Lords Sitting of 13 July 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Prince Henry of Battenberg's Naturalization*; Turnpike Acts Continuance*(174); Local Loans (Sinking Funds)*(175); Housing of the Working Classes (England)*(177).
Select Committee—Waterworks Clauses Act (1847) Amendment (127), The Lord Saint Oswald added.
Committee — Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4)*(147): Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2)*(156); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3)*(157); Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order*(143); Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders*(114); Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) (131–176).
Committee—Report—East India Loan (£10,000,000)*(164).
Third Heading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2)*(155); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)*(79), and passed.

NEW PEERS.
Mervyn Edward, Viscount Powers-court in that part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called Ireland, K.P., having been created Baron Powerscourt, of Powerscourt in the county of Wicklow—
Anthony Henley, Baron Henley in that part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called Ireland, having been created Baron Northington, of Watford in the county of Northampton—
The Right Honourable Sir Arthur Hobhouse, K.C.S.I., C.L.E., a Member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, having been created Baron Hobhouse, of Hadspen in the county of Somerset—
Were (in the usual manner) introduced.

TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 65.)
(The Earl Spencer.)
TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 65.)

  RESOLUTION.
  EARL SPENCER,in rising to move that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, said, that the question involved was one of great importance to Ireland, and also affected the Standing Orders of the House. Some explanation was, therefore, required of him in asking that the Bill, which had already been referred to a Private Bill Committee, should be committed to a Committee of the Whole House. The Bill related to a scheme called the Cork, Coachford, and Blarney Light Railway. It was introduced under the Tramways General (Ireland) Act of 1883, an Act intended to develop communication between different parts of Ireland. It incorporated various provisions of previous Acts relating to tramways, which were passed in 1860 and 1861, but added important provisions

  385
  with regard to local and Imperial guarantees, and enabled the Imperial Government to join the Local Authorities in the carrying out of schemes. The Act enabled any promoter of a tramway scheme to bring the scheme before the Grand Jury of the county where the tramway was to be made, before whom counsel might appear. The Grand Jury in such case had full power to hear the promoters and opponents, just as in the case of an ordinary Provisional Order. After the Grand Jury had heard the scheme discussed, and had passed the Order, it went up to the Privy Council in Ireland. The Board of Works and the Treasury wore required to make a Report on the line to the Privy Council; and after that had been done, if the scheme was not opposed, that ended the matter. If, however, the line was still opposed, an Order was required to confirm it, and the scheme consequently went before the Lord Lieutenant in Council. If the Privy Council approved the scheme, it then came before Parliament as an Order to be confirmed. In the Act of 1869 there was a section — Section 14—which distinctly stated that all these Orders were to be treated with every respect as Public Bills. He did not propose to go into the merits of the particular Bill the subject of the Order; but he would state shortly what was the procedure followed. The scheme was taken before the Grand Jury of the county of Cork and the Grand Jury of the county of the City of Cork, both of which bodies were interested in the measure. The Grand Juries having sat for two days considering the scheme, and hearing the case for the promoters and opponents, unanimously passed an Order in favour of it. It was then found that some irregularity had taken place in the Order, and a short Act of Parliament had to be passed to rectify it. After that Act was passed, the measure again went before the Grand Jury, and they again unanimously passed a presentment in favour of it. It then went before the Privy Council, where its merits were inquired into by three very distinguished members of that body— namely, Mr. Justice Lawson, Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, and Vice Chancellor Chatterton. They also sat for two days, and having heard counsel for and against the measure, unanimously passed the scheme. Now, under one of the Stand-
  386
  ing Orders of their Lordships' House—namely, Order 95—it was laid down that every opposed Provisional Order should be referred to a Private Bill Committee consisting of five Peers. This was called a Provisional Order Bill, and under this Standing Order it was, for the third time, referred to an authority for investigation. Counsel were heard for and against the Bill, and witnesses were called and examined. This third inquiry was at Westminster. This course, he ventured to point out, was not consistent with the 14th section of the Act of 1860. Provisional Orders were of various kinds—they were granted under the Labourers Act of last year, under the Public Health Act, 1878, and several others under the Act of 18G0. No reference was made in the Act of 1860 to a Private Bill Committee of their Lordships' House. Under the Act of 1860, the schemes brought forward were of a public, and not of a private, character. If their Lordships looked at the way the inquiries were curried out, they would see that these schemes were different altogether from those for which Provisional Orders were obtained under other Acts. There was the unprecedented mode of investigating a Bill and of bringing it before the Privy Council in Ireland, before whom counsel for and against the scheme were heard. He, therefore, thought it was the intention of the Act of 1860 to have the cases heard locally, and not to have them brought before Private Bill Committees of their Lordships' House. He pointed out that it would always be in the power of their Lordships to challenge a Bill when it was brought before them in the House, and send it to a Committee; but if all Orders under these Bills were referred as a matter of course to Private Bill Committees, instead of encouraging improvements in Ireland as they ought to do, they would impede improvements. He maintained that this was a Public and not a Private Bill, and that the interests of the ratepayers had been most carefully looked after locally and before the Irish Privy Council. There was no precedent for such a procedure as had been followed in this case. There had been no fewer than four inquiries held on this Bill. Thus, the intentions of the Acts of 1860 and 1883 had been frustrated, and instead of facilities having been afforded for the

  387
  construction of light railways and tramways, which, were so much needed in Ireland, penalties were, in effect, imposed. These costly and elaborate inquiries had spread consternation in the South of Ireland. He would only add that nothing would do Ireland more good than the encouragement of such enterprizes as the one before them; and if their projectors were discouraged, one of the best methods of improving Ireland would be destroyed. He hoped their Lordships would agree to the Resolution he now begged to move.
  Moved, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."—{The Earl Spencer.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of REDESDALE)said, he felt it his duty to oppose the Motion. It was rather extraordinary that for the first time they should be asked to determine what should be done in relation to an Act passed in 1860. What the noble Earl proposed was contrary to the Standing Order and the practice of the House. The Bill referred to was discussed by a Committee of that House, and was rejected by that Committee more than a month ago. The Standing Order was distinct that this was a Private and not a Public Bill, and it was clear the question had been disposed of.
  LORD FITZGERALDcontended that the Bill was essentially a public one, and that a grave error had been committed in taking possession of it in the Private Bill Department. When all the conditions imposed by the Lord Lieutenant in Council were fulfilled, the Lord Lieutenant was obliged to take up the Bill as a public one, and the Statute directed that it should be dealt with in all respects as a public measure. The object of the Act of 1883, which incorporated the Act of 1860, was to give every encouragement to these small undertakings, and to relieve them of the enormous cost which attached to the investigation before the Private Bill Committee of the House. He knew one small undertaking where the investigation failed, but had cost £14,000, and it might have obtained legal sanction at home for an expenditure not exceeding £500. When the Act in question was passed it was pointed out that what was wanted was a system of light railways, the merits of which could be investigated on the spot—rail-
  388
  ways which would be of great service in conveying the agricultural produce of Ireland. After a scheme had been examined on the spot by the Grand Jury, who could tell in five minutes whether it was a project that ought or ought not to pass, and again investigated before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it would be unjust and unnecessary to have further inquiry in Parliament. The Standing Order referred to by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Redesdale) related to Private Bills, but this was not a Private Bill; and he (Lord Fitzgerald) contended that the Standing Order was not intended to apply to such a Bill as this, which had none of the characteristics of a Provisional Order Bill, and was more properly to be called a Bill to confirm an Order of the Lord Lieutenant and Council. If there was no opposition to one of these tramway schemes it became the law of the land without the intervention of a Confirmation Act. The House would be going in the teeth of the letter and substance of an Act of Parliament if they determined on considering this as a Private Bill.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he remembered that when last year he was most anxious to have an alteration made in a Bill of this character, the noble Lord the late President of the Council (Lord Carlingford) said the proper time to make this alteration would be when the Bill was before the Select Committee.
  LORD CARLINGFORD: I was wrong.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: The noble Lord on that occasion said that it would be dangerous to say that the Provisional Order Confirmation Bills were to be treated as Bills which could not be opposed in their Lordships' House. He (Lord Inchiquin) considered that if they refused to send the present Bill before a Private Bill Committee they would be taking away many of the safeguards they now possessed for proper inquiry. It would be most dangerous if these Bills could not be opposed before their Lordships' Select Committee. The measure was merely a Public Bill in the sense that it was contained in a Provisional Order. If their Lordships refused to send those Provisional Orders before a Private Bill Committee they would be breaking down all the safe

  389
  guards of legislation. The appeal in such a case as this ought to lie, not to the Privy Council, but to Parliament.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, the matter was one of exteme importance, because if their Lordships wished to affirm a practice which was opposed to a Public Act of Parliament, in a matter which largely affected the local interests of an important Irish district, they would be giving an immense impulse to the claim for a greater degree of local self-government in Ireland. The proposal of the noble Lord opposite was opposed to both the spirit and letter of the Act of 1860. The effect of not agreeing to the Motion of the noble Earl beside him would be that Parliament, after making elaborate provisions to enable these public works to be executed, and after providing safeguards for their authorization in a way not required in other cases, would convert these elaborate provisions into additional obstacles and additional sources of expense by requiring parties to come over from Ireland to England with their witnesses, and to submit again to the inquiry which had been conducted in Ireland. The clause in the Act of 1860 provided, in a manner different from anything to be found in any of the ordinary Acts as to Provisional Orders, that a Bill to confirm an Order of the Irish Privy Council made under it, which only needed Parliamentary confirmation when opposed, should be "treated in all respects as a Public Bill." What had been done, no doubt through inadvertence, was to treat this, in every material respect, in the same manner as if it had been a Private Bill. Nothing could be more directly contrary to the Act. And why had this been done? Simply because the Standing Orders of this House, as to Private Bills, were, in general terms, made applicable to Bills for confirming Provisional Orders. But the Act of 1860 did not, as far as the letter went, call an Order in Council, made under it, a Provisional Order; and, as to the substance, not only was it beyond the competency of this House, by any Standing Order, to repeal an Act of Parliament, but the Standing Order clearly had reference to those cases only, which were numerous, in which Acts of Parliament, authorizing Provisional Orders to be made, subject to confirmation, had expressly directed
  390
  that, when opposed, they should be dealt with as in the case of Private Bills. He had referred to these Acts, and he had made out a list of not less than ten of them, including the English and Irish Public Health Acts, and the English Tramways Act, which contained clauses to that effect. Nothing could be in more direct contrast than these Acts, and the Irish Tramways Act of 1860. No doubt, any Public Bill might be referred to a Select Committee; but that could only be done upon Notice given by the House itself; and if any Motion to refer this Bill to such a Committee had been made, the House might, and no doubt would, have been asked to reject it, on the ground that, by granting it without some very special reason, they would defeat many of the best objects of the Tramways Acts.
  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOLsaid, in answer to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitzgerald), that, so far as he knew, the Committee had no objection to the guarantee rate. They rejected the Bill simply on the merits, and would have done so whether the Bill involved a guarantee or whether it did not.
  LORD CLINTONsaid, he hoped the House would not assent to the proposal of the noble Earl. He had been a Member of the Committee to which this Provisional Order had been referred; and the Committee considered that it would be exceedingly hard on the ratepayers of the district, who had exercised their right of coming to Parliament, if the evidence, which had satisfied the Committee that the Order ought not to be proceeded with, should be altogether ignored, and the unanimous decision of the Committee set aside.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, if the question turned on the merits of this particular Bill ho should not interfere; but it was very obvious that the Standing Order had a wider application than this particular measure. It was obvious that the framers of the Statute intended to substitute for the ordinary and somewhat cumbersome proceeding of a Private Bill some compendious form of local investigation; and he thought it must be assumed that the Legislature, in passing the Bill in the form in which it stood, was familiar with the distinction between Private and Public Bill legislation. The Act of 1860 distinctly said that these

  391
  Orders should be treated as Public Bills, and surely this meant that they were not to be treated as Private Bills. He could not help saying that he heartily concurred in the argument of the noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Selborne).
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, the greatest possible confusion had been caused by two Acts that had been hurriedly passed at the very end of the Session of 1883, with the very best intentions, but with unsatisfactory results —namely, the Tramways Act and the Labourers Act. In regard to this Bill, it had disappeared from their Lordships' Paper a month ago. If it were to be revived at all now, it ought to be by a Motion to refer it back to the same Committee, or to refer it to another Select Committee; but he hoped they would not agree to proceed with it as a public measure. On the whole, they had better abide by the decision of the Committee, and leave the matter where it stood.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided: —Contents 95; Not-Contents 20: Majority 75.
  Resolved in the affirmative; Bill committed accordingly to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 6.)
(The Lord Carlingford.)
POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 6.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  LORD CARLINGFORD,in moving that the House go into Committee on the Bill, said, that it had been referred to a Select Committee contrary to his own recommendation to the House, his desire having been that their Lordships should deal with the Bill in Committee of the Whole House. In Committee the Bill had been considerably altered. The Select Committee struck out those provisions of the Bill which they all knew produced the rejection of the Bill on its second reading last year, and led to its reference to a Select Committee this year. He regretted the rejection by the Select Committee of some of these provisions of the Bill; but they had been rejected by very large majorities and supported by very small mino-
  392
  rities. While regretting some of these provisions, he did not intend to ask their Lordships to restore them. He refrained from so doing, because he knew, and their Lordships knew, that it would be a mere formality if he were to make such a proposal. On the other hand, he did not intend to drop the Bill, because he believed that the Bill as it stood, as it had come back from the Select Committee, was a useful measure, and one that might well be passed into law. When last year he presented this Bill, he stated that he did it mainly on the ground that it contained certain provisions which he looked upon as important, and of which he heartily approved, the principal one being the introduction of the ballot into Poor Law elections in Ireland. He did not intend now to go into the merits of the Bill, which had already been largely canvassed, and upon which a large amount of evidence had been taken by the Select Committee. One observation only he wished to make, which was this—that the general effect of that evidence upon his mind was to show that the importance of those provisions which had been rejected, such as those dealing with the machinery of the proxy vote, and the proportion of ex officio Guardians upon Boards of Guardians, had been exaggerated upon both sides, looking at the question from the point of view of the administration and economy of the Poor Law. They had been exaggerated both by the popular Party, and what might be called the landlord Party; and the explanation of this was that the contest between these Parties was a political one. That was the general impression left upon his own mind by the evidence given upon the subject. Although, under special circumstances, and in a time of great excitement, there had been here and there some unjustifiable expenditure of public money by the elected Guardians, on the whole the interest of the two classes was undoubtedly the same—namely, that of keeping down the rates and of administering the Poor Law at the least expense. Before very long these questions must come up again for consideration. No doubt they would soon have to be settled in one way or another in connection with the re-organization of county government in Ireland, which they all knew could not be long deferred. Under all these circumstances he moved

  393
  their Lordships to pass the Bill as it stood.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—[The Lord Carling ford.)
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he did not object to the Bill; but it was not required as an improvement to the administration of the Poor Law. The result would be that exactly the same class of Guardians would be elected as had been elected before, and would perform their duties in exactly the same manner.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that, no doubt, many of the provisions of this Bill wore most useful; but those which had been cut out of it could not have been passed with any fairness to those who paid by far the greater portion of the rates. For the last five years the Land League had been endeavouring to got possession of all the Boards of Guardians, and there was no doubt that rates were sometimes intentionally raised in order to punish landlords; and, under those circumstances, to reduce the representation of landlords and to take away the right of voting by proxy would be very unjust.
  Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 3 severally agreed to.

PART I.

  POOR LAW ELECTIONS.
  Clauses 4 to 7 severally agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Certain sections of the Ballot Act to be incorporated in order).
  On the Motion of The Marquess of WATERFORD, the following Amendment made:—
  In page 2, line 38, leave out clause 8, and insert:
  "Sections three, four, and nine of the Ballot Act, 1872, shall be incorporated in this Act, and shall apply to the election of poor law guardians in the same manner as if elections of poor law guardians were expressly mentioned therein.
  "The following enactment shall he made with respect to personation at elections of poor law guardians:
  "A person shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence of personation who applies for a ballot paper in the name of some other person for whom be is not entitled to act as proxy, whether that name be that of a person living or dead, or of a fictitious person, or, who having voted once in his own behalf at any such election, applies at the same election for a ballot paper in his own name.
  394
  "The offence of personation, or of aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the commission of the offence of personation by any person shall be a felony, and any person convicted thereof shall he punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, together with bard labour. It shall be the duty of the returning officer to institute a prosecution against any person whom he may believe to have been guilty of personation, or of aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the commission of the offence of personation by any person at the election for which he is returning officer, and the costs and expenses of the prosecutor and the witnesses in such case, together with compensation for their trouble and loss of time, shall be allowed by the court in the same manner in which courts are empowered to allow the same in cases of felony."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Regulations as to claims to vote by proxy).
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDproposed an Amendment to the clause, for the purpose of giving the right of proxy voting to occupiers as well as owners in electoral divisions in which they did not reside. He explained that the Amendment had been drawn up in consultation with the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Bill, and that it had been brought forward in consequence of evidence given at that inquiry. The witnesses had given the Committee to understand that they had no great objection to proxy voting, provided the privilege were allowed to occupiers as well as owners. If this Amendment were not accepted, under the new electoral system, some of the voters would have to be walking over the district throughout the day of the election if they happened to have farms in different parts.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 3, line 7, leave out ("After the commencement of this Act,") and insert ("The eighty-fourth section of the Act of the first and second years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter fifty-six, shall be and the same is hereby amended; and henceforth it shall be lawful for any ratepayer, from time to time, by writing under his hand in the prescribed manner, to appoint any person to vote as his proxy in respect of any property in the actual occupation of such ratepayer which is not situated in the electoral division in which the said ratepayer has his usual place of residence: Provided always, that.")—[The Marquess of Water-ford.)
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he considered the Amendment would be an improvement in the Bill.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNobserved, that the Amendment removed the only valid objection which had been given before the Select Committee to proxy voting—namely, that it was an invidious distinction in favour of one class of voters.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Marquess of WATERFORD, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 11, leave out ("not in his actual occupation.")
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDmoved an Amendment, giving occupiers as well as owners power to vote by proxy, provided that the rates be paid two months before the day of election.
  Amendment moved,
  In line 16, leave out ("prior to the date of said election,") and insert ("previous to the day on which he shall claim to vote. The nineteenth section of the Act of the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter eighty-three, shall be and the same is hereby repealed; and after the commencement of this Act no occupier rated to the poor rate, and no owner or immediate lessor rated under the provisions of the Act of the sixth and seventh years of Her Majesty, chapter ninety-two, or of the Act of the twelfth and thirteenth years of Her Majesty, chapter ninety-one, or of the Act of the twelfth and thirteenth years of Her Majesty, chapter one hundred and four, and the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth years of Her Majesty, chapter eighty-three, shall be entitled to vote in the election of Guardians unless he shall two months before the day of voting have paid all the poor rates made and assessed upon him, except such as shall have been made or become duo within six calendar months immediately such voting.") —(The Marquess of Waterford.)
  LORD CARLINGFORDconsidered that the Amendment was a restriction of the present privileges of ratepayers in regard to voting.
  LORD MONK BRETTONsaid, he concurred in the principle of the Amendment, because time was necessary to enable the Returning Officer to make out and revise his lists properly; but whether two months were requisite he would not undertake to say.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsuggested that one month would be sufficient.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, it was important that the Returning Officers should, have time to make out the lists of voters. However, he would accept the alteration to one month.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that two mouths was recommended by the
  396
  Select Committee; and he protested against an important Amendment like this being brought forward and accepted without any Notice.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 176.)

THE LANDED ESTATES COURT (IKE-LAND)—PURCHASE OF HOLDINGS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CASTLETOWN,in rising to inquire of Her Majesty's Government, Whether during the proceedings in the case of a sale of a holding to a tenant before the Landed Estates Court on Tuesday 21st June it was stated by the tenant that he was prepared to give a certain price for the holding, but was debarred from doing so by the action of the Land Commissioners, who, refusing to advance three-fourths of the purchase money, would only advance two-thirds, sheltering themselves behind the Act of 1870; whether Judge Flanagan, as reported, stated with reference to this—"Then you might just as well have passed no Act at all;" and concluded the case with these words—
  "Those, then, interested in this case are to suffer because while the tenant was prepared to give £200 if advanced three-fourths of the purchase money under the terms of the statute, he will only give £180 now, as the Commissioners reduced their advance to two-thirds;"
  whether other cases of similar obstructive action on the part of the Commission have not been brought under the notice of the Irish Department of the late Government; and, finally, whether Her Majesty's Government will take any steps to force the Land Commission to utilize such powers as it possesses for facilitating the sale and purchase of land; or whether, if this is impossible, they do not think it would be advisable to appoint a Commission, with plenary powers, to carry out the provisions of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, in a liberal and expeditious manner? said, that since he had given Notice of his intention to put these Questions to the Government on the subject of the proceedings in the

  397
  Landed Estates Court and the action of the Land Commission, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced in the other House the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Purchase Bill. He would, therefore, reserve most of what he had to say until that Bill was before their Lordships' House. He must, however, point out the difficulty of the present position, which was proved by the necessity of his Question, and he desired to draw public attention most urgently to this matter. The Court was established many years ago to carry out the sale of estates, and subsequently a Commission was appointed in 1851 with special power to facilitate the sale of land from owner to occupier; and yet both of them came to almost a deadlock, owing to some legal crotchet and over a trumpery case. This occurred, too, at a time when it was essential that the sale of land should be expedited. Surely it was time for the Government to intervene for the purpose of clearing up this absurd difficulty. If the two bodies he had named were helpless let us get rid of them, and put another body, or an effective amalgamation of both, in their place. This was not the only instance which had occurred of this kind of deadlock, and he felt sure he was correct in stating that similar cases had been brought privately or officially under the notice of the late Government. The Landed Estates Court and the Land Commission cost the country a large sum, and yet their administration was so defective that they could not carry out the sale of a holding of the value of £200 without all this sparring and legal warfare. The whole thing was at present a farce; ho only hoped it might not end in a tragedy for both owner and occupier. The Land Act. though perhaps well-intentioned, had thus far failed to settle the Land Question. That question could only be settled definitely by a liberal and workable Purchase Bill. Both sides—owner and occupier—were ready to come to terms. The case cited in the Question of which he had given Notice proved this. Both were, however, waiting to see what the final offer of the Government would be. Their Lordships must remember that land was the only marketable and, at the same time, the only valuable commodity in many parts of Ireland. This was proved by the exorbitant prices given
  398
  for tenants' interests. Land must, therefore, be made saleable. In conclusion, he asked their Lordships to bear one point in mind which had special reference to the introduction of the Purchase Bill—namely, that there must be no placing the charge for money advanced under such Bill upon Ireland or on the local rates. The question was an Imperial one as long as Ireland remained part of the Empire, and as such it must be treated. He knew that there were those who thought otherwise, and who with a fatuity which was unintelligible to him thought they could fasten upon Ireland a burden which the Empire must bear as long as Ireland contributed one farthing to Imperial taxation. He should reserve any further remarks upon the subject until the Purchase Bill reached that House.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, the Questions seemed to him to be entirely on the subject of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act. Her Majesty's Government hoped to be able to introduce a Bill dealing with Land Purchase in Ireland; and, under the circumstances, it would be very much better to await the introduction of that Bill before insisting upon an answer to those Questions on the Paper. Some of the Questions put by the noble Lord, he was informed, were not accurate in the statement of facts embodied in them. The late Government had showed that they were not satisfied, with the manner in which the Purchase Clauses had worked by bringing in a Bill on the subject last year, and by promising one for the present year. Her Majesty's present Government were prepared to bring in such a measure, which demonstrated that they also were of opinion that the Purchase Clauses had not worked satisfactorily.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid, that after the remarks of the noble Marquess he would willingly postpone his Questions on the subject.

SCOTLAND— THE CASTLE ROCK, EDINBURGH.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD BALFOUR,in rising to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that the War Office contemplate making extensive alterations in, and additions to, the build-

  399
  ings now situated on the Castle Rock of Edinburgh; and, if so, whether any opportunity will be given to Members of either House of Parliament, and others interested, of expressing any opinion upon the design which it is proposed to adopt before the Government is finally committed to it? said, he understood it was the intention of the War Office to make some considerable alterations in, and additions to, the buildings on the Castle Rock of Edinburgh, and chiefly upon the eastern side of the rock near the entrance to the Castle. He believed it was proposed to build some guard rooms and court martial rooms, and some other accommodation which was required for the troops in the Castle, while some further alterations were to be made at a point near the portcullis gateway. The importance of the matter would appear to their Lordships when he told them that that point of the Castle Rock would be visible along the whole length of Princes Street, and any buildings which were put up there must always be an eyesore if they were not buildings of a proper kind. He understood that the money for this work had actually been voted by Parliament, and what he was anxious about was that the proposed buildings should not be put up, or, at least, that the Government should not. commit themselves to any particular design, until the matter had been fully considered. He had considerable suspicion of plans of this kind drawn up by unprofessional architects, and he understood that the plans for the proposed buildings had been drawn up by an engineer, and not by anyone who had made a particular study of the question. It was of the utmost importance that those who knew Edinburgh well, and those who knew the class of buildings which it was desirable to erect on the Castle Rock, should have an opportunity of seeing what the War Office proposed to do. His noble Friend (Viscount Bury), with great courtesy, showed him a photograph of the Castle and a design of the proposed buildings. The drawings which ho had had an opportunity of seeing would not remove the objection he entertained. So far as he could judge, the proposed buildings seemed to him to be an imitation—and a rather poor imitation—of what was called the old Scottish baronial style of architecture, which, in his
  400
  opinion, was quite out of keeping with the buildings now on the Castle Rock, and would be a great eyesore from Princes Street. He did not say that the buildings which went to form the Castle of Edinburgh were in all respects very beautiful, or everything that they ought to be; but he thought this was eminently a case in which it was better to bear the ills they had than fly to others that they knew not of. It did not seem to him that this was a time when it was desirable to make very great additions or extensions to the buildings on the Castle Rock. Some portions of the Castle were of great historical and antiquarian interest; and while these should be preserved, he did not think it was desirable to make any great additions to the present buildings unless on a settled and comprehensive plan. If more accommodation was required, he thought it would be bettor to face the question of removing the military centre to another place, and leave the Castle in charge of a garrison, and use it chiefly for stores and such like. He would respectfully and earnestly urge his noble Friend that nothing should be done to the buildings now on the Castle Rock without the most mature consideration, and without a full opportunity given for opinions being expressed on the part of those who had real intimate knowledge of the Castle.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, before the noble Viscount answered the Question of his noble Friend, he should like to put a Question of which he had given private Notice. He should like to know whether any steps had been taken to clean out the old Parliament House, which was now used as an hospital in Edinburgh Castle? This question was brought before the late Government; but nothing had been clone in the matter at all, except that strict inquiries had been made into the condition of the old Parliament House. It turned out that the hall was still in existence, and very much as it was in the old days of the Scotch Parliament. It had now been converted into an hospital, and it had been sub-divided into different wards and rooms. He was told by those who knew that nothing could be more inconvenient as an hospital than the present building. The patients had no place where they could walk about and get fresh air, except a

  401
  small court in Edinburgh Castle, near where the regalia was kept, which was filled from week to week during the summer with tourists. Ho did not think that was a right place for an hospital, and he was informed that there would be no practical difficulty whatever in removing the hospital out of the present buildings. There was another building in the Castle for stores, and he was told by those who knew that that was a very inconvenient position for stores. It was an enormous expense to the country to have all these stores, first of all, conveyed there from Leith and Granton and afterwards distributed, and it would be an immense public gain to have the stores taken out of the Castle and removed elsewhere. He was informed that if the hospital in the Castle was once given up by the Military Authorities, private individuals would be only too glad to contribute money for the restoration of that most interesting antiquarian building.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSthanked his noble Friend or having called attention to this subject. He had had an opportunity of seeing the designs of the proposed alterations; and he thought it would only be right if the people of Scotland who took an interest in the matter had also the advantage of seeing the design. Some 30 years ago designs had been prepared by Mr. Billings, a celebrated architect of that time, for the improvement and restoration of Edinburgh Castle. He thought the plan then proposed would have been a great advantage to Edinburgh and an ornament to the Castle. He hoped his noble Friend would endeavour to find out where these designs were, and show the two together, so that the public might have an opportunity of judging between them.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Viscount BURY),in reply, said, he was sure this matter must be very interesting to Scotsmen in general. They all felt that Edinburgh Castle was one of those ancient monuments which should not be lightly touched or tampered with. Ho could, however, assure his noble Friend that what was contemplated in the present instance was a very moderate improvement indeed, and would not detract from the appearance of the buildings. The fact was that there was a buy store and a guard
  402
  room right in the middle of the parade ground of the Castle which it was proposed to remove; and at one end of the Castle there was an old tower, known as Argyll Tower, the roof of which was fallen in, or was in a bad state of repair, and something must be done if the tower was to be preserved. He held in his hand a photograph of Edinburgh Castle, and the small piece at the end was all that was going to be altered structurally as regarded the Castle. It was merely a small addition to the roof of the Argyll Tower; and far from being an eyesore, as viewed from Princes Street, it was not expected that it would be noticed at all. His noble Friend (the Earl of Wemyss) had said, and truly said, that some 30 years ago a considerable alteration in Edinburgh Castle was proposed. He believed the truth about that matter was that two opposing schools of antiquarians interested themselves in the question. One considered that the architecture of Edinburgh Castle belonged to one period, and another held that any alterations ought to be made in the style of another period. The controversy waxed so hot between the partizans of those two schools, that, although great alterations were required in the Castle, it was eventually decided that the matter should be dropped, and that nothing should be then done. Nothing was done in consequence. That, he was afraid, was exactly what would happen now. These alterations, which were really required for sanitary and other reasons, as well as for the preservation of the Castle, would have to be put aside and entirely abandoned if they were to re-open, as his noble Friend proposed, that architectural quarrel which was laid to rest 30 years ago, and which terminated by simply doing nothing. He could only say that the War Office Department, having a sincere desire to consult the feelings of Scotsmen, had determined only to carry out the smallest amount of alterations that could be made consistently with the safety of the Castle. They proposed to make a very small alteration in the roof of the Argyll Tower, and they hoped that this might be done in such an unobtrusive way as not to constitute an eyesore, as was feared by his noble Friend; and if not found palatable to the general body of Scotsmen, he could assure his noble Friend that nothing further would be

  403
  done. The whole Vote for the purpose amounted to £1,200 or £1,300. It comprised the removal of some buildings right in the middle of the Castle, and, as he had already stated, the restoration of the Argyll Tower. As to the question of the hospital, that rather depended on the issue of what they now proposed. If his noble Friend caused them to hang up and abandon the restoration of the roof of the Argyll Tower, and compelled them to remain where they were, then they could not carry out the wishes of the noble Marquess respecting the suggested removal of the hospital to a more suitable position. He acknowledged that this was a matter of the greatest importance, and ought to receive immediate attention. The hospital was not in its right place—there was a better place for it—and if those alterations were stopped things must continue as they were. He trusted the War Office might be permitted to execute the very modest improvements which they at present contemplated. He would be glad to show the plans to Members of Parliament; but he hoped there would be no putting up of the designs to public competition, or inviting undue attention to the matter, as that would in all probability end in nothing being done.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that noble Lords from Scotland must not be surprised if a War Office which sanctioned the construction of a high level bridge at the Tower of London should consent also to the making of a railway station, or anything else, in Edinburgh Castle.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he thought the subject was one of such great importance to the people of Scotland that he had heard with great regret what he regarded as a practical refusal to allow the general public of Edinburgh to know what was going to be done, and to have an opportunity of seeing and criticizing beforehand the designs of the proposed alterations. He looked with the greatest possible alarm at the idea of erections of such a character being put up without the approval and without the adequate consideration of those who were competent to judge. He was not prepared to say more on the subject at present, beyond the remark that his noble Friend did not answer one Question as to whether the money had been actually voted by Parliament
  404
  or not. If it had been voted, then he was unable to know how to proceed in the matter. But he was quite sure that if the discussion was reported in the Scottish newspapers his noble Friend would hear much more of it than he had heard that evening; and he was bound to say that he, for one, would not be sorry.

WATERWORKS CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD BRAMWELL,in rising to move—
  "That the Petitions of the several Water Companies who supply the Metropolis with water (the New River Company and others), presented on Friday last, be referred to the Select Committee, with leave to the Petitioners to be heard against the Bill as desired,"
  said, that he felt it a matter of duty to endeavour to prevent their Lordships from doing what would be a grievous injustice. He was not going to trouble their Lordships with the question of whether this was a Private or Public Bill; but what he wished to impress upon them was what the substance of this Bill really was. It was a Bill which proposed to alter the bargains made between the public and Water Companies. He would take the case of one Company —the New River Company, for instance. That Company, by its Act, had bargained with the public to supply water for domestic consumption, for watering streets, and for other purposes, and had the right to make certain charges in respect thereof; and this Bill was a proposal to alter that bargain. The New River Company said—"Let us be heard." That ought to be quite sufficient to secure them a hearing, and it ought not to be necessary now to say what was their objection to the Bill. Never before was a proposal made to alter a Private Act without hearing the Company affected by it. The Waterworks Clauses Acts and other Clauses Acts were not laws of themselves, and only became such by being incorporated in a Private Bill; and this Bill said that a Private Act incorporating clauses should be altered as regarded the clauses so incorporated. Was it conceivable that a Company affected by such alteration was not to be heard? It was contrary to the ordinary elementary principles of justice that judgment should be given without

  405
  hearing the person affected. By the law of the land, if he was not heard, the proceedings were null and void. But he must tell their Lordships why the Companies wanted to be heard, and he could show good reason why they should be. At the present time they had a right to charge according to the annual value. The proposal in the Bill was that the expression "annual value" should mean rateable value, as estimated from time to time. If the two things were identical, these unhappy Companies, who were subjected to persecution for no reason that he could understand, except that they supplied the best water in Europe on the best terms and in the most admirable manner, and were paying a respectable dividend, would gladly accept the proposal in order to get rid of the worry to which they were subjected. But the two things were not identical. Rateable value, as settled from time to time, was less than the annual value of the premises. It did not make any difference to a parish whether it raised £1,000 by a rate of 1s. in the pound on an assessment of £20,000, or by a rate of 2s. in the pound, on an assessment of £10000. But a low assessment made all the difference to the Companies, who estimated that on rateable value they would lose one-sixth of their incomes. In his own case he had been first assessed at about half the annual value of his house, and now that assessment had been raised to only five-sixths of the annual value. The Companies ought, at least, to be heard. There had boon some absurd talk about "gentlemen of the long robe." What was wanted was that the facts should be laid before the Committee, and a reasonable amount of argument showing the conclusion to which those facts pointed. If the Bill was passed in its present shape, a largo loss of income would be thrown on the Companies. No doubt the Companies were great and rich; but some of their shareholders were neither great nor rich.
  Moved, "That the Petition of the several Water Companies who supply the Metropolis with water (the New River Company and others), presented on Friday last, be referred to the Select Committee, with leave to the Petitioners to he heard against the Bill as desired."—[The Lord Bramwell.)
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Earl BROWNLOW)said, the Motion was practically
  406
  the same as that brought forward by the noble and learned Lord last week, on which occasion the arguments addressed to their Lordships failed to convince the House that it was right to accept it. No fresh argument had been addressed to their Lordships that day to induce them to change the opinion they then expressed. At this period of the Session there would be no prospect of the Bill passing if the Water Companies were hoard by counsel and witnesses. It would cause great disappointment outside if this Bill was strangled in Committee. He, therefore, trusted that their Lordships would not agree to the Motion.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he would not have complained if the noble and learned Lord had moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, for that would have been a straightforward and legitimate opposition; but he did claim a right to complain of what the noble and learned Lord had said this week and last with regard to spoliation and the Companies not being allowed to be heard. As stated on the former occasion, it would be impossible at this advanced period of the Session to proceed with any chance of the Bill becoming law, if counsel and witnesses were heard, as recommended by the noble and learned Lord. It must also be borne in mind that these powerful Companies could fee counsel and obtain evidence to any extent, whereas no such power rested with the 4,000,000 ratepayers, who could not strike a special rate for the purpose; but there would be no objection to the Water Companies being heard by their agents, and that would give an opportunity to the ratepayers of the Metropolis to have the clerks of the different Assessment Committees before the Committee in order to answer any charges which the agents of the Companies might make. Ho did not see the great hardship and injustice of which the noble and learned Lord had complained, for he had found that the rateable value, especially in the case of moderate-sized and large premises, came very nearly up to the annual value; and the Companies as well as the householders had the right of appeal against the assessment.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he did not desire to impose the hearing of counsel on the Committee; but ho desired to give

  407
  them power to hear counsel if they should think fit.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he would put it to their Lordships whether last week it was not the understanding that counsel and witnesses should be excluded, but that the agents of the Water Companies might be heard? The public would be grateful to their Lordships for reading the Bill a second time, and referring it to a fair and an impartial Committee.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, ha could not agree with his noble and learned Friend that justice was opposed to the Bill in its present shape. The difficulty arose from the fact that the Waterworks Clauses Act provided that there should be a valuation, but did not say how it should be made. And nothing was more common, under such circumstances, than for the Legislature to explain its own public Act, and to say how that Act should be carried into effect. The contention of the Water Companies appeared to be that the general valuation, which was the basis on which rating for all other public purposes proceeded, should not bo the valuation for the water rate. That appeared to him to be neither just nor reasonable; and the Bill, in his judgment", did not interfere with any rights of the Water Companies, but merely provided in a proper way for the rights of the public.
  Resolved in the negative.

  PRINCE HENRY OF BATTENBERG'S NATURALIZATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to naturalize His Serene Highness Prince Henry Maurice of Battenberg, and to grant and confer on him all the rights, privileges, and capacities of a natural-born subject of Her Majesty the Queen—Was presented (on petition), and read 1a.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (ENGLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Law relating to the dwellings of the working classes—Was presented by The Marquess of SALISBURY: read 1a. (No. 177.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.