Lords Sitting of 15 July 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Yorkshire Registries* (192); Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland) Amendment* (193).
Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Order (Salt Works)* (182); Local Government Provisional Order (No. 5)* (183); Elections (Hours of Poll) (179); Building Societies Acts Amendment* (188).
Report—Supreme Court of Judicature Amendment* (191).
Third Reading—Licensing Act (1872) Amendment* (160), and passed.
Withdrawn—Legitimacy Declaration Act (1858) Amendment* (134).

ELECTIONS (HOURS OF POLL) BILL.
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
ELECTIONS (HOURS OF POLL) BILL.

  (NO. 179.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it related to a subject which had a rather singular history. When the Ballot Bill was be

  1083
  fore Parliament in 1872 the question of the hours of polling, which were then from 8 to 4 for boroughs and 8 to 5 for counties, came under consideration. In spite of some attempts to alter those hours, they had remained the same down to the present date, except that for the Metropolis they were extended to 8 in the evening. An Amendment had been brought forward in that House by which it was proposed that the polling places should be kept open from 8 to 8. A Division took place, and the Motion that the hours should be from 8 to 8 was carried by a majority of 15. The Government at that time had considered the matter again, and the noble Marquess, now Viceroy of India, had moved a clause, which had been adopted by the House, that the hours between the end of March and the 1st of October should be until 7, and during the rest of the year until 5 o'clock. That amended Bill had been rejected by a considerable majority in the other House, and the law on this subject had therefore continued the same. Public opinion, however, had changed since 1872, and a great desire had been expressed that there should be a later hour. The argument in favour of this was an obvious one—namely, that such a change would allow working men to get to the poll with more convenience, especially those of certain trades. The result of consideration on the subject was the present Bill, which proposed that the hour should be 8 o'clock in all boroughs having more than 3,000 registered voters. There had been great discussion on the question of the number of voters, as affecting the question of whether the Bill was to apply or not. It had originally been fixed at 5,000; but finally the number of 3,000 had been adopted. This was a mere matter of machinery, and one upon which it had been desirable to consult, as far as possible, the opinions of those affected, and after considering the views of various borough Members the present number had been fixed upon.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, that the Bill met with his entire approval. There was sufficient security against fraud and disorder. He would, however, suggest that the Bill should be extended to the
  1084
  counties, as since the Act of 1867 there had been a large addition of the respectable working classes to the franchise, especially in the mining districts, and the provisions of the Bill would be a great convenience to them.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he approved of the suggestion that the Bill should be extended to the counties.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought that it would be unwise to make such an alteration after the matter had been so fully considered in the House of Commons. At all events, he thought that it would be better to wait and see how the Bill worked in the boroughs to which it was to apply before extending its provisions to the counties.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that he would hardly like to give an answer offhand on the point; but if any Amendment should be proposed in going into Committee he would consider the point. He would put the Committee down for Monday.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether, considering the vast importance of the subject, their own professed anxiety to settle the question, and the admitted inconveniences and clangors of piecemeal legislation, they would take advantage of the coming Autumn Session to present to Parliament and the country a complete Bill for the reform of the representation of the people? said, before putting the Question that stood in his name, he wished to remind the House and the Government that every Reform Bill, with one solitary exception, that had, so far as he knew, ever been presented to Parliament, or, indeed, to any Continental State, had been a complete Bill, containing not only a measure for the enlargement of the franchise, but also what was its necessary supplement, and, in some respects, its more important part—a measure for the redistribution of seats. For, great as might be the apparent anomaly of excluding from the franchise persons in counties who

  1085
  possessed the same qualification as gave persons resident in boroughs the vote, it was as nothing to the injustice of small towns—almost villages—without population, without commerce, without trade of any kind, sending Representatives to Parliament, whilst great centres of commerce, with teeming populations and large industries, were left wholly unrepresented or only partially represented. That anomaly would be increased if by any misfortune the Franchise Bill of 1884 were passed without at the same time being accompanied with a Redistribution of Seats Bill. The one exception to which he had referred was the Reform Bill of 1866, brought in, like the present one, by Mr. Gladstone. He thought that it was not an unfair assumption to make, that this mode of proceeding had peculiar attractions for that statesman, at least when he was in power. When in Opposition he held extremely different views on this point. Then he told them that—
  "Nothing could be more contemptible and base than the conduct of a Government which could give forth, with the view of enlisting the generous confidence of its supporters, that it would deal with the subject of Reform and would stand or fall by its own propositions, and which all the while could silently exclude from the scope of their declaration all portions of that question except only the reduction of the franchise, although among such questions we find one only second in importance to that of the franchise itself."—(3 Hansard, [182] 1144–5.)
  Such had been the views of Mr. Gladstone while in Opposition; but when in power he seemed to have acted on wholly different principles. He was not going to weary their Lordships by going back to the period of 1866. He might, however, remind their Lordships that it was owing to the Whig majority that the proposal of the Government in 1866 had not met with the approbation of the House of Commons. That majority had been made of sterner stuff than that which now followed the crack of the Ministerial Whip. Well, it was upon the Motion of the noble Duke the Master of the Horse (the Duke of Westminster) that an Amendment was carried which was in terms similar to that proposed by the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns), and carried in their Lordships' House last Tuesday night. It was an absolute enigma to him that the noble Duke and the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby) should
  1086
  now oppose a proposition which was identical in terms to that which they had so successfully supported in 1866. In consequence of the Amendment, all but carried, in 1866, Mr. Gladstone set himself to do what until then he had said it was impossible to do—he brought in a complete Bill. It is true that measure did not become law; but it was distinctly on the question of the franchise, and not on redistribution, that it was defeated. It was defeated on an Amendment changing the qualification from a rental to a ratable value. It was a pure question of franchise, and had nothing to do with redistribution. What he wished to submit to their Lordships was, that there was no reason whatever, provided the Ministry were in earnest about Reform, and had no ulterior objects in view, why they should not adopt the course taken in 1866, and bring in a complete Bill. On that occasion the present Secretary of State for the Colonies said they had no guarantee that a redistribution scheme would be passed if the two questions were dealt with separately, and that it would be better to leave the whole subject over until the next year, adding that if it were necessary to meet earlier, in order to overtake the work, he, for one, would not complain. Now the Government informed them that their intention was to introduce a complete Bill in the month of February, when Parliament again assembled, and to go on with it till the end of the Session; and their Lordships must give them the credit, when they said that, of imagining that they would be able to pass it. Now, there was no practical controversy about the extension of the franchise; the whole difficulty arose in regard to the redistribution of seats; and if the Government told them they could pass a Redistribution Bill between February and August à fortiori they certainly could pass it if they began the work next October. It seemed to him that any other course which the Government might choose to pursue must lead to the certain loss of that Bill; and it was well that the House and the country should understand that the onus of the loss of that Bill, and the reason why 2,000,000 of their fellow-subjects were not admitted to the franchise, lay with Her Majesty's Government, and not with the Opposition. It was impossible they

  1087
  could imagine that their Lordships' House could so stultify itself before the country and the world—could so wholly justify everything that its worst enemies said against it by accepting in the month of November the same measure from the same House of Commons which they had refused to accept in July. Such a course of conduct could only be attributed to a want of ordinary intelligence, or to a craven and despicable fear. Their Lordships might, by adopting that course, avert the hatred of the Radicals, with which they were now honoured; but, at the same time, they would assuredly earn for themselves their thorough and well-deserved contempt. He could not conceive that such a course was one which they could possibly pursue, nor did he believe it was one which the Government could think they were capable of adopting. Unless the Government were prepared to solve the difficulty in the only practical way and to introduce a complete Bill, not all the sophistry and misrepresentation of Radical orators—and God knew they were masters in that art—not all the foul vituperation of which they had recently had examples in the Press and on the platform, not all the mock demonstrations and processions in Hyde Park, which were got up on the same principle and by the same means, though they were not half so good as those which they saw at Christmas time at Drury Lane, would suffice to throw dust in the eyes of John Bull, or to conceal from the people of the United Kingdom the plain and palpable fact that their zeal for reform was only a "sham," and a clever electoral trick to present a false issue to the country, in order to win back for a thoroughly despised and discredited Government another lease of that power which they had so shamefully abused. The noble Earl concluded by putting his Question.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the noble Earl has thought right to preface the Question of which he gave Notice by a speech that would have been an eloquent addition to the important debate in this House last week. But having myself had an opportunity of speaking in that debate, I do not think it necessary now to follow the noble Earl in his argument. As to the Question which he has just put, I am not aware that I can make any addition to the statement which I made after the noble Earl on the Cross
  1088
  Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) had given Notice of a Motion which, I must regret, from what fell from the noble Marquess opposite, is likely to be opposed by him on Thursday.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he wished to prefer a request to Her Majesty's Government, and that was, that they would remember that they were responsible Ministers of the Crown, and not eke out the dearth of argument as to franchise without redistribution by inflammatory language. A few days ago, at the Foreign Office, language had been used by a right hon. Gentleman, only recently a Colleague of the noble Lords opposite, which had been looked upon as an incitement to violence. He had less concern with the right hon. Gentleman who was an old established railer, and all his life had set Englishmen by the ears; but it had been his misfortune to hear a speech from the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, which, though in deprecation of violence, was too like the celebrated speech to an angry mob—"Do not nail his ears to the pump." The noble and learned Earl went on to say he was a calm and sedate man; and no doubt he knew himself best, so that the heat he sometimes displayed was factitious and a rhetorical artifice. But as a rhetorical artifice it was ineffective, for emphasis depended on the sense of the words, and not on declamation and passionate gestures. The noble and learned Earl then said his political career must shortly close; if he referred to his health, he sincerely hoped the noble and learned Earl was mistaken, and that one they all esteemed so much would be long spared to them; but if he meant to refer to the fall of the Prime Minister, then, with equal sincerity, he hoped his prognostic might be true. The noble and learned Earl had to choose between being calm and sedate, and using warm language; but he had been very frequently reminded by speeches of the noble and learned Lord of the words—"Tantæne animis cælestibus iræ?

TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS.—RESOLDTION.
LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he rose, pursuant to Notice, to move that the following clause be added to all Tramway (Ireland) Provisional Orders:—

1089
"No capital authorised by this Act shall become guaranteed capital until it has been certified by the Board of Trade to have been expended on the undertaking: Provided, that the Board of Trade shall not give any less certificate than for a sum of £10,000 (where the capital is over £100,000, or £5,000 where it is under that sum); and the Board of Trade shall not give their final certificate in respect of any such capital until twelve months after the opening of the line for traffic, when, being satisfied that the line has been duly completed and is in working order, they may issue a certificate for the balance of capital authorised by the Act."
He had been much, disappointed at finding that in those Provisional Orders there was no provision whatever for the security of the money which it was proposed under the Tramways Act that the counties in Ireland were to guarantee. The Treasury, it was true, took very good care of themselves, because their contribution was not to come into operation until the line had been made and completed. On the other hand, in the case of the counties, the moment the capital was paid up it became guaranteed; so that the promoters had nothing to do but to issue their capital, and as soon as it was paid up it became, as a matter of course, guaranteed by the counties under those Provisional Orders. It was a usual provision in contracts that when a contractor undertook to execute a work he should be paid as the work proceeded; and he thought that contractors who proposed to carry out such large works as were contemplated by those Provisional Orders should have a certain amount of capital of their own. He proposed that the whole of the money should not be handed over to the promoters, or, in other words, to the contractors, because, under that Act, in nine cases out of ten, the promoters and the contractors were practically the same persons; and the object of the promoters was to get the contract for themselves. The power of raising the money should be placed in the hands of the Board of Trade, and should be paid to the promoters by instalments on the certificate of that Board. He asked their Lordships, in the interests of the counties in Ireland, to step in and protect those counties from what he was very much afraid would be a very heavy tax indeed, and which would probably involve them in great loss. Under the present arrangement there was nothing to prevent the promoters, if they were dishonest enough, only expending £50,000
1090
on a line, although they might raise £100,000 in respect of it. Under the old guarantees for railways the guarantee never came into operation until the work was completed, and there was no reason why the promoters of these lines would not be able to raise the money on that condition. He asked their Lordships to remember that the Grand Juries, who were the acting parties in this matter, were a fluctuating body, and that, therefore, there was more need in this case for protection than in the case of a County Board. In large operations of this kind it was not, he thought, too much to ask their Lordships to see that sound men with a fair amount of capital should undertake work of this kind. He thought the proposal he had made was a reasonable one, and trusted that the Government would give their favourable consideration to the matter.
Moved, That the following clause be added to all Tramway (Ireland) Provisional Orders:—
"No capital authorised by this Act shall become guaranteed capital until it has been certified by the Board of Trade to have been expended on the undertaking: Provided, that the Board of Trade shall not give any less certificate than for a sum of £10,000 (where the capital is over £100,000, or £5,000 where it is under that sum); and the Board of Trade shall not give their final certificate in respect of any such capital until twelve months after the opening of the line for traffic, when, being satisfied that the line has been duly completed and is in working order, they may issue a certificate for the balance of capital authorised by the Act."—(The Lord Inchiquin.)
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, he thought it was necessary, when the Tramways Act was passing through their Lordships' House, that some provision should be inserted in order to prevent the money being expended in the manner suggested. At the same time, he could not help saying that if this Motion was carried in its present form it would have the effect of preventing tramways being constructed in Ireland at all. He was, unfortunately, one of those persons who had suffered from his county having given a guarantee; therefore, he was not much in favour of a guarantee. He was aware, however, that railways and tramways could not be made without a guarantee; but he should like to hear the noble Lord suggest some manner in which the counties should be protected, as undoubtedly they ought to

1091
be. Every noble Lord connected with Ireland was anxious that encouragement should be given to the working of those tramways; but unless a protection of some kind was afforded to those counties who gave the guarantee in these Provisional Orders, they would prevent the Grand Juries giving any guarantee at all. For his own part, he thought that, as capital was already so difficult to obtain in Ireland, a Proviso of the kind contained in this Motion, with respect to the Board of Trade not giving any less certificate
"Than for a sum of £10,000 where the capital is over £100,000, or £5,000 where it is under that sum,"
would have the effect of preventing lines being made. He suggested, in the absence of any proposal from the Government, the advisability of considering whether a smaller sum would not be equally efficacious, say, £3,000 or £5,000. He thought, however, it was necessary that some protection should be given to the counties in Ireland, a protection which ought to have been inserted in the original Act.
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, there was a tramway in prospect in both of the counties in which he had property, and, subject to the decision of the House on the Provisional Order Bills, the promoters had every reason to hope that the lines would be made; but he was informed that the promoters felt that if his noble Friend's proposition was carried it would be quite impossible for them to raise any capital. It was said that the promoters and the contractors were one and the same persons, and that it was not right that a large sum of money should be handed over to those persons; but if they were one and the same persons, the only way the promoters could obtain capital was by selling their shares. He was afraid, however, if this clause was passed they would not be able to sell their shares, and all the trouble that had already been taken in the North of Ireland would be brought to nothing. With regard to what the noble Marquess had said, something might be enacted which would prevent any misapplication of the money. If that was to be done, it ought to be done by a Public Bill, and not by a clause in a Provisional Order Bill.
LORD LECONFIELDsaid, he should support the Motion of the noble Lord.
1092
He thought if it were adopted it would be very useful as affording protection to the Grand Juries of the counties, who would become under the Act liable for the completion of the work should the contractor fail; and if it were not adopted by the Government in its integrity, they ought, at least, to make some partial change in that direction.
THE EARL OF LIMERICKdid not think that if the Standing Order proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Inchiquin) was adopted, it would stop tramway schemes. At any rate, he thought it was very important that some protection should be given to the cesspayers. It must be remembered that very large sums were being dealt with under this Act, and that in some cases they would fall on a very poor class of persons. He really did not think, if the promoters of these Companies were acting bonâ fide, that it would be too much to expect that the guarantee would only be for sums actually expended, as suggested in the Motion of his noble Friend. He hoped the Lord President would give a friendly consideration to this proposal.
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he had been glad to hear more than one noble Lord pointing out to the House the dangers that would probably arise to the successful working of the Tramways Act if so stringent a clause as that proposed by the noble Lord were to be inserted in every tramway scheme. The Irish Privy Council, who were, of course, familiar with this subject, and who took a deep interest in the working of this Act, had examined the noble Lord's proposed clause with great care, and had come to the conclusion that it would be very unsafe for Parliament to adopt it. They believed that it would be, in many cases, injurious, if not disastrous, to the working of the Tramways Act. The Irish Privy Council had, of course, full power to introduce into these Provisional Orders any clause they might think necessary to secure that the guarantee was only applied to such amount of capital as was properly expended on the scheme. That power they had exercised, and would continue to exercise. They had exercised it in the case of one of the two Tramway Orders at present before the House, and had inserted a clause providing that the capital should only be issued as required

1093
from time to time. The effect of passing the noble Lord's clause would be that a different requirement, and very much more stringent, would be inserted in the Order Bills yet to be passed. His noble Friend proposed to lay down a hard-and-fast line for all these Orders. The clause would immediately apply to the two Orders before the House, one of which contained a clause which, in the opinion of the Irish Privy Council, afforded sufficient protection. With respect to all future Orders, the Council would be prepared to deal with them on their merits, and consider what clause ought to be inserted for the purpose of obtaining the object which his noble Friend had in view. But the Privy Council strongly objected to laying down a hard-and-fast line which might be injurious, if not fatal, to all tramway enterprize.
LORD INCHIQUINsaid, the Privy Council, he had no doubt, would, in future, exercise their power in this matter; but the Bills now before the House would not again go before the Privy Council, and in those Bills there was no security of any sort for the cess-payer. This Act was so entirely novel, that he did not think the Grand Juries quite understood or appreciated it. On the particular Grand Jury of his county he thought there were very few people who understood the matter at all. They did not appreciate the various points to be considered in connection with it. There was one provision for securing the county which the Grand Jury desired to be inserted; but when he, as an appellant, came before the Privy Council on the matter, he was ruled out of Court, as the point was not referred to in his appeal. He was perfectly willing to alter the figures in his Motion, if the Government desired; but if they did not consider the matter favourably, he would be bound to go to a Division on it. He did not at all desire to defeat the Bill by a side-wind; all he was anxious to do was to protect the county.
THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)pointed out that in one Bill a provision was inserted that the money should be advanced from time to time as required, and asked why that provision should not be inserted in both Bills?
LORD FITZGERALDappealed to the noble Lord to withdraw his Motion.
1094
He believed it would be most mischievous in its effects. In his opinion, if the guarantee were withheld for a year great difficulty would be experienced in obtaining local capital. This was what one who had a good deal of experience wrote to him regarding that matter—
"Lord Inchiquin has a Motion in the House which would destroy all our tramway undertakings."
LORD INCHIQUIN: Name.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, the name of the gentleman was John Walter Burke, a man of great intelligence and great experience. The proposition of the noble Lord was altogether contrary to the spirit of the Act of last year, and he was afraid that the mere fact that it was proposed there would have the most injurious effect on the financing of those undertakings.
LORD INCHIQUINasked whether the noble Lord the President of the Council did not think the contractors should be paid on production of the certificate of the Board of Trade?
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, it did not appear to him that the Board of Trade ought to be brought in at all; and he should object to making use of the Board of Trade for this purpose.
LORD INCHIQUINsaid, that if the noble President postponed the consideration of the Tramway Orders he would withdraw his Motion, and bring up another that might meet the views he had expressed, otherwise he would press his Motion to a Division.
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he would not object to postpone them for a very short time.
LORD INCHIQUINsuggested a week.
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): That is too long.
THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)explained that the Orders could not be committed to the Whole House before next week.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

QUESTION.
LORD LAMINGTONasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether their attention has been drawn to the dangerous

1095
foul state of the Suez Canal; and that the cholera was introduced into France by one of the ships that had passed through it; and also whose duty it is to take charge of the sanitary state of the Canal? He thought that when it was remembered that 79 per cent of the shipping passing through the Canal was English, the importance of the question of the sanitary condition of the Canal would be recognized.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, Her Majesty's Government had received no special information as to the foul state of the Canal. It was alleged the other day that a French transport to Toulon passed through the Canal, and had experienced some foul effluvia; but he was not aware that any report had been made on the subject. In reply to the last part of the Question, he believed the sanitary arrangements of the Canal were now in the hands of the Company, under the stringent rules made in 1878 for the regulation of the Canal.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.