Lords Sitting of 14 August 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Cholera Hospitals (Ireland) * (193).
Committee—Friendly, &c. Societies (Nominations) * (166), now Provident Nominations and Small Intestacies.
Committee—Report—Diseases Prevention (Metropolis) * (181).
Report—Agricultural Holdings (England) (186–192).
Third Reading—Parochial Charities (London) * (187), and passed.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.—(No. 186.)
(The Lord President.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.—(No. 186.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (General right of tenant to compensation).
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in moving, as an Amendment, to insert the words—
  "So far as such improvement is not due to the inherent capabilities of the soil or to extraneous circumstances,"
  said, the objection which had been taken to the clause as it stood was, that it would suggest to the valuer to take into consideration other circumstances than the mere value of the improvement which might have resulted from the exercise of the skill, industry, and capital of the tenant—such, for instance, as the erection of a new railway station in the neighbourhood. This was an extremely reasonable Amendment, and would obviate the objections which he understood the Government entertained.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, line 14, leave out from ("tenant") to end of Clause, and insert ("so far as such improvement is not due to the inherent capabilities of the soil or to extraneous circumstances.")—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?"
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he had no doubt any form of words might be invented by ingenious persons; but he was very unwilling to consent to any
  440
  change in the words as they stood, and as they came from the other House. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Milltown) had spoken of the advantages arising to the tenant from the erection of a new railway station in the neighbourhood of the holding. Did he suppose that a valuer performing his duty under this clause, and endeavouring to ascertain the sum that fairly represented the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant, would consider such an extraneous circumstance as to whether the general value of a farm had been increased by the erection of a railway station in the vicinity? He could not conceive a valuer taking any such circumstances into account, as his business would be to ascertain the value of the improvement itself.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would call their Lordships' remembrance to the fact that this was substantially the same Amendment as the one which he moved when the Bill was in Committee; but as it appeared to him the majority of the House, though it was a full one, did not favour the proposal, he did not press it, and he should be sorry to go on with it now, when there were fewer Members present. He could not, however, agree with the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President) in thinking that it could have no effect, and that extraneous circumstances could not in any case be taken into account. Suppose there was a bad bit of pasture which the tenant had improved, and the improvements were not exhausted when the tenant left. There might have been a rise in the price of wool. Would not that make that bit of pasture of very much more value? He did not mean to say that that was an exact illustration; but he repudiated the principle that no case could arise of an improvement in which extraneous circumstances would add considerably to the value of an improvement.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Clause 4 (Notice to landlord as to improvement in schedule, Part II.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 30, to leave out the words ("a specification"), and insert ("manner in which he proposes to do the"). The noble Lord said, the Amendment was proposed in fulfilment

  441
  of the pledge given by the Government; and its object was to prevent the consequences which might have followed from the words as they stood, of the landlord being bound down to the specification of the tenant, which might be a very imperfect and faulty one.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 35, after ("may"), insert ("unless the notice of the tenant is previously withdrawn"); and in line 36, after ("himself"), insert ("and may execute the same in any reasonable and proper manner which he thinks fit.")—(The Lord President.)
  On Question, "That those words be there inserted?"
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that, before the words were put, he should like to ask his noble Friend (the Lord President) to explain them. He (the Earl of Camperdown) apprehended either that the parties might agree, or the landlord might undertake to execute the work himself.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he thought his noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown) would see that the words were perfectly reasonable. They were in the Scotch Bill, and were merely for the purpose of avoiding the result that the tenant, having once given notice, should be absolutely bound by that notice. It was surely reasonable that when the landlord elected to do the work himself and in his own way the tenant should be allowed to back out if he chose.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Words inserted.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Reservation as to existing and future contracts of tenancy).
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS, in moving, as an Amendment, to omit that part of the clause which directs that the compensation for improvements provided by any future agreement shall be fair and reasonable, and to substitute the following Amendment:—
  "Where in the case of a tenancy under a written contract beginning after the commencement of this Act such contract shall contain an agreement as to the manner in which compensation shall be made to the tenant for improvements made by him, then in such case the compensation in respect of such improvements payable
  442
  in pursuance of the agreement so made shall be deemed to be substituted for compensation under this Act,"
  said, that the proposal was not really his own; but that it had been suggested by a Liberal of the old school, whose name could never be mentioned without honour in that House. He alluded to the noble Earl (Earl Grey). That noble Earl, in a letter to The Times of June 4, said that a tenant might obtain a farm in preference to another man in consequence of an agreement, and having entered into that agreement he might afterwards turn round and repudiate it as not fair and reasonable, so that the Bill would become a direct premium on dishonesty. He would at once admit that his object was to get rid of the words "fair and reasonable;" and he believed his proposal would protect the country from a large amount of litigation, as those who had watched the course of events in Ireland would readily understand. It was stated that the farmers needed this parental or rather grandmotherly legislation. He did not believe it. Mr. Hope, of Fentonbarns, 15 years ago declared that the farmers of England had no need to come cap in hand to the Legislature. No doubt some tenants were foolish, and some landlords drove hard bargains; but, on the whole, he thought the interests of both classes would be best served by adopting the words he had suggested.
  Amendment moved, in page 3, leave out lines 16 to 24, and insert—
  ("Where in the case of a tenancy under a written contract beginning after the commencement of this Act such contract shall contain an agreement as to the manner in which compensation shall be made to the tenant for improvements made by him, then in such case the compensation in respect of such improvements payable in pursuance of the agreement so made shall be deemed to be substituted for compensation under this Act.")—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?"
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) had taken the second-reading ground for the express purpose of getting rid of the element of compulsion. His arguments went to absolute freedom of bargaining in respect of the tenants' improvements in Part III., and

  443
  to the absolute exclusion of any element of compulsion with respect to those improvements. The real effect of the Amendment was virtually to repeal all that portion of the Bill, though that was not distinctly proposed. He was aware that the words applied literally to agreements providing compensation in some manner or other; but, for all practical purposes, the noble Earl might just as well have taken the bolder course, and made all agreements, even prohibitory agreements, equally valid. No matter how evasive or illusory the agreement might be, it would oust the Bill, under the words proposed. As long as the agreement for compensation was not unfair and unreasonable it would stand, under the Bill; but, if the Amendment were accepted, an agreement which was inadequate, illusory, and evasive would be equally protected. He could not imagine that any of their Lordships who had accepted the principle of this measure could support the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he could not possibly support the Amendment, as it was not consistent with the principle of the Bill. It appeared to him that if it was now to be accepted, the better course would have been to have rejected the clause in Committee, or to have thrown out the Bill on the second reading, because the whole Bill proceeded on the assumption that the agreement was to be compulsory. If it were permitted, there was nothing to prevent both parties contracting themselves out of the Bill by making a bogus agreement. If that were to be permitted, he would prefer to stick to the Bill of 1875; and, at the same time, he would point out that the House had been giving itself a great deal of trouble for nothing.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that, in his opinion, it was impossible to have such a clause as this without the certainty of fraudulent claims. He would suggest that, instead of the Amendment of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss), assuming their Lordships would not accept it, it would be a better thing that, instead of having this clause as it stood, and waiting till the parties to the agreement had fallen out, there should be some arrangement by which they should be prevented from falling out—that was to say, that the
  444
  landlord and tenant, having come to an agreement, should have some power to ratify it, as it were, by getting some imprimatur put upon it or some sanction to it, so as to make it a binding agreement on them thereafter. They might provide, for instance, that any proposed agreement between landlord and tenant should, by the consent of the two parties, be submitted to a County Court Judge, or to some other functionary, who should say whether or not, in his judgment, it was fair and reasonable, and, if he held that it was, from that time forth it should bind the parties. Though objecting to interference with freedom of contract, he was inclined to think the Bill would not work so unjustly as his noble Friend feared, inasmuch as the Courts would always have the power of determining what was "fair and reasonable."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he thought it was desirable, in the votes they gave on that Bill, that there should be a certain sequence and consistency. In view of political circumstances—that was to say, the state of opinion—noble Lords on his side, who supported the Bill, were agreeable to sacrifice the principle of freedom of contract to a certain extent; but they were not prepared to agree to provisions which were in the nature of confiscation, or that interfered with existing agreements. He sympathized with much that had been said by his noble Friend (the Earl of Wemyss); but he must say it appeared to him that the Amendment was one distinctly directed to the same point as his Amendment to the second reading of the Bill—namely, to the principle of freedom of contract in the future. It would, therefore, be a departure from the votes they had hitherto given now to accept that Amendment; and, on the whole, while acknowledging that the proposal of his noble Friend was not without its advantages, he could not support it without acknowledging that he was wrong in not supporting him in opposing the second reading. He did not doubt the correctness of his noble Friend's and the noble Earl's (Earl Grey's) general principle. It would, he thought, be much better if the words "fair and reasonable" were not in the Bill. As to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord who spoke last (Lord Bramwell), it was on all-fours with one which Sir Michael Hicks

  445
  Beach had moved in the other House. There was a good deal at first sight in the proposal that attracted him, and a good deal that repelled him. It would, however, involve the setting up beforehand of a Court with power to deal with agreements between landlord and tenant. He was afraid that that would be what they called a germ, out of which future legislation would be developed to an extent they could not judge of, and he thought it would be better for their Lordships not to venture on such dangerous ground as that.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he fully agreed with what had fallen from the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury). He had himself gone carefully into a suggestion such as that which had been thrown out by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell). It had come to him from a high legal authority, and he must confess that, on casually looking at it the first time, it had a very plausible appearance; but after more fully considering it, he arrived at the result that it would lead inevitably to the erection of something in the nature of a Land Court. They could not constitute an authority to decide what was fair and reasonable, without giving some discretion as to what was to be held fair and reasonable. Then they would, of course, have the germ of a Land Court; and the question of rent might enter into the fairness, or otherwise, of the agreement. He was afraid, therefore, that no Amendment of that hind could be framed which would not be open to serious objection.
  After a few words from Earl FORTESCUE,
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 56; Not-Contents 20: Majority 36.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Milltown, E.

  Morley, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Northbrook, E.

  Westminster, D.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Sydney, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Verulam, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hawarden, V.

  Camperdown, E.

  Hood, V.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Clonmell, E.

  Derby, E.

  Aberdare, L.

  Devon, E.

  Alcester, L.

  Granville, E.

  Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

  Haddington, E.

  446

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Norton, L.

  Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

  Carlingford, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Carrington, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Reay, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Crewe, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Emly, L.

  Fitzgerald, L.

  Rowton, L.

  Gerard, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Haldon, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Harris, L.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll)

  Lovat, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Truro, L.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Manchester, D.

  Bateman, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Bramwell, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Lamington, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Feversham, E.

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Redesdale, E.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) [Teller.]

  Stradbroke, E.

  Westbury, L.

  Melville, V.

  Wynford, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Clause 7 (Account of outlay during last and three preceding years of tenancy).
  Amendment moved, in page 4, line 39, at end of Clause, add—
  "Nor shall there be taken into account any outlay in respect of any purchased artificial or other purchased manure applied, or any cake or other feeding stuff consumed on the holding more than three years before the determination of the tenancy."—(The Earl of Feversham.)
  On Question, "That those words be there added?"
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, it was impossible to accept the Amendment, for it would introduce, with regard to this particular class of improvements, the principle of compensating periods, which was not contemplated by the Bill. It would say that, at the end of three years, whether any value remained or not, there should be no compensation.
  Resolved in the negative.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL), in moving the in-

  447
  sertion of a new clause, to follow Clause 17, said, its object was to put into a proper shape the provision for references to arbitration of agreements under the Bill, so far as concerned compensation which might be substituted for the general compensation in the Bill; and that with respect to this substituted compensation, it should be ascertained by the same system of referees and umpire, so far as the terms of the agreement between the parties admitted of it.
  Amendment moved, in line 2, after Clause 17, insert as a new Clause:—
  (Award in respect of compensation under sections 3, 4, and 5.)
  ("In any case provided for by sections three, four, or five, if compensation is claimed under this Act, such compensation as under any of those sections is to be deemed to be substituted for compensation under this Act, if and so far as the same can, under the terms of the agreement, if any, be ascertained by the referees or the umpire, shall be awarded in respect of any improvements thereby provided for, and the award shall, when necessary, distinguish such improvements and the amount awarded in respect thereof.")—(The Lord President.)
  On Question, "That the said Clause be there inserted?"
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the clause was singularly drawn, and he must confess that he had great difficulty, if he could be said to have been even successful, in understanding it now. He had also submitted it to a high legal authority, who had experienced the same difficulty in arriving at a conclusion upon it. It was impossible to overrate the importance of the words "fair and reasonable;" it was the most vital part of the Bill. The other night be had contended successfully that an agreement was not a proper thing for the referees to determine upon, and that it would be better to reserve it for the Court. To that principle he was very anxious to adhere. He did not believe that the main machinery of the Bill would act at all, or that the principle of value, as against the principle of outlay, would be found to work well. Practically, they would find landlords and tenants reverting to the principle of agreements, which would be based on outlay, and which would oust the principle of value. But he thought that, as it was, it was important there should be a proper means of determining the validity, the meaning, and the effect of the agreement on which so much would depend, and which
  448
  he was loth to leave to the valuers entirely; for he still had a prejudice in favour of Courts of Law. Though he did not profess to understand the Amendment, he gathered from the explanation of the noble Lord (the Lord President) that it would have a useful effect, and he, therefore, would not object to it; but he hoped the noble Lord would allow these words to be added—"And an award given under this clause shall be subject to the appeal provided by this Act"—of which he had given Notice.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Clause inserted accordingly.
  On the Motion of the Marquess of SALISBURY, the said Clause amended by adding the words ("and an award given under this clause shall be subject to the appeal provided by this Act.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill."
  Clause 60 (General saving of rights.)
  On the Motion of the LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendment made:—In page 20, lines 25 to 30, leave out from ("compensation under this Act") in line 25 to ("under this Act") in line 30, both inclusive.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next, and to be printed, as amended. (No. 192.)

ARMY—MILITARY PRISON AT GREENLAW, SCOTLAND.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN, in rising to call attention to the state of the military prison in Scotland; and to ask, If any Reports have been received on the subject? said, the prison in question was situated at Greenlaw, and, although he would admit it was most admirably and carefully managed, yet he must say it was in a most dangerous condition. It was built in 1803, entirely of wood, for the reception of French prisoners, and ever since it had received an annual coating of tar, which rendered it highly inflammable. The consequences of the place catching fire would be most disastrous, inasmuch as the building contained only one staircase, and the prisoners were locked up, so that their chance of escape would be very small.

  449
  The water supply was absolutely nil; and there were no means whatever of extinguishing a fire, if the building caught fire, though no amount of water would save it if it did catch fire. He had no doubt the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Morley) had made every inquiry; but he would press it upon him that he should make every further inquiry that he could. In the interests alike of the prisoners and of those who had charge of them, it was absolutely necessary that something should be done.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY, in reply, said, he was glad to find that the Question put by his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Lothian) had the single illustration of the prison to which he had referred. He believed the prison was an old one, as mentioned in the Question, although he was not acquainted with the details stated. He could only assure his noble Friend that he would take care that inquiries should be made; but he might add that he had been unable to find any Reports or complaints at the War Office regarding the subject. Should any defects be proved to exist steps should be taken at once to remedy them.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he perfectly agreed with his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lothian) as to the state of the prison in question, that if the building caught fire there would be no chance of extinguishing it. In fact, he did not think the whole Metropolitan Fire Brigade would be successful in putting it out, for it was completely saturated with tar. He had been through it, and a more unfit place he had never seen. He hoped it would not be used much longer.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS PREVENTION ACT, 1849—PROSECUTIONS FOR PIGEON-SHOOTING.

  QUESTION.
  LORD WESTBURYasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether they can state how many prosecutions for cruelties connected with the shooting of birds from traps have been instituted under the Cruelty to Animals Prevention Act, 1849, during the last ten years?
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in reply, said, he was sorry to say Her Majesty's
  450
  Government were unable to give the information required by his noble Friend. To obtain it, it would be necessary to address inquiries to every Petty Sessions magistrate all over the country, as no such record was sent to the Home Office.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that he would like to ask what greater cruelty there was in shooting a bird from a trap than in shooting a pheasant from a covert; and why a man should become liable to a penalty of £5 for the former act? Being of opinion that there was no more cruelty in shooting birds let out of traps than under any other circumstances, he would give Notice that when Mr. Anderson's Bill came before their Lordships he would move its rejection.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that it was irregular to discuss a Bill which was down for second reading at the end of the week.
  LORD WESTBURYsaid, he deeply regretted the answer of the noble Earl. He had merely put the Question on the Paper with the view of putting their Lordships in possession of some information before the second reading of the Bill on the subject on Friday next, as he knew the cases of cruelty had been grossly exaggerated. He thought there might have been some means of obtaining the information he desired through the Home Office, the Police, or the Secretary to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: Can the noble Earl state whether any prosecutions have been instituted?
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he had endeavoured to obtain information on the subject, and was quite satisfied the Government could not get any; but he supposed it could be got from the Secretary to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
  LORD WESTBURYsaid, he was afraid to apply in that quarter, in case the Secretary should think the information might be used against him. He should have liked for some information from the police, and that was why he asked the Government.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought it was rather late to ask for the information when the second reading was fixed for the end of the week.

THE ARMY AND THE MILITIA—THE STANDARD FOR RECRUITS AND ENROLMENT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY, in rising to call attention to the speech made at the Mansion House on the 8th instant by the Secretary of State for War, and to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether it is not a fact that the standard of height for recruits is lower than it has ever been previously, and whether there is any prospect of its being raised again; also to inquire whether the permission to Militia regiments to enrol over the prescribed ratio of 25 per cent in the Militia Reserve is general; and, whether it is intended to revert to the old System of having preliminary drill for recruits immediately before the training of each Militia regiment at head-quarters, and to permit ten shillings upon enrolment being given once more instead of the pound for being trained in barracks upon the driblet system which has proved so injurious to recruiting in agricultural districts? said, when the matter was last referred to in that House, the noble Earl opposite the Under Secretary of State for War (the Earl of Morley) indulged in lamentations with regard to the falling-off in recruiting last year; but in the recent speech at the Mansion House it was stated that there was no further reason for continued lamentations, because, up to the present time, there had been 5,000 more recruits raised during the last six months than there were in the corresponding six months of last year, and he then alluded to this being due to the "elasticity of our system," He (the Earl of Galloway) was at a loss to understand what that meant, and should like some explanation.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY, in reply, said, he would try to answer the Questions of the noble Earl as well as he could. The first Question was, whether it was not a fact that the standard of height for recruits was lower than it had ever been previously? His (the Earl of Morley's) answer was in the negative. In 1858–9 the standard was 5 feet 3 inches; it was now 5 feet 4 inches. But discretion had been given to commanding officers and medical officers to accept men below 5 feet 4 inches, and above 5 feet 3 inches, if they were
  452
  likely to turn out good soldiers. That was very different to lowering the standard. The next question was, whether there was any prospect of the standard being raised? That was a question of the future which he could not enter upon, as he did not think it would be prudent for him to indulge in conjectures upon it. The third Question was, whether the permission to Militia regiments to enrol over the prescribed ratio of 25 per cent in the Militia Reserve was general? It was found that the total Militia Reserve was not entirely up to the standard, although it was considerably higher than it was when he last had the honour of remarking on the subject. The number of the Militia Reserve was only 1,000 below its standard; and when it was found to be below the Establishment, permission was given by the War Office to the Colonels to enlist a number of men over the quota of 25 per cent. It was not the intention of the Secretary of State for War, as had been suggested by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss), to have the Militia Reserve as supernumerary to the Forces. The fourth Question put by the noble Earl was, whether it was intended to revert to the old system of having preliminary drill for recruits immediately before the training of each Militia regiment at head-quarters? He had already explained fully the system they proposed to adopt, which gave the recruit an option in that matter. The Regulations on the subject were now ready, and would be published almost immediately; and he thought they would give the noble Earl all the information he desired. It was not intended to give 10 s. on enrolment to Militia recruits. The noble Earl appeared to consider the present system very unpopular. Now, it was a remarkable fact that during the present year, up to the 1st of August, there were no fewer than 23,500 Militia recruits as against 16,500 last year.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked whether it would not be desirable, in asking men to re-engage at the termination of the short-service period, to pay them at least a portion of their deferred pay?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY, in reply, said, that the object with which deferred pay was instituted was to enable men, on leaving the Colours, to have a certain sum of money to give them a

  453
  start in civil life, or help them to tide over the interval until they obtained employment. To give the men deferred pay, and then allow them to go on for pension, seemed to him to be little short of an absurdity.

POST OFFICE—THE PARCEL POST.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATION.
  LORD LAMINGTONasked Her Majesty's Government, now that the postal parcel system is established, Whether the post messengers in the rural districts will be supplied with carts and horses? He would impress upon the Government that it was an important matter to the rural districts that these things should be supplied; for if they were not, it would cause a great deal of inconvenience to the public. He hoped, therefore, that he would receive a favourable answer in regard to it.
  LORD THURLOW, in reply, said, that the Postmaster General had given his very serious attention to that subject, having gone into all its details. Considering the short time that the new system had been in operation, he (Lord Thurlow) thought they might congratulate themselves on the smoothness with which it worked. It was not the practice of the Post Office to supply carts and horses to the rural letter carriers; but it was its practice, in individual instances, each of which was considered on its own merits, to make an allowance of money, by which the rural letter carriers could provide themselves with horses and carts, partly for their own convenience, and partly for the service of the mails. But it was not possible, in that matter, to lay down any general rule, because circumstances varied so essentially in each particular case. The distances, the population, the number of parcels to be carried, and other points had to be considered. But the whole subject was receiving the attention of the Post Office authorities; and although there were, and must be, cases of hardship to individuals, he thought that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lamington) might rest assured that those cases would be reduced to a minimum.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he would point out that this was not a case of hardship to individuals only. Whole districts suffered from the prohibition to carry small parcels unless prepaid,
  454
  and the rule ought to be relaxed. There was another rule which required amendment—namely, the one providing that a carrier might take a parcel from, but not to, the Post Office, and not from one part of their district to another. This had an almost prohibitory effect; but if the Government would consider the subject they would probably find some means of avoiding the difficulty.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS— PARLIAMENT STREET.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATION.
  LORD LAMINGTONasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is intended, when the houses in Parliament Street are taken down, to let the ground for private buildings? If that were done, its effect, as far as appearance and the re-arrangement of Government buildings was concerned, would be ruinous.
  LORD THURLOW, in reply, said, that, considering how large a question was involved in the construction of new Public Offices, and in dealing with a site so expensive as that in Parliament Street, their Lordships would not be surprised if he said it was impossible to give an off-hand opinion, or arrive at any immediate decision. It had not been decided, up to the present moment, how the land fronting Parliament Street, which the Government proposed to acquire, was to be occupied. When the block of houses was pulled down, a considerable time would be allowed to elapse before anything further was done, so that a full discussion might take place, with the aid of plans and models; and then would be the time for Parliament and the public to criticize any plan that might be laid before the House.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.