Lords Sitting of 4 July 1876

MINUTES.
Public Bills—Second Reading—Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment* (149).
Committee—Union of Benefices (147).
Committee—Report—Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse) Improvement Scheme Confirmation (120).
Report—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order (Lerwick)* (122).
Third Reading—Small Testate Estates (Scotland)* (115); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Carnarvon, &c.)* (105); Slave Trade (135), and passed.

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL.
(The Lord Bishop of Exeter.)
UNION OF BENEFICES BILL.

  (NOS. 64–147.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, read.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETER,in moving that the House do now go into Committee on the Bill, reminded their Lordships that it had been referred to a Select Committee, by whom it had been returned with important alterations which he thought would make it more acceptable—especially in respect of the increased representation of the parishioners on the commission. There was also a new clause in lieu of Clause 19 (Site of any Church to be sold to be first offered to Town Council), which applied the machinery of Provisional Orders by the Secretary of State, to be confirmed by Act of Parliament, to the sale of the site of any church pulled down. He hoped their Lordships would pass the Bill, as amended, through Committee.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKappealed to the most rev. Prelate whether, at that advanced period of the Session, he could hope to carry through both Houses of Parliament this year a Bill of considerable importance in a form very different from that which it bore on the second reading.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 17, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 18 (Scheme may provide for erection of new Church or parsonage, removal of old Church, sale of site, &c.).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,:in answer to a noble Lord who objected to the clause on the ground that it involved the desecration of consecrated places, said, he had some slight responsibility in that matter. He entirely agreed with the noble Lord in his dislike to the sale

  939
  of those sites, on the ground that it was a blow to that reverence for the dead which still existed among us, and which it was desirable to preserve. In the Select Committee he had therefore made a Motion the effect of which would have been to prevent the sale of sites; but when they came to a division upon it the Committee was equally divided, and therefore by the technical rule the decision was against him. But in that division he found against him two noble Lords on his own side of the House who were both earnest and distinguished Churchmen. In the circumstances, knowing how the Committee was composed, it was evident to him that in some form or other the dominant feeling of their Lordships' House would be in favour of permitting, under whatever safeguards and restrictions, the sale of sites. As the law now stood, any one could introduce a Private Bill into Parliament to authorize the sale of the site of a church which had been pulled down. The Bill, as altered by the Select Committee, substituted the Provisional Order for the Private Bill; and as the clause provided that under the new system all such sales were subject to all the checks and safeguards formerly required—such as the consent of the Bishop and of the Home Secretary, he conceived that if such sales were to be permitted at all it would be impossible to surround them with greater precautions.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Site of Church pulled down may be sold under Provisional Order of Secretary of State, confirmed by Act of Parliament), agreed to.
  Clauses 21 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 32 (Union of Benefices elsewhere than within any city or municipal borough).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYexplained that the Bill would extend the union of benefices from boroughs to counties, or to benefices one of which was situated within the borough, the other in the county. The Bishop must consent to a scheme for a union of county benefices, and there would be a commission, as in the case of a borough. On
  940
  that commission would sit two laymen selected by the vestries of the two benefices which were proposed to be united, and a third layman would be appointed by the chairman of the quarter sessions of the county. The majority on the commission would consist of laymen appointed by those who were interested in the matter. The evil which this Bill proposed to remedy was one very familiar to many of their Lordships. It was the case of a rich living outside a town, from which probably under the action of the old system of Poor Laws all cottages had been got rid of, and of a poor living inside the town with a large and poor population. The Bill proposed that in such a case the rich benefice should be combined with the contiguous benefice. He was of opinion that the guards proposed by the Bill against abuses were quite sufficient.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next.

METROPOLIS (WHITECHAPEL AND LIMEHOUSE) IMPROVEMENT SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL—(No. 120.)
(The Lord President).
METROPOLIS (WHITECHAPEL AND LIMEHOUSE) IMPROVEMENT SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL—(No. 120.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, read.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he did not interpose for the purpose of delay or of moving any Amendment in the Bill before them—he rejoiced to see it, and heartily approved the alterations introduced by the Secretary of State upon the scheme as propounded by the Metropolitan Board of Works. But as this was the first Bill of a long series which would come before the House for the improvement of the dwellings of the working classes, he desired to make an observation on the provisions of it. First, he desired to press upon the promoters of the Bill the necessity of making provision for those who were ejected from their dwellings while the improvement was in progress—without first ascertaining whether there was sufficient accommodation for them in the neighbourhood. This was a great evil. Since he first brought the subject

  941
  to the attention of Parliament, 24 years ago, probably not less than 1,000,000 of persons had been turned out of their holdings in consequence of metropolitan improvements—he himself had witnessed the misery caused thereby. Now this might be avoided if they adopted the plan pursued in Glasgow. He was acquainted with that city before it was improved, and having recently visited it, he could say that it was improved in a manner and to an extent which he had witnessed in no other city. Well, that great municipality had made very extensive improvements, and in no case did they remove the people until they had ascertained that there was lodging room for them all within easy distances. Now, if they were to proceed on the principle of entirely new construction in every case (putting aside altogether the improvement and adaptation, when possible, of existing tenements—a system far better suited for convenience and economy to the poor) the erection of houses in blocks, ugly and inconvenient as they were, seemed to be unavoidable, so great was the value of the land in London. They were to rise to heights of even five stories. This, again, might be unavoidable; but then there should be on every storey everything that could be required; water should be laid on, and a dust-bin provided on every floor, for if these poor people had to go up and down these high flights of stairs for these accommodations, it amounted to real infliction and infinite toil. Now this by the Bill was provided for each block, but not for each storey. Health and cleanliness imperatively demanded an amendment to that effect. In the distribution and character of the holdings the Secretary of State had acted with much judgment and consideration for the poorer classes. His scheme stood thus:—Provision was made for 3,870 persons in 888 tenements, consisting of 121 single-room, 650 double-room, and 117 three-room tenements, each room being constructed for the accommodation of 2·5 persons. This was a mighty improvement on the plan of the Metropolitan Board, which was very objectionable. Some single rooms were unavoidable—indeed, they were necessary; but here a difficulty arose—if the numbers in each room were to be limited according to the proportions laid down in the scheme, the expense of living in
  942
  them would be far beyond the means of the poorer classes, and if they were not limited, we should have a repetition of all the moral and physical evils of overcrowded apartments. Therefore, unless they had single rooms at moderate rents poor families must be crowded into unhealthy lodgings. There was a very large population in this metropolis who lived from hand to mouth, and who earned wages averaging not more than from 12 s. to 14 s. a-week, and of course it was impossible for them to pay 5s. or 6s. a-week for their tenements. It was not easy to see their way out of these embarrassments. Doubtless the best had been done. But he must revert to what was really practicable, and which would tend to moderate, to a great extent, the troubles and losses of displacement. Long and ample notice should be given to the inhabitants; by ample he meant something beyond the mere legal notice—every one should be made acquainted with it. The demolitions should be gradual; not more than 500 persons should be removed at onetime, nor until it had been ascertained that adequate lodging was to be had in the neighbourhood. The modern systems of displacement in London had increased the evil that many wished to remove. The people had been driven into houses which already contained more than their due; and the suburbs had begun to be as crowded and filthy as the interior of London itself. With these precautions immense good might be done. The law would effect a revolution—a revolution as beneficial as ever was effected among 4,000,000 of people.
  THE DUKE OFRICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he was glad to have the advice of one who was so well acquainted with this subject, and who was so greatly interested in providing dwellings of an improved character for the poorer classes as the noble Earl. All the topics which the noble Earl had brought forward should be carefully considered, and as far as they were practicable his suggestions should be adopted. If this measure were properly carried out, it would prove a considerable boon to the working classes.
  House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported, without Amendment, and to be read 3aon Thursday next.

SLAVE TRADE BILL—(No. 135.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
SLAVE TRADE BILL—(No. 135.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in moving that the Bill be now read a third time, said, there seemed to have been a strange misconception last evening in the mind of the noble Earl who was recently Governor General of India (the Earl of Northbrook) in reference to this Bill. The noble Earl stated that the present Bill had not been referred to the Government in India, which was perfectly correct; but he also appeared to be under the impression that the substance of the measure had not been considered by the Indian Executive. The truth was that, substantially, the proposals contained in the Bill were suggested by the noble Earl himself, and the Papers which he proposed to lay on the Table of the House would show that this was the fact.
  On Question? Resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

OWNERS OF LAND (IRELAND)—THE NEW "DOMESDAY BOOK."

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE,in asking the Lord President, If the type of the Return of Owners of land in Ireland is still standing; and, if so, whether any steps can be taken to amend the inaccuracies in the Return? said, the names of persons had been inserted as owners though they were merely trustees of property; and in other cases persons had been defined as owners in fee though they merely held leases for 99 years, or were renewable, or were rent-charges. He thought that the definition of owners would lead to many mistakes. There were errors in the case of his own property. If the book was intended to be of any real value the numerous inaccuracies should be corrected, and if the type were not broken up that might be done without any very great cost. He
  944
  should be glad to hear that the type had not been broken up, and that the errors could be corrected.
  LORD SELBORNE,referring to the Returns of owners of land in England, said, he could hardly conceive a document of less value. It was full of mistakes, instances of which the noble and learned Lord pointed out.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that in his own case he was put down as owning 600 acres of agricultural land in Staffordshire, and that he derived an income from it of £10,000 a-year, or £16 an acre rental, which was certainly the highest rental for such land that he had ever heard of.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwas understood to say that in his case the Return was altogether erroneous; but it was not surprising that there should be inaccuracies, for there was the greatest difficulty in getting the Returns, and very often they had to be got as they best could from vestry clerks and other parish officers not of the most educated class.
  LORD BLACHFORDsaid, it was the same as regarded himself.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONregretted extremely that the Irish Return was inaccurate; but from what they had just heard it was not singular, as the same injustice had been perpetrated in regard to the Return for England as for Ireland. The type had not been broken up; but he understood that it would be inconvenient to correct the Blue Book as it now stood. It was now proposed, after some time had elapsed and all the errors had been brought to light, to print an addendum, showing the corrections which had been made.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, that there could be no doubt that there were very great inaccuracies in the Return for Ireland, and he referred particularly to the Return for his own neighbourhood.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.