Lords Sitting of 6 July 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Baths and Wash-houses Acts Amendment* (180); Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* (181).
Second Rending—Vagrancy (161); Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland)* (166).
Committee—Supreme Court of Judicature Amendment (167–179).
Committee—Report—Highway Rates and Expenditure* (173).
Report—Cathedral Statutes (170); Justices' Jurisdiction (172–174); Merchant Shipping (Colonial Inquiries)* (164); County Courts (Ireland)* (168).
Third Reading—Tramways Provisional Orders* (125), and passed.

EGYPT—THE ARMAMENTS AT ALEXANDRIA.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wish to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in accordance with a Notice which I gave the other day, Whether he can give the House any information with respect to the earthworks and fortifications which, it is said, are being armed round the Port of Alexandria; whether any communication has been made to the de facto authorities in Egypt on the subject of those earthworks, and, whether any

1571
orders have been given to our Admiral to enable him to act with promptitude?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in answer to the noble Marquess, I have to state that, about five weeks ago, preparations, which could only be construed as of a hostile character towards the Anglo-French Fleet, were reported to us as having been commenced in the harbour of Alexandria. We immediately communicated with our Admiral; and, at the same time, we applied to the Sultan to send a peremptory order that the preparations should be discontinued. I do not think that we heard any more since then until within the last few days, when a communication was received to the effect that preparations both with regard to earthworks and with regard to arming one of the forts there, and with regard also to a possible plan of obstructing the mouth of the harbour, were being made. We immediately gave instructions to our Admiral on the subject. I am sure that the noble Marquess will not wish that I should go into details with respect to those instructions; but I may say that they are of a character which appears to Her Majesty's Government to be ample to deal with the emergency. I am also able to state that we have heard that the Sultan has sent another peremptory order on the subject; but we have no official information at the present moment as to whether these preparations have been stopped or not.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he had seen in The Times a statement with regard to the instructions which had been sent to the British Admiral. Was there any truth in it? From what appeared in that paper it might be supposed that it was known in the office of that paper exactly what the instructions were.
EARL GRANVILLE: I can assure your Lordships that no more instructions have been made known by the Foreign Office to The Times, or anywhere else, than have been communicated to your Lordships.

CATHEDRAL STATUTES (re-committed) BILL.—(No. 170.)
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)

REPORT.
Amendment reported (according to order).
Clause 3 (Alterations in draft statutes for Cathedral establishments, &c.).
EARL BEAUCHAMP, in moving an Amendment, limiting the power of revision of Cathedral Statutes conferred by the Bill upon the Privy Council, said, that when Statutes had been duly passed by Deans and Chapters all control over them passed to the Privy Council, which was given power to revise and alter the Statutes. By that means a Statute passed for one purpose by a Chapter might be so altered as to effect a purpose entirely different, and it was for the purpose of obviating that objection he now made this proposal.
Amendment moved,
In page 2, lines 16 and 17, to leave out ("in whole or in part and with such amendments as they may think requisite.")—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, that he was of opinion that it was desirable for the Privy Council to possess a power of amending Statutes submitted to them. There was no reason to suppose that that power would be exercised in a mischievous manner. It was taken for granted by the framers of the Bill that the Privy Council would act in friendly conjunction with the Dean and Chapter in the matter. He did not think that any principle was involved in the power of revision being intrusted to the Privy Council, rather than to the Deans and Chapters. Should the Amendment be carried, the Bill would not, however, be materially injured. As, however, he preferred the Bill as it was, he was not prepared to accept the Amendment.
On Question? Resolved in the negative.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

JUSTICES' JURISDICTION BILL.
(The Lord Bramwell.)

(NO. 172.) REPORT.
Amendments reported (according to order).
EARL COWPER, in moving an Amendment of which he had given Notice, said, its effect would be to extend the principle of the Bill. In his opinion, that principle might be extended in many cases, by which the time of the Assize Courts was at present very much wasted. In the first place, magistrates might try simple cases of fraudulent

1573
trustees, agents, and bankers. Complicated cases, such as the City of Glasgow Bank and other cases of fraud, by the issue of fraudulent prospectuses and information by directors and trustees, would still be tried as heretofore; but there were many simple cases, which might well be disposed of by magistrates. He proposed, also, that slight cases of felonious wounding should be placed under the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions. Although, at present, they could try cases of assault, yet, if there were any evidence of an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm, they had not jurisdiction. The crime of bigamy, too, was one in which it was desirable there should be an option in the magistrate as to sending the accused for trial to the Assizes. Among the migratory poor, bigamy was often a venial offence, and was seldom of a complicated nature. The Bill was safeguarded by giving the magistrate the choice of sending to the Assizes, and there was a power of changing the place of trial, both in the Public Prosecutor and in a Judge of the High Court. With those safeguards he thought that there would be no fear that complicated cases would be sent to the Sessions. If magistrates were empowered to try such cases as he had mentioned, much waste of power would be avoided, the long detention of untried prisoners would be prevented, and the Winter Assizes, by which so much inconvenience was caused, might, perhaps, be dispensed with. The noble Earl concluded by moving the Amendment.
Amendment moved, in Clause 1, page 1, line 19, after ("burglary"), to insert—
("Also persons guilty of offences under the Act of the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-six, sections seventy-five, seventy-six, seventy-seven, seventy-eight and eighty; also persons guilty of offences under the Act of the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter sixty, section eighteen; also persons guilty of bigamy.")—(The Earl Cowper.)
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he hardly knew how to deal with the proposal of the noble Earl (Earl Cowper), because he (Lord Bramwell) could not deny that Quarter Sessions might be safely trusted to try simple cases of the offences enumerated, especially that of bigamy. It frequently happened that cases of bigamy came before Judges of Assize, for which
1574
only a day's imprisonment was given. After, perhaps, being ill-used, poor women were frequently deserted by their husbands, and then re-married, their second husbands well knowing that they were married. Such cases as those might be well relegated to Quarter Sessions. But he had already made a jettison of "forgery" to save the rest of his cargo, and was afraid that the chance of passing the Bill in "another place" would be very much lessened if the Amendment were adopted; and, therefore, although he would not vote against it, he would be glad if it were not pressed.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, in his opinion, the Amendment, in its present shape, could not possibly be accepted.
LORD BRABOURNEsubmitted that the Bill should not be extended as proposed by the noble Earl (Earl Cowper), but that the Government should deal with the whole subject, as there were, no doubt, many cases that might be left to be dealt with at the Quarter Sessions.
EARL COWPERsaid, after the expression of these opinions by his noble and learned Friends (the Lord Chancellor and Lord Bramwell), he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Moved, after Clause 5, insert as a new clause—
"Provided that on every such removal by the public prosecutor he shall give notice thereof to all persons bound so to appear at such trial on every such removal by the person committed, the person bound over to prosecute shall give notice thereof to all persons bound so to appear at such trial."—(The Lord Bramwell.)
THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, that, in his opinion, if the onus of giving notice were thrown upon a private person, a failure of justice might sometimes result. He would suggest that notice should be given by the Clerk of the Peace.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, his experience was that the policeman in charge of the case was almost invariably bound over to prosecute, and it would, therefore, be his duty to give notice.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he would suggest that the Clerk of the Petty Sessions Division where the person was committed was the most fitting

1575
and convenient person to give notice to all persons bound to appear at the trial.
On Question? Resolved in the affirmative.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 174.)

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 167.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order).
Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
Clause 2 (Additional attendance in Court of Appeal).
On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 12, after ("or") insert ("who has held and does not for the time being hold.")
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 (Precedence of President of Probate, &c. Division).
Moved, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL CAIRNSsaid, he objected to the clause, on the ground that since the changes which had taken place by the abolition of the offices of the Chief Justice of England and the Chief Baron, and the transfer of the Master of the Rolls to the office he held in the Court of Appeal, there was no reason to make any distinctions in precedence; and, inasmuch as such distinctions must be of an invidious character, he thought they ought not to perpetuate them.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he also objected to the clause, and quite agreed with the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) as to the invidiousness of such a distinction. He thought that it would be unreasonable that a Judge who might have been recently appointed Judge of the Probate and Admiralty Division should take precedence of Lords Justices appointed before him. At present the Lords Justices had precedence over the President of the Court of Probate; and, though the matter was not of great importance, he did not think this change should be made. Let them take his
1576
own case. He had been for 26 years on the Bench, and had the honour of being a Privy Councillor, yet, according to this clause, a young man who had been named President of the Probate Court would have been entitled to take precedence of him when he was a Lord Justice of Appeal. He could not see that any good would be gained by the change.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that his motives in proposing the clause were not of sufficient force to make him press it against the objections of both his noble and learned Friends; but, at the same time, he certainly considered it desirable that the question of precedence should be settled. With respect to the objection of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell), he (the Lord Chancellor) must say he did not think it probable that the office of Judge of the Probate and Divorce Court was ever likely to be filled by some gentleman lately called to the Bar. The course hitherto had been to appoint a person whose services had already been valuable, if not a Privy Councillor, at all events, one whose position would command general respect, and he was an. ex-officio Judge of the Court of Appeal. As the other ex-officio members of the Court had precedence, it had been thought desirable, in settling precedence, that this Judge also, when he became an ex-officio member of the Court, should rank next to them. However, he would consider the matter further, and on the Report would bring up the clause in an amended form, which he thought would meet with approval.
On Question? Resolved in the negative.
Clause struck out accordingly.
Clauses 4, 5, and 6 severally agreed to.
Clause 7 (Amendment of 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66 s. 91).
On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 4, after ("act,") insert ("as amended by section ten of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875.")
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 179.)

VAGRANCY BILL.—(No. 161.)
(The Earl Stanhope.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL STANHOPE, in moving that the Bill he now read a second time, said, that it had already passed the other House, under the auspices of Mr. Poll and Mr. Bryce. He might, by way of explanation, state that its object was two-fold—first, to give the Boards of Guardians power to detain casuals making a first application for relief for one day; and, secondly, in the event of its being found that they had had obtained admission on false and fraudulent pretences, or under a false name, the Bill gave the magistrate power to impose penalties. The Bill was aimed at the class of professional tramps and vagabonds who gave so much trouble in different counties, roaming about from place to place, and who, when travelling through the country, used the workhouses as lodging-houses from which they might, when comfortably refreshed, start out upon their travels. In Kent, as he knew by experience, the vagrants regarded the workhouses as convenient lodgings for the night during their journey from London to the seaside, and that, no doubt, was the case in many other counties. In order to put a stop, if possible, to the practice, the Bill also proposed, in the event of a second application, that the Board of Guardians should be empowered to detain the "casual" at work for five days, instead of three days, as was at present legal. That provision, he thought, would be exceedingly useful in rendering the workhouses less agreeable to tramps and vagrants than they were at present. In conclusion, he might say that the Bill had the full approval of the Government, and he would now move the second reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl Stanhope.)
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, the proposed change in the law was of a very large nature; and he hoped their Lordships would pause before giving a second reading to a Bill which appeared to him to be a Bill which would simply give the Boards of Guardians in every Union through-
1578
out the country power to imprison and keep in the workhouse for five days anyone who, within a given space of time, should be so imprudent as to apply for relief a second time as a casual. That was entirely opposite to the usual policy by which the Poor Law was administered, and would have the effect of turning workhouses into gaols, which was most certainly not intended to be their primary use. For himself, he declined to give Boards of Guardians the power of confiscating any man's liberty for five days. He fully admitted the existence of the evil which the Bill was designed to remedy; in fact, no one knew better than he did the evil that existed in the large numbers of vagrants who travelled through the country; but where these people did not behave themselves, and where they made fraudulent representation in applying for relief, they should be sent to gaol. He objected not only to the main principle of the Bill, but to Clause 5; because he did not think they required an Act of Parliament to tell the Local Government Board what arrangements they should make for classifying the paupers in workhouses. He therefore trusted their Lordships would not give a second reading to the Bill; for, on the whole, he thought it was one to which the House ought not to accede. The fact that the Bill had passed the other House was no reason why their Lordships should be called upon to pass it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the Conservatives in their Lordships' House were not often a divided Party; but, on this subject, there was, he regretted to say, a profound division between himself and his noble Friend who had just spoken (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon). He (the Marquess of Salisbury) could not help thinking that upon this question the opinion of noble Lords would vary according to their residence in the various counties, and the different circumstances of those counties with regard to pauperism and vagrancy. For instance, his noble Friend might live in a county where there were comparatively few tramps or "casuals" calling at the workhouse, and where they were not very troublesome.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: Just the contrary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, allowing it was so, he (the Marquess of

1579
Salisbury) might say that he lived in a county where they had become perfect pests, and he was sure that Hertfordshire was by no means singular in that respect. The magistrates and police concurred in stating that the evil became deeper and deeper year after year. It was not that the paupers and tramps went to the workhouses legitimately for relief, but they made them the basis of a vast mendicancy campaign. Either the workhouses had become more pleasant to the vagrants than they used to be, or the vagrants themselves had become more tolerant of the treatment they received, and of the means used by Boards of Guardians for the purpose of keeping them out. Formerly, the great mainstay of the British Constitution with regard to a vagrant was washing him. It used to be thought that if they washed him frequently, and made the water cold enough, they would drive him away; but that resource had failed, and the vagrant went to his bath with the utmost courage. His noble Friend demurred to making the workhouses gaols and wished offenders against the Vagrancy Laws to be sent to gaol; but he (the Marquess of Salisbury) would point out the inconvenience of adopting such a course, because they had the workhouses spread all over the country, whereas they only had one or two gaols in a county, and the vagrants whom they wished to discourage would first of all have to be sent to petty sessions, and subsequently to gaol. He could hardly speak too strongly of the amount of evil that was done to rural districts by the increased numbers of vagrants and mendicants, and in justice to the ratepayers of a county some less cumbersome remedy should be provided by the Legislature.
EARL FORTESCUEalso supported the Bill, observing that if workhouses were to be made either prisons or commodious hotels, he should prefer the former alternative. The ratepayers required some protection against vagrants, and ought not to be compelled either to support them in prison or to pay for their wanderings from one workhouse to another. He was satisfied that the Bill was one that would be likely to have a useful and beneficial effect in saving the money of the ratepayers.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he should like to know whether there was any good reason for the 3rd clause,
1580
which exempted Scotland and Ireland from the operations of the Bill? He thought if the Bill were to pass, Scotland and Ireland should be included under its operation; in fact, he considered it was unjust to Ireland that her name should be left out of the Bill, for he could inform their Lordships that there existed there a class of vagrants whom it was desirable to intercept in their journeys through the country.
LORD CARRINGTONsaid, that whatever might be the effect of the Bill, it would inflict no hardship on the bonâ fide casual. He would also remind their Lordships that this was an optional measure, and that it was not at all likely that the vagrants would be detained in every case, or that they would be many in number.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONremarked that that was not his idea of an optional measure—a measure to detain a vagrant in a workhouse for five days.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he would explain that the measure was not optional so far as the vagrants themselves were concerned, but it was so far as the Guardians were concerned. He had no difficulty in adding his testimony to that of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) as to the extent of the evil, for in the part of the country where he resided (Norfolk), the people suffered greatly from vagrants, and their number was continually increasing. Although the Bill might not do much to remedy the evil, it was worth while, at all events, trying the experiment; and there was nothing in it which appeared to be a hardship to the vagrant himself.
LORD DUNSANYsaid, that if it were not for the workhouses, people going through the country in search of work would have to put up in lodging-houses of the lowest class, perhaps the hotbeds of disease, which they would disseminate through the country.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

THE HOUSE OF LORDS—REPORTING—ACCOMMODATION FOR THE REPORTERS.—RESOLUTION.
EARL BEAUCHAMP, in rising to move the Resolution of which he had

1581
given Notice on this subject, said, that his great object was so to place the reporters that they might be enabled to hear, and, therefore, accurately report, the proceedings of their Lordships' House, for owing to the acoustic qualities of the House it was difficult, if not impossible, for them to do so at the present moment. A Select Committee had sat on the subject two years ago, and, after giving it full consideration, had suggested various expedients that might be tried in order to facilitate the work of the reporters. As the result of the Report of that Committee, parts of the side Galleries had been temporarily appropriated to the reporters towards the end of the Session; but he did not consider that experiment afforded a fair test of the benefit of the change, for the simple reason that that experiment was made near the end of the Session, and that there were not more than one or two debates which could afford the reporters an opportunity of testing the change. He recollected that, upon that occasion, the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale), had read a letter to the House from the reporters, in which they expressed themselves against the change; but he believed that since that time there had been what some persons termed a revolution, and others a reform, of the Gallery, and that what was not desired by them then was very much desired now, for nothing had been done since, and the evils of inadequate reporting and inadequate accommodation for the reporters still existed. At any rate, some change was necessary, seeing that serious complaints had been made. Considering the very indifferent acoustic qualities of the House and the difficulties which the reporters had in conveying to the public a perfectly accurate report of their Lordships' speeches, and especially of Ministerial replies, which were telegraphed immediately all over the world, and a mistake in which might be productive of serious consequences, they ought to give the reporters every assistance they could in their endeavours to report their Lordships' speeches accurately. He remembered that the question was considered one of very great interest two years ago, and he thought it advisable to take up the question where it was left at that time. What he proposed was merely by way of ex-
1582
periment; but with a view to making permanent arrangements and arriving at a satisfactory result. With a hope that the proposal then made would receive a fair trial, he would move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
Moved, "That until the end of the Session the reporters be provided with temporary accommodation on each side of the Peers' Gallery under the two centre windows."—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD DENMANsaid, that he was against the proposed change; because he did not think that the experiment tried last year had caused any improvements in the reports of speeches, some of which were now very well reported. The reporters inserted what they chose, and omitted whatever displeased them. He (Lord Denman) thought that it was not desirable that the representatives of Peers—Princesses and Peeresses and their daughters—should find their seats occupied and the cushions pressed by the feet of reporters, especially in the interesting debates which might be expected to arise before the end of this Session, unless the system carried out in "another place" should prevail. The four windows were about the very best part of the Peers' Gallery, and he (Lord Denman) did not see any sound reason for the proposed change.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that two years ago the Select Committee which was appointed had fully considered this question, and had made the recommendation in question; but, although he (the Earl of Carnarvon) thought some remedy should be provided for the present inconveniences, he did not quite agree with the proposal of his noble Friend (Earl Beauchamp) to displace the Peeresses from the Galleries in the most conspicuous part of the House, and to interpose two bodies of reporters between them, or to relegate them to the end of the House; for the result of it, if adopted, would be that the speakers on either side of the House would be quite inaudible to the reporters behind them, and that would necessitate a double staff of reporters, or else require rapid travelling of the reporters from one side of the House to the other in the short space of 40 seconds. With regard to that point, it had been suggested that there should be some means of rapid transit from one Gallery to the other; but how that could be done did not appear; and yet, cer-

1583
tainly, it would be necessary when an animated discussion took place between his noble Friend the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) and the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville). If it could not be done it would be impossible for the reporters to do justice to their remarks. He would also ask their Lordships to consider a further objection—namely, that by the adoption of the proposal, the House would undergo very great loss, not to say injury, to its architectural effect, if a Gallery were to project from either side, for that was one of the very few rooms which could be looked upon with satisfaction in an architectural point of view. In his opinion, not much fault could be found with the acoustic properties of the House, and they were not so bad as they were alleged to be. He had himself sat there now for a considerable number of years, and he thought, on the contrary, that the House was very well constructed for acoustic purposes. The only thing required was that the speakers should speak clearly and distinctly. He could remember hearing the late Lord Lyndhurst, when in extremely old age, delivering those famous speeches which one could look back upon with pleasure and satisfaction, and in which every single syllable was reported without an omission through their being so clearly spoken. Then, in the case of the late Lord Derby, everything he said was reported without fail, and he could name many more speakers who had stood in the same position. If the House would, during a debate, remain perfectly silent there would be no difficulty in having speeches accurately reported. The difficulty really arose from the fact that there was a constant hum of conversation in the House. Many noble Lords made it a place of resort where matters of business and other arrangements could be talked over, to the great inconvenience both of the speakers and of the reporters. That could be remedied. In the Report of the Committee of which he was Chairman, it was recommended that the officers of the House should take care to carry out the requirements of the Standing Orders by enforcing silence. If that recommendation was acceded to, and the officers of the House would do their duty, then a great part of the present inconvenience would be remedied. There was one other difficulty which it was not so easy to cure.
1584
The Woolsack was at one end of the House while the reporters were at the other. If the two seats could be brought into juxtaposition a great improvement might be effected. Subject to those remarks, he was of opinion that his noble Friend had not made out his case, and he certainly strongly objected to material alterations being made in the structure of the House.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he agreed with a great deal of what the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) had said as to there not being much fault to be found with its acoustic properties. But there was no doubt that the hearing was bad, and that it was often very difficult to report the speeches—though through no fault of the reporters, and not always through the fault of the speakers. There was a large space below the Reporters' Gallery filled with strangers whose conversation competed with the speaker. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) himself had given evidence before the Committee, and had said how inconvenient it was that important speeches and also important answers to Questions on Foreign and Colonial Affairs should not be accurately reported. It was, no doubt, extremely desirable that their answers to Questions should be correctly reported. The noble Earl said that he had presided over the Committee, and the Committee had made many excellent recommendations, but not one of them had been adopted. It now appeared that there was a desire to have the experiment which was made last year repeated. That experiment was tried, and only one debate took place afterwards. That might be done. The expense would not be very serious, and the structure of the House would not be affected in the slightest degree. It was, in his opinion, very important for the general character of the House that its debates should be well reported, and, therefore, he thought it would be valuable to the House to have the experience of the rest of the Session, and to try the experiment again; and he understood from the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp) that such was the desire of the majority of the reporters. It would be desirable next year to re-appoint the Select Committee which sat to consider the subject two years ago.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, he hoped their Lordships would hesitate very much be-

1585
fore they adopted this Resolution. He was most anxious that everything right and possible should be done to facilitate the important and difficult work of the gentlemen who reported their debates; but he did not believe either that the reports were themselves defective, or that the means of reporting were open to the observations of censure that had been made. Where debates of importance arose on subjects that were attracting great interest in the country he had always found that the speeches made were extremely well reported. He did not agree with what had been said in. depreciation of the acoustic properties of the House. They were not, perhaps, so good as in some other buildings, or as in the House of Commons; but he thought that where there was a reasonable amount of attention and an absence of noise—he would say of foreign noise—there was a great deal to be said in favour of the acoustic qualities of that room. What he objected to most strongly in the noble Earl's (Earl Beauchamp's) Resolution was that his proposal was put forward as a temporary measure; but if it proved successful, then they were going to make it absolutely permanent, and the success of the experiment would be its greatest objection, for it would be the absolute ruin of that House. Though he did not mean to say that much might not be done, he was strongly of opinion that the reporting should not be conducted in blocks of Galleries projecting from each side of the House. The moment they had a Reporters' Gallery on each side of the House there must be seats, desks, and arrangements as in the present Reporters' Gallery, and arrangements of that kind would be quite fatal to the beauty of the House. He had always held that it would be a great improvement if the side Galleries were extended more than they were now, so as to afford two rows of seats for Peeresses and other persons who were entitled to sit and hear the debates, because he believed that could be done without spoiling the architectural appearance of the House. He believed that if the side Galleries were extended in that way they would act as sounding-boards, and would improve very much the acoustic qualities of the House. It was said that by giving accommodation to reporters in the side Galleries, the space occupied by the present Reporters' Gallery would be gained;
1586
but that did not answer the objections to this proposal. Reporters at the end of House, over the clock, would hear very much better a speaker who was speaking from the Bench behind him than a reporter on that (the Opposition) side of the House, because the speaker would stand with his back to him. But then it was said the reporter could go round to the opposite Gallery. That implied that there would be seats for all the reporters on both sides of the House. Suppose an important Question on which, to repeat an expression which had been made use of, the fate of nations might depend was to be asked and an answer given by a Minister; there must be a stampede of reporters the moment they had got the words of the Questioner in order that they might catch the words of the Minister. Such a proceeding would be simply ludicrous. He thought it would be a much wiser course, as the Session was far advanced, to appoint at the beginning of next Session a Committee similar to that which had already reported, and which Committee, having heard the views of the reporters themselves, might make recommendations for improved facilities without injuring the structual beauty of the Chamber. The noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) said that nothing had come of the recommendation of that Committee. That was the fault of the Government. When a Committee made recommendations it was the duty of the Government, and not of individual Members of the House, to act upon the Report of the Committee.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, having been a Member of the Committee which met two years ago on this subject, and having taken some interest in it, I hope your Lordships will allow me to make a few remarks. The noble and learned Earl who has just spoken (Earl Cairns) has objected in strong terms to the bare idea of the reporters being in the side Gallery, because he thinks a projection of the side Gallery would be so unsightly as to spoil the architectural beauty of your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Earl has himself again advocated that the side Gallery should be widened so as to allow for two rows of Peeresses—a proposal he first made two years ago. If this were done, the Gallery would, I believe, be wider and projected further into the House than was deemed necessary by the Committee

1587
for the small portion in the two bays required for the reporters. As will be seen by the plan, the utmost that is necessary would be a projection of one foot nine inches. The question of the heavy woodwork or screen, which the noble and learned Earl thinks would be necessary and look hideous, might be settled by having a brass grill very similar to the present brass-work. It seems to me, my Lords, perfectly clear that the widening of this little piece could not be so unsightly as widening the whole Gallery in the way proposed by the noble and learned Earl, and I think that this objection, therefore, falls to the ground. The noble and learned Earl then speaks of the acoustic properties of the House as being by no means deficient, and states that, on the occasion of interesting debates, good speakers can always be heard. In reply to that, I will only say that by the evidence brought before the Committee, your Lordships will see that the strongest testimony was given by one after another of the reporters, that the acoustics of the House are bad, and that the position they (the reporters) are placed in does not enable them to hear properly the ordinary debates in your Lordships' House. It is perfectly true that on important nights it is not difficult to hear certain Peers, who speak out and with a clear voice, when the House is quiet and attentively listening. As the noble and learned Earl is himself one of the special exceptions comprised under this head, it is not surprising that he usually finds himself well reported; but I maintain that in regard to the ordinary Business of the House the reporters are unanimous that the difficulty is very great and intolerable. It seems, my Lords, as if the Members of the Committee on Reporting are looked upon as the natural enemies of the House; and I confess I despair of any proposal whatever to remedy the defects ever being acceptable to the majority of your Lordships' House. One thing I can say—that the Members of that Committee sat continuously over some weeks, took a great deal of weighty evidence, and deliberated upon the subject with great care and earnest attention. The noble Earl who brought forward this Motion was Chairman of the Committee, and has lately received a letter from a committee of the reporters, showing
1588
clearly that every one of them sitting in the Gallery is dissatisfied, and is anxious for this experiment to be made. Further, it is quite certain that if newspapers are to be allowed and expected to obtain fair reports, considerable alteration must be made in the accommodation and position provided. I will not trouble your Lordships by going into the other matters proposed by the Committee; but I venture to think that if the Report and Evidence taken before the Committee are read, it will be seen that the Committee took great pains to arrive at a satisfactory result.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think, my Lords, that there are some considerations which are powerful against this Motion. The proposal for a locomotive body of reporters, who, if they are to keep up with the rapid changes of debate, must keep up with something more speedy than their own legs, in running from one side of the House to the other, in order to obtain reports of what is said, is one that is hardly likely to work well. I therefore hope the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp) will not go to a division. I do not know what the result of a division would be; but I think it would be wiser to withdraw the Motion, and to refer the matter to the Black Rod Committee, in order to hear the reporters on the subject. In that way, their views upon the subject might be accurately ascertained, as well as any proposal they may have to make upon it. I am bound to enter a protest against one principle which seems to me to have been laid down by the noble and learned Earl beside me (Earl Cairns). I have a very great respect for the architectural proportions of this House; but I cannot allow purely æsthetic considerations to overbear every other, and I must say that I would rather be in an ugly house where I could hear, than in a handsome house where I could not. I do not think the acoustic qualities of the House should be allowed to suffer for the sake of its architectural beauties. There is one other thing, however, which we ought to bear in mind. The beauty of this House may be very great, but the habits of this House are very bad; and there are some noble Lords who, while the House is sitting and endeavouring to proceed with its Business, make up for a good deal of their taciturnity, so far as public

1589
speaking is concerned, by a large amount of private conversational eloquence. The consequence is that unless a speaker exerts himself very considerably it is very difficult to hear him. I feel some embarrassment in this case. As a Member of the Conservative Party, I do not wish to interfere with the ancient arrangements of this House; but my own opinion is very Radical on this subject. I believe there will be found nothing suitable to the proceedings of Parliament but an official report, and that the official reporter should be placed at the Table of the House. It is somewhat extravagant, if not ridiculous, that every word spoken before a Select Committee, either by a Member of that Committee, or by a witness before it, should be carefully taken down by a shorthand writer and printed; while, as to the proceedings in the two Houses of Parliament, on which I will not, like my noble and learned Friend, say "the fate of nations," but on which, at all events, the most important diplomatic issues may depend, and where the very words uttered are used in favour of or against the rival statesmen of the day, and they are judged before the constituencies by what is said there—I say it is somewhat extravagant that of what is said in Parliament there should be no formal or official record—no record that pretends to be complete. I am sure that to an official record we must in the end come, though I am persuaded that the chief difficulty is that the House of Commons is perfectly terrified as to what the results of an official report would be. Had the matter, however, depended on the House of Lords, a decision would have been reached long ago. For the reasons I have stated, I think that for the present no better course could be adopted than to ascertain what the wishes of the reporters actually are upon the matter.
EARL BEAUCHAMP, in reply, said, that the remarks of noble Lords were intended to affect the opinions of the country; but that could not be done unless satisfactory reports were given of those remarks. The reporters complained bitterly of the present want of accommodation, and he had submitted the matter to their Lordships. If the House was disposed to wait for better reports till their Lordships spoke with distinctness, their prospects of getting them
1590
would be very bad; but the late Lord Beaconsfield, whose articulation was remarkably distinct, had once complained to him very much of an inaccuracy in the report of a speech he had made. The suggestion as to reporters running from one Gallery to another had nothing to do with the present proposal. It was a semi-jocular proposition made on a previous occasion. This matter really pressed for solution; but, after the discussion that had taken place, he would not trouble their Lordships to go to a division unless he got more support. He had not moved in the matter by any desire of his own, and the treatment he had received would cause him to retire with a keener appreciation of the couplet—
"They who in quarrels interpose
Must oft expect a bloody nose."
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— SECTION 59—LOANS TO IRISH LANDLORDS.—QUESTION.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I wish to ask the Lord Privy Seal, Whether it is a fact that, in respect to the advances made to landlords in settlement of arrears under the 59th section of the Land Act (Ireland), 1881, although applications were sent in, according to the Act, before 25th of February last, which applications were drawn up in accordance with the rules issued by the Land Commission, tenants' signatures being in each case witnessed by either a Poor Law Guardian, solicitor, or a magistrate, and the whole application duly verified and sworn to by either the landlord, or his agent on his behalf, that since the introduction of the Arrears Amendment Bill, 1882, that the Head Commissioners have thought fit to issue in each case circulars to the tenants, stating that unless he, the tenant, objects, the amount will be paid to the landlord within seven days, and his holding charged with the advance, repayable by instalments, in 15 years; and that is it true, if the tenant replies to this circular objecting, that the Commissioners will not grant the advance to the landlord; and that, in consequence of the issuing of this circular, the tenants, particularly in the county Mayo, have, as a body, objected, and that the landlords cannot get any of the advances

1591
applied for now from the Commissioners; and, if this is true, why it was that the circular was not issued to the tenants immediately after the application was sent in, and not delayed until after the introduction of the Arrears Amendment Bill; and why the Commissioners have paid the amount of some of the applications without issuing these circulars; and now what steps they propose to take in cases where, after the tenant signs the application in the presence of the necessary witnesses according to the Act, and sworn to afterwards by the landlord, or his agent on his behalf, and that he now objects to this advance being made, will the Commissioners hold his objection to be good, and not grant the advance to the landlord, thereby allowing the tenant to set aside and repudiate his contract?
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL), in reply, said, the Question of the noble Lord (Lord Oranmore and Browne) was a very portentous one, as regarded its dimensions, at first sight; but it was legitimate to ask it. He (Lord Carlingford) had submitted it to the Land Commissioners in Dublin, and they had, he believed, mastered it. The most important part of the information which he had received was that the noble Lord had been entirely mistaken in supposing that the circular referred to in his Question had anything whatever to do with the Arrears Bill. The circular was adopted many months ago, when there was no Bill dealing with arrears before Parliament, and it had been acted upon since. It was true that in many cases there had been considerable delay in issuing the circular—in other words, that the circular had not been sent to the tenant for a considerable time after the first application for a loan. The explanation of that was that in almost every case the application had proved to be inaccurate, and. had been sent back in order that inquiries might be made, and that it might be revised and subsequently dealt with. All this had caused delay in dealing with the cases for loans; but that delay had not arisen from any cause such as was suggested. In every case in which a loan had been issued, or an advance finally sanctioned, the circular had been sent to every tenant interested for signature. The circular itself was framed by the Commissioners as a precaution, as
1592
they were anxious that there should be no misunderstanding when a tenant proposed to bind himself to pay an increase of rent for a considerable number of years for the purpose of those advances. He found that the noble Lord was not accurate in saying that the great bulk of the tenants, particularly in Mayo, had objected upon receiving the circular in question. The contrary was the case; and the Commissioners said, with regard to the two estates from which the largest number of applications came, that from the one there were only 10 objections, while the applications numbered 163; and that from the other there was not one objection, though the number of applications amounted to 112. The Commissioners did not treat an objection as conclusive, but as a ground for further consideration and inquiry. In conclusion, he would repeat that the circulars had nothing to do with the Bill before Parliament. All these cases would be subjected to that Bill if it became law.
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.