Lords Sitting of 2 May 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Commonable Rights*(73).
Second Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Finchley, &c.)*(63); Payment of Wages in Public Houses Prohibition (41).
Committee—Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Ballymena, &c.)*(57).

OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION—LINCOLN COLLEGE (OXFORD) STATUTES.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he wished to ask the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) a Question of which he had given him private Notice. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln had given Notice of his intention to move, on the 12th instant—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her assent from a portion of the Statutes which have been laid upon the Table relating to Lincoln College, Oxford."
  The Question he desired to ask was, Whether the 50th clause of the University Act of 1817 permitted a Member of Parliament to move the rejection

  1919
  of a part only of a Statute which had been laid upon the Table?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in reply, said, he was not sorry his noble Friend had asked this Question. The right rev. Pre-late had asked his (the Lord Chancellor's) opinion on the subject; and he gave it as his opinion that it was competent for any Member of either House to move the rejection of a part of a Statute which had been laid before Parliament. But since his noble Friend gave him Notice of his intention to ask this Question, he had looked at the words of the Statute, and he was now disposed to think that his first opinion was erroneous, and that it was not permissible to move the rejection of a part of a Statute.
  THE ARCHIBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,who had given Notice of the Motion for the 12th instant, on behalf of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Lincoln), said, he would take care that his right rev. Brother was informed of the opinion now expressed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that, although the course proposed to be taken by the right rev. Prelate was not permissible, he thought it would be open to him to bring in a Motion to reject the whole of the Statutes for the particular College referred to.

STATE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS—THE IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,who had the following Notice upon the Paper:—
  "To inquire of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Earl Cowper has resigned the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland; and, if so, whether the Earl Spencer has been appointed to that office, and whether his Lordship holds it with his present office of President of the Council; and what steps are to be taken by Her Majesty's Government for the pacification of Ireland?"
  said: My Lords, I put these Questions to the noble Earl yesterday; but his information was not sufficient to enable him to answer them. I now ask whether the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Earl Cowper) has resigned; whether the noble Earl, whom I see opposite, (Earl Spencer) has taken his place; and, if so, whether any inference is to be
  1920
  drawn from this unusual combination of two Offices which are generally thought to be incompatible. I should be glad also to know whether the noble Earl is in a condition to inform the House whether there is any change in the policy of the Government indicated by this change of Office of the Lord Lieutenant?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I feel that I, perhaps, ought, at the outset, to make some sort of apology to the noble Marquess for having requested him yesterday to give me Notice of Questions of a most important character, and of the highest interest both to this country and your Lordships' House. But, at the same time, I cannot admit his inference that I was absolutely ignorant of the subjects of his Questions. My reason for asking that the Questions might be postponed was a desire to adhere to the Rule of this House, which my long experience of it shows to me is of advantage not only to the Government, but of the greatest possible advantage to the House itself—that important Questions should not be hurriedly and suddenly asked without Notice, either public or private. I cannot help thinking, too, that a little time for consideration is of advantage to the Questioner. Yesterday I was so overwhelmed by the suddenness and the number of the Questions put by the noble Marquess, that I was at fault as to my arithmetic. I thought at first that the noble Marquess put nine Questions to me. On quiet consideration, I found he had only put eight, and immediately afterwards he reduced them to four. But even that reduction was not sufficient, because I see, on looking at the Notice Paper, that he has reduced these four to two or three.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is not mine. That is the compression of the gentlemen at the Table.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Well, I think there is some inconvenience in the practice of putting these Questions without Notice. I see, too, that the Question which the noble Marquess told us was the most important of all is omitted from the Paper. My Lords, with regard to the first Question, it is certainly true that Earl Cowper has resigned. He did so some weeks ago; but with that consideration and public spirit he

  1921
  has always shown in difficult times, he left at the option of Mr. Gladstone the particular moment at which that resignation should take place. My Lords, the noble Marquess stated yesterday—and, notwithstanding the omission in the Notice, he still thinks it important to know—what are the reasons for that resignation? I have some doubts whether it is a usual course, or whether there is any right on the part of a Member of this House to ask Her Majesty's Government what are the reasons why any one of their Members has left them. I cannot help remembering circumstances about four years ago, when Her Majesty's then Ministry found the attempt to give reasons why one of their Colleagues left their body was not a success. I certainly do not think it is my duty to give the reasons that have operated in this case; but, as I think my noble Friend (Earl Cowper) will not object, I will go so far as to say—and I think it will be satisfactory for the noble Marquess to know—that the resignation of my noble Friend was not founded on any difference as to the policy of Her Majesty's Government. My Lords, I have another announcement to make, which is one that is very painful indeed to me and to Her Majesty's Government; and as it is a fact of importance, I ought to bring it before your Lordships immediately. It is that Mr. Forster, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, has also resigned. With regard to the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council (Earl Spencer), I have to say that Her Majesty has been advised to appoint him as the Successor to my noble Friend (Earl Cowper). The noble Marquess to-day, as he did yesterday, found fault with the combination that has been made; and, yesterday, he asked whether it was the fact that the Lord Lieutenancy had been placed in commendam? I beg to say that that phrase, if it can be correctly applied at all in this case, does most certainly not apply to the Lord Lieutenancy, but rather to the Presidency of the Council. I trust that the Council will not suffer during the time that this arrangement will last, and that my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, whose Office the House, in common with myself, often thought is a great advantage to the Cabinet, will be enabled to assume the work of an Office which, although it has greatly
  1922
  increased of late years, is not the hardest work of the Departments of the Government. The noble Marquess asks what inference is to be drawn from this? The inference is a very simple one. I suppose that nobody will deny the very critical state of Ireland at this moment; and we thought it desirable that the person who should succeed to the post of the Lord Lieutenant should not only have personal qualities, but should be clothed with the greatest possible authority; and I know of no way in which that authority can be better sustained than by the appointment of a Cabinet Minister who has been intimately acquainted with the views of the Cabinet during the past two years, and is, therefore, best qualified to fill this most important Office. But the noble Marquess says that is an unprecedented combination—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The word I used was "incompatible." There was a precedent in 1708.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Well, the other day I quoted a remark of Lord John Russell's, to the effect that if you could quote a precedent from the days of Queen Elizabeth it was a most invaluable resource. But I think, if it were necessary, I could quote a later precedent, when the Lord President of the Council occupied both positions, not provisionally, but for a considerable time. The noble Marquess asks me whether there is any fresh policy—I think he expressly used the word—intended on the part of Her Majesty's Government? My Lords, we have no fresh policy. We are acting entirely in harmony, as we believe, with the principles that have guided us up to this present time. We have certain administrative measures and certain legislative measures in our view. My Lords, it has been said that the Protection of Person and Property Bill has been a failure. That is not the opinion of Her Majesty's Government. We believe that in a very important crisis that Act has been of great use, especially in one particular—namely, in enabling the Government to counteract a most formidable agitation against rent. That Act will be in existence some months longer. But at the present time, and as now advised, it is not our intention to ask Parliament to renew the Act as it stands. At this moment the Government are

  1923
  carefully considering a measure designed for the purpose of strengthening the means of the administration of justice, and to protect the lives and property of private persons. As soon as the necessary Business in the House of Commons will permit, that measure will be introduced, and no other legislation except, perhaps, some of a financial character, will be allowed to come on before it is advanced or completed. My Lords, if the existence of secret societies, taken in connection with the number of those societies, shall create a necessity, we shall apply the provisions of the Protection of Person and Property Act to those societies, and we shall propose to renew the Act as far as those provisions are concerned; and also ask for such other powers as may be thought necessary for the occasion. One administrative measure which has been decided upon, but which has not been acted on, is of great importance. It was the very painful duty of Her Majesty's Government to imprison not only many persons of different classes, but also three Members of Parliament during a longtime. They did it under a sense of grave responsibility. They believed it was necessary to do so, not as penal measure, but as a measure of protection, in order to secure the safety of the public at large, and the maintenance of order in Ireland. Acting under the same grave sense of responsibility, in the same way, and with exactly the same object in view, they have now come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when it is no longer desirable to keep these three Members in prison; and an examination of other cases will immediately take place, though not as regards those who have committed crimes. I may now, my Lords, advert to another point—with regard to legislation. Your Lordships are aware that the Land Act does not deal with the question of arrears, which is an important, although a provisional, question. Then there are also what are popularly known as the "Bright Clauses" of that Act. On both those subjects the Act will require revision, and with regard to them a detailed statement will be made in Parliament at an early date.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Against one, at least, of those three Gentlemen who are to be released—Mr. Parnell—there is a warrant that he is suspected of treasonable practices. I
  1924
  suppose that that statement Her Majesty's Government are prepared to withdraw, if they are going to release them? I also wish to ask whether the prisoner at Portland is to be released as well as the prisoners at Kilmainham?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I must trouble the noble Marquess to give me Notice of the Question.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl proffered the information as to the "suspects," and my Question is entirely germane to the information that he has given us.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I beg the noble Marquess's pardon; he is under a mistake. It is quite distinct. The prisoner at Portland is not imprisoned under the same Act. In the one case persons are imprisoned under Act of Parliament, and in the other the prisoner is confined under ticket-of-leave.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: There is one Question which I wish to ask—namely, Whether or not the noble Earl is prepared to tell the House the reasons that have induced the resignation of Mr. Forster? If he is not prepared to go so far as that, whether he is prepared to reiterate the statement which he just now made in the case of my noble Friend opposite (Earl Cowper), that the resignation did not proceed from difference of opinion with his Colleagues?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I certainly am not prepared to answer the noble Earl's Question, which seems to me to be a singularly unusual one. The right hon. Gentleman is in the House of Commons, and I have no doubt that the proper method will be taken to obtain Her Majesty's permission to give the reasons which prompted him to take the course he has done—painful to himself as well as to his associates.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid, he should not wish to let this occasion pass without bearing tribute to the great tact and temper shown by his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in a time of unparalleled anxiety and difficulty. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would continue to pursue the course upon which they had entered, and that nothing would turn them from the path of the redressing of grievances and the conciliation of the Irish people.
  [Subject dropped.]

PAYMENT OF WAGES IN PUBLIC HOUSES PROHIBITION BILL.
(The Earl Stanhope.)

(NO. 41.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
EARL STANHOPE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that a custom existed with many managers to pay their workmen their wages at a public-house, and the object of the Bill was to prohibit such a practice. He believed that such a proceeding was attended with very bad results, and that workmen were thereby induced to spend a considerable part of their wages as soon as they had earned them in treating their companions, or were morally bound to spend some portion of them for the "good of the house," as it was called. He had heard of instances of people being paid their wages and remaining in a drunken state all through Saturday night and all day Sunday in the licensed house; and of cases where the landlords had admitted that, after closing, they had found large sums of money, sometimes as much as£5, lying under the counter, which had been literally thrown away by people who had lost their reason through drink. The Select Committee on Intemperance, which considered the whole subject in 1878, had taken much evidence and made an elaborate Report. Though their Lordships' Committee had not made a special Report on this particular branch of the subject, he found the following paragraph in page 32 of their Report:—
"Almost all the witnesses concurred in expressing their belief that by far the greatest amount of drunkenness occurs on the evening of Saturday, that being the day on which wages are usually paid, and when the men, by leaving off work at an earlier hour, have more leisure and opportunity for indulging in drink."
When wages are paid in public-houses—as was so frequently the case—this fact was doubly true. The Mersey Dock Managers had in February last issued a circular against paying their stevedores in public-houses. Brickmakers were accustomed to pay their gangs in public-houses; and it had come to his knowledge that certain brickmakers in the neighbourhood of Portsmouth had obtained licences and opened houses for the purpose of paying their men in these public-houses, knowing that they would
1926
thus obtain back a considerable portion of their hard-earned wages. He proposed by the Bill that the payment of wages in a public-house should be prohibited by inflicting a penalty of£10 for each offence, and that all offences and penalties might be recovered by any person under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. He trusted that the House would allow the Bill, which was a step in the right direction; to be read a second time, and that the Government would assist the passing of the measure in the House of Commons.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) seemed to be under the impression that Her Majesty's Government would be able to take charge of this Bill in the House of Commons; but he could not be aware of the state of things in that House, if he believed the Government were in a position to give disinterested and philanthropic assistance to Bills other than their own. Therefore, while he would not oppose the measure, he could not, on their behalf, undertake that they should assist in its progress through the other House. It must be obvious to him that the state of Public Business in that House was such that the Government had more than enough to do with their own measures, without taking upon themselves to assist Private Bills of that kind. His noble Relative had described the Bill as a step in the right direction. He (the Earl of Rosebery) was not quite sure that this was the case. He would have been glad if the time for Bills of that kind had passed away. It did seem strange that at a time when the power of combination was so well understood by the working classes, and had been in one or two directions exerted so successfully, a Bill of this nature should be needed. The considerations, however, which his noble Relative had brought forward could not fail to have weight, especially as the noble Earl had alluded, he believed, to the case of brickfields, which was a glaring instance of this practice. He confessed he would have been glad if the Bill had been preceded by some such full and careful inquiry as had preceded the Mines Regulation Act; but he considered the measure to be an undoubted

1927
improvement on the existing state of things, and for that reason, as representing the Home Office, he should not oppose the second reading.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he warmly supported the Bill. He had himself carried the same provision in the Mines and Collieries Act, passed many years ago, and he could bear testimony to the good working of the Acts in force with regard to the payment of wages by the large mining and manufacturing bodies throughout the country. They paid wages in their own offices; but the smaller employers of labour did not, they paid the wages due at certain public-houses, and the men were unfortunately compelled to receive their wages there. Sometimes they were kept waiting so long for their money that the temptation to imbibe strong drinks became greater, and by the time the wages arrived they were all spent, and the poor men were left without any to take home for their wives and families. He knew himself that in the case of lightermen the men were told to go to a public-house to receive their wages at 6 o'clock on Saturday evening, and were kept waiting until, perhaps, midnight, spending in the meantime a large portion of their earnings. He did not think that their Lordships could confer a greater boon upon the working classes of the country than that which the Bill proposed to give them.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE,as a member of the Committee on Intemperance, thought that an apology was due for the omission of this subject from their Report; it had not been brought strongly under their notice. He believed, however, that the measure would be received with great satisfaction throughout the country.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYalso supported the Bill, and said, that even if, as the noble Earl who represented the Home Office had said, that working men were indifferent to this Bill, that would not be the case with their wives, who would be grateful for it. He hoped that the noble Earl would re-consider what he had said about Government not being able to undertake to assist its progress. The noble Earl, in saying that Government could hardly get its own Bills passed, seemed to think that he was in "another place," and was making a speech
1928
in behalf of the clôture, which was of no use here.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 16th instant.
House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.