Lords Sitting of 28 March 1889

THE LATE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS—THE LATE MR. JOHN BRIGHT.—OBSERVATIONS.
*THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOB FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, since we last met, death has been active and has withdrawn from the stage of public life two men very different in many respects, but with whom and whose acts and whose daily life we were familiar. Mr. Bright's reputation does not belong to this House, yet it would not be fitting that we should go to our business without one word to express our emotion and our grief for the great bereavement which the nation has suffered. My Lords, this would not be the time to review Mr. Bright's public action. It would be impossible to do it without entering into those controversial questions which are little suited to an occasion like this, and we are too near to the scene of dispute and to the passions of the disputants to be able to pass that impartial judgment which posterity and the issue of events will some day pass on the achievements of his political career. But we are not too far distant to be able to admire and regret the man, to appreciate his powers, and to venerate the motives by which he was actuated. I think, besides what judgment may be passed upon his public achievements, there are two special characteristics for which he will be admired and noted in history. In the first place, he was the greatest master
994
of English oratory that this generation has produced, or I may perhaps say several generations back. I have met men who have heard Pitt and Fox, and in whose judgment their eloquence at its best was inferior to the finest efforts of John Bright. At a time when much speaking has depressed and almost exterminated eloquence, he maintained robust and intact that powerful and vigorous style of English which gave fitting expression to the burning and noble thoughts he desired to express. Another characteristic for which I think he will be famous is the singular rectitude of his motives, the singular straightness of his career. He was a keen disputant, a keen combatant; like many eager men, he had little tolerance of opposition. But his action was never guided for a single moment by any consideration of personal or party selfishness. He was inspired by nothing but the purest patriotism and benevolence from the first beginning of his public career to the hour of its close. Before I sit down I must say a word as to another public man, of whom death has robbed us most sadly, and most unexpectedly, within the last few days. The Duke of Buckingham was well known in this House and greatly valued. He had not long occupied that Chair; but he had been in it a sufficient time to conciliate the admiration of all for his strict impartiality, his earnest and assiduous attention to his duties, and his grasp and comprehension of even the smallest details that were brought under his notice. He filled an office of very great importance with uprightness and diligence and with most beneficial effect, and he will long be missed by all those who come to this House for the discharge of the important duties that were committed to his care.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, your Lordships will allow me to follow in a few short sentences the graceful and touching allusions which the noble Marquess has made to the great losses which we have sustained since our last meeting. The noble Duke, as the noble Marquess stated, has passed away by a sudden and unexpected death. I was not, like the noble Marquess, a political friend and I was not an intimate personal friend, of the noble Duke. But a good many years ago I had the honour of being associated with him upon a Commission of considerable difficulty and importance, and I can say with truth that I never met a man more industrious and more perfectly honourable. There is another matter about which I wish to say one word. When Lord Redesdale died the noble Marquess proposed the Duke of Buckingham as his successor I moved an Amendment proposing another Peer, one who had been a colleague of mine, but who no longer agrees in politics with me; and I stated the reasons why I thought his claims fitted him for the post. That circumstance makes me specially desirous of saying to your Lordships, what it is now impossible for me to say to the noble Duke himself, that since his acceptance of the office, from my own observation, and from what I have heard from others, nothing but the most favourable criticism has been passed, either by Members of this House or by the public, on the manner in which he discharged the duties which your Lordships imposed upon him. My Lords, the noble Marquess alluded to the loss which this nation has sustained in the death of Mr. John Bright, a death which has filled the land with gloom. The noble Marquess—I thought most properly and judiciously—avoided entering into any great detail with regard to his life and career. For myself, I feel it would be idle to dwell upon some of his chief characteristics—his loyalty to his Sovereign, his devotion to his country, and his enthusiasm for everything that he thought consistent with right and truth. The noble Marquess has paid a due compliment to his extraordinary powers of eloquence, to the manner in which, Wending close reasoning with illustration, pathos with humour, he obtained a hold over those whom he addressed
996
which has hardly ever been surpassed. I feel that it would be equally useless for me to allude to his great moral courage, to his dignified simplicity, and, as the noble Marquess says, to the straightness of the course which he ran. There is one point on which, perhaps, I may say a word, for I know more than some of your Lordships about it. I had known Mr. Bright between 40 and 50 years. That acquaintance, with other circumstances, prevented my ever feeling that prejudice which there is no doubt at one time was felt against Mr. Bright. I always felt for him great esteem and regard, and I might mention that even as far back as 1853 I asked Lord Aberdeen why he did not invite Mr. Bright at that time to join the Government. My personal and intimate acquaintance chiefly dates from the time when Mr. Bright took office under Mr. Gladstone. I speak in the presence of noble Lords who are Cabinet Ministers, and of noble Lords who have been Cabinet Ministers. I do not know whether they will agree with me as to one point; but I have found, as a rule, with very few exceptions indeed, that that peculiar sort of intimacy, that sort of esprit de corps, which naturally springs up among men assembled to carry on most important business under the pressure of very great responsibility, has always made me feel a greater liking and a greater esteem than I previously had for those with whom I was associated. Certainly, there never was a case in which this was more so than as regards Mr. Bright. Mr. Bright, quite independent of his powers of eloquence, was a most useful man in the Government to which he belonged. His knowledge and his sympathies were hardly common to the run of English politicians. He had admirable good sense; and, I may say also, it is perhaps remarkable, considering his vigour and the enthusiasm of his character, how great was the moderation of the advice which he gave to his colleagues. I never knew a Member of a Cabinet who acted more as a peacemaker among his colleagues. It takes many years to build up a reputation such as Mr. Bright's. It is a proud thing for a man to have done so. But I must say that it is equally creditable to the nation to which he belonged that they should so unanimously appreciate the reputation which he thus made.

THE LATE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS—THE LATE MR. JOHN BRIGHT.—OBSERVATIONS.
  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (NO. 32.)
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. considered and dispensed with for this day's sitting.
ARBITRATION (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 31.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *LORD BRAMWELL: I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which is intituled "An Act to Consolidate the Law relating to Arbitrations." I need not trouble your Lordships at any great length about it. It was prepared, at the suggestion of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, by a very competent draftsman. It cannot require any very lengthy argument to commend it to your Lordships—at any rate, upon the Second Reading—because, two or three years ago, the same Bill was read by this House a second time and passed through Committee. There is one word I would like to say. My noble Friend on the Woolsack has himself got an Arbitration Bill, but that is a Bill to consolidate and codify the statutory enactments with respect to arbitration. With that Bill I have not the smallest fault to find; indeed, I think it is well worthy of your Lordships' consideration. The Lord Chancellor has said that my Bill is a more ambitious one. Perhaps it is in this sense: that, whereas the Bill of my noble Friend is good so far as it goes, and is acceptable on the principle that "half a loaf is better than no bread," this Bill of mine is a whole loaf, and it seeks to codify and consolidate all the statutory and other law affecting arbitrations into one measure. At any rate, I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading. If my noble Friend should desire that it should not proceed beyond that stage, I shall not press it; but perhaps my noble Friend may consider that it would be desirable that this Bill should be considered in Committee in conjunction with his own Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I explained to your Lordships in moving the Second Reading of the measure which I had the honour of introducing to your Lordships' House the other day, my Bill is intended to codify the whole law of arbitration, and the only difficulty I have in at once adopting the noble Lord's suggestion that the Bill should be considered in Committee with mine, in order that we should get what he describes as the whole loaf, is that undoubtedly there are matters in this Bill which would give rise to controversy. My noble Friend has—with great ability I quite admit—sought to reconcile the statute law and the law as it rests on judicial decisions. In so doing it was impossible that he should have escaped matters which would give rise to controversy, and there are one or two respects in which I am bound to say I should not myself be disposed to agree with the Bill as drawn. In fact, I doubt very much whether it would be possible at the present time to pass a large measure completely consolidating the law as to arbitrations. I believe the aim should be to embody in a codifying Act in complete form the various enactments that are upon the Statute Book, and then consider what would be desirable in the way of amendment. I need hardly say that I have no objection whatever to the Second Reading and Commitment of this Bill. I am only desirous that my noble Friend should not tack his measure on to mine, with a view to obtaining what may be a common favourable discussion.
  Bill read 2a.

THE PROTESTANT CEMETERY AT ROME.
LORD LAMINGTON, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether any correspondence had passed between the Foreign Office and the Italian Government respecting the proposed desecration of the Protestant Cemetery at Rome; and, if so, whether it would be laid on the Table, said: My Lords, there is no English Cemetery to which greater interest attaches than the Protestant Burial Ground at Rome. Many of your Lordships, on visits to the city, must have seen the place, which is in a beautiful, retired spot, and is associated with many imperishable names—the

999
name of Keats, of Shelley, of Gibson, and of Wyatt, among many others. It is the first place to which Protestant visitors to Rome go. It is proposed by the Municipal Government of Rome to carry a road through the lower part of that burial ground, for the purpose of widening a thoroughfare which is very little frequented, and the so-called improvement necessitates the removal of, I think, 73 graves. It is true that the road which passes the lower inclosure of the cemetery to the Via Ostiensis is somewhat narrow, and a few yards might be gained by the removal of the wall; and for this trifling object, to widen a road on which there is scarcely any traffic, it is proposed to violate the sanctity of 73 graves, and that notwithstanding that a large sum has been subscribed by British and other families for the protection and maintenance of the cemetery. In addition to the illustrious Englishmen I have named, there are the names of Humboldt, of Bunsen, of Goethe and many other great Germans associated with this burial ground. What I wish to know is whether any correspondence has passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Italian Government with the object of preventing this act of sacrilege and spoliation. I say spoliation, because, as I say, a fund was started some time ago and received large support from Protestant Christians for the purpose of protecting this graveyard; and I call it sacrilege because many of the graves there are revered by Protestant Christians of all nationalities. Much that is beautiful and attractive in Old Rome has disappeared under the new state of things; but I hope that Her Majesty's Government will interfere to prevent a change which would really be an outrage, and which would wound the feelings of many families.
*THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, there has been no correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Italian Government on this question. It would not be precisely a subject for international interference. I imagine that the suppression of graveyards is occasionally necessary in some cases, and I do not think that our consciences are entirely free with respect to the City of London in the matter. But we have had a communication unofficially with the Municipality of Rome on
1000
the subject; and although I have not got the details here, and cannot repeat them quite accurately, still I do not think the Municipality deserve the reproaches which my noble Friend—at all events by implication—aims at them. They have shown great consideration in the matter, and it is the first time I have heard them charged with spoliation. I believe all private rights have been respected, and with regard to foreign Governments, I understand the German Government, at all events, to be at one with them. We offered some observations to induce them to preserve the tomb of Keats and of one or two other illustrious men which it was proposed to remove, and the result of the correspondence was that they behaved in a very kindly and considerate manner, and undertook that these graves should not be disturbed. If my noble Friend wishes to have the correspondence published it will be done; but I doubt if it is worth the expense. If my noble Friend will step over to the Foreign Office he may see the correspondence.
LORD LAMINGTON: After what the noble Marquess has said, I will not press for the correspondence. I may say that I used the word spoliation because I knew that a fund had been created at Rome for the protection of this burial ground, and if that were taken away I say it would be an act of spoliation.
*THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think another burial ground was provided of quite equal value.

THE COMMUTATION OF NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS.
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, in rising to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any decision had been formed with reference to the commutation of naval and military officers' pensions, said: I need not detain your Lordships at great length in putting this question, because the subject was before your Lordships' House last Session.
LORD HARRIS: I am afraid that I shall not be able to give any answer which will be satisfactory to the noble Viscount. In consequence of the representations of my noble Friend, His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary

1001
of State for War have taken the matter seriously into their consideration, and instructions to officers who desire to commute their reserve pay have been issued in a special Army Order, which will appear on the 1st of April. The Secretary of State for War is not the final authority which decides the question of commutation. He only recommends to the Commutation Board and the Treasury, and it is for them to act on the recommendation if they think proper. The following form of instructions to officers desiring to commute their half-pay, retired pay, or other payments of a like nature under the Pensions Commutation Acts, will be issued on Revised Army Form B. The conditions under which the Secretary of State for War would recommend cases for the consideration of the Pensions Commutation Board under the foregoing instructions are:—
"(1) The Secretary of State for War will not recommend the commutation of the non-effective pay of an officer who is liable to be called to serve in time of war or emergency; (2) the Secretary of State of War will not in any case recommend the commutation of non-effective pay to the extent of more than one-half of it; and he will not recommend the commutation unless a sum of at least £80 a year be left uncommuted."
I believe that the Admiralty have been communicated with, and they are ready to act on the same lines.

THE COMMUTATION OF NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; and read 1*: Then, Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been dispensed with, moved that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly: Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.