Lords Sitting of 31 May 1881

MINUTES.
SELECT CoMMITTEE—Stationery Office (Controller's Report), appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Land Drainage Provisional Orders* (104); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Bandon, &c.) * (105); Local Government Provisional Orders (Halifax, &c.) * (106).
Second Reading—Veterinary Surgeons (87); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2)* (88).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Third Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue * (98), and passed.
Referred to Select Committee—Stolen Goods* (86).
Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (Berwick-upon-Tweed, &c.) * (85).

VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL.
(The Lord Aberdare.)
(NO. 87.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD ABERDARE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to prevent the assumption of the title of veterinary surgeon by unqualified persons. It provided for the infliction of a penalty on persons practising as duly qualified veterinary surgeons without first having become members of the Veterinary College. It was not intended to interfere with persons who acted as farriers or treated cattle without professing to be veterinary surgeons.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Aberdare.)
EARL SPENCERsaid, he was able, on the part of the Government, to support the second reading of the Bill. In some parts of the country there was a considerable deficiency in the number of trained veterinary surgeons. It was important in carrying out the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act to encourage as far as possible the veterinary science; but beyond that he thought it was of the greatest possible importance that whilst they endeavoured to prevent the

1763
spread of infectious diseases amongst cattle they should try to mitigate the severity of the diseases themselves which were a source of very great loss to the farmers in this country. Every measure, therefore, that would have the effect of improving the position of veterinary surgeons would deserve their Lordships' support. He could not help thinking that some of the clauses of the Bill went rather further than they should. No doubt every person who assumed a title to which he had no right should be liable to some prosecutions; but he did not think if any person chose to consult a cow doctor, or anyone who presumed to have a knowledge of a certain cattle disease without being able to call himself a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, that the law ought to object. Thus, in the 3rd clause, the words "or veterinary practitioner;" and, again, "or otherwise qualified practitioner" might, strictly construed, apply to many people qualified to practice veterinary surgery, but who could not under this Bill assume the title of veterinary surgeon. Subject to the objections he had indicated, and which could be amended in Committee, he would support the measure.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he wished to point out that there was a very important body in Edinburgh called the Edinburgh Veterinary College, which had a large staff of Professors, and was thoroughly competent to give perfect and adequate instruction in veterinary science. When he held the Office he had the honour to hold in Ireland in connection with the late Government, they had frequently selected practitioners who had been educated at that College for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act in Ireland. They always had the greatest possible confidence in the diplomas given to persons educated in that College, and in no case had they found that they had acted improperly in appointing persons educated there. To all intents and purposes the gentlemen educated there were veterinary surgeons in the highest sense of the term; and he thought it would be a very sweeping enactment to say that no person should call himself a veterinary surgeon save and except those who had been educated at the Royal College of Surgeons in London. The noble Lord (Lord Aber-
1764
dare) had not stated the reasons why he had excluded that College; and perhaps he would inform them now, before the Bill was read a second time, why he had taken that course. It seemed to him (the Duke of Marlborough) desirable that every precaution should be taken for the protection of the veterinary science, and for providing duly qualified practitioners; but he thought it would be sufficient if every person who called himself veterinary surgeon should put letters after his name indicating in what College he had been educated. The term veterinary surgeon was, no doubt, a source of some amount of pride and gratification to persons following the Profession; and he thought it would be unfair if they shut out such a scientific body as the Edinburgh Veterinary College from allowing its members to attach the title veterinary surgeon to their name.
LORD ABERDAREsaid, he would entirely concur in the objection if it were well founded; but he wished to point out to the noble Duke that this Bill had been brought in with the full knowledge and consent of the Royal Highland Society. The Charter of that Society was for the purpose of recognizing all the degrees already conferred by the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland. [The noble Lord here read an extract from the Charter, setting forth the object for which it was granted, and stating that an arrangement had been entered into with the Royal College of Surgeons in London that no diplomas should henceforth be given by the Highland Society.]
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYpointed out that there were two or three Colleges of this kind in Scotland, two in Edinburgh, and one in Glasgow, which were capable of giving diplomas. They were all under the Charter. It seemed rather hard to say that nobody except persons educated in a particular College should hold the title of veterinary surgeon. It was almost the same as saying that general practitioners who had not been educated in a particular College should not be allowed to call themselves doctors.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 16 th of June next.

SCOTCH BUSINESS—LOCAL GOVERN MENT AND LOCAL TAXATION (SCOT LAND).
OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
THE EARL OF MINTO, in calling attention to the subject of local government and taxation in Scotland, said, his reason for doing so was that the Prime Minister had, through the Lord Advocate, intimated that they had under consideration the propriety or expediency of proposing a very considerable and, indeed, a very radical change in the management of local affairs and local taxation in Scotland. The Lord Advocate had addressed a speech to the Scotch Members of the House of Commons, and also issued a Memorandum on the subject. Looking to these Papers, he must say a very considerable amount of information was afforded as to the amount of local taxation raised for various purposes in Scotland, and the proportion in which such local taxation was assisted by Imperial funds. It was well known that in Scotland local taxation generally fell on owners, whereas in England, he believed, it fell on occupiers. One of the points referred to by the Lord Advocate was that the system of subvention from the Imperial Exchequer worked badly, in respect that it produced a disregard for economy on the part of local bodies, and that a change in that respect might be very properly introduced. The mode suggested for carrying it out tentatively was that some tax might be set apart for the use of the local body, such as the dog tax or carriage duty, or some other tax. The question then was, which was the best mode off assisting local taxation? Was it desirable that owners should pay the rates, or that the occupiers should do so, or should one-half be levied on each of these classes? Another very important question was, whether personal property might not be brought in to share social and public burdens by being made to contribute, or whether personal property should claim exemption, as heretofore, from visits of the rate collector? As to the constitution of the Local Boards, very great changes were pointed to. It was suggested that a representative body should be elected, so that a more direct local action might be brought to bear on the matter of local taxation. These were the chief points. He would not
1766
trouble the House with any observations of his own on the subject, upon which he thought he had said enough to justify his bringing it before them, but would conclude by asking Her Majesty's Government, Whether they could communicate to this House, or to the Scottish members of the House, any information bearing upon or explanatory of their intentions, promulgated elsewhere, on the subject of local government and local taxation in Scotland?
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he must express an anxious hope that the Government would give no hasty answer on this question. Some time ago, when he was a Member of the Government, he was wholly unaware that the Government had arrived at any conclusion as to a change in local or county government in Scotland. There had been discussions going on on this subject for some years, and he could not say that any general concurrence of opinion had been arrived at in Scotland as to any change in county government. The truth was, they were, in Scotland, very far before England in this matter. He would not say the Scotch system was absolutely perfect, or that it was incapable of amendment or of reform; but the system was one that worked extremely well, and he never heard any practical objection brought against it. His noble Friend (the Earl of Minto) asked the Government to communicate their intentions "promulgated elsewhere." He imagined his noble Friend referred to certain documents circulated to Scotch Members and to Scotch Peers during the last week, and which he had only an opportunity of reading that morning; but if he referred to those Papers, they were not Papers that "promulgated" anything whatever. One proposal to cease giving a subvention from the Treasury, and rather that some of the taxes should be relegated to the administration of local bodies was a plan that he had heard recommended for a good number of years, with regard not only to Scotland, but to England, and he apprehended that such a method adopted in Scotland would also be extended to England. With regard to the alleged economic results of such a plan, he did not himself quite see how this effect should be produced; but it was a large question affecting not Scotland only, but England. He quite admitted, however,

1767
that if the system of subvention being given to local bodies was to be entirely altered, it might become necessary also to alter their system of local administration. Their present system was this—that in all cases where the general ratepayers contributed to the local taxes, those local ratepayers were represented in the administration. For example, in all cases in which the tenants contributed to the local taxation as well as the landlord, the fund was administered by a body composed of both parties; where it was raised entirely from the owners, and not from the occupiers, the owners had the exclusive disposal of it. This was a fair proposition, but it would not be right that a mixed body should have the administration of a fund which came from the proprietors alone; and if the tenantry were desirous of having a share in the administration of such funds, they would also have to contribute. He very much doubted whether the occupiers of Scotland would desire to have any share in the disposal of those particular matters. This was rather a complicated matter, and involved large questions of principle, and he hoped his noble Friend would not announce on the part of the Government any formal scheme with regard to it, because he was sure the counties of Scotland had not made up their mind upon any scheme.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that the question of local government and taxation had been pressing for solution by Parliament; and he was glad there was reason to believe, from those Papers which had been circulated in an informal manner, that the Government had an intention of dealing with the question at no very distant date. If the Government elected to commence by dealing with that question in Scotland, Scotland had, he thought, neither any reason, nor would it have any desire, to complain. What Scotland did complain of in common with England was that for all purposes of Parliamentary Business and legislation the whole time of Parliament was occupied by the Representatives of one portion of the Kingdom, who would neither do Irish Business themselves nor allow other persons to do it, nor allow, indeed, Business of any sort or kind to be done; and hence it was that an important question like local taxation would have been pressed on the atten-
1768
tion of Parliament over and over again. A subject which affected most vitally the interest of Scotland had to be introduced to the notice of Scotch Members by a meeting between the Lord Advocate and the Scotch Members in a tea-room, or some other hole-and-corner place, where they could collect together. Of that Scotland had some right to complain; but there was, with reference to this question, a suggestion which he should like to submit for the earnest consideration of the Government. It was beyond doubt that many local measures which had been passed by Parliament had been found, when submitted to practical test and operation, to be incomplete, inelastic, and incapable of adapting themselves to the particular wants of the various localities. The reason of this was not far to seek. It was because these measures affecting local interests had been drawn up by a central authority in a central office without adequate communication with the localities for whose benefit the measures were intended. He did not blame the central authority; but any-one who knew these facts could not but see that the attention of the central authority had in many instances been directed to the requirements of Parliament, and not so much to the wants of the locality for which the measure was destined. He hoped that in dealing with this question—if, indeed, the Government could propose to deal with the Local Government Question in Scotland—the Lord Advocate would keep this in mind, and that he would communicate, if not the principles, at all events the details of his measure, when the principles had been settled, to the local authorities, by whom he meant not only the Commissioners of Supply, but the various local elective boards which existed in Scotland. If the Lord Advocate took that course he would save himself a great deal of trouble and opposition in Parliament; and when his measure was introduced in "another place" he would find it would require much less revision and alteration.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in reply, said, that Her Majesty's Government, so far as he was aware, had no immediate intention of introducing so large a measure as the noble Earl (the Earl of Minto) appeared to contemplate. It was true that the Lord Advocate proposed almost immediately to bring in a mea-

1769
sure into the other House of Parliament providing for an alteration of the Poor Law and an amendment of the constitution of the Parochial Boards. It was a measure based on the recommendations of a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1871. Among other things, it proposed to give a more strictly representative character to those Boards than they now possessed, and in some respects extended the authority of the Boards; but with regard to local taxation, the Government had no immediate intention of dealing with it.
THE EARL OF MINTOasked if in the measure referred to it was intended to alter the method of taxation with regard to the Poor Law?
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEwas not able to say, not having seen the Bill, whether the incidence of taxation would be dealt with.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS PREVENTION BILL.
QUESTION.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETasked the Lord President of the Council as to the progress of the Bill for the Rivers Conservancy and the Prevention of Floods, and whether ordnance survey of the river basins could not be expedited, inasmuch as no works for the prevention of floods could be commenced, until the survey of these districts was completed?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would take that opportunity of asking whether the Government would take some means to stimulate the publication of the 6-inch survey?
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHinquired whether the River Thames would not be included in the Bill, because otherwise great injustice would be done.
EARL SPENCERsaid, Her Majesty's Government had made every endeavour to forward the Bill in the other House of Parliament. It left their Lordships' House on the 17th of March, and was read a first time in the other House on the following day. The second reading was proposed on the 31st of March; but the debate on that Motion was adjourned, and was resumed on the 2nd of April, when an Amendment to read the Bill a second time that day six months was defeated by a large majority. His right hon. Friend the President of the Local
1770
Government Board proposed to refer it to a Select Committee, which was not to take evidence, but only to consider the clauses. Since the 8th of April every effort had been made by his right hon. Friend to further advance the Bill; but Motions to stop its progress and the operation of the half-past 12 o'clock Rule had proved a great obstacle to his efforts. There were, at the present time, 11 Notices against its progress, some being Motions which were not calculated to assist the Bill—such, for instance, as Mr. Healy's Motion to add Mr. Dillon's name to the Committee. He could assure their Lordships that if the Bill did not become law in the present Session, the failure would be attributable to no want of interest on the part of the Government. In regard to the completion of the Ordnance Survey of the river districts, he admitted that it would be a great advantage that it should be completed. The Government would endeavour to secure for the river basins a priority, and he would make inquiry as to the possibility of carrying out the suggestion of the noble Marquess as well as the noble Duke.

ARMY ORGANIZATION—MILITIA AND LINE BATTALIONS.
QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he rose to call attention to paragraph 173 on page 31 of the Report on Army Reorganization of the Committee assembled under General Lord Airey; and to ask Her Majesty's Government how the difficulty pointed out in that paragraph of converting a militia battalion into a battalion of the line without legislative enactment is to be met; and further, whether the opinion of the law officers of the Crown has been taken as to the legality of converting a man who has been enlisted under Act of Parliament as a militiaman in a particular regiment into a soldier of the line? He felt he ought to apologize for raising a military subject so soon after the discussion they had had in their Lordships' House. The changes, however, which were to take place were of a most violent character and would affect the whole Service; and he could not help expressing his regret that the Secretary of State for War had kept to himself all the information he had got, instead of communicating it to Parliament for

1771
consideration by the Members of both Houses. He hoped, however, that the Government would not press forward their scheme until a fuller opportunity were given for an expression of opinion by those affected by the scheme as to its probable results. He contended that, in reality, the scheme had been sprung upon them without the slightest previous intimation to those immediately concerned as to what was to be its general bearing.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he must confess that after hearing the noble Earl's speech he had some difficulty in understanding his Questions. The noble Earl asked how it was proposed to convert a Militia battalion into a Line battalion without an Act of Parliament? He could only give the answer which the noble Earl anticipated, and characterized as jocular—he knew not why—for he gave it in sober earnest. It had never been the intention of the Government to convert a Militia battalion into a Line regiment, or a single Militiaman into a Linesman. Nor had they any idea of altering the conditions under which Militiamen joined the Service, or to ask for an Act of Parliament to enable them to do so. The paragraph of Lord Airey's Committee's Report, quoted by the noble Earl, referred to the recommendation of the Localization of Forces Committee of 1872, that in time of war recruits should be enlisted for general service in the Line or Militia battalion of a sub-district. Such a measure formed no part of Lord Cardwell's scheme, nor was there any intention of adopting it now. The Line and the Militia would continue, as at present, to be distinct Services. It was quite true that some legislation would be necessary on some technical points; but that would not in the slightest degree affect the conditions under which the Militia Force was raised.
LORD STRATHNAIRNsaid, that nothing could be worse than the way in which opponents of the Army Organization scheme had been treated by the Secretary of State for War. He did not also think that the measure itself had been treated with the justice and the amplitude which the vital importance of its nature and the welfare and success of the Army demanded.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he must protest against the careless man-
1772
ner in which documents in reference to proposed changes in the Army were prepared; and, as an instance, need not go further than a single item in the Book on the Table, in which appeared the pay given, or proposed to be given, to a superior non-commissioned officer exceeded that of the junior commissioned officers—by which the regimental sergeant-major would lose pay on promotion from the ranks. He must more forcibly, also, protest against the way in which irresponsible secret advisers of the Government sneered at officers of experience in regimental commands, their own experience being limited to some five years as a subaltern, and six months, or less, as a captain. Also, against the system by which both the Army and the Navy were placed under civilians, and the puerile way in which that House was treated on military questions, tending to, and resulting from, the system of jobbery that prevailed, which made the interests of the Army and the Navy subservient to political jobbery. He did not so much blame the Government as the system of jobbery which was due to the increased power in respect to patronage of the other House of Parment.
EARL GRANVILLE: I rise to Order. The noble Lord is using language which I do not think is proper with regard to "another place." I trust that the noble Lord will withdraw the expression he has used.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he had no desire to say anything improper with regard to "another place." He found fault rather with the system than with the Government. He was, however, quite ready to withdraw the objectionable expression if it was the feeling of their Lordships that he should do so; but he submitted that the Government should take steps to render what he complained of impossible.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, he attributed the defects in our Army Organization to the fact that a civilian was, by the custom of Parliament, placed at the head of, the Army.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he thought that it was unnecessary he should apologize for being, as a civilian, at the head of the Navy. He could not refrain from protesting against what the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Strathnairn) had said in reference to the line

1773
which had been taken by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in "another place," because there was no foundation for the impressions entertained by the noble and gallant Lord. Their Lordships were now asked to reopen a question which had been discussed for several hours the other night, when ample opportunity was given for any noble Lord to address the House. Ample opportunity had been given to both Houses of Parliament for any discussion or Motion that might have been considered desirable with regard to the changes which were proposed. Those changes did not depend upon an Act of Parliament, but upon the Prerogative of the Crown; and there had been ample opportunity for moving an Address to the Crown, or taking any other steps which noble Lords might have thought necessary.
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that the second Memorandum, which it was stated would be laid upon the Table, making alterations in the first Memorandum, was not yet before their Lordships; and he thought it a little hard that, considering the changes would take effect on the 1st July, the military men of the House should have so short a time allowed for raising any points they might wish to bring forward upon it.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the second Memorandum referred to changes in detail, and did not, so far as he was aware, affect the principle of the scheme in any way.
LORD DENMAN, as matter of Privilege, called attention to that part of the noble and gallant Earl's speech in which he (the Earl of Galloway) alluded to The Times publishing the projects of the Government before they were laid before Parliament. He pointed out the great unfairness in not reporting the remarks of the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Powis), on moving for a Return on the subject of five years' inaction incapacitating a general from employment. He did not say this to curry favour with the noble Earl, though he had been a pupil of his friend Dr. Selwyn (late Lord Bishop of Lichfield), but in order that truth might be placed before the public. Their Lordships might reflect that if peace were to last for 10 years no one above the rank of a colonel now might be able to command a force. General Kavanagh had lately depicted
1774
the danger of shelving officers who, although old, might be far more active than their juniors, whilst invaluable by their experience. The retirement of colonels at the age of 55 was under consideration. He himself, three-quarters of a century old, was willing to compete with any of their Lordships in some athletic exertions or any struggle for the maintenance of truth, whilst he had known a man of 30 unable even to shave himself. No one could report their Lordships' debates without the leave of the House, and the Usher of the Black Rod had the right to give or withhold admission to the Reporters' Gallery, in the same way as the Speaker of the House of Commons could allot space to each journal. He (Lord Denman) had, on June 6, 1856, pointed out the power of the public even over The Times, and had never been fairly reported by that journal since, having a few words, seemingly not worth a report, attributed to him with his name. He did not care for being reported, but wished to see nothing reported but the truth.
After a few words from the Earl of GALLOWAY,
The subject dropped.
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
Read 2a (according to order); Committee negatived: Then Standing Order No. XXXV. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, and passed.
STATIONERY OFFICE (CONTROLLER'S REPORT).
Select Committee appointed, such Committee to consist of five Lords, "to consider the First Report of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office."—(The Lord Thurlow.)
And, on June 2, the Lords following were named of the Committee:

E. Jersey.

L. Thurlow.

V. Sherbrooke.

L. Monteagle of Brandon

L. Clinton.

And a message sent to the Commons to acquaint them that this House has appointed a Committee of five Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons "to consider the first Report of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office;" and to request that the Commons will be pleased to appoint an equal number of Members to be joined with the Members of this House.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.