Lords Sitting of 28 July 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) * (186).
Second Reading—Metropolitan Open Spaces Act (1877) Amendment (164); Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (Statutes) (178); Turnpike Acts Continuance* (170); Patriotic Fund (183); Removal Terms (Scotland) (184); Customs (Officers)* (168).
Committee—Report—British Honduras (Court of Appeal)* (167); Pedlars (Certificates)* (163); Metallic Mines (Gunpowder)* (169); Seed Supply and other Acts (Ireland) Amendment* (177).
Report—Universities (Scotland) Registration of Parliamentary Voters, &c.* (173).
Third Reading—Coroners (Ireland)* (134); Reformatory Institutions (Ireland)* (172), and passed.
Withdrawn—Cottiers and Cottars (Dwellings) (174).

COTTIERS AND COTTARS (DWELLINGS) BILL.—(No. 174.)
(The Lord Waveney.)
COTTIERS AND COTTARS (DWELLINGS) BILL.—(No. 174.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD WAVENEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, that after the statement he had made on the introduction of the Bill he need say but little; but there were misunderstandings which he desired to clear up as to the object of the measure. His main object was, if possible, to bring the agricultural classes into accord with the habits and civilization of the period, for it appeared to him that in certain important particulars those classes had not as yet attained that level. Something had been done in that direction by the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, and subsequently by the Public Health (Ireland) Act; but the principle of action in past legislation was wanting in promp-

  3
  titude and efficiency. He had no desire to interfere in any way with the forward march of the Bill which now engaged the attention of the other House, and which, in a few days, might be expected to reach their Lordships' hands. There was some disappointment that that proposal, as originally brought forward, made no mention of the labourers of Ireland; but the claims of that class had, he was happy to say, since been recognized, though only to the extent of such provision as might benefit the agricultural labourers through the operation of fiscal laws and regulations. He could not help seeing that much might be done for the advantage of dwellers in cottages by reasonable supervision of a more direct and prompt character than that which at present existed. It had been suggested that his proposal would, if carried, involve an expense which no landlord could be expected to bear; but that was not part of his intention, and he did not admit that it would be the consequence of the measure. In parts of Ireland the agricultural classes had enjoyed comfortable accommodation; but even in those cases there was a deplorable ignorance of sanitary conditions. The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, which extended universally to the rural districts of England and to certain urban and rural districts in Ireland, provided, in some degree, a remedy for that state of things; but no equivalent provision had been made for Scotland, and where the Act did apply the remedies were always slow, and, in some cases, impossible of application. He had made it his business to inform himself on the spot as to the views of the local Boards of Health or Sanitary Boards, which would have the administration of the provisions of the Bill; and he found that their opinion was, that a power should be called into action which would represent the decisions of the Sanitary Board. He, therefore, provided in his Bill that the dwellings of persons paying rent for occupation in Ireland, and the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, should be submitted to periodical inspection by an officer to be appointed by the Poor Law Commissioners in Ireland, and the Board of Supervision in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Under Section 150 of the Public Health Act the duties of the Board of Guardians, in regard to the spread of epidemic only,
  4
  became active and pressing after the rules and regulations of the Local Government Board had been received. He proposed that the power for the cleansing of unhealthy dwellings and the carrying out of proper sanitary arrangements should be exercised through a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, but subject to an appeal to the Courts of Session. As a desire was manifesting itself in an extraordinary way for assimilating Irish and English law, a hint, perhaps, might be taken from the working of the Local Sanitary Board of England. In the district in which he lived cottages were condemned without reservation, and remained uninhabited, as there was no power to compel rebuilding; but, as a matter of public policy, it was not desirable that in Ireland the house accommodation should be diminished. The multiplicity of families and the overcrowding of the accommodation in the Irish cottages were constant sources of complaint, and additional accommodation was not provided, because the occupiers were unable to pay such a rent as would remunerate the landlord for the outlay. He would suggest that a better rent would be obtainable if garden allotments were attached to the dwellings. In some cases he gave to Boards of Guardians power to spend money in the rebuilding of cottages; and though he admitted it was not consistent with public policy to give to those bodies the initiatory power of expenditure, still he thought there were cases in which the strict rule might be overstepped. The Poor Law system, which was originally adopted for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of poverty in the land, the requisite sum necessary to relieve it, and the most efficient modes by which that relief might be applied, had become a machine of a larger character, performing a great variety of functions, and therefore it was that he did not hesitate to impose upon it additional duties provided for by this Bill. With regard to Scotland he could not fail to remember what he had seen and read of the sad poverty, notwithstanding the exertions of the proprietors, which prevailed in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, resulting from the small croft system. He hoped their Lordships would reject the idea that this was class legislation, and allow the Bill to be read a second time; because he believed, considering the great attention

  5
  now being paid to the agricultural community, that it would confer a great been upon them.
  Moved "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Waveney.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that but for the gravity and solemnity of the noble Lord he should have thought that this proposal was intended as a practical joke. He listened very attentively to the noble Lord's speech the other day in introducing the Bill; but he could not for the life of him make head or tail of anything the noble Lord said as indicating what the measure was to be. The noble Lord said something about the cottiers of the Highlands of Scotland, whose condition, the noble Lord said, was analogous to the cottagers of the very poorest parts of Ireland; but he really had not the slightest conception of what the noble Lord intended to do. In the first place, he must say that the attempt to combine the provisions for Ireland and Scotland was in itself ridiculous. In point of fact, the circumstances of the two countries were quite different. He gathered from the observations which the noble Lord had made that he had obtained his information on this subject entirely from some observations of Sir John McNeil, which were 25 years old, and from the report of a newspaper commissioner sent out to make inquiries on the subject. The object of this measure professed to be to prevent epidemic diseases by compelling proper sanitary arrangements to be provided in cottages; but he did not believe that, except in times of famine, epidemics were prevalent amongst the cottier population. It was well known that the cottiers of Ireland were a most healthy class of people. In the Bill there was provision for large powers being given to the sanitary authorities of Unions and parishes. That, however, must refer to Ireland alone, as it was absolutely absurd to have such a provision for Scotland, as there were no unions or parishes, except for the purpose of building poorhouses, and it was absolutely absurd to put that in the Bill. He asked their Lordships to look at the powers which the Bill proposed to give to sanitary authorities. They were to have the power to compel the carrying out of proper sanitary arrangements in any cottage or number of cottages which they might consider to be unfit for human
  6
  habitation; and what were the sanitary authorities to be authorized to do? They were not authorized to compel the person who lived in the cottage to keep it clean, but were authorized to go to the proprietor and compel him to remedy the barbarous mode of living of the people.
  LORD WAVENEY: The immediate lessor.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, it was the same thing. There was no power to go to the tenant and force him to clean his own house. The noble Lord said he wanted to bring the cottiers of the Highlands of Scotland and of Ireland into accord with the civilization of the day; but if the noble Lord confined the operation of the Bill to Kerry and Con-naught, he thought the noble Lord would find that he had a very severe task to achieve. Anyone who had seen estates in the West of Ireland knew very well that disease there arose from the almost bestial habits of the people. There was frequently a dung-heap just outside the door, and the pigs often lived inside the house, and yet the Bill did not propose to compel the occupier to keep his house clean. All the Bill said was that the sanitary authorities should go to the landlord and tell him to do it. He did not think that that was a proper way of curing the habits of a large population. Then it was proposed by the Bill to give the sanitary authorities the power of ordering the rebuilding of cottages of an equivalent character in cases where there were not proper sanitary arrangements—that was to say, that a landlord should be bound to rebuild every cottage upon his estate. He had gone into a calculation of what the expense of this would be, and he had a case before him of an individual proprietor, the particulars of whose estate would be brought before Her Majesty's Commissioners. On that estate there were not less than something like 4,000 of these poor cottier tenantry, all of them under £8 valuation, and most of them under £4. Now, under this Bill, the sanitary authorities would have the power to call upon the landlord to rebuild every one of those cottages. What would that cost? Professor Baldwin had said that cottages with every decency of life could be built for £13 or £14 each. He could only say that he wished Professor Baldwin would come to Scotland and teach the landlords there how

  7
  to build cottages at that price. But, assuming that cottages in Ireland containing everything that, according to the Irish idea, was requisite for the decencies of life, could be built for £14 each, the owner of the estate he had mentioned might be called upon to expend £56,000 upon his estate, and that, too, at a moment when the landlords were about to be deprived of the power of managing their property, and the tenants were to have the right of selling the cottages that had been built for them. This was the proposition of a noble Peer, and made to their Lordships with a grave face. He did not himself believe that cottages could be built for £14 each. He had asked some Irish authorities their opinion on the subject, and he was informed that the lowest would be between £50 and £60 each. If the landlord refused to build, the local authority might do so out of the poor rate, and any profit arising might go to the relief of the poor. He thought he had said enough to their Lordships to show this was the most impracticable scheme ever presented to any Parliament, and presented at the moment when they were about to consider, and very likely to nearly abolish, all powers of the landlord. The noble Lord could not expect to pass the measure this Session; but, as a matter of form, he would move that it be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the motion ("this day three months.")—(The Duke of Argyll.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he rather took exception to the Bill of the noble Lord on the ground that it did not go far enough. The noble Lord was a timid reformer. By one portion of the measure it was proposed that large powers should be vested in the local authorities to charge the poor rate for the improvement of dwellings wherever defects were found to exist in their sanitary arrangements. He ventured to point out that not far from where they were sitting, in great streets and squares, there could be found many houses defective in sanitary arrangements; and he dared say in Belgrave and Eaton Squares, and many other fashionable parts of London, there would be found houses so defective. He hoped the noble
  8
  Lord would not confine the Bill to the poor, but would give the rich the benefit of it, and force the Duke of Westminster to rebuild any of his houses found defective in sanitary arrangements.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he should oppose the Bill. With regard to Scotland, it proposed to set in motion sanitary inspectors, who in England were often the greatest nuisances. Those officials would be sure to object to the box beds with sliding doors in use in some parts of the Highlands, on the ground that they were stuffy. The size and strength of the Highland population showed that they did not require the interference of nuisance inspectors. As to Ireland, he knew a case of an Irish landlord who wished to improve the cottages on his estate, and built them of two stories. They had, however, not been working long when the clerk of the works ran away because his life was threatened, and the architect was not sorry when he also was able to get away from the place.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, this question of the condition of labourers' cottages in Ireland was, in the opinion of the Government, a very serious matter indeed. While heartily sympathizing with the objects of the noble Lord, he agreed with others who had spoken that the Bill was a most startling one, inasmuch as its results apparently would be to make it the duty of Boards of Guardians in Ireland to rebuild all the cabins of that country. If any legislation on. this subject was to be undertaken it would require a great deal of consideration and careful handling of details, such as it would be impossible for the Government or the House to give to it in the present Session. He trusted, therefore, that the Motion for the second reading of the Bill would not be pressed.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, that although the criticisms the Bill had received had been very severe, he did not admit that they were difficult to answer; but, on the contrary, believed facts would show many of the objections would be wholly without foundation. He might say that he had no intention of bringing forward again the proposals contained in this Bill as an index to the Land Bill now before the House of Commons. The subject had been discussed; and as he did not wish to be the means of giving rise to an impres-

  9
  sion that there was a difference of opinion among their Lordships in regard to the desirability of legislation for the improvement of dwellings of agricultural labourers in Ireland and Scotland, he begged to withdraw the Motion for the second reading.
  Amendment and original motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

METROPOLITAN OPEN SPACES ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Mount Temple.)
METROPOLITAN OPEN SPACES ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 164) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MOUNT TEMPLE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that its object was to enable certain trustees and others, owners of inclosed grounds in the Metropolis, to enter into arrangements with public bodies to throw them open for the recreation of the people.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(7he Lord Mount Temple.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE (STATUTES) BILL.
(The Lord President.)
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE (STATUTES) BILL.

  (NO. 178.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL SPENCER, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that in 1877 the Universities Act established the Universities Committee of the Privy Council, whose duty it was to consider any opposed statute framed by the University Commissioners of Oxford and Cambridge, and, if such a statute should require amendment, to return it to the Commission for alteration. The powers of the Commission, unless they were renewed, would cease this year; and, consequently, there would be no means of amending opposed statutes framed by the Commissioners. The Bill now before their Lordships was intended to remedy this inconvenience. It would give the Universities Committee of the Privy Council the same power of revision as was now possessed by the Commission itself. The revising
  10
  powers of the Committee would be confined to statutes that were appealed against, either through the Queen in Council or by an Address from either House of Parliament. It would also have the power to revise any statute which might be consequentially affected by the amendment of another statute. He thought sufficient ground for the Bill would be furnished in the fact that out of 100 statutes framed by the Oxford Commission, and 25 by the Cambridge, only two had. been finally approved down to the present time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

PATRIOTIC FUND BILL.—(No. 183.)
(The Earl of Northbrook.)
PATRIOTIC FUND BILL.—(No. 183.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the necessity for the measure was explained in the last Report of the Commissioners of the fund, which showed that although a surplus was shown on the face of the statements of assets and liabilities at the end of 1879, certain liabilities had not been taken into account, for which it was necessary to make provision. When the Report came into the hands of the Secretary of State for War communications were entered into with the Commissioners, and the result was the Bill now before their Lordships. Being, no doubt, desirous to extend the benefits of the fund as widely as possible, the Commissioners had undertaken more than they were justified in undertaking from a pecuniary point of view. They had, therefore, been obliged to consider which of their benevolent projects must be sacrificed. After communication with the Admiralty and the War Office, it appeared to the Commissioners impossible to continue the boys' school at Wandsworth; and, accordingly, the school would be sold, and the proceeds would be used in aid of the general assets of the fund. The Commissioners had also decided to make considerable reductions in their office expenses,

  11
  hoping, by that course, to relieve themselves of liabilities to the extent of some £20,000. Such changes, in fact, would be made as would result in the solvency of the fund. Probably there would be a surplus, and, if so, it would be treated as a fund for the relief of the widows and children of officers and men of the Army, Navy, and Royal Marines, who might have lost their lives in war, or by accident or disease contracted in the Service. The Bill empowered the Commissioners to sell the school at Wandsworth, and authorized the use of any surplus funds for the purposes which he had explained.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETenumerated the names of the eminent men who served on the Commission when first appointed, and reminded their Lordships that the Commissioners appointed a Financial and Executive Committee. The embarrassments of the fund had arisen, in a great measure, from the original Commission itself, which left a great deal to its Secretary, who was once or twice reprimanded by the Commissioners. In the year 1865, when he (the Duke of Somerset) was at the Admiralty, the matter came before him; and, considering that the affairs of the Commission had been again mismanaged, he moved that the Secretary be dismissed. The Commissioners did eventually dismiss the Secretary, but gave him a pension of £300 a-year. He (the Duke of Somerset) then said he would not remain on the Commission, and he left it. One error was in starting the boys' school, 200 boys instead of 100, for which there were not sufficient funds. He thought the present Bill would be efficient for its purpose and useful. There was a common misapprehension that only the income of the fund ought to be spent; but that was not the original intention. It was provided, in the first instance, for the widows and children of those who had fallen in the Crimean War, and it was expected that principal and income would have been distributed in the course of a few years.
  EARL NELSONsaid, that, as he had been a Member of the Executive Committee since last August, he wished to combat certain misrepresentations which had been spread abroad. That Com-
  12
  mittee was composed of honourable men, although their work did not come much before the public. They were men who had served the State in the Army and the Navy, or as Inspectors of schools, or who were members of the Legal Profession. A great deal of the work had been prepared and decided by the previous Commission. He agreed that the Commission had made a mistake in enlarging the boys' school. The sum originally set apart to accumulate for the boys' school only contemplated an endowment for 100 boys. But, though it was a sanguine estimate to think that there were funds enough to endow such a school for 200, the decision had not been come to without careful consideration and an able Report. A great deal had been said about the expenses of the office; but the estimate of the expenditure under this head did not exceed £5 per cent of the fund they had to administer. The old Commissioners had found it necessary to keep up the school by filling up the vacancies from children of soldiers who were not at the Crimean War; but that was necessary till more fitting cases occurred, and as the regular vacancies were from 30 to 40 every year it was easy to meet fresh cases. He pointed out that several children of those killed in the late wars in Afghanistan and South Africa and from the Captain and Eurydice accidents had been admitted to the school or had been offered vacancies. The general statement which had gone abroad was that the Royal Commissioners, about this time last year, left the fund in a great deficit—something like £150,000—and really knew nothing about it. This deficit was classed under four different headings. The first sum was £60,000. That was reckoned as a debt, when it really was a capital sum which would be required efficiently to endow a boys' school; but they were in no sense bound to let the interest of the original endowment accumulate, and they were at liberty to devote this interest to the support of the school whenever they chose to do so. The next item was a sum of £32,000 for an extra allowance of 2s. a-week to unmarried widows after attaining the age of 60; but the arrangement with regard to it was merely tentative. Instead of being a debt of £32,000, it represented an expenditure of £1,000 a-year, which they had taken care could not be in-

  13
  creased, and would be decreased as the widows died out. Another item was £25,000 for a convalescent home at Margate; but this again was only a temporary arrangement, and they were able to close the school, and so they wiped out the charge altogether within six months. There was another charge of £35,000, which they had set apart for the education of Roman Catholic children. They acknowledged that to be a debt, and the only way to meet it was from the endowment and the closing of the boys' school altogether. He maintained that the charge in connection with the expenses of the office, and the other charges made against the Commissioners, were founded upon imperfect knowledge. He would only add that he heartily accepted the Bill; indeed, the Royal Commissioners had been continually asking for their numbers to be filled up, and in their last Report had specially pointed out the desirability of having the girls' school managed by a Governing Body of its own. And since last August the House Committee had had enlarged powers with that object, an arrangement which had operated well.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, he had no fault to find with the Bill, particularly with the Preamble, which stated that the Patriotic Fund had been administered in accordance with the Commission from Her Majesty. Whatever there might have been of excess, there had been no shortcomings, and the confidence placed in the Commissioners was justified. There were many circumstances which required careful consideration and handling when they had to deal with the claims of rival religious denominations. He was sorry Lord Howard of Glossop was not present. That noble Lord was always foremost in urging the claims of his coreligionists, and he could tell their Lordships that every suspicion of unfairness was guarded against. He himself now stood alone of all who were the Members of the first Committee. They who commenced the work had passed away, and he might say they were men well known in the works of peace and war, and highly competent to carry on the management of such a fund. It was well that the public should remember that during the course of administration 3,789 widows of Crimean soldiers were supported out of the funds, and that 6,940 children of soldiers had been
  14
  trained in the ways of improvement and education. Care had been taken that the fund should not be wasted on unworthy objects, and that worthy objects should not be refused the benefit of them. With regard to the boys' school, so far from the original intention being to make an extravagant establishment, it was of the roughest description.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

REMOVAL TERMS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Earl of Camperdown.)
REMOVAL TERMS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  (NO. 184.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of that Bill was to provide a more convenient term of entering upon, and removal from, land and heritages in any Parliamentary or police burgh. The Bill had received material alterations in its course through the other House; and if their Lordships would agree to the second reading, he would take care to bring up an Amendment on the third reading which would bring the Preamble into greater harmony with the provisions of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD WATSONsaid, he admitted that at present there was some inconvenience felt in Scotland owing to the customary terms of entry and removal not being coincident with the legal terms; and that Bill was endeavouring, therefore, to deal with a difficult question. At present the legal terms were the 15th of May and 11th of November; but in different parts of the country neither of those dates coincided with the customary terms, and the result was that a tenant leaving a house or farm in one district could not enter into possession of a new house or farm in another district without some loss of time. The scope of the Bill was limited to police, Royal, or Parliamentary burghs; but, in point of fact, the limits intended to be covered by the Royal, Parliamentary, or police boundary would not cover all houses, and the consequence would be that a large portion of the

  15
  difficulty would still remain to be dealt with. He also objected to the time of notice given in the case of a four months' letting, the result of which might be that a man who went into a house in February could not be turned out in May. He thought it was very dangerous to deal with this matter piecemeal, and he would ask the noble Earl whether it was worth while going further with a Bill of this nature; whether it would not be advisable to withdraw the present Bill, and bring forward a more extended one next Session?
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in reply, said, he had not failed to regard the objections. He thought it was a question it was desirable to bring before Parliament; but at that late period of the Session he must say if the noble and learned Lord would not persist in his objection to the second reading, he would consult with those who were responsible for the measure, and see if it was advisable to proceed further with it now.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.