Lords Sitting of 11 August 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Third Reading—County Officers and Courts (Ireland) (Pensions) * (244).
Third Reading—Labourers (Ireland) (No. 2) (245), and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.—(No. 246.)
(The Marquess of Waterford.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.—(No. 246.)

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' REASONS.
  Commons' Reasons for disagreeing to one of the Amendments made by the Lords considered (according to Order).
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD,in explanation, said, that the Commons disagreed to the insertion of the following Clause:—
  "For the purpose of the eighth section of the Dublin Corporation Waterworks and Fire Brigade Provisional Order, 1874, the statutable or contract allowance of water to the townships mentioned in that section shall be deemed to be twenty-five gallons per head per day instead of twenty gallons per head per day as provided by the Acts in that section mentioned, relating to those townships respectively."
  The Commons' Reasons for disagreeing were—

  "1. Because the Amendment alters the quantity of water to be supplied to the townships by existing contracts and Acts of Parliament, without making any provision for an increased payment by the townships.

  "2. Because the Amendment is not germane to these Provisional Orders, which only supply a legal basis for ascertaining the population of the townships."

  He would now move that their Lordships do not insist on the Amendment they had made in the Bill; and, in doing so, he must decidedly say that the Amendment of the House of Lords had been sprung on their Lordships' House at the last moment by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Fitzgerald) in a manner which was hardly fair. The matter had been before them on several occasions, and it was of a very simple character, and the Reasons of the Commons for disagreeing to what had been done at the instance of the noble and learned Lord put the whole thing in a most clear and definite light. This Provisional Order Bill was merely for the purpose of assessing the population of the townships near Dublin, and the Committee of their Lordships' House—though in the Committee Room itself they had arrived at a different conclusion—were anxious to put into the measure a clause allowing the townships five gallons of water per head per day more than they received at present, and than they had any right under their Local Acts to ask for. It might be right that the townships should have 25, 30, or 35 gallons of water—that question he (the Marquess of Waterford) would not go into; but the question was whether they were right in trying to force from the Corporation of Dublin five gallons more
  1708
  per head per day for the present payment—in short, that they should have 25 gallons for the same price they had agreed to pay for 20. He contended that if the townships wished to increase their water supply, they should have come to their Lordships' House with a Bill for the purpose. They did not do that; but in a Bill promoted for a totally different purpose—for the purpose of assessing the population—and in a Bill which the Corporation had a perfect right to promote, a clause was brought forward in the House of Lords which had never been mooted in the Commons, seeking to benefit the townships by giving them this additional five gallons of water per head. He hoped their Lordships would not insist upon the Amendment, which was only carried by a majority of 2 on Friday last.
  Moved, "That the House do not insist upon their Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Marquess of Waterford.)
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to point out to their Lordships that the subject had been before them three times. It would be remembered that when he (Lord Elphinstone) first moved the clause which was the subject of discussion, he had been defeated by a majority of 1. On the following night the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Fitzgerald) brought forward the Amendment again, and carried it by a majority of 2. It then went down to the House of Commons, where it was rejected, and the Bill was sent back from that House with the Reasons of the Commons in disagreeing to the clause. It was suggested that, because it had been rejected by the House of Commons, therefore their Lordships should be content to see it struck out of the Bill. He (Lord Elphinstone) could not accept that doctrine, for the logical conclusion of it would be that their Lordships would have to accept every Private Bill that came from the Lower House without alteration. Now, in this case, the expense of referring the Bill to a Select Committee of the House of Lords had been incurred. Five of their Lordships had sat to consider the Bill, and with the greatest patience they had listened to all the arguments for the Corporation and the townships. Both sides had been brought before them, and they

  1709
  had carefully weighed all the arguments. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Waterford), on the other hand, had only heard one side of the case—namely, that of the Corporation of Dublin. Whilst he (Lord Elphinstone) had listened to the speech of the noble Marquess, if he had shut his eyes, he could have imagined himself back in the Committee Room listening to the counsel for the Corporation. Could the noble Marquess know as much about the matter as the Members of the Committee, who had devoted 16 hours to its investigation? It was not possible. The Committee had recommended—they even now unanimously reeommended—their Lordships to accept the Amendment. If it were rejected, they would simply be handing over the small townships, bound hand-and-foot, to the tender mercies of the Dublin Corporation. They would require each township to bring in a Bill itself, which they were not in a position to do, for such a course of procedure would entail great expense; and, beyond that, the Authorities of the townships were not entitled to tax the ratepayers with the expense of bringing forward a Bill in Parliament. In the interest of the small townships, therefore, he would ask them to adhere to the Amendment carried by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Fitzgerald) on Friday night.
  LORD FITZGERALD,in rising to move, as an Amendment, the appointment of a Committee to confer with the Commons on the subject of this difference, said, he most emphatically denied that he had sprung a mine upon the House on Friday, and also, as had been charged against him in some of the newspapers, that he was a resident in one of the townships, or was interested in this question in any personal manner whatever. He declared that he had been induced to take action in regard to the Bill by representations made to him from Dublin, and he strongly protested against the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Waterford) having thrown the weight of the Government into the scale against the townships, and having actually sent out a Government Whip to sustain the Motion against the Amendment. That was not a fair mode of proceeding. The Bill was a private one; and a conflict between the Corporation and the town-
  1710
  ships was a matter in which the Government should not have interfered, for it was contrary to Constitutional practice. The Corporation sought to get certain advantages for itself, and the townships, in like manner, sought advantages for themselves, which otherwise they could only obtain by coming to Parliament for Local Acts at an enormous expense, which there were no local funds to defray. He maintained that it was not in accordance with the practice of the House that the Government should throw its weight into the scale in such a matter as this without explaining the reasons for it. In neither House of Parliament had he ever known such a course to be pursued. The townships, he would point out, were struggling for a larger supply of water for health and sanitary purposes, and their aspirations seemingly were to be rendered hopeless by the Government issuing a Whip and calling its supporters to oppose them. In face of the serried ranks of the Government opposite, he would appeal to the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook), with whose fairness he was familiar, who said what he thought and thought what he said, as to whether it was the usual course in Parliament for the Government to take one side in reference to a Private Bill and overwhelm the other side? Apart from that question, he very much doubted whether the proper course of dealing with the Bill had been adopted. The Bill was sent back to the House of Commons with two Amendments; and he had always thought that when a Bill was referred back in that way, it was customary to put it before the Committee which had originally considered it, in order to get their opinion of the Amendment. That course had not been followed. However, he supposed it was for their Lordships to assume that, whatever the House of Commons had done, they had done according to their rights. In the ordinary course, when the Commons' Reasons for disagreeing with the Lords' Amendment were sent up to the House of Lords, a Committee should have been appointed to confer with the Lower House to see if some line could not be laid down upon which conflicting opinions could be reconciled. Then, again, the "Reasons" themselves were open to grave discussion. The first was not

  1711
  really a reason why the Amendment I should not be assented to, but rather a reason why a Conference should take place, to endeavour to draw some line between the extra water which should be allowed the townships free, and that for which they should be called on to pay. The next "Reason" was a mistake. The Provisional Orders did a great deal more than was there suggested. He thought that if their Lordships examined the Report of the Committee and the evidence taken before them in their Lordships' House, they would say that the noble Marquess had no right to complain of having been taken by surprise in the matter, and that he (Lord Fitzgerald) was perfectly justified in moving the Motion he would now make.
  LORD WAVENEYseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out all the words after ("That"), and insert ("this House, insisting on its Amendment, do now proceed to appoint a Committee to meet and confer with a Committee of the Commons").—(The Lord FitzGerald.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)said, that this question between the Corporation of Dublin and the townships had been raised almost to the dignity of a great Constitutional question by the speech of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitzgerald). That noble and learned Lord had commenced by explaining to their Lordships that he had no personal interest in this matter, and was not actuated by any private motive in the action he was taking. But no one would, for a moment, suppose that the noble and learned Lord had taken action in the matter from other than a deep sense of what appeared to him to be right. As to the reason why his noble Friend (the Marquess of Waterford) had taken up the opposition to the claim of the townships, he (Lord Ashbourne) would remind their Lordships that the noble Marquess had charge of all Provisional Order Bills in that House as representing the Irish Local Government Board, before whom all Provisional Order Bills came to be examined; and it was because the Irish Local Government Board were opposed to this Amendment that the noble Marquess had opposed it. With reference to the suggestion that there should be a Conference be-
  1712
  tween the two Houses of Parliament, he (Lord Ashbourne) said that a Conference was an antique and, though Constitutional, obsolete piece of machinery. He was not aware that there had been any such Conference for many years. In 1881, when there were grave differences of opinion between the two Houses on the subject of the Irish Land Bill, and when the tension was at its highest, he had thought that it would be necessary to resort to the machinery of a Conference. He was told, however, at the time, that Conferences had fallen into disuse. He could not, therefore, treat it as other than an interesting suggestion, when the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Fitzgerald) came forward and gravely put it to their Lordships that, in the matter of the supply of five gallons of water to the population of certain townships, that almost obsolete Constitutional machinery should be revived. He would further call their Lordships' attention to the fact that this Amendment had not come from the parties to the Bill—in fact, he believed it had never occurred to the counsel for the townships to suggest the course which the noble and learned Lord opposite supported—but it had been suggested by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Marlborough) and his Colleagues on the House of Lords' Committee, who had thought that it would be a course satisfactory to the townships, and worthy of the consideration of the Dublin Corporation. He (Lord Ashbourne) certainly could say that he was not disposed to disagree with that. The proposal might have been put in a shape worthy of the consideration of both sides; and, in saying that, he was not speaking of the matter as a Member of the Government, but as an Irishman well acquainted with Dublin, and sympathizing very deeply with the townships referred to. That proposal to have assumed a practical form should have been in the nature of a suggestion, to be made the subject of some agreement or negotiation between the Corporation and the townships; but it must be borne in mind that there was only one side of the bargain embodied in the clause rejected by the House of Commons. That clause provided that everything was to be taken from the Corporation and given to the townships, and the townships were to give nothing in return. Was

  1713
  that fair? It could not be regarded as a very satisfactory bargain for the Dublin Corporation; and, therefore, it seemed to him that the first Reason given by the House of Commons was not displaced in the slightest degree. That Reason he regarded as impregnable, unshakeable, unanswerable. He did not, however, attach so much importance to the second Reason, although, no doubt, it was substantially accurate. He would point out to their Lordships, that when the Bill had first come before their Lordships' House, the Members of the Committee to whom it had been referred had used persuasive arguments to show that the Report of the Committee as submitted was not correct, and that the Bill required the insertion of this Amendment. However, the Irish Local Government Board, after due and adequate Notice, had succeeded in carrying its view by a majority of their Lordships, and there the matter should have been allowed to rest. But the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Fitzgerald) immediately afterwards, and without Notice, got the first decision of their Lordships reversed, and the Bill went down to the House of Commons. He (Lord Ashbourne) could well imagine how the Commons had felt paralyzed, and, in an agony of doubt as to what they were to do, looking at the conflicting decisions of their Lordships' House on two separate days. They could not lose sight of the fact that the matter came on in a full House of Commons. The matter was one which excited keen interest, for a proposal to tax one class for the benefit of another was a matter which always excited a keen interest in the House of Commons. Without there being the slightest suggestion of surprise, the Bill came on in the ordinary way, and was immediately discussed, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland took exactly the same course there which had been taken in their Lordships' House by the noble Marquess. There were those present who were well able to speak for the townships; but what happened? Why, the first decision of their Lordships was affirmed without a division being taken. 'Surely that should have an immense effect upon their Lordships, now that they were asked by his noble Friend in charge of the Provisional Order Bill to agree to the Commons' Reason for disagreement with the Amendment. If it
  1714
  could be proved that the 20 gallons of water was an insufficient quantity, and that 25 gallons was necessary for the health and comfort of the district, that argument would certainly be a powerful one in support of the views of the noble and learned Lord. But he (Lord Ashbourne) had in his hand the opinion of a very eminent engineer as to the desirability of adopting the Amendment which the Commons would not accept. That gentleman had declared that it would work pecuniary hardship to the City of Dublin, and give a great benefit, with no pecuniary burden whatever, to the townships. He was of opinion that in the case of those townships 18 gallons per head per day would be a very ample supply; that to supply 25 gallons of water to the townships would be an absurd supply, and would imply bad management and undue waste; and that the effect would be to drain the Vartry of 500,000 gallons of water per day—water which would eventually be wanted.
  LORD FITZGERALD: Was that opinion before the Committee?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord ASHBOURNE): I assume not; but, at all events, there it is.
  LORD FITZGERALD: There was a great deal of evidence to the contrary brought before the Committee. The Committee, of course, only dealt with the evidence they had before them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord ASHBOURNE)said, he only quoted that opinion as showing that, in addition to the vast inconvenience of seeking to reverse the unanimous opinion of the House of Commons, a most eminent authority was opposed to the Amendment inserted in the Bill.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, he cordially supported the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Fitzgerald); for he thought that that noble and learned Lord knew more about the question than any engineer, who could only speak professionally. He had to complain that the discussion had degenerated so much into a personal matter.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that as the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor of Ireland) had mentioned his name, he might, perhaps, be allowed to say a few words in justifica-

  1715
  tion of the action he had taken as a Member of the Committee. When he looked at the appearance of the House, he was afraid there was very little chance of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Fitzgerald) carrying his Amendment. But he (the Duke of Marlborough) would ask their Lordships to consider what they would do if they happened to be discussing the affairs of a London Water Company—as, for instance, the Lambeth Water Company, which was discussed the other day, in the other House—instead of the affairs of Dublin. He ventured to think they would not have taken the same course as they had done in this case. The fact was, they seemed to be prejudiced in favour of the Dublin Corporation; and, consequently, not prepared to do justice to the arguments used on the other side. There were several points in the case as it had been presented by the noble and learned Lord who had moved the Amendment which, he (the Duke of Marlborough) thought, were very strong. In particular, there was the argument in regard to the rating of the suburbs, which had largely increased since this agreement was entered into, and the rateable value of the property had increased in a still greater ratio. The consequence was that the Corporation was receiving a much larger revenue from the townships than they had any reason to expect, and it was largely on account of that consideration that the Committee came to the opinion that advantage ought to be taken of this opportunity to protect the townships, not so much against the present, as against the future, rapacity of a powerful Corporation. He cordially supported the Amendment; but, as he had said before, he was afraid the chance of carrying it was very small. He should, however, vote for it on principle.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion?"
  Their Lordships divided:— Contents 21; Not-Contents 10: Majority 11.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  The Amendment not insisted on, and a message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 247.)
(The Lord Elphinstone.)
SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 247.)

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' AMENDMENTS
  Commons' Amendments considered (according to Order).
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, that the Amendments made in the other House were Amendments which had been suggested by the Lord Advocate for Scotland, who was familiar with the subject. He would move that the Commons' Amendments be agreed to.
  Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments."—(The Lord Elphinstone.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he thought that there were some rather important Amendments. For instance, the addition which the Commons had made to Clause 2 took away an objection which he had formerly stated to their Lordships. On the whole, he thought the Amendments of the House of Commons made the Bill a much better one than before.
  Motion agreed to; Commons' Amendments agreed to accordingly.

PUBLIC OFFICES SITE ACT, 1882.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they are ready to postpone further action on the Public Offices Sites Act until the General Election has occurred, said: My Lords, the form of this Question is not very material. It is obviously intended to retard as long as possible the action of the Government on the Public Offices Site Act. The Public Offices Site Act cannot be carried out without the use of funds for demolition and construction. It is under a suspensive veto of the Treasury. What I contend is merely that the suspensive veto ought to be prolonged. None of the plans exhibited last year for a new Admiralty and War Office were considered satisfactory. None of them have been sanctioned, at least by either House of Parliament. The Act may fairly be retarded, because it passed this House by inadvertency and accident. It was intended to divide the House on the third reading, as opinion

  1717
  against the Bill was constantly increasing; but when the third reading came the House was nearly empty. The late Government, last year, adopted cheerfully the counsel which I gave, and which I give their Successors this evening—to take no steps whatever in the autumn with regard to it. The arguments against the Act have often been enumerated by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, by the noble Lord (Lord Lamington), and others. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Wemyss), although not a Member of this House when the Bill was passing through it, in different forms has actively opposed it. The real fact is, that there was but one pretext for going on with it—namely, the actual insufficiency and inconvenience of the War Office. For that evil a far more prompt and better remedy presents itself than a new edifice which it would take a decade to complete, while millions were absorbed in it. In Spring Gardens most of the houses are transmuted into offices. It might at once give a portion of the War Office the accommodation which is wanted. In that event, the Public Offices Site Act would not have a shadow of foundation, as it tends to destroy the Admiralty, which ought to be preserved; to overshadow the Horse Guards, which ought to be conspicuous; to injure wantonly the residences in Carlton House Terrace, which ought to be defended; and to renounce the Great George Street site, which ought to be embellished and made use of. I do not ask the Government to commit themselves imprudently, but to keep the subject in abeyance until a new Parliament is formed, or until unobjectionable plans have been exhibited. Let me add only that when the Bill passed it could not be urged, as it can at present, that a season of financial deficit is not the moment for ambiguous and unnecessary outlay. The noble Lord concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (The Earl of IDDESLEIGH),in reply, said, that for a considerable number of years there was a strong desire, and, indeed, a necessity, for making better and more commodious arrangements with respect to the Public Offices as regarded the Admiralty and War Offices. The question had been dis-
  1718
  cussed several times, and various plans had been proposed. At last a scheme was prepared by the Government of the day and accepted in the early part of this Session. Indeed, the scheme was practically decided on last year. A Minute was passed by the Treasury, and a scheme prepared settling the terms of competition for the erection of the new Offices. Those terms had been observed, and the persons to whom the award was given were informed that they would be employed, provided Parliament did not dissent from the scheme. The matter was discussed last April, and a division taken by which the scheme was affirmed by a majority of about two to one. The scheme was now in course of execution, and it would not be reasonable or fair to the gentlemen concerned to withdraw from it now. The scheme was undertaken with the perfect consciousness that this was the last Session of Parliament; and the matter having been thoroughly thrashed out, he did not see any reason for postponement. It was proposed at present to go on with the demolition of the buildings it was intended to clear away. That would take some time; and if the new Parliament considered it desirable to make any change in the plans, they would have every opportunity of doing so.

LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— THE NATIONAL GALLERY— EVENING OPENING.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will make arrangements for the opening of the National Gallery to the public on three evenings in every week? The noble Marquess said, the matter was one of great public interest; and, therefore, he thought it right to put this Question before the Prorogation, in order that during the Recess the National Gallery might be opened as he suggested. It had been frequently before their Lordships, in the form of a proposal for opening these Galleries on Sundays; but they had hitherto refused, rightly he thought in accordance with the preponderance of the opinion of the working classes throughout the country, to sanction the suggestion. These Galleries were as much the property of the working classes as of their Lordships or any

  1719
  other class in the community; but, under existing circumstances, it was exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for the working classes to take advantage of the Collections which they contained. This they would be able to do, if the Galleries were open in the evening; and he hoped that the noble Earl would give some indication that the suggestion he proposed would be carried out. Though he (the Marquess of Lothian) was not one of those who placed great reliance on the educational influences of Art, he thought it very desirable that the public should have increased means of participating in an innocent and refined, pleasure. From 1860 downwards, the House of Commons had repeatedly passed Resolutions in favour of this proposal. There had certainly been very strong reasons against opening Galleries of this kind, because of the detriment to the pictures by the use of gas; but these reasons were now removed by the use of electricity. The South Kensington Museum had been opened in the evening with most satisfactory results; and now that they had the electric light, there was no objection on the score of damage to the pictures from artificial light. Fifty-seven out of the 73 members of the Royal Academy were in favour of opening the Gallery in the evening; and, as they might be considered experts on the subject, he trusted that the noble Earl would see his way to having the proposal carried into effect.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (The Earl of IDDESLEIGH),in reply, said, that the question was, no doubt, one on which there had been a good deal of feeling, and, speaking for himself and, he believed, for many of his Colleagues, they were warmly interested in giving every possible facility to the public for visiting the Gallery, if it could be so arranged. The noble Marquess had asked him (the Earl of Iddesleigh) if he would take steps to that end. But he must point out to the noble Marquess that the matter did not lie with the Treasury, or any Department of the Government, but with the Trustees of the Gallery. They had made some difficulty on the score of expense; but that difficulty was not insuperable. He had not received the noble Marquess's Question till that morning, and, therefore, had not been able to communicate with any of the Trustees. He was not, therefore,
  1720
  able to say more than that the subject was one in which he felt a great interest, and that he would do all he could to promote the object which the noble Marquess had in view. He would certainly communicate with the Trustees of the Gallery. He had obtained an estimate of the cost of lighting the Gallery by electricity, and he did not see anything in it to prevent this proposal from being carried out. If it could be, there was no doubtit would be a great boon to the people of London.

EGYPT—THE SOUDAN EXPEDITIONS— VOTE OF THANKS TO HER MAJESTY'S MILITARY AND NAVAL FORCES.

  NOTICE OF MOTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg to give Notice that to-morrow, at 2 o'clock, I shall move that the Thanks of this House be given to General Lord Wolseley, General Graham, Lord John Hay, and other officers and men of the Army and Navy, for the skill, courage, and ability with which they conducted the late operations in the Soudan.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Two o'clock.