Lords Sitting of 11 August 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Allotments* (248).
Second Reading—Reserve Forces Acts Consolidation* (224); Militia Acts Consolidation* (225); Artizans' Dwellings (231); County Courts (Advocates' Costs)* (240); Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund)* (241); Government Annuities and Insurance* (243).
Committee—Parcel Post* (223).
Committee—Report—Bombay Civil Fund* (222); Isle of Man (Officers)* (227); Pensions Commutation* (230).
Committee—Report—Third Reading— Bills of Exchange* (234); Labourers' Cottages and Allotments (Ireland)* (210), and passed.
Report—Municipal Corporations* (140); Wellesley Bridge (Limerick)* (228); Educational Endowments (Scotland) (239); Poor Law Amendment* (221).
Third Reading—Electric Lighting* (229), and passed.

THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—ALLEGED DISCONTENT.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: I wish to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether any satisfactory arrangements have been arrived at with reference to the police in Ireland?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL): My Lords, I am very glad to tell the noble Lord that the Reports from Ireland upon this point are very satisfactory indeed. I am informed that the men have ceased their agitation, and that the Lord Lieutenant has promised a careful inquiry into the claims which have not been already met by the Vote in the House of Commons. The Lord Lieutenant expresses himself as well satisfied with their present attitude.

ARTIZANS' DWELLINGS BILL.
(The Earl of Rosebery.)
ARTIZANS' DWELLINGS BILL.

  (NO. 231.) 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, that the Act of 1875 had been greatly improved by the Amendment Act of 1879. It having been felt, however, that even the latter measure was in-
  1490
  complete, a Committee was appointed, presided over by the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross), to consider whether further legislation on this subject was necessary, which had arrived at conclusions which were embodied in this Bill. There were four points in the Bill to which he desired to call attention. The first was the modification of the provision compelling the reconstruction of houses in insanitary districts. The Bill repealed the enactment on this subject of the Act of 1879 as far as regarded the country. As far as London was concerned, it gave the urban authority a discretionary power as regarded the rebuilding of houses for one-half of the inhabitants displaced. The second point was that the Bill simplified the steps necessary for acquiring insanitary houses. In the third place, the Bill explained the ambiguous language of the Act of 1879, under which arbitrators had felt themselves compelled to award somewhat extravagant compensation. In the fourth place, it was intended to amend Mr. Torrens's Artizans' Dwellings Act so as to enable the local authorities to take houses in insanitary districts which, although not insanitary in themselves, were the cause of insanitation in others, by blocking up courts and preventing ventilation. He believed that this Bill would be a material improvement upon the Act of 1879.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

ENTAIL (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Order of the Day for Consideration of Commons Amendments read.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that several Amendments had been made by the House of Commons to this Bill, which he thought were in the nature of improvements. The first of these was one at the end of Clause 6. It had been suggested by a noble Lord opposite, and had reference to a practical matter. The proposition which came back to them was as follows:—
  "When at least one-fourth part of a capital sum borrowed for improvements on an entailed estate upon the security of a terminable rent charge in manner provided by the Entail Acts

  1491
  shall have been defrayed by the heir in possession, it shall be lawful for such heir, without the consent of the nearest heir being required, and whether the cost of such improvements shall have been charged prior or subsequent to the passing of 'The Entail Amendment Act, 1875,' to avail himself of the provisions of the said Act for the substitution of a bond or disposition in security over the estate for the remainder of such capital sum."
  The next Amendment was in Clause 8, and its object was to provide for the granting of leases at reduced rates. There were at the present time provisions in the deeds of entail which forbade the leasing of any farm at a reduced rent. Their Lordships would agree that in the present state of agriculture it was undesirable to put such, a bar to the giving of fresh leases. Therefore, it was proposed by this Amendment to give the heirs of entail power to grant leases at reduced rents. Then there was an Amendment giving a minor power to move a charge from a disentailed estate to an entailed estate settled on the same line of heirs. He did not suppose their Lordships would have any objection to that; but in the Amendment he proposed to ask their Lordships to substitute the word "recording" for "execution." The Amendment, with that alteration, would read thus—
  "If the heir-apparent, or other nearest heir, whose consent is required as aforesaid, shall have assigned his expectancy or interest, and the assignee shall have intimated the assignation to the heirs in possession for the time being at any time prior to the recording of the instrument of disentail, such assignee shall be entitled to appear at any time prior to such recording, and to demand that the value in money of such expectancy or interest shall be ascertained and shall be entitled to a preference upon such value, according to the date of the intimation of his resignation, and such preference shall be given effect to in his favour when the value of such expectancy or interest is paid or secured."
  That Amendment had been inserted at the instance of several influential bodies in Scotland. By the Act of 1853 the creditor might be placed in the position at any time of finding that the disentail had been executed without his knowledge. The object of the Amendment was to enable the creditors of an heir-apparent who had raised his money to have preference over the other creditors, according to the date of the debts. The next two Amendments were merely draftsman's Amendments; and then
  1492
  they came to Clause 15, page 6, line 5, which regarded the question of marriage contracts made previous to the passage of this Act. They then came to the clause relating to the creditors of the heir of the property disentailed. On this point there had been considerable diversity of opinion in this House, as their Lordships would remember. The 1st clause was, as their Lordships were aware, defeated by a majority of 5 in a somewhat full House. Since that time they had adopted an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, whom he was sorry not to see in his place (Lord Balfour of Burleigh), which limited the question of debts to debts incurred after the passing of this Act. That ought to meet the difficulties of noble Lords opposite. It did not, he confessed, meet their difficulties on Report; but he submitted that, on Consideration, seeing that the passing of the measure had the unanimous consent of the Conservative Members, in deference to the opinion of the constituencies as represented by the House of Commons, they should not be disposed to press the opposition which they had carried by a small majority on the Amendment. There was also another objection to the clause, and he confessed he considered it a reasonable one. A noble Lord, whose experience and authority in law was exceedingly high, thought that in the working out of the Amendment the procedure would be difficult. In accordance with other lawyers of weight and authority, the Lord Advocate and Her Majesty's Law Officers in Scotland had drafted a course of procedure which, he was given to understand, met the objections of those whose opinions were entitled to respect in this matter. He, therefore, hoped their Lordships would, also agree to the Amendment. Then they had lengthened the period of time during which they might demand a sale by auction, which he thought their Lordships also considered an improvement. The last three Amendments were simply Amendments giving greater latitude in securing provision for the wives and children, and other provisions of that sort, where the estate was going to be converted. Their Lordships would be of opinion that these Amendments were substantial improvements in the body of the Bill, and he would ask them to give their approval to them.
  Moved, "That the Commons' Amendments be now considered."—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he was not now going to make any objection to the Amendments which had been proposed, and to which they were asked now to consent; but, at the same time, he must make one remark—that Clause 15, dealing with the power of creditors, was twice discussed in this House, and in the first instance it was struck out of the Bill by a majority of 5. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery) tried to re-introduce that clause in almost identical words, except that he put in in respect of debt incurred after the passing of this Act. If he (the Duke of Buccleuch) recollected rightly, they were almost the only alterations in the clause he proposed. That was discussed fully in this House, and negatived by a majority of 15, being 10 more than on the previous occasion. It seemed very extraordinary that a particular clause which had been twice discussed in this House, and twice had gone through the ordeal of a division and lost, should be deliberately re-introduced in the other House as if it were for the purpose of creating a difficulty between the two Houses, or, what was too much the fashion now-a-days, to bring pressure upon this House, which he protested against, and always would. The Amendment brought up from the other House was certainly an improvement on the original Clause 15, which was thrown out here; but, at the same time, he must protest, though in the present state of the House, and in the last days of the Session, it was no use attempting to divide. Unfortunately, also, there was no one on his side of the House who could speak with authority like the noble and learned Lord (Lord Watson), who spoke the other night, and who was perfectly conversant with this matter, and the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns), who also took a great interest in the matter. He (the Duke of Buccleuch) should certainly object to the Amendment, and protest against the course which had been adopted in bringing it forward again. It looked very much like that sort of legislation which he had observed during the long time he had sat in this House, where very often a general measure was introduced to
  1494
  meet a particular case. It looked as if there were some particular case here, and this general measure was brought in to meet it. He should certainly say "Not-Content" to that clause, though, as he said, he would not put their Lordships to the trouble of dividing; but he was sure that many noble Lords who took part in the discussion the other night were not present because they had no idea that the matter would be under discussion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he really thought the noble Duke could not be serious in his statement that it was a disrespect to this House for the Commons to differ from their decision on a particular clause of any Bill sent down by this House to the House of Commons, any more than it was necessarily disrespectful to the House of Commons for this House to differ from them. As to the noble Duke's suggestion that this clause might be intended to meet a particular case, this was the first time he had heard it made. No such suggestion was made on the former occasion, and he (the Lord Chancellor) then very strongly advocated the clause on what seemed to him to be a question of clear general principle, which was that of treating the power to disentail as equivalent to property, whether the owner of the entailed, estate wished himself to exercise it or not, when there were not other means of paying his debts. He felt sure that if the Bill had passed into law without some such clause as this, not many years would elapse before it would be found necessary to add such a clause.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, the noble Duke had made a very good protest against what had occurred in this matter; and, for his part, he was quite content to take it as a record of the opinion of the noble Duke. The Amendment had been moved by a highly-respected Member on the Conservative side of the House; and it did seem difficult to please the noble Lord, if, when the Government brought in a clause it was defeated by a majority of 5, and when another clause was brought in by the noble Lord opposite, it was defeated by a majority of 15. He thought the Government had clean hands in that matter. The Bill went down to the House of Commons, and that House, without one single dissenting voice, had

  1495
  insisted upon putting this clause into the Bill. That had been done by the other House, consisting of 658 Members, without one dissenting voice.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: At what hour in the morning?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he really could not say; he was not there with a stop-watch in his hand. All he could say was, that a House of 658 Members agreed to this clause, which had been rejected in this House by a majority of 5, and the noble Duke said that under these circumstances it was an insult to this House to re-introduce the Amendment to their Lordships. He (the Earl of Rosebery) thought the House of Commons had some reason to complain that their 658 voices were not to be taken as weighing against a majority of 5 in their Lordships' House. As regarded the curious insinuation that this was a general measure introduced to meet a particular case, he could only say that, for his part, he did not know of any particular case which it would meet, and he had never heard of any such case.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he understood the noble Duke's protest to be in regard to the lateness of the Session when this measure was brought on.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYreplied, that there had been noble Lords in the House yesterday who, if they had had any strong feeling in the matter, would have remained till to-day.
  Motion agreed to.
  Commons Amendments considered accordingly.
  Several of the Amendments agreed to, with Amendments; Moved to agree to one other of the Amendments; objected to; and, on question, resolved in the affirmative. The rest of the Amendments agreed to; and Bill returned to the Commons.

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 239.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 239.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL),in moving that the Report of the Amendments to this Bill be received, said, he should like to say a word with respect to one Amendment which he accepted yesterday from the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon),
  1496
  who, he was sorry to see, was not in his place. The noble Duke had left London this morning, otherwise he should have communicated with him. He was anxious to say that, in accepting the Amendment upon the 2nd sub-section of the 6th clause, the effect of which was to remove the fixed number of publicly-elected Members which the Commission should be required to include in any future Governing Body, it was an Amendment which he himself thought was an improvement on the Bill, and thoroughly consistent with the sound doctrine that they ought to trust the Commission, and, as far as possible, avoid imposing these absolute restrictions upon their discretion. Still, he found that, in accepting the Amendment on the spur of the moment—it had not been printed—he went somewhat beyond the intention of the Scotch Education Department, and the promises that were made in "another place." He thought it right that he should say that in justice to his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Rosebery), and to the Vice President of the Council.
  Moved. "That the Report of Amendments to the Bill be received."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he honestly thought, from the point of view of the Bill, that the Amendments of the noble Duke were not of supreme importance, because, in the first place, they would remove some anomalies; in the second place, he thought the Commission would have had sufficient indications in the spirit of the clause of what was intended to guide them without further restriction; and, in the third place, it must be observed that if the Lord Privy Seal had not accepted the Amendment, it would have been open and competent to the noble Duke to defeat him on a division, which he was afraid, from the appearance of the House yesterday, compared with its appearance to-day, could very easily have been done. But what was of supreme importance in this matter was, that there should not be the slightest doubt or reflection cast on the good faith of the Government in dealing with this Bill. There was no doubt that, after considerable reflection and deliberation in the Scottish Education Department, it was determined to tie up the hands of the Commission with regard to the introduction of the re-

  1497
  presentative element in the Governing Bodies. Those proposals were submitted to Parliament, and received the sanction of Parliament, as being pledged on the part of Her Majesty's Government. If the noble Duke had been present, and it had been possible to give him Notice of the intention of the Government, it would have been the duty of the Government to move the re-introduction of the original words on Report; but, as the noble Duke was not present, and as his Amendment was accepted by the Government yesterday, it would be breaking faith with him if any Motion of that sort were made in this House. The consideration of the Amendments of the noble Duke must be left to be dealt with by the House of Commons, on the clear understanding that the House of Lords had done nothing intentionally to frustrate the intentions of the Government as expressed in the House of Commons.
  Motion agreed to.
  Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.