Lords Sitting of 28 March 1890

APPEAL COMMITTEE.
First Report from; read, and agreed to.
EARL ERNE (CLAIM TO VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND).
Ordered and Directed, That a Certificate be sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Earl Erne to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has ordered such Report to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland; and it is here by also ordered, that the said Report of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
EARL ERNE (CLAIM TO VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND).
  COUNTY COUNCILLORS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  A Bill to enable women to be elected and to act as County Councillors—was presented by the Lord Chaworth (E. Meath); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 50.)
  BILLS OF SALE BILL.
  A Bill to exempt certain letters of hypothecation from the operation of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882—was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 51.)
  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL. (No. 52.)
  A Bill to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to industrial schools in Great Britain:
  REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL. (No. 53.)
  A Bill to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to reformatory schools in Great Britain:

  JUVENILE OFFENDERS BILL. (No. 54.)
  A Bill to amend the Summary Jurisdiction Acts with respect to the punishment of juvenile offenders:
  Were presented by the Viscount Cross; read 1a; to be printed, and to be read 2a on Monday the 21st of April next.

TRUST COMPANIES BILL,—(No. 42.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  *THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I had not an opportunity of saying anything upon this Bill when in Committee, and I take this opportunity of expressing my regret that the clause as to carrying on other businesses was altered in the manner in which it was in Committee. The result of that alteration will, I think, be to render the Bill absolutely nugatory. It is evident that no company at present exists which has for its sole business the performance of the offices of executor administrator or Trustee, and I do not think it would be possible to establish a company which should have as its only object the undertaking of those duties. I think if it is desirable to enable companies to act as Trustees or executors, it is essential that these companies should also be permitted to undertake other business of a remunerative character.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I, of course, agree entirely with all my noble and learned Friend has said. I do not propose to go over the ground again which I traversed when the Bill was in Committee. I cannot think the alteration then made will afford any real protection to the public; because while it empowers such a company only to undertake the performance of the duties of executors and trustees, it in no way limits the investment of its funds by such a company, and does not prevent it involving itself in the very speculative investments which were the ground of objection to companies which undertook not only that business but other businesses as well. The Amendment which I have on the Third Reading is upon Clause 24, which is taken verbatim from my noble and learned Friend's Bill relating to Public Trustees, and I have merely made the Amendment to bring it into the final shape which that Bill assumed. It is in line 25, after "of" to insert "any of," and to leave out the words "or of any such persons." Then in line 27 to leave out the words after "bank" and insert words, so that it shall read "that the company or bank shall

  131
  not be deemed liable by reason of having had notice thereof."
  Amendments agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL.—(No. 43.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I do not propose at this stage to revive the discussion which took place in Committee upon this Bill, or to ask your Lordships to re-consider it in any way. My proposal to omit certain words, which I will allude to in a moment, was defeated in this House, and, of course, here, where my noble and learned Friend can count upon the big battalions, it would have been useless to divide. But I desire to call your Lordships' attention to the Bill as it stands, because I cannot think it is really appreciated, or that, when appreciated, it can be permitted finally to pass in its present form. The Bill provides that where any property which is subject to any liability, such as shares, on which calls may be made, is vested in the Public Trustee, the Public Trustee shall not be liable to the payment of any such calls. Whatever may be said for limiting the liability of Trustees, I think it ought only to be done under careful safeguards. Here the proposal applies, of course, only to a Public Trustee, and I must invite your Lordships' attention to what will be the effect of the Bill as it at present stands. If the owner of shares in a company, upon which large calls still remain to be paid or can be claimed, thinks fit to vest those shares in the Public Trustee upon trust, we will say for a member of his family, the effect would be that the beneficiary would, under that trust, obtain all the advantages of belonging to the company in the way of receiving? dividends in common with all the rest of the shareholders; but should the company go into liquidation, neither the beneficiary nor the Trustee, nor anybody else, will, in respect of those shares, be liable to make a penny of payment towards satisfying the claims of creditors, and, of course, that will have the effect of throwing the whole of the burden upon the other shareholders. Now, this is not merely a question of the liability
  132
  of Trustees, public or otherwise; it is a question in which every public company and everybody who holds shares in a public company is interested, because, of course, in the event of liquidation or loss, they are all liable; that is to say, if there are debts of the company they will fall to be paid by all the shareholders alike, and if any shareholder is freed from that liability it throws a greater burden upon the others. If you say that the Public Trustee shall not be liable beyond the amount of the property which he holds under the trust, the creditors will still have to be satisfied, and therefore heavier calls will have to be made on the other shareholders. That will be the result of freeing the Public Trustee from liability under this Bill. I cannot think that that is the intention of your Lordships' House, or that it ought to be carried into effect. What reason is there for it? Simply the result will be that if a man makes the Public Trustee his Trustee in regard to shares in a company, he thereby wipes out that portion of the capital of the company. Suppose that the capital of the company is £1,000,000, and a large number of the shares representing that capital are put in the hands of the Public Trustee, the result will be that whereas the capital of that company appears to be £1,000,000, it is, in reality, so much less. That result is brought about simply because one of the shareholders chose to vest his shares in the Public Trustee. It may be said that may not be done to any great extent; but there will be every temptation for people holding shares to do so. Suppose a man vests shares in the Public Trustee for his son's or his daughter's marriage, he will get all the benefit of being a shareholder, and be at the same time freed from all burdens. Your Lordships know there are many prosperous companies who may, nevertheless, get into trouble. Suppose the capital of a company is in £25 shares, on which £5 may have been paid, so that a liability of £20 remains upon them. We will suppose 1,000 of those shares settled, and that the Public Trustee is made Trustee. £5,000 has been paid upon them, and of course that is the amount of the property settled. The company goes into liquidation; the other shareholders can be called upon to the extent of £20 per share on the amount

  133
  of their shares, but no call can be made upon the 1,000 shares settled in the hands of the Public Trustee, and the result is that that unpaid £20,000 is as much wiped out of the capital of the company by the action of the shareholder investing it in the Public Trustee as if the company had been started with a so much smaller capital. I have spoken only so far of a company being wound up; but I hardly know what is to happen if a company is still a going concern. The Public Trustee is not to be bound to meet a call that is made—can the shares he holds be forfeited? If an ordinary shareholder does not pay his calls, the company can forfeit his shares; but could the company forfeit the shares held by the Public Trustee, who, the Legislature has said, shall not be liable to pay beyond the amount of the property he holds? I think that is a matter which is at least open to grave doubt. I will only add that I have thought it right to call attention to the matter in order that it may be considered elsewhere. Here it is quite hopeless now to expect a consideration of it; but if the Bill passed in its present form I think it will be found hereafter very difficult to justify such legislation. The truth is that the Public Trustee ought not to take shares in trust unless he has ample property in his hands to meet the liability upon them, or gets an indemnity which shall be sufficient to satisfy him that he is secure. No Trustee need hold shares in trust; and it seems to me that if the Public Trustee does so it would be right that the shares he holds should remain subject to the same liability as other shares, because otherwise they are at once, by that difference in liability, in fact deducted from the capital of the company. This is a matter which will not only affect future transactions, but will affect existing companies, which may be in that way deprived of part of their share capital in some cases, and in others have to throw greater burdens upon their other shareholders.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not desire to argue the question over again; but it seems to me that my noble and learned Friend entirely forgets the difference between the positions of the Public Trustee and an ordinary Trustee. Unless some such provision as this
  134
  were incorporated in the Bill, the Public Trustee could never accept a trusteeship or executorship which involved taking over shares. The extent to which he will be liable is the full amount of the trust property, and no more. Being only a public official and not a private Trustee, there is an entire difference between his position and that of an ordinary Trustee. Practically, the effect of the alteration which my noble and learned Friend desires to make would prevent the Public Trustee ever undertaking any trust or executorship in which there were shares at all; and I hope your Lordships will not allow the effect of the measure to be defeated by altering this excellent provision, as it seems to me, for limiting the liability of the Public Trustee.
  *THE EARL OF MORLEY: I would venture to suggest that, if it is desirable to relieve the Public Trustee from all liabilities in respect of shares, it would be a simpler plan to prohibit the Public Trustee from holding any but fully paid-up shares. I confess it seems to me that my noble and learned Friend behind me has made a very strong point in pointing out the unfairness with which companies would be treated under such a Bill as this.
  Bill read 3a (according to order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

IRELAND—THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ACT, 1888.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the Lord President of the Council and the Lord Privy Seal yesterday, on behalf of the Government, read quite correctly the words of two Standing Orders. I naturally, feeling that I was responsible, and being perfectly aware that your Lordships have a right to enforce any Standing Order, immediately gave way, and I took the course which was suggested by those two noble Lords. My only compensation at the time was that I thought it would call even a little more attention than would otherwise have been paid to the objections which a small number of Members of this House desire to record, and whose example it was just possible a larger number might follow. Upon further inquiry, I find that there was no error

135
committed at all yesterday. That entirely relieves me, and I may state now what happened. The chief officer at our Table, with that courtesy with which he always assists Peers on both sides of the House, undertook to put the notice in exact form. He advised that some notice should be given, and those were the words which he adopted. I have here a list, with which I need not trouble your Lordships, of instances during the last seven or eight years, where Motions of this kind have been made, absolutely without any notice at all, and therefore, if notice had been given in the way proposed, it would have been an innovation, and contrary to the practice of your Lordships' House. I do not, in the slightest degree, retire from the position I then took.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): I thought it was contrary to the Standing Orders.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): There is one question which I would like to ask the noble Earl, whether he is now alluding to the first or second of his Motions? The noble Earl will remember that he has made two Motions. The first Motion is now for the suspension of the Standing Order.
EARL GRANVILLE: I am talking of the objection which was raised yesterday to my question proceeding without notice previously given of the suspension of the Standing Order. Upon that, I say at once it is quite clear that any Peer has a right to say the Standing Orders shall be carried out to the letter; but that the constant practice has been, and the authorities are not aware of any single exception to it, that such permission has been given to Members of the House without any notice whatever. Therefore, what I propose now to do with regard to the first Motion is to ask your Lordships to do exactly what the Lord President of the Council and the Lord Privy Seal requested should be done. My second Motion is of a different sort. It is that owing to a misunderstanding, and to a change having taken place in the practice of the House, the names of some Lords, who yesterday, under a misapprehension, signed the Protest, be permitted to stand I think, considering that it is an innovation which your Lordships have introduced
136
into our practice, and considering the alacrity which I showed to meet the wishes of the House, it would only be in cognisance with the usual good feeling of the House if that permission were given.
Moved, "That Standing Order No. XXXV. be dispensed with."—(The Earl Granville.)
*THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Earl will understand it is not with any desire to be discourteous to him that I say I hope you will not accede to the Motion he has made. The Standing Orders of your Lordships' House are not, as it seems to me, made to be broken. They are, I think, of some value; and if your Lordships accede to this Motion, all that noble Lords need do on another occasion when they wish to evade them will be to get up and move their suspension. If that is so I fail to see what use Standing Orders can be. I recollect the noble and learned Lord Herschell saying on one occasion that the difference between the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and those of your Lordships' House is chiefly this—
"That those of the House of Commons are not so severe, but they are always in force; whereas those of your Lordships' House, though much more severe, are very seldom enforced."
No doubt the Government may from time to time move the suspension of the Standing Orders in order to enable Bills to pass quickly through the House during the Session. That is a privilege which I think everybody will agree that Governments of whatever shade politically ought to possess. There may be cases where it is necessary to exercise that privilege; but in this instance, neither yesterday nor today, has the noble Earl given your Lordships a single reason for suspending the Standing Orders. He has now explained why he did not give notice of his Motion in the form which was suggested by Lord Cranbrook and Lord Cadogan; but why your Lordships, should allow the Standing Orders to be suspended and should accede to the proposal he makes for allowing those noble Lords, some of whom were not present at the debate at all, and some of whom, I am told, were not even in England, to sign this Protest, he has not given a single reason. I need only refer to Sir Erskine

137
May's Parliamentary Practice to show what the custom of your Lordships' House is with regard to these Protests. He says this—
"Sometimes leave is given to Lords to enter Protests against any vote of the House some time after the period limited by the Standing Order."
And that is part of the proposal of the noble Earl. I have looked back to see what other occasions there were of this kind: they are not numerous, but there were undoubtedly two upon the Irish Church Bill. Then he says—
"By the usage of the House of Lords the privilege of entering a Protest is restricted to those Lords who were present and voted when the question to which they desire to express their dissent was put; but leave is sometimes given to Lords to sign the Protest of another Peer, although they wore not present when the question was put."
But not a word about their not being present when the debate took place, and I can find no instance of any Peer being allowed to sign a Protest who was not present during the debate.
EARL GRANVILLE: Before the noble Earl proceeds I should like to call his attention to a few instances. On the 21st July, 1882, without any notice of Motion whatever being placed on the Paper, it was ordered that Lord Stratheden and Campbell be allowed to sign a Protest, and "that he sign the same before the rising this day." This Protest was entered and signed by, among others. Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, who was not present that day. Then, upon the Army Discipline Bill, in 1881, it was ordered that Lord Stewart of Garlies have leave to enter a Protest "before 2 o'clock tomorrow," he and such Lords as desired: and the Protest was entered and signed by, among others, Lord Hylton and Lord Waveney, who were not present. I really do not think I ought to trouble your Lordships by going through all the precedents which I have here.
*THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: This is rather a long interruption, and I think it would have been better if the noble Earl had given those precedents to the House when he made his Motion; but I do not gather from them that the Peers mentioned were not present at the debates.
EARL GRANVILLE: Yes: none of them were present.
*THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: However that may be, I will presently call attention to an authority to whom I think some of your Lordships, at all events, will pay respect—Lord Brougham—showing that this is not the practice of the House. In 1823 the Duke of Somerset, who had not voted on the question, nevertheless protested, and upon Motion, he having been present at the debate, though he had not voted, the Protest was allowed to stand on the Journals; but that was an extremely exceptional case, and was made dependent on the fact that though he had not voted he was present at the debate and had then protested against the Motion. Now Some of these noble Lords were not present at the debate. Then there is reported in Hansard another occasion which occurred in this House on the 16th July, 1846. That instance was with regard to a Protest against the Corn Importation Hill. On that occasion the Karl of Radnor was allowed to call their Lordships' attention to a question of some importance as he conceived. He alluded to the Protest of certain noble Lords against the Third Reading. That Protest was signed by 93 Peers; and he always understood that only those Peers who were present could enter their protest, and that was a salutary rule. He was present when the question was put, and he denied that more than one-third of those Peers were present.
"It appeared on an examination of the Journals of the House that 10 or 12 Peers had put their names to the Protest against the Third Reading of the Corn Importation Bill, who were not in the House during any part of the discussion of that measure. He (the Karl of Radnor) was not desirous that any Peer who wished to have his name handed down to posterity as professing the opinions expressed in that Protest should be deprived of that honour; but he thought that, under the circumstances he had stated, it was a matter for their Lordships' consideration, and he would leave the House to deal with it as it thought proper. He found, on comparing the number of Peers in attendance on the discussion of the Bill with the number of names affixed to the Protest, that the names of 10 or 12 Peers who were not present at the time were appended to that Protest. Now, if their Lordships overlooked the first objection, he hardly thought they would overlook the second; because the inference would be that any Peer, at any time, whether he took part in the discussion or not, might come down and protest against it, even although his arguments and reasons had been refuted in the course of the debate."
Upon that occasion Lord Brougham, an authority, I think, as I have already

139
said, to whom your Lordships will pay some attention, said that he conceived his noble Friends had done great service by calling attention to this irregularity, which, he believed was no doubt unintentional, and arose from those noble Lords not having attended to the Rule of the House. After what I have ventured to say to your Lordships, I think you will see that the irregularity in this case cannot have arisen from that cause, and the Rule is, undoubtedly, that no person who was not present could protest. He lays that down without reservation, and he concludes—
"It was not so in the Irish Parliament, for in the Irish Parliament they could vote by proxy and protest by proxy."
But clearly, where that is not done in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, this cannot be done. Now, my Lords, I will ask whether we are, for no reason whatever, to abolish that undoubted custom of Parliament in favour of these noble Lords, some of whom I am credibly informed were not even in England when the debate took place, and one of whom has not yet even taken his seat in this House. If that noble Lord had been foolish enough to gratify the noble Earl by signing this Protest, he would have rendered himself liable to a penalty of £500.
*THE EARL OF MORLEY: I should like to say a few words on the question of procedure in reference to the Standing Orders of this House. It appears to me that two questions have been somewhat confused in this discussion: the first is whether Peers have ever been allowed to sign a Protest, not having been present at the debate, and the second is the manner in which that leave has been given. I believe my noble Friend behind me (Lord Granville) is perfectly right in stating that Peers have been allowed to sign such Protests; but the method by which that leave has been given has been to enter it simply on the Minutes, without bringing it before the House at all. In this case the question of suspending the Standing Orders did not arise at all. When the question is brought before the House, as it was by my noble Friend yesterday, the question of the Standing Orders at once arises. There, again, my noble Friend opposite (Lord Cadogan) was right in
140
saying that notice should be given before Standing Orders are suspended; and I think your Lordships will agree with me that there is no case in which it is of so much importance that notice should be given as the suspension of Standing Orders. Under these circumstances, it seems tome the noble Earl is now quite in order, and if the noble Lord goes to a Division I shall certainly vote with him.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I think the course we are asked to take is rather an unusual one. We are asked to suspend the Standing Orders in order to relieve certain noble Lords who were not present during the debate and enable them to enter this Protest. Why are we to be asked to act contrary to the Standing Orders of this House? What is the intention of this Standing Order? It says—
"Such Lords as shall make protestations or enter their dissents to any votes of this House, as they have a right to do, without asking leave of the House, either with or without their reasons, shall cause their protestation or dissents to be entered into the Clerk's Book the next sitting-day of this House, before the hour of 2 o'clock, otherwise the same shall not be entered, and shall sign the same before the rising of the House the same day."
Now the debate took place this day a week ago, and the Protest was not entered in the Clerk's Book before 2 o'clock of the next day of the House sitting: on the contrary, I believe it was hot entered until Tuesday week, and the noble Lords did not sign on that same day. What was the object of this Standing Order? It was, I apprehend, to ensure that noble Lords should be present at the debate, or should be, at all events, attending in Parliament. Of course, the Protest could not be drawn up until the result of the debate was known; but the Rule points out that the Protest shall be entered on the very next day of the sitting of the House, and shall be signed the same day, that is to say, the very next day afterwards. We are now asked to say that this Rule shall be suspended nearly a week after the debate occurred, and in favour of noble Lords who were not, in some instances, as the noble Earl has stated, even present. He has stated that they were to have signed on the morrow, and he now asks us to suspend this Rule in order that

141
these noble Lords shall sign it. I think it is a very irregular course, and therefore I ask your Lordships not to assent to it.
LORD HERSCHELL: I should like to call attention to a precedent in this matter. On the 7th April, 1881, on the occasion of the Third Reading of the Army Discipline Bill, a Protest was entered nearly a month afterwards. On the 5th May it was ordered that Lord Stewart of Garlies should have leave to sign a Protest. The Protest was entered accordingly, and was signed by several noble Lords who had not been present.
LORD KNUTSFORD: The Easter holidays may have had something to do with it.
EARL CADOGAN: As the noble Lord has mentioned my name in connection with the proceedings of yesterday I will take this opportunity of stating that it was far from my intention either to act with discourtesy towards the noble Earl or to take advantage of the forms of the House to obstruct the Motion which he then made. But I would remind your Lordships that in proceedings yesterday two Motions were made by the noble Earl. First, there was a Motion brought forward contrary to one of the Standing Orders of this House, without any notice to suspend that Standing Order for the purpose of the Motion; and the second was a Motion to suspend the Standing Order at once without any notice. I felt that the last state of the noble Earl was worse than the first; because however inadvisable it was for the noble Earl to take the course of moving in opposition to a Standing Order, as he did in his first Motion, at all events it might be said that he gave notice of that Motion; but the Motion for the suspension of the Standing Order which he subsequently made was given without any notice whatever. I quite agree that the practice of this House with reference to matters of order is at all times lax, and especially so in comparison with the practice of the other House. I cannot say that I regret that laxity; but, at the same time, I am bound to remind the House that it is—and I speak subject to correction—very unusual to move a suspension of Standing Orders without notice.
EARL GRANVILLE: Certainly; we are all agreed about that.
EARL CADOGAN: I think the noble Earl will agree that it is not only an unusual but an extremely undesirable course. It was for that reason that I ventured to protest yesterday against the course which the noble Earl took. With reference to the Motion which he has this day placed upon the Paper, it is not, in my opinion, a matter for Government to decide; it is a question which the House must decide for themselves. I venture to think that perhaps too much importance and too much stress has been laid upon this Protest, of which we have now heard so much; and, for my own part, I can only say that if my noble Friend behind me goes to a Division I shall deem it my duty to vote with the noble Earl opposite, and in saying that I believe I am expressing the opinion of my Colleagues who sit on the same Bench with me. I have risen chiefly to explain to the noble Earl the reasons for the course I took yesterday, and to explain that I shall not be prepared, in case of a Division, to vote against him.
*EARL FORTESCUE:It seems obvious, notwithstanding the precedents which have been cited, that a blot is often not hit until the matter raising the question has been brought conspicuously into notice; but I think it is a sort of reductio ad absurdum with regard to the privilege of signing a Protest which is to be preserved to these noble Lords, of whom I am told one is not in England and others heard not a word of the debate, to enter a week afterwards their names on the Protest. No doubt, in times past, very remarkable Protests have been made and signed by men of great eminence; but every argument that applied to the disuse of the practice of giving proxies, which your Lordships agreed to within my recollection as being one that was unseemly, seems to me, at least, as applicable to the signing of Protests by absentees a week after the debate has taken place. Whether the privilege of signing Protests is worth maintaining I do not know: I have no very strong opinion on the subject; but, I do say that if ever there was a reductio ad absurdum of a practice I think we have had a sample of it to-day, and therefore I shall vote against the Motion of the noble Earl. I think its effect would be to abolish practically the

143
signing of Protests incidentally and in an ignominious way.
On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents 34; Not Contents 23.
Resolved in the affirmative.
Moved, "That the following Lords be at liberty to sign, before the rising of the House for the Easter Recess, the Protest entered against the Resolution of the House of Friday 21st March, although their Lordships were not present when the question was put:—

M. Breadalbane.

L. Acton.

E. Chesterfield.

L. Aberdare.

E. Ashburnham.

L. Hothfield.

L. Camoys.

L. Northbourne.

L. Wentworth.

L. Hobhouse.

L. Vernon.

L. Burton.

L. Thurlow.

L. Hamilton of Dalzell

L. Leigh.

L. Thring.

And that the names of

V. Hampden,

L. Coleridge,

L. Kensington,

who signed yesterday (27th March) under a misapprehension, be permitted to stand (Earl Granville); agreed to."

LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND) ACT, 1889.
*THE EARL OF LEITRIM: My Lords, before proceeding with my Motion, I should desire to give notice that as soon as possible after Easter I will introduce a Bill to amend the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1889. With regard to the application of the Light Railways' Act to Ireland generally, I need make no explanatory statement as to my reasons for bringing forward this Motion. As far as it applies locally, and as far as my Motion applies to the Grand Jury of the County of Donegal, I should like to state what steps I have taken before introducing this Motion to your Lordships. I have given private notice to the foreman of the Grand Jury, to the mover of the resolution of the Grand Jury, with reference to the Letterkenny and Dunfanaghy Line, to the Duke of Abercorn, who was foreman of the Grand Jury of Donegal for many years; I have put notices in the county papers, and I convened a meeting in the district to which the second part of my Motion refers in the County of Donegal, through which the Letterkenny and Dunfanaghy Line would run. I have circulated among your Lordships a
144
report of what took place at that meeting and it should be in your hands. I know it was in the hands of many of your Lordships this morning. I desire, as far as possible, to deal with general principles, and also to avoid, as far as possible, all names of individuals or of places. My Lords, taxation without representation stinks in the nostrils of taxpayers of the United Kingdom; but in the case of the Tramways of Ireland Act, the pill was gilded with the grant of £1,250,000 from the Treasury, and it was shipped to Ireland as a remedy for the congested districts. I should like, before I pass on, to say something about the definitions which have been given of what are called "congested districts." I have never seen any intelligible definition of what a congested district is. The Commissioners under the Tramways Act asked some of the witnesses what their idea of a congested district was, and one witness would say that it was—
"A district in which there were a great number of people;"
another gentleman would say that—
"The number of acres to the unit of population might represent what would be a congested district."
But when tested, I find that that definition does not work at all; on the contrary, it gives exactly the inverse ratio: that is to say, that in these congested districts large areas exist per unit of population, but the land is worth nothing. It may be worth 6d. or 1s., sometimes nothing an acre, for it is nothing but stones and rocks. Therefore, that will not work. Another gentleman, the foreman of the Grand Jury, seems to have endeavoured to define a congested district by a negative process. He says—
"We have the most civilised district in the county, and we are seven miles from the nearest railway, and no chance of getting any nearer."
A civilised district appears to be his idea of what is not a congested district. The writer of a letter to a newspaper from the Parish of Rossgull takes the trouble to answer that definition, and he says that it would be curious and interesting to know by what criterion this gentleman judges the different degrees of civilisation. Do they, in his

145
district, all use tooth-brushes, or do they wipe their noses with pocket-handkerchiefs, or have they reached that stage which a writer of note says is characteristic of the highest culture—"Do they take jam with their mutton?" I do not think, my Lords, that one will work any way. But I will endeavour to give you my idea of a congested district. My definition of a congested district is this: that the degree to which a district is congested may be estimated by the proportion that the population of a given area bears to the valuation of that area in pounds sterling. I have tested it, and I should like to give a few examples to illustrate it in the County of Donegal. I have taken the parish as my area. Of course, you can apply it to electoral divisions; you can apply it to a Petty Session district, or a Union, or any other district you choose; I have taken the parish. Now, the most congested district in the County of Donegal is what is called the Rosses, that is to say, the parish of Templecroome, and the population there is just three and a half times the valuation. The next are the parishes of Lettermacward and Tullahobegley, and there the population is two and a half times the valuation; and so it goes on until you get down to the valuation and population on a par, when it goes on until the valuation exceeds the population, and there we find a healthy and prosperous state of things. Now, my Lords, coining to the working of the Tramways Act; the defect in the Act, as far as I have been able to lay my finger upon it, seems to be that the congested districts must in every case make themselves responsible for the whole of the working expenses of these lines. I desire to point out to your Lordships the very serious and grave danger that I foresee, and that is that in certain cases this pill will leave such a nauseous after-taste that the patient will vomit. In other words, the congested district will turn upon the political physician, who will have produced an excretion which will have germinated into a white elephant, the burden of the working expenses will be greaterthan the relief to the taxpayers. The next defect that I would refer to in the working of the Act is this, as I understand it: The Board of Works have decided that no new lines should be
146
scheduled for the Summer Assizes. That, in my opinion, would be a very wise policy; but I differ with the Board as to what may be considered new lines of railway. I hold that where the Board of Works have provisionally allocated a certain sum to reach a certain objective point, adeviation or entirely new method of reaching that objective point should not be considered a new line, but should be investigated between this and the Summer Assizes, and have its merits weighed against any alternative route that may have been scheduled. Let me illustrate this. Point Z is your objective point in a congested district, and P is a terminus of an existing line. A sum of, say, £200,000 has been provisionally allocated for a line from P to Z. But it is now discovered that A is really your base, and that a line from A through P to Z, your objective point that is to say, from your base to your objective point—would be 10miles longer, and therefore at £5,000permilewould cost £50,000 more than a line from A, your base, through a point Q, to Z. That is to say, line A P Z would be 10 miles longer than A Q Z; and supposing you can show that there are existing communications from A to Q, as well as from A to P, why not make this line, which is 10 miles shorter, and connect with existing communications from A. to Q? Why not make this bit of line from Q to Z? Supposing, also, that that line would better open up the congested districts; supposing that that shorter line was supported by a large and representative body of the ratepayers, I ask would it be wise, would it be businesslike, would it be politic, to treat such a line as a new line and refuse to schedule it? I do pray the Government not to allow such red-tape notions to prevail. Other advantages may also be derived from the shorter line—there would be reduction in working expenses, and reduction in the rates per mile; there may be even lower rates from A to Q than there are from A to P. All those considerations may, I say, if such a line were scheduled, be then taken into consideration by the Commissioners and be duly weighed, and thus you will got the best value for your money, or whatever part of the £1,250,000 you are granting from the Treasury. There might be a further advantage in this shorter line. £200,000

147
was the sum which I stated might be the full amount required to construct the line; £50,000 would be saved by the 10 miles at £5,000 a mile, and if that £50,000 were placed to a reserve fund for that line it might be applied to meet one of the very great defects of the working of this Tramways Bill, that is to say, it might be applied towards defraying the deficit in the working expenses. A short one-clause amending Bill might be necessary, but see what you would save! You would save a considerable amount of taxation upon a congested district which already is struggling to live. Those are the remarks I desire to make to your Lordships as far as the Act may be applicable to the whole of Ireland. In regard to the latter part of my Motion, I desire to call attention particularly to the resolution of the Grand Jury of the County of Donegal, with reference to the Letterkenny and Dunfanaghy line. I should like to read to the House the resolution of the Grand Jury, or that part of it, at all events, which says—
"And owing to the ratepayers and the Grand Jury unanimously condemning the deviation recommended by the Board of Works,"
and so on. Now, to state that thousands and thousands of ratepayers were unanimous seems to me absurd on the face of it; but was that statement warranted by facts? The mover of the resolution was a land agent on the Grand Jury; and at the time he framed the resolution he had in his possession a letter from one of the largest cesspayers in the district, which said this—
"I do not think the lines proposed interest Milford or Mulroy at all; nobody in these parts cares in the least which of the proposed routes is adopted. Of course, if taxation is proposed on these districts they will he very much interested, and I think you will find they will he to a man against either route."
That letter was in the possession of the mover of the resolution, which says that the ratepayers were in favour of the route that was condemned in that letter, and the writer of that letter, I think, made good his case, for at the public meeting which I have already referred to, this resolution was adopted—
"That this meeting regrets that the Grand Jury should have resolved that the ratepayers are unanimous in condemning the deviation recommended by the Board of Works. That, believing this meeting to be representative of
148
£20,000 of the £48,000 proposed to be taxed in the barony of Kilmacrenan, we desire to support the Commissioners of the Board of Works in their deviation from Creeslough viâ Carrigart to Milford, and we protest against the Grand Jury resolving that the Letterkenny and Gweedore scheme met with the approval of the ratepayers proposed to be taxed."
Now, my Lords, that meeting was a public meeting, and was in every way representative. Land-owners, priests, parsons, ministers, doctors and the masses, were all represented there, and what took place has been fully reported in the county papers. I have circulated it to your Lordships this morning. Three other resolutions were passed, but I will only trouble the House with one more. One was praying the Government to send Commissioners to hold an inquiry in Milford, so that the cesspayers in these districts may have the same opportunity of expressing their opinions as has been granted to Letterkenny, Dunfanaghy, Bunbeg, places all on one side of the barony. Another resolution was praying that the line which I have sketched by the letters A Q Z should be scheduled and inquired into on its merits. Now, my Lords, I would only make further one or two short references to the Grand Jury, and I desire to do so with every courtesy that I can. In the first place, the Grand Jury was summoned by the High Sheriff, who was a promoter of the line that was disapproved of by the Commissioners, and which the Grand Jury appear to have adopted. I do not think the High Sheriff should have acted as a promoter; but I believe that it was an unintentional blunder. I do not wish to imply that he packed the jury in any way, I merely mention it as a fact. The mover of the resolution was also a promoter of a line opposing the Commissioners' line; and in promoting his line he used, as he had a perfect right to do, every technical means that his skill could devise to impede the advantages of this Act in the district in which this great meeting which I have spoken of was held. In taking that course he was endeavouring to secure his own interests and the interests of his neighbourhood as he had a perfect right to do; but when he carried his promoters' tactics into the Grand Jury, I think he committed a very grave and serious error of judgment; and I would ask your Lordships, who are

149
familiar with the practice of magistrates, whether we have not got precedents against such a course? Take the Bench, or take first of all your own Parliamentary Committees. I apprehend that the Grand Jury is, as nearly as possible, analagous in the work it has to preform on this occasion to your Parliamentary Committees. Would it be allowed for a moment that a Peer or Member of the other House should be deeply interested in promoting a line, and yet should be sitting upon one of your Parliamentary Committees? I apprehend not, my Lords. Parliament has, to a certain extent, lost control over the working of this Light Railways Act by committing it to the Grand Jury. We have no control over the Grand Jury, and I am not aware that there is any Executive control in any way over the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury which acted in this case is, so to speak, dead. The matter will possibly be dealt with again by the same Grand Jury, but not necessarily so, at the Summer Assizes. Therefore it is, my Lords, that I have endeavoured to influence the great voice of public opinion in this matter, so that it shall not be possible for a promoter to act in the face of public opinion as a judge in his own cause. I fear the Grand Jury have not risen to the occasion. Parliament has confided to them a great responsibility, and I trust that some good may come at the Summer Assizes from this Motion. Before I sit down I should like to say that I think the Government should exercise the greatest supervision that is possible over the administration of this, as I believe, great healing measure. My desire is that it should reach not merely the homes, but that it should reach the hearts of the people in the congested districts. I desire to move that the Report and the Evidence taken before the Commissioners be laid upon the Table.
Moved—
"That the Report of the Commissioners and the Evidence taken before them, under the Light Railways (Ireland) Act, 1889, with reference to the Letterkenny and Dunfanaghy Line be laid upon the Table."—(The Lord Clements, E. Leitrim.)
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I think the House will hardly wish me to follow my noble Friend into all the subjects upon which he has touched in his, if he
150
will forgive me for saying so, discursive speech. I think it would hardly assist us in arriving at a conclusion upon the question he has raised if I were to discuss with him what is the real meaning of the term "congested districts." No doubt that is a matter which it is somewhat difficult to explain to the satisfaction of all; and, as I understand, he merely alluded to the congested districts, because he considered that the Light Railways Act of the Government, was intended, to some extent at all events, to benefit those districts. Therefore, I do not think I need allude any further to that matter. But, my Lords, the noble Earl made some general remarks upon the working of the Light Railways Act, and he came after a time to the discussion of the particular case to which I think he intended in the main to direct the attention of the House.
*THE EARL OF LEITRIM: No; to its working.
EARL CADOGAN: The noble Earl gave as an instance certain railways, the points of which he defined by letters of the alphabet, and in a later portion of his speech he reminded us that those letters of the alphabet which he had previously named stood in reality for two places which he has named in the notice of his question. Therefore, I thought I was justified in imagining that the real object of my noble Friend was to call attention to the particular railway in which I believe he has an interest. He has called attention specially to the constitution of the Grand Jury, whose duty it was to decide upon the railway which is mentioned in the notice paper, and he referred to one of the members of that Grand Jury, who was personally, to a large extent, as I understood, interested in the alternative line which at that time was discussed; and he told us that, in his opinion, it was exceedingly improper that a man should in such an inquiry as that be a judge in his own cause, and should be called upon to decide a question in which he had a large pecuniary interest. I believe that is the argument really of my noble Friend. I cannot, of course, for one moment differ from my noble Friend's view in that matter; but I think be will admit it is not one in which Her Majesty's Government are competent to interfere. Nobody knows better than my noble Friend that the Government

151
have nothing to do with the striking of Grand Jury. There is no power even of challenging members of a Grand Jury; and it is impossible for the Government, in the review which they must ultimately make of these proceedings, to take into account the personal predilections or circumstances of any persons who serve upon the Grand Jury. Therefore, I am afraid to that extent I cannot offer my noble Friend any satisfaction. But I think perhaps the House will allow me, as the noble Earl has alluded to the general working of the Act, to state, in a few words, for the benefit of those who may not understand the matter as well as my noble Friend does, what has been the course adopted in deciding upon the various lines which are to be carried out under the Act. The several schemes which have been brought to the attention of the Government were sent to the Commissioners of Public Works on the 2nd September, and further Memorials were forwarded to the Commissioners as they were received. A notice was issued on the 25th October calling upon persons interested in any lines who had not already submitted Memorials or Statements to send them in before November 1. A list of lines to be scheduled was subsequently made out and embodied in an Order in Council passed on November 1. Immediately on receipt of the plans from the promoters of the several schemes the Board of Works summoned the several persons selected to make the public inquiries to a conference, when the most minute and detailed instructions were given to them as to the manner in which they should conduct their inquiries, and the nature of the Report to be furnished thereon. On January 6 formal appointments were issued to the several Inspectors to hold the inquiries, as set forth in an advertisement notice, which was published in the Local as well as in the Metropolitan papers, and all the plans and other documentary information furnished by the promoters, in accordance with instructions, were transmitted to the several Inspectors, with a request that their Report should be handed in not later than February 17, in order to enable the Board to complete their communications with the Treasury, and have the cases laid before the Grand Juries of the several counties concerned at the approaching Spring Assizes. They
152
were also furnished with special maps showing the baronies and electoral divisions of the scheduled districts, and the fishery piers and harbours therein, together with statistics of population, taxation, and other matters bearing upon the subject of their inquiries. The last of the public inquiries, which were of a most exhaustive character, was closed on February 3. The Board of Works subsequently communicated to the promoters the result of the inquiries. But they have not yet furnished a General Report to the Government, who are, therefore, not yet in a position to come to a final decision in the matter. Therefore, I think my noble friend will see that inasmuch as the Government have not yet received the General Report, it is impossible for them to deal piecemeal with one Report at a time from the different districts. It is quite obvious that if my noble Friend succeeded in inducing the Government to discuss with him this particular proposal with regard to his district, other noble Lords who are interested in other parts of Ireland will feel themselves entitled to call in question the decisions of the Grand juries throughout the country. I think the noble Lord will see that it is impossible for the Government to encourage that method of procedure. He has also told us that there were no possible means of revision or control over the proceedings of the Grand Jury. I think in that he was inaccurate.
*THE EARL OF LEITRIM: No; the noble Earl is referring, I suppose, to the Treasury?
EARL CABOGAN: At all events, if what is done does not meet with the approval of the Lord President in Council there is further power given in that respect. Under those circumstances, I hope my noble Friend will not be dissatisfied when I say that we are unable to lay this particular Report to which he alludes, with the evidence relating to it, on the Table of the House; but I can assure him that as soon as the Government have received the Reports from all the various districts, information relative to them all will be laid before Parliament.
*THE EARL OF LEITRIM: My Lords, the statement of the noble Earl is entirely satisfactory to me. It is just what I desired. I may say that the concluding

153
part of the Motion was really formal in order to afford me an opportunity of speaking in reply. My speech was directed, perhaps, quite as much outside this House as to Her Majesty's Government, and I will not trouble your Lordships, therefore, with any further remarks.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

HERRING FISHERY (SCOTLAND) ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 55.)
House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Ten o'clock.