Lords Sitting of 11 March 1872

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Tramways (Metropolis), appointed and nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Acts of Uniformity Amendment* (43); Bishops Resignation Continuance* (44); Reformatory and Industrial Schools * (45).
Second Reading—Poor Law Loans * (38).
Committee— Bank of Ireland Charter Amendment * (37).

THE CAPE COLONY—RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT.—EXPLANATION.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that in reference to some observations made in the course of Friday's debate, as to a delay in the distribution of these Papers, he found that the Stationery Office delivered the copies for the House of Lords to the Queen's Printer on the 6th of February, and they ought to have been distributed immediately; instead of which they were only distributed last week.
TRAMWAYS (METROPOLIS).

  JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Message from the House of Commons of Friday last on the subject of, considered (according to order).
  EARL COWPERsaid, that he was sure their Lordships would feel that it would be much better that a general principle upon which they ought to act should be laid down once for all, rather than that there should be a discussion upon the merits of each particular scheme as it was brought forward.
  Then it was moved,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to join with the Select Committee appointed by the House of Commons, as mentioned in the said Message, to inquire into the question of Metropolitan Tramways proposed to be sanctioned by Bills in the present Session, and to report: (1) Whether it is desirable or not that any fresh Tramways should be laid within the Metropolitan area; (2) What should be the limits of the Metropolitan area in respect of Tramways; (3) Under what authority the construction and working of Metropolitan Tramways, if any, should be placed; (4) Along what lines of streets, if any, Tramways should be allowed to be constructed, and under what restrictions.—(The Earl Cowper.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Motion; he
  1748
  had told the noble Earl so, when he had been kind enough to come to him some days ago to know whether he had any objection to the appointment of the Joint Committee; but he must say that the noble Earl had scarcely made out a case for such a departure from the usual course. He thought it a dangerous precedent to affirm that in all matters of this kind a general principle should be laid down by a Joint Committee of both Houses. The precedent might be held to apply in the case of all new railways, and it might be said that all the Select Committee of each House had to do was to consider the details of the Bills coming before them. If, however, these Tramway Bills stood on a similar footing to that of the Metropolitan Railway Bills, which a few years ago were referred to a Joint Committee, he had no objection to the noble Earl's proposal; but if it was proposed to apply the Joint Committee system to all Railway Bills, he was opposed to it, because he thought there was a very great advantage in having a second tribunal in the case of Private Bills, where the one stood in the position of a Court of Appeal from the other, where any error that had been committed might be rectified. He had hoped that the noble Earl would have laid before the House somewhat more fully than he had done the reasons which had induced the Government to propose a Joint Committee in the case of the Metropolitan Tramways.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the present was, perhaps, scarcely a convenient opportunity for discussing the general question as to the advisability, or otherwise, of appointing Joint Committees of both Houses in the case of all Private Bills. He thought the metropolitan tramways stood in a very similar position to the metropolitan railways, which were referred some years ago to a Joint Committee; and from what came before a Committee, of which he was Chairman, and which sat last Session, he thought it was necessary that some general rules should be laid down. The complications that affected the question were such that some general principle should be laid down to regulate the whole. He thought that, without going into the question of appointing Joint Committees as a rule, their Lordships might be satisfied as to this particular case.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he thought the case of the Metropolitan Tramway Bills might be as well inquired into by an ordinary Select Committee as any other. At any rate it had been done already, and some tramway companies had already done what the Joint Committee was to inquire whether they should be allowed to do. In many streets tramways were already laid down, and many more had been authorized, and the Committee could in no way interfere with what Parliament had already sanctioned. He wished to know why the inquiries of the Joint Committee should be confined to London, when tramways had been or were about to be laid in many other towns? His own opinion was that tramways would be found to be a great nuisance; but the time for inquiry was passed. The Committee could not inquire into some of the points that were to be referred to them with any effect, and therefore he thought it was not likely to be of any particular use. He believed that the matter could be as well inquired into by a Committee of either House as by a Joint Committee.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTONobserved that, unless the general rule to be laid down by the Joint Committee were to be binding on the Select Committee of the two Houses, the Joint Report would be useless.
  Motion agreed to.
  Then it was moved,
  That such Select Committee should consist of five Lords, three to be a quorum; agreed to; The Lords following were named of the Committee:

  E. Airlie.

  L. Clinton.

  E. Beauchamp.

  L. Silchester.

  V. Eversley.

  Ordered, That the said Select Committee have power to agree with the Select Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a chairman: Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons, in answer to their Message of Friday last, to inform them of the appointment of the said Select Committee by this House, and to propose to the House of Commons that the joint Committee do meet on Monday next at Three o'clock.

POOR LAW UNIONS (IRELAND).

  QUESTIONS.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD, in rising to ask, If Her Majesty's Government intend to propose any measure for reducing the number of the Poor Law Unions in Ireland? said, that the Queen's Speech delivered at the opening of Parliament, stated that "several measures for
  1750
  the administrative improvement of Ireland will also be laid before you." Now, so far as he knew only one measure of that nature had been laid before Parliament by the Government—the Grand Jury Presentment Act—and taken by itself there seemed some doubt whether it was an administrative improvement at all. As the Government, however, had the subject of the administrative improvement of Ireland before them, it seemed to him desirable, and very easy, to take a comprehensive view of the subject. The circumstances of Ireland were very favourable to a symmetrical arrangement of the country. There already existed uniform systems of police, of highways, and of valuations under which the rates were paid, and it seemed to him that it would not be difficult to extend the principle. With the exception of a few large towns which lay on the coast, the whole character of the country and of the population was also uniform. There were no large inland towns, no large mining or manufacturing populations; and there was no reason to expect any change in the present condition of the country. There were two practical organizations for local government—one, the grand juries, the subdivisions of which were the baronies; and the other the Poor Law organization, the subdivisions of which were the electoral unions. Both worked over the same areas, but the rates of both were collected by different collectors. There was a third system of subdivisions for magisterial and police purposes, which he understood was to be adopted as the basis of polling places—namely, the petty sessions; but these neither coincided with the grand jury districts nor with the poor-law districts. The time appeared to have arrived when the arrangement of the Unions might be considered, with a view to making them harmonious. He understood that while the workhouses were calculated to accommodate 150,000 paupers there were only 50,000 inmates; and he believed that under a proper organization part of this surplus accommodation might be applied for public purposes, or military purposes, proper arrangements being made for the repayment of the cost, and the distribution of the Unions which, under this plan, might be abolished among adjacent unions. He begged to ask this Question—though he had not much hope of a satisfactory answer.
  THE EARL OF DUFFERINwillingly bore testimony to the great attention given to all matters connected with Ireland by the noble Earl who had asked the Question. Acting as the organ of the Irish Office in their Lordships' House, he was instructed to reply that at present the Government had no intention of proposing a reduction in the number of the Poor Law Unions of Ireland.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEasked, Whether there was any intention of proposing in the present Session a measure for altering the area of Poor Law taxation in Ireland so as to substitute a Union for an electoral division rating?
  THE EARL OF DUFFERINsaid, he could not give a reply to the Question of his noble Friend. He had not heard that there was any such intention.

  ACTS OF UNIFORMITY AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the amendment of the Acts of Uniformity—Was presented by The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY; read 1a. (No. 43.)

  BISHOPS RESIGNATION CONTINUANCE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the continuance of the Bishops Resignation Act—Was presented by The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY; read 1a. (No. 44.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.