Lords Sitting of 7 July 1905

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Malvern Water.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for the Dover Harbour Bill ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill.
  Read, and agreed to.
  Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Various Powers) Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  London Gas Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (No. 1) Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
  Dublin United Tramways Bill, Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
  Dover Harbour Bill [H.L.]. Presented, and read 1a.
  Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Company Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  Donovan's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  Clyde Navigation (Reconstitution) Bill [H.L.]; Mansfield Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Hastings Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to,
  1454
  with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Inverness Gas and Water Provisional Order Bill (No. 127); Port Glasgow Improvement Provisional Order Bill (No. 128). Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 9 and 16), deemed to have been read 2a (The Marquess of Linlithgow), and reported from the Committee.
  London Government Scheme (Hackney and Edmonton Unions) Bill (No. 129); London Government Scheme (London and Middlesex) Bill (No. 130). Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. House to be in Committee on Monday next.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order). The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Building regulations, being principles to be observed in planning and fitting up new buildings for public elementary schools, together with rules as to construction and certain requirements as to plans.
  IRISH LAND ACT, 1903.
  Regulations made by the Lord-Lieutenant in pursuance of the provisions of Section 23 (8) of the Act.
  ARMY (VOLUNTEERS).
  Circular letter addressed to General Officers Commanding-in-Chief.
  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 450. Wei-hai-Wei (Report for No. 1904).
  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES
  No. 3433. United States (California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona).

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  General report to the Board of Trade upon the accidents that have occurred on the Railways of the United Kingdom during the year 1904.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POST OFFICE (INLAND POST) STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, 1905, No. 781.
  The Inland Post Amendment (No. 2) Warrant, 1905, dated June 26th, 1905 Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order), and suspended for this day's sitting.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons and read 1a. (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended), Bill read 2a. Committee negatived. Bill read 3a, and passed.
COAL MINES (WEIGHING OF MINERALS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord Newton.) (No. 125.)
COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO CROPS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 126.)
AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896, ETC., CONTINUANCE BILL.
House in Committee (according to order. Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

NILE STEAMERS.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that the Hamburg-American Company have placed, or intend placing,
1456
river steamers on the Nile to run in competition with lines owned by British subjects and subjects of the Egyptian Government; and to ask for information on the subject.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I am sorry I was not here last night to reply to the noble Lord's Question. The Answer I have to give him now is that the fact, if it be a fact, to which he refers has not been reported to us by our representatives in Egypt; but as soon as I saw the notice on the Paper I caused inquiries to be made.

LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES AT SEA.
LORD MUSKERRYrose to call attention to the number of cases where, during the past four months, at the port of Liverpool, life-saving appliances on board merchant ships were found defective by Board of Trade surveyors, and ordered to be destroyed; and to ask the number of examinations and reports at Liverpool of similar cases of defective life-saving apparatus in the previous four months, namely, September, October, November, and December, 1904. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is not so very long ago that I called your Lordships' attention to this subject of life-saving—or alleged life-saving—apparatus on board merchant ships. I must confess that, with the exception of one particular point which he advanced, the reply of the noble Duke who answered on behalf of the Board of Trade was to me of a most unsatisfactory nature. This is not the second or the third time on which I have pointed out the inefficiency of the supervision of the Board of Trade in carrying out the duties imposed upon it by the life-saving regulations. Therefore the noble Duke, in raising the point to which I have referred, quite unconsciously gave away the whole case for the Board of Trade. As illustrating how vigilant the Board of Trade's officials were in this matter, he informed us that in the past four months at Liverpool there were 674 vessels examined, and in seventy-eight cases the life-saving

1457
appliances were found to be defective and ordered to be destroyed.
We have here an official admission that over 11 per cent. of merchant vessels visiting one port in the short space of four months possessed life-saving apparatus dangerous to their passengers and crews. I would ask your Lordships whether such a startling admission does not amply warrant me in drawing public attention, when possible, to what amounts to a grave scandal? It is quite a novelty to me when I find the Board of Trade justifying their position by quoting the large number of cases they have detected through the vigilance of their surveyors. But their new-found vigilance at Liverpool only serves to show that there has been something radically wrong in the past to admit of such an alarming state of affairs. As I like to see any credit for improvement allotted to the proper quarter. I am curious to know whether there has not been a considerable increase in the number of ascertained cases of defective life-saving apparatus at Liverpool since the Merchant Service Guild—which has its headquarters at that port—made strong representations to the Board of Trade at the latter end of last year, at which time, through the medium of two of their representatives, they proved to the Board's principal officer at Liverpool cases where life-saving apparatus was nothing but a delusion and a snare.
That the Board of Trade have now turned to the Liverpool figures of detection as a sample of their efficiency is, to me, very significant. It looks very much as if those like the Merchant Service Guild and myself who have had official cold water poured over them so often in this matter, are really responsible for the disclosures which have been brought about by more efficient official inspection at Liverpool. At that port there is a principal officer who is fairly new to his position. From what I hear he is an able, painstaking, and conscientious officer, and what is more he is of a type of surveyor with practical seafaring experience, which requires, as I have often said, to figure to a much greater extent on the Board of Trade list of surveyors. But Liverpool, after all, is only one shipping port amongst many in this
1458
country. The class of ship visiting that port is undoubtedly higher than at most other ports. Therefore, given the same inspection, there is no possible doubt that cases of defective life-saving apparatus at other ports would be still more numerous.
The Liverpool figures are, I consider, quite sufficient to justify my bringing the subject once more to your notice; and I will only add, in conclusion, that they illustrate to the full how inefficiently our life-saving regulations have been carried out by the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, and how necessary it is that they should be compelled to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Un sea worthy Ships by appointing more nautical surveyors. I would remind your Lordships that there is only one nautical surveyor in the whole of Scotland, and only fourteen in the rest of the United Kingdom.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord who has put this Question should consider that the statement which I made on the last occasion when we debated this matter gave away the whole case for the Board of Trade. A more inaccurate conception I do not think could have been possible, for, after all, what was the gravamen of the charge brought by the noble Lord? He said that he did not think the supervision OD the part of the officials of the Board of Trade at our big ports was either efficient or sufficient, and in reply I stated, in order to refute that charge, that at Liverpool alone during the first four months of this year 674 vessels had been visited, and that in seventy-eight cases the life-saving appliances had been discovered defective. The noble Lord seems to think that those figures show an alarming state of affairs. He assures your Lordships that that is a very high percentage of cases in which defective life-saving appliances exist. I am surprised that the noble Lord did not, before he made that statement, inquire as to the kind of defects that do exist. If he had, he would have found out that they are really of a very small and trivial character. The surveyors report that

1459
the defects are by no means of a serious nature, being connected chiefly with the fastenings of the life belts. The noble Lord really regards this matter from a totally wrong standpoint. He thinks the number of cases in which defects have been found shows an alarming state of affairs, but the Board of Trade hold the view that what has occurred demonstrates that the supervision on the part of their representatives is real and genuine. If a high standard is insisted on, and an efficient system of supervision is carried out, clearly the number of cases required to be dealt with is likely to be higher than it would otherwise be.
The noble Lord asks that the number of examinations and reports at Liverpool of similar cases of defective life-saving apparatus in the previous four months—namely, September, October, November, and December, 1904, should be given. I am informed that there is no exact or complete record of the vessels which have been visited, but I am able to assure the noble Lord that over 500 vessels received a visit from the officials, and that out of that number it was discovered that seventeen life-buoys were in a bad condition owing to the fact that there was not sufficient buoyancy in them, and they were condemned. Moreover, two or three per cent, of the lifebelts were found defective, but in no case was it shown that the boats employed were in any wav defective.
LORD MUSKERRY: Are these figures for the previous four months?
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Yes, for the last four months of the year 1904. The noble Lord again stated that in his opinion the staff engaged for supervision should be considerably increased. I have nothing to add beyond repeating what I have already said, that this question has been thoroughly considered by the Board of Trade, and in their opinion no case has been made out for increasing the number of officials who are now employed.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: The particulars stated seem to have been entirely confined to the port of Liverpool. Will the noble Duke tell as whether examina-
1460
tions of a similar kind are going on at Hull, Bristol, and other ports?
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I gather that the principle applies generally to all the ports in the United Kingdom.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: I should like to know whether, as matter of fact, inspections are being made at the other ports.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I shall be most happy to procure the information for the noble Viscount, but I cannot give it to him offhand, as the Department for which I am replying is not the one with which I am specially connected.

WAR STORES COMMISSION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Bill read 2a (according to order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I propose to avail myself of the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX., which has already been agreed to, in order to pass the Bill through all its stages this day.
  Moved, "That the Bill be committed."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I wish to ask a Question in regard to the Bill which would properly have arisen in Committee, but which I will put now, as the Lord Chancellor proposes to negative the Committee stage. In another place, it was asked last night whether, if the Commission which would receive power under this Bill desired to send a sub-Commission out to South Africa to conduct any part of its inquiry there, that sub-Commission would have the same powers as the Commission possessed here, under the Bill with regard to the enforcement of the attendance of witnesses and other matters of that kind. I understand that the Answer given was that such a sub-Commission would not, under this

  1461
  Act, have any such powers, but that they would obtain those powers from the local Legislatures. I can readily understand that that may be the case in regard to the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, because from the Constitution of those two colonies it would not be difficult to obtain any powers which the Government might wish. But I want to ask whether the Government think that it would be equally convenient and easy to get those powers from Cape Colony and Natal. I greatly doubt whether the Legislatures of those colonies are likely to be in session at the time; and, if they are not, how are the Government going to get these powers? Any person whom the sub-Commission might wish to examine and who might object to be examined at Pretoria and Bloemfontein would have only to go over the frontier into Cape Colony or Natal to escape from the compulsory powers of the sub-Commission. The Questions which I wish to ask are therefore—first, will any such sub-Commission really be able to obtain such powers at all; and, secondly, if it obtains them in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, do the Government believe that they could get similar powers conferred on it in Cape Colony and Natal?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have not had an opportunity of seeing what the noble Lard refers to as having occurred in another place; but I confess that I should be surprised if the observations which the noble Marquess attributed to some person on behalf of the Government in regard to this point were what he has stated them to be. Looking at it myself, I would say that, if this Bill were passed into law, the Commission would have the same power of sending a Commission abroad to British colonies, if they thought proper, as a Judge in the ordinary course of things would have. I see nothing in the language of the section as it stands to control that power. The section runs—
  "The Commissioners shall have all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court or in any Judge thereof, on the occasion of any action in respect of the following matters: The enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation, or otherwise, and the issue of a Commission or a request to examine witnesses abroad, etc."
  1462
  I hesitate very much, without having heard what is said on the other side, to deliver an opinion at the moment, but to my mind that language comprehends the powers to which the noble Marquess obviously referred. I see Lord Davey present, however, and I would be very glad to have his opinion on the point.
  LORD DAVEY: My Lords, the powers given to the Commission by Section 1 are given by reference to those vested in the High Court, which, of course, means the High Court of Judicature in this country. It is quite true that a Judge of the High Court of Judicature in this country can send a Commission abroad either to one of our own possessions or to a foreign country to examine witnesses; but, unless there is some law in the foreign country or in the colony to which the Commission is sent which enables that Commission to compel either the attendance of witnesses or to enforce the production of documents, the Commission issued by a Judge of the High Court in this country for the purpose of a trial would not have power in Cape Town either to enforce the attendance of witnesses or to enforce the production of documents. I have always understood that a Commission is a very valuable thing for the purpose of obtaining evidence: but it can only obtain evidence from those persons who come forward and give it. I am not aware that a Commission issued by a Judge of the High Court in this country could compel the attendance of witnesses in Cape Town, and that, I think, was the point to which my noble friend's Question was directed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not wish to express an adverse opinion offhand. I think that in the case of a Commission to a foreign country it may well be that they cannot get the compulsory attendance of witnesses without some part of the jurisprudence of that country being invoked, but dealing with British colonies and British subjects, I confess that my view would be rather that these powers involved the power to compel the attendance of witnesses. I hesitate, however, to express an adverse opinion.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I am not going to venture upon a legal discussion, but I would ask the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack whether he still wishes the Bill to go through all its stages at once. If there is this doubt, cannot the matter be put right in Parliament? And if it can be put right it is hardly desirable that the Bill should be put through all its stages on this occasion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite admit the force of the noble Earl's suggestion, and withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  THE MEMORIAL TO LORD SALISBURY.
  EARL SPENCERrose "To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he could state to the House what steps had been taken to secure to the House the contemplated memorial to the late Marquess of Salisbury." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am afraid that the Question in the terms in which it appears on the Paper does not exactly explain what I ought to ask, as it would infer that the memorial is to be in this House. That is not what I intended, because the Motion which I had the honour of seconding was with regard to a public memorial in Westminster Abbey. In putting the Question I would like to add that there has come to my knowledge the fact that there is some little difficulty in regard to a naval memorial to which the naval service attach great importance; and, without wishing in the slightest degree to impede the erection of the memorial to Lord Salisbury, I would like to be assured that this other memorial is not going to be done away with or in any way mutilated, but that proper care will be taken to maintain it.
  LORD HAWKESBURY: My Lords, I might perhaps be allowed to explain that the monument in question is a memorial to Captain James Cornewall, and that it was the first monument in Westminster Abbey voted by Parliament
  1464
  to a naval hero. Captain Cornewall lost his life in an action off Toulon in February, 1743 or 1744. Both his legs were shot away, but he fought his ship to the end as long as life remained in his body. Parliament unanimously voted that this monument should be erected to him at the public expense. It has come to my knowledge that the monument is not only to be removed, but mutilated to a certain extent, part of it being taken away to make room for the memorial which Parliament very properly voted for the statesman whose loss we all deplore. I desire to endorse all that has fallen from Lord Spencer in regard to the matter. I hope that it may be possible, while honouring the memory of this great statesman, to preserve the memorial of a gallant sailor.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Lord WINDSOR): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for having put this Question, because it is the view of His Majesty's Government that any proposal of this kind should be clearly explained to, and known by, Parliament before it takes shape. Parliament, of course, is concerned to a certain extent with the monuments that have been erected by money given by Parliament; but, as your Lordships know, the question of erecting monuments in Westminster Abbey, and the position in which they are placed, really rests with the Dean. The Abbey is very full of monuments, and it is thought by many persons that there is hardly room for more large monuments. A proposal was made that the monument to the late Lord Salisbury in Westminster Abbey should take the form of a recumbent figure resting on a tomb. The Dean welcomed the proposed, and offered a site in the north arch of the Consistory Court in the south-west corner of the nave. Its position involves an alteration in the position and a curtailment of the Cornewall monument. The Dean proposes to retain the essential features of the monument, and to place it close to the west window of the Consistory Court. That monument is not now in its original condition. So serious was the disfigurement to the architecture of the Abbey, and so great was the inconvenience found to be, that considerable portions of that monument

  1465
  were cut away by Dean Stanley to reduce its height and to give access to the Consistory Court by opening two small passages to the court, in which are now placed the monuments to Wordsworth, the two Arnolds, and Mr. Fawcett. The Tudor screen, which had been torn down in order to insert the Cornewall monument, will now be replaced in a form to harmonise with the tomb. It is thought that this change will be a great gain, for it will allow more light to reach the other monuments. The Dean has taken steps to find out as far as possible whether any objection would be taken by any of the living representatives of the Cornewall family, and I am able to say that two of them, one representing the family in name, have given their consent to the proposed reconstruction on the ground mainly of its obvious benefit to the architectural appearance of the Abbey. On the other hand, one representative has entered a protest against the curtailment of the monument, though she would not absolutely object to the change in the position. It is not for me to express an opinion with reference to a question of this nature, but I believe that the proposal is a very good one, and that, while improving the Consistory Court, it will duly safeguard the memorial of a heroic naval officer. That is the proposal made by the Dean, and I am glad to make it known so that it will not be said afterwards that a monument had been interfered with, and an alteration made, without the knowledge of Parliament. Perhaps I may also add that it has been decided to ask Mr. Bodley to design the base, and Mr. Goscombe John to undertake the sculpture of the monument.
  LORD HAWKESBURY: Can the noble Lord state what parts of the monument are to be removed entirely?
  LORD WINDSOR: A considerable portion of the monument as it now exists consists of a reproduction of rock in marble. I believe that the monument was originally surmounted by some architectural palms. These were partly cut away in Dean Stanley's time, but there is a considerable amount of rock structure in marble still remaining, and it is proposed to curtail a part of this.
  1466
  I cannot actually state in detail what the proposal is, but I suggest that some drawing should be got out in order to enable your Lordships to judge of what is proposed.
  EARL SPENCER: This is a matter of great delicacy, but as Parliament voted money for the Salisbury monument it has a right to express an opinion upon it. The suggestion of the noble Lord is satisfactory, and I hope a drawing will be submitted in order to aid in the formation of a correct opinion on the subject.

  PASSENGERS TO PLACES OUT OF EUROPE.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, I beg to move for the Return standing in the name of the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Trade.
  Moved, for a Return of the Numbers and Nationalities of the Passengers that left the United Kingdom for Places out of Europe in each month from June to December, 1905, distinguishing the principal countries in which the passengers contracted to land.—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
  EARL SPENCER: I wish to draw attention to the wording of the Motion which has just been moved. Is it intended to have a Return for each month from June to December, 1905? We are only now in July, and it seems to me a very unusual thing to order a Return in respect of a period which has not yet arrived. Is there not a mistake?
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I presume the Return would naturally be made to the end of the year. The Board of Trade require power to have this Return made during the months that Parliament is not sitting.
  EARL SPENCER: I think it is a very unusual thing to ask for a Return in respect of a period not yet reached, and I hardly like to assent to the Motion straight off.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Then I will withdraw the Motion till some other day, when I shall be prepared to give the noble Earl an explanation with regard to it.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.