Lords Sitting of 14 July 1874

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) (No. 2)* (174); Revising Barristers (Payment)* (175).
Second Reading—Vaccination Act (1871) Amendment (161); Chain Cables and Anchors (157); Colonial Attorneys Belief Act Amendment * (134).
Committee—Factories (Health of Women, &c.)
Committee—Report—Personation * (138).
Report—Intoxicating Liquors (130–160–176).
Third Reading—Board of Trade Arbitrations, Inquiries, &c. * (103); Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation * (76); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) * (99); Foyle College * (159), and passed.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL.
(Nos. 130–160.)
(The Lord Steward.)

INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL.

  REPORT OF THE AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 9, (Saving as to Section 9 of the principal Act), struck out.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved after Clause 29, to insert the following Clause:—
  "Where any licence is forfeited for a single offence there may be made by or on behalf of the owner of the premises an application to a Court of summary jurisdiction for authority to
  1612
  carry on the same business on the same premises until the next special sessions for licensing purposes, and a further application to such next special sessions for the grant of a licence in respect of such premises, and for this purpose the provisions contained in the Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Act, 1828, with respect to the grant of a temporary authority and to the grant of licences at special sessions, shall apply as if the person convicted had been rendered incapable of keeping an inn, and the person applying for such grant was his assignee."
  After short conversation—
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Clause 32 (Definitions).
  On Motion of the Earl BEAUCHAMP, the following Proviso was added:—
  "Provided, that as soon as may be after the publication of each census the county licensing committee shall, at a meeting to be specially convened for the purpose, revise the orders then in force within their jurisdiction, constituting areas either parts of towns or populous places, and shall make such alterations therein, or such further orders, if any, as they shall deem necessary to give effect to the provisions of the Act."
  Sub-section 3.
  (Definition of "Populous place.")
  The EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that as it now stood in the Bill the definition was—
  "'populous place' means any area which, by reason of the number and density of its population, not being loss than one thousand, the county licensing committee may, by order, determine to be a populous place."
  Density could not be 1,000, or any other number, except there was a reference to area.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, the definition was as it had come up from the Commons.
  After some conversation—
  THE LORD CHANCELLORproposed to amend the definition as follows:—
  "'Populous place' means any area with a population of not less than one thousand, which by reason of the density of such population, the county licensing committee may by order determine to be a populous place."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause as amended, agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Friday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 176).

VACCINATION ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 161.)
(The Lord Walsingham.)
VACCINATION ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 161.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD WALSINGHAM, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he thought it required very little explanation from him to render clear to their Lordships the ground upon which it was introduced, and, in short, to secure for it the assent and approval of the House. Experience of the working of the existing Vaccination Acts had disclosed certain anomalies in the law as it now stood, which caused the Local Government Board to submit a case for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. That opinion had shown most clearly the necessity for some alteration which should prevent the possibility of such circumstances occurring as might be beyond the power of the existing authorities to deal with in a satisfactory manner. He must remind the House that although there were many who dissented from it, it had been a principle generally recognized in modern legislation, that vaccination should be made compulsory. The Act of 1867, in Section 27, provided that the Registrar of each district should make a half-yearly report to the Guardians of his union or parish of all cases in which the certificate of vaccination had not been duly received by him, and that the Guardians, after due inquiry, should cause proceedings to be taken against persons who had neglected to comply with the provisions of the Act. The Act, at the same time, empowered the optional appointment by the Guardians of a vaccination officer, by whom these proceedings were to be taken. By another Act, passed in 1871, Section 27 of the Act of 1867 was repealed, the appointment of the vaccination officer was made compulsory upon the Guardians, and the Registrar was required to send his lists direct to him, instead of to the Guardians, as before. Nevertheless, it seemed clear that it was not intended by the Act of 1871 to relieve the Guardians from the responsibility of instituting the necessary prosecutions—a duty distinctly imposed on them by the Act of 1867—inasmuch as power was given in Section 5 to the Local Government Board to make orders and regulations
  1614
  in these matters in the same manner as in matters relating to the relief of the poor. And it was considered at the time that this provision would be sufficient to enable the Local Government Board to prescribe the duties of Guardians and their officers for the purpose of enforcing vaccination. Now, it was well known to their Lordships that many parents had a conscientious objection to vaccination, and a Select Committee of the House of Commons had expressed the opinion that in such cases repeated prosecutions were impolitic. A clause was, therefore, introduced into the Bill of 1871, providing that no parent should be liable to viction for neglecting to have his child vaccinated, if he had been previously adjudged to pay the penalty of 20 s. for the offence, or had been twice adjudged to pay any penalty for any such offences in respect of such child. That clause was struck out in their Lordships' House by a majority of 1, after having passed the House of Commons, upon the ground that it would destroy the principle of compulsory vaccination; and a subsequent Bill, containing a similar clause, was withdrawn from the other House in 1872, in consequence of the numerous Petitions from various Boards of Guardians against it. It was in no way contemplated by the Bill to encourage prosecutions to the extent of persecution, but to leave a fair discretion to be exercised in cases of conscientious objections, so long as it might not be considered too seriously to interfere with the existence of a proper regard for the principle of compulsory vaccination. Shortly after the passing of the Act of 1871, in pursuance of the authority therein apparently given to them, the Local Government Board issued an order directing vaccination officers—unless specially authorized to take independent action—that they should submit all cases of default to the Boards of Guardians under whom they acted, and be guided by their instructions; but some Boards of Guardians, acting under the inspiration of the Anti-Vaccination League, had recently refused to instruct their officers to proceed against persons for neglecting to have their children vaccinated. Upon a careful consideration of the law upon the subject, which he had attempted very briefly to state to their Lord-ships, certain questions arose which made it doubtful what were the exact

  1615
  relations existing upon these matters between the vaccination inspectors, the Boards of Guardians, and the Local Government Board, as to the extent or limit of the authority which each could claim as compared with that of the other two, or of either one of them. It was open to doubt—first, whether, after the repeal of Section 27 of the Act of 1867, it was still the duty of the Guardians to prosecute defaulters; and if not, whether, under the power given by Section 5 of the Act of 1871 to the Local Government Board to prescribe regulations, they could oblige the Boards of Guardians or the vaccination officers to give effect to the provisions of the law. Secondly, whether, if that part of the directions to vaccination officers which now required them to apply for the instructions of the Guardians with respect to prosecutions were withdrawn, it would be the duty of the officers to take proceedings in the absence of instructions, or even if actually forbidden by them. Such were the points submitted for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, who advised that it was not now incumbent upon the Guardians to prosecute; that the power of the Local Government Board to issue orders did not apply to proceedings by the Guardians or their officers for enforcing obedience to the law; that it was the duty of the vaccination officer to prosecute without any order from the Local Government Board or the Guardians; and that it was not clear that the Local Government Board could take any proceedings against an officer who might be forbidden by the Guardians to prosecute in particular cases. They had, therefore, this strange anomaly presented to them, that it was now the duty of a servant of the Guardians to institute prosecutions without consulting the authorities under whom he acted, and perhaps even contrary to their express instructions; that this officer had absolutely no funds at his disposal for the purpose of performing such duties, and that although the Guardians were empowered to pay these expenses, he had no means of recovery in case of refusal. Moreover, that the Local Government Board had no means of enforcing obedience to their instructions. The object of this Bill was to get rid of these anomalies by enabling the Local Government Board to prescribe rules and regulations for placing the relations
  1616
  between the Guardians and their officers on a proper footing, in accordance with the intention of the Act of 1871, and, at the same time, to clear up the difficulty with regard to the costs of prosecutions. He trusted it would be accepted as a measure rendered necessary by the unsatisfactory condition of the existing law as interpreted by the Law Officers of the Crown, and that their Lordships would consent to give the Bill a second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Walsingham.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

CHAIN CABLES AND ANCHORS BILL.
(The Earl of Dunmore)
CHAIN CABLES AND ANCHORS BILL.

  (NO. 157.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF DUNMORE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the Chain Cables Act of 1864 required that all anchors made in in this country for the use of the merchant service should be subjected to what was known as the tensile strain. No anchors which were not up to that strain could be sold in this country. That Act expired on the 1st of July, 1872, and in the Session of 1871, a Bill was brought in having for its object, not only to perpetuate the clauses of that Act, but to make certain important additions to them. By the provisions of that Bill, which was now an Act of Parliament, there was another test besides the tensile strain applied to cables. The whole of the cable was subjected to that strain, but, in addition, there was a special and more severe test applied to five links in every 15 fathoms. An objection to the existing Act was this—that it prohibited any maker selling, even to a foreign shipowner, for use out of this country a cable not tested in our way; while some of those shipowners preferred other systems of testing, such, for instance, as the Dutch system which was applied at Amsterdam. The object of this Bill was to enable chain-cable makers to manufacture cables for the foreign market without subjecting them to the statutory test or any test applied in this country. The 3rd clause, therefore,

  1617
  confined the test to anchors and chain cables "for the use of any British ships," so that henceforward the foreign purchaser would have the option of having his chain cable tested according to our system, or having it tested elsewhere. The 6th clause repealed the section of the 34 & 35 Vict., which directed the nature and amount of the test, and substituted any test approved of by the Board of Trade as a test equal or superior to the existing tests.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Dunmore.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

FACTORIES (HEALTH OF WOMEN, &c.) BILL.— [No. 143.]
(The Lord Steward.)
FACTORIES (HEALTH OF WOMEN, &c.) BILL.— [No. 143.]

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Abolition of recovery of lost time under 7 & 8 Vict., c. 15, ss. 33 & 34.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that under the existing law a water-mill owner had power to make up for lost time when water was deficient; but when an engine broke down, there was no power to make up for lost time, and he did not see why any distinction should be drawn; and considering the present stage of factory legislation, he thought the time had arrived when all distinctions of this sort should be put an end to. However, such was the law at present. The other House had abolished the distinction in Committee, and consequently without notice to the water-mill owners, who complained of what had been done. It was therefore proposed to grant some indulgence, and to postpone the operation of the clause till the 1st January, 1876, and he thought that that would meet the justice of the case, and give these mill-owners time to provide a storage of water.
  Amendment moved, at the beginning of the clause insert—"After the 1st day of January, 1876."—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, that the clause, if agreed to, would not prevent some mills from making up lost time;
  1618
  indeed, there was an immense number of trades which would remain under the present law. The clause was not in the Bill originally. It was introduced in Committee of the other House, and the first notice some of the manufacturers had of its introduction was through the reports in the newspapers. As the Home Secretary had announced his intention to ask for a Select Committee to consider the whole question, with a view of dealing with all manufacturing processes, he saw no reason why the clause under consideration should not be omitted from the Bill, until the Government was prepared to complete and consolidate factory legislation. If the Bill was allowed to remain in its present form it would create a sense of injustice, because it involved a sudden and violent change in the existing law.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, there was certainly no desire on the part of the Government to act hardly towards these millowners, as was shown by this proposal to give them an indulgence of a year and a half. The present Bill only proposed to deal with the manufacture of textile fabrics, and the Amendment he proposed was drawn in order to meet the case of such manufactures. At some future time, when it was proposed to deal with other businesses, provisions suitable to them would be brought forward. The question between himself and the noble Lord opposite (Lord Aberdare) was merely one of degree, and as the noble Lord admitted that the matter was one which ought to be dealt with, he saw no reason why the clause with the Amendment he proposed should not be adopted. In the majority of cases the want of water which created the necessity for "the recovery of lost time" mentioned in the clause, was the result of a want of prevision on the part of the millowners. He saw no reason why Parliament should interfere to protect millowners from their own want of care and foresight.
  LORD WAVENEYpointed out that in many cases manufacturers were unable to provide themselves with sufficient storage room to enable them to secure sufficient water to meet emergencies and consequently were unable to prevent lost time in their mills.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the Bill was framed in order to provide for several matters other than the health of

  1619
  the persons engaged in manufactures, and, therefore, if the suggestion of the noble Lord was adopted the objects of the Bill would be to a certain extent defeated. He thought the Amendment met the difficulties of the case fairly.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, there was a disposition to push this factory legislation too far, and to interfere unduly with the commerce and manufactures of the country. There could be no doubt that, as had been suggested, many cases existed in which it was impossible for many reasons for the mill-owners to store a sufficient quantity of water to insure them against losing time which it was necessary afterwards to make up.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, the clause as it stood in the Bill had been inserted by the other House—and he did not know whether his noble Friend (Lord Aberdare) desired to get rid of it or not. He thought that if they did get rid of it, and millowners in retired localities, where the Inspector was not so frequently seen, were allowed the unrestricted power of employing their hands at overwork in order to make up lost time, enormous intolerable abuses would spring up. A great meeting of Irish operatives had been held in Belfast, and they had come to a decided resolution that the whole of the Bill was to be supported as being the great charter of their liberties. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would preserve the principle of the Bill entire.
  LORD ABERDAREdenied that the provision in question was any part of the principle of the Bill. It was not in the measure when it was read the first time in the House of Commons or when it was read a second time. It was first heard of in Committee, when it was inserted without notice to the parties interested. He was sure his noble Friend would not force upon the manufacturers a provision of which they had had no notice.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYobserved that, whenever and wherever it was inserted, it was an excellent enactment. He thanked the hon. Gentleman who proposed it, and the House of Commons who accepted it, and he hoped he would have to thank their Lordships for adopting it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed, to.
  LORD ABERDAREthen proposed to insert after Clause 12 the following clause:—
  "Attendance at a school which is not recognized by the Education Department or by the Scotch Education Department as giving efficient elementary education shall not be accepted as satisfying any of the requirements of this Act in respect of the education of children employed in labour in England and Wales or Scotland."
  He had, he said, abundant evidence before him that the schools to which the great majority of factory children were now sent were not efficient schools. That fact would be admitted by all who had read the Reports of the Inspectors on the subject. When the Factory Act was passed there were no means of compelling local authorities to provide proper schools. The Act of 1871, however, had put an end to that state of things; but a clause like that which he submitted was necessary to insure a good elementary education for factory children.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he could not accept the clause in its present form; but if the noble Lord would allow the matter to stand over he would undertake to bring up a clause on the Report to carry out the object the noble Lord had in view. There could, of course, be only one wish on the part of their Lordships on the subject—namely, to secure an efficient education for the children.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, the clause should be so framed as to make it clear whether attendance at a school which had been inspected and passed as an efficient school, but which was not in connection with the Education Department, would satisfy the requirements of the Act. In agricultural districts questions sometimes arose in regard to the education of the children, and the Boards of Guardians were not always able to meet the requirements of the Department.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYagreed with the noble Marquess that the clause should specify whether attendance was necessary in schools having certificated masters or mistresses, or whether attendance at an inspected school would be sufficient. He agreed that there was much difficulty in dealing with schools in the agricultural districts, as some of them were not efficient.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDbelieved that attendance at an inspected

  1621
  school was sufficient under the Agricultural Children's Act. The question now raised was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The object in view was that from 1876, or other given time to be named in the Bill, the children should be compelled to attend at some school to be approved by the Education Department, so as to secure their attendance at some efficient school. He hoped the noble Lord would not press his clause at this moment, as it was the wish of his noble Friend (Earl Beauchamp) to frame a clause which would enable the Education Department to require the attendance of children at the most efficient school in their district—that was to say, at a school where there was a certificated teacher.
  LORD ABERDAREwithdrew his clause, being quite satisfied with the statement of the noble Duke.
  The Report of the Amendment to be received on Monday next.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.