Lords Sitting of 16 April 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Smoke Nuisance Abatement (Metropolis) (64).
Second Reading—Army (Annual)* (55); Copy-hold Acts Amendment (6); East India (Purchase and Construction of Railways) (56).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Committee—Report—Local Government (Ireland) (Bangor and Warrenpoint).*

SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL,in presenting a Bill for the abatement of smoke in the Metropolis, said, it was the same Bill as the Bill of last year, with some modifications suggested by the Report of the Select Committe on the subject.
  Bill to amend the Acts for abating the nuisance arising from the smoke of furnaces and fireplaces within the Metropolis.—Presented (The Lord STRATHEDEN and CAMPBELL).
  Bill read 1a. (No. 64.)

WESTERN AUSTRALIA—SUSPENSION BY THE GOVERNOR OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE.—QUESTION.
LORD HERSCHELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he proposed to lay on the Table any Papers relating to the suspension by the Governor of Western Australia of the Chief Justice of that Colony; and what steps Her Majesty's Government intended to take in the case of so serious an interference by the Executive with the Judiciary.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord KNUTSFORD),in reply, said, he was unable to give his noble and learned Friend any information with reference to the first part of his Question. According to a Paper presented to Parliament in June, 1870, on the removal and suspension of Colonial Judges, it appeared that the practice was to refer such matters to the Privy Council. In deference to that opinion, he had obtained the assent of the Lord President of the Council (Vis-
1292
count Cranbrook) to refer the case to a Committee of the Privy Council, and that Committee would sit for the first time on Wednesday next.
LORD HERSCHELLasked if there was any objection to give the names of the Members of the Committee?
LORD KNUTSFORDsaid, the Committee would consist of the Lord President of the Council, Lord Macnaghten, and himself.

LAW AND JUSTICE—CRIMINAL TRIALS—PROOF OF PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD COLERIDGE,in asking the Lord Chancellor, Whether there would be any objection to direct that in all cases where a previous conviction has to be proved, some person who has had the prisoner actually under his care in gaol should be present to prove it, said, he would mention shortly the circumstances which had induced him to put the Question on the Paper. Last Circuit a man was tried before him for some small offence at Gloucester, and was further indicted for having been previously convicted. On the question arising as to the previous conviction, the prisoner insisted that he had never been convicted before. The prosecution called a member of the Metropolitan Police to prove the prisoner's identity, and he said that he recognized the prisoner as a convicted offender, but admitted that he had only been in his custody for half-an-hour three years ago. He was impressed with the prisoner's honesty with regard to this point, and directed the jury that if the prisoner had been two or three months in a Metropolitan prison, some warder should have been sent to identify him, and he was not found guilty of having been previously convicted. He afterwards sent for a Report to the London prison where the prisoner was said to have been confined, and found that the man whom the policeman swore was the prisoner had different coloured eyes and hair, was two and a-half inches taller than him, and had a mark on the arm which the prisoner did not bear. It was perfectly plain that a mistake had been made, and it was one which might have had very serious consequences for the prisoner. He was informed that a man had been sentenced to 10 years'

  1293
  penal servitude, just previously, at Gloucester for some small offence, merely because a previous conviction was proved. The same might have happened in the case he tried, had it come before the same Judge. This was an important matter, and he trusted his noble and learned Friend would be able to give a satisfactory assurance with regard to it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, there could be no doubt that, in the case brought forward by the noble and learned Lord, the prisoner was entitled to his acquittal on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to justify his conviction for having been previously convicted. Speaking generally, in every case of alleged previous conviction, something like adequate proof ought to be given. With reference to the suggestion in the Question, he thought it would be inconvenient to lay down any strict rule in those terms, but he had communicated with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the subject. While, on the one hand, his right hon. Friend was quite prepared to recommend that, whenever application was made, some warder or other person who had had the prisoner in his custody should be sent to identify him, yet, he considered it would be inconvenient and not consistent with the interests of the Public Service to lay down a general rule that some person who had had the prisoner in custody must attend the trial. There were many cases in which some person knew the prisoner, other than a warder, and in those cases it would be inconvenient that a warder should be brought from the gaol when persons more easily accessible were able to prove the previous conviction. His right hon. Friend had every wish to meet the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord in the spirit in which it was made, and would do everything in his power to insure that the proper evidence as to identity of prisoners should be forthcoming.

COPYHOLD ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Hobhouse.)
COPYHOLD ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 6.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HOBHOUSE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time,
  1294
  said, that its object was to enact certain clauses which were in the Bill of last year as it left the Select Committee to which it was referred, and as it was passed by the House, but which, by a mere accident in the House of Commons, were dropped out then. They affected the Stamp Duties, and therefore had to pass through a Committee. It was the purest formality, because the Treasury had assented, and the same clauses had passed through Committee in two previous years. Still it was necessary, and it was overlooked until too late. The clauses in question enabled a copyholder, after the amount of compensation had been settled by agreement, to have a memorandum of enfranchisement entered in the Court Roll, which should have all the effect of an award by the Land Commissioners. When the Bill got into Committee, he proposed to move Amendments which would have the effect of substituting for the existing scale of compensation to stewards, the scale settled by the Incorporated Law Society and adopted by the Select Committee last year. The stewards had been surprised, and felt aggrieved, by the alteration of that scale in the House; and they protested against new duties being thrown upon them at the same rate of remuneration. The present Bill would give them some new duties, and it would very much enlarge the range of cases to which the statutory scale would apply. The Law Society's scale effected a substantial reduction upon the former rate of charge, though it, again, was higher than the scale enacted in 1857. As it was now proposed to enlarge the range of duties for fixed payments, he thought it was fair to reconsider the then action of the House.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
  EARL. DE LA WARRsaid, he understood that, as regarded the stewards' charges and fees, the Bill restored the Schedule agreed to by the Committee of their Lordships' House last year. He would not, therefore, oppose the Bill after the noble Lord's undertaking to provide thus for the proper remuneration of the stewards.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he wished to point out that although the 1st clause made it clear that the

  1295
  stewards' compensation was to be paid before the memorandum of enfranchise-ment was handed over to the tenant, it was silent with regard to the lord's compensation, which he was left to recover as best he could. He was quite sure that this was not the intention of the noble and learned Lord.
  LORD HOBHOUSEthought the Amendments which he would introduce would be sufficient to meet the views of noble Lords.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read. 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

EAST INDIA (PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF RAILWAYS) BILL.
(The Viscount Cross.)
EAST INDIA (PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF RAILWAYS) BILL.

  (NO. 56.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS),in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the Government had undertaken to pay 5 per cent on £4,000,000 of capital of the Oude and Rohilkund Railway Company for 999 years, but had the option of buying the railway at the end of 20 years. The cost to the country at the present time was 28 lakhs of rupees, but the Government hoped to be able to borrow money at such a rate as would reduce this charge to 22 lakhs, or even less, so that there would be a clear gain of six lakhs a year. The price of this railway was to be fixed at the average price of the stock for three years, and would be £5,036,000. There would be another saving, for, of course, the Government would have to take the liabilities of the Company, and the debentures could be paid off and the money borrowed at a cheaper rate. Thus a further saving of about 3½ lakhs could be effected. The Government also proposed to obtain borrowing powers to the extent of £10,000,000 for the purpose of further railway construction, or the repayment of existing debentures, to carry out the policy recommended by the Committee of the House of Commons in 1884, for the purpose of enabling Railway Companies to borrow at a lower rate than they did at present. The Government would not give any guarantee, but would lend money to the Companies at a cheaper rate than they
  1296
  would be able to borrow it in the open market.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Viscount Cross.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPasked whether Clause 4 related to now railways or only to those already in existence?
  VISCOUNT CROSSsaid, it related also to new railways, and was intended to enable the Government to raise money to lend to the Companies.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he wished to express his entire approval of the principle of the Bill. It would carry out a policy which had long been desired.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

SAVING OF LIFE AT SEA (USE OF OIL FOR CALMING ROUGH SEAS).

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  Moved for,

  1. "Copy of any report or memorandum of the Board of Trade calling attention to a memorandum issued by the Board of Admiralty on the use of oil at sea for modifying the effects of breaking waves.

  2. Copy of Circular Letter of the Admiralty, of 1st December, 1884, No. 3,206–8,305.

  3. Copy of a Report of Captain Chetwynd, R.N., to the Committee of the Royal and National Life-boat Institution, 30th September, 1884, referred to in those reports."—(The Lord Cottosloe.)

  TEE SECRETARY To THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of ONSLOW)said, there would be no objection to furnish these Returns.
  Motion agreed to.
  Returns ordered to be laid before the House.
  House adjourned at Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.