Lords Sitting of 7 August 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Cholera, &c. Protection* (247).
Second Reading—Revenue, &c. (242).
Committee—Report—Prosecution of Offences (233); Criminal Lunatics* (239); Superannuation* (235).
Report—Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices, (212).

Third Reading—Education (Scotland) Provisional Order* (2
8); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 8)* (217); Canal Boats Act (1877) Amendment (228); Metropolitan Asylums Board (Borrowing Powers)* (234); Military Pensions and Yeomanry Pay* (232); Chartered Companies* (231), and passed.
Royal Assent—Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland) Amendment [47 & 48 Vict. c. 42]; Building Societies Acts Amendment [47 & 48 Vict. c. 41]; Naval and Greenwich Hospital Pensions [47 & 48 Vict. c. 44]; Teachers' Residences (Ireland) [47 & 48 Vict. c. 45]; Summary Jurisdiction (Repeal, &c.) [47 & 48 Vict. c. 43]; Oyster Cultivation (Ireland) [47 & 48 Vict. c. 48]; Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878 (Districts) [47 & 48 Vict. c. 47]; Naval Enlistment [47 & 48 Vict. c. 46]; Public Works Loans [47 & 48 Vict. c. 49]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) [47 & 48 Vict. c. 50]; Prisons [47 & 48 Vict. c. 51]; Turnpike Acts Continuance [47 & 48 Vict. c. 52]; Expiring Laws Continuance [47 & 48 Vict. c. 53]; Yorkshire Registries [47 & 48 Vict. c. 54]; Strensall Common [47 & 48 Vict. c. ccix]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) [47 & 48 Vict. c. ccx]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) [47 & 48 Vict. c. ccxi]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) [47 & 48 Vict. c. ccxii]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 2) [47 & 48 Vict. c. ccxiii]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) [47 & 48 Vict. c. ccxiv]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) [47 & 48 Vict. c. ccxv]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders [47 & 48 Vict. c. ccxvi]; Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order [47 & 48 Vict. c. ccxvii]; Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2) [47 & 48 Vict. c. ccxviii.]

EGYPT—COMMISSION OF THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK.—QUESTION.
EARL DE LA WARR: I beg to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for
76
Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether now, or on an early day, the House can be informed of the nature of the powers which it is proposed to confer upon Lord Northbrook in Egypt; whether those powers will be of a political as well as of a financial character; and also when the precise terms of the commission of Lord Northbrook can be laid before Parliament; also whether the noble Earl can state whether the Government of the Sultan has been consulted on the subject?
EARL GRANVILLE: In answer to my noble Friend, I have nothing to add to what I stated on the last occasion—namely, that the Earl of Northbrook has accepted the commission to go to Egypt in order to advise Her Majesty as to the counsel which should be given to the Khedive in the present state of affairs, and with regard to any business in connection therewith. With regard to the powers which he is to have, the Papers are being drafted at this moment, and as soon as they have been submitted to the Queen and have received the Sign Manual they will be presented to Parliament—before the Prorogation, but I cannot state the precise day. With regard to the last Question, I may state that Her Majesty's Government have already communicated with the Sultan on the subject.

MEXICO AND ENGLAND—RESUMPTION OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: I wish to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any information to give the House on the subject of the recent negotiations with Mexico, and whether there is any prospect of diplomatic relations being shortly opened?
  EARL GRANVILLE: It will probably be satisfactory to the noble Earl to learn that a Treaty is about to be signed between this country and Mexico, which will result in the resumption of diplomatic relations between the two Governments on conditions which I believe are perfectly honourable to both countries, and for the purpose of negotiating a Treaty of Commerce.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYasked whether the noble Earl would lay the Papers relating to the subject upon the Table before the Holidays?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I should wish to do so, but I am afraid that they cannot be presented before the Prorogation.

REVENUE, &c. BILL.—(No. 242.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SUDELEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, stated that the object of the Bill was to carry out certain amendments in the law relating to the Customs, Inland Revenue, and Audit of Public Accounts. Under Clause 2, ships which had partially discharged cargo at one British port might fill up cargo for another. This amendment was introduced in order to carry out the strongly expressed wishes of Chambers of Shipping. By Clause 4, facilities were given for the importation of Eastern plate which was below Hallmarking standard, but being of the nature of "fancy goods." Clause 6 enabled the simplification of parish boundaries to be carried on, so that the Imperial taxation areas follow the changes of local boundaries. Clause 12 would enable Railway Companies to take out licences to sell tobacco in railway carriages. It appeared that several Railway Companies had taken up this matter, and there was a Company formed, or contemplated, with a patent for a machine to be fixed in smoking carriages, which gave a cigarette if 1d. were dropped in. The remaining clauses were questions of account, and more or less formal.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Sudeley.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

CANAL BOATS ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 228.)
(The Lord Carrington.)

THIRD READING.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Carrington.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments.
Moved, "That the Bill do pass."—(The Lord Carrington.)
THE EARL OF WEMYSS THE EARL OF WEMYSS moved to amend the 9th clause by substituting the word "six" for "nine," so as to limit the hours during which the canal boats were to be opened to visits from the Inspector from 6 in the morning until 6 in the evening. He objected to the Bill as being superfluous legislation altogether. It gave very large powers to Inspectors to visit boats on any canal. It had always been understood that an Englishman's house was his castle, and that, he presumed, applied as much to a boat he lived in as to his cottage; but that would not be any longer the case if, without any reason being assigned, the Inspectors were to be able to visit his cabin at any hour in the day between 6 in the morning and 9 in the evening. He thought that if the latter hour were changed to 6 o'clock there would be less friction, and the law would be better obeyed.
Amendment moved, in Clause 9, page 3, line 10, to leave out ("nine") and insert ("six.")—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that even 6 o'clock in the evening was two hours after sunset in the winter months. That was a very late time for the dwellers in these boats to be subject to the visits of an Inspector.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he hoped, if the noble Earl was going to divide the House, he would provide himself with a Teller, for on a late occasion he caused some unnecessary exercise to the House, without any result, by having failed to do so.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSexplained that on the occasion referred to he had gone out of the House for a moment when the Division was called, and was thus precluded from the opportunity of naming a Teller.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, this was a subject in which he took a deep interest. He must confess that it did seem a little stringent to interfere with the domiciles of these people in the dark hours. It was, however, not possible to exaggerate the importance of legislation as regarded the canal population; but he should like to know the reason for extending the hours of inspection until 9 o'clock at night? If the Government were convinced that 9 o'clock

79
was necessary, he would be inclined to support them.
LORD CARRINGTONsaid, that canal boats were not usually tied up before 6 o'clock in the evening. The great question of the day was that of the overcrowding of the dwellings of the poor, and he did not see why people should be allowed to overcrowd boats any more than houses. There was no intention on the part of the Government of worrying those who lived in boats. The object was to prevent a great evil.
EARL FORTESCUEthought that 15 hours out of 24 was too long a period to subject the people in these boats to the visits of an Inspector. In legislation of this kind it was most desirable to carry with them the general opinion of the classes affected. In this Bill the powers of the Inspectors were, he thought, excessive.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he thought that it would be very hard upon these hardworking people to be liable to be awoke from their sleep by an Inspector who might wish to go over the boat. He suggested that the Government might accept 7 o'clock in the morning as a compromise.
On Question, "That 'nine' stand part of the Bill?"
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 34; Not-Contents 11: Majority 23.
Amendment disagreed to.
Question, "That the Bill do pass?" again proposed.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSpointed out that on land there was no power of inspecting houses, except common lodging houses, unless they were nuisances. He ventured to say that this philanthropic tyranny would defeat its own object. A similar overstrictness in the provisions of the Bill passed last year with regard to fishing boats had made it in many parts a dead letter, and had merely annoyed the fishing population.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he could not agree that the Bill was exceedingly stringent, and entirely disputed the facts brought forward by his noble Friend. He thought the noble Lord was hardly justified in his extraordinary opposition to the Bill, which was made without any Notice. He believed the measure would have the best effect.
Question put, and agreed to; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.
(The Earl of Northbrook.)

(NO. 212.) REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he believed that the Government might perfectly well have accepted his Amendment, including Ireland in the Bill, had they been so disposed.
Amendments reported (according to Order); and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES BILL.
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)

(NO. 233.) COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee read.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill."—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that the effect of the Bill would be to centralize in the Home Office powers formerly held by the local authorities, and that interference would be very much resented by them. The 3rd clause of the Bill read as follows:—
"The chief officer of every police district in England shall, from time to time, give to the Director of Public Prosecutions information with respect to indictable offences alleged to have been committed within the district of such chief officer, and to the dealing with those offences, and the said information shall contain such particulars and be in such form as may be for the time being required by regulations under the principal Act."
In this way those who had control of the police were absolutely passed by, the magistrates were set aside, and the whole power put into the hands of the Home Office. To show how strong was the feeling on this subject, he would read from a letter from the Town Clerk of Nottingham, a passage in which the opinions of that gentleman were strongly expressed on the subject. After referring to the Bill generally, he proceeded—
"You will see that the 3rd clause of the Bill provides that the Public Prosecutor (a Government official) can issue orders to the chief of police all over England with regard to certain prosecutions, and to that extent can supersede the authority of the Watch Committees

81
of the Town Councils. He can also employ an agent for this purpose, who will then have power to intervene between the Watch Committee and their servants. My Committee consider this the thin end of the wedge, for it is the first time that anyone has had power to intervene between them and the police. My Watch Committee have resolved to take the peril of directing the police to refuse to obey any orders excepting those they receive from the Committee. I trust it is not too late to arouse public attention to this important Bill, which strikes a more direct blow at local control over the police than the Superannuation Bill."
He trusted that the Committee would not consent to the insertion of this clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss) had read a letter from a gentleman occupying the position of Town Clerk in the important town of Nottingham, announcing that the Watch Committee would refuse to obey a law if it was passed. That was a very serious matter. He should be sorry to impute such an intention to the Watch Committee of Nottingham, and he trusted the statement was an inaccurate one.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, it appeared to him that the clause was a reasonable one. He did not understand that it was in any way intended to interfere with Watch Committees; but it was necessary for the Public Prosecutor that he should have these Returns, in order that he might know what cases he would deal with himself and what would be left to the police or to private persons. He would suggest, however, for convenience sake, that the Returns should be confined to offences not triable at Petty or General Sessions.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDpointed out that the Return, as it stood, would include cases that might have been locally disposed of before they came to the notice of the Public Prosecutor at all.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEpromised to consider the matter between that stage and the third reading.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, there was some prejudice in reference to this Bill, and he thought it was not unfairly founded. It was alleged, and he believed truthfully, that it had been passed between the hours of 3 and 5 in the morning, when the House of Commons was by no means full, and when both political Parties were not adequately represented.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.

THE IRISH LAND ACT—PURCHASERS

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD, in rising to ask the Lord President of the Council, Whether, in consideration of depreciated landed property in Ireland, the Government was prepared to authorize—(1) repayment of instalments of land improvement loans at a reduced rate; (2) a rebate of a proportion of the purchase money paid by purchasers of glebe and other Church estates under the provisions of the Irish Church Act, 1869, said, he was very reluctant to mention once again the grievances of Irish landlords. He considered they had not been dealt with justly, or according to the intentions of the promoters of the Irish Land Act passed a few years ago. Shortly after that Act had been passed into law it was said—he did not know whether in compliment to the Act or to its promoters—that there were three men who really understood it—Mr. Gladstone, the late Mr. Law, who was the Attorney General for Ireland at the time the measure was passed through the House of Commons, and Mr. Healy, the Member for Monaghan. The especial knowledge of the Act was supposed to be limited to those three persons. He was not altogether sure, however, that Mr. Gladstone understood it, because the right hon. Gentleman had stated that its working would have a different result from that which had really turned out to be the case. It was stated at the time of the passing of the measure that it would not affect the condition of average estates in Ireland, and that it would not reduce the value of rent. He regretted to say, however, that the expectations then expressed had not been realized. The hon. Member for Monaghan understood things in his own way, and as to the special clause that bore his name, it was to observed that landlords understood it in one sense, the tenants in another, and the Courts in a third. To speak shortly of the effect of the charges which at present fell on the proprietors affected, of whom he (the Earl of Longford) was one, they had borrowed money from the Government for land improvement under normal conditions,

  83
  and were required to repay it under the same conditions, although the value of the improvements did not now go to the proprietors, but to others. He knew one proprietor, to whom some indulgence had been granted, who had been suddenly called upon to pay five half-years' instalments of his drainage charge in one year, which he was unable to do. He (the Earl of Longford) wished to ask whether some arrangement could not be made by which some indulgence might be extended to that class of proprietors, so that loans might be recovered by slower degrees in more moderate instalments? The second case to which he would refer affected the class of owners who had purchased the glebe lands under the Irish Church Act. A gentleman purchased an estate valued at £220 a-year. The Church Commissioners were, after a time, merged in the Land Commission, and their staff went with them. When this estate was brought into Court by the tenants, the very same valuator who had acted on the purchase was employed, and under his recommendation the estate was revalued at only £181. The rents had been fixed for more than 50 years, and the owner had considered himself quite secure. He did not make any exaggerated claim as to the rights of property, nor did he maintain that land should in no case be interfered with; but when an artificial Act of Parliament was brought to bear upon one particular commodity, such as laud in Ireland, and when the condition in which the parties were placed by a Government guarantee was subsequently altered by another Government arrangement, he thought the persons so affected had a right to appeal to those responsible for the arrangement to consider in some way their condition, and ask whether the Treasury might not be disposed to do something in their favour. He, therefore, would like to know whether the Treasury would apply any of the balance of the Irish Church Surplus in returning some of the purchase-money of an estate which, upon a valuation of their own, appeared to have been bought at a rate very much beyond the value to which it had now been reduced?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, this question had already been several times before Parliament, and deputations had
  84
  urged the same views upon the Government. The points raised had been carefully considered by the Treasury and the Irish Government, and careful and definite answers had been given. He was unable to depart from the replies which had been so given. The Treasury had more than once pointed out that the improvement loans had actually been expended on the improvements of the lands concerned, aud that improvement was a fact which was not affected by any legislation. It might be said, with truth, that landlords who had raised money in better times were not so well able to pay the instalments in consequence of the bad times that had come since; but it was evident that the interest on these loans must be paid by somebody. Landlords in Ireland and elsewhere had found it necessary to reduce their rents irrespective of any legislation that had taken place; and the fact that they were liable for these repayments had been brought before the Land Courts, and the improvements effected had no doubt been taken into account in fixing rents. With regard to the purchasers under the Irish Church Act, he had been rather curious to learn which class of them his noble Friend represented, for both classes—namely, the purchasing occupiers and the purchasing landlords, had brought their case very fully before the Government, and especially before the Lord Lieutenant, who received a large deputation on the subject a few months ago. He did not question for a moment that some of these purchasers had had to suffer considerably, and sometimes severely. Indeed, he happened to be one of them himself. He bought a Church farm, subject to a high rent, at which the price was calculated, and he found it was impossible to obtain that rent. This was not due, however, to any action of the Land Court, but to his tenant becoming bankrupt. For his own part, he did not see how it would be possible to separate the case of these particular purchasers from that of other recent purchasers of land in Ireland.
  LORD DENMANsaid, the noble Lord has not answered the last part of the Question of the noble Earl as to the payment of instalments by those who had purchased Church lands on credit. He had always thought it would be more hard to pay interest of money, leading

  85
  possibly to a forfeiture, than to pay rents, and a renewal of struggle for possession might be the consequence.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he must, not for the first time, protest against the noble Lord's favourite doctrine that the reduction of rent in England and in Ireland had arisen from, the same cause. In Ireland it had been caused by legislation, and in England by bad seasons. In some of the bad years in England the crops had been good in Ireland. There had been confiscation in the one case, and none in the other. There was no analogy between the two cases.

THE FRANCHISE AND REDISTRIBUTION.

  NOTICE OF QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES): I beg to give Notice that on Monday I will ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether, as they have admitted that redistribution ought to accompany an extension of the franchise, they will be prepared to inform the House, before the Session closes, how far they have perfected any scheme for redistribution, and whether the necessary provisions on that subject will be submitted to Parliament at the commencement of the Autumn Session, or when?
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.