Lords Sitting of 4 July 1878

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862, Amendment (124).
Select Committee—Report—Inclosure Provisional Order (Llanfair Waterdine)*; Local Government Provisional Orders (Abergavenny Union, &c.); Local Government Provisional Orders (Dawlish, &c.).
Committee—Report—Dental Practitioners (recomm.) (140).
Report—Conway Bridge (Composition of Debt)* (111).
Third Reading—Prison Authorities Act, 1874, Amendment* (134); Bills of Sale* (143); Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) * (122), and passed.
Royal Assent—Public Works Loans (Ireland) Act (1877) Amendment [41 & 42 Vict. c. 24]; Public Health Act (1875) Amendment [41 & 42 Vict. c. 25]; Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Birmingham, &c.) [41 & 42 Vict. c. 25]; Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Dungarvan, &c.) [41 & 42 Vict. c. cxvi]; General Police and Improvement Provisional Order (Paisley) [41 & 42 Vict. c. ciii]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Birmingham, &c.) [41 & 42 Vict. c. civ]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings) [41 & 42 Vict. c. cv]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Lochgelly) [41 & 42 Vict. c. cvi]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Portsmouth) [41 & 42 Vict. c. cvii]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [41 & 42 Vict. c. cxv]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings) (Cork) [41 & 42 Vict. c. cviii]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Belper Union, &c.) [41 & 42 Vict. c. cix]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) [41 & 42 Vict. c. cxi]; Inclosure Provisional Order (Orford) [41 & 42 Vict. c. cxiii]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) [41 & 42 Vict. c. cxiv]; Metropolis Improvement Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bowman's Buildings, Marylebone, &c.) [41 & 42 Vict. c. cxii].

LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL— [H.L.]

  THIRD READING.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."
  Clause 4.
  EARL DE LA WARRproposed the omission of all the words between the word "thereto," in line 18, to the word
  738
  "make," in line 19, together with subsection 1. The noble Earl said, that, under ordinary circumstances, he would not have deemed it his duty to move an Amendment at this stage of the Bill; but the justification of the course he was about to pursue must be that this was, in some respects, an exceptional case. Questions of importance connected with railway legislation were often brought under consideration at a time when many of their Lordships were not present. The Bills were, no doubt, dealt with with great judgment and discretion by the Committees; but there were frequently matters which might with advantage be brought under public notice and further discussed in their Lordships' House, and he believed that the present was a case of that kind. It appeared that, in the year 1865, the Great Eastern Railway Company obtained powers to build a station in Liverpool Street, in the City of London. While the Bill was in Committee—he was not certain whether it was in their Lordships' House or in the House of Commons—certain other powers were given, which enabled the Company to close a street not far from the station, the street being one of the great arteries of traffic in that part of London. The Corporation of the City of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works were ignorant of the powers thus acquired until the street in question—Sun Street—was about to be stopped up. Immediately after the discovery, the Corporation applied to a Court of Law for an injunction; but, failing in this, they came to Parliament with a Bill, which, however, was not passed, in consequence of the pending legal proceedings. The street was stopped up; but in the year 1876 the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Vestry of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, finding that great inconvenience had arisen to the public, obtained an Act to enable them to make a new street to communicate with Primrose Street and Skinner Street. The new street was to run parallel with the street which had been stopped up, and it was designed to make up for the deficiency in the traffic accommodation. No sooner had this been done, than the London and North Western Railway Company introduced into the House of Commons a Bill to empower them to construct level crossings over those very streets. In spite

  739
  of the opposition of the Metropolitan Board of Works and of the Vestry of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, the Bill passed through the House of Commons, unknown to the Corporation of the City of London. It seemed to him a remarkable fact that a Bill relating to two important streets in the very heart of the City of London should have actually passed through the House of Commons without the Corporation knowing anything about it. But the explanation appeared to be that the place where it was proposed to make the level crossings were outside the boundaries of the City of London to the extent of seven yards or thereabouts, and that, therefore, no Parliamentary Notice was sent to the Corporation. Their Lordships knew that Railway Bills often passed through Parliament with out much publicity; consequently, it was easy to understand how it was that, no Parliamentary Notice being sent to them, the Corporation should have no knowledge of what was going on until they heard of it from other sources. When the Bill came to their Lordships' House, the Corporation presented a Petition against that part of it which related to the level crossings—the Metropolitan Board of Works, the Vestry of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, and all the local authorities interested in the traffic of the district concurring in the opposition. But, notwithstanding this, he regretted to say that the Bill was passed by their Lordships. He thought he was quite justified in saying that, on the whole, there was something of an exceptional character in the case. All the local authorities, who might be supposed to be guardians of the traffic in the district, opposed the granting of the powers referred to, as being not only inconvenient, but dangerous to the public. It might be argued that the level crossings were not to be used by locomotive engines; that they were to be used by trucks drawn by one horse only; and that the danger, therefore, was not very great. But, be that as it might, heavy trucks could be set in motion at any hour of the day or night across this large public thoroughfare. He would not pretend to say which were the more dangerous—the locomotives or the other trucks; but there was no provision in the Bill for enforcing the employment of sufficient break-power. That was how the matter stood; and he asked their Lordships
  740
  whether it was desirable, under the circumstances, to pass the clause without the alteration which he proposed? He knew it might be said that if the power of transporting goods from one yard to another were taken away, it would be a source of great inconvenience to the Railway Company. But if their Lordships would take the trouble to look at the evidence produced before the Select Committee, they would find, on the authority of the Engineer of the Midland Railway Company, that there were other means of providing for this transport. Captain Shaw, the head of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, also stated that if the clause were carried out, it would create a most inconvenient stoppage of traffic in that part of the City. The witness added—
  "From my experience of these crossings, I look upon them as an absolute stoppage of the street at times. In every case we [alluding to the fire engines] turn round and go another way, probably thus losing five or ten minutes."
  He therefore urged their Lordships to re-consider the decision which had been arrived at, and not to sanction the establishment of level crossings over important thoroughfares in the very heart of the City.
  Moved, To omit, line 18, from ("thereto") to ("make"), line 18.—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, the decision which their Lordships were asked to reverse was arrived at by the Committee over which he presided. The clause was fully discussed by the Committee, who confirmed the decision of the Committee of the House of Commons. The crossing was not what, in common parlance, was called a level crossing. The Railway Company would have warehouses on both sides of the street, and it was extremely desirable that they should be allowed to pass over a single truck at a time, the truck being drawn by horse power, and on level ground. There was a provision that when the truck was passing a policeman should take care that no accident happened, and the Metropolitan authorities would have a general power in organizing the street traffic. Deeming it undesirable to trust entirely to evidence, he inspected the spot himself, and at once saw the reason for the decision of the Committee of the House of Commons. It

  741
  had been said that the Corporation were ignorant of the nature of the proposal; but it was stated before the Committee that the Engineer under the Bill went to the City Surveyor and informed him of what was in contemplation, and the reply was that the place was outside the City boundary. The Metropolitan Board had spoken very harshly in the statement they had put forward, saying that the Railway Company had asked to be allowed to put down the crossing after the new street had been projected at the cost of the Board. It would scarcely be believed that the Board had been negotiating to re-sell to the Railway Company all the surplus land they had in connection with the street for the purpose of enlarging the station. He submitted that the noble Earl had not made out a case which would justify their Lordships in reversing the decision of the Committee upstairs.
  LORD TRUROsaid, as a Member of the Select Committee to whom this Bill had been referred, he might be allowed to say a few words in reply to the Motion of the noble Earl. Very little evidence was necessary to satisfy them that the two streets in question were not of sufficient breadth to carry any considerable amount of traffic. Before they could be convinced that any material obstruction would arise, some very much stronger evidence would have to be adduced. With the view of ascertaining whether the traffic of these two streets would be stopped up by the tramways intended to be laid across them, he had asked Captain Shaw questions, and one would have supposed from his answer that trams were running over the street all day long. Then it was suggested that the use of the other streets had been very much interfered with, and that traffic would be of necessity carried into these streets. But he understood that two of these—Primrose and Skinner Streets—were not passable to carriages at all, and the others were most inadequate for ordinary traffic. Was it conceivable that, under these circumstances, the Metropolitan Board of Works would have remained in that state of quietude which it had assumed if the traffic had been stopped up as was suggested? The fact was, that this Motion was nothing more than an inglorious attempt to carry before their Lordships what the opponents of the
  742
  Bill had been unable to carry before the Select Committee.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  Bill read 3a with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRE LAND) BILL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLEdesired to put to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack a Question, of which he had given him private Notice. The noble and learned Lord said, the other night, in answer to a Question addressed to him by his noble Friend (Earl Spencer), that the Government did not contemplate in the Bill the admission of female students to its advantages. He did not propose to discuss the question of the desirability of admitting women to its advantages; but he wished to know from the noble and learned Lord whether it was correct, or whether he had misunderstood him, that the Bill did not contemplate this admission of female students? He (Earl Granville) had looked through the Bill himself, and he had consulted competent authorities, and they were agreed that as the Bill at present stood there was nothing to prevent the Board, if they thought fit, from admitting women to the advantages of the scheme. In the Bill itself there was no general direction, and the word student was used, though it was true that in the Schedule the masculine gender was made use of. But this was of no consequence. He remembered that the authorities of the University of London were advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that, although their charters and regulations contained terms which were only applicable to males, they might be interpreted as applicable to females, if there was any prescription of the English University in favour of such interpretation. But there was now plenty of prescription in regard to schools, the Endowed Schools Commissioners having, in a number of cases, applied portions of endowments to the establishment of girls' schools. The point was, however, stronger as regarded an Act of Parliament. He believed the late Lord Brougham had laid it down that the feminine was to be included under the masculine in the construction of Acts of Parliament when

  743
  there was nothing repugnant to it in the context. The 6th clause in the Bill also gave the Board power to alter at their pleasure, subject to an Address from either House of Parliament against their alterations, the rules in the Schedule. There was, therefore, nothing to prevent the Board, if they thought fit, so altering the Act as to make it applicable to women.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the observations I made the other night were directed, not so much to the legal construction to be placed on the Bill, as to what were the intentions of the Government. Her Majesty's Government, in introducing the measure, intended that it should be for the promotion of the education of boys; and, as the noble Earl has said, the words in the Schedule are in the masculine gender. If, however, in the opinion of Parliament, the measure should be extended so as to include girls, Her Majesty's Government would desire to consider whether it would not be necessary to make some modification of the rules, and to consider also, whether the financial arrangements of the Bill being framed on the principle of providing only for boys, would not require some material alteration. I expect that to-morrow my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland will receive a deputation of ladies and gentlemen on the subject. Meanwhile, the question is under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and may probably lead to discussion "elsewhere." I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied with my statement. I should not like that any alteration should be made to the Bill until the question had been more fully considered.

  DENTAL PRACTITIONERS BILL. (No. 123.)
  (The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

  COMMITTEE (ON RE-COMMITMENT).
  Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee (on Re-commitment), read.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, since the Bill was last before their Lordships, it had been thought desirable to introduce some Amendments to the clauses dealing with the restrictions on private practitioners. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), had expressed a wish, which he thought a reasonable one, that
  744
  in dealing with this question, they should adopt the machinery of the Act of 1858. That was the object of the Amendments he proposed to introduce on re-commitment.
  House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.

  GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1862, AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 124.)
  (The Earl of Rosebery.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was a very small measure which had already passed through the other House of Parliament with the consent of Her Majesty's Government. Its object was simply to remove a doubt as to the General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862, in regard to the tenure of office of Chief Magistrate of certain police burghs, and also to make the date of election uniform.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS —CASE OF MR. ARMSTRONG.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF SANDWICHcalled the attention of the Government to a Return made by the Ecclesiastical Commission on the 11th of April, 1878, and to the injustice which, he said, it showed had been perpetrated on a gentleman in the neighbourhood of Godmanchester. His noble Friend might ask him why he addressed the Government upon this question? but his reply would be that he did so because the Commissioners were bound to make an annual Report to the Secretary of State, who, he supposed, had some control over their proceedings. Not many weeks ago, he put a Question to the Chief Ecclesiastical Commissioner in respect to a gentleman who had been evicted from his farm, after receiving a friendly notice to quit, which was subsequently turned into a hostile notice. The circumstances were stated in a

  745
  Memorial which he held in his hand. When this gentleman received his notice to quit, he came to him as a friend and neighbour, and asked his advice as to what he ought to do. He thereupon advised him to address a Memorial to the Chief Commissioner, whom he knew as a Member of the House of Lords, and well known for his strict honour and justice. This gentleman—Mr. Charles Armstrong—took his advice, and addressed a Memorial to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in which, among other things, it was stated that in the year 1864, he hired of David Vesey, Esq., of Castle Hill House, Huntingdon, a farm called West Farm, in the parish of Godmanchester, containing 297 acres, having been selected—his family being well-known agriculturists in Bedfordshire—from numerous applicants. He continued in occupation of the farm till the death of Mr. Vesey, in 1871, having during that time been most punctual in the payment of the rent, as well as having got it into the highest state of cultivation. On the death of Mr. Vesey, his son, the Venerable Archdeacon Vesey, became possessed of it, under whom he continued in the occupation till the year 1877, when, to his great surprise, it, with all the other land in the parish belonging to the Archdeacon, was offered for sale. The gentleman who came down to inspect the farm on behalf of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who were likely to become purchasers of the farm, gave him distinctly to understand that he would be continued in possession; and, on this assurance, Mr. Armstrong's friends did not continue the inquiries they were making in his behalf. A day or two after, however, Mr. Armstrong received from Mr. Smith, the gentleman alluded to, a letter qualifying the promise he had previously made. This was on the eve of the sale, when Mr. Armstrong was obliged to rely, as he did with confidence, on the conviction that the Commissioners would not see any wrong done to him. The farm was, however, afterwards let over Mr. Armstrong's head to Mr. John Topham Gadsby, a large and wealthy cattle dealer and farmer, residing at Godmanchester. He should like to know what private arrangement there was between the land agent and Mr. Gadsby? Such an arrangement would be a most improper thing. In his Memorial, Mr. Armstrong
  746
  referred to several gentlemen in the neighbourhood who knew him as an agriculturist, among whom were the Duke of Manchester, the Messrs. Howard, of Bedford, Mr. Spiers, of Spiers and Pond, all of whom gave him an excellent character as an agriculturist, and as one who might be relied upon for the payment of his rent. In spite of this, no regard was paid to their representations, and Mr. Armstrong was thrown overboard, and no attention whatever was paid to him. He was treated in a cavalier way by the Messrs. Smith, to whom the question was referred, one of the partners of whose firm was the gentleman who made the arrangement with Mr. Gadsby to turn him out. In their reply to the Secretary's note, Messrs. Smith and Gore said they had considered Mr. Armstrong's Memorial, but it was not Mr. Smith's opinion that Mr. Armstrong wanted; he required the exercise of the independent judgment of the Commissioners in the matter. Of course, the Messrs. Smith were not such fools that they would offer to undo what they had already done. Messrs. Smith went on to say—
  "The notion that either the tenant or the vendor of an estate is entitled to claim or to expect the continuance of the tenant in the tenancy is absolutely without foundation."
  He dared say legally that might be so; but, under the present circumstances, it was clear that it was not morally so. A friendly notice to quit had been turned into a hostile notice, and Mr. Armstrong had been ejected without any compensation whatever. Messrs. Smith went on to say—
  "A farm is sold with an early vacancy to the best bidder, and if the tenant is damnified, it is for the vendor to give him due compensation."
  He never heard a more preposterous thing than that. It was surely the most absurd thing ever thought of by any land agent. The land had improved in consequence of the labour of the tenant, and the Commissioners had received the benefit of it. He thought it was manifestly unfair for the Commissioners to take the land themselves, and not to give the tenant any indemnity. The letter proceeded—
  "It is quite true that our Mr. Charles Smith, viewing the property on the 11th July, expressed his expectation that Mr. Armstrong

  747
  might continue tenant, at the same time cautioning him not to depend on that; but he wrote to Mr. Armstrong early next morning, and sent the letter by special messenger, that he would not have the opportunity of remaining."
  Mr. Armstrong was everywhere known as a good, practical agriculturist; whereas Mr. Gadsby was a man farming some 400 or 500 acres with other avocations, and he could not be expected to give the same attention to the land that Mr. Armstrong would have done. Why, then, was Mr. Armstrong turned out? What private agreement was there made between Mr. Gadsby and Mr. Smith on which this wicked transaction was based? Mr. Armstrong was ultimately informed that the decision of the Commissioners not to re-consider his case was based upon
  "considerations of general policy in relation to the management of this and other property belonging to the Board."
  What considerations of general policy could have actuated them? He should have thought it would have been good general policy to retain as tenant a man who kept his land in good order, and who regularly paid his rent. If that was the general policy of the Commissioners in the management of their land, he was only sorry that they had chosen the county of Huntingdon to make such large purchases in. It was bad policy to buy land, and not encourage those who were doing well by it. The Commissioners had now in their hands an immense amount of landed property, the expenses of which were as much as £60,000 a-year. If they could re-arrange their property so that a large amount of it was invested in the funds, or some other security, much of this money might be saved to the poor clergy. The investments in land led to jobbery and to other evils; and if all the facts were known, he thought it would be admitted that the administration of the Commissioners wanted looking into. The present was a very hard case, which would never have transpired if the Commissioners themselves had gone properly into the facts. They left too much to their agents. Another complaint against them was that they gave nothing in charity except it was in small doles. Property had its duties as well as its rights; and if these gentlemen chose to become
  748
  landed proprietors, they ought to be bound by the same rules as other proprietors. In the parish of Godmanchester alone they owned one-fifth of the land, and yet they did not give one farthing to the local charities. With regard to Mr. Armstrong, he thought that a case of great injustice had been made out; and, in reference to Messrs. Smith and Gore, he contended that those gentlemen had no business whatever to control the action or proceedings of the Commissioners by telling them what to do. In conclusion, he earnestly hoped the Government would take care that Mr. Armstrong received some compensation, instead of being left to be ruined by the harsh treatment of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid, the noble Earl who had just spoken addressed himself to the Government on this subject; and if the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) did not think it worth his while to get up and answer the noble Earl, it was scarcely his duty to do so. At the same time, there were one or two remarks which their Lordships might permit him to offer to the House. Their Lordships had again heard a long story with respect to Mr. Armstrong; but he would remind them that, as regarded that gentleman, he endeavoured, to the best of his power, some weeks ago, to answer the noble Earl. In addition to doing so, he had laid upon the Table of the House the whole Correspondence which had taken place on the subject. The noble Earl had been quite misinformed as to the existence of any treaty or engagement between Mr. Smith, the agent, and the other gentleman, Mr. Gadsby, whom he imagined had the refusal of the farm. As to the quantity of land held by the Commissioners, he made some remarks on that point upon a previous occasion, and he only now desired to add one or two observations, which he hoped the noble Earl would consider. It might be, of course, a question of general policy and economy—and one, also, of considerable public interest—whether Ecclesiastical Corporations should hold a large extent of land. Their Lordships might remember that, in the year 1851, when the Church Estates Act was passed, one great object of that measure was to do away with the system of beneficial leases

  749
  granted by Ecclesiastical Corporations. That system was found to be very injurious. The land so leased was never properly tenanted or tilled. Subsequently, a large number of the leasehold estates fell into the hands of the Commissioners. They were by far the worst cultivated; the most deficient in buildings; and, altogether, they were in the most disreputable condition of any land which he had ever seen in this country. Whatever might be the opinion of the House or of the noble Earl as to the policy of these Corporations deriving their income from land in their possession, he was sure there could be no difference amongst their Lordships now, any more than there was 25 years ago, as to the old system itself. When the measure to which he had first referred was before Parliament, an estimate was made of the Church's interest in the leasehold estates; and that interest was supposed to be about one-half in reversioners, and one-half in lessors. The effect of the legislation of 1857 had been to reduce the quantity of land possessed by the Commissioners as owners and reversioners; and, it was, therefore, absurd to argue against their having such possessions, when the land which they held was so much less than the Church used to possess. In addition to that, he might state that although the Commissioners could acquire land partly by buying up the interest of leaseholders, and partly by purchasing freehold estates, the balance of their land sale purchase account was £1,000,000 excess of sales. As to contributing to local charities, the Commissioners subscribed largely for the erection and maintenance of schools, and to the building and restoration of churches; but not certainly to some of the smaller local charities.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, in consequence of the noble Earl (the Earl of Sandwich) having addressed himself to the Government on this subject, I will, with your permission, make a few remarks on the matter to which he has alluded. The Notice placed upon the Paper by the noble Earl stated that he would call attention "to a Return made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on the 11th of April, 1878," and that is the Return which is now on the Table of the House, and to which your Lordships can refer.
  750
  I have made inquiries into this matter, knowing that the attention of the Government was to be called to it; and I have also carefully read the Correspondence which has taken place, and which was presented to my noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Sussex (the Earl of Chichester). Having done so, I confess that I cannot see in that Correspondence anything which calls for blame on the part of the Government for the course which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have taken. My noble Friend who brought forward this question complained of the notice which was given to Mr. Armstrong, and stated that it was wrong to convert what he termed a friendly notice to quit into a hostile notice. I should have thought that any person who proposed to sell his property would naturally, if he wished to get the largest sum possible for it in the market, take care that it was not hampered by any tenants being upon it, in order that when bought the purchaser might do with it what he pleased. Accordingly, as I understand the transaction, to which the attention of the House has been directed, Archdeacon Vesey, who sold the property, gave notice to one of his tenants—a yearly tenant—that he would have to leave his farm; but he did not give a similar notice to the other tenant, for the best of all reasons—that in that case there was a period of four years to run before the expiration of the lease. The object of the Commissioners in purchasing the property was, if I am not misinformed, to put two farms together; and all who are acquainted with landed estates must know that that may be, on some occasions, a very advisable and right course to follow. I am not sufficiently conversant with the details of this case to say whether the arrangement I have indicated was really the most convenient in the circumstances; but I assume that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners thought it convenient, or they would never have adopted it. The two farms which are to be united, and which are the subject-matter of the present discussion, are not at this moment let to anyone; and, therefore, it is entirely in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to deal with them, when they have been put together, in any manner in which those Gentlemen think fit. My

  751
  noble Friend (the Earl of Sandwich) has complained of the conduct of Messrs. Smith and Gore in this matter. I happen to have been acquainted with those gentlemen for a good many years; and I believe that many of your Lordships also know them, if not personally, by reputation. I have always regarded them as amongst the most eminent land agents to be found in this country; and I do not believe that being, as they are, honourable men, they would do anything whatever in the nature of sharp practice or ungentlemanly conduct. My noble Friend has complained that Messrs. Smith and Gore are practically the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. That is not the case. On the contrary, I think if my noble Friend reads carefully the Correspondence which has taken place, he will find that they occupy exactly the position which he thinks they should hold—not the position of Commissioners, but that of advisers to the Commissioners. If any of your Lordships wished certain things to be done, you would naturally ask the advice of your agent, or of some person in whom you had confidence; and, having received that advice, you would either follow it or not as you thought best. But, because you acted in that way, was it to be said that the man with whom you took counsel was the manager of your property? I would refer your Lordships to the Correspondence on this subject which is before you; and to the Minutes of the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. You will find that at a meeting of the Estates Committee of that body, a communication was read from Mr. Charles Armstrong, and that a resolution was come to by the Commissioners referring that communication to Messrs. Smith and Gore for their observation. Accordingly, the latter gave the document their consideration; and I find that on the 9th of February they wrote what seems to me to be a very proper letter to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. They said—
  "It is quite true that our Mr. Charles Smith, in dealing with the property on 2nd July last, expressed his expectation that Mr. Armstrong might be a tenant; but cautioned him not to depend upon it."
  That is a very cautious proceeding; and one which does not, I think, give Mr. Armstrong
  752
  any right to consider that he has been ill-treated by the Commissioners. With regard to the question of the charities, I think my noble Friend was rather hard upon the Commissioners. In my opinion, it would be very unwise if Parliament were to lay down hard-and-fast rules within which those gentlemen were to subscribe to every charity within a county, without giving them any power of consideration as to whether the different charities were such as should be contributed to or not. To do that would be to place the Commissioners in a position very different from that of any other landlords in the country. I do not know that your Lordships would always have subscribed to charities, however good they might be, if you had not been allowed to exercise your own discretion on the subject. I find that the practice of the Commissioners is to contribute as trustee owners would contribute under the sanction of the Court; and that is a very sound rule to follow. While I have deprecated hard-and-fast lines of the nature to which I have just referred, it is obvious that, in the position which they fill, the Commissioners must have general law for their guidance. That general law I have indicated; and, if they were compelled to abandon it, the result might be that they might get into difficulties from which it would not be easy for them to extricate themselves. Take one case as showing what the Commissioners do. I find that out of £2,000 expended in the restoration of Leighton Rimbold Church, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners subscribed £1,500. They also gave a site for a school; contributed £400 out of £684 towards the expense of its erection; and subscribed about £40 a-year towards its maintenance. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners do not neglect the duty which belongs to them; and that duty is exercised and discharged in a manner which does not deserve the description of it that the noble Earl has given.
  THE EARL OF SANDWICH: All I have to say, in reply, is that I should like to hear the noble Duke repeat at any farmer's table the sentiments which he has just expressed.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: I shall be happy to meet the noble Earl at any farmer's table in the Kingdom.

VIVISECTION.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Return of the names of Hospitals or other places registered for experiments upon living animals under the 39th and 40th Vict. chap. 77; also the number of such experiments from the 1st January, 1877, to 1st January, 1878; and for the Reports of the Inspectors appointed under the Act."
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, the Vivisection Act was passed in 1876. Last year, on the Motion of Mr. Mundella, certain Returns relating to that Act were presented to the House of Commons; and, although they were not also presented to the House of Lords, a copy of them would be found in their Lordships' Library. He understood that Returns on the same subject had again been moved for this year, and that they would contain more complete and detailed information than had previously been given. He would, therefore, suggest to the noble Earl, that it would be better for him to wait until those Returns were presented to the House of Commons; and then, if any further information was required, it would be for the noble Earl to move that it was expedient to add to them. With reference to the Reports of the Inspectors, which, under the Act, were required to be made to the Home Secretary and not to Parliament, there would be an objection to laying them upon the Table, because they were confidential documents. He thought their Lordships would see that, when gentlemen in the position of those Inspectors administered an Act of this nature, they had to make Reports of a character which it would be inexpedient should be brought before Parliament. If they were to be made public, the Reports would be framed in a different manner from that in which they were made at present, and the Secretary of State would be left without the same detailed information which he now possessed in consequence of the confidential nature of the documents.
  LORD TRUROthought the public were indebted to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Do La Warr) for bringing forward this question. Their Lordships were aware that, not long ago, a Royal Commission was appointed for the purpose
  754
  of inquiring into the extent of the practice of vivisection and into its general character; and also for the purpose of recommending any steps which might be considered desirable, in the public interest, in to control the enormities which were committed under that system. Upon a question which was not merely a scientific one, but one which partook very much of a humanitarian character, it seemed to him that it would have been extremely desirable to have appointed some other men on that Commission than two most notorious vivisectionists, a most ardent and experienced sportsman, and two or three officials who were more likely to look at the question from the point of expediency than from that of humanity. Certainly, however, the exposition of horrors which had been given in the Report of the Commission surpassed anything he had ever yet read. If anything was really intended to be answered by the appointment of the Commission, it was that the public should have some security that no more operations than were absolutely necessary should be performed. In order that no more horrors should be perpetrated than were absolutely necessary, it was essential that not only the names of the places licensed should be made known, but also those of the licensees and the Inspectors. In the evidence given before the Commission were the opinions either uniform or overwhelming in favour of vivisection? On the contrary, he thought nothing could be more contradictory than the views of the witnesses. A great number were of opinion that vivisection had done little or nothing for science; and many others thought that not a few of the conclusions arrived at through vivisection were erroneous. A more unsatisfactory basis for the recommendations of the Commission could not be conceived. He was aware that this was not the occasion for discussing the subject thoroughly; but he would not fail to take some future opportunity, if other noble Lords did not do so, of again bringing the question forward. He could not help expressing his opinion, that if the Report of the Commission was to have any good effect—if the public were to be re-assured on this subject—it would only be by showing them that these enormities were to be controlled by men in whom they had confidence, and not

  755
  merely by men who possessed the confidence of the Government.
  LORD FORBESthought the enormities arising from the practice of vivisection should cease altogether, or be kept within the most circumscribed limits. He congratulated Ireland that the Returns, as far as that country was concerned, were nil—that, in fact, there were no places licensed there for experimental performances on living animals. He almost wished he could say the same for England and Scotland. The time might come, he still trusted and thought, when many of the experiments would be done away with altogether; and when those that were necessary would be performed in one place for the whole of the United Kingdom. There was no necessity, in his opinion, for multiplying the number of such places. If there was a School of Vivisection in London, it would meet all requisite purposes. Of course, medical men would say that that would not be sufficient, and there would not be enough practice. This plea, however, was a great mistake, for what was wanted was not practice, but the result of the operations. He thought it a great pity that the Returns should not be more voluminous than they were, and that the animals operated on should not be specified.
  EARL DE LA WARRdid not see why anything in connection with the Act should be kept secret; but as an assurance had been given that Returns would be laid before the House of Commons, he would withdraw his Motion. He regretted especially, however, that the Inspectors' Reports were not to be published. Surely nothing ought to be concealed? It was the very essence of the Act that the Reports should be made public; and there was nothing, in his opinion, to justify their suppression. The public interest was concerned in their publication; and on another occasion he would recur to the subject.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.