to be no unnecessary rigour in those powers, the question whether there was or not entirely depended upon the provisions of the Bill; and the argument would hardly be pushed to the extent of impeding the restoration of stolen property. As regarded the present Bill, he thought it had not been alleged that its provisions were at all too rigorous. It was simply a question as to whether there should be greater immunity with regard to stolen goods, or that pawnbrokers should be required to go into a little more detail.
  After a few words of explanation from the Earl of WEMYSS,
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

NAVY—WARRANT OFFICERS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, in rising to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Board of Admiralty have taken into consideration, or purpose shortly to consider any statements purporting to proceed from the warrant officers of the Navy with reference to widows' pensions, relative rank in the Service, and other matters? said, the first anomaly he wished to call attention to was that compassionate allowances were not granted to warrant officers. Pensions were also either denied, or were on a smaller scale than those of any other officers in the Navy; and they were not according to length of service, as in other cases; and they had not been revised for 80 years. The warrant officers had the charge of stores of great value; but the allowances on that account were fixed at 6d. a-day. The duty was a very responsible one in the case of a. largo ship with an immense number of shells and munitions of war, and it was felt that the allowance ought to bear some proportion to the responsibility. As a class, they were different men from what they were a few years ago; they educated themselves so as to keep pace with the introduction of machinery; and they felt that they were

  1253
  entitled to some slight distinction in uniform to indicate their altered position and duties. From his acquaintance with the Service, he should be the very last person to encourage anything like agitation on the part of these employed in Her Majesty's Navy; but he thought that he was doing justice to the Rules of the Service in calling attention to these matters which had been brought to his notice. There was a very proper provision in the Navy Regulations that the Admiralty should not be addressed on questions of this kind. The warrant officers and seamen could not, therefore, adopt such a course; but they had asked him and others to state their views, and therefore he now asked the Question which stood in his name on the Paper.
  LORD ALCESTER: My Lords, in reply to the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Sidmouth), I would state that an anonymous pamphlet, purporting to represent the unanimous appeal of the warrant officers of the Fleet, has been sent to certain Members of the Board of Admiralty, including myself; but we cannot believe that it is what it pro· fesses to be, or that a body of well-disciplined men, acquainted with the Regulations of the Service, could have fallen into the error of making such an application, inasmuch as they must have known that combinations of the kind are entirely prohibited. In support of that statement, with your Lordships' permission, I will read the extract from the Queen's Regulations bearing on the subject to the House—
  "All combinations of persons belonging to the Fleet for the purpose of bringing about alterations in the existing Rules and Regulations of the Royal Navy, whether affecting their interests individually or collectively, are prohibited, as being contrary to the established use and practice of the Service, and injurious to its discipline."
  But, while saying that, I can assure the noble Viscount, and your Lordships generally, that the Board are always ready, in the interests of those serving under their orders, to listen to any reasonable representations, praying for the amelioration of their position, which they may receive from officers of any branch of the Service, provided that such representations are made in accordance with the Rules of the Service as laid down in the Queen's Regulations.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—SEC. 31—LOANS TO TEN ANTS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD, in rising to ask the Lord President of the Council, Whether he will state the total amount of loans to tenants which have been sanctioned under the Land Law (Ireland) Act, (1881), Section 31, specifying separately the amount lent for farm buildings and the amount lent for drainage and reclamation; also the amount of loans asked for in the applications pending, but not yet sanctioned; and what steps the Land Commission takes to ensure that the money borrowed is expended in a satisfactory manner upon the improvements for which the loans are sanctioned? said, the Question which he had placed upon the Paper was one of some importance, as he was informed that a very large number of tenants had made, and a still larger number were likely to make, application for loans for the improvement of their holdings, either by the erection of buildings, or the reclamation of land, by drainage or otherwise, under the 31st section of the Land Act of 1881. He felt sure that everyone would be only too glad that the tenants of Ireland should be encouraged to improve the holdings which they occupied, more especially as, owing to the Land Act, the landlords were so effectually prevented from laying out money on their properties; but the question arose as to whether this money, which appeared to be granted so easily by the Government, was really expended in a manner that would be of use to the tenants themselves, by making permanent and real improvements upon their holdings in the best and cheapest way in which those improvements could be effected. From his experience of the manner in which tenants' improvements were carried out, he considered that there was an absolute necessity that the most careful personal inspection should be given, not only during the time the improvements were in progress, but also that a Report should be sent in upon them by competent Inspectors, as to whether they were really necessary and likely to be of permanent advantage to the holding. He had had a good deal to do with laying out improvements desired by tenants, for which he was pre-

  1255
  pared to pay a part, in former years; and his experience certainly went to show that, if such works were left to the discretion of the tenantry themselves, they would not be carried out in a manner calculated to be effective or useful, or that they would benefit anybody concerned. With regard to buildings—which would be by far the easiest thing the Inspectors would have to deal with—he was satisfied that unless the plans for them were carefully laid out by some competent person, they would very often be placed in such a position as to render them most inconvenient for the purpose for which they were intended. If any of their Lordships went over an Irish property, where the landlord or agent had not supervised the sites for the building of farm offices, they would find generally that they had been built in the most extraordinarily awkward and inconvenient position, and that the other arrangements were unsuitable. Therefore, he said that, with regard to the loans for building, it was most necessary that a competent person should draw out the plans, and supervise the improvements that were made; that before a single stone was laid it should be decided what class of work was to be done; and that no money should be advanced unless the plans laid down were carried out. The Inspector should see that the specifications were carried out to the letter, and the site, the mortar, the stone to be used, and the arches over the doors and windows should be arranged for before a stone was placed on the foundation, or a shilling of the money advanced. But buildings, as he said before, were the easiest portion of the work. It would be far more difficult to arrange for, and to see carried out in a manner to be of permanent utility, the reclamation or drainage of land. From his experience of drainage operations, as generally carried out by Irish tenants, he was satisfied that, as a rule, it was done in such a manner as to render it an injury, instead of an advantage to the land, after a very few years. And now, unless the Bill, which he heard had been lately brought in by the Government, had some provision in it to force the tenants to keep their outfalls and drains clear—the powers to do which were taken away from the landlords by the Land Act—a largo part of the
  1256
  land, drained at a great expense, would revert to beg; and the same thing would eventually occur with regard to the very drains for which these loans were being granted. What he particularly wished to know from the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President) was, what class of Inspector had been nominated to report to the Board of Works as to the efficiency of the improvements before the loan was paid over? He was informed, on good authority, that a great number of tenants were under the impression that a large sum of money was going, and that they had only to apply for some of it to spend—not upon improvements, but upon anything they might wish. And he had been also informed, though he could not believe it, that some of the tenants in the county Cork had actually stocked their land from money obtained from the Board of Works for improvements. He had seen several letters, written by tenants to agents, which showed clearly the ideas that were abroad among them as to these loans. He would not give the names of the agents for obvious reasons, but would be happy to tell the noble Lord opposite, privately, who it was that gave the information. There were two letters, in particular, that showed more distinctly than anything else the ideas which were prevalent with regard to these loans. One tenant wrote to his agent—
  "There is some of my land going for nothing without grazing it. Now, Sir, I see that a great many small farmers are getting loans from the Board of Works. If you get me £50—half of that to buy some stock to eat what is going for nothing, and give me and the family some milk—then to leave the other half of the £50 until next spring, to drain and make new ditches, which would put my little place in tenantable repair."
  And the other said—
  "I am determined to try and get some of the Government money at once, since I have no other alternative to get over some of my difficulties. There are two now pressing me for money, and I have not paid my rates. I would take £100; but if I do not get a good share of it at once, it will be out of my power to hold here any longer, as the whole amount would hardly redeem me, including your rent. When your honour would come here on business, you would do the place of an Inspector, and examine the work that would be done here for it; for, as it is well known, you are a tender-hearted gentleman."
  He read these letters with a view of showing what some of the Irish tenantry

  1257
  believed, from experience gained from among their neighbours, as to the way the loans could be expended; and he hoped that the noble Lord the Lord President would not only be able to answer his Question satisfactorily, but would also take measures, through the Board of Works, to discourage and put an end to those theories with regard to the leans which were prevalent among the tenantry of Ireland, because they were most pernicious in their tendency. He trusted the noble Lord would also give the tenants to understand that they could not get Government money for nothing to do anything they liked with. Unless those so-called improvements should be really permanent, and should improve the holdings in a fair ratio as regarded the money expended, they would inevitably be most injurious to the landlords' interests; because when a tenant came into Court and proved before the Sub-Commissioners that he had expended so much borrowed money from the Board of Works, for which he was paying interest, unless that improvement could be clearly defined in an enhanced value of his holding, the Sub-Commissioners were pretty sure to cut down the rent, at any rate, by the amount of the interest which the tenant was paying; and if there should be no permanent value produced by the money laid out, it would be the landlords, and not the tenants, who would have to pay the interest for the money which the latter had obtained for their sole advantage. he begged to put the Question which stood in his name to the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President).
  LORD HARLECHsaid, he fully agreed with much of what had fallen from his noble Friend (the Marquess of Waterford). Personally, he had reason to believe that, in some cases, not one farthing of the loan was applied to improvements. In his own case, one of his tenants had offered him, if he (Lord Harlech) would join in an application for money for improvements, that he (the tenant) would pay his rent. He need not say he had not agreed to the transaction.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that if any Irish tenants, such as those who had written the letters referred to by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Water-
  1258
  ford), or even his noble Friend himself, imagined that it would be in their power to do what they liked with the money obtained from the Government by way of loan, he was very glad that his noble Friend should have asked that Question; because the sooner such a delusion was removed the better would it be for all parties. It was the more necessary that the Question should be answered, because, as it appeared to him (Lord Carlingford), his noble Friend seemed half inclined to believe it himself. If the tenants referred to and his noble Friend thought that the statements in those letters represented, in the slightest degree, conduct consistent with the requirements of the Board of Works, they were entirely mistaken. The Board of Works, under the orders of the Treasury, appeared to take the greatest precaution that those loans should be properly expended. He could not do better than read a letter which he had received from Colonel M'Kerlie, at the head of the Board of Works, in regard to the system adopted by the Board in this matter. In it he said—
  "With regard to the steps taken to insure the satisfactory expenditure of the moneys borrowed, the system is that, after the advance of the first instalment, no further advance is made until it has been ascertained by inspection that the previous one had been expended in a proper manner, and full value given for its amount; and, after the last advance, a final inspection is made on the borrower reporting—as he is required to do by letter—that the works have been completed, when, if found in all respects to be satisfactory, a certificate is sent to him of the amount and details of his expenditure. Every precaution is, in fact, taken to see that the loans made are fully and beneficially expended."
  He had also before him some of the forms of application required by the Board of Works. One form required the party concerned to notify to the Board the completion of the works, in order that the Inspector might see them. Another forwarded him a certificate to be filled up, testifying that the works had been executed, and that the money had been expended on the improvements. He did not know that greater precautions could be taken. As to the facts and figures required, they were these—He had them down to the 16th of June. At that date, 15,019 loans to tenants had been sanctioned, amounting to £161,000; and, although he was not able to give the exact amount in respect

  1259
  of the three different subjects mentioned in the Question, yet he was informed that about one-third of that amount had been sanctioned for farm buildings. There were still under inquiry 1,442 leans, amounting to £185,000. The total number of applications received was 3,397, and the amount applied for was £390,000. He should be happy to supply further Returns to the House, if the noble Marquess wished.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, he wished to point out that there was nothing in the regulations of the Board of Works with respect to supervision in regard to the expenditure of the first instalment. The tenant might receive the preliminary amount, and not expend it as he ought; and it was only when he sought for a second instalment that there would be any inspection. he was afraid that, in many cases, the second instalment was never applied for, in which event, no supervision or control was exercised over the proper expenditure of the first. It appeared to him that what was wanted was a due supervision over the expenditure of the first instalment. That was very desirable, because, at present, small tenants might receive the first instalment, and not expend it for the purpose for which it was wanted.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that beyond the contingency referred to by the noble Earl opposite, he thought it would be easy, after receiving the first instalment, for a tenant to conceal the defects of his work, and thus obtain the second instalment. It was inspection in the first instance that was most required.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, as he was at present informed, these loans were not made in a single instalment, but always in more than one; and no second instalment was made until the Board of Works was satisfied, by the Report of the Inspector, that the first had been well employed.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, he was afraid the noble Lord opposite (Lord Carlingford) did not catch his meaning. Many tenants might obtain the first, and not apply for the second instalment, in which case no inspection would be made of the works done under the first instalment.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he was no
  1260
  aware at the moment, that any such cases had arisen; but he would certainly inquire.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, he wished to know whether the noble Lord opposite (Lord Carlingford) would cause to be entered, in the Return the number of applications in which tenants had obtained the first instalment, and had not proceeded further with the work? He wished also to point out to the noble Lord that he did not answer one important point with regard to the Inspectors. He (the Marquess of Waterford) bad asked him particularly what class of Inspectors were nominated; whether they laid out the sites for building; and whether plans were handed in which the tenants were obliged to carry out?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that he had answered all the paragraphs of the Question on the Paper excepting this one; and the reason why he had not answered that part of the Question was simply because he did not know, but he would make inquiry.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that he would repeat the Question later on.

RAILWAYS—CONTINUOUS BRAKES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DELA WARR, in rising to put a Question to Her Majesty's Government as to their intentions with respect to railway continuous brakes, said, it was now six years since the Board of Trade had issued a Circular to Railway Companies, specifying the conditions which they considered essential to an efficient brake, and urging the importance of its adoption with a view to safety in railway travelling. In order to secure information being given to Parliament on this subject, an Act was passed in 1878 making it compulsory on Railway Companies to give periodical Returns of the number and kind of brakes in use upon their lines. Notwithstanding the unsatisfactory nature of those Returns, which was admitted by the Board of Trade, no steps had been taken by Her Majesty's Government. As long ago as 1880, the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), in answer to a deputation, said—
  "If the Companies set their backs against the wall, and will defy public opinion, and ab-

  1261
  solutely refuse to be guided by the recommendations of the Board of Trade, there will be no alternative but for Government to lay a statement of the whole case before Parliament, and point out how ridiculous is our position, and ask for further powers as may be necessary."
  In the meantime, nothing had been done beyond laying Returns before Parliament, which Railway Companies regarded as a proof of their power to resist Parliamentary interference. In consequence of Her Majesty's Government not attempting to do anything, he (Earl De La Warr) had introduced a Bill last Session which passed the second reading, but which was rejected on going into Committee on the Motion of the noble Lord who was Chairman of the Directors of the Great Northern Railway (Lord Colville of Culross). It seemed to him that the position of Her Majesty's Government, as represented by the Board of Trade, was, as regarded this question, a very anomalous one. The Board of Trade said that it was a very essential element, to insure safety in railway travelling, that there should be efficient brakes. Six years ago they stated in their Circular—
  "There can be no reason for further delay; and the Board of Trade feel it their duty again to urge upon the Railway Companies the necessity for arriving at an immediate decision and united action in the matter."
  They not only urged the importance of an efficient brake, but they also specified the kind of brake which they considered necessary, and they would authorize the use of no other. Yet the Railway Companies laid every year Returns before Parliament, showing that these regulations were not complied with in a large number of instances. The Board of Trade also admitted that the Returns of the number and kinds of brakes in use were highly unsatisfactory; but what was the result? The evil was admitted; the remedy was known and acknowledged; but six years had elapsed and nothing had been done. He know the argument was used that it would be better to let the Railway Companies adopt a brake for themselves, and there was no one who desired this more than he did. But were the Railway Companies doing it? That was the question. Let their Lordships look at the Returns; the last Return was made in December, 1882. There were, he believed, about 79 Companies; and out of these there were only six who had, to
  1262
  any extent, complied with the requirements of the Board of Trade. They were the Great Western, the Midland, the London and Brighton, the North-Eastern, the North British, and the Great Eastern. These had a considerable number of engines and carriages fitted with brakes as recommended by the Board of Trade. Several other Companies had a small number only of their engines and carriages so fitted. Among these latter, one of the most important lines—the Great Northern—had only two engines and 14 carriages fitted according to the requirements of the Board of Trade. Then, among those Companies which were using brakes which did not comply with the conditions which were considered by the Board of Trade to be essential to an efficient brake, were the North-Western, the Great Northern, and many other Companies, employing brakes which were not continuous throughout, or were not self-acting, or were applied by the engine driver only, or by the guard only. Briefly, it appeared from the Returns of the Railway Companies themselves that only six Companies had fully complied with the requirements of the Board of Trade; about 20 other Companies had partially done so; while more than one-half of the Companies had ignored them altogether. He would not enter into further details; but he asked whether that was a state of things which ought to continue? The Board of Trade had come to the conclusion, after a long and careful consideration of the question, that brakes of a certain description were necessary for safety in travelling. Railway Companies, with few exceptions, had not adopted them, and, as far as he was informed, did not intend to do so. If a Bill were introduced by a private Member of their Lordships' House, the argument was used that it was a question for the Government to deal with. He quite agreed with that; and, therefore, he would ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intended to deal with it; and, if so, whether in the manner described in the Circular of the Board of Trade of August, 1877?
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that, although he had been for many years connected with the direction of an important Railway Company, he had no connection with any Railway Company at the present time, nor had he had any for the

  1263
  last seven years; and, therefore, he could speak with impartiality on this subject. If any real necessity existed for the application of these brakes, public opinion would call for them. The public had not demanded them; and he thought the matter was one which might safely be left to the Railway Companies themselves, seeing that it was in the obvious interest of the Companies to carry their passengers as safely as they could. Besides, the large amount of business done by the Railway Companies with an immunity from accident which, of late years especially, had been extraordinary, showed that the Railway Companies were adopting, of their own motion, continuous brakes, or such other contrivances as they found conducive to public safety. It must be further borne in mind that it was impossible to devise any particular form of brake which would suit the peculiarities of every railway, when the different gradients that existed on them were taken into consideration. He thought it was a subject that ought to be left entirely to the experts interested in it. He objected to grandmotherly legislation such as the noble Earl (Earl De La Warr) was in favour of, and thought that no private Member of either House ought to originate legislation dealing with the question to which the noble Earl had drawn attention.
  LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, it is not possible, during the present Session, for the Government to deal with the continuous brake question; but I may say, at the same time, that the experience gained since the Circular of 1877 was written only confirms the Board of Trade in the necessity for the conditions which were then set forth being adhered to in any system of brakes which may be adopted, and the necessity for uniformity is also made apparent every day. The Board of Trade regret that many of the Railway Companies have not thought it advisable to adopt a brake complying with the conditions suggested in the Circular; but while the number of Companies who have done so is small, still some progress is being made in the matter. If the noble Earl himself were to introduce a Bill for the purpose of making it compulsory upon Companies to adopt a brake complying with those conditions, the Board of Trade would be happy to support such a measure.

CHANNEL TUNNEL — MEMORANDUM OF H.R.H. THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay on the Table of the House a copy of a Paper prepared in the Intelligence Department and mentioned by H.R.H. the Duke of Cambridge in a Memorandum addressed by him to Mr. Childers, and printed in the Channel Tunnel Correspondence, page 303? said, that one of the chief arguments against the construction of the Tunnel was that, in consequence of its construction, this country would be exposed to surprises on the part of enemies. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge had addressed a Memorandum to Mr. Childers, in which he stated that he was satisfied, from all historical evidence, that the danger of surprise would be very great indeed; and someone having remarked that we need have no fear of surprise, because hostilities were always preceded by a declaration of war, His Royal Highness combated that argument, and said in the document, which he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) hoped would be laid on the Table of the House, because he regarded it as very important, as showing the necessity for taking all possible precautions for insuring the security of the country—
  "That hostilities had frequently commenced during the course of diplomatic correspondence, having boon preceded by no declaration of war, and that fortresses had been seized without resistance from the defenders, because they had no reason to expect hostilities."
  He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was the more inclined to ask for the Paper in question, because His Royal Highness stated that the documents upon which his opinions were founded were in no sense confidential, and that no diplomatic difficulty could be caused by their publication. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Earl would comply with the request contained in his Question.
  EARL GRANVILLE, in reply, said, the document in question was a War Office and not a Foreign Office Paper; but, in consequence of the Notice of the noble Earl, he had communicated with the War Department on the subject, and had ascertained that there would be

  1265
  no objection to the publication of the document which the noble Earl desired to have. It had been communicated to the Channel Tunnel Committee, with a great many other Papers, and would be published in their Report. Although, as he had said, there would be no objection to lay the Paper on the Table at the proper time, the War Office was of opinion—and he (Earl Granville) shared their view—that it was not desirable to pick out this particular document and print it separately from the others, which were very voluminous, but that the whole should be presented together to Parliament.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.