Lords Sitting of 14 July 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Heading—Copyright (Musical Compositions) * (159);
Public Offices Site * (184).
Committee—Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) * (181); Corn Returns (No. 2) * (187).
Committee—Report—Baths and Wash-houses Acts Amendment * (180).
Third Reading—Judgments (Inferior Courts) * (110), and passed.

LONDON RIVER-SIDE FISH MARKET BILL.

  LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Commons reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments considered (according to order).
  THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE, in moving that the Lords do insist upon the Amendments to which the Commons had disagreed, wished, as a Member of the Committee, to state his reasons for the Motion. He admitted that the noble Duke who presided over the Committee (the Duke of Leinster) did not share his opinion on the subject; but he desired to point out to their Lordships that the Bill was promoted by a private company, and that its object was to erect a fish market about two miles lower down the river than the existing market. It was admitted that the present Billingsgate Market was in a very unsatisfactory position, and that access to it was specially difficult, the conse-
  426
  quence being that fish had to be carried a considerable way by water. But he felt a difficulty in disregarding the Charter which granted the Corporation a monopoly of the fish markets within seven miles of London, a Charter which had more than once been renewed, and relying on which the Corporation had spent no less a sum than £300,000 upon the market already existing. Under those circumstances, he failed to see why compensation should be refused to the Corporation, at least on river-borne fish, more particularly when the promoters of the new scheme relied upon securing a dividend of 7½ per cent as soon as the market was opened, and presumably a larger one in the future. Their Lordships also might do well to consider the policy of handing over to a private company, of which the principal promoter was one of the largest North Sea fishermen, the entire control of the sole fish market in London. He thought it was desirable that some public body should have the control of the fish supply of the Metropolis, and that it should not be allowed to become a monopoly in the hands of any company.
  Moved, "To insist on the said Amendments."—(The Earl of Mar and Kellie.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he hoped that their Lordships would not insist on the retention of the Amendments introduced into this Bill by a Select Committee of their House. That Billingsgate Market was now totally inadequate for the wants of the Metropolis, and that the inconvenience, obstruction, and nuisance existing there were absolutely intolerable, was a matter on which there was no difference of opinion except on the part of the Corporation of the City of London. The question before their Lordships was whether the Select Committee of their House which inquired into that Bill, and affirmed its principle, did not unintentionally introduce into it Amendments which enhanced the cost of its working, and interfered so much with its operation as to render it practically a nullity. The first of those Amendments empowered the Corporation of London, at any time within six months from the passing of the Bill, to purchase that undertaking on payment of the taxed costs of the promoters. The result of that provision might reasonably be expected

  427
  to be that the body which had hitherto impeded all improvement in this matter would simply convert the Bill into so much waste-paper. The reason why a new fish market was proposed to be erected by a company was because the Corporation of London, closing their eyes to the insufficiency of the present accommodation, had persistently refused to supplement it. But supposing the Corporation did not exercise the option of purchase within the six months, a further Amendment had been introduced into the Bill requiring the company to make full compensation to the Corporation for all loss and injury which they might sustain by reason of the establishment and continuance of the new market, of the tolls and dues of Billingsgate Market, and the basis of such compensation was to be the tolls and dues taken at Billingsgate in the year 1881. Was it, he asked, dignified that a Corporation professing to represent the people of London, and to have at heart their interests, and also presumably possessing its powers for the public good, should claim compensation on account of the erection of a much-needed new market which they had themselves frequently refused to provide, and the sole object of which was to facilitate and cheapen the supply of fish to the Metropolis?
  THE DUKE OF LEINSTERsaid, that, as Chairman of the Select Committee which had inquired into the Bill, he had always been of opinion that these clauses would injure the Bill very much, and that the proposed new market would be of great advantage to the Metropolis, reducing, as it would do, the existing rate of tolls by one-half; and he, therefore, hoped that their Lordships would not insist on their Amendments.
  LORD WENT WORTHsaid, he thought the supply of fish to the Metropolis was a matter of such great importance that it should be dealt with rather by a Public than by a Private Bill; and he should not be sorry to have the question taken out of the hands of the Select Committee and decided by the House itself. At the same time, he thought there never was a clearer case for compensation than that made by the Corporation of London. There was in the case of the Bill establishing the Central Metropolitan Meat Market a precedent for such compensation. If necessary, the Corporation
  428
  might be reformed; but that was not a reason why they should be deprived of their property without compensation.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, he was of opinion that the Corporation had rather encouraged inquiries in regard to markets. The Corporation also had always endeavoured, as far as possible, to make such provision for the supply of fish as would meet the demand. Within the last 10 years Billingsgate Market had been entirely rebuilt and enlarged, and between £200,000 and £300,000 had been laid out upon it. That seemed to him to have some bearing on the question of compensation.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he earnestly hoped their Lordships would not insist upon these Amendments. A more important Bill for the welfare and comfort of the people had seldom been introduced. They had never utilized to its full extent the enormous supply of fish in the Metropolis, and what London required was that they should have a market to which they could have easy access, and to whore the fish would be cheap and abundant; and the present Bill gave the people what they wanted. Sixteen public bodies, besides the Metropolitan Board of Works, had presented Petitions in favour of the Bill, with 1,563,000 signatures. The question was one of the sustenance of life, and, therefore, very serious. The Corporation of London opposed the Bill on the ground that Billingsgate Market was sufficient for the purpose. Their plea also was that they would be deprived by the Bill of their tolls and dues; but they were in receipt of large public funds which were to be spent for public purposes. No doubt they had laid out a large sum upon Billingsgate Market; but they had done so in a very improvident manner. In his opinion, the Corporation had no ground to stand on in the present case, and he hoped their Lordships would not insist upon the Amendments.
  On question? resolved in the negative.

COPYRIGHT (MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS) BILL.—(No. 159.)
(The Earl Cadogan.)
COPYRIGHT (MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS) BILL.—(No. 159.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Cadogan.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Bill provided that no assignment of any copyright of a musical composition should be held to convey the right of performance unless the intention of the parties was so expressed. But then it went on to provide that on every copy to be hereafter published there should be printed a notice that no performance could take place without the consent of the proprietors of the reserved right, and that, unless this were done, the reserved right should be forfeited. The owner of the reserved right could have no control over the publication of any copy, which would be the act of the owner of the copyright; so that, under these provisions, one man's property would be lost by the neglect or default of another, over whom he had no power. These provisions were obviously inconsistent, and the Bill, as it stood, would be wholly unworkable. He therefore hoped the noble Earl (Earl Cadogan) would not press it to a second reading.
  EARL CADOGANsaid, that his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns) had framed some Amendments to the Bill in concert with Lord Bramwell and Lord Blackburn, which it was proposed to introduce in Committee, and which he thought would obviate the objections of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He would, therefore, ask their Lordships now to read the Bill a second time. Should the noble and learned Lord, however, object to that course, he was willing to postpone it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, after the explanation of the noble Earl, and having regard to the high authorities mentioned by him, he would withdraw his objection to the second reading. Of course, the Amendments would be printed and Notice given of them before going into Committee.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PUBLIC OFFICES SITE BILL.—(No. 184.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)
PUBLIC OFFICES SITE BILL.—(No. 184.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD SUDELEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to enable land and houses to be purchased for the erection
  430
  of a new War Office and Admiralty. It was proposed to purchase five houses fronting Charing Cross, the whole of New Street, Spring Garden Terrace, aad one side of Spring Gardens. By pulling down the existing Admiralty, sufficient space would be obtained for a large quadrangle between the Horse Guards and Spring Gardens, by which both the War Office and Admiralty could be accommodated. The area would be about four acres, and would have a frontage from the Horse Guards to Messrs. Cock's and Biddulph's Bank in Charing Cross. There would be a facade of about 440 feet in length along the street, and a space of about 420 feet between the street and the Park. It would give 59,200 square feet for the War Office and52,800 square feet for the Admiralty, which would amply suffice for their requirements. The great advantage of the scheme was that it would bring the War Office and the Admiralty under the same roof, which had been so many times recommended by Committees that had sat on this subject. It would also place the War Office next to the Horse Guards, and leave the Admiralty on its old historic site. Both offices would also be on the most convenient site for the public that it was possible to place them. There would be three handsome facades, one looking into Parliament Street, another into the Horse Guards, and a third up the Mall, which would afford full scope for a handsome architectural structure. For a number of years the question of a site for these new offices had been under consideration by different Governments. But from a variety of causes, and more especially the difficulty from a financial point of view, the settlement of the question had been delayed, and it had been reserved for the present First Commissioner to propose a solution of the difficulty, which it was hoped, while fully affording all the accommodation required, would enable this great improvement to be carried out at a very moderate outlay. In 1877 a Committee of the other House went very fully into this question, and had three distinct proposals before thorn. One was the site known as the Great George Street site, under which it would have been necessary to purchase all the houses bounded by Great George Street, Parliament Street, and St. James's Park. That scheme was estimated to cost £1,300,000.

  431
  The second, proposed by Mr. Mitford, was estimated at £2,000,000; he advocated placing the Public Offices along the whole length of the west side of Charing Cross and Parliament Street, with the Horse Guards in the centre. The third proposal, made by Mr. Cates, was to locate the Public Offices on the Fife House site, the other side of Parliament Street. That Committee, after careful consideration, found themselves unable, owing to the great difficulties connected with it, to make any definite proposition, but wound up their Report by stating that—
  "They could not too strongly urge upon the Government the expediency of losing no time in proposing some plan by which the evils complained of might be remedied."
  The late Government had found themselves unable to take any steps in the matter, and five years had now elapsed since that Report was made. After giving most careful consideration to the question, the Government had now come to the conclusion that, as the Courts of Justice and other buildings were near completion, the time had arrived when steps should be taken for the erection of these Public Offices. In addition to the advantages which he had already mentioned, the cost of the site contemplated under this Bill would be in every respect considerably less than that of those hitherto proposed; and owing to a large portion of the land and of the houses belonging to the Crown, it would, to a considerable extent, represent a book transaction between the Government and the Crown. The total cost of the site was estimated by Sir Henry Hunt at about £460,000, and of that only about £165,000 would have to be paid to private persons—the remainder being Crown property. A very large amount of property would also be freed by this arrangement, the War Office in Pall Mall and Winchester and Adair Houses. Sir Henry Hunt, in his evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, had stated that, when the proposed buildings were completed, the total sum which could be realized by the Crown, or by the Consolidated Fund, through the sale of property now in use, would amount to £522,680. When this question was raised in the early part of the Session in this House, some noble Lords expressed their regret at the Great George Street site not being
  432
  adopted; but when the enormous difference of the cost was taken into consideration there could be little doubt as to the desirability—in point of finance, at any rate—of carrying out the present plan. Shortly stated, the money actually out of pocket to the Government would in the one case amount in sums paid to private individuals to £165,000, and in the other to something over £1,000,000. There would also have to be deducted from the cost of this plan the value of the houses which had been purchased on the Great George Street site. One objection which had been raised was that by giving up the Great George Street site all chance of widening Parliament Street must be for ever abandoned. That view was by no means taken by the Government. Sir Henry Hunt had given evidence to the effect that there could be no doubt that such a widening would be a great Metropolitan improvement, and that the cost of the property to be acquired would be recouped by the vacant land which would be set free after the street was widened and the improved frontages obtained. The cost of the proposed buildings, it was estimated, would be about £670,000, to be spread over about 10 years. It would be unnecessary to move the Admiralty until new quarters were ready. The commencement would be made by erecting new buildings in place of the Paymaster's Office and the house of the First Lord of the Admiralty; and the staff would be transferred while another wing of buildings was being erected. An objection had been raised that the Horse Guards would be spoilt. The Horse Guards Parade would remain intact, and if the proposed plan were carried out, there would be full opportunity in future years to erect further buildings on the site of the present official residence of the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, which would balance the new quadrangle on the opposite side of the Parade, and which could accommodate the Board of Trade and some other Departments. Dover House site could then be adopted for an official residence. Care would also be taken that the buildings immediately adjoining the Horse Guards should not be two high, so as to dwarf the Horse Guards. Another objection raised to this plan by the Institute of Architects was that no provision was made for opening

  433
  a broad avenue from the Mall into Charing Cross. It was not proposed under the Bill to adopt this suggestion, as it would involve an additional outlay of about £150,000, without, apparently, any great corresponding advantages. There was, however, nothing to prevent such a road being made during the 10 years before the completion of the offices, if at any time it should be thought desirable. Under the proposed plan the entrance to Charing Cross by Messrs. Drummond's Bank would be widened to 60 feet, so that there would be ample means of access to the Admiralty in Spring Gardens. A very small portion of the Park, amounting to one-tenth of an acre, would be taken; but a considerably greater extent, nearly half-an-acre, would be added to the Park. This Bill did not pledge the House to any definite plan, or to any special architecture, but merely to the purchase of the required land. The First Commissioner of Works had paid great attention to this matter, and the Government believed that the selection of this site would be of far greater advantage and convenience to the Public Service than would be obtained by any of the other suggested sites, while at the same time the scheme could be carried out at a reasonable and moderate cost. He might say that a block plan of the proposed buildings had been placed on the Library Table for the convenience of the House. His Lordship concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a,"—(The Lord Sudeley.)
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, that circumstances had long given him a personal acquaintance with the locality in question. He could not think that the noble Lord had advanced any argument in favour of this project. There were two main objections to it. The first was, there were no plans to enable the House to forecast clearly the nature of the proposed construction. The noble Lord did allude to some plan, but it was not contended that any plan existed from which their Lordships could arrive at a clear view of the proposed construction. To preserve anything like uniformity they would he obliged to build the new houses at least as high as Drummond's Bank; and another objection was that this construc-
  434
  tion was to be built on a space so limited that elevation had to be resorted to. The opinion of The Builder was that it would be impossible to produce anything like an architectural effect in the building to be erected in Spring Gardens. There was, moreover, no authority in favour of this scheme. It did not represent the prudence of any architect, it was not the result of any body of men, while the Council of Architects protested against it. It would annihilate Spring Gardens, which had been inhabited by several distinguished men—the late Lord Dudley, Secretary of State, Sir Astley Cooper, the distinguished surgeon, Sir John Lefevre, and others. It was an accepted principle that we should preserve as far as possible domiciles with which the names of distinguished men were associated. A sufficiently conclusive argument against this scheme lay in the fact that it would not only annihilate domiciles with which certain recollections were connected, but it would take away a place of worship—namely, St. Mathew's Chapel, which, many years back, was well known. It appeared to him that the scheme was adopted mainly because it was economic. He thought, however, that the question of expense ought not to stand in the way of having good Public Offices, and he might instance the example of the French Government, which had, immediately after the destruction of the public buildings by the Communists, rebuilt the Public Offices at a cost of £5,000,000. He was led to hope that many noble Lords had come to the House for the purpose of strongly opposing this Bill, and he would conclude by moving that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he understood that the principal advantage of this scheme was that it was economical. He regretted that the authorities had neglected to follow the recommendation of the Committee of 1877, and to take advantage, in accordance with that recommendation, of the ground in the neighbourhood of George Street. He was of opinion that it would have been well if the plan submitted by Mr. Mit-

  435
  ford had been adopted. The Admiralty would then have been close to the Colonial and Foreign Offices. There would, in fact, have been a concentration of Public Offices in proximity to the Houses of Parliament. The scheme would have made no extraordinary demand on the public purse. The whole of it might have been completed for £1,000,000 or £1,500,000. The plan at present proposed would deface the Public Parks, and leave Parliament Street in its present unsightly condition. He would appeal to the Government and ask them whether it was wise to do something which could not be undone, and which would be a standing disgrace to the Metropolis.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETasked whether all the passages through which the people could at present enter the Park were to be closed? Ho would suggest that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, if there was any chance of its coming back again in sufficient time for legislation. In his opinion, that might be done in three or four days. Meanwhile, consideration should be given to the means of enabling the people to enter the Park.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that, although the plan might be open to some objections, ho did not think that the House of Lords would stand in the way of something being done which would give them a new and convenient War Office. The proper place for the War Office was near the Horse Guards. The accommodation in the present War Office was quite inadequate. If any of their Lordships would examine that part of the Office which was set apart for the Commander-in-Chief, they would see at once how unsuited the building was to the purposes of a Public Office. At present engineers were in one place, clerks in another, and on many occasions when it was desirable that high officials should communicate with the Secretary of State he hesitated to send for them, because they wore so far from his Office. He was, therefore, delighted to hear that a scheme was to be carried out which would bring all the officials of the War Department into one building. He feared that if the plan suggested by the Government were not accepted they might fail to get anything at all. He could not understand why buildings worthy of the nation should not be
  436
  erected on that part of the Park which was to be devoted to this purpose. For his own part, he should be very glad to see buildings designed simply, if they contained proper offices, than fine architectural buildings with no accommodation for the proper transaction of business. He trusted, also, that a system of drainage would be adopted which would not kill the inmates.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he thought that the public were very much interested in having good and noble Government Offices, and did not think they would grudge the scheme. He should like to know what difficulty stood in the way of opening a road from Hyde Park Corner to the corner of Sutherland House, and of opening a road from there to Charing Cross? Such a line of communication would, in his opinion, be of great accommodation to the public.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he thought that their Lordships should have been supplied with a fuller plan than that which he had seen. The plan afforded very little information as to the objects proposed. He admitted that in the choice of a site the responsibility must rest upon the Government; but ho doubted very much whether there was sufficient space to have all the Offices, both of the War Department and the Admiralty, concentrated on the spot selected. So far as the quadrangles were concerned, they would be very much smaller than those of the Offices lately erected, and these were smaller than they should be.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he entirely agreed with what had fallen from the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook) that nothing could be so bad as the present accommodation of the War Office. Though he had been often in it, he never could find his way to the office of the Commander-in-Chief without a messenger to guide him. The Admiralty Offices were very much better than those of the War Department, still he was bound to say that there were the same grounds for having the different offices under the same roof. No one would doubt that it would be greatly for the advantage of both Departments that they should have their offices in juxtaposition. The noble Lord had said that the Admiralty was in constant communication with the Colonial and

  437
  Foreign Offices; but it was still more important that it should be in communication with the War Department. It was admitted that the proposed plan was economical, and the objections were—first, that the space might be insufficient. With regard to the Admiralty, he had satisfied himself that there was ample space for the offices, and he was informed that the same conclusion had been come to with respect to the War Office. As to the objection that the Admiralty would be put to inconvenience by being twice shifted, he was told by the First Commissioner of Works that a plan would be arranged by which that inconvenience would be avoided. He could not find in the Report of the Committee of 1877 any recommendation of the Great George Street site. What he did find was something entirely in favour of the present Bill. Having mentioned three or four sites, the Committee said they thought that the Government should recommend "some site" to the consideration of Parliament. He understood from his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works that both the architectural design and the precise disposition of the ground were to be left for future consideration. All that their Lordships would do by passing this Bill would be to approve of the site upon which the buildings would be placed. Having on different occasions considered several sites, he believed the proposed site was the best for the purpose. He hoped their Lordships would pass the Bill, which had been referred to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and passed without objection from a single Member of that House.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he had taken great interest in this subject, and it was with great regret that he saw the site of Parliament Street and Great George Street given up. It was obvious that there was no more difficulty in building on one site than on the other; but if they took the Parliament Street site they would avoid disturbing the Admiralty until such time as the new offices were ready. The object ought to be to improve the town at the same time that they provided better accommodation for the Public Offices, and he believed there could be no greater improvement to the town than by taking Parliament Street for the site of these buildings.
  LORD SUDELEYstated that the First Commissioner said that if this plan was adopted the Admiralty would not be removed until the new offices were built.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, he believed it would be in accordance with the feeling of the House if he were to ask their Lordships to pronounce upon the subject.
  On question, that ("now") stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed for Monday next.

PAUPER LUNATICS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF ROSSEsaid, he rose to call attention to the Report of the Poor Law Union and Lunacy Inquiry Commission (Ireland) so far as it relates to lunacy, and to ask the Lord Privy Seal, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose legislation with the view of carrying out the recommendations of that Commission as to providing in workhouses the additional accommodation so urgently required for the chronic insane? The Commission recommended that these buildings should be prepared for the reception of harmless lunatics. In the year 1857 there were 5,000 lunatics in Ireland, and that number increased to 7,500 in 1867. In the year 1877 the number was 11,500, and at the present time the number was about 13,000. In the same period the number of asylums had increased from 10 to 22. The cost of providing asylums was very large, amounting to from £150 to £180 per head, and it was stated before the Commission that £15 per head would be sufficient to fit up the buildings belonging to the workhouses.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, he could add very little to what had fallen from the noble Earl, and he was not in a position to give any pledge on the part of the Irish Government or of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant with respect to bringing in any measure dealing with the subject. The noble Earl, however, was thoroughly justified in bringing the subject before their Lordships' House, and in calling attention to the valuable Report which had engaged the attention

  439
  of several successive Governments. More than one Report had been laid before the Government, which displayed very distinctly the present condition of Ireland with regard to these matters. At the same time, the noble Lord must be aware that not Ireland alone, but this country also, was interested in this subject. It was a subject which had been very much discussed, and the point had been often raised as to whether it was wise to incur the cost of erecting large expensive lunatic asylums for the treatment of all classes of lunatics indiscriminately. Much might be said about it, and it did appear to him that in. the case of harmless incurable lunatics they might be very well treated in the workhouses. He did not know whether there would be any objection on the part of the workhouse authorities to devoting a portion of their buildings to such a purpose; but the recommendation of the Commission which had sat to consider the subject was that there might be a distinct portion of the workhouses set aside from the rest of the buildings for the treatment of incurable lunatics. The noble Lord must be aware that with regard to Ireland circumstances had somewhat changed since the date of the Report, because since 1840 the number of paupers had considerably increased. There was not that amount of accommodation now that there was then. But the Irish Government were quite aware of the importance of the matter, and, when possible, would take it into consideration.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.