Lords Sitting of 11 July 1893

SAT FIRST.
The Lord Hampton—after the death of his brother.
BARBED WIRE FENCES BILL.—(No. 131.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Debate on Amendment moved on Third Reading resumed (according to Order).
  The said Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, that after consultation with the Lord Chancellor he had determined to make the definition of "nuisance," intended originally to apply only to Scotland, applicable to the United Kingdom. He therefore proposed, in line 9, after the words "jagged projections," to insert as an Amendment that putting up barbed wire which is a nuisance to highways means—
  "Barbed wire which is dangerous to persons or animals lawfully using such highway."
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, the only objection he had ever had to those words was that they might be misunderstood. The word "dangerous" would mean to lay people something injurious to or affecting life or limb; but that, of course, was not the true meaning of a nuisance to a highway. If a person's clothes were liable to be torn, or if an inconvenience were caused to anyone, that would be a nuisance, and, therefore, unlawful. That would put upon Magistrates the necessity of giving an effect to the word "dangerous" which people would not generally entertain, though, no doubt, it was quite applicable in such a case. The difficulty he had felt was that it might be misunderstood. He bad, however, no wish to suggest a further Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the difficulty was that, as regarded Scotland, it was found essential to have a definition, and it was, therefore, proposed to insert these words,
  1254
  retaining the word "nuisance" alone as regarded England, and then adding the definition in reference to Scotland, that definition not to be applicable to England or Ireland. It seemed, however, better to have the same definition applicable to all three countries.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it would surely be an imprudent proceeding to enact words which would not carry out the intention of Parliament merely for the sake of avoiding what the noble and learned Lord had pointed out was phraseology which was a little awkward. The phraseology of all Statutes appeared to be a little awkward, and probably this would be no worse than others in that respect. What they wanted to ensure was that the object of the Legislature should be attained, and if the object was not attained the Debate had better be again adjourned until they had found the magic words.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he, for his own part, preferred the definition, so that the word "nuisance" might be interpreted in the same way, because the Statute, if this Bill passed into law, would have to be interpreted by a number of Magistrates, and this definition would be more likely to lead to the meaning of Parliament being carried out than if the word "nuisance" stood alone. He therefore supported the noble Lord's Amendment.
  LORD THRINGsaid, he was aware the noble Marquess thought all legal language ambiguous, and every Act badly drawn; but it was rather hard upon his noble Friend who had charge of the Bill to say that in the present case.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYhad not said it was ambiguous, but that the phraseology was awkward.
  LORD THRINGsaid, substituting that word the noble Marquess seemed to be of opinion that the phraseology of all Acts of Parliament was awkward.
  LORD HALSBURY: Of recent years.
  LORD THRINGthought that was not quite the case. The object was that the word "nuisance" should be defined to mean dangerous or injurious—that was why these words were used extending it. He thought when the word "nuisance" was introduced it was not apt for the purpose; but now what was the

  1255
  difficulty? It was, no doubt, a little awkward, as the noble Marquess had said; but awkward though it might be, the object was only to extend the definition by saying it meant dangerous, or injurious, or inconvenient, or any other word which the noble and learned Lord thought would express his meaning. There was really no defect or difficulty in the drafting in the present instance.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOKsuggested that, as they all wished to arrive at a definite conclusion on the matter, the word "injurious" to persons or animals using the highway might be adopted.
  LORD MONKSWELLhad no objection to that. The only difficulty was that "dangerous" was the word used in the other House.
  LORD WATSONthought there was not the least necessity for the Bill in Scotland, as the law there was quite sufficient to put down a nuisance arising from the erection of these fences along highways; but as this Act was to be applicable to Scotland, occupiers in that country should not be placed in a worse position than in England. If the word "nuisance" were left undefined, it would certainly be read by some as implying what it did in other branches of the law—merely discomfort, or inconvenience, or annoyance to persons using the road. He did not suppose it was Lord Halsbury's object, in introducing the word "nuisance" into the Bill, that it should be read in that sense. It was really a question for English lawyers, and surely his noble and learned Friend could put it into intelligible English. For his own part, he took no exception to the definition of the word "dangerous" given in the other Bill; but if that was objectionable he had no objection to "injurious," if that commended itself to the noble and learned Lord, who understood the meaning of that word as applicable to highways, so long as the definition for both countries was the same.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, the Public Health (Ireland) Act had a number of definitions of "nuisance" which would not apply to the present case, and some special definition was required as regarded these barbed wire fences, otherwise the Magistrates, many of whom, since the qualifications were done away with, possessed but little education and no legal knowledge, would be puzzled how to in-
  1256
  terpret the Act, and it would have no effect whatever.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, he had consulted the Irish Office, and had been told that unless the procedure was assimilated to that under the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, there would be no sufficient means of enforcing this measure. In deference to the wishes of Lord Watson, he proposed to put in a few words founded on a section in the Public Health Act, 1875. With those words introduced into the Bill their Lordships would find that the provisions for enforcing summary orders under this Act would be sufficient.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)said, that whether the word "dangerous" or "injurious" should be inserted turned upon whether their Lordships wished to largely extend the operation of the Bill or not. "Dangerous" was more limited, and "injurious" would be much wider. Unless really dangerous there was no necessity for interfering with these barbed wire fences; and as "injurious" would have a very wide application "dangerous" seemed the better word.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOKsaid, injury to people's clothing was a matter for consideration, and such fences might need removal for that cause. That was his reason for suggesting "probably be injurious," to show that Magistrates must take a reasonable view of the matter.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, if a fence was calculated to tear people's clothes and to make the highway difficult, or inconvenient, or annoying to people, or to prevent them going safely along it without injury to their clothing, that would constitute in England a nuisance. He was sorry if the jurisprudence of Scotland was so awkward, to use the noble Marquess's phrase, that it did not apply itself to a very common instance of annoyance under the Public Health Act.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
  Moved, to leave out the word ("dangerous") in order to insert ("which may probably be injurious").—(The Earl of Cranbrook)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, the next Amendment was purely consequential. Words not required at the end of Clause 3 were inserted in regard to the removal of the wire "or taking such precautions as aforesaid." He moved to strike out all the words at the end of Clause 3 after "occupier to," and to insert "to abate such nuisance" instead.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, a further Amendment had been suggested by Lord Watson. Immediately after the words "abate such nuisance" he proposed to add (which would apply to the United Kingdom)—
  ("and on the occupier's failure to comply with such order within a reasonable time the Local Authority may do whatever may be necessary in execution of the order, and may recover in a summary manner the expenses incurred in connection therewith.")
  Further Debate adjourned to Thursday next.

IRRIGATION WORKS IN INDIA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CONNEMARAasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Periyar irrigation project would soon be completed; and whether he could give the House any information as to the progress of the works; and whether any steps had been taken to utilise the large amount of water which would be available for industrial purposes other than agriculture? He said, he need not remind the House of the vital importance of irrigation works in India and of the inestimable boon which the British Government had conferred on the people by those works. By their operation it was not too much to say that millions of lives had been saved in years of scarcity and famine, and abundance of food was grown for many millions of people in times of prosperity. In the Madras Presidency alone, besides many minor systems, there were three great ones—those connected with the large Rivers Cauvery, Kistna, and Godavery. The Cauvery system irrigated 900,000 acres, the Kistna 400,000 acres, and the Godavery 600,000 acres. Without irrigation this large extent of land would be practically waste. It was also pleasant to remember that, though these works were of great magnitude, they
  1258
  returned a substantial percentage on their total cost. The Cauvery returned 24 per cent., the Kistna 12 per cent., and the Godavery about 11 per cent. But besides this substantial direct pecuniary return to the Government, it must be readily apparent that the benefits conferred on the people by these works were incapable of being estimated in money, however great. In the south of the Madras Presidency the Madura district was one which suffered very severely from drought, and its condition had always caused suffering to the people and anxiety to the Government. In the famine of 1876–7 about £20,000 was spent on relief works and £40,000 on gratuitous relief in this district alone. The Periyar project was intended to ameliorate the condition of this district. It was no new scheme, for it was talked of 50 years ago, and about 25 years ago a Report was made on the project to the Madras Government by Major Myers, of the Royal Engineers. From that time till six years ago the subject was constantly under the consideration of the Government. The project was not a very large one from an irrigation point of view compared with many others in India, as it purposed to deal only with about 150,000 acres, and was estimated to cost only about £500,000 sterling; yet from an engineering point of view it was in many respects unique, and the difficulties to be overcome were very great. Their Lordships were aware that along the mountainous coast on the western part of the peninsula, particularly in the dense and uninhabited forests of Travancore, there were many rivers which run down to the western ocean, carrying a superabundance of water, which flowed down to the western coasts in great and unutilised volume, whereas on the eastern side of this ridge of mouutains, on the thickly-inhabited plains of Madura, all was dry and barren. The object, therefore, was to divert the waters of the Periyar from the Travancore mountains on the west of the peninsula into the plains of Madura on the east. This object was being attained by the construction of a huge dam of masonry and concrete across the Periyar River—a dam which would be about 180 feet high, varying in thickness from 140 feet at the bottom to about 12 feet at the top, the largest work of the kind in the world, he believed. The River Periyar,

  1259
  being thus arrested and taken charge of, would form a great lake overflowing many valleys, varying in area from 4,000 acres to 8,000 acres, according to the monsoon or the season of the year. From this lake the water would pass through a tunnel 6,000 feet long under the ridge of hills dividing Travancore from the Madura plains. It would then be conducted about 80 miles by natural watercourses, where the irrigation or distribution works would really commence, and the water would enter upon its beneficent operations upon the plains about 2,000 feet below, about 100 miles away from its place of capture in the mountains. He would not touch upon the larger subject of the enormous difficulties which had been encountered and overcome in the progress of the works, particularly in forming this huge dam across a large rapid river, liable to violent and sudden floods in a wild, mountainous forest country, full of fever and malaria, and wild beasts, and far away from a railway, where everything, from a bag of rice to a steam engine, had to be imported on men's backs or on the backs of beasts of burden, and where incessant rain made work impossible for six months in the year. But he believed, notwithstanding all these difficulties, owing to the perseverance and ability of our officers and men, British and native, the main difficulties had been overcome, and the works showed a fair amount of progress. He did not know whether the works would form an exception to all other works of the kind in India, in that the estimates would not be exceeded; but if they were exceeded he hoped the excess would be slight. He recollected some years ago reading a speech which the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) made at Cooper's Hill, in which he used some such words as these—"Crowns and Empires rise and fall, dynasties fade away; one thing never changes—namely, the tendency of engineers to exceed their estimates." He did not know whether the Periyar was to prove an exception, as far as estimated cost is concerned, to all other works of the kind in India; but he had reason to hope that the estimated revenue would be considerably exceeded, as he knew that the estimated revenue was taken at a very low figure. With regard to the latter part of the question, he was not
  1260
  sure that it was put in sufficient fulness to make it intelligible. Without interfering with the irrigation works at all, water would be available for the generation of power to an enormous extent at a very moderate cost. He hoped the Government would do their best to encourage the utilisation of it in this way, which he felt confident would produce satisfactory results. This was a most interesting question, but he would not upon this occasion go into details on the subject. He begged to ask the Secretary of State for India the question standing in his name.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, these works at Periyar are very important irrigation works, and the largest now in progress in India. I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord that the project will probably be sufficiently advanced to come into operation in the course of 1896. The main dam, which will rise to a height of 155 feet from the bed of the river, is about one-third completed. The level of the water above the river bed has been raised to 60 feet, the minimum level required before water can flow down to Madura being 130 feet. The tunnel (5,643 feet) through the watershed is about two-thirds completed; this, and the approach to it, will be finished in 1894. Serious difficulties have been experienced, but they are now overcome, and the works are in steady progress. Then, with regard to the last part of the question, whether any steps have been taken to utilise this water, I am glad to be able to toll the noble Lord that a committee of experts, of which the designer of the Periyar project, Colonel Pennycuick, R.E., the able chief engineer, and Secretary to the Government of Madras in their Public Works Department, who is now on furlough, is a member, has been sitting in London, and is now about to report as to the best means of utilising the water power which will be available, on the completion of the works, for manufacturing and other purposes. I cannot conclude my remarks without saying that the exertions of the staff employed on the construction of this very important irrigation project have, I am informed, been very severe, and the manner in which they have been performed worthy of high commendation. I

  1261
  cannot answer the question as to the estimates, as that point was not included in the question upon the Paper, and, consequently, I have not looked it up. I can only echo the noble Lord's hope that there may not be an excess.

THE CONDITION OF CLARE.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYmoved for a copy of the Charge of Mr. Justice Gibson to the Grand Jury of Clare at the recent Assizes as taken by the official note-taker as alluded to by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, as far as Her Majesty's Government's opinion goes, we primâ facie have no objection to printing and giving the Return the noble Marquess has asked for; but the Irish Government desire to consult certain precedents, and therefore they will be glad if he will not press for it to-night. I hope in a day or two, say on Thursday, to be able to give a more definite answer.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Do I understand from the noble Earl that on Thursday he will lay the Paper for which I ask on the Table of the House?
  EARL SPENCER: I cannot promise definitely.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid, he thought the answer given by the noble Earl was anything but satisfactory. He entirely acquitted the noble Earl of any blame, but he could not say the same as to the Chief Secretary. He could not understand, after the Chief Secretary's statement in the House of Commons, why a copy of the Notes could not be at once placed upon the Table of the House. He desired to be placed in possession as soon as possible of the report of the official note-taker, inasmuch as Mr. Justice Gibson's Charge was one of the most extraordinary which had been delivered for many years past in any county. Acting with the concealment which had been the quality of the Government for a long time past, a discussion on this Charge had been closured in the House of Commons at 5 o'clock the other afternoon, at the moment the late Solicitor General, who was fully
  1262
  qualified to deal with the state of County Clare, rose to discuss the Judge's Charge. He was glad no such action could take place in their Lordships' House; and as the matter had been closured in the other House, he proposed to go even more fully into it than he had intended. For that purpose he desired to have an authentic version of the learned Judge's Charge at the Assizes, and under those circumstances he must press for a copy of the Official Note. In the past he had been taken to task by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for trusting to newspaper reports.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, I have no doubt the noble Marquess wishes to have the learned Judge's Charge for a purpose which is quite unobjectionable; but if this Motion be acceded to, it may be followed by others from a desire to attack learned Judges, a course not without precedent. I think, therefore, although no doubt the noble Marquess merely desires to be able to refer to an authentic Report, a little inquiry is needed in order to see whether it would not be making a dangerous precedent.
  LORD SHANDsaid, that when in the other House a newspaper report was referred to it was stated to be inaccurate, and that the Government were in possession of a correct Report. If the noble Earl would accept the newspaper reports, well and good; but if the moment they were referred to the answer was to be given that the Government had a more authentic Report, and passages were to be read from it, the noble Marquess would be placed in a difficult position. The noble Marquess had avowed the object of his Motion, and under those circumstances he would like to know whether, in the absence of the Official Note, a newspaper report would be received?
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, the fears of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to the use which might possibly be made hereafter of learned Judges' Charges should not be taken into consideration in this instance. In the House of Commons a Member making a charge against a Judge was invariably stopped by the Speaker, and told that he must proceed by an Address to the Crown, and the same rule, he believed, obtained in their Lordships' House. No possible future inconvenience, there-

  1263
  fore, could arise from this application being acceded to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would only wish to make this protest: that if the noble Earl does not produce the Government version, he cannot, whatever quotations are made on this side of the House, appeal to the document in his pocket.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I apprehend the simple point of the matter is the precedent. I can assure the noble Marquess there is no indisposition on our part to produce the document he asks for; but I think my noble Friend the Marquess of Salisbury would desire us to be quite certain before doing so that we are not doing anything unusual. That is the only reason why my noble Friend, Earl Spencer, wishes for a little time.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Perhaps the noble Earl will say which of the newspaper reports, in his opinion, substantially represents that learned Judge's Charge?
  EARL SPENCER: I am sure I cannot answer the noble and learned Lord's question.
  Consideration of Motion adjourned.

COUNTY OF THE CITY OF GLASGOW BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on Tuesday last discharged; and Bill committed for Thursday next.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BROMYARD, &c.) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR) BILL.—(No. 191.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be printed. (No. 191.)

PLACES OF WORSHIP (SITES) BILL. (No. 192.)
Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments: The Report of the Amendments made in
1264
Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 192.)

EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION LONDON (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 147.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

REDEMPTION OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed. (No. 193.)
House adjourned at ten minutes past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.