Lords Sitting of 21 August 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Epidemic and other Diseases Prevention * (213); Municipal Corporations (Borough Constables) * (214); Revenue and Friendly Societies * (215).
Second Reading—Corrupt Practices (Suspension of Elections)* (198); Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) (204), negatived; Local Government Board (Scotland) (207), negatived; Medals * (208); Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) (205); Public Works Loans * (209).
Committee—Labourers (Ireland) (183).
Committee—Report—Isle of Wight Highways * (191); Education (Scotland)* (199); Expiring Laws Continuance * (197).
Report—Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices)* (189); National Debt * (196).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) * (87); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) * (125); Patents for Inventions * (201); Cholera Hospitals (Ireland)* (193), and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 204.)
(The lord President.)
PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 204.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL),in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the Bill was intended for the amendment of the Law of Registration of Voters in Ireland, and its history was this It had been long felt that the condition of the Registration Law in Ireland, very different as it was from that which now prevailed in England, urgently demanded consideration and amendment; and Bills for that purpose, and, to a very large extent, identical with this Bill, had been before the other House of Parliament several times during several Sessions. He believed

  1449
  this Bill had boon accepted in that House with a very large amount of agreement indeed by the Irish Members; and he was informed there was scarcely a Division upon it at any stage of its course. But by those accidents which sometimes occurred in "another place," and which had become more frequent of late years, those Bills had not, with one exception, made their way into their Lordships' House, and that exception occurred in the year 1881, when one Bill was fortunate enough to make its way into the House. That Bill, he found, was thrown out, not on its merits, but in consequence of the fact that the second reading was moved on the 1st of September; and it had now been brought in again and carried through the other House on the responsibility of the Government. It had been adopted by the Government, although it was originally introduced by a Member of the Legal Profession amongst the Irish Representatives. Although he was sorry to see the Notice of opposition given by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kilmorey), he trusted that, upon the merits of the Bill, their Lordships would find little difficulty in accepting it. It appeared, upon its merits, to be very much called for as an amendment of the present system in Ireland—a system which was open to great complaint, and which, lie thought, ought not to be allowed to continue any longer in its present condition. The Bill was for the prevention of frivolous and vexatious objections, as, under the present system, there was the greatest possible opportunity given for such objections; with the result that many persons were practically deprived of the franchise. In Ireland there were three lists of voters in existence every year; there was the register of voters itself, there was, of course, the list of the claimants, and there was also a list peculiar to Ireland, called the supplemental list. That list was not made up of the names of the parties who desired to claim a vote, but was framed by public authority by the Clerk of each Union, who included in it the name of every person within the Union who he had reason to believe was entitled to vote, and yet was not on the existing register. He drew up the list on his own responsibility, and he returned it, with his sworn declaration, to the Clerk of the Peace.
  1450
  As the law now stood in Ireland, any name, either on the register of voters itself or on that temporary and provisional list, might be objected to by anyone. Whenever, in fact, anybody sent in a notice to say he objected to such and such a name that name was struck off, unless the person so objected to attended and proved his qualification. That was a state of things which gave rise to the great abuse to which he had alluded—namely, to the result that a number of perfectly qualified persons who had not been able to attend and make good their qualifications were struck off the list of voters for that year, and had to begin the process over again the next year. That was a state of things which, happily, did not prevail in this country. The Bill would require that that supplemental list of voters should be treated as primâ facie evidence of the qualification of any person; and it said that any objection made to any name must be an objection founded upon some reason which must be stated, and that, unless some primâ facie reason was given to the Registration Court by the objector, the person objected to should not be required to attend to prove his qualification. That seemed to him to be a perfectly proper and reasonable amendment of the law. This was not the case of parties making private claims to the franchise, but the case of a list drawn up by public authority and under a sworn declaration; and it was well known that in nine cases out of ten the persons thus put on the supplemental list were, in fact, qualified. The Bill, then, proposed to give that public authority the weight which properly attached to it, and treated it as primâ facie evidence of qualification, not liable to be set aside by the mere groundless objection of anyone who might find it to his interest to object. In order to make that list more authoritative, the Bill also provided that greater precautions should be taken in framing it than were now required; and in future the list would be submitted by the Clerk of the Union to that officer who had the greatest knowledge of every voter in his district—namely, the Collector of the Poor Rates, who would be required to check the list. The other effect of the Bill was to remove an anomaly in the system of registration in the City of Dublin. The Irish borough

  1451
  franchise was a rate-paying franchise of £4 valuation, the rate of all tenements valued under that sum being paid by the landlord. In Dublin there was a Private Act for the purpose of convenience of collection, which made the landlord liable to pay the rate in all cases where the valuation was under £8. The result of this accident was that the City of Dublin was subjected to a franchise higher than the other cities and boroughs of Ireland, and this anomaly it was desired to correct. Those were the most important provisions of the Bill, and on its merits he could see no reasons for the Motion for its rejection placed on the Paper by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kilmorey). There might be Party reasons for its rejection, and there might be political reasons. It might be said that by making any addition to the number of voters they would be adding strength to the forces of disaffection. If that was the view of the noble Earl he should venture to utterly differ from him. He was certain that if any result of the kind were to be feared, they would run far greater risk of adding force to disaffection by the rejection of a reasonable measure of this kind than by passing it upon its merits, although it would add somewhat to the number of voters in Ireland. As to the purely registration part of the Bill, he might inform the House that those who suffered most by the existing Registration Acts, and who were liable to all the gross abuses to which he had referred, were among what he might call the quietest and most unobtrusive men in the Irish constituencies; the very men to whom they should desire to secure the suffrage. He himself was aware of persons of the highest respectability and position—men, for instance, like Dr. Lyons, M.P.—being kept off the register in Dublin because of the frivolous objections made to their right to vote. He, therefore, confidently asked the House to pass that most reasonable reform; and he should greatly regret if they gave any new ground of complaint in Ireland when an attempt was being made to remove a real grievance on the lines of what was the law in this country.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
  THE EARL OF KILMOREY,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that
  1452
  day three months, claimed the consideration of the House for any faults of inexperience or ignorance on his part. He felt that the task of difficulty and delicacy which he had undertaken had been rendered much easier by the way in which the Lord President had anticipated some of the objections which he should urge against the Bill. He would not occupy the valuable time of their Lordships in discussing the minute details of the measure, because he ventured to hope that in a short time they would have relegated it to the shelves of their Lordships' House, there to remain until an earlier period of next year than that in which they were called upon to consider it this, fie wished the House to treat this Bill—although it was not of so great importance in his opinion as in the opinion of Her Majesty's Ministers—rather as a measure of some importance, and for that reason he wished them to reject it; for if it was a measure of any importance, that was not the day nor the hour in which it should be brought into their Lordships' House. He desired to add his protest against the growing practice of sending measures of importance to that House from "another place" at the end of July or beginning of August; and he would ask their Lordships whether they were going to permit their honourable House to become a mere office of registration? There were many cogent reasons, in his opinion, why they should not accept the Bill. His first objection he had already alluded to—the date of its introduction to their Lordships' House. The second objection was one which the Lord President probably did not expect him to touch upon. His second and strongest reason for exhorting the House to reject the measure was, unless he was grievously misinformed, because its origin was found in one of the most polluted sources. Their Lordships must be quite aware that was one of three Bills which were drafted and introduced in another place at an early part of the Session by persons of no less historical notoriety—notoriety most acceptable to themselves, if to no one else—than the late and present Lord Mayors of Dublin, and those Members who had been most conspicuous during the whole of this Session, and particularly in the last few days, by their unseemly attacks upon Her Majesty's Ministers. For what purpose had the Members of the so-called Irish

  1453
  National Party introduced these three Bills? Common sense would tell their Lordships that it was simply for their own advantage. Therefore, he could not understand how the Lord President could assume that by the passing of the Bill any advantage could accrue to any of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland, except to those who had openly rebelled against Her control, set Her laws at defiance, and treated all Constitutional Government with contempt. Who were to get the advantage of the facilities of this Bill? The Irish National Party, so-called—the advocates of disorder and rioting both in and out of Parliament. It was to them, and them only, that any advantage could accrue by the passing of this measure; and, therefore, he asked their Lordships to consider the Bill, not merely as a Government measure, but merely as a measure promoted by persons who were acknowledged, and who did not blush to be acknowledged, as rebels to the Crown, whose measures had been accepted by Her Majesty's Ministers and fathered by them in order to attain some extraordinary end which they could not conceive; and he asked their Lordships for that reason to object to the measure, because it came to their Lordships from a source which, it could not be concealed, was tainted with treason. With all due respect to the Lord President, and the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India, from the manner in which they deluded the House into passing the Irish Land Act, he must decline to accept their view of this Bill. They were all aware of how vastly the working of that Act differed from that which they were led to believe would result from it when the measure was introduced. He ventured, therefore, to doubt the opinion of the Lord President on this Bill. He trusted that their Lordships would not give the Bill a chance of showing how bad its results would be; and if there was even the smallest doubt as to whether it would act for the pacification of Ireland, he asked them to give the objectors to it the benefit of that doubt, and thus to swell the numbers of those who followed him into the Lobby to vote against it. If the Bill were sent back, and should be again submitted in another Session at a time when it could be properly considered, their Lordships might then discuss it. Let him impress upon their Lordships his other reason for objecting. As he
  1454
  said before, the Bill came from a tainted source. It was one and the same as the Bill drafted by the Party of disorder; and he did not conceive that it would be consistent with the dignity of their Lordships' House to assist in passing a measure which would insure still more power and influence to the Members of that rebellious movement. The Bill was promoted by a Party who had heaped insult upon the head of a most respected Judge; and was it possible that a Bill promoted by such a Party was likely to promote peace throughout Ireland? The Lord President had been good enough to give their Lordships what he called "the history of the Bill." Unless he was wrongly informed, the Bill was brought forward early in the Session, but had been laid aside, and nobody heard anything more about it, when suddenly one or two important measures were dropped—the Police Superannuation Bill and the Sunday Closing Bill for Ireland—and this Bill was taken up by the Government and pressed forward with such indecent haste that it drew forth the most emphatic protest from the loyal Irish Members. He, therefore, trusted that their Lordships would consider the Bill unworthy of their attention, because it came to them as a tainted measure; because their Lordships' House had been hitherto free from the taints which unfortunately had stained the Lower House, and because that House had not yet been sullied by the presence of rebels. He trusted in conclusion, that they would not lend assistance to a measure practically promoted by rebels to the Crown, of whom it had been justly said by an eminent Member of their Lordships' House that they were "steeped in treason to the very lips." The noble Earl concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Earl of Kilmorey.)
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, he must protest against their Lordships dealing with the Bill at that period of the Session. He need scarcely remind their Lordships that on the occasion of the re-distribution of seats in England and Scotland, Ireland was not included; and the consequence was that the Irish re-

  1455
  preservative system remained in the old unreformed state, and anomalies existed there far greater than those which prevailed in any other portion of Her Majesty's Dominions. He thought, therefore, it was most unwise and impolitic to tinker with the representation of the people of Ireland until the time came for bringing forward some general measure to deal with it effectually as a whole. It looked, however, as if the Government now desired to give a sop to those to whom they had given many sops of the same kind. Moreover, their Lordships had a right to complain that a measure like the present had been sprung like a mine upon them in the closing days of the Session; and they had a right also to complain that some Members of that House who were in the Cabinet permitted their Lordships' House to be treated in that manner. A question of this kind ought not to have been brought forward in the closing nights of the Session. This was only one instance among several others in which their Lordships were called upon to dispose of important Bills in a few hours. He thought a stand ought to be made somewhere. It was almost an insult to their Lordships that they should thus be asked to go into Bills, many of which had taken weeks and months of consideration in the other House, and which had been largely changed in going through the other House, and had only assumed their present form in the last few days. He entirely declined to accept at the hands of those who had introduced the Bills in that House, however honest they might be, an exposition of the objects which those measures were intended to effect. Their Lordships were aware that the noble Lord the President of the Council, in introducing the Irish Land Act of last Session, took a wrong view of the scope and results of that measure; that was admitted on all hands.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): No!
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: He said most emphatically that that Act did not realize the anticipations which had been expressed about it; and, therefore, he declined to accept from Her Majesty's Government an explanation of the scope of the present Bill. Under those circumstances, without giving any opinion as to the principles of the measure, he hoped their Lordships would refuse to
  1456
  read it a second time at that period of the Session, so that it might be re-introduced by Her Majesty's Government next Session, and at such a time as to insure its being considered with that deliberation which ought to be accorded to every measure.
  LORD DENMANsaid, it was an insult to their Lordships to be told that they must consider and pass all these Bills without amendment, and adjourn in a week. He suggested that the House should take the question of adjournment into its own hands, and adjourn till the 24th of October, to which date both Houses adjourned last year, whilst their Lordships' House was prevented from transacting any Business. He (Lord Denman) did not consider it safe for the foreign policy of the country to be controlled by Her Majesty's Ministers without any responsibility to Parliament; but it might be adjourned to the same date this year, when it might proceed to consider these measures in a proper manner. Some years ago an Irish Registration Bill was thrown out by this House; and the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Strathnairn), who had been Commander of the Forces in Ireland, was most anxious to have the polling places nearer together, that it might not be necessary to have large forces of military near each polling place; but, as no time was given for any Amendment, the Bill was thrown out.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I only propose to say one word. Since my noble Friend the Lord President gave a clear statement of the principle and objects of the Bill, I have listened attentively to all that has passed, and have not been able to gather one single objection, either to the principle or the details of the measure. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kilmorey) objected to the Bill because it came from a source even worse than Her Majesty's Government, and my noble Friend (Viscount Midleton) objected to it because he had no confidence in Her Majesty's Government, and also because it was too late in the Session to consider it; but not one single word had been said against the Bill itself, either in principle or detail. With regard to the latter objection, I can only say that there is now present above the average number of Peers that generally sit in this House; and I do not see why we should not this evening discuss this Bill as easily as we

  1457
  could have done two or three months earlier in the Session.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think the objections to the principle of this Bill are very strong if we do not take objection to the actual details of the measure. Is this the time that such a Bill should pass? Is this the time, when so many of our Constitutional guarantees are to a great extent withdrawn, and when the Government of Ireland, for reasons which we recognize as of unfortunate necessity, are placed under a very severe system of exceptional law—is this the time to bring in what certainly may, to a considerable extent, be described as a new Reform Bill? Is it the time to increase the number of voters, and make other considerable changes, the full extent of which we do not know? I do not know whether this is a Bill which, if we had greater time to examine it, we might not pass—I dare say we might—but it is a Bill which, taking into account the existing state of Ireland, I decline to vote for, unless I have full opportunity of examining its provisions. I should like first to ascertain from those who live on the spot what the real effect of the Bill will be. Before voting for this measure, I should like to consult men learned in the law with regard to it. I should like to have time to ascertain, by the machinery of a Select Committee, the facts upon which the necessity of the Bill is founded. All these things we ought to know; but it is impossible to obtain the desired information at this period of the Session. All we have is the guarantee of Her Majesty's Government to go upon, and the fact that the Bill has passed the House of Commons. How has it passed the House of Commons? Has that House considered the Bill carefully? I should like to give a short history of the passage of the Bill through that House. This Bill, which some people think will produce important effects, was read a second time on the 4th of August, on a Saturday afternoon—not a time very favourable for its full consideration by the House of Commons. It was committed last Tuesday, and the Report and third reading were taken together—a very unusual course—and on Saturday morning at so late an hour that there was no report of the proceedings in the morning newspapers. Therefore, I am safe in saying that this Bill
  1458
  does not come to us guaranteed by the mature and careful consideration of the House of Commons; and I do not think we ought to be called upon to pass a Bill of this important nature when introduced into this House at such a time.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he should support the Bill. The first ground of objection taken, of which he felt the full force, was the late period of the Session. At the same time, if they rejected the Bill for that reason they should reject all the other Bills upon the same ground, and the Session ought at once to be closed. Would it be safe to reject the Bill on that ground? Was not the argument rather in favour of the extension of the Session than of the rejection of the Bill? He denied that there was any analogy between the case of that Bill and the Bankruptcy Bill. The latter was a large and complicated measure, consisting of 178 clauses, introduced for the first time this Session in the House of Commons, after an exhaustive discussion by a Grand Committee. A Bill of such magnitude ought not to be sent to their Lordships at so late a period. But there was nothing new in the Bill before their Lordships; it had been introduced many Sessions ago, and their Lordships were perfectly familiar with its provisions. The second objection was that the Bill came from a polluted source. That was certainly not the case, for he recollected that it was first introduced by Mr. Charles Melville, a Q.C. of the highest respectability, and reached the Committee stage in the other House. Mr. Melville brought the Bill forward simply because it was a measure of justice. The third objection which was urged also to some extent by the noble Marquess was that it was a tinkering with the franchise in Ireland—in fact, a small Reform Bill, introduced at a critical period in the history of that country. The Bill, however, did not deserve that name. It was not a Franchise Bill; it gave a vote to nobody who was not now entitled to a vote. It was simply a Bill of procedure, and putting that procedure exactly on the same basis on which it rested in England, and it would be a great Act of injustice to reject it. He was on the Bench for 20 years, and in consequence of a resolution made by all the Irish Judges he had during that period never voted. But

  1459
  if he had desired to do so, he would have been obliged to attend personally before the registration officer in order that his name might appear on the register. It was unjust to disfranchise a man simply because he was unable to make that personal attendance. The qualification for a vote in Ireland was residential, as in this country, where the rateable value was £4. But even where the rateable value was £8, if the landlord paid the rates, the tenant was disfranchised. In England, by Goschen's Act, the tenant had a vote, whether he paid the rates personally or by his landlord. The Bill provided that the Irish tenant should be treated exactly as the English tenant; and it would be a singular act of injustice to refuse to place him in that position of equality.
  THE EARL OF KILMOREYsaid, he did not intend to apply the word polluted to any Queen's Counsellor or loyal Irish subject. He applied it to the Irish National Party, who had made themselves so conspicuous by their acts of disloyalty during the last few years.
  On Question, "That ('now') stand part of the Motion? "Their Lordships divided:—Contents 32; Not-Contents 52: Majority 20.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Fitzgerald, L.

  Houghton, L.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Grafton, D.

  Westminster, D.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Derby, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Granville, E.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Kimberley, E.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Morley, E.

  Northbrook, E.

  Reay, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Sandhurst, L.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Alcester, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

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

  Thurlow, L.

  Bramwell, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Carlingford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Abercorn, M. (D Abercorn.)

  Manchester, D.

  Salisbury M

  Northumberland, D.

  Richmond, D.

  Bathurst, E.

  1460

  Beauchamp, E.

  De L'Isle and Dudley L.

  Clonmell, E.

  Denbigh, E.

  Denman, L.

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

  Ellenborough, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Gerard, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Fortescue, E.

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

  Kilmorey, E. [Teller.]

  Lucan, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Milltown, E.

  O'Neill, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Romney, E.

  Rowton, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Tankerville, E.

  Verulam, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L.

  Melville, V.

  (E. Galloway.)

  Templemore, L.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury)

  Tredegar, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Balfour of Burleigh, L.

  Watson, L.

  Bateman, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Westbury, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Resolved in the negative; Bill to be read 2a this day three months.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 207.)
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 207.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DAL HOUSIE,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, there had been for some time past considerable dissatisfaction in Scotland with the manner in which Scotch Business was conducted, the complaint being that Scotch affairs had not received the attention which they merited. This feeling had gained strength very considerably during recent years. The late Government had been aware of its existence, and, in 1878, had introduced a Bill intended to deal with it. That Bill proposed to constitute an Under Secretary of State for the conduct of Scotch Business. That Bill was not favourably received, and was afterwards withdrawn. He believed the coldness with which it was received in Scotland was due to the idea that it would in some way diminish the dignity of the Office of Lord Advocate. The fact that the late Government had introduced such a Bill showed that they admitted the necessity for some legislation of that kind; and but for the Amendment which he saw on the Paper, he should have

  1461
  hoped that, having introduced a Bill of their own, they would have refrained from opposing the second reading of this measure. This Bill certainly went further than the Bill of the late Government, inasmuch as the President of the Local Government Board that it was proposed to constitute, would be a considerably more important personage than an Under Secretary of State; and it was just because this Bill went further than the Bill of the late Government that it had been received with general consent and approval in Scotland. He did not say it went as far as the people of Scotland would like, because, as their Lordships were aware, the complaint of the Scotch people was that they had not any direct representation in the Cabinet. The Members of the Cabinet were naturally anxious to push forward those Bills which affected the Departments of which they had charge; and as there was no Cabinet Minister directly connected with Scotland excepting the Home Secretary, it was felt that Scotch affairs were not sufficiently regarded, and that Scotch Bills were generally left out in the cold. The desire was that Scotch affairs should be placed in the charge of the Lord Privy Seal, or in some way or other placed under the charge of a Cabinet Minister. That desire Her Majesty's Government had found it impossible to comply with. This Bill proposed to create a Local Government Board, the President of which should be a person altogether above the rank of an Under Secretary of State, intending to meet, as far as possible, the wishes of the Scotch people. The Scotch people were a practical people, and although this Bill might not be all they would like, they were prepared to accept it so far as it went. They regarded it as an acknowledgment that what they had claimed from the Government had not been altogether unreasonable; and they hoped that the passing of this measure would lead to considerable improvement in the management of their affairs. The majority of Scotch Members in the House of Commons had given their support and approval to the Bill; and Petitions in favour of it had been forwarded from the Royal Burghs of Scotland, he thought from all the Chambers of Commerce, as well as from a very important Body, the Faculty of Advocates, who had opposed the Bill of the late Government.
  1462
  All those important Bodies recognized the fact that this Bill, if it was not sufficient to meet all the demands which they thought Scotland had a right to make, at least was a measure that was worth having, and was, moreover, a stop in the right direction. They expected from it that Scotland would have additional representation in Her Majesty's Government, and that, consequently, more attention might be expected to be given to Scotch Business; and they also approved of the Bill because it brought under one head all the local boards and local authorities which existed in Edinburgh. It would be the duty of the President of the proposed Local Government Board to supervise those authorities; and this arrangement it was expected would be of great convenience to the Scotch Members, inasmuch as they would always have one central responsible authority to whom they could go on matters affecting Scotch Business. Their Lordships would remember that, for a short time, the Business of Scotland had been entrusted to his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery); and it was generally acknowledged in Scotland that never in late years had the Business of Scotland been so satisfactorily attended to as it was under the charge of his noble Friend. Those who were acquainted with the people of Scotland would understand that they would not rest satisfied whilst the Officer of State in charge of their affairs held the subordinate position of an Under Secretary. It was that feeling that had wrecked the Bill of the late Government, and he thought their Lordships would see that such a Bill as this was necessary. It would place Scotch affairs under the charge of an independent Minister or a separate Department, instead of leaving it to a subordinate Department. That some such Bill was necessary was not open to doubt. The question that their Lordships had to decide was, whether the measure now before the House was or was not deserving of a fair trial. The scope of the Bill was in one respect thoroughly simple. It constituted a Local Government Board, the Lord President of which would relieve the Home Secretary of Government administration in Scotland. He would have certain ex officio Colleagues; but he believed the real responsibility would fall upon the President of

  1463
  the Board. It was proposed that the entire functions of the Secretary of State should be transferred from the Home Office to the President of the new Board. The functions of the Lord Advocate would not be touched in anyway by this Bill. They would be precisely the same after this Bill passed as they were at this moment. The President of the Board, he apprehended, would be a Scotchman—though the Bill did not say so—or, at least, someone who was well acquainted with Scotch Business. Unlike the Lord Advocate, he would not necessarily be a lawyer, and the Government would have the great advantage of having a larger field to select the President from. The only restriction that was placed upon the selection of the President of the Local Government Board was that he must be either a Member of their Lordships' House or a person capable of election to the House of Commons. His duties were laid down very distinctly in Clause 5 of the Bill. That clause transferred all the powers and duties vested in the Secretary of State or the Privy Council or the Local Government Board in England, so far as such powers were applicable to Scotland, to the President of the Board, and the 6th clause reserved all the functions of the Lord Advocate. It had been thought advisable, in view of the objections made in the House of Commons to the effect that the new Office would diminish the dignity and authority of the Lord Advocate, that such a clause should be inserted, so that there might be no doubt about the matter. This was a Bill of decentralization, and he should have hoped that on that account it would meet with the approval of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury). He remembered that in the autumn of last year the noble Marquess delivered a speech in Scotland, in which he dwelt with great force and eloquence upon the evils of centralization. This was a measure of decentralization, transferring Scotch Business from the Home Office and giving it to a new Department, so as to meet the just and legitimate desire of the Scotch people for a separate and independent Minister, not under the Home Secretary, to administer Scotch local affairs. This desire was simply prompted by a practical and sensible consideration on the part of the people of Scotland that their interests
  1464
  had hitherto suffered from the want of a separate and independent Minister. On this ground, and especially on the ground that the Bill had been favourably received by the great majority of the Scotch Members of Parliament, and also by the great majority of public representative Bodies in Scotland, he asked their Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  LORD BALFOUR,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, it must not be supposed that he was prepared to contend that the existing state of matters in regard to the conduct of Scotch Business was in all respects satisfactory. No doubt, a great deal could be said as to the neglect of Scotch Business in Parliament; but a great deal could be said about the neglect of general Business in Parliament, and as to Parliament not having got through as much Business and legislation in the interests of the country as it ought to have done. He did not think that in the matter of legislation, at any rate during the last few years, Scotland had been in a worse position than any other part of the Empire. But, even if it had been so, he did not think the mere appointment of a Government functionary would help in getting Bills through either House of Parliament. He did not wish to be understood as assuming that no improvement could be introduced into the Administrative Departments in Scotland. He believed there were some wise reforms that might be made; but he thought they should be made with the full knowledge and consent of Parliament, and not, as seemed now to be proposed, by a Local Government Board, or, as it appeared to him, by a comparatively irresponsible Officer. He did not deny that a certain amount of enthusiasm had been evoked in Scotland in favour of this measure; but he believed that, to a large extent, the enthusiasm that had been exhibited for it had been a fictitious enthusiasm, and that in all respects in which it was not fictitious it had been excited by the hope that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery) would be restored to the Government by means of the Bill. He believed the desire to see the noble Earl again

  1465
  in the Government had had a very large share indeed in the amount of popularity that had been evinced on behalf of the Bill in Scotland. He thought anyone who know the circumstances of Scotland would know that he was not going beyond the actual facts of the case in making that statement. He would base his opposition to the Bill mainly upon two grounds; but before he stated them he would like to note one point which, in his opinion, and in the opinion of others, was relied upon as one of the arguments in favour of the Bill. The Bill proposed to confer a salary of £2,000 a-year upon somebody; and, as their Lordships might be aware from the discussions which had taken place in the other House, that salary was to be got by taking the salary of the Lord Privy Seal. The Lord Privy Seal was very often an Englishman, and he assumed that the President of the Local Government Board for Scotland would more often be a Scotsman than an Englishman. It would, therefore, be gratifying to feel that the sum of £2,000 a-year was destined for a Scotsman rather than an Englishman. That was a point that might be urged by some in favour of the Bill; but he thought he would be able to show that this advantage which would ensue from the passing of the Bill would not outweigh all its disadvantages. One of his grounds of opposition to the Bill had been already adverted to in the House—namely, the late period of the Session at which the proposal came before their Lordships; and the other was that the Bill upon its merits was not one that their Lordships could accept. With reference to the first objection, he would point out that if they passed the second reading of the Bill to-day it would be almost impossible for their Lordships to put in any Amendments on the Bill without having to suspend the Standing Order of the House, or run the risk of losing the Bill through the efflux of time. It was ostentatiously announced that the Session was to close with the last day of this week; and, even if the Bill were read a second time to-day, and reported on Thursday, their Lordships could easily see that there would not be time for a proper consideration of the Amendments which their Lordships might put on the Paper. He ventured to think that the fact that their Lord-
  1466
  ships rejected the Bill on the ground that it was too late in the Session to consider it would be perfectly satisfactory. He thought their Lordships had shown a great deal of forbearance this year in the way in which they had dealt with Government legislation. Their Lordships had passed many Bills of great importance on the recommendation of the Government, because they had passed the other House. At the same time, he thought their Lordships had some reason to complain of the way in which they had been treated with regard to Bills which passed that House. Several Bills had been introduced into and passed their Lordships House, such as the Contempts of Court Bill, the Pawnbrokers Bill, the Stolen Goods Bill, and the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences Procedure) Bill. Whatever might be the merits of these Bills, he thought, as they had passed this House, it would be at least courteous to their Lordships that some of them should have had a judgment expressed upon them by the other House, be the judgment favourable or unfavourable. It seemed to him to be reducing the House entirely to the position of a debating society if they were asked to pass a large number of Bills towards the end of the Session, and the Bills which this House had passed earlier in the Session were not even submitted to the serious judgment of the other House. He should be surprised if any one of the Bills he had mentioned became law this Session. But he would turn to the Bill now before their Lordships. What was this Bill? He ventured to say it was either a complete sham, or it was the commencement of a wholly new line of policy in regard to the government of Scotland. Either it was a great deal more than it pretended to be, or it was very much less; and there was this peculiarity about it—that there had never been two similar accounts given of it by any of those who had spoken in its favour. Sometimes it seemed to be the intention of its advocates to minimize it. They sometimes called it a Bill for the purpose of appointing an official to look after Scotch legislation in Parliament. That seemed to be the description given of it by the Member of the Government in introducing it in the other House. That was the view that seemed to be taken of it by the Lord

  1467
  President of the Council; but, on the other hand, the noble Earl who had just moved the second reading gave it a wider significance. He said it was going to be the commencement of a new Department, which was to have the sole management of the Scotch Business, and supervise the whole of the Administrative Departments which were now in existence in Edinburgh. He (Lord Balfour) did not know which of those accounts was true; but he thought their Lordships would see at once that both of them could not be true. If, on the one hand, the President of this Local Government Board was merely to supervise Scotch legislation in Parliament, what was the use of putting under the new Board all these 53 different Acts of Parliament which were set forth in the Schedule? If, on the other hand, it was to establish a wholly independent Scottish Office, surely that was a matter on which the deliberate judgment of Parliament and of their Lordships' House was required—a judgment which it was quite impossible for them to give at the time at their disposal. The Bill was only printed this morning. Yesterday they were told by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack that they might follow the proceedings of the other House through the medium of the newspapers. He put aside whether that was a course consistent with the dignity of their Lordships; and he would say that, so far as endeavouring to understand the Bill was concerned, that was a course which he had tried to follow, but could not. He found that the Amendments proposed on the Bill in the other House extended to over five pages. The discussions on the Bill were on several occasions carried on very early in the morning, and they were not very fully reported; and he was wholly unable to find out what alterations had been made in the Bill until he got it in his hands this morning. He thought the account given of the Bill by the noble Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie) to-night was really the true one; it did give power for the complete re-organization of the Government of Scotland; and if he was right in that conjecture, then the name of the Bill was wholly misleading. It was more than a Bill to appoint a Local Government Board for Scotland. It was a Bill practically to constitute a new Home Office for Scotland, and to some
  1468
  extent a new Privy Council besides. In an article in a daily Edinburgh newspaper there occurred this passage:—
  "It would bring all the existing Scotch Boards into common dependence on a supreme Department."
  So that this was to be a supreme Department over all the Boards of Scotland. As to whether it was necessary to have a supreme Department in Scotland, there might be a great deal to be said both on one side and on the other. He thought such a Department should be constituted on the authority and responsibility of Parliament, and not on the authority of the Treasury and the Local Government Board, and its President appointed under the Bill. If the Bill passed, and if the Local Government Board was appointed, the President of the new Board and the Treasury would have full power to appoint any officers they chose, and apportion any salaries they liked; and they would have the power, without the further concurrence of Parliament, of organizing the new "supreme Department of Scotland." He thought that was a position in which Parliament should not allow itself to be placed. He forbore to express any opinion as to whether it was desirable to appoint such a Department for Scotland or not just now; but if it was to be done, it should be done on a complete scheme laid before Parliament, and on the responsibility of Parliament. He thought, on the merits of the case, it was not desirable to appoint such a Department for Scotland. He thought they should not lightly depart from what had hitherto been the policy of Parliament—namely, to unite the Government of England and Scotland as far as possible, and not to separate them. The noble Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie) made an eloquent appeal to the patriotism and national feeling of his countrymen. There was no one in Scotland who was more proud of belonging to the Scottish nation than he (Lord Balfour) was; but he was not quite certain whether it was always good policy to emphasize the difference between Scotland and England. They had a different system of law and a different form of Church government in Scotland, and both of them he valued extremely; but, so far as he knew, there was no one just now wishing to interfere with their system of law or with their form of Church govern-

  1469
  ment. Therefore, he did not think it was necessary to form a Department such as this for the purpose of either protecting the Church or the Court of Session. What would be the effect of forming a Department such as this, and giving it the powers which the Bill proposed to give? It was proposed to transfer to the Local Government Board all authority over mines, factories, and workshops, pollution of rivers, contagious diseases, granting of licences, vivisection, control of reformatories and prisons. Surely it was more desirable that all these things should be governed as a uniform whole from the Home Office, and not run the risk of there being separate regulations for one class of things in Scotland and another class of things in England. Certain powers were proposed to be transferred to the new Board which were now exercised by the Privy Council; and he thought there was some mistake in transferring to the Board the powers exorcised by the Privy Council under the Public Health Act. As he understood the Schedule, it was proposed to transfer a great deal of the power which was now exercised by the Board of Supervision; but he did not think it was the intention of the promoters of the Bill to transfer to the new Board the administration now exercised by the Board of Supervision. Further, a curious feature of the Bill was that there was no staff provided in the Bill, except such as might be given by the discretion of the Treasury, or, as he understood from the discussion which took place in the other House, such as might be carved out of some of the existing Boards. He understood there was an honourable undertaking that there should be a Permanent Under Secretary in the new Department. He should like to have a distinct answer to this question—Was the Office of the Board to be in London or Edinburgh; were the Permanent Under Secretary and his records to be transferred to and from Scotland every year when Parliament met and when it rose; if not, how was the Business of the Office to be carried on during six months of the year? What an invidious duty it was to cast upon the President of the Board—namely, that of cutting and carving a staff for himself out of the existing Boards without any indication from Parliament as to which was to be in-
  1470
  creased, and which was to be diminished. He did not think the President would get much out of the staff of the Lord Advocate. He held in his hand an estimate for the current year of the expenses of the Lord Advocate's Office in London, and he found that the whole expenses of that Office were £380 a-year. Of that the Lord Advocate was made to pay £60 a-year as house rent at the Home Office; and he (Lord Balfour) believed the Lord Advocate only got a back attic in the Home Office. Expenses of the Legal Secretary of the Lord Advocate while in London, £160 a-year; expenses of a clerk to the Lord Advocate while in London, £160 a-year—making a total of £380. Their Lordships would, therefore, see that there was not much picking to be got there for the new Local Government Board; and he did not believe that there was much to be got from any of the other existing Offices. Again, he should like to know whether it was the intention of the Government to amalgamate any of the existing Boards in Scotland? If it was not the intention of the Government to do so, he did not see how they were to be supervised by such a Department as that. If it was the intention to amalgamate any of the existing Boards, then it was imperatively necessary that a complete scheme should be presented to the judgment of Parliament. In conclusion, he thought it would be a matter of great rashness to pass this Bill at this time of the Session. He did not pretend to say that the existing state of things was satisfactory, and he was glad to think that the Government had recognized the fact that some change was necessary. But before he could consent to the passing of such a Bill as this, it would have to be carefully examined by a Select Committee, so that Parliament might be enabled to understand what was really intended. At the present moment, no one—not even the Government themselves—knew what the Bill really aimed at. For these reasons he moved that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Lord Balfour.)
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, the noble Lord who had just spoken had

  1471
  made an attack on the Bill, not warranted either by the object of the measure itself, or by the remarks of the noble Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie) in moving the second reading. The noble Lord alluded to the probability or expectation that the President of the new Board would be an irresponsible Officer.
  LORD BALFOUR: I meant irresponsible as to the particular alterations to be made—not generally irresponsible.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he accepted the explanation. Further on, the noble Lord said that the Bill was either a great deal more than it appeared to be, or a great deal less. The essential part of the Bill was that of transferring certain functions which were now entirely performed by the Home Secretary to the new Department. It was well known that the work in the Home Office was enormous, and it was stated by the Home Secretary in the other House that the effect of this Bill would be to lighten the labour of the Home Office. He could not understand why there should be such serious apprehension on the part of the noble Lord that this Bill had any revolutionary tendency. On the contrary, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) believed it would afford an opportunity for a healthy development of local feeling and sentiment with respect to the Government of Scotland. They had heard a great deal about the danger of centralization, and he thought this Bill had an opposite tendency. In the creation of a new Department it was impossible that every detail of the scheme could be specified in an Act of Parliament. He sincerely hoped their Lordships would give the Bill a second reading. It was true that it was introduced at a late period of the Session; but that was not through any fault of Her Majesty's Government, who had lost no opportunity of pressing it forward.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, it seemed to him that this Bill was neither "fish, nor fowl, nor good red herring." He understood that the Government had, for a considerable time, thought it necessary to appoint a Minister for Scotland; and the noble Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie) surprised him by saying that they found it was a proposition which it was impossible to comply with. After reading the speech of the Home Secretary in introducing the Bill, it struck him that there was no occasion for the
  1472
  measure at all. It was found that a Cabinet Minister was not exactly the thing that was wanted, and that an Under Secretary of State for the Home Department would be too little; but the noble Earl, in moving the second reading, was not successful in explaining why it was that a middle course had been thought necessary. He hoped their Lordships would not assent to the second reading. It seemed to him that the Bill, if passed into law, would create a great deal of confusion. They did not know exactly what the functions of the President of the Local Government Board were to be; and he thought it was going back almost to the time of the Union to propose now to have a separate Secretary of State for Scotland. He did not see how it was possible to appoint a President of a Local Government Board for Scotland without interfering with the functions of the Lord Advocate. At that late period of the Session, he thought it would be very unwise to pass a Bill of this sort, which promised to lead to confusion rather than to anything else.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, there was a distinguished Peer in the House who had held the Office of Lord Advocate—he referred to one of the Lords of Appeal, Lord Watson. He should like to appeal to the noble and learned Lord whether a measure of this kind was necessary. He believed it to be unnecessary. Perhaps the whole history of the measure was contained in the very few lines which gave the Local Government Board power to appoint such Secretaries and officers as they might think fit.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES)complained of the late period of the Session at which the Bill had come before their Lordships. They were very imperfectly informed as to its objects. It was extremely dangerous to pass Bills of this kind in that way. If this Bill were passed, they did not know whether they would not have a Local Government Bill for Ireland next Session.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I venture to say a few words as to the history of this Bill which we are asked to pass at this period of the Session, because I want to show on what kind of authority it comes before your Lordships. Let me first say, however, that there are 53 Statutes of almost every kind enumerated in the Schedule.

  1473
  They relate to the Board of Supervision, the Lunacy Board, the Fishery Board, the Prison Board, and a large variety of other matters; and you are asked, by a stroke of the pen, to convey the control of these matters from the existing Boards to a new Department. Now, what consideration has the House of Commons given to this measure, of such an important and sweeping character? The second reading of the Bill was proposed on the 4th of August—on a Saturday. A certain inspiration seemed then to have come over them, and moved them to legislation in this direction. The Committee was taken last Thursday, the 16th of August, after midnight. The Report and third reading were taken together on Saturday morning, after the reporters had left. That is the consideration the House of Commons has given to this important measure. I think I saw it stated that the arrangement for a separate Office for Scotland was abolished in the memorable year of 1745. Therefore, we are now being asked to reverse a policy which has been pursued for 150 years. I am not saying whether that policy is right or wrong. I am simply dealing with the circumstances under which we are asked to alter it at a period of the Session when, physically, we have not the time even to read the Acts which are incorporated in the Bill. I do not wish to say a word as to the policy of the Bill. I adhere very much to what I said at Edinburgh about the dangers of centralization, and the necessity of strengthening local government, in the speech which has been referred to by the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen); and if, at any other period of the Session, the noble Earl will introduce a Bill somewhat fuller in its details, and somewhat more ample and explicit in its provisions, I shall be glad to give it my best consideration. I have no prejudice whatever against the principle of the Bill, and I shall be glad if, at the proper time, your Lordships will give it all the consideration and respectful attention it deserves; but it is not to the interest of the country—it is not respectful to Scotland—that such a Bill should be passed at so late a period of the Session.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I did not come down to the House intending to take any part in the discussion of this measure. It has been my
  1474
  fate that, both by those who have been good enough to discuss the Bill in the House of Commons and by those who have been good enough to discuss it outside, my name has been brought somewhat prominently before the public in connection with the measure. I should have thought that that was a sufficiently good reason for me to abstain from discussing it on the present occasion. It will not be necessary for me to refer to any of the personal aspersions which have been made upon me in the House of Commons. As regard these flowers of rhetoric, they betray sufficiently by their flavour and their fragrance the soil from which they spring. But to pass from that aspect of the matter, I do think there is something to be said as regards the discussion which the Bill has received this evening. My noble Friend who moved its rejection in a spirit of admirable temper, perfect calmness, and mastery of the subject, raised, as I understand, two main objections to the Bill. He said, in the first place, that it came too late in the Session; and, in the second place, that it would not be efficient for the purposes it was meant to effect. As regards the contention that it came too late, he has been ably supported by the noble Marquess, who, I think, will forgive me for saying that he is generally of opinion that Bills promoted by Her Majesty's Government come before the House at unpropitious moments. What is the history of this cry of Bills coming too late in the Session? We hear so much of it that it is worth a little examination. It means simply this, that your Lordships have the faculty of seeing and knowing the discussions on every Bill as they take place in the House of Commons. Your Lordships have the power of making up your minds by the discussions in the public Press, by speeches outside the walls of Parliament, and by every possible means of information which any statesman could desire who brings his mind to bear on the subject. It is quite true—I take the noble Marquess's view as correct—I know no more than he has told; but I am quite willing to accept it—it is quite true that the Bill was not read a second time till the 4th of August; but it is equally true that it was in print and before the public for a considerable time before that. During the whole of the last Recess a considerable part of every speech de-

  1475
  livered in Scotland, including the memorable speech of the noble Marquess himself, was devoted to the consideration of subjects analogous to this; and when, as the outcome of this discussion on every platform in Scotland, and in every newspaper in Scotland, the other House of Parliament passes a small Bill of six clauses, and it comes up to your Lordships' House in the last week in August, the noble Marquess sinks back in his chair with an air of exhaustion, and says—"What intellect can rise to the consideration of this measure? It is too great an effort. Let us repair to the country; and, affirming the principle of this Bill, let us meditate in calmness over any measure that may be promoted for the next Session of Parliament." Now, my Lords, really is this a statesmanlike, is it a serious, view to take of a Bill of this length, which has been discussed and amply considered in every part of the United Kingdom? I do not think that this House is prepared to abdicate its functions—for it is nothing else—because this is nearly the last week of August. If we are to measure our Sessions by the time of the year, we must have a calendar prepared by the Leader of the House, upon which, just before grouse shooting or partridge shooting begins, it is stated—" Consideration of Bills ends in the House of Lords;" and I shall be more satisfied when things are put on that clear footing than now, when Bills which consist of six clauses are said to be too lengthy to be considered at this period of the Session. The noble Marquess raised a bugbear by referring to the powers which are to be vested in this new Board. He referred to the poor laws, prisons, vaccination, and a variety of other subjects; but, as a matter of fact, the whole of these compendious Schedules are practically contained in three lines of the Bill, which provide that all powers or duties vested in or imposed upon any of the Secretaries of State, or the Privy Council, or the English Local Government Board, shall, so far as they refer to Scotland, be transferred to the new Board. Therefore, as far as the enumeration in the Schedule goes, it is merely supplementary to, and explanatory of, the perfectly well-known lines of the clause. I cannot think that this is a perfectly fair issue to take on a Bill of this description. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill went
  1476
  beyond this, and he saw in the measure a conspiracy for annulling those time honoured institutions, the Boards of Edinburgh. The noble Lord must be well aware that the President of the Local Government Board, if he ever exists, will have no power to do anything of the kind without the authority of Parliament; and, therefore, should he bring in a measure—if he ever exists, which seems in the highest degree problematical—to deal with these Statutory Boards, it will be perfectly competent for the noble Lord to take action on that measure, instead of taking action on this measure, which has a totally different object and result. I noted with very great pleasure the declaration of the noble Marquess as to the principle of this Bill. I took a solemn note of that declaration.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What is it precisely that my noble Friend takes note of?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The declaration that you affirm the principle of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only stated I would declare nothing against it.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am quite certain that that declaration of the noble Marquess will be noted in that country North of the Tweed which is most interested in the present Bill, and which is enthusiastic for it. It is quite clear, looking at the present aspect of this House, that there is no enthusiasm for or against the Bill. It is quite true that at this time of the Session you can hardly expect a very large attendance either to support or throw out a Bill of this nature. But, my Lords, you are making a great mistake if you gauge the feeling of the people of Scotland by the appearance of this House. Every great Municipality in Scotland, including the Municipality which conferred its franchise on the noble Marquess, and which he rewarded by delivering a most admirable speech, has petitioned Parliament in favour of this Bill. I do not believe there are six Members returned by Scotch constituencies who are hostile to this Bill. The opposition in the House of Commons was conducted almost entirely by that volatile entity which is called the Fourth Party, and which is not supposed to have any special connection with the affairs of Scot-

  1477
  land. If your Lordships think fit to reject this Bill to-night—and I am far from saying that the Bill is perfect—I can only say that those who support it must appeal from the judgment of this House to those people whom it chiefly affects. It is in the interests of Scotland that it should be passed; it is the desire of Scotland that it should be passed; and I venture to say that the expression of opinion in Scotland as to the fate of this measure—if your Lordships think fit to reject it—and the expression of opinion not as to the measure itself, but as to the principle which it represents, will convince your Lordships that you made a great mistake in gauging public opinion in Scotland if you think it is hostile to this Bill.
  On Question, "That ('now') stand part of the Motion? "Their Lordships divided:— Contents 31; Not-Contents 46: Majority 15.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Carlingford, L.

  FitzGerald, L.

  Houghton, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Westminster, D.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Derby, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Granville, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Morley, E.

  Ramsay, L. [E. Dalhousie.)

  Northbrook, E.

  Sydney, E.

  Reay, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Alcester, L.

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

  Thurlow, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Bramwell, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Harrington, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Manchester, D.

  Milltown, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Redesdale, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Romney, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Tankerville, E.

  Verulam, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Salisbury, M.

  Melville, V.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury)

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

  Bagot, L.

  Balfour of Burleigh, L. [Teller.]

  Feversham, E.

  Bateman, L.

  1478

  Colchester, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Colville of Culross, L.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Denman, L.

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

  Ellenborough, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Gerard, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Haldon, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Harlech, L.

  Watson, L.

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

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Lyveden, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Ravleigh, L.

  Resolved in the negative; Bill to be read 2a this day three months.

TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 205.)
(The Lord President.)
TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 205.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL),in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the Bill had been prepared with great care to meet the admitted want in Ireland of improved means of communication. Ireland was very deficient in branch lines of railway, and attempts in the ordinary way to supply that deficiency by means of Companies established by Private Bills had not been successful. The Bill proposed the construction, not of ordinary railroads, but of tramways, or light railways, and it provided an improved method of guarantee for that purpose. A baronial guarantee was to be provided by the Grand Jury of the county, and that guarantee would take effect, provided that no opposition were offered, by the Order of the Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Privy Council. Thereby great expense would be saved. If opposition were made to the Order in Council, the Order would have to come before Parliament in the shape of a Provisional Order and be submitted to the decision of Parliament. The Treasury was empowered to make a limited grant in aid of the baronial guarantee, and great care had been taken, by the provisions which would be found in the Bill, to prevent the possible loss of any part of such grant. The local authority would also be placed under the strongest motive to take care that its guarantee was not given to untrustworthy promoters. In case the Company who undertook the

  1479
  tramway were unable to carry it on, the local authority would be compelled to take upon their own shoulders all the responsibilities of the unsuccessful Company. The second object of the Bill was to promote emigration; and, by the application of a portion of the Church Fund, Government would be able to contribute £8 a-head to the cost of each emigrant sent out by private efforts, such as Mr. Tuke's fund, instead of the £5 hitherto contributed. With regard to the clauses which were intended to facilitate the sale of land to Companies in certain cases, and its purchase by the tenants, the effect of those clauses would be that the Land Commission, which had not yet been able to carry out the Purchase Clauses to any considerable extent, would now be able, when they had satisfied themselves that proper security could be given, to make use of any Public Company or Association that might move in the matter for the purchase of land and the re-sale of it to the tenants. Such a Company would stand as an intermediary between the Land Commission on the one hand, and the landlords and tenants on the other. There seemed fair reason to hope that such local associations might be formed, and that they would give some life and motion to those Purchase Clauses, at all events within certain limits. It was also provided that means might be taken for the purpose of trying that experiment of which they had heard so much, and to which so many persons of high authority in Ireland were greatly attached—namely, the idea of what had been called migration, or the removing of tenants from crowded districts and placing them on unoccupied lands. The Companies who might obtain loans under this Bill would be at liberty not only to sell the lands they might acquire to the occupying tenants, but, in case they bought unoccupied lands, they would be at liberty to sell them to other parties, or to any persons or associations who might undertake to settle upon them families to be moved from other districts. The system for that purpose would be exactly the same as that which had worked with so much success in the matter of emigration, which was intrusted to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant, and which, provided they could trust the person to whom that discretion was intrusted, was, he be-
  1480
  lieved, the only way to successfully manage such matters. Hitherto, the emigration conducted under the authority of the Lord Lieutenant had been successfully conducted; and if the facilities provided for trying the experiment of migration should come to anything, that system would be worked under the responsibility and control of the Lord Lieutenant. He was bound to say a very strong desire had been expressed by persons of all parties and politics in favour of trying that experiment of removal from the most crowded districts to any suitable unoccupied lands that might be found. He had noticed some of the names of those who took the warmest interest in the matter, and they included those of Mr. O'Connor Power, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Rathbone, who represented Mr. Tuke's Committee, Colonel King-Harman, Mr. Hinde Palmer, Mr. Mitchell Henry, and many others. He (Lord Carlingford) was not able to predict himself that anything important would come out of the facilities thus to be given for migration. He did not feel that he had enough information to speak with confidence; but he hoped their Lordships would see that it was highly expedient that means should be afforded for making such an experiment, and he believed a large number of influential persons would only be satisfied when such an experiment was made. The control given to the Lord Lieutenant was such that the work to be done would not, and could not, be intrusted to improper hands. These were the main provisions of the Bill. They dealt with three or four matters which were of the greatest interest in Ireland and which required the attention of Parliament, and he was very hopeful that the efforts that had been made to frame the Bill might not be without happy results. He hoped their Lordships would not cut this Bill short in its career in the same way in which they had cut short two other Bills that evening.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord President.)
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, the Bill was in reality three Bills, the first relating to tramways, the second was to amend certain clauses of an Act of last Session, and the next dealt with land. It was what he called a system of packing, and either all three must be accepted or all

  1481
  three rejected. He did not rise to oppose the Bill; but he really wished to know why clauses relating to emigration were inserted in a Bill dealing with tramways?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): Because it was found convenient in this instance.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he thought the Bill was rather anomalous, and he doubted whether the title expressed all the Bill did. The principal objection to the Bill was, he thought, that it was the most irregularly constructed thing he had ever seen. It was called the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Bill. What had Tramways and Public Companies to say to the planting of trees? If any objection was to be made to the Bill it was an objection of a pecuniary character, with which the House would not deal. The objects of the Bill must have the sympathy of every noble Lord in the House; and except in the way in which it dealt, perhaps, a little extravagantly with public money, he hoped that the various subjects with which it treated—tramways, emigration, and the planting of trees—might be successfully carried out.
  LORD HARLECHsaid, he thought the proper name of the Bill would be an "Omnibus" Bill, as it contained no less than three entirely distinct subjects—namely, tramways, emigration, and land. The provisions relating to the first deserved attention, coming, as they did, from a Liberal Government, who professed to stand up for the rights of the people; whereas, in this Bill, the Presentment or Road Sessions, which were supposed to be the popular tribunal, were entirely ignored, and the whole power was thrown into the hands of the Grand Jury, subject only to the approval, or otherwise, of the Lord Lieutenant.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 183.)
(The Earl of Dunraven.)
LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 183.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, the objections to the Bill which he stated on the second reading had been much strengthened since by further investigation. As a cottage builder, and, indeed, a frequent prize winner in cottage building from the County Waterford Agricultural Society, he could sympathize with the proposed object, while protesting against the provisions, of this Bill. In Ireland a measure was seldom moderately employed, and this one would probably be either used very sparingly, as some predicted, or very largely, as others hoped. If sparingly, he would ask whether it was worth while, for the sake of little fruit, sanctioning a measure containing dangerous principles, germs susceptible, as the House had found those latent in the Land Act of 1870 were, of formidable development, possibly not in Ireland alone? If largely employed, he would say the Bill was not only dangerous in principle, but likely to be injurious in practice. It placed very large powers of purchase, sale, and exchange, as well as of building, in elective bodies whose loyalty, discretion and freedom from jobbery were, in many cases, not to be at all depended upon; while the only practical check would be an amount of local examination and superintendence by the Local Government Board not to be hoped for, unless an army of Inspectors ad hoc was to be appointed at the expense of the Treasury, for the protection from Clause 7, requiring Parliamentary confirmation of a scheme, was practically illusory. Land would easily be found purchaseable at a handsome price by consent; while three ratepayers would not easily be found bold enough to risk opposing a popular scheme for the expenditure of Treasury money within the neighbourhood. There was, he observed, no limit placed on the rates to be imposed, or on the area of taxation to be fixed by the Local Government Board for the purposes of this Act, which might be any area, from part of a town-land up to an electoral division in each case. He mentioned these not as details incapable of amendment, but as indications of the inconsiderate recklessness with which the Bill had been prepared and passed through the other House. The dwellings of the agricultural labourers were notoriously, as a rule, worse, where their wages were lowest, their food and clothing scantiest—their

  1483
  general condition worse, where they were most congested and most wanted relieving by emigration. Yet those were the very places where it was most probable cottages would be built with money practically borrowed from the Treasury, in the expectation that, somehow or other, payment of interest might be deferred till it ceased to be demanded; as had been the case with so many former Irish loans for various purposes. Speaking with the experience of 40 years' zealous service in the cause of sanitary reform, he ventured to say that, as a rule, the badness of their usually scattered dwellings, with their miserably defective sanitary arrangements were not, but a deficiency in the quantity and quality of their food was, the chief cause of the generally not very excessive sickness and mortality of the agricultural labourers and their families; though bad structural arrangements were, no doubt, the chief cause of the heavy mortality in the Irish towns—conspicuously in Dublin. And this view expressed by him the other day had been confirmed, nay, conclusively established, by the Report of the Registrar General. He found that in poor Connaught the deaths in 1881 were only about 1 in 70, or about 13¼ per 1,000 of the population, as against about 1 in 57, or about 17½ per 1,000 in Ulster, 1 in 58, or about 17¼ per 1,000 in Munster, and 1 in 49, or about 20 per 1,000 in Leinster, while the deaths from zymotic diseases were full one-third less than in Leinster and Ulster, and not half those in Munster. He found, moreover, the mortality in Donegal, Galway, Mayo, Sligo, Kerry, and Clare, those very poor Western counties washed by the Atlantic, was only about 1 in 68, as compared with that of the two small rich counties with the greatest population to the acre—Dublin and Antrim—of about 1 in 44. On the whole, believing, as a consistent sanitary reformer, that the comparatively slight sanitary advantages to be obtained by the Bill would be dearly purchased by its probably confirming and protracting the congestion of the population in the very districts whence the removal of a great part was most urgent, that its principle was dangerous, and that it must in practice afford great facilities for jobbery and peculation, he would ask their Lordships to save themselves the trouble of going into Committee
  1484
  upon a Bill, which, in his opinion, contained only one good clause, and that a not very efficacious one, while it contained too many objectionable ones to be practically capable of being converted into a good measure. He, therefore, moved that the House go into Committee upon it that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Earl Fortescue.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he was very glad indeed that this Bill had fallen into the excellent hands of his noble Friend (the Earl of Dunraven) on the Cross Benches. It was not a Government Bill; but he must say for himself, and he said it for his Colleagues, that they should be very unhappy if their Lordships were to allow themselves to follow the lead of his noble Friend who had just sat down. "Whatever might be the merits of the doctrine of laisser faire, to which his noble Friend was so much attached, he ventured to say that for the application of that doctrine Ireland was perhaps the worst country in the world. He knew of no country to which the complacent doctrine of letting ill alone was so unsuited as Ireland; and, perhaps, there was no subject to which it was more unsuited than that of the labourers' dwellings. His noble Friend did not seem to understand the extraordinary difference between the condition of things in Ireland and the condition of things in this country with respect to labourers. Insufficient and bad as the condition of labourers' and artizans' dwellings in England often was, the state of those dwellings in Ireland was infinitely worse. Their Lordships who lived in this country could have no conception of the vile huts and hovels to which the Irish labourers were too often condemned; and in numerous instances not, as his noble Friend said, scattered about the country, where the blessings of fresh air mitigated the sanitary evils, but often crowded into the narrow streets and lanes of towns. He felt so strongly the great evil of this state of things that he was convinced that their Lordships would do well to sanction the effort made by that Bill, and that they should not be frightened by the bugbear raised

  1485
  by his noble Friend, but should make up their minds that it was worth while to run some risk in order to mitigate an enormous evil. He believed that the greatest risk was that the Bill would not be largely acted upon, although he hoped that he might be wrong as to that; but he thought that this attempt to extend to Irish labourers the benefit of provisions analogous to those of the English Artizans' Dwellings Act well deserved their Lordships' support.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, he hoped that their Lordships would allow this Bill to proceed. He had seen it in print for a good many weeks. It had been considered with great care by Members connected with Ireland who sat on both sides of the other House; and he knew that Irish Members on both sides were very desirous that their Lordships should pass it. Undoubtedly it was open to objections; but he rather looked upon the fact that it would be employed sparingly as an advantage, as it would enable them to see wherein the measure was defective, and they would be able to put it right.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he joined with the noble Lord opposite in the appeal to the noble Earl in regard to that Bill. He was not quite sure that this was a fair case for the application of the doctrine of laisser faire, about which they had contended so much in that House. His impression was that according to the precedents which had been set by Parliament, supposing that the security was good, and provided there was nothing in the Bill which conflicted with the principles which both he and the noble Earl maintained, they need not necessarily resist such a proposal as the present. He might quote the measure of Sir Robert Peel, under which large advances were made to landlords to enable them to drain their estates. If they had said that the State never was to advance money for any benefit to a private individual, that would have been a highly improper measure; but it was not resisted at the time, and he believed that it had done a great deal of good. The real question was whether the proposed advance was to be made for a good object of public policy, and whether it would be made upon good security. If those two conditions were satisfied, he did not think, in point of principle,
  1486
  there was any danger to be apprehended. There was another ground why the Irish labourer deserved special consideration. They had destroyed, to a great extent, in Ireland the only person who was in the habit of building cottages—namely, the landlord. The landlord had disappeared, at least to a great extent, and who was now to build the cottages? If they were not built by the tenant they would not build themselves, and if no provision were made for those unhappy people they would have to sleep on the roadside. At the same time, he would urge upon the noble Lord whether it would not be well to introduce some limitation into the Bill. The Irish ratepayer deserved some consideration. There seemed to be an idea in some minds that the Irish ratepayer had a bottomless purse; but it was desirable to protect him by a maximum limit in a measure of that kind. The Bill might not be very largely applied; but if it was applied there should be some safeguard against injustice. He would, therefore, suggest that the rate should not exceed 1s. in the pound, or some such amount, in order to prevent the expenditure going too far; and he should also like to see the duration of the Bill limited to three years.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he had no objection whatever to do as the noble Marquess had suggested, and he should be very happy on the stage of Report to introduce an Amendment limiting the rate levied under the Bill to 1s. in the pound. He should also have no objection to limiting the duration of the Bill to a reasonable time; but hardly thought three years would be sufficient, or that the Bill could be fairly tried in less than five years.
  On Question, "That ('now') stand part of the Motion?" Resolved in the affirmative.
  House in Committee accordingly: Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

  REVENUE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
  Read 1a; to tie printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow (The Lord Thurlow); and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered To-morrow in order to its being dispensed with. (No. 215.)
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed by The Earl of CORK and ORRERY.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with several of the amendments agreed to, several agreed to with amendments, and several disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement: The said amendments and reasons to be printed, and to he considered To-morrow. (No. 216.)

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with several of the amendments agreed to, several agreed to with amendments, and several disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement: The said amendments and reasons to be printed, and to be considered To-morrow. (No. 217.)
  House adjourned at Three o'clock A.M., till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.