Lords Sitting of 24 March 1885

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Third Report— Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—County Justices* (55).

FRANCE AND CHINA—HOSTILITIES— INTERNATIONAL LAW—RIGHT OF SEARCH.—QUESTION.
EARL DE LA WARRasked, Whether there was any truth in the statement that there was a difference in the treatment by France of England and Germany as neutrals?
EARL GRANVILLE: In answer to the Question of the noble Earl, I have to state that yesterday I was informed by the French Ambassador that, noticing that a similar Question had been put in the House of Commons, he had immediately telegraphed to his Government, and the French Government authorized him, in the most formal manner, to assure me that the treatment of neutrals would be exactly the same in all cases, whatever the nationality might be.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS— PARLIAMENT STREET, &c.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD LAMINGTON,in rising to call attention to a Bill entitled—
  "An Act to authorise the widening of Parliament Street, Charles Street, and Delahay Street, and the making of a new street in the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, and for other purposes,"
  said, that he wished to explain the extraordinary nature of the Bill, although it was not "before the House, and he could not, therefore, properly discuss it on the present occasion. The Bill really transferred the whole responsibility of the Government as regarded most important public buildings to a private Company. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than for the Government to hand over its duties to an irresponsible body. A similar Bill was introduced last year for the construction of a railway from the Marble Arch to Westminster, and the inducement held out to the Government was that the Company would carry out all those improvements in Parliament Street which, he maintained, ought to have been made many years ago by the Government themselves. The Bill of last year was very properly thrown out. The approaches to the Houses of Parliament were a perfect disgrace to the nation. The first thing that the Government ought to have done was to take down the remainder of Parliament Street and to build thereon a new War Office, making-proper approaches to the two Houses of Parliament. But nothing whatever had been done by the Government, and the blame did not rest with the present Government alone. Notwithstanding all this, large plots of ground purchased by the Government had been kept for years without any buildings, and meanwhile the property that would have to be taken ultimately was greatly increasing in value. This extraordinary Bill proposed that a Company should be formed with a capital of £300,000, held in £20 shares. There were to be five Directors, whose qualification was to be £500 each. Three were to be a quorum, and two had already elected themselves.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY THE EARL OF ROSEBERY rose to Order. The Bill the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lamington) was discussing was not before the House at all. Al-
  374
  though the Rules of the House were sufficiently elastic, he was convinced that none of their Lordships would consider that the noble Lord was in Order in discussing such a Bill.
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he wished to point out that he had admitted that he was not strictly within the Rules when he began. If the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery) objected, of course, Notice could be given when the Bill came on in the usual course.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that, though the Bill was before the other branch of the Legislature, his noble Friend (Lord Lamington) was not restricted from discussing the subject.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that would be a dangerous precedent to introduce into that House. What he objected to was not so much the noble Lord's discussing the Bill as to himself (the Earl of Rosebery) having to discuss it in answer to the noble Lord. The Bill would come before the House on a future occasion, and then they could proceed regularly.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, if the noble Earl really thought there was a danger of the discussions of the House of Lords getting too lengthy upon the matter, that altered the case; but that danger was hardly to be apprehended.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that he would not further contest the point with the noble Marquess.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lamington) might, of course, go into the general subject after proper Notice of Motion without any impropriety at all, and the mere fact of a Bill being pending in "another place" would not preclude his doing so. If his ears did not deceive him, however, the noble Lord was going into particular details of a Bill now pending "elsewhere," which he (the Lord Chancellor) ventured to think did not belong to the general subject. Such observations ought to be reserved until the Bill came before the House.
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, that he would not go into the details of the Bill; but its principle had been objected to by many public bodies, and, in particular, by the Westminster Board of Works. He would point out what the noble Earl (the Earl of Rose-

  375
  bery), having been so recently appointed to his present Office, might not be aware of, that we were actually paying no less than £35,000 or £40,000 a-year for the hire of Public Offices scattered all over London. Even if the new War Office were built, there would still remain £25,000 a-year, which represented a capital sum of about £900,000; yet only £300,000 was wanted for the purposes of this Company, which was to have seven years allowed for effecting these improvements. As he could not refer to the Bill, he would conclude by moving for Papers.
  Moved," That there be laid before this House, papers relating to the widening of Parliament Street, Charles Street, &c."—(The Lord Lamington.)
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that so far from objecting to the general sense of what the noble Lord had said, he thought the House was indebted to him for bringing the question forward. Since entering on the Office which he (the Earl of Rosebery) now held, he had investigated the subject; and, although formerly he had been of opinion that a Private Bill for the purpose was not one that it was necessary to interfere with, he now agreed with his noble Friend that it was highly objectionable that this great site and the improvements to be made on it should be left to private enterprize. Since his former answer to the noble Lord, other circumstances had come to his knowledge of which he was not then cognizant. He found that it might be necessary to find room for the Admiralty officials, who might be turned out before the end of the year to make way for the new buildings designed for the Public Offices. He might say generally that there was another objection, which was that the Bill gave a private Company large powers to deal with a particular site for a considerable time without putting upon them any compulsion to use those powers. A third objection was, that a site of so much importance and so closely connected with the Government ought not to be handed over to a private Company. The noble Lord was Chairman of a Committee under the late Government, which Committee reported on three different schemes, each costing at least £2,250,000. Even under that Government the noble Lord was quite unable to obtain the slightest attention
  376
  to his urgent request for money to carry out the scheme. It must be obvious that, at this moment, when our financial position could not be considered to be as satisfactory as it was upon that occasion, the Government could not be expected to find funds for dealing with this site in what his noble Friend called an Imperial spirit. He was afraid, therefore, that he could not hold out any hope of the Government doing anything at present. As to the particular measure to which the noble Lord had hypothetically alluded, the most careful and serious attention of his Office should be given to it at once.
  LORD NORTONinquired, whether the sham buttresses outside Westminster Hall were intended to afford the only means by which the judgment of this House was to be appealed to as to the design for that part of the building? He wished to know whether any designs would be laid before that House, or exhibited in any room there?
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he wished to remind the noble Earl that he had given no answer respecting the production of the Papers for which his noble Friend (Lord Lamington) had moved.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he had to ask that Notice might be given of the Question concerning Westminster Hall. With regard to the point about the Papers, he did not think there were any Papers relating to the matter, and certainly there were none which could be produced before their Lordships.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

NAVY—TORPEDO BOATS—THE CONTROLLER OF THE NAVY.

  QUESTIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Board of Admiralty have sent a naval officer to the United States for the purpose of inspecting a newly invented torpedo boat recently purchased by the American Government for purposes of harbour defence; and whether the report of that officer can be laid on the Table for the information of Parliament? Also, Whether the copy of an Order in Council procured by the Right Honourable Hugh Childers, the purport of which was to render the Controller of the Navy responsible to the First Lord

  377
  as distinguished from the other members of the Board of Admiralty, can be laid on the Table?
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK,in reply, said, that a naval officer had been instructed to inquire into the matter on the spot and to inspect the vessel; but it would not be desirable to give the Report to the public. In answer to the second Question, he had to say that the Order in Council had been already laid upon the Table of that House. Moreover, a Select Committee of their Lordships' House was appointed to inquire into all the circumstances of the case, and the Order in question would be found in the Appendix to the Report of that Select Committee in the year 1871.

  COUNTY JUSTICES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to Justices of the Peace—Was presented by The Earl BEAUCHAMP; read 1a (No. 55.)
  House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.